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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 3139617" data-attributes="member: 336">I understand your point and we've already agreed that no system will prevent abuse.The problem is the abuse, not the fact that the DM can make an arbitrary decision.In either game the outcome is still at the "mercy" of the DM.  In either system the DM does not have to tell the player that there are guards or where they are.In D&D, if a character misses his Spot roll he doesn't see the guard(s).  In the other game if the player misses the "agreed roll" he still doesn't see the guard(s).  The outcome is the same.  For all intents and purposes the guards fall under that "setting/situation creation and scene framing."  The DM does not have to tell the players on either game where the guards are.  So by carefully phrasing the "agreement" the DM can screw the players just as much.The game becomes one of those commercials with the narrator reading the "small script" very fast...  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> Like I said before, DM Fiat is not bad and for D&D it is appropriate.  DM Fiat for a boardgame is not bad, but it is not appropriate.  In the "agreement" game DM fiat is still there, it is just hidden behind the contract.When 3.0 came out one of the things they tried to do was give as many rules as possible to cover as many common situations as possible, so there would be no confusion as to how the game was meant to be played.  I remember somebody at WotC saying that the only thing they could not provide in the "box" was a good DM.  So they tried to level the playing field.  Those are all admirable goals.  But D&D is not a boardgame.  As soon as a player wants to do something that is not covered by the RAW, DM fiat comes into effect.  If it didn't, the standard answer to anything not covered by the rules would be, "you can't do that."  IMO, a good DM will try to stay within the "spirit" of the rules when he makes a ruling that is not covered by the rules.  He will even try to figure out a comparable mechanic to use.  But if the rules don't cover it, he is going to have to make a decision.  And when the rules do cover it, there are times when is still going to have to make a decision that "contradicts" the rules.I play to have fun.  There are many aspects of a game that impact fun.  For me, abuse of the rules, even by DM Fiat, impacts the fun.  However, I've seen more abuse of the rules by players than by DMs.Experience playing this game requires the DM to step on it a couple of times.  If everytime I made a bad ruling I had players up in arms crying about DM Fiat, I'd probably not DM.  Thankfully, my players are willing to concede that I'm human too.  We've been playing the game for a very long time and I have a pretty big group.  They all seem happy, as a matter of fact they are usually the ones prodding me to run more games.  I use DM Fiat ALL THE TIME, I just don't make it a point to screw players over.  When I am screwing them over, they have enough confidence in me that they know that at some point the screw will let up.  In other words there is a reason for the screw.  I don't have to explain it to them everytime.For those that have poor DMs or bad DMs, maybe you should talk to them and let them know what is going on.  Depending on that you have a choice to make, stay or go.  But if you stay at a bad game you have no one to blame but yourself.I've stepped out of several games that I did not like, because I was not having fun.  If I'm not having fun I'll let the DM know and give him a chance.  If he is an asshat, I just go find another game, or start my own.</blockquote>

Verification