I have been slapped down by several posters on this server when I mention that the DM is the final word on adjudicating the rules.
I've been playing D&D since 83.
I almost always end up DMing since no one else wants to step up and DM. So after all these years of DMing (and making house rules), I have developed a strong "My game" mentality.
I want to know why there is so much anti-DM control sentimentality when it comes to this subject.
I understand people who want to play it RAW, but when a rule is interpreted multiple ways it can be a hindrance. When certain combinations of abilities/feats/spells are used it can cause the DM to lose control of the game, or cause players to not have fun, because X player is hogging the spotlight. I know as DM I can personally pick the meanest nastiest monsters to kill my players in every encounter, but I'm not there to win the game, I'm there to provide fun for me and my players.
I want to know if you have a problem with DM running the game the way he wants to run it. Also put whether you are a Full-time DM, Full-time player or you do both.
[let's keep it CIVIL please, I'm not starting this as a flame war thread but as a place to put out your opinions.]
As long as the DM is not a maniacal spoiler of gamers' fun for arbitrary reasons, I'm a proponent of DM fiat.
|
I hear you. I have a "final word" policy at my table. I try to work with the players to the best of my ability, but I sometimes say no. I don't want to railroad my players, but I also don't want them ruining it for anyone else (including myself). It should be fun for everyone at the table. So if I have a halfing bard, an elf cleric, a human wizard, and a half-drow half-fiend duskblade/warmage/ultimate magus I'm probably going to ask that last player to please adjust to something more mainstream unless he can give me a good reason otherwise.
|
As a full time DM I try to give as much slack as possible to my players. However, if a conflict comes up during the game, I am the last word. I am willing to listen to what they have to say after the game and away from the table, but ultimately it is my job to make sure that everything runs smoothly and that the game is fun.
If someone has the energy and willingness to do the often thankless work of being DM (so I can play for a change :)), I graciously and gratefully accept their houserules, limitations, etc., as long as the game is still fun. If the DM seems like a power-mad tyrant whose reasons for arbitrating things differently than I would are without logic, then I would graciously decline to play, but wouldn't presume to tell that DM how to run his/her game.
EDIT: Full-time DM (with infrequent spells as a player).
i would also like to add that even though i say DM has final say, all rulings should be consistant and fair, i also think if a player can convince me after the game i could see changing a house rule.
Yes. I'm always willing to listen to player arguments, and if necessary, I put rulings to a vote among my players (who are mature enough not to manipulate the democratic process in their favor just because it will be better for their PCs).
|
Yeah I read most of the issue with DM fiat hostility as being one of two things:
1. the obvious issue, DMs who were or are seriously not um...nice.
2. More common, IMHO, is the issue of responding to the "Well the DM can work that out" issue. I feel like most of the times when people are anti DM fiat it is because the conversation is meant to be about the game system itself or trying to accrue information that might be used in a situation *with* a DM or in a group. If I ask "Does Magic Missle seem way too powerful" and someone's response is "well even if it is, the DM can remove it" or "I would never let that happen in my game" can be a little irritating. Obviously DMs could "change" something...so it being brought up as a solution is a little like being on a car repair forum and someone saying "take it to a mechanic" or " I would never put those rims on MY car". Not really constructive given the purpose to of the forum.
3. It occurs to me that there are also collaborative or "team" groups that switch off DMing or demand a more "power to the people" experience from their group and so tend to want solutions outside of a DM fiat. In my experience that tends to be a reaction to #1 but it doesn't have to be.
My 2 cp anyway.
Edit: kyrt-ryder reminded me of another extension of 3 - people who don't want DM fiat because they want something "truly" expressed in the open like any other type of game that requires open rolling.
Edit: I realized OP also said "final word" in adjudicating rules and I have to say that the older I get and the more I have played (I started in the mid nineties) the more I have trouble with "final word" as an idea for GMs because there are so many obvious rules issues in games, and that isn't a design problem that is a "you can only play test so much" problem. I have had GMs rule in ways that are literally contrary to how any other human being would read or consider a phrase. "Final word" can be a little touchy and hard to swallow in those moments.
|
|
I gotta say too, that I don't like character killing GM's either. Its fine to let a character die, but I've played with a couple who intentionally fudge their rolls upward to slaughter the characters trying to be "that tough GM" everyone hears about. Gotta say, that's not kosher.
