Food for Thought, Basic: Pretty Please, GM May I?

[InnaBinder]

No that is fiat resolution.  It is what you should not do.

The game would be better if you were not doing it and some payouts, that your players may have, cannot be met. 

I am guessing you are playing 3.x dnd. My advice is to change to a game where GM notes are sparse or unessasary.

I'll post on this more tonight.

Wow, I read it as a radical departure from "you miss because they are ninjas [no roll]".  I'll be interested in the clarification on how applying rolls and damage is still fiat.

[emissary666]

No that is fiat resolution.  It is what you should not do.

The game would be better if you were not doing it and some payouts, that your players may have, cannot be met. 

I am guessing you are playing 3.x dnd. My advice is to change to a game where GM notes are sparse or unessasary.

I'll post on this more tonight.

Well, I admit I am a horrible GM, but I'm the only one my friends have. Do you have any recommendation for note sparse games?

[woodenbandman]

I'd say use monster manual + reflavoring. Make that skeleton into a "robot" or that dire bear into a "Zangief."

[Josh]

So, for example, I have my player make an attack roll, if it is high, it hits and some number below that becomes the AC and I slowly whittle it down to a defined AC.

Basically this negates the challenge of play and the cleverness of character creation.

You decide "eh, you hit" or "eh, you miss"

No that is fiat resolution.  It is what you should not do.

The game would be better if you were not doing it and some payouts, that your players may have, cannot be met. 

I am guessing you are playing 3.x dnd. My advice is to change to a game where GM notes are sparse or unessasary.

I'll post on this more tonight.

Well, I admit I am a horrible GM, but I'm the only one my friends have. Do you have any recommendation for note sparse games?

I don't think you are a bad GM.  I think that incompetent game designers have lied to you so you will buy their books.

Savage Worlds is likely your best bet because it translates easily from DnD.  In the system the difficulty is fixed and the players change.  You just need everyone's character sheet.  And you can play monsters right out of the book, unlike dnd you can change critters without having to recalculate lots of stuff.

[emissary666]

So, for example, I have my player make an attack roll, if it is high, it hits and some number below that becomes the AC and I slowly whittle it down to a defined AC.

Basically this negates the challenge of play and the cleverness of character creation.

You decide "eh, you hit" or "eh, you miss"

No that is fiat resolution.  It is what you should not do.

The game would be better if you were not doing it and some payouts, that your players may have, cannot be met. 

I am guessing you are playing 3.x dnd. My advice is to change to a game where GM notes are sparse or unessasary.

I'll post on this more tonight.

Well, I admit I am a horrible GM, but I'm the only one my friends have. Do you have any recommendation for note sparse games?

I don't think you are a bad GM.  I think that incompetent game designers have lied to you so you will buy their books.

Savage Worlds is likely your best bet because it translates easily from DnD.  In the system the difficulty is fixed and the players change.  You just need everyone's character sheet.  And you can play monsters right out of the book, unlike dnd you can change critters without having to recalculate lots of stuff.

It starts out as, "Crap, where the fuck are my notes? Oh, he's attacking. 17, that's high." and turns into "Ok, this character has an AC of 15" The players are still rewarded for creation and still adds challenge. It is just not so well planned out.

How is my note losing connected to game designers lying?

[Josh]

So, for example, I have my player make an attack roll, if it is high, it hits and some number below that becomes the AC and I slowly whittle it down to a defined AC.

Basically this negates the challenge of play and the cleverness of character creation.

You decide "eh, you hit" or "eh, you miss"

No that is fiat resolution.  It is what you should not do.

The game would be better if you were not doing it and some payouts, that your players may have, cannot be met. 

I am guessing you are playing 3.x dnd. My advice is to change to a game where GM notes are sparse or unessasary.

I'll post on this more tonight.

Well, I admit I am a horrible GM, but I'm the only one my friends have. Do you have any recommendation for note sparse games?

