D&D 4E DM Fiat Supreme in 4e

[Rechan]

Wait, I thought 4e was reducing the DM to an adventure running simulator?

Gah, can't keep track of all the claims!

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I am not so sure...

First, DM Fiat never really went away. But while the DM can still define success in many cases, there are still cases where he cannot do so without cheating.

Further more, there are some actions where success or failure is pretty much spelled out directly in the rules. While a successful Social Encounter for the players may not result in a crime lord becoming a friend, and grant only grudging co-operation, things like a Jump and Climb check are still pretty black and white. Make a given DC, and you are going to be able to cover X distance or climb Y slope.

In any event, I never really bought into the idea of 3rd edition putting too many things into the hands of the players to the detriment of a DMs ability to run the game. And I have not read anything that sounds like a big rollback of a players ability to generally do things.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Midknightsun]

Originally Posted by Warbringer
With more DM fiat will players accept that DM A does something different from DM B?

I think so. Even in 3.5, almost every DM has some house rules that other DMs don't use. Every group plays differently, so if you're not willing to flex a little bit, then you'll probably not be playing very much.


Quote:
In 3e players had near equal ownership of the rules, not having that anymore may be difficult for players weened on 3e


As long as DMs keep control of themselves I think it will be fine. If giving the DM more room to maneuver within the rules makes the game more fun, then players should enjoy it. I think the people who complain about that the most will be the rules lawyering players who use their knowledge of the DM's rules (monster stats, etc) to metagame or min-max. But you'll never please those types anyway unless you let them "win" all the time.

I endorse this response. The theme here that I have seen across many posts is one of trust. If you don't trust your DM, then anything that "colors outside the line" is going to set your hairs standing on end. But even a decent DM can make some creative fudgery work better than the normal expectations given within the rules. At least in my case, this has been true. My players trust me to give them interesting adventures. Sometimes that requuires something a little unexpected. . . .something that pulls them out of their comfort zone enough to create a little bit of anxiety and uncertainty. But a DM who uses the mighty rule zero to completely screw his players over and over will rightly be disliked.

The problem comes from some individual differences and tolerances for how far from the RAW a DM can wander. For this, I can only say, and have seen, that sometimes those people are just not a good fit for each other and should find different groups.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Actually I don't think many ignorant DMs have ever been stopped by rules-lawyers. And again we are talking about problems pertaining to the personality of the players and/or DMs.
An inexperienced GM will make mistakes and no ruleset can fix this. Nor should it! But if he is not an idiot about his blunders and mistakes he will learn from them and it won't hurt the gaming experience of group much. And eventually he will become a good GM. If he is unwilling to adapt and learn he will ruin every game, but neither the ignorance nor the "learning from mistakes" is directly related to the amount of scaffolding a ruleset provides.

I think there is a difference between inexperienced and bad DMs.

No rulebook in the world can protect you from a bad DM (except of course the rulebook you use to hit him over the head).
But a good rulebook can do a lot to help an inexperienced DM. Not neccessarily because the rules itself are great or self-explainatory, but because it warns him from the typical DM pitfalls and can give him pointers how to make DMing easier for him and better for his players...

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't agree that there's a significant change here between 3e and 4e.

One example: In 3e, skum are created by aboleths from human stock. Feasibly this is something that could happen to a PC. However there are no rules for this whatsoever. Aboleths have no powers or SLAs which do this. The fluff text says it happens but the how is left entirely to the DM.

This looks exactly like a 4e monster's 'plot powers'.

 

[takasi]

If someone could show me one specific rule that has been verified that increases DM fiat and makes the rules intentionally grey then this conversation would be far more interesting to me.

 

[Gundark]

Bah. Even in "equal rules" mode, any DM still could do as much railroading or DM fiat as he wanted.

agreed "equal footing" was an illusion

 

[Doug McCrae]

But a good rulebook can do a lot to help an inexperienced DM. Not neccessarily because the rules itself are great or self-explainatory, but because it warns him from the typical DM pitfalls and can give him pointers how to make DMing easier for him and better for his players...

Interesting point. The intro to the OD&D supplement Deities & Demigods mentions TSR's concern with Monty Haul DMs. The 1e DMG warns against the Scylla and Charybdis of Killer DMing and Monty Haulism. The problem is, Gary didn't give clearcut examples of what these consist of. It took until 3e's wealth-by-level guidelines and the CR system for these issues, which had clearly been concerns almost since the very beginning, to be systematically addressed.

 

[Dragon Snack]

If someone could show me one specific rule that has been verified that increases DM fiat and makes the rules intentionally grey then this conversation would be far more interesting to me.

I think it's based on this...

The DM is NOT handwaving it. He's using the guidelines for DCs, defenses, modifiers, damage, and other factors by level that are in the DMG.

Not quite DM fiat, but not codified rules either.

In the specific example, the Bugbear Strangler has an ability that is (currently) unavailable to the PCs.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

Actually I don't think many ignorant DMs have ever been stopped by rules-lawyers. And again we are talking about problems pertaining to the personality of the players and/or DMs.
An inexperienced GM will make mistakes and no ruleset can fix this. Nor should it! But if he is not an idiot about his blunders and mistakes he will learn from them and it won't hurt the gaming experience of group much. And eventually he will become a good GM. If he is unwilling to adapt and learn he will ruin every game, but neither the ignorance nor the "learning from mistakes" is directly related to the amount of scaffolding a ruleset provides.

Hell, I've been a DM for 10 years, been playing for 15 and still make mistakes or bad rules calls once in a while