D&D 4E Will Rule Zero be in 4E?

[Mistwell]

Just a brief agreement with Skeptic - if Rule Zero is something like "the GM's word is final as to how any action is to be resolved, and/or is actually resolved in play" then I don't think it's an especially good rule.

The notion that this sort of GM authority is integral to all roleplaying is wrong. I prefer the ruleset to be worked out by player agreement and any deviation from the standard action resolution rules likewise to be worked out by agreement among all the players at the table.

It's good that a DM ask players and get input.

It's bad that a game requires consensus to make any change. That sort of system results in no changes, because it's difficult to get unanimous consent on any change. Ultimately, the DM is making up the adventure, and the DM is putting in a lot more time than the PCs, and the DM should be making the judgment call. The DM is the judge after all.

More generally, I don't understand why so many people make the inference from "RPGing requires flexibility and imagination" to "RPGing requires the GM to be the final (even sole) authority at the table". The first is true. The second, as Skeptic said, is a doorway to abusive GMing - something from which D&D has been prone to suffer, due to certain peculiarities of the early D&D and AD&D rules (primarily, the almost total lack of action resolution mechanics).

I disagree that D&D is prone to abusive DMs. The best way to address a DM you don't like is to not play in their game. But to pretend that DMs being the judge is the same as DMs being an abuser demonstrates a stark lack of respect for just how much work goes into being a DM.

DMs make the house rules for their games. You don't have to play their game, and you are free to DM. I think good DMs get input from players, and the check on the system is that bad DMs don't get people agreeing to play their game. The check on the system is not that the group makes all decisions with unanimity or else they default to the rules as written.

 

[hossrex]

If I play poker with you and I discover that you cheated to let me win because it would be more fun, I would punch you.

In a similar way, players can feel cheated by a DM "fudging the dice".

Other games avoid this issue completely, because the PCs won't die if the players/DM don't want them to.

Don't assume that everyone is playing D&D the way you do.

Yup. A player cheating for personal gain, and a DM fudging something for the benefit of everyone are exactly the same. :\

Yeesh. :\

 

[Lacyon]

Again, and again the problem is that the goal of different group playing D&D is different.

Some wants to follow a (hopefully) good story written by the DM, some wants to overcome (or face defeat) sound challenges, some wants a sandbox and some wants to participate in the creation of an original story.

Some of these playstyle require DM "fudging" and some require the DM not to "fudge".

The big problem with D&D is that it never said for which of these different playstyle it was made.

On the contrary, the greatest strength of D&D is that it doesn't bow to the conceit that it should support any one over the others.

 

[marune]

Yup. A player cheating for personal gain, and a DM fudging something for the benefit of everyone are exactly the same. :\

Yeesh. :\

At least, read my comment carefuly before answering.

 

[marune]

On the contrary, the greatest strength of D&D is that it doesn't bow to the conceit that it should support any one over the others.

I won't go over that one again, try looking for something named "System does matter" on theforge