I don't think you are a bad GM.  I think that incompetent game designers have lied to you so you will buy their books.

Savage Worlds is likely your best bet because it translates easily from DnD.  In the system the difficulty is fixed and the players change.  You just need everyone's character sheet.  And you can play monsters right out of the book, unlike dnd you can change critters without having to recalculate lots of stuff.

It starts out as, "Crap, where the fuck are my notes? Oh, he's attacking. 17, that's high." and turns into "Ok, this character has an AC of 15" The players are still rewarded for creation and still adds challenge. It is just not so well planned out.

You are just deciding that they succeed.  That's fiat.

How is my note losing connected to game designers lying?

Only in that they are both in your post.

[emissary666]

I know it is fiat, I was just saying that I'm not arbitrarily deciding whether or not they hit. I base it on the dice, sort of. It is not TOTALLY arbitrary is what I am saying.

[Josh]

I know it is fiat, I was just saying that I'm not arbitrarily deciding whether or not they hit. I base it on the dice, sort of. It is not TOTALLY arbitrary is what I am saying.

It has no bearing on the game.  You said "if the die is high, they hit" that is not how you play DnD. 

An yes in specific cases there is often some obscurement.  That is why we talk about the general theoretical case first.  Then you can say that real cases that are similar are bad as well.

So for example it is clear that saying "the PCs don't see the ninjas because they are ninjas is fiat (In DnD 3.X)"

1) What if the DM gave them an arbitrary bonus making their sneak 40 points higher than the PC's perception?
2) What if the DM rolled, the ninjas failed and he decided to roll again, just because?

Both of these are effectively fiat.

[woodenbandman]

I have a question: What if a PC gets critted, and the DM decides not to roll confirmation, just because he doesn't want the PC to die? Is that a bad thing? Especially considering that a single critical hit by a first level barbarian can take down a 5th level character if the barbarian is wielding a greataxe.

I guess I'm saying: When does Fiat become a bad thing? Always? Never? When you're killing the PCs rather than helping them?

I would personally fudge that roll under a few circumstances:

1: If it's their first session with this character.
2: If it's a really small monster and they've just had prodigiously bad luck.
3: If it's a really big monster and the fight is difficult before factoring critical hits in.

Mostly number 1, because it sucks to make a character just to have them immediately die. This happened to me twice before I figured out making characters that don't die. Granted, those characters sucked, but we're talking about closet cases of "what if you get critted and die, not because you suck, but because the dice hate you?"

Numbers 2 and 3 should be used more sparingly, because if they get killed by a little monster, it's actually kinda funny, and if they get killed by a big monster, it's dramatic. Exception: if you made a monster that's way more difficult than you expected it to be, then by all means you should fudge in favor of the PCs. The reason I believe this is because you probably put like 4 of them in and called it a CR 10, but then they turned out to be more of a CR 12. You planned for a certain level of difficulty, so you should probably keep the difficulty about at that level. In my opinion this is bad GMing, but not for lack of trying. It's an honest mistake from lack of knowledge about the system, not an attempt to ruin the PCs' lives.

[Josh]

I have a question: What if a PC gets critted, and the DM decides not to roll confirmation, just because he doesn't want the PC to die? Is that a bad thing? Especially considering that a single critical hit by a first level barbarian can take down a 5th level character if the barbarian is wielding a greataxe.

I guess I'm saying: When does Fiat become a bad thing? Always? Never? When you're killing the PCs rather than helping them?

I would personally fudge that roll under a few circumstances:

1: If it's their first session with this character.
2: If it's a really small monster and they've just had prodigiously bad luck.
3: If it's a really big monster and the fight is difficult before factoring critical hits in.

Mostly number 1, because it sucks to make a character just to have them immediately die. This happened to me twice before I figured out making characters that don't die. Granted, those characters sucked, but we're talking about closet cases of "what if you get critted and die, not because you suck, but because the dice hate you?"