For me, I hate the inverse WAY more - the GM who keeps his "cool" NPCs alive. If a GM has a death wish for me I can deal ( I don't LIKE it at all) but if they pull crap to keep people alive that I obviously killed...oooohhh....man that makes me mad.
In general, I have issues with GM's hiding their rolls and telling us what they want.
If they are afraid of us seeing the dice and figuring out his creature's attack bonuses, then that's his choice I suppose, but if I ever find out he's fudged the numbers (up OR down) I'm apt to leave the game.
To me, I'm not playing in the DM's prison, he's not my guardian or my executioner. He's just the guy who's controlling the world, the AI so to speak.
I prefer to see GM's as (and I GM as) a simple referee, an arbiter of the interaction of the world and the rules among the PC's.
(For what it's worth, I seem to mostly be DMing these days, though I'm a player at heart.)
What kyrt-ryder said. The DM should endeavor to create a fun, fair, challenging environment, then step back and let the dice fall as they fall. Kind of like the God envisioned by the deists -- He makes the world, gives it logical, consistent laws, then retires forever -- the DM should be like the "Divine Clockmaker" posited by some 18th-century philosophers.
|
|
For me, I hate the inverse WAY more - the GM who keeps his "cool" NPCs alive. If a GM has a death wish for me I can deal ( I don't LIKE it at all) but if they pull crap to keep people alive that I obviously killed...oooohhh....man that makes me mad.
That's not cool either. Like I said, its fine to let a character die but you shouldn't fudge the dice rolls to spoil someones fun. I'd fudge to let someone's PC stay alive if I thought they'd hate to see their character die (I play with a group that includes a 15 year old who is very invested in his character), but not if he continues to get in trouble recklessly (which has been an issue with him in the past).
I GM like spider man, everybody gets one. :p
I wouldn't likely save an NPC though. The PCs are different since they have a player behind them. That's the case with the GM too, you have to live with what you reap.
DM Fiat is fine as long as it is consistent across players and NPCs at all times during a campaign. That means if the GMPC violates RAW in some particularly egregious way one week then I think the PCs have a right to expect similar treatment. That isn't to say that NPCs and PCs should be absolutely forced to follow the same ruleset in all cases but that vastly different abilities and power levels from the PC norms should be explained by some sort of plot device or McGuffin (Alignment of the stars or what-not with an artifact, etc).
Further DM fiat should advance the fun-factor of the game rather than be used as a tool for punishing players who interfere with the desired GM narrative. I've seen a bunch of games ruined by capricious GMs who use GM fiat to satisfy their wants and needs to the exclusion of the wants and needs of the entire group.
Finally DM Fiat should try to be somewhat logical in the context of the campaign universe. The DM can go crazy in a gonzo everything works game but should restrain himself in a low-magic high "realism" campaign.
This doesn't have anything to do with RAW versus not RAW.
However, you have to remember, it isn't the DM's game. It's the group's game. A lot of the 'advice' comes across as, 'To Hell with the players, it's your game, put those players in their place.' Which is a Bad Thing.
Some regulation is necessary. If someone seriously tries to bring Pun Pun to the table? Yeah, that needs to go down. However, all too often, the reaction when there's any stumbling block, no matter how minor, the answer that's given is the DM fiat, completely shut the player down with no thought for their well-being, their wants, their needs, their feelings, or the fact that they're your friend.
'How dare those players come to your game, mess up your story, ruin your world?' These are the mindsets behind DM fiat. The notion that the DM is somehow better or more important than the players? That one person at the table is magically and automatically superior to his [i]friends? These are Bad Things. Invoking DM fiat to shut the players down is likewise a Bad Thing.
Also, going back to Pun Pun? A lot of the time when a DM bans something, it's a case of the DM freaking out over something they're not used to and banning it on reflex rather than anything rational. When X and Y and Z feat cause something unexpected and powerful, that's not necessarily a Bad Thing. Rather, it can be a very good and cool and interesting thing, despite the initial shock.
