Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Runestar" data-source="post: 4454903" data-attributes="member: 72317">However, it is also worth noting that just because a DM has the ability to rule in a particular manner does not necessarily mean that he should. I don't quite see the point of discussing DM fiat here. If the DM can in theory just houserule anything, why even bother discussing it here, if whatever final consensus is going to be rendered moot by DM fiat anyways? What does it matter if RAW allows a certain rule to be interpreted in some manner, like the rogue+lasting frost combo, if the DM still doesn't allow it in the end? One thing I can think of is that it allows both parties to come to an informed decision, so they know what sort of impact said interpretation/ruling will have on the game before deciding to implement it, and adjust their rulings accordingly so that it still remains efficacious, yet will not upset the game. But oddly enough, that does not seem to be the case I see here. Players simply seem bent on proving their DM dead wrong, while DMs (if the aforementioned quote is anything to go by) just seem all too willing to assert their authority and houserule anything on a whim, reason being that they can. Is this really a snapshot of what goes on in their games, or are they just acting tough and talking trash on these boards? <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid&nbsp; &nbsp; :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Runestar, post: 4454903, member: 72317"] However, it is also worth noting that just because a DM has the ability to rule in a particular manner does not necessarily mean that he [I][B]should[/B][/I]. I don't quite see the point of discussing DM fiat here. If the DM can in theory just houserule anything, why even bother discussing it here, if whatever final consensus is going to be rendered moot by DM fiat anyways? What does it matter if RAW allows a certain rule to be interpreted in some manner, like the rogue+lasting frost combo, if the DM still doesn't allow it in the end? One thing I can think of is that it allows both parties to come to an informed decision, so they know what sort of impact said interpretation/ruling will have on the game before deciding to implement it, and adjust their rulings accordingly so that it still remains efficacious, yet will not upset the game. But oddly enough, that does not seem to be the case I see here. Players simply seem bent on proving their DM dead wrong, while DMs (if the aforementioned quote is anything to go by) just seem all too willing to assert their authority and houserule anything on a whim, reason being that they can. Is this really a snapshot of what goes on in their games, or are they just acting tough and talking trash on these boards? :uhoh: [/QUOTE]

Verification