Quote from: Kaldric;500125So. If anyone claims something is "DM fiat" when the situation concerns a DM making a considered, impartial judgment based on precedent, the genre, and common sense, you can tell him he's wrong.

Rulings are not (generally) fiat. If the DM considers the situation and makes a judgment, that's a ruling. If the DM wants something to be a certain way, and simply declares that to be so - that's fiat.

I have used DM Fiat.

In a d20 Traveller game, the PCs rolled a misjump at the beginning of the adventure that would have ended in a result of "Ship Destroyed". No fault of theirs, just an incredibly bad dice roll.

If I used a DM Ruling, then there is not much interpretation beyond "Ship Destroyed". The PCs may have escaped in a lifeboat or vacc suits and lived, but the game would have been crippled.

I used DM Fiat and said that didn't happen. Instead I had them misjump almost 30 parsecs away from their destination. They had to travel back the long way, but they still had their ship and the game could go on.

Not a ruling or an interpretation. A decision based on my God-given right as a Viking Hat GM. DM Fiat.

Because sometimes the game must go on.

EDIT: Fiat does not have to be a bad thing, but I agree that with your definition it is different than a ruling.

GM Fiat: a resolution for setting to story continuity.
GM Ruling: a resolution for setting to mechanics continuity.

As per expected from existence in an imperfect world, the world can have GMs with bad judgment in either or both aspects.

Fiat: Outside of establishing the setting's background framework, meddling in the players' story overmuch with Fiat is just asking for it. Like oregano, a little goes a long way. Come off too strong and you're overwhelming and repulsive.

Ruling: Outside of weird moments where rules clash with "game reality," or other rules, excess rulings creates a backlog which will eventually contradict. And when too many contradictions occur you threaten to undermine your credibility. Intervene too much and you're fickle and confusing.

We discussed this to great lengths on my German language forum section. Ultimately I was convinced by one of the participants that:

- it is impossible to define once and for all the boundary line seperating fiat from rulings
- the true line of demarkation lies within the GM's mind. (the participant showed me that my argumentation ultimately leads to that conclusion, to which I replied: yes.)

Recognized as such, fiat is a thought crime, and one that often lacks a smoking gun.

Not the external, communicative process is the important thing here, but the thoughts and feelings of the GM at the moment of making a decision.

Thus, in pragmatic practice, TRUST becomes important, all-important.

Sidenote: Many people online seemingly have been "abused" by GMs and thus lost all capacity for trust. This makes online discussions about the issue very tiresome oftentimes.

In an RPG, EVERY MOMENT relies on GM fiat.

"You are attacked by giants in the alley way, who roll boulders and yell out "STRIKE!!! ""<---GM fiat

"You are not attacked by any giants, and in fact your progress through the alley way is pleasant and potentially a source of nostalgic reminiscence when you are in your dotage."<--GM fiat

That's what an RPG is. You have to trust your GM to provide appropriate stuff for you to interact with.

I thought it was when other people do it, it's fiat. When I do it, it's a ruling! Seriously though i think some people hit it on the head-internal consistency.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;500168The distinction between fiat and ruling is a communicative one. Fiat is what we call it when a GM's conversational strategies fail to convince others that their statements are legitimate.

Quote from: Settembrini;500226We discussed this to great lengths on my German language forum section. Ultimately I was convinced by one of the participants that:

- it is impossible to define once and for all the boundary line seperating fiat from rulings
- the true line of demarkation lies within the GM's mind. (the participant showed me that my argumentation ultimately leads to that conclusion, to which I replied: yes.)

Recognized as such, fiat is a thought crime, and one that often lacks a smoking gun.

Not the external, communicative process is the important thing here, but the thoughts and feelings of the GM at the moment of making a decision.

Thus, in pragmatic practice, TRUST becomes important, all-important.

Sidenote: Many people online seemingly have been "abused" by GMs and thus lost all capacity for trust. This makes online discussions about the issue very tiresome oftentimes.

I'm going with these two. I do think Sett's reference to the demarcation line within the GM's mind is an important one (and something I'm interested in) but which ultimately is meaningless when you consider Psuedoephedrine's defintion.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: 1of3;500207Nicely phrased. May I cite that?

Sure.

It is wrong though!

Communication is NOT (really not!) the problem.

Blaming communication is lame late 60ies kind of thinking. Also: wrong in this very case.

I think people are using slightly varying defintions of GM fiat here. I usually take it to mean the GM making a decision over and above what the rules may or may not actually say. It doesn't automatically have to be a negative thing (sometimes as a player I want GM fiat to overule unusual mechanical results or help speed things along).

To a player, the distinction between ruling and fiat is one of appearance. After all, the player isn't making the decision between the two, and thus can only judge on appearance.

To a GM, the distinction is not one of appearance. There are two different processes going on - real processes, not simply apparent ones. They are two different methods of reaching a decision. The differences between the methods are knowable.

I think a good approach when making DM judgements on whether something happens is not to decide "Yes" or "No" but to declare a probability - tell the players what it is - then let the dice decide.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;500259I think people are using slightly varying defintions of GM fiat here. I usually take it to mean the GM making a decision over and above what the rules may or may not actually say. It doesn't automatically have to be a negative thing (sometimes as a player I want GM fiat to overule unusual mechanical results or help speed things along).

What GM rulings, under this definition, would not be fiat?

Quote from: Kaldric;500260The differences between the methods are knowable.

Only by deduction and assumptions. Not in a material way, you cannot look into someone elses mind.

Quote from: Kaldric;500263What GM rulings, under this definition, would not be fiat?

Deciding to throw 20 orcs at the party, setting the DC for a climb check, etc. To me it only becomes GM fiat when the GM veers from the rules for some reason (for example when the rules produce implausible results and he just uses fiat to overide that).

Quote from: S'mon;500261I think a good approach when making DM judgements on whether something happens is not to decide "Yes" or "No" but to declare a probability - tell the players what it is - then let the dice decide.

Sounds like a plan. But it's kind of beside the point - which I'd like to keep somewhat close to 'what's the difference, if any, between fiat and ruling'.

So far, I have: Fiat is a decision arising from personal preference for an outcome. Any justification is 'post hoc', after the fact.
A ruling is a decision arising from impartial consideration of the pertinent facts of the scenario. Justification comes before the decision.

There's also the add fillip of perspective - to a player, all that matters is the justification, or appearance thereof. To a DM, what matters is where the decision comes from - the facts of the scenario, or his preference.