And as for something that takes the game from the DM's control? Why is that even a problem? The players are supposed to be free radicals, capable of altering the world around them in spectacular and unexpected ways. If a DM can't abide any triumph or impact that she didn't personally map out and plan, that DM is a control freak who needs to write a novel so that she has that control over the protagonists, rather than giving four folks around the table illusions of their own control over those four characters.
Both player and DM in equal measure.
Saying the DM can handwave otherwise or that story elements negate it does not help in a discussion of mechanics. That's all.
"It's not broken because the DM can change it." is not a good argument.
This, too. Big time. Particularly when there's a, "How can X be fixed?" discussion.
As a full time DM I try to give as much slack as possible to my players. However, if a conflict comes up during the game, I am the last word. I am willing to listen to what they have to say after the game and away from the table, but ultimately it is my job to make sure that everything runs smoothly and that the game is fun.
Sounds about right to me.
|
|
As a full time DM I try to give as much slack as possible to my players. However, if a conflict comes up during the game, I am the last word. I am willing to listen to what they have to say after the game and away from the table, but ultimately it is my job to make sure that everything runs smoothly and that the game is fun.
This. I GM for fun, too; if I'm not having fun, then someone else can step up to the plate.
The problems I see with "GM fiat" are legacy issue from when the game was still in it's infancy. Don't get me wrong, E. Gary Gygax is a god in my country, but he had a very "me vs. them" mentality when it came to running his games. A lot of GM's that have played for a long time inherently have some of that attitude towards their game. That can cause problems.
I have to say my preferred style of GM to play with is very similar to what Kyrt espoused in his post. More of a neutral arbiter instead of a deity-like controller.
I have been a player more often than a GM, but I much prefer GMing most of the time. The caveat to that is that I am very much a "run the published adventure with very little modification" type of guy. For me GMing is more about playing with my friends while watching the brainchild of paizo's writing staff engross us all.
I see a great deal of discussion of principle. In principle, the DM gets the last call, the final voice, the ultimate say. If they are good enough and their players are mature enough, it should never get to that anyway. Make a call, keep the game flowing, and move on.
In specific, I wonder what happened?
I can see people objecting to DM fiat in the context of theoretical discussions of mechanics or abusive DMs/GMs. But if the DM is committed to player fun, doesn't that come before some abstract sense of fairness or transparency?
I agree with GM fiat, as long as he is running the game he has 100% final say so. You can debate him, talk with him or what have you but in the end it is his call. You can deal with it, offer to GM for a while or leave
Chances are if your the only one in the group that it's bugging the issue is not the GM, but you
I have no problem per se with DM fiat, however it can be irritating when the GM sees something one way, the player sees it another, and the difference isn't brought up until much later, say in the middle of a combat where a player has been counting on their interpretation.
The big thing I have to say about DM fiat, is at the outset to talk to your players before pulling out a big NO, and even more so to make it clear before the game even starts any houserules you're using, any interpretations you're making on rules or character abilities. It's no fun to find out that that the GM heavily restricts item crafting after you take a bunch of item crafting feats for instance.
I see a lot of this coming from the fact that a lot of us have had experiences with truly awful GM's. Being a GM requires a level of maturity that not everyone has, and GM fiat can be used to really ruin a game in many cases. That said, the solution to this is not to get rid of the rule, but find a group that is fun for you.
As for rules questions, there are instances that GM fiat really is the answer. There are plenty of questions where rules may or may not apply depending on the flavor of an individual campaign, and the GM has to step in and make adjustments. The GM has a much better picture of the campaign background and possible future and those things have to be taken into account in order to prevent a certain interpretation of the rules from ruining the fun of the game.
I think DM fiat is needed, but it needs to come with a hefty helping of humility.
There are many ways to run a game and organize it.
What I like best? As DM, I have (generally) more experience and familiarity with this setting and with many of the rules (there are exceptions -- one friend knows the rules much better).
I'm here to help everyone have fun. That's the role I've accepted. Part of that is organizing things and setting limits, because that organization and limit makes it easier to have fun.
But it's a cooperative venture.
Everyone needs to have fun... and that includes the DM.