Numbers 2 and 3 should be used more sparingly, because if they get killed by a little monster, it's actually kinda funny, and if they get killed by a big monster, it's dramatic. Exception: if you made a monster that's way more difficult than you expected it to be, then by all means you should fudge in favor of the PCs. The reason I believe this is because you probably put like 4 of them in and called it a CR 10, but then they turned out to be more of a CR 12. You planned for a certain level of difficulty, so you should probably keep the difficulty about at that level. In my opinion this is bad GMing, but not for lack of trying. It's an honest mistake from lack of knowledge about the system, not an attempt to ruin the PCs' lives.

All of that is bad. 

The game is bad, you had to cover for the bad game, badly.  Or did you?  In DnD death is not the issue, failure and TPK is.

You won't get any arguments from me that DnD3.X is fading from glory.

So again, here is why we start with the theory.  DnD 3.X is not good for beginners or people not interested in a really mechanical game.  Games move on no matter how bad you roll.  That means DnD is about occasional catastrophic failure.  If you don't want that risk pick a new game.


So look at it like this, can you think of a reason to fiat when the game is not failing?

[Nachofan99]

So look at it like this, can you think of a reason to fiat when the game is not failing?

Once again, time savings.

I don't think D&D 3.5 does a terrible job at everything and I do think that it does a good job of an Action-Adventure-Dungeon-Crawl game.  I suggest that Josh has always had less than stellar GMs in all genres of games but that is for another thread.

I had an encounter last week where, as is sometimes the case, we had to break the flow of the game to check rules.  I've had this happen in every game system I've ever played in (More than 20, less than 100).  I also had encounters last week where the rules did not need to be consulted a single time.

In D&D, rolling for treasure takes up quite a bit of game time.  Sometimes you can roll it up ahead of time, or set treasure parcels as in 4th ed - but if you have a *random* encounter or the PCs go somewhere other than you had prepared for (this should happen about every session for any non-railroading GM) then the treasure rules, which are not BAD, take a long time to produce results.  Additionally, my players don't really enjoy keeping lists and inventories of loot (obviously this is less about a particular game, and more about them being lazy; there's loot in just about every game ever).

Using Fiat to award treasure instead of taking forever to roll it up *by the rules* keeps game sessions moving forward.  On the other side of the coin, rolling for treasure often-times occupies a nice little "break" in game-play to let people get a drink or use the restroom; that has been my experience with it. 

Positive and negative, upside and downside.  The whole rolling for treasure rules are very simple to follow and certainly fair; they just take up time you could be playing.  Sometimes you have that time to essentially "take 5" and I know for my players they do enjoy rolling for treasure about every other session; the inherent randomness to said treasure is definitely a big payout for them - just not for every single goblin etc.

In fact, payouts is probably the better answer.  Sometimes the rule mechanics are great and they help you get to the pay-outs everyone is looking for; sometimes they're not.  Fiat resolution allows you to essentially skip mechanics that *no one* wants to deal with to get straight to the pay-outs.

Does it make a bad game if you want to skip mechanics?  I would say yes...if you're skipping a *large* amount of mechanics.  Obviously if the game is that bad, you're not going to continue playing it.  I believe the case for most groups, however, is that the majority of mechanics are fine, it's just a handful of rules that only get used occasionally in awkward corner cases that can grind things to a halt at unexpected times - that's when Fiat essentially saves you time to get past such snags and continue on with the rest of the session.

[Josh]

So look at it like this, can you think of a reason to fiat when the game is not failing?

Argh, missed it.  Use "Fiat Resolution" the point of the argument.

I constantly point out that fiat is a part of the game.  Sorry. 

Can you think of a time to use Fiat Resolution when the game is not failing.

Sorry to make you type, except this:

Does it make a bad game if you want to skip mechanics?  I would say yes...if you're skipping a *large* amount of mechanics.  Obviously if the game is that bad, you're not going to continue playing it.  I believe the case for most groups, however, is that the majority of mechanics are fine, it's just a handful of rules that only get used occasionally in awkward corner cases that can grind things to a halt at unexpected times - that's when Fiat essentially saves you time to get past such snags and continue on with the rest of the session.

