D&D 4E DM Fiat Supreme in 4e

[jaer]

As for DMs building in the same rule set as players, when I DMed my 3e campaign, I did this really strange thing - I didn't follow the rules. I built NPCs with the features they needed and didn't bother with stuff that was irrelevant. I didn't necessarily concern myself if an NPC had all the required prerequisites for a feat because the players would never know that anyway. Some people might say I was cheating, but now I know I was just ahead of my time and already using 4e ideas.

I had one player who challenged me about an "illegal" NPC build. I explained to him that I didn't have the time to stat out everything to the RAW and just wanted to make an interesting challenge for the players. I asked him if he was enjoying the game, he said he was, and whether he wanted to take a turn at DMing, which he said he didn't.

At which point my players would still say..."but that's an illegal build" and my only come back is "it's not illegal...I am the DM." I don't always follow the rules and at no point have I lost a player because of it. But the expectation in 3e is for equality between PC and NPC, so when it does not happen, my players will sometimes note it and be jarred by it.

It sounds as though 4e is taking that expectation out. This does not effect how I DM, but rather how my players react to and accept my DMing. If it is expected that the DM and the NPCs do follow slightly different rules than the players, then that can only help me when I divert from what the PCs know and are capable of.

 

[kennew142]

As it stands, my players expect that any elf they meet is like them, and that the only progression the elf has is through classes with the same feat and skill selections they have (and the potential template). They expect an elven wizard to have spells that they can have and an elven fighter to fight the same way their fighter does, because the game is set up that way, with very specific permeters as to how such a creature is advanced.

My players know these rules, and therefore, when something happens that is not within the bounds of rules, they view me as cheating. In their mind, an NPC elf should not be able to have a build/powers/feats that an PC elf could not also have (if they so chose).

I have one player like this. Whenever a monster does something out of the ordinary, his response is, "Shouldn't this work like X?" I have to admit that it drives me crazy.

In some ways, the default assumptions of 3e tried to replace the traditional GM role with the role of a game facilitator. I had never had so many players (I run a lot at conventions and game days) intruding on the GM's creative space and rules adjudicating authority as I had in 3e. Backing away from this can't help but to improve the game. IMO this is the direction that the designers are heading. I hope I'm right.

 

[Mallus]

I never had any problems using DM Fiat under 3.0/3.5.

Then again, my "DM authority" is the product of the informal social agreement between me and my players. It isn't derived from the particular rule set we're using.

 

[Spinachcat]

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

I look forward to their wailing cries! May their quaking heartache feed my gaming table's desire for pain! May my D20s see their fear and roll criticals against them!

It's good to be the DM again!

 

[jdrakeh]

Well, in fairness, this kind of fiat is the quickest, most familiar, way to achieve a simplified rule set. They could have gone with something new and different like shared DM duties but that arguably would have been so far out in left field that it would alienate far more folks than a nod to methods frequently employed in past editions of D&D is likely to.

 

[architect.zero]

Wow, this thread just floors me.

It's been many years since I've run into the social meta game issues that seem to have arisen with some of you folks with regards to GM vs. Player expectations. I can't remember the last time where there wasn't an understanding by every member of the group that the game belongs to the group.

I have not been involved in a single successful RPG that was in any way adversarial between the GM and the Players; where we had to worry about whether or no the GM was out to make our (the players') lives miserable, not just the PCs.

I truly believe that an RPG cannot provide any rules that will magically make the social aspect of a game better. That's something best not even attempted by the rules, though a section in the DMG and in the PHB regarding good gaming etiquette would be very useful for new comers.

That being said... what I see happening with 4e is an acknowledgment of one primary concept: the DM does far more work than any of the other players, we should simplify that role so that more people become DMs, and thus more games get played.

 

[Mephistopheles]

This can lead to not only some really whacky game rules combos, but can really bog down the game as the poor DM and players try to figure out how spell A reacts with creature B, or how feat C changes the whole nature of the grappling rules.

Or as players try to sift through all the material to find the "best" options for them. I have one player in my game who approaches each new level with a sense of dread as option paralysis sets in.

In future campaigns, whether we're playing 3E, 4E, or something else altogether, I'll be defining a pretty limited set of source books and sticking to it throughout.

 

[Dragonblade]

Or as players try to sift through all the material to find the "best" options for them. I have one player in my game who approaches each new level with a sense of dread as option paralysis sets in.

I have seen this before, but rarely. When I DM I have solved this problem by telling the player in question that if they take a feat or class option they later regret I'm open to allowing them change their mind if they later become unhappy with their choice. They have to ask me first and justify why they want to change, though. I also caution them not to abuse the privilege or I'll take it away.

This has worked well. Most of the reason players agonize over these decisions is because they fear being stuck with a poor choice for their PC's career.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

Not to nitpick, but this quote is really not an example of DM fiat. In fact, using the guidelines for DCs, defenses, etc. *is* following the rules 100%; it's just that the rules used to build monsters are different from the rules used to build PCs. They're still rules, though.

It seems to me that rather than encouraging DM fiat, 4e may be using the rules more *efficiently* than 3e. IMO, rules in RPGs exist to create a consistent set of expectations for the players; a player can know that if his character does X, then Y result will occur with Z probability. 3e did this well. However, it added a layer of complexity by requesting the DM to follow rules that had no effect in terms of creating a consistent set of player expectations, because the players had no access to the effect of those rules in play.

When a PC party in my game faces an aboleth Psi7/Sav5, they have no way of knowing what its powers and stats are, much less any way of knowing how I got there. The idea that I have to build this monster like a player would his PC is, IMO, pretty absurd. Now, if I have the monster do something to break a rule which is transparent to the player (for example, it full attacks, moves, and then full attacks again), I'd better have a good explanation of why (at least to myself), but 4e doesn't seem to be ditching that idea.

 

[kennew142]

When a PC party in my game faces an aboleth Psi7/Sav5, they have no way of knowing what its powers and stats are, much less any way of knowing how I got there. The idea that I have to build this monster like a player would his PC is, IMO, pretty absurd. Now, if I have the monster do something to break a rule which is transparent to the player (for example, it full attacks, moves, and then full attacks again), I'd better have a good explanation of why (at least to myself), but 4e doesn't seem to be ditching that idea.

I could have written this sentiment myself, but I didn't. Someone beat me to it.

I've never liked the term GM fiat myself, because it smacks of the GM doing whatever the heck he wants. IMO this is not a good thing. But the GM who follows the rules that are transparent to the character (I really love that phrasing BTW), is not using GM fiat when he designs or modifies a monster. One of the problems IMO with 3e was the default assumption that monsters had to follow the same rules of design as players. Not only did this make for more work, it also made for some poorly designed (and over-designed) villains. I'm glad that 4e seems to be changing this default assumption in the game.