D&D 4E DM Fiat Supreme in 4e

[Warbringer]

DM fiat seems to be regaining power in 4e, back I would argue to its 1e roots

Sure, player rules are far better codified by the looks of it, but narritive imperitive seems to have taken front stage again, rather than DMs building in the same rule set as players..

This begs the question, will playing in different groups be more difficult?

With more DM fiat will players accept that DM A does something different from DM B?

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

 

[Generico]

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.

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.

 

[Protagonist]

I agree that it allows for more DM flexibility (a good thing in my option, both as a player and a gm).

There might be a few players unwilling to adapt to this (the "equal rules for everyone" crowd) but i think that's more of a player problem than a fault of 4E seeing as all other roleplaying systems* I habe ever played are even more "free form" than 4E.



*original CoC, Shadowrun, Deadlands Classic, Paranoia

 

[Fenes]

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

 

[sinecure]

DM fiat seems to be regaining power in 4e, back I would argue to its 1e roots

Sure, player rules are far better codified by the looks of it, but narrative imperative seems to have taken front stage again, rather than DMs building in the same rule set as players..

This begs the question, will playing in different groups be more difficult?

Narrative imperative! Damn, that's just cool to say. To answer your question: no. Playing in a different group will not be more difficult than before. There is still a baseline set of core D&D rules. Everybody house rules something though. Even if it's just what feats and magic items are allowed in. Enough commonality exists to switch between 3e and 2e without too much difficulty.

With more DM fiat will players accept that DM A does something different from DM B?

I would hope so. A group of players can suggest to DMs how to run their game. Just like I can suggest to you how to play your character.

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

3e ownership by the players was cool until you realized that it was the official label that made it mandatory. There will still be plenty of official rules to ply the DM with. Any group can decide for themselves how to play anyways, right?

 

[Jack99]

DM fiat seems to be regaining power in 4e, back I would argue to its 1e roots

and that is a mighty good thing.

 

[Nymrohd]

I know it did not much affect me in 3E and will probably help me a bit in 4E, but then again I have been playing with the same group since I was 14. I cannot help but be a bit concerned about new DMs that have not fully understood that they are there to facilitate play and not their enjoyment abusing DM fiat in 4E when in 3E they could have been stopped by a rules-lawyer. DM fiat makes great gaming in an experienced DM's hands but in an inexperienced ones it can beget inconsistency and reinforce an antagonist position.

 

[Protagonist]

in 3E they could have been stopped by a rules-lawyer.

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.

 

[jaer]

I am glad for this change, really. I've been with the same group for many years. In 2nd edition, if I pulled something out of a hat, it was simply accepted. After being in 3e for a while, the first reaction was to think everything must be from the book.

When something happened that was out of scope with what players knew, they always asked "how is he doing that?" and "how is this possible?" If they ran across something they thought should be a spell and they couldn't dispell it (because it was more than a spell, more than a simple dispell magic could possible get), they chalked it up to "The DM doesn't want us to do this" not "there is more out there than I know about." Or they came across an NPC that had some odd ability, my players immediately start trying to figure out what PrC the character is and "oh crap, if he has that, he must be 5 levels above us!"

Even though I was modifying things for the story, they typically expected me to follow the rules, and when something went against what they expected, they felt I was cheating. This wasn't a horrible problem, but it made them apprehensive about it.

I hope the new rules do put more emphasis on the fact that there is more out there than what PCs can do. Not because I need to know that to DM the way I want, but so that my players don't immediately feel like I am cheating when things don't go the way they think they should. If 4e emphasizes that NPCs and monsters could have unique things players can never hope to do or that some powers might fit together in a way a PC could not manage, I'd be happy.

 

[Vayden]

Yeah, I remember the first time a nasty fey giant moved up to me and then made a full attack I freaked out and got completely out of character for a minute. Then I realized my DM in that game was home-brewing, remembered that he's a good DM, and relaxed and enjoyed a good fight.