I think DM fiat is needed, useful, and good during game play. If you have to break open rule books and debate during a session you are wasting time and breaking the mood. I actively tell my players, that if you want to discuss rules or rulings I make, we can do it in email, or after the session, etc. If I find myself in the wrong I'll say what I did wrong and how and why I am changing it at the opening of the next session.
I agree, here The GM is needed to make a call or ya get 30 mins of hunting though books for some odd reference here or there
I think the hostility you have encountered owes to a misunderstanding.
Maybe people enjoy discussing rules design. Rules design (RD) is a pursuit entirely separate from good game-mastering. Although good RD can assist a GM, and GM experience can help with RD, they are explicitly separate things.
Fiat is bad RD, but can be good GMing. Rules design, by its very nature, should strive to eliminate the need for GM fiat, but that is ultimately an impossible goal.
I think that RD-enthusiasts really ought to be more careful when leveling accusations of inappropriate fiat. Anything inside the purview of an ongoing campaign is fair territory for GM fiat. The RD phase should end as soon as the campaign begins, and although techniques of RD can help a GM, once players have entered the situation we are talking about different goals.
Anyway, this, like most problems that crop up on forums, is likely a problem of miscommunication, not an actual philosophical schism.
I've seen and played under DM's who have the Hackmaster, "I'm not doing my job unless every session has a TPK." I don't care for DM Fiat when it comes to those DM's.
However I think in most cases I support the fiat. Especially when it helps move the story along. While I don't think it should be done to the point in which it tickes players off, I tend to follow the school of thought used by Nathan Rice's character in Gamers 2: Dorkness Rising.
"Story trumps rules."
Though I will add that if you do someting drastic (say take away a cleric's power during a massive encounted like the film), you should also be willing to flub the rules to let the players live.
I also follow the idea that character's don't die (at least permanently), unless the DM allows it.
|
|
I think DM fiat is needed, but it needs to come with a hefty helping of humility.
There are many ways to run a game and organize it.
What I like best? As DM, I have (generally) more experience and familiarity with this setting and with many of the rules (there are exceptions -- one friend knows the rules much better).
I'm here to help everyone have fun. That's the role I've accepted. Part of that is organizing things and setting limits, because that organization and limit makes it easier to have fun.
But it's a cooperative venture.
Everyone needs to have fun... and that includes the DM.
This is how I run my games; I even ask my players for feedback after each session (Did you have fun? Did you like the adventure or not? Why? Am I using too many NPCs? Too much intrigue? Did I ignore something your character would have wanted to accomplish? etc.). For example, if you invest in crafting, I'm sure as hell going to let you spend time on creating items (whether mundane or magical) at least occasionally. Likewise with a character who wants to run his own business, or seek more [advantageous] information about the BBEG because he has invested heavily in Knowledge skills and/or social contacts.
I run my games 90-95% according to RAW; I tend to say 'No!' only if I perceive a player seeking an unfair/unbalancing mechanical advantage (for example, a half-iron golem PC at 1st level, or binding an Efreet for endless 'Wishes'). Whenever someone finds a "loophole" or complains about confusing wording, we discuss how to adjudicate those rules openly among the whole group (the final word is mine, though).
I have been slapped down by several posters on this server when I mention that the DM is the final word on adjudicating the rules.
I've been playing D&D since 83.
I almost always end up DMing since no one else wants to step up and DM. So after all these years of DMing (and making house rules), I have developed a strong "My game" mentality.
I want to know why there is so much anti-DM control sentimentality when it comes to this subject.
I understand people who want to play it RAW, but when a rule is interpreted multiple ways it can be a hindrance. When certain combinations of abilities/feats/spells are used it can cause the DM to lose control of the game, or cause players to not have fun, because X player is hogging the spotlight. I know as DM I can personally pick the meanest nastiest monsters to kill my players in every encounter, but I'm not there to win the game, I'm there to provide fun for me and my players.
I want to know if you have a problem with DM running the game the way he wants to run it. Also put whether you are a Full-time DM, Full-time player or you do both.
Xaaon,
In any game and role-playing game system, the GM is the final arbiter of the rules in play. Most of the systems published mention this explicitly to varying degrees.
