I'm pretty sure we've had this one before, but i've been reading a thread over at tbp and it really got me wondering why some folk have such a bee in their bonet over it.

If you don't trust your GM's decisions, get a better one or play with people you trust!

That does bring up one interesting observation, however. What if you hardly ever play with people you trust? What if you really only play regularly at gaming conventions? The question of fiat becomes a more touchy one then. To quote Mr.T, "I pity the fool who only plays at conventions," but maybe that explains why some folk really have a problem with it?

The obvious reductio ad absurdum is that if GM fiat is so great, why do we need rules systems at all?

No-one's pure judgments alone are entirely consistent, which is why we have rules, for some degree of consistency. Of course, reality is not consistent, but given that it's a roleplaying game, we want consistency - to have some idea of the odds of this or that.

In practice, every game session has a mixture of rules and rulings - GM fiat. What players are most often most comfortable with is when the rulings come from the principles of the rules, filling in holes, resolving contradictions, streamlining things for speed and convenience.

With this approach, the GM acts like a common law magistrate - applying a healthy dose of common sense and "what are we really aiming at here?" to the game.

However, just as some magistrates focus too much on the letter of the law and not enough on intent, and others are indifferent to the word of law, and treat the courtroom as their personal playpen, so too with GMs. If a GM hardly ever uses their fiat powers then players will be worried when they do; if a GM constantly ignores rules then players will be wary of their use of fiat power, since it's likely to be inconsistent.

So it's not really a matter of "not trusting" or the GM being an idiot or anything like that; just normal human nature is enough.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300444So it's not really a matter of "not trusting" or the GM being an idiot or anything like that; just normal human nature is enough.

I think it is.

Convention play aside, I think some gamers have had very bad experiences with GMs behaving like dicks. Add to them the crowd that believes that the GM is just another player (I think he/she is but has a different role from everyone else) and who are sceptical of the narrative control of the GM (or who prefer a more collaborative approach), and you got a whole lot of whining about GM fiat.

Regards,
David R

Now they own GM in Europe and 20% of Chysler you are going to see a lot more of Fiat mark my words

Quote from: jibbajibba;300449Now they own GM in Europe and 20% of Chysler you are going to see a lot more of Fiat mark my words

GET OUT OF MY HEAD, JIBBAJABBA! :O

-clash

Quote from: One Horse Town;300439If you don't trust your GM's decisions, get a better one or play with people you trust!

Seems obvious, doesn't it? Or take on the responsibility of GM yourself.

Quote from: One Horse Town;300439What if you hardly ever play with people you trust? What if you really only play regularly at gaming conventions? The question of fiat becomes a more touchy one then. To quote Mr.T, "I pity the fool who only plays at conventions," but maybe that explains why some folk really have a problem with it?

Indeed, I do pity people who play RPGs with folks they don't trust. I simply can't imagine why you would do that. Better to not play RPGs at all, in my books.

Quote from: Haffrung;300454Indeed, I do pity people who play RPGs with folks they don't trust. I simply can't imagine why you would do that. Better to not play RPGs at all, in my books.

Agreed. The only time I'll play with a bad GM is when the GM is a really good friend and just wants to run a game or two. Why? Because putting up with occasional BS to make a friend happy is just something you do. Other that that, I don't bother playing in a game ran by a bad GM. ("GM you can't trust" is a subset of "Bad GM").

Quote from: David R;300447I think it is.

Convention play aside, I think some gamers have had very bad experiences with GMs behaving like dicks. Add to them the crowd that believes that the GM is just another player (I think he/she is but has a different role from everyone else) and who are sceptical of the narrative control of the GM (or who prefer a more collaborative approach), and you got a whole lot of whining about GM fiat.

Regards,
David R

This. I agree with most of what Kyle was talking about but his conclusion. It totally is about trust between the participants at the game table, and their individual capacities to not be asses to each other.

Well, I understand how the resentment against GM fiat could have developed and evolved.  In my early days of 1e AD&D my DM was a module-only DM who never strayed outside of the grey text.  If it was beyond the scope of the module, then it didn't happen or exist.  This was a serious source of frustration for me as a player, and I could see how this frustration could balloon into this reactionary anti-GM Fiat movement.  Now, with that being said, my personal view coincides pretty much with the general consensus here.

Quote from: Drohem;300496If it was beyond the scope of the module, then it didn't happen or exist.  This was a serious source of frustration for me as a player, and I could see how this frustration could balloon into this reactionary anti-GM Fiat movement.  

I'm confused, shouldn't that kind of experience balloon into a pro-GM fiat movement.  Where players are in favor of the GM breaking out of the grey text box?

The original D&D rules were campaign notes.

"Here's a hit chart so I don't have to remember what I decided."

I thought that hit chart looked good so I used it.

D&D was a hit chart, a saving throw matrix, and some suggestions for monsters and treasure and shit.

The rules were for the referee to allow him or her to remember stuff, not to "battle for supremacy" with the players.  For the first three years, nobody but Gary and Dave even HAD rules to look at.

The expecation was that MOST would be "GM Fiat".  As in, "I want to leap off the balcony and grab the chandelier and swing over and kick the ogre in the head!"

There were no rules for this because we thought there couldn't be rules for everything.

We also thought the default of "When in doubt sling some dice and if the roll is even half decent let it happen" was obvious.

We also thought "All that is not explicitly forbidden is permitted" was obvious.

Know what?  We were wrong.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;300444The obvious reductio ad absurdum is that if GM fiat is so great, why do we need rules systems at all?

Just once, I'd like to see someone actually address this...

KoOS

Quote from: King of Old School;300530Just once, I'd like to see someone actually address this...

KoOS

My answer is that if rules are convenient and may be helpful for all sorts of reasons, we don't actually "need" rules at all.

Quote from: Old Geezer;300527Know what?  We were wrong.

Wrong about what? Wrong in the way others would end up playing the game and their expectations, or something else?

Quote from: kryyst;300521I'm confused, shouldn't that kind of experience balloon into a pro-GM fiat movement.  Where players are in favor of the GM breaking out of the grey text box?

Yes, you're right.  I had brain fart?  Yeah, I'm sticking with that one.