Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RFisher" data-source="post: 3359432" data-attributes="member: 3608">I both agree & disagree.To take the first example that comes to mind in my current (classic D&D) campaign: There was a wight in a sarcophagus. It took multiple PCs to move the heavy lid. When they realized that there was something inside, they only moved the lid a little bit, poured in some oil, & followed it with a torch.There's virtually no DM fiat there. Neither did it use any rules beyond the damage burning oil inflicts & the duration it burns for.The wight, of course, tried to move the lid so it could escape. The dwarf clambered on top of it to make it harder. I had the player make a Dex check each round to stay on the lid while the increasingly desperate wight attempted to escape. I slowly increased the difficulty.So, this part depended upon some DM calls, but nothing that would be out of place, I think, in a 3e game. It just would have been a Balance check instead. Call it "DM fiat" if you wish, though. I don't mind.The rest of the combat ran pretty much by-the-book.Would this combat have been any more interesting or significantly different if we'd be playing 3e instead? Would this combat have been any less interesting if I had made different calls as DM?In truth, I don't know.There are plenty of things you can do in classic D&D combat that can make it more than just hp attrition, which aren't spelled out in the rules yet don't require DM fiat. Out flank/surround your opponent. Concentrate your party's resources on your opponents' weakest point. Find a position where you can prevent/delay a monster with no ranged attacks from closing while you take them down with missile fire. Figure out how to close to melee range with a monster with a strong ranged/area of effect attack with minimal exposure to that attack. Take & hold strategic locations that allow you to deal with a horde of opponents in small, bite-sized chunks. Set up an ambush & lure the monster into it. Use defensive formations. Minimize the damage from an area of effect by using a spread out formation. Do whatever you can to increase the chances of disrupting their casters while decreasing the chances of them disrupting your casters. &c. ad nauseum. You don't need a complex system to do these things.(& there are plenty of things that can make combats more interesting that are in the classic D&D rules: burning oil, turning undead, spells, monster special abilities/cases. So, I guess I have to conceed that complications can be part of the equation too.)But...DM fiat does have a role to play as well.I don't really see much different in having written rules that tell me that a certain option isn't worth the risk v. the DM telling me so. There's always the chance that the rules will say, "Umm...nope, sorry, that doesn't work." I don't really see much difference in the DM choosing a DC for a climb check based on the circumstances v. the DM just telling me that the climb will be trivial & not require a roll or that--based on the circumstances & my abilities--I'll have to roll X on YdZ.OK, actually I do see a difference: In either case, the group needs to comes up with an answer that is sufficiently adequate for the group. In one case it consists of figuring out how to interpret written rules to get the desired result. In the other, it doesn't.DM fiat is a huge part (if not the thing) of what makes the game worthwhile for me. But with caveats: Most actions don't need rules, ad hoc or otherwise; just simple rulings that aren't going to be controversial. With less certain situations, the group should discuss it--(not necessarily a long discussion)--whether there are rules that apply & DCs to choose or just a general coming up with a chance of success/failure. The DM may have the final say, but his choice should be informed by the group. The goal is that--as much as possible--the results are acceptible to everyone at the table, whether there were written rules available or not. Rules that don't give the desired results are just as bad as bad DM fiat. Groups should also have post mortems to determine what worked, what didn't, why, & how everyone can work to make the experience better in the future.But, hey, that's just what seems to work for me, FWIW. It seems that doesn't work for other groups, & that's cool. Whatever works for you.</blockquote>

Verification