Since the release of 3e, I have observed a vast change in the attitudes of more than a few players at more than a few tables. The shift is perhaps applicable to a slight majority of those I have observed. It seems that more players feel entitled to have a game run "their way". Ironically, many of these same players are either unwilling to GM, or they are completely inept behind the screen despite bragging about their 'GMing prowess'.
Knowing the rules is, in my opinion, the less important facet of being a GM. Knowing your limitations as a GM is more important - again, just in my opinion. If you are best suited to running a hack-n-slash campaign rather than a massively in-depth odyssey of character development, role-playing and bordering-on-drama-club gaming, acknowledge this and GM accordingly. Or vice-versa.
The conflict of interpretations in a rules set that utilizes the exact same foundation for both characters and the antagonists is a contributing factor as well.
I have no problem with a GM running his campaigns the way that GM desires. The Golden Rule about treating others as I expect to be treated applies, at the table or otherwise. If I find the game not suiting my play style, I move to another game rather than try to usurp the GM.
I would say that I am generally a full-time GM, part-time player. I do need to 'refresh my batteries' from time to time after GMing for a while, which is when I belly up to the other side of the screen.
GM Fiat really touches on a couple of sore areas for a lot of people and in many ways it's painfully easy to talk past each other in regards to this subject.
I think that aspects of it touch on the changing relationship of GM to PC over the past 30+ years. I hate to say it but in many ways people who grew up gaming in the 70s and 80s seem to accept that in many ways the GM was the majority partner in narrative control. As a result we were used to really railroady narrative structures (particularly in published novels). Players had "agency" to a degree but in many ways the narrative was defined by GM determined obstacles and the PCs acted out their reactions as a response to GM initiated plots.
Unfortunately this period also had quite a bit of the old DM vs PC mentality, in which the DM feels that it's his duty to win vs the PCs at times. Honestly plenty of games are still mired in this mentality. This is DM as Unquestioned Overlord.
I think sometime after that (date unclear) there was a desire to codify more and more of the rules so that while the narrative was still controlled by the GM to a large degree there were more opportunities for the Players to initiate campaign activity on their own. In addition more and more system were detailed so that less and less was dependent on the GM winging it. I think in some ways this also corresponded to the high water mark of simulationism in games. Many sandbox games seem to operate in this realm.
I'd say that many GMs grew up with this as the standard default style. There is more agency on the part of the players but in many ways the GM is still running the show. It's his "world" and the PCs interact with his creations and to a degree their success or failure stems from the challenges and plots he throws at them.
Sometime later there was a shift in perspective to a belief that the Player was an equal partner with the GM. Under this system they players and the GM have some preconcieved ruleset in place to facilitate gameplay but ultimately the player has almost complete control over his character's narrative. In effect there is a social contract at work that says the GM can do this, this and this but not that, that and that. Things like GM mind control of PCs are a total no-go for example. Under this system the Players indicate the stories they want to tell and the GM is a facilitator for group play. I'd hesitate to even suggest that the GM is the first among equals, it's more that he's the actor that gets to play all the bit players in the chorus line ;)
This last shift has caused a great deal of heartache in many gaming groups as you have people on both sides of the debate. Some people want extremely light rules system that totally facilitate player narrative control while other people want extremely detailed systems that empower GM world design and simulationism.
GM Fiat can be a useful tool in some cases but in many people's eyes (for instance go to RPG.net sometimes) excessive GM Fiat is akin to a usurpation of the player's own narrative control. As such it is to be avoided if at all possible.
My biggest issue with DM fiat is everytime I run into it, it is used to kick someone's character down. Especially in the cases where the player has paid the costs to do something awesome (like taking quicken spell with a witch and getting off 3 spells in one round), and the DM fiat comes out as "I'm DM I say so." with no effort to come to terms.
Yes it's the DM's game and he has every bit as much right to enjoy as the players do. However if he talks to the player instead of simply running roughshod over him with fiat the issue can generally be resolved with satisfaction on both ends.