If you want to "skip" parts of the game, by definition the game is flawed.

[Nachofan99]

If you want to "skip" parts of the game, by definition the game is flawed.

Please point out the perfect game that has no flaws wherein every single person that plays it loves every single aspect of it and uses all of the rules "as is"?  All games are flawed.

I don't see how what loot the monsters drop is "Fiat" until the GM decides it is so because there are non-Fiat rules for what they drop; I'm saying there are times when it's just plain better to ignore those rules, but there are also times when the rules make a great deal of sense and add to the game.   Maybe my premise is wrong here; in D&D 3.5 how is treasure fiat?  I see tables, charts and rolling to be done to determine exactly what drops and exactly how much of it drops.

I think what you're really saying is that what loot players get is not "Conflict Resolution" and only in the strictest sense do I agree with you because you lay down definitions that are true but so restrictive that they do not at all reflect actual game-play at all.  I have seen others chime in about exactly this and it's why I haven't bothered posting in this thread for a while even though I wanted to.

Once again experience tells me that what loot players get sometimes matters a real lot concerning what happens when you get to the actual "roll the die" step of "Conflict Resolution"; fiat results greatly shape your Conflict Resolution.  It does not DECIDE what happens but, in a way, it does.

I just don't see it in my games Josh.  I use the rules as much as possible but there are always corner cases or unclear areas in actual games being played by actual people.  Experience shows me that just moving the game along is better than flipping through books and grinding the game to a halt because you rapidly move out of a rules-murky area causing the slow down back to an area that the rules better support.  "You're playing the wrong game then!"  Maybe, but probably not.  Just because *one time* in a D&D campaign someone acted as defense attorney in one session does not mean that player is looking for that pay-out every single session; variety is the spice of life as it were.  Just because that one time the one player wanted to act out a part for a single session means the entire group should switch over to a court-room drama based game?  Hell no.  If that's *all* we wanted to do I get it.  The GM is there to support that kind of spontaneity in sessions and it seems like you're anti-spontaneous and pro-scripted; but not scripted by a GM, scripted by the players.

[woodenbandman]

[spoiler=Big ass quote war]

I have a question: What if a PC gets critted, and the DM decides not to roll confirmation, just because he doesn't want the PC to die? Is that a bad thing? Especially considering that a single critical hit by a first level barbarian can take down a 5th level character if the barbarian is wielding a greataxe.

I guess I'm saying: When does Fiat become a bad thing? Always? Never? When you're killing the PCs rather than helping them?

I would personally fudge that roll under a few circumstances:

1: If it's their first session with this character.
2: If it's a really small monster and they've just had prodigiously bad luck.
3: If it's a really big monster and the fight is difficult before factoring critical hits in.

Mostly number 1, because it sucks to make a character just to have them immediately die. This happened to me twice before I figured out making characters that don't die. Granted, those characters sucked, but we're talking about closet cases of "what if you get critted and die, not because you suck, but because the dice hate you?"

Numbers 2 and 3 should be used more sparingly, because if they get killed by a little monster, it's actually kinda funny, and if they get killed by a big monster, it's dramatic. Exception: if you made a monster that's way more difficult than you expected it to be, then by all means you should fudge in favor of the PCs. The reason I believe this is because you probably put like 4 of them in and called it a CR 10, but then they turned out to be more of a CR 12. You planned for a certain level of difficulty, so you should probably keep the difficulty about at that level. In my opinion this is bad GMing, but not for lack of trying. It's an honest mistake from lack of knowledge about the system, not an attempt to ruin the PCs' lives.

All of that is bad. 

The game is bad, you had to cover for the bad game, badly.  Or did you?  In DnD death is not the issue, failure and TPK is.

