One of the saddest things about this very sad thread on RPGNet is the offhand dismissal of GM judgement (or fiat) as a game tool, as expressed in this post. It seems these days, GM judgement is simply a non-starter. Social interaction has to be governed by mechanics, skills, and rolls - not roleplaying skill - or else the game is unfair or broken.

I know this has been a contentious issue for years. But it seems as though the battle is won, and the mechanics-govern-everything party holds the field. Are there any commercially popular RPGs today that explicitly say GM fiat is okay for social interaction and other roleplaying situations that traditionally challenge player skill?

Quote from: Haffrung;563975One of the saddest things about this very sad thread on RPGNet is the offhand dismissal of GM judgement (or fiat) as a game tool, as expressed in this post. It seems these days, GM judgement is simply a non-starter. Social interaction has to be governed by mechanics, skills, and rolls - not roleplaying skill - or else the game is unfair or broken.

I know this has been a contentious issue for years. But it seems as though the battle is won, and the mechanics-govern-everything party holds the field. Are there any commercially popular RPGs today that explicitly say GM fiat is okay for social interaction and other roleplaying situations that traditionally challenge player skill?

Every RPG in existence except a Forge game or 4e?  Even games that drink heavily of the Narrative Kool-aid like WFRP3 and The One Ring make it abundantly clear that the GM is in charge.

You forget, all the guys at awfulpurple don't actually play any games, they don't count.  They hold the field because while they're in the field talking about cockblocking and indulging sexual power fantasies by pointing to rules in a book everyone else is actually gaming.

If you look at D&D as the market leader, then one of the stated goals of 5th edition is to put GM judgement back at the front and centre of the game.

Quoteone of the more annoying things a player can experience (and i'm speaking from personal as well as anecdotal/secondhand experience here) is to be in a situation where you find yourself going "hey, i've got a great idea! Only if i actually tried it and the gm called for a roll i would almost assuredly fail. So i'll just sit here quietly and/or tell it to another player so their character gets to be the one to do it."

the humanity!

Is DM judgment or fiat(when needed) dead? Only in games I'm not running or playing.  No mere rule in a book can ever hope to handle all the variations of roleplaying.  They might provide a solid guideline for the person who has to adjudicate the game and situations therein though.

If a game makes social interaction a mechanical encounter, it's not surprising.
Otherwise, you're honestly being unfair to the person who buys social skills for their character, versus the player who naturally has them.

That said, a good argument or proposition should work, no matter how charismatic (or un-) the character is. It should just be easier/greater rewards for the person who builds to that strength.

No, it isn't. All RPGs, even the likes of those identified in this thread as examples where there is no GM discretion, use GM discretion heavily to operate.

No one I've actually played with has ever raised it as an issue... it's really something I've only seen talked about online.

No game covers everything, so somebody ultimately has to make a ruling. Most groups are going to say that's the GM's job. Whether or not a social situation in a game uses a die roll or not has nothing to do with it anymore than having a combat situation that uses a die roll.

I have met a small number of players that seem to require rules to function.
Some combination of ocd/control issues, and they are used to really bad gm's.

The very idea that there could be a mechanic for all possible events makes me shake my head.

An rpg with no GM fiat is not an rpg. It is a wargame.

I will say, however, rules do provide structure to a game that is generally beneficial.

Quote from: Haffrung;563975Are there any commercially popular RPGs today that explicitly say GM fiat is okay for social interaction and other roleplaying situations that traditionally challenge player skill?

Would Palladium count as 'Commercially popular today'? It explicitly forbids the existence of PC social skills/abilities (beyond the PC having Mental Affinity & Physical Beauty attributes). Though it also gets a lot of flack, particularly at rpg.net.

Quote from: Haffrung;563975Are there any commercially popular RPGs today that explicitly say GM fiat is okay for social interaction and other roleplaying situations that traditionally challenge player skill?

It depends what you mean both by "popular" and by what is meant by GM fiat being OK.  The closest fit is probably Palladium, but I wouldn't call any Palladium game popular at this point.  So I'd say the short answer is no.  

However, let's be clear - this isn't "death".  RPG design, like everything else, goes through waves of fashion which can go back and forth.  Sometimes dark-themed dice-pool-using games are popular; sometimes generic point-build systems are popular; sometimes d20-ish games are popular; etc.  

I would note that there are a number of new games that use GM fiat.  One game I like is 1001 Nights, where the results within each story are run purely by GM fiat (for the current GM - it has a rotating GM position).  It is less commercially popular than Palladium, but has some influence in design circles as a new-style story game.

Social mechanics should compliment, but never replace, good old-fashioned roleplay. The two can work hand-in-hand, but it takes a great group of players who all understand the expectations set upon them by the GM to make rational decisions their characters would make, given the milieu of the game world.

In truth, I really don't see the issue as a GM fiat so much as shift in what kind of roleplay is considered acceptable around the table. 4E D&D highlights my frustrations; game design has largely went the way of the lazy who wish to emulate Diablo on the tabletop. While there's certainly nothing wrong with this sort of play style, it has become a pervasive theme amongst "copycat" publishers and infectious amongst players' perceptions of role-playing games.

The problem with D&D Next is that it wants to be something different, but cannot escape the themes ol' Pappa Gary laid down way back in the day. Either it evolves into something entirely different (and therefore alienating a portion of its playerbase) or it goes through the motions to emulate the same sort of stuff they've been doing over, and over, and over, (and over) again for the past 30 odd years. My opinion is that they need to create a second system that's complimentary to D&D Next, yet drastically different. They appease their diehard fans, while potentially creating an new IP. But that's neither here nor there.

The short answer is no, but the long answer is that it depends on what you mean by 'GM Judgement'.  

I also don't see how the linked post has anything to do with GM fiat.

So the multiple lines tack that TSR failed at? I happen to agree at this point but I am currently pretty depressed about 5e right now because I have no solid information and the bitching is deafening.  I truly think this may be the Dnd for me,finally but this is VERY frustrating because I have never tried to be involved in a playtest before.  So. I just give my feedback and hope at this point.