Now I do have a DM currently that I trust to use DM fiat, and generally he'll give a sign before it happens and as players we sit back and enjoy... this is because he ends the situation he uses it in either neutral to the players (he gets an attack that maybe the rules wouldn't allow but someone gets an AoO in because of it or the monster ends up prone after doing it) or a bit better to the players... only a few times has it been used to put the players in a position that is worse that we started in and we don't mind because we know we'll get a bone out of it later.
It's the give and take that makes it work, and he earned it.
I just want to say that not everybody expects a light rules system to facilitate player narrative control OR extremely detailed systems that empower GM world design and simulationism.
I myself want a little bit of both.
I love detailed systems that account for somewhere somewhere between 80 and 90% of the stuff that's expected to go on in a game, but at the same time, I'm a hardcore 'players control their characters' gm. Their thoughts, statements, actions, lifestyles, etc etc ad infinitum is all theirs to control, to a large extent even the locations they come from.
You can have deep and detailed rulesets and have players that are independent of any sort of GM intervention in the same game. The GM plays THE WORLD, while the players play the PC's. Sounds about even to me :)
Oh I agree, I am definitely not saying that D&D or Pahtfinder (both in the medium to heavy rules category) can't be played in a way that maximizes player agency it's that I notice that alot of the people expressing the most vitriol towards GM Fiat tend to prefer extremely light rulesets (like Wushu or Fate) because not only does GM Fiat interfere with player narrative control but in many cases detailed rules can get in the way of people telling the stories that they want to tell with their characters.
If my wizard can't do x until level 15 or my fighter can't also be a smooth talking ladies man because social skills and fighters are two great tastes that fit in literature but are hard to simulate within the game as written then my ability to create the narrative I want to tell is compromised. Under a more rules intensive system I might have to be a level 3/3 fighter/rogue with high levels of bluff to encompass my narrative goals whereas a rules light system might just let me be Badass with a Rapier and Dagger +2, Smooth with the Ladies +2, Degenerate gambler but lucky at cards +1, Able to drink an auroch under the table +3. Both can simulate the ne'er-do-well swashbuckler type but in many ways the systems underlining 3.x/Pathfinder can interfere with facilitating the lecherous swashbuckler goes pub crawling narrative structure that some players are just dying for ;)
IMO, DM fiat should really only happen when a player is out of line (gross metagaming or screwing over the rest of the party, for example).
I'm cool with DM fiat as he is running the show. Even when my character has darkvision and fails to spot a creature hiding in the shadows 15 feet from me, because he is using the shadows to hide... but i ran with it, I just didn't like it, until i got over it in 15 mins and just accepted it and moved on.
I'm a part time DM, and for me, i like the idea of the DM fiat. I fudge the dice probably a little more than i should, but its always for the sake of making the game interesting. You know there are always those days where one player just is rolling very badly, and he/she shouldn't get punished for it too much. I usually try to keep the PCs from dying unless the did something really stupid. Its not that i never let PCs die, its just that i know as a player its not fun if ypu or one of your group members dies. I also fudge the dice (much more sparingly) in the monster's favor. if the PCs are fighting the "boss" of the area and start to kick his but, then i may make the bad guy hit occasionally even if the roll had him miss. i never do this to kill a PC, just to hit to make the fight seem closer and more intersting.
As for the DM having the final word, i think thats mostly true, especially in a homebrew campagin. What my group has started doing is having the DM make a call on the subject, and then talk about it or look it up later. That way the game doesn't get bogged down with too much rules discussion and searching. It just helps to keep the flow of the game.
As far as DMs saying no players, i'm totally against that. Even if the PCs do something that the DM didn't want to happen, he shouldn't just tell the players no, especially if its a cool and viable idea. If it's some player that had a really stupid idea and is just trying to metagame, however, that's a different story.
A DM has the final say on anything in his campaign. If you don't like it, start DMing your own game and YOU can make the rules. I play by whatever houserules and interpretations my DMs use. That doesn't mean I won't discuss things with them if I don't agree. Sometimes I change my mind, sometimes they change theirs and sometimes there's a comprimise, but in every case, when the GM has made a firm decision that's it. Like it or not, I play with it or I find another game.
