Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 9630402" data-attributes="member: 23751">It's organic.  If they say something that forces me to respond in a way that something that wasn't there before is now, they've caused it to be in the game.I mean, you can think the Earth revolves around the moon for all that I care, and you'd be just as accurate! Everything you described there is a DM being adversarial.  Outright saying no via tampering, the perpetrator knowing, etc. is the DM countering the player declarations without cause, which is both adversarial and bad faith DMing.The DM could make it some sort of skill check and on a failure those things might happen, but outside of corner cases, the answer either needs to be yes or reasonable chance of success via a roll.  Objectivity the way we are using it doesn't need to be 100%.  What we write down is objectively true for for the fictional mystery, but that doesn't mean that everything possible has been written down.  That's a useless definition of DM fiat. It broadens to the point where it confuses things greatly.  A DM making a decision within the rules of the game is not using fiat.  He's using rules.  To be fiat you need to step outside of the rules.And adding their ideas.  If I didn't think of it and it gets added to the game it wasn't my idea that came into play.  Yes, their ability to bring ideas into the game is much more limited than a player facing game, but its not 100% DM like you keep implying.  I can be forced by the social contract to act in good faith and add what they thought of into the game.</blockquote>

Verification