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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Skyscraper" data-source="post: 5628876" data-attributes="member: 48518">My perspective on the question of DM power vs. rule structure comes down to one word: balance.It's clear that DMs choose a lot of things to base the story on, from the environment to the encounter design. Once the challenge is set, it's not a far stretch to allow for some on-the-scene DM fiat also. However, if the DM pulls this off too often for the taste of his players, they won't like it. So really it's a question of balance, where player and DM intuition and mutual understanding is key.As an example, as DM in 4E, I had a juggernaut (construct) charge a PC and end its move next to a fire-trapped wall behind that PC. I decided that the charge actually included the juggenaut running into the wall and triggering the fire trap. The trap attacked both the juggernaut and a couple of adjacent PCs (and left a fire zone for the encounter for the players and monsters to use with forced movements). Another example: in another battle, a wizard PC casts a Scroching Burst against an enemy archer standing on crates filled with oil flasks. Result: the crates exploded, sending bodies flying.This was DM fiat. This is not something I'd do all the time, because players would get bored and just wonder when the next Jack-out-of-the-box would spring on them. But I feel that sprinkling a bit of this kind of stuff around makes for interesting outcomes. The players tell me they like it, so our group is defininely on par on that topic which is of course very important. In fact, my players sometimes aim to have stuff like the above happen. For example, the same wizard recently put a rooftop on fire with his Scorching Burst, where archers were firing from.The option of strictly refusing to deviate from RAW (no on-the-scene decisions like described above, consequently) IMO takes away some potentially very fun elements both during battles but also outside of battle.So it's a question of balance. Too much DM fiat (or use of rule-0) and the players don't know where to stand. On the other hand, a rigid rules structure confines you within a box, and what RPG game designer can boast to have foreseen all potential outcomes in any given RPG situation? None that I've seen up to now in the many game systems I've tried.About the statement that bad DMs will abuse flexibility if any is allowed. I'm with Mearls on this one. I think that this kind of situation takes care of itself: either players will talk to their DM and discuss their dislike of his approach; and if he persists the players will simply not play for him. I don't feel that a game needs to be so strictly structured to allow people that lack judgement to be able to play the same as others. (And I don't feel that the game's role is to teach judgement to people with bad judgement, either.)</blockquote>

Verification