You won't get any arguments from me that DnD3.X is fading from glory.

So again, here is why we start with the theory.  DnD 3.X is not good for beginners or people not interested in a really mechanical game.  Games move on no matter how bad you roll.  That means DnD is about occasional catastrophic failure.  If you don't want that risk pick a new game.


So look at it like this, can you think of a reason to fiat when the game is not failing?

[/spoiler]

No, Josh, you missed the point. That could be any game. That could be Burning Wheel for all I care. Dieing from critical hits applies to every game with critical hits in it.

[Josh]

If you want to "skip" parts of the game, by definition the game is flawed.

Please point out the perfect game that has no flaws wherein every single person that plays it loves every single aspect of it and uses all of the rules "as is"?  All games are flawed.

I know all games are flawed, especially by your overwrought definition.  

Does that make Fiat Resolution good?  No

I don't see how what loot the monsters drop is "Fiat" until the GM decides it is so because there are non-Fiat rules for what they drop; I'm saying there are times when it's just plain better to ignore those rules, but there are also times when the rules make a great deal of sense and add to the game.   Maybe my premise is wrong here; in D&D 3.5 how is treasure fiat?  I see tables, charts and rolling to be done to determine exactly what drops and exactly how much of it drops.

In DnD the GM decides in the way they see fit what the loot is.  It is guided but still fiat.  A good use of fiat.

I just don't see it in my games Josh.  I use the rules as much as possible but there are always corner cases or unclear areas in actual games being played by actual people.  Experience shows me that just moving the game along is better than flipping through books and grinding the game to a halt because you rapidly move out of a rules-murky area causing the slow down back to an area that the rules better support.  "You're playing the wrong game then!"  Maybe, but probably not.  Just because *one time* in a D&D campaign someone acted as defense attorney in one session does not mean that player is looking for that pay-out every single session; variety is the spice of life as it were.  Just because that one time the one player wanted to act out a part for a single session means the entire group should switch over to a court-room drama based game?  Hell no.  If that's *all* we wanted to do I get it. 

Yes, DnD is the wrong game to "play" court drama.  But court drama might "frame" the play.

And variety is the spice of life, try playing other games.

The GM is there to support that kind of spontaneity in sessions and it seems like you're anti-spontaneous and pro-scripted; but not scripted by a GM, scripted by the players.

I am nothing of the sort.  The GM is there to help with what you want.  And you don't want "fiat resolution" cause if you did there would be a reason.  So we have a situation with no reasons "for" and tons of reasons against.

You can be spontanious without fiat resolution.  In fact that is one of the earmarks of a good GM.  They use the game as a tool the way it is intended.  No hammering with a wrench.

[Josh]

[spoiler=Big ass quote war]

I have a question: What if a PC gets critted, and the DM decides not to roll confirmation, just because he doesn't want the PC to die? Is that a bad thing? Especially considering that a single critical hit by a first level barbarian can take down a 5th level character if the barbarian is wielding a greataxe.

I guess I'm saying: When does Fiat become a bad thing? Always? Never? When you're killing the PCs rather than helping them?

I would personally fudge that roll under a few circumstances:

1: If it's their first session with this character.
2: If it's a really small monster and they've just had prodigiously bad luck.
3: If it's a really big monster and the fight is difficult before factoring critical hits in.

Mostly number 1, because it sucks to make a character just to have them immediately die. This happened to me twice before I figured out making characters that don't die. Granted, those characters sucked, but we're talking about closet cases of "what if you get critted and die, not because you suck, but because the dice hate you?"

Numbers 2 and 3 should be used more sparingly, because if they get killed by a little monster, it's actually kinda funny, and if they get killed by a big monster, it's dramatic. Exception: if you made a monster that's way more difficult than you expected it to be, then by all means you should fudge in favor of the PCs. The reason I believe this is because you probably put like 4 of them in and called it a CR 10, but then they turned out to be more of a CR 12. You planned for a certain level of difficulty, so you should probably keep the difficulty about at that level. In my opinion this is bad GMing, but not for lack of trying. It's an honest mistake from lack of knowledge about the system, not an attempt to ruin the PCs' lives.

