In keeping with my resolution to explore some of the older ideas in RPG theory, I’m going to very briefly tackle GM fiat. This term has had something of a negative connotation since the IndieRPG movement began back in 2000, but it didn’t always used to be that way.
Basically, GM fiat has come to mean something like “any decision made by the Game Master (or similar authority figure) that is final and cannot be appealed or changed by the other players through the mechanics of the game.”
I’ve seen some people use it as a synonym for “dictatorship” or “the GM is god” or “bad game design.” But it doesn’t mean any of those things. Sometimes, a decision has to be made and it has to be final. In those cases, it’s okay to have someone like a GM make a final call that ends any dispute so the game can progress forward.
The problem with GM fiat is when it is used too much by a designer. Modern RPG design needs to involve the players more in the decision making process. Once upon a time, decades ago, the GM might have been the only one in a playgroup with the time, inclination, and monetary resources to collect all the tomes necessary for play, read them, and master the content. The players had to trust him or her because there just wasn’t a lot of information available to everyone about the game. The Internet has changed that dramatically. Players are well informed now, not just about a game’s specific content, but also about play styles, strategies, options, and techniques. They are now fully capable of contributing to a game’s direction on a plane level with a GM. Information has become democratized in a sense.
As a result, a good game designer will rely on GM fiat only as a last resort to settle a quandary that cannot be settled through the game’s usual mechanics or a group’s usual social interactions. Contemporary players are not accustomed to the 1990’s style of GMing. They want to express their creativity through control of the world too. That’s not always going to be practical, but more often than not, it is.
Peace,
-Troy
6 comments:
Hi
i can translate some of your article in italian, from the anthology?
thx
Sure! You may translate anything you like so long as it is posted for free :)
Peace,
-Troy
Personally, I believe that the occasions where it's more efficient to use GM fiat than rules or formalized procedures to handle an in-game situation are so rare as to be negligible. The proof is in the pudding with Vincent Baker's Apocalypse world, which formalizes a lot of things that would otherwise be GM-fiat.
For example, if an NPC is bleeding out, rather than rely on detailed charts or random rolls to determine whether they live or die a lot of systems rely on a GM fiat call. Apocalypse world gives several options, none of which rely on GM fiat:
*Stating the consequences and asking. Essentially this would break down to: If you help her in the next 10 minutes, she lives, otherwise she'll die.
*Setting up a "time clock", wherein she gets worse and worse until she finally bleeds out.
*Leaving it to chance (evens or odds).
*Turning it back on the players, asking them if they do anything to help her, otherwise she dies.
None of these require a decision on the part of the GM, and all are far more interesting than the GM simply saying "she lives" or "she dies" while requiring a lot less overhead than specific blood-loss rules.
Just a thought.
Heya Veritomancer,
Thank you for replying! :)
Town Creation in Vincent's Dogs in the Vineyard is left to GM fiat. That game is one of Vincent's proudest achievements, so I don't think he believes GM fiat is always bad.
Different games have different needs, and while I definately believe that Appocalypse World is a revolution in RPG design, it isn't the first nor the last. Games will evolve from here, and many functional games will involve GM fiat at various levels. It is certainly good to temper the use of GM fiat in any RPG design, but it's not a tool that should be disregarded entirely.
As an aside, anyone reading these comments, if you haven't checked out Appocalypse World or the forthcoming Dungeon World, you need to. It is a paradigm shift in RPG design.
Peace,
-Troy
I see your point there on the subject of DITV town creation but if I may nitpick without invoking the "No True Scottsman" fallacy I personally don't consider town creation or other "background set-up" to be GM fiat because it doesn't rely on overriding player action or input: it's simply there prior to play beginning.
It also relies on player input as well, with examples being given of Vincent instructing GMs to ask their players "Well I dunno...does it make sense to you for a ________(let's say a wizard's tower) to be there?" When a player asks such a question.
I'm splitting hairs I know, but as Fiat is defined as an "Arbitrary Order" I can't think of it as anything but bad. What I'm advocating isn't rules for every occasion but more along the lines of principles that soften fiat into the GM's personal and equal input into the SIS.
Heya Veritomancer,
For the most part, I am in agreement with you. If you want to define GM Fiat as overriding player action or input, then yep it is ALWAYS bad. I think I defined it a bit more broadly for this blog. I wanted to define it as a GM choice that cannot be changed or appealed. But maybe that's not helpful. I may revisit the topic in the future to clarify.
Thanks for your input! I really appreciate what you have to say. I hope anyone in the future who reads this article also reads the comments. In fact, for several of my articles the comments are better than the original post! :)
Perhaps I'll have to note that in the next anthology or topical index.
Peace,
-Troy
Post a Comment