Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6599439" data-attributes="member: 42582">In this sort of discussion, though, I don't think it's helpful to just quote the DMG. I quoted the 4e DMG upthread, which talks about fudging; and the Rules Compendium also. That doesn't meant that, in my 4e game at my table, fudging action resolution is acceptable, nor that it is something which I have the authority to do but am choosing not to.The DMG is not the source of any GM's authority at a given table, and does not establish the scope of that authority: it comes from the group as whole. And different groups take different view on what authority the GM has.To give an example completely unrelated to the current one (of fudging/hit points), at my table it's taken completely for granted that my authority over the campaign backstory, as GM, includes bringing into play elements of PC backstories that my players have authored. Whereas there are other posters on these boards who themselves take the view, or have played with RPGers who take the view, that a PC's backstory is off-limits as far as the GM is concerned.These are fairly deep differences of playstyle, with associated differences of GMing technique. The fact that the DMG happens to advocate for one of them tells us something about what the author of the DMG prefers, but - forty-odd years down the track - I don't think it establishes any sort of truth about, or even default approach to, D&D.</blockquote>