All of that is bad. 

The game is bad, you had to cover for the bad game, badly.  Or did you?  In DnD death is not the issue, failure and TPK is.

You won't get any arguments from me that DnD3.X is fading from glory.

So again, here is why we start with the theory.  DnD 3.X is not good for beginners or people not interested in a really mechanical game.  Games move on no matter how bad you roll.  That means DnD is about occasional catastrophic failure.  If you don't want that risk pick a new game.


So look at it like this, can you think of a reason to fiat when the game is not failing?

[/spoiler]

No, Josh, you missed the point. That could be any game. That could be Burning Wheel for all I care. Dieing from critical hits applies to every game with critical hits in it.

No it can't be burning wheel.  Savage Worlds or 4e.  None of the top tier fighting games at all in fact. 

You didn't know that it is possible to remove that issue.

[Nachofan99]

And variety is the spice of life, try playing other games.

I have played plenty of other games.  They all have flaws that I would prefer to "skip" rather than waste time on; and the overwhelming majority of them have good payouts of some kind or another.  But we're going back to how/when/why Fiat Resolution can be a good thing.  Time Saving; that's the only one I can think of and I see it as a positive usage. 

Do you deny that Fiat Resolution, when used in 'Corner Cases' etc., saves time that can be used for a continuation of clearly defined play?

Getting to clearly written Conflict Resolution that is the payout of the game system seems to me a better use of time than burning time treading murky waters.

Does that mean you don't fight it out with the BBEG and instead the GM merely says "You win" or "You lose"?  Of course not.

Does that mean that when a player or npc is trying to do something unusual it somehow completely and utterly destroys the PCs or GMs game experience forever when the GM just decides something happens so the game can move on?  I hope not.  Sometimes players and/or GMs can get bogged down in minutiae - that's when you know you've wasted a lot of time already and simply need to move on.

D&D Loot - Off Topic so it's here

In DnD the GM decides in the way they see fit what the loot is.  It is guided but still fiat.  A good use of fiat.

This is minor and off topic I think but I do want an answer.  Once again, there are specific rules in D&D 3.5 for loot in the DMG.  Yes the GM *can* use Fiat to hand out loot, but there are *actual written rules* for generating loot.  Isn't the GM in this case clearly not using the rules?

Rules Snafu - GM and Players scour the rule books, perhaps argue, perhaps not.  In any case time has been wasted and the result is A or B

A) "I can't find a rules basis for this situation - you succeed or fail because I say so."
B) "I can't find a rules basis for this situation - because I say so roll 1d20, add a modifier and this is the DC because I say so."

Well if they had just decided "A" already game-play would have already continued.  To decide "A" after wasting a few minutes looking through books would be stupid.

Yeah the GM is not deciding on the outcome, but if they are so incredibly close to doing so anyways( "B" telling you what to roll and when) and it can save a lot of time why not have the extra time to play? (and get to the clearer rules)

Since the entirety of game play in the example more or less is the GM giving the player's the opportunity to roll a die (or whatever Conflict Resolution the system uses) then if Fiat Resolution allows more dice rolling further down the line (by saving time on a potentially game-halting situation) then it's a good thing - no?  Avoiding things that crash the system and steering play back to the payouts the systems does well seems like a good use of Fiat Resolution.

Granted as you said

Can you think of a time to use Fiat Resolution when the game is not failing.

I probably cannot.  Because, once again, I think the only time Fiat Resolution is good is when it helps you save time to get to the parts of the game that do not fail.  No game is perfect, no games does everything and so on.  Get back to the parts of the game that it handles well - if the game repeatedly continues to fail *in the same way* then you're probably playing the wrong game - no question.  But if it only happens occasionally and it handles everything else you do well?  Not really a problem there - every game and game system I've played has some amount of problems.  I think you're taking for a given your proposal in another thread and I would respond to that as well; if I had infinite time.

