I don't know how people can say GM fiat is not negative. Just by looking at the proper definition of fiat in regards to it's usage, you can tell it is a negative word when being used in this manner. What I am saying is that not only by connotation is fiat pejorative but also by denotation when used in the manner it is here. If you think differently, I would like to know your definition of arbitrary. Using context clues I can see that the definition of fiat being used describes it as:
When a person in authority uses their power to make a decision where it's sole basis is in capriciousness or an unreasonable act of the GM's own will.

Frankly, I don't see how that can be a good thing, nor can I think of any justification for doing so that might cast a positive light on a GM's fiat.

I am basing my post on my experiences of when I have seen the word used on these forums, the forums that give you cancer, and with gaming groups I have been in over the years. Never, has fiat been used to mean a decree or authoritative decision in the exercise of power. Fiat in this context, is speaking directly to the tyrannical aspect of its definition.

I can't say I agree with your first point there MFB. It is of my opinion, that fiat in this context of the usage, requires an arbitrary and unreasonable decision. Maybe the GM is just exercising their power because they can, or maybe they want to get revenge on one or all of the players. Maybe they have developed a very linear gaming session in which only what they want to happen can happen in the plot, even at the cost of the player's fun. There are many motivations to fiat in this context. I don't believe one of these is making a house rule grounded in rational thought, in order to remove confusion and clean up a rule.

well, call it "discretion", then. like i said, when i use the word fiat, i don't use it with any negative connotations. the fact that some people use "fiat" when they mean "unreasonable decision that i'm not allowed to dispute" doesn't make 'em correct.

a GM who uses his fiat unreasonably is definitely a problem, don't get me wrong. i'm just disputing the change people are making to the definition of "fiat".

I still think that Fiat can be described as a pronouncement or decree implying arbitrary or tyrannical usage, while Discretion implies reasoned judgement.

Is it really a change to the definition if it's included in the dictionary definition?

i only count at the 3rd or 4th definition of a word if it supports my side of the argument!

i've been trying to avoid the word because it does send people here into fits, but the negative connotations simply aren't part of how i learned to use the word.

I never even heard it before here. We just always called it "GM is God" or "He's an Asshole," depending on how we felt about the way it was used.

Right. What I want is a notion of what exactly constitutes "easy" and "hard," as it apples to different skills and tasks. They give us that for combat, spellcasting, medical treatment, but not for things like climbing a tree, or matrix tests, etc. There's an awful lot of grey area.
People have widely different Ideas of what constitutes "easy, seeing as how that definition hinges on the skill level of the person doing the judging. I happen to think that climbing a building is "average" difficulty, but my wife tends to think it's difficult to impossible. Sewing a dress is "hard" for me and "easy" for her.
Because of this, that using that non-specific table to determine difficulty results in a gm making their call based only on personal opinion (no matter how much or little they know), and whether they want the characters to succeed or not.

And again, it's not the fact that a single gaming group can be consistent in their application. I'm worried about consistency across multiple groups.

different groups are going to play games differently regardless. there are house rules for checkers, for pete's sake. the point is to make the the game itself as consistent as possible, so that groups that play in different ways are less likely to run into problems.

And yes, I plan on playin gSR in multiple groups. I GM one, and I want to play in another.

I can see wanting strict rules for a MU*, but in such a case wouldn't you just hard rule anything that was iffy/discretionary and post in the rules that "X situation has been handled in Y way"? It's what every other machine based port of an RPG does.

As to cons and such, I offer these:

- a con GM should say up front if anything is "different" or if he has a set way of ruling a situation that is likely to come up in the game (he should know, after all, if he's prepared to run a con game)

- I don't know about you, but most con games I've played in have been "stock, standard, vanilla" scenarios that aren't likely to bring out any nitpicky little issues when it comes to GM discretion, and if it is planned to, see my first point

- the "social contract" for a con game is completely different than that of a regular home game, and from my experience, tends to preclude the amount of bickering, nitpicking, etc that can go on at a home game

So again, coming from that, I still personally see no point in chasing wild geese with collars marked 100% standardized.

Games, not goers.

Um ... you have read the official Missions scenarios, haven't you?

Some of them, yes. Not all of them, because I find canned scenarios to be...well, canned.

The point is that they do contain a fair number of situations that require a GM to make rulings on. Not to mention that the whole Missions idea is designed around the basis where the typical campaign has recurring characters playing under (possibly many) different GMs, and was not really designed with pre-generated characters in mind.

Hmm. I might be thinking one thing and calling it "Missions". Aren't missions the one-shots meant to be run in a limited amount of time specifically for things like cons?

Not that being an idiot and thinking of something else this entire time changes my opinion that it doesn't matter that the game is different from one GM to the next.

Unforunately, human beings are not consistant at all. We'll go donate money to UNICEF one day, then the next go bomb the crap out of another country. Or maybe even do both on the same day.

RPGs are going to be equally inconsistant no matter what you do. Because different groups, or even the same gruops will come up with different ideas and different ways of doing things, doubly so if they go through it all over again.

And it only gets worse when the results are randomized. The first time you take the shot at the NPC with a hostage you might miss, and even hit the hostage, where as on the next time through your rolling better and get the guy square on the forehead and drop him like last weeks tuna sandwich.

Here's an opinion...the word fiat does indeed have a negative connotation. Further it is used subconsciously by so many on these boards for the simple reason that we are all fans of shadowrun. and what is shadowrun about? bucking authority. think about it. we choose to play a game where our fictional personas are actively sabotaging monolithic authoritarian figures. how many runners see themselves as actively furthering corporate agendas, instead of derailing such plans. in fact the anti-establishment sentiment is so embedded in the shadowrun milieu that it is inescapable. how many published runs focus on curbing the excesses of the corps? now if you think about the non-conformist nature of shadowrun fans, then it is easy to see why,as an obvious authority figure and also the metaphorical personification of "The Man" the gamemaster is subconsiously denigrated. even by those who gamemaster.

just my 0.02

I'm not so sure thats the case necessarily but to a degree you could be right.

I mean some of it could just be what the meaning of the word is to you and thats all there is to it. The best example I can give of this alas isnt with anyone specific word, only technicaly a phrase (I say techncialy becuase I dont know spanish, I just know this happened to a cuban friend of mine)

So yeah back in highschool this happens to my friend, who's as I've said before, from Cuba. As such his native tongue is spanish. It is however a different dialect from Mexican spanish. This has importance as this mixup happened when afriend of his, who is from Mexico once called his house wanting to talk to him. The basic conversation went like so (only in spanish):

Mexicasa!: Hi is Alex there?
Alex's Mother: He cant come to the phone right now he's taking a shower.
Mexicasa!: What? What happened?
Alex's Mother: He's just taking a shower. What do you mean what happened?
Mexicasa!: But you just said he went crazy!

Go from there. Apparently there was some wierd mixup because somehow in the mexican dialect what ever she actually said is basically I guess how the Mexcian dialect refers to someone as going batshit crazy insane. It took them a few minutes to work out that this was just a misunderstanding due to some sort of odd language difference.

Which is why I dont have any problems beliving that to at least some poeple (as they've stated) to them Fiat isnt necessarily negative. Even though to it seems to me, the majority of us it very much comes across as something 'very bad'.