When I read this definition, I was a bit surprised. Where I come from, the way people refer to GM rulings is with the phrase GM discretion. In fact, that's the way SR4 and every RPG book I can can recall put it. GM discretion means that the GM makes a decision according to their best judgment, rather than making a pronouncement.

Fiat denotes a decree, an arbitrary decision by which players are ostensibly forced to abide whether they like it or not. I have never played a game where the word fiat would apply to the GM's decisions - every GM I have ever had worked hard to make sure their decisions were fair and the players were ok with them. Part of it of course is that my fellow players have always been reasonably mature and won't argue with a GM's exercise of discretion just because it goes against them.

All in all, it seems that people use the word fiat as a slur on GM authority. Using fiat instead of discretion is saying that the GM's power is arbitrary, rather than based on fairness or common sense. Is this what people mean when they use fiat, or is it just a substitute word with no extra connotation the way most people use it?

Sometimes this can't be avoided though without giving away plot elements that would ruin the game. Suppose that vampire really isn't one, and the PCs are just lead to believe he is a vampire. If you gave them the logical answer they want (or even hint at it with some smarter players), you'd ruin part of the plot.

You know, I've re-read the thread, and just don't see even one example of something I would call a 'flame'. Would you be so kind as to point them out for me, so that I know what to look for next time?

...damn straight

But if GM starts making them they'll look like every other blandmobile on the road.

Er, that is a Fiat knock-off. So a mix of Italian practicality and Russian engineering and manufacturing acumen. Yeah, it's kinda like that.

Yeah, fiat denotes an authoritative arbitrary decision. Authoritative as in, coming from the authority. You know, the GM?

And you know what arbitrary means?

According to webster, it's a decision "depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law."

Ooh, look at that. The GM, as the arbiter of the game, makes discretionary decisions when confronted with situations not fixed by the BBB. Ooooh! Hiss! What an evil man. Way to use GM's fiat.

Hey, let's ban the term GM while we are at it. Game Master?! I recognize no master! I want a Play Concilor!

GM is the arbiter of the game. For the game to run smoothly he needs to make many decsion as the arbiter. Arbitrary decisions. Which doesn't mean they are bad, unreasonable and tyrannical decision.

For what? Building a bigger pile of poo than the next horse's rump?

Point, Set, and Match even.

Oh for fuck's sake, did anyone actually bother to read past the first line in the definition?

The problem normally comes in when it becomes, at least in the player's view, 3b (perhaps even 3a) which I've highlighted for your reading pleasure. That is the point of choosing a different word, to avoid confusion with that use.

It might not have in some places, but here you can almost gaurantee that it's being pulled up with bad intent, often to point out how horrible the idea of a game where the GM makes decisions is. That's why you'll see GM Discretion and GM Fiat in the same threads. Discretion is used by those that don't think it's a bad thing, while fiat is usually used by those who think it is.

Indeed. I mean eventually for stuff like that the GM has to make a ruling. A good GM will take into account various factors. Alot of times these factors wont be known (at least ahead of time) by the players. Thats part of the idea afterall.
The thing is often players dont necessarily think about what their doing. I mean if I pull a 'big run' that has potential for alot of fallout the first thing my chars tend to do is cut n' run for one of their safehouses, doing the best they can to make sure their not followed, and keep an ear to the ground as best they can for a little while to see if there is any serious heat after them.

Others though just bust right into an Ares compound, no disguises, show up on a quabillion cameras. ANd then casually waltz home never once looking over their shoulder to see if theri being followed etc.

In the latter case I've seen alot of those same players cry foul just because they got stupid and didnt want to pay for the all too obvious potential fallout. So I mean often I find (personally at least) that if some one complains about GM rulings it's because oh! It must be sooo unfair etc. In situations like that alot would claim the GM is simply saying this is happening just cause! Well no, in say the above example the reason is because you went in, shot a bunch of people, most of them probably totally innocent. You then jandered on back home never bothering to check to see if said powerful corp was still after you.

The GM may well have gone right to the rulebook, made one or more rolls for an NPC to tail you, and thats how you got tracked back. Its not even grandiose for the GM to work under the assumption that the corp would do that either. Afterall, by the fluff itself, Ares is not only one of the megas, but it's got a rep for being on the ruthless side of things.

So, at least personally thats why claims of a GM 'fiating' a situation to me at least has totally negative connotations. Since personally I expect an even remotely decent GM to use some sense and knowledge of the game, and entities as presented into consideration. Even if there arnt hardline rules for a certain situation. As long as they at least do their best to factor in everything they can. I consider it a ruling. And you can do that quite quickly and on the fly if you know the system/setting well enough too. As opposed to being purely based uppon your mere fancy at the time.

...very well put.

So many times a runner team (and as a PC I've been just a guilty at times - though KK4.3 actually is forgetful) just assumes that "oh, we're out of there" and heads back to the safehouse with nothing ever said about performing countermeasures (such as scanning themselves for RFID tags or erasing spell signatures). If they assume the GM takes into consideration they have some kind of a post run S.O.P. yet say nothing, in my campaigns they are badly mistaken.

So if several men in armoured suits approach one of the runners a week later and cart him off to some interrogation room, there is no crying "foul".

Did you or your GM remember to apply the veichle armor to the crash test? The average car adds 6 armor to your damage resistance tests in a crash.

I think PlatonicPimp might be. Because of the example he gives. SR4 does have rules for setting the Threshold. Including one (capping Thresholds at 4) that I think is for crap, and is dead to me. Sure it could have used more specifics, and Extended Tests have even weaker guidelines. But there are guidelines there and a lot of the time you are dealing with opposed tests anyway.

However IMO even with less guidelines than the BBB provides you do NOT require GM "fiat" to function. As long as they GM and players are in general agreement with how the world works, and over the longterm judgements the GM gives are consistant.

...I find that amusing too.

I put mechanics to the process of tracking down people of interest in part to try drive home to the players how it isn't just PCs that can do this. That it is something any character can attempt.

I don't think it is that so much, as (let's take the example above) when the GM just tells the PCs that they have been captured by the Mafia without giving them any chance whatsoever to resist. I mean, any decent GM could capture the PCs 'in-game' with little to no fuss if they put their mind to it, so just hand-waving the capture away as an off-stage event is what a lot of people would be complaining about.