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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Brimshack" data-source="post: 3139708" data-attributes="member: 34694">I actually find the question strange. When the GM has the final say, he has fiat, and there is nothig to debate. I am often disturbed by GMs who pretend they aren't making judgement calls, because often that means they simply aren't acknowledging options that are clearly available to them. I would rather the options were acknowledged and the GM took responsibility for his decisions instead of playing rules fundamentalist and pretending the books dictate his decisions.I think the real question for me at any rate is what constitutes reasonable use of fiat. For one thing, having the final word does not mean ignoring the input of the other players. A GM ought to be able to listen to the players before making a decision. Advance notice is good too. If a GM intends to play fast and loose with the rules the players need to be advised of this at the outset of a campaign. If a GM intends to stick as closely to te stated rules as he can manage, that too should be explained to the players. And GMs making decisions which substantially change the options available to players should announce these well in advance of the moment they become relevant. Players should not have to find out things how things work after they have made decisions on the basis of assumptions now contrary to fact.I also tend to favor keeping the wilder judgement calls to the character and situation process. I recently played in one campaign and a few games in another wheere each GM reserved significant options for the ongoing pay. One GM would arbirtrarily lower the HD of monsters and even their bonuses to damage in the middle of a battle. It's not that he decided to attack us with a bably Bullette; he simply realized it's normal damage would kill the character in one more attack, so suddenly it was too tired to get its damage bonus. ...took a lot of the fun out of the challenge. The other GM used fate points to enable him to completely alter the circumstances of an enouncter. You simply spent a fate point and the GM decided how much he wanted to change the circumstances, could be a little, could be a lot. So, the main challenge of the game was resolved, not by good play, but by affectively calling for a Deus ex machina. ...also took a lot of the challenge out of the game for me. Both of these examples strike me as bad use of GM's fiat, because they effectively amount to a GM introduced resolution to the game. I am more interested in seeing a GM use fiat to construct an interesting scenario and provide me with a set of tools to resolve it. I'm not too concerned about how fast and loose he is with the rules as he generates that set up, but I want it to result in a challenge for ME and the other players, not a token challenge that will be resolved on his own initiative.</blockquote>

Verification