Ah, Time, what an interesting commodity that which cannot be reclaimed once gone.

What system does not have potentially game-halting, time wasting situations?  In every single system I have played there has always been 1 if not more situations where the game ground to a halt.  It's the GMs task to keep the game flowing.

As you said, Fiat Resolution deprotagonizes players, and I completely agree.  Ending a session early because of some rocky game/rules ground is a double whammy because #1 if the game grounds to a halt play has stopped and #2 the session will then end early so the total amount of play was less than what it could have been.

I think mostly we all agree with the incredibly narrow definition of "Conflict Resolution" that Josh has provided; but it just does not sum up real-world in-game situations.  Yes, you should never use Fiat Resolution for Conflict Resolution as defined - because Josh says it's something the PCs *really* care about - like the final fight with the BBEG.  The thing is, there are all sorts of smaller Conflicts that don't really harm the PCs for a GM to Resolve with Fiat.  I guess Josh would say that the PCs don't *really* care about such issues?

In my experience, I've had situations where one particular player would make a big deal about one particular aspect of a situation that had murky rules; but no other PCs cared.  Shouldn't the GM move the story forward to get to the parts that *everyone* cares about?  PCs can just as easily damage the flow of the game as a GM can; but it's the GMs job to keep things moving.  I'm not talking about "problem players/GMs" either; who has not had a situation where one or more PCs locked horns with each other or the GM about a particular issue one session, and then the next session there is no such conflict?  Generally it's because whatever sort of strange circumstances existed in that last session are not present in the current one.

Sometimes players try to play outside the system - this is generally what causes games to lock up.  It's the job of the GM to get players back to the heart of the game.  Fiat Resolution seems to be a way to do that *very* quickly thus allowing you more time to play within the system and go for the payouts the system handles well.

This has gotten pretty bloated and sort of rant-ish, I apologize in advance if that's possibly.

Even Bigger Quote War!

Fool you! 

[Josh]

And variety is the spice of life, try playing other games.

I have played plenty of other games.  They all have flaws that I would prefer to "skip" rather than waste time on; and the overwhelming majority of them have good payouts of some kind or another.  But we're going back to how/when/why Fiat Resolution can be a good thing.  Time Saving; that's the only one I can think of and I see it as a positive usage. 

Do you deny that Fiat Resolution, when used in 'Corner Cases' etc., saves time that can be used for a continuation of clearly defined play?

I have never seen a case where it was needed.  Corner cases rarely if ever require fiat resolution.

Getting to clearly written Conflict Resolution that is the payout of the game system seems to me a better use of time than burning time treading murky waters.

Does that mean you don't fight it out with the BBEG and instead the GM merely says "You win" or "You lose"?  Of course not.

Does that mean that when a player or npc is trying to do something unusual it somehow completely and utterly destroys the PCs or GMs game experience forever when the GM just decides something happens so the game can move on?  I hope not.  Sometimes players and/or GMs can get bogged down in minutiae - that's when you know you've wasted a lot of time already and simply need to move on.

This is complicated to answer.  But, there is no case in a good game where this is necessary. 

D&D Loot - Off Topic so it's here

In DnD the GM decides in the way they see fit what the loot is.  It is guided but still fiat.  A good use of fiat.

This is minor and off topic I think but I do want an answer.  Once again, there are specific rules in D&D 3.5 for loot in the DMG.  Yes the GM *can* use Fiat to hand out loot, but there are *actual written rules* for generating loot.  Isn't the GM in this case clearly not using the rules

//No.  The rules are "GM makes the adventure" the random tables are the aid. 

Rules Snafu - GM and Players scour the rule books, perhaps argue, perhaps not.  In any case time has been wasted and the result is A or B

A) "I can't find a rules basis for this situation - you succeed or fail because I say so."
B) "I can't find a rules basis for this situation - because I say so roll 1d20, add a modifier and this is the DC because I say so."

