Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 8727480" data-attributes="member: 23751">Reading that paragraph it seems like you are talking about railroading, which yes, is both abhorrent and robs player agency so that the DM can control the narrative.  Railroading includes illusionism that's virtually undetectable. That's not what I think of when I speak about DM fiat, though I suppose it is an abuse of it.When I talk about DM fiat and fictional changes, I'm talking about 1 of 2 things.First, the DM changing the lore or fudging something.  An example would be a DM stating that the Spellplague didn't happen in his Forgotten Realms.  I did that.  Another example would be the DM who placed an ancient dragon for the party to encounter, but because he knows that the party is down more resources than expected due to poor rolling, changes it to an adult dragon to make it a challenging encounter, rather than one that will probably kill a PC or two.Second, the rules change that affects the fiction.  This would be the DM only realizing that the ancient dragon was beyond the player resources after the encounter has begun, and lowering the AC and some hit points to make the fight easier.  Or making it so that his game uses the Gritty Realism rules.  These are rules changes that also change the fiction.The DM fiat you describe above is already covered under the term Railroading, so think it just confuses things to include it here as well by a different name.I don't understand the assertion that leaving it up to fortune is not nearly as powerful as altering the fiction.  Almost every change to a rule via a ruling is going to have profound effects on the fiction, regardless of the method of introduction(random chance vs. choosing).Let's take the infinite wish simulacrum hack.  If you rule that it doesn't work, it drastically changes the capability of wizards to interact with the world in a major, major, visible way.  They no longer can.  If you rule that it does work, then wizards can easily reshape reality on a daily basis.  Unless you rule that the first wizard to figure out the trick used 100000 or so wishes to ensure that anyone who tries it later fails and dies.  It doesn't matter whether you rule for or against it by chance or intentionally, the fiction is going to be affected in a large way.Well, yeah.  The DM has the ability to drop mountains on a city just because he says, "A group of cultists uncovered a rare tome that taught them how to do it."  DM fiat is tremendously powerful, which is why it is both the best tool in the DM's toolbox and the most dangerous if abused.  It's not really measurable, but we can estimate that rulings that change both rules and the fiction are at least as powerful as those that only change the fiction.An alteration of the rules by the DM falls under the "rulings over rules" mantra.  "Rulings" in the context that 5e uses the term isn't just for adjudicating rules issues.  It's also rules changes.  Fudging is in the DMG as a DM tool in 5e by the way, so a DM altering hit point after being previously established would not be a ruling, it would be RAW.</blockquote>

Verification