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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 3790456" data-attributes="member: 467">As someone who believes this to be the case, I'll give you my opinion on the matter, which i am sure is nowhere enar universal.The bogeyman of "DM fiat" crops up in D&D discussions -- on messageboards, in person, now and as far back as the old Dragon forum section -- and generally used in a negative manner.  It suggests that DM "power" -- the responsibility to interpret the rules, the ability to say both "yes" and "no", and the final arbiter of what happens at the table -- will inevitably lead to corruption, as the old saying goes.The best way to combat this, as shown through the entire life of D&D, not just 3E or 4E, has been twofold.  First, codifying more and more aspects of the game into rules, to cover more and more scenarios and circumstances, reduced DM power and therefore his/her ability to mistreat the players and their characters because players, particularly rules lawyers types, can point out in the rule book that the DM is doing it "wrong".  if there isn't a rule in the book to cover a situation, or if the rules are vague or the book gives a "rule" that is explicitely a suggestion -- as is often the case in the AD&D 1E DMG -- the DM maintains his "power" to determine the situation, the chances of success or whatever else is important and fun about the situation.The other method by which DM power is reduced is through the ever increasing choices available to the players in building characters.  It isn't that options are bad, or even that certain options might be "broken" or "overpowered" (that's a separate issue).  And options by themselves wouldn't be particularly troublesome.  But most "options" available to players are exceptions to the aforementioned ever expanding set of rules.  By codifying a process or type of action, and then providing a method for a PC to take extra advantage of those codified rules, the Dm is put in the position of having to go farther to challenge the PC (note that the difference between challenging the players vs. their PCs is an associated issue, but not necessarily directly related to DMs losing "power").Of course, DM's are free to limit options allowed in their campaigns.  In theory, anyway.  But when a game's publication schedule is dominated by player-oriented material -- as 3E's has been throughout its life -- the game-culture becomes such that these new options are directed at players, who buy the books and therefore "should" have access to the material.Obviosuly, neither of these issues are universal and social contracts, trust and shared responsibilities for everyone elses' fun can mitigate these things.  but if any of those mitigating factors is wanting, trouble can ensue.  The worst I ever experienced was when a player in a high level 3.5 game was enraged because the BBEG's method of tracking and attacking the party wasn't something directly out of the DMG that could be countered by some other codified PC tools.  I had committed the crime of "making stuff up" which, to my mind, is the DM's right and responsibility.</blockquote>

Verification