Well if they had just decided "A" already game-play would have already continued.  To decide "A" after wasting a few minutes looking through books would be stupid.

Yeah the GM is not deciding on the outcome, but if they are so incredibly close to doing so anyways( "B" telling you what to roll and when) and it can save a lot of time why not have the extra time to play? (and get to the clearer rules)

Since the entirety of game play in the example more or less is the GM giving the player's the opportunity to roll a die (or whatever Conflict Resolution the system uses) then if Fiat Resolution allows more dice rolling further down the line (by saving time on a potentially game-halting situation) then it's a good thing - no?  Avoiding things that crash the system and steering play back to the payouts the systems does well seems like a good use of Fiat Resolution.

Granted as you said

What game is this?  If you don't understand an entire mechanic, get a new game.  This is not "is it +1 or +2?" this is "what is the mechanic for rolling to hit?"

Can you think of a time to use Fiat Resolution when the game is not failing.

I probably cannot.  Because, once again, I think the only time Fiat Resolution is good is when it helps you save time to get to the parts of the game that do not fail.  No game is perfect, no games does everything and so on.  Get back to the parts of the game that it handles well - if the game repeatedly continues to fail *in the same way* then you're probably playing the wrong game - no question.  But if it only happens occasionally and it handles everything else you do well?  Not really a problem there - every game and game system I've played has some amount of problems.  I think you're taking for a given your proposal in another thread and I would respond to that as well; if I had infinite time.


Ah, Time, what an interesting commodity that which cannot be reclaimed once gone.

What system does not have potentially game-halting, time wasting situations?  In every single system I have played there has always been 1 if not more situations where the game ground to a halt.  It's the GMs task to keep the game flowing.

As you said, Fiat Resolution deprotagonizes players, and I completely agree.  Ending a session early because of some rocky game/rules ground is a double whammy because #1 if the game grounds to a halt play has stopped and #2 the session will then end early so the total amount of play was less than what it could have been.

Well.  I don't even play games like this at all anymore.  So they are out there.

I think mostly we all agree with the incredibly narrow definition of "Conflict Resolution" that Josh has provided; but it just does not sum up real-world in-game situations.  Yes, you should never use Fiat Resolution for Conflict Resolution as defined - because Josh says it's something the PCs *really* care about - like the final fight with the BBEG.  The thing is, there are all sorts of smaller Conflicts that don't really harm the PCs for a GM to Resolve with Fiat.  I guess Josh would say that the PCs don't *really* care about such issues?

Examples or explanations or we'll just dismiss this point.  Also do it without any straw men mentions of my beliefs.  You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I was talking about.  When I say "PCs care about" I mean "are taking a contrary position to the GM/other player and are willing to go to the system for a resolution."

In my experience, I've had situations where one particular player would make a big deal about one particular aspect of a situation that had murky rules; but no other PCs cared.  Shouldn't the GM move the story forward to get to the parts that *everyone* cares about?  PCs can just as easily damage the flow of the game as a GM can; but it's the GMs job to keep things moving.  I'm not talking about "problem players/GMs" either; who has not had a situation where one or more PCs locked horns with each other or the GM about a particular issue one session, and then the next session there is no such conflict?  Generally it's because whatever sort of strange circumstances existed in that last session are not present in the current one.

Majority rules works as poorly in gaming as in the real world.  In the real world (Democracy) we have majority vote, with a legally protected minority.  But again, you don't need fiat resolution.

Sometimes players try to play outside the system - this is generally what causes games to lock up.  It's the job of the GM to get players back to the heart of the game.  Fiat Resolution seems to be a way to do that *very* quickly thus allowing you more time to play within the system and go for the payouts the system handles well.

Wandering players is a failure of the GM, and of the players.  But it is generally the GM's responsibility to get it back on track.  And you don't need fiat resolution.