Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6228802" data-attributes="member: 59082">You speak of Fiat like its an approach taken in all situations; I see it as more of being when needed to improve or augment the game. As I said before, let's say the big bad monster is on its last legs with 76 HP and the rogue scores a critical hit for 67 HP of damage; I'm going to "fudge" that and offer a kill - and not tell the players that the monster "really" had 76 HP, because in my view it didn't "really" have 76 HP - it had 67.Yes, of course. But what I mean by "in a practical sense" is that the GM can always find his way around something if he really wants. Thus my Tarrasque example. A GM, in my view, can also create a reason for something happening or not happening and not have to explain to the players via the rules - citing page numbers and such. That's the GM's prerogative. I would add...as long as he has a good reason to do what he chooses to do, a GM can do anything. Of course this opens the door for GM abuse, but if the GM is a reasonably mature human being that shouldn't be a problem.As far as I can tell, all editions of D&D have said that, that "Rule Zero" is in effect (DM Fiat).What you describe, to me, places the GM as more of another player, the player who plays "everyone else," and less as the story-teller.I think this is the heart of the matter, of our disagreement, and where (I think) you veer from traditional D&D - in every edition. The GM cannot "cheat." Or at least, they can emply Rule Zero to alter a situation as they deem necessary. This doesn't mean that a GM should do whatever they damn well please whenever they damn well want to, especially when a player is being annoying. It is their job to remain impartial, to be a fair judge (referee), and to be willing to engage in discussion with players, even disagreements, about rulings. A good GM, in my view, is willing to change their mind - but not because "the rules say so" but because the player presents a good argument as to why the ruling should be changed that out-weighs whatever reason the GM had for making the ruling in the first place.So I don't think a GM can cheat as much as break the "contract of trust," so to speak, but being biased or unfair. So I think the difference here as to do with both the nature of GM power, and whether rules are scene as absolute laws or guidelines - or to what degree. I've never played in a game of D&D in which the rules were absolute laws, or the DM didn't employ Rule Zero (Fiat) to some extent (the trick, though, is doing so without the player's realizing it).First of all, I don't see how the two definitions you offer are contradictory. But the latter part is perhaps where we disagree, and where I say that even if these resources lead to "binding" outcomes, the GM can still find a way around that if he really wants to, thus has absolute power in a practical sense.This is why I'm putting emphasis not on rules-as-absolute, but on what could be called the social covenant, the "contract of trust." The players are deciding to trust the judgment and fairness of the GM, and the GM is in turn pledging to be fair and just.I'm open either way, but I still think there is some relationship between "rules weight" and imagination, at least in some facets of the game.None of which is antithetical to what I was saying above...the difference being that I reserve the right (as GM) to use Fiat if I deem it necessary to the improvement of the game, and the overall enjoyment of the players.I disagree. Its just that it requires the players to think imaginatively, the GM to think on the fly, to provide some kind of target number for the player to roll against.You can still do this in 4e, but the problem is that page 42 is in the background, and behind the "density" of the AEDU system.(i) Is not entirely true in that I'm not saying it is as much "limited" as it employs a system of options that effectively lead to a de-emphasis on improvisation.(ii) As I said above, I disagree with this. PCs can do anything in every edition of D&D. A good DM/GM will allow a PC to try anything they can imagine. Just like a good teacher will never say, "Bad question," a good GM will never say "You can't do that." They might say, "That will be very, very difficult, but go ahead and try..."It may boil down to what degree you and I prefer to have resources defined. I prefer less definition, which I feel allows for (or encourages) more improvisation.</blockquote>

Verification