(For the record the only time I have left a game because of the way it was being run was the time when the GM continued to give everyone bonus feats and abilities for no real reason other than he thought it was cool. The PCs were way to overpowered and the game was neither challenging or fun.)
When running a game I can be a bit strict with my rules interpretation, and I'm not afraid to say no if someone is trying to use a skill or something in a way that doesn't make sense. I tend to like running more 'realistic' games. Some of my friends have a more 'cinematic' approach so I have to let them run on occasion, but really, my opinion is 'DM's rules', no matter which side of the screen I am on.
The problems I see with "GM fiat" are legacy issue from when the game was still in it's infancy. Don't get me wrong, E. Gary Gygax is a god in my country, but he had a very "me vs. them" mentality when it came to running his games.
This is not true. At least not according to every interview I've ever read with anyone who actually gamed with the man. And I certainly didn't get that impression of him the one time I met him and he graciously agreed to give a teenager at his first con some advice on improving his game. People who think otherwise need to read more of the man's work than just the Tomb of Horrors.
As for DM fiat, well, if you want to play with an AI then buy a computer game. The DM has to take a broader view of the game than just slavish devotion to the rules. Sometimes the BBEG needs to get away. Sometimes NPCs have options that the players don't. What's important is whether an encounter is challenging, fun, interesting, and at least 90% compatible with the ruleset. Not whether the DM spent additional hours or days to ensure 100% compatibility by slavishly laboring over every single detail, making sure that every single skill point of an NPC was properly accounted for.
DnD and Pathfinder are collaborative activities. But the DM has responsibility for the game as a whole. He carries extra weight and so does his or her word. And that's the way it should be. In the end, collaboration is about trust. Players must trust the DM to be fair, impartial, and have the best interests of the campaign at heart. DMs must trust the players are there to enrich the experience, not do their selfish best to break it. If you don't have that trust between players and the DM, then you should find someone, or someones, that you do.
I've not had a jerk for a DM (yet.. am sure its bound to happen eventually), but I can definitely see an issue I'd have with a DM who was just a "these are my rules, use them or get out of my group" type.
House rules are meant to be things discussed and decided on by the group.
Rules issues that come up in game should be decided on quickly and fairly so the game and commence, and then be taken up in greater detail after the game. E-Mail is great for this. Eventually though a final word has to be had- and usually the DM is the one who has it. (lets face it, alot of PC's want the rulings to come down on their side without an outlook for what it would do to the campaign in general).. But even that final decision should be well reasoned and explained.
"No, because I said so" just isn't a proper response.
-S
I've left a game where the DM was changing spell effects on a whim, and dictating character actions. I can't think of anything beyond that, but then I haven't had a lot of different games. This last couple years I've had to do all the DMing.
Oh I had that happen, the guy hated spell casters it seems. Told me 'Well you can play that if ya want , but wizards suck. But sure ya can play one". By suck he meant " don't bother rolling they are immune to your magic, Oh your spells dont work here, your not sure why. Oh you seem to have forgotten all your memorized spells" then half way thought this NPC we found single handed killed everything bare handed, frost giants, monsters we had not clue about anything and everything.
I did not stay long
|
Oh I had that happen, the guy hated spell casters it seems. Told me 'Well you can play that if ya want , but wizards suck. But sure ya can play one". By suck he meant " don't bother rolling they are immune to your magic, Oh your spells dont work here, your not sure why. Oh you seem to have forgotten all your memorized spells" then half way thought this NPC we found single handed killed everything bare handed, frost giants, monsters we had not clue about anything and everything.
I did not stay long
Yeah, ours was 'the light spell you cast on the coin doesn't light up the area well because it's a small item'. Midgame, no warning. As my wife said, 'I don't want to be in the middle of the game when I find out my spells don't work the way I thought, especially when it is completely at his whim.'
I didn't notice the character appropriation as much as my wife did, but he did seem to make decisions for the party. I vented on the evening here if you want to read some quality gaming drama.
Smart woman ya have there.Random changes mid game not good, not good at all
The problems I see with "GM fiat" are legacy issue from when the game was still in it's infancy. Don't get me wrong, E. Gary Gygax is a god in my country, but he had a very "me vs. them" mentality when it came to running his games.This is not true. At least not according to every interview I've ever read with anyone who actually gamed with the man. And I certainly didn't get that impression of him the one time I met him and he graciously agreed to give a teenager at his first con some advice on improving his game. People who think otherwise need to read more of the man's work than just the Tomb of Horrors.
