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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 3145442" data-attributes="member: 6777">What I have gathered from this thread, Monte's most recent article in Dungeon, the DMG, DMG2, what I've seen of Dungeon Master for Dummies, and the host of articles on DM'ing I've read over the years is this:Running D&D is about the art of using DM power responsibly, consistently, and fairly, i.e., always making sure that the players have a choice. So, to back away from the side-trek I took us on earlier: Yes, fiat is part of D&D. Especially outside of combat, the game can't move forward without it.So, what makes a DM "good" or "bad" is their understanding and application of the above, and the players' reaction towards it. Ergo, D&D is very dependent, IMO, on the people at the table. As I've seen many times IRL and online, peoples' conception of "what D&D is" or "how D&D works" will vary wildly depending on that mix of people. My point about Burning Wheel and similar games was how that variance is often diminished in games with more focused, less-fiat-dependent systems.I've found that I enjoy D&D the most when the DM is sticking pretty closely to the rules as-written, and using their power of fiat to enhance the core game D&D describes: fighting and looting in interesting locales. The further a group deviates from this core game, especially when the rules start taking a back seat to DM fiat, the more I find myself feeling unsatisfied.(This is why I really like finding rules add-ons that flesh out some of the non-combat stuff, like Dynasties & Demagogues debate rules, or Affiliations from PHB2, and so on. Ditto actually making use of social skills like Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, etc. These make me feel a lot more comfortable when the game strays away from the battlemat.)</blockquote>

Verification