Hussar said:
Here's another example. In a recent discussion with some other DM's we were talking about a situation in one of the games being run. The party faced off with a young red dragon. The dragon was kicking the party's butt when one of the players, a gnomish barbarian (ok that one's a little weird to me too) announced that he wanted to intimidate the dragon. In 3.5 rules, if successful, the dragon would have some penalties to attack in the next round. A number of DM's flat out said they would NEVER allow a PC to intimidate a dragon, regardless of the rules. When I asked why not, I was told that dragons can never be intimidated, because, well, they're dragons.
To me, this is a gross violation of DM's powers. There is no reason to automatically rule failure. The barbarian's chances were pretty slim anyway (IIRC, he needed a 19 or a 20), but that's beside the point. It wouldn't matter to them if the chances were 100%, they would still rule that the PC had zero chance of success. Most of the justifications were what I would call, story based. I reject that. I do not feel it is the DM's role to automatically rule one way or the other. When the players take an action that has a chance of success, then let the dice decide. That it's "stupid" is not a reason for DM's fiat.
This example, I think, goes to the core of what this discussion is about. The mindset that if it is in the rules that it should be allowed.
Personally, I would very rarely allow a Dragon to be intimidated, especially in the situation above. If the Dragon were losing the fight, then maybe there is a chance to intimidate him, but with the dragon winning, there just is no way that it will happen, regardless of who is attempting it. The fact that the character attempting to intimidate the dragon is a Gnome, would just give it a negative modifier (or raise the DC, which amounts to the same thing).
Since Dragons tend to be the most powerful and dangerous monsters in most settings, and being intelligent as well, I would personally rule that attempting to intimidate them would be an ABsurd maneuver at the very least (Absurd would equate having a DC of at least 40, possibly higher for older dragons). These are creatures that know that they are baddest of the bad, thus they would not be open to intimidation very often.
In the way that I view things, GMs have several duties and responsibilities. I listed some of these in the GMing section of the HARP rulebook. Here is a partial list:
- Know the rules - or at least know where to find them. In HARP, this isn't difficult as not only does it provide the basic rules and resolution methods, but also tells how to use them when something unexpected comes along.
- The Rules are not set in stone - In other words, if there is a rule that the GM disagrees with, feel free to change it, and yes, it says to let the players know when the GM has changed a rule so that they are not playing under false assumptions.
- Don't change the rules in the middle of a session - unless a rule is really disruptive to the game, wait until afterwards, and then let players know you are changing it. It also says to be wary of any rule changes that might require players to rework their characters.
- Be consistent - Having the same action work multiple ways in the same session is a bad thing, it will cause players to lose faith in the GM. More enjoyment is found (normally) in having the knowledge that things will work in a consistent manner.
- Be flexible - Nothing will ever go according to plan when players are involved. Deal with it and move on.
- There is always a chance - This one is not actually listed in the book because it is built into the HARP system itself, but I figure it deserves mention here. No matter what the players want to try, there should always be a chance of success. This chance could be extremely slim (like requiring that two 20's be rolled in a row), but it should always be there given reasonable circumstances.
To put it another way, it is the GM's job to make sure that the campaign setting runs in a smooth, consistent manner. If the rules being used for the game do not allow this, then he needs to change those rules, but he also needs to inform players of any changes as well. Disallowing something (a class or Feat or PrC) that does not fit in with his vision of the campaign setting is not only the right of a GM, but it is also his duty.
This is not to say that a player cannot ask for something to be allowed. Of course they can, but they should not EXPECT it just because it is in the rules. A good GM will work WITH his players to see if there might be some way to allow it, but this does not mean that he will or should allow it just because it comes in an official book.
With the sheer number of classes, feats, and PrCs, it is impossible to gauge how every single one will interact with one another in every possible combination. Some combinations will be severely broken (IIRC, the Hulking Hurler?), even from "official" sources. The GM has the responsibility to make sure that nothing like that gets into his game as it will quite likely ruin the game for those without the uber-combo.
On the topic of GM Fiat, it has to be remembered that the GM knows a lot more about what is going on in the setting than the players do. Part of the game is the players exploring and finding out.
For example, in one game, the players were ambushed by Kobolds who were using Dwarven weapons, and a couple even had Dwarven armor. The players asked what they were doing with those. My response was "You don't know, now do you? How are you gonna find out?"
I gave the same response later when they discovered that they were being followed by a kobold in a town where they themselves had trouble entering (entrance to the town was tightly controlled).
I used these events as plot hooks, to give the players some goals to accomplish. There were things that went against the normal rules, but I had the reasons why all worked out in advance, and it became part of the goals of the group to find out what was going on.
In other words, what you might have called "GM Fiat" was actually something planned and setup to give the party a mystery to look into.