My impressions of the Blackmoor and Greyhawk home campaigns from various people is that Gygax was way more laid back in his home games than he often represented himself in his Dragon Magazine editorials. I think some of his "D&D is to be played according to the RAW" was as much a method of combating the encroachment of non-TSR material onto the market like the Judges Guild supplements and Arduin grimoires. Further citing the play the RAW party line was useful in selling new materials like unearthed arcana etc.
The "Us vs Them" attitude was probably heightened by tournament play to a certain degree. Any system that was scoring players against each other and DMs vs each other tends to introduce some negative consequences for group enjoyment. Considering so many of the early modules were written for tournament play it's easy to imagine how the us vs them stuff got amped up.
|
|
I have a problem with the idea that it is the GM's game for one simple reason. The GM is one of 4 or 5 people involved in the game. Without the players there is no GM, because there is no game. That said the GM needs a certain level of authority or the whole thing falls apart. That authority requires trust, and the whole "its the GM's game" idea creates an atmosphere that easily leads to the abuse of said trust. I've known more people driven out of a game or gaming as a whole by that abuse of power and trust.
Graywulfe
Full-time GM, part-time player...well, a while ago anyway. There's really a lot more going on with GM fiat than being able to codify it in any way, I think. It's more a social issue than anything and if a GM can't handle the grey areas of social interaction, they shouldn't be sitting in that chair. This doesn't mean a player can't be a pain sometimes, but a great GM can run even the most obnoxious players.
Good sticky issue on the topic: if one of my players goes out and buys a thirty dollar book wanting to play a certain class that I detest, how fair, in the realm of human interaction, is it for me to say no, outright?
The way I GM, I look at my job as entertaining everybody, making sure the game flows well and anticipating how they want to play. Going off that, I try to meet my players half-way, even if I don't like it. If it really comes down to me and a player butting heads with no resolution, the rest of the group has a say too. If I don't like the class in that previous example, there's nothing stopping me from adjusting the RAW build with my player's input to make sure they didn't just flush thirty dollars down the toilet. Directly saying 'no, because I'm the GM' is a social failing.
|
|
If GM Fiat is used to make the game more fun for the people at the table, "Wow, that spell technically shouldn't be able to do that, but that's so freaking cool and imaginative, I'm going to allow it this once," it can be awesome.
If it's used to frustrate the players or adversarially, "Nope, the BBEG is immune to whatever you cast. He finishes his speech and teleports away," it can suck. (If, on the other hand, the DM actually has read the PHB and has the BBEG's simulacrum or programmed illusion deliver the speech, while their attacks upon it fail to in any way affect the actual BBEG he wants to use later in a climactic final encounter, kudos to him for spending the 10 seconds it takes to actually design the encounter according to the game he's ostensibly playing.)
When it's used to make the NPCs have abilities or gear that magically works one way for them, but is unavailable to the PCs, it's a sign of a DM too lazy or unsure of his game mastery to be willing to build his encounters using the game rules. It's like, "Okay, you guys are playing D&D, but I'm gonna just do whatever the hell I want over here, so that you can't ever even equal, let alone beat, what my Very Special Princess NPC can do."
On the other hand, Action point variants are a fun way to allow some Fiat for the players. "That spell normally wouldn't do that. Blow one of your Hero points and I'll allow it, because it's cool."
Mutants and Masterminds takes it a step further. The GM can Fiat anytime he wants, but each time he does, the PCs get a Hero Point, that they can spend to push their abilities or pull their own lesser version of Fiat. If he wants the BBEG to get away, despite the players having him well and truly trapped, he can GM Fiat that the apparent BBEG was actually a Doombot or something, and hand the players a Hero point, so that when they *do* finally face the BBEG at the end of the chronicle, they can pull out some fancy stunts of their own. It's a neat concept, and assumes that the players and GM are all there to craft an entertaining game for everyone, and not adversaries that need to work at odds.