D&D 4E DM Fiat Supreme in 4e

[kennew142]

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.

Having a GM who is adversarial with his players (and vice versa) is the surest way to ruin a campaign. The GM must be in charge, but shouldn't assume a my way or the highway approach to gaming. It is always important to keep in mind that it is a game, and games should be fun. That seems trite, but it's also true.

I hope that a game etiquette section will be in the next edition, but probably not.

 

[Flynn]

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.

I honestly think this is the reason why so many have suffered 3E Burnout over the last year or so: the game reached a point where it was far too much work for the DM in many cases. The simplification of the DM's job is perhaps the single biggest selling point of the entire change in editions for me. Make it easier for me to run it without burning out, and I'll run more games, which means my group buys more product. If it becomes too much of a hassle, I will find another system and run that, because it is easier on me as a DM.

In regards to a concern about growing GM Fiat, I can only say that each DM is an individual, and some are better than others at handling various aspects of the game. That's just a fact. It's also a fact that you are not stuck with the DM you are playing with. If the guy doesn't run a game you like, you really should leave. There's always somewhere else you can go to game: other gaming groups, D&D Meetups, online gaming, etc. If you can read this post, then you can find a way to game with someone besides the guy that might be abusing your concept of GM Fiat.

It's your responsibility to find or create the kind of game you want to be in, not the gaming system's, and there are plenty of people here who can help you with that, should you need it. A smart GM will work with you if he really wants to keep you in the game, but he knows that, just as there are other games, there are also other gamers. It's all about give and take.

The moral of the story: don't get too wrapped up in these concerns, because it simply isn't worth it. If things go poorly in one group, you'll go out and find a GM you enjoy, no matter what 4E does as a system.

Hope That Helps,
Flynn

 

[Warbringer]

The more rules, the more lawyers.

and the winner of the thread is... Wormwood

 

[Orius]

To be honest, I don't really care how it's handled, as long as something like 3e's Rule #0 is still around, that is the DM can change a rule to suit his campaign if he chooses. As long as it's done either consistently or fairly, it sohuldn't make a big difference.

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.

That's probably because Gary left those issues to be decided by individual gaming groups. He played his game a certain way. Other DMs prefered either a higher or lower powered game.

 

[Dragon Snack]

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.

Like Rule 0?

If the DM is doing something that the players can't do (but should be able to do) it certainly seems like an arbitrary rule from above. That passes my sniff test for DM Fiat.