Hmmm, not for DM's who have players that trust them... which has always made me wonder, why play under a DM you don't trust?
I figure, if you're taking the time to run the game and have invited me to play with you... then I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I mean what's the worse that can happen... I realize this DM isn't right for me?
IMO, there is a big difference between a book like Complete Warrior... which is designed for Player and DM use (and thus IMO should be pretty balanced) vs. a book like Unearthed Arcana a book designed for pure DM use with notes and sidebars on how these optional rules can effect the game.
Trust, in the context of a DM, is that the DM has the best interest of the overall game at heart. Catering to a player's best interest can step all over everyone else's fun.
These comments all make assumptions about the role and power of the GM which are potentially controversial. They assume that the GM has a monopoly on deciding what rules are used for the game at the table. Related to that, they assume that the GM has a
responsibility for deciding what rules are used at the table, and that this is part of the GM's responsibility to provide a fun game. They assume that in certain contexts rules can undermine fun by producing conflict among players, and that the GM, in helping to resolve those conflicts, is going to have to make choices about which rules and to be used at the table.
This is all very traditional for D&D, but 4e seems to self-consciously have moved away from this sort of understanding of the GM's role, towards something that is more akin to modern RPGs. Look at page 189 of the DMG:
As Dungeon Master, you wear several hats: storyteller, rules arbiter, actor, adventure designer, and writer. Some DMs like to add a sixth hat to that stack: rules designer.
This makes it pretty clear what the core functions are of a 4e GM: to oversee the gameworld, to provide adversity for the PCs (in the form of encounters), to do the bulk of the narrative work for the RPG (describing what things look like, what is actually happening in the world as a result of action resolution results) and to make rules calls. It is not primarily to design the rules. The rules are presupposed.
If we take this a bit further, we can divide the 4e rules into 5 components: character build rules (levelling, power and feat acquistion etc), reward rules (XP, treasure, milestones), encounter building rules, action resolution rules (primarily combat and skill challenges), and game elements (powers, feats, monsters, magic items etc). Although the rulebooks don't say expressly who has responsibility for each of these, they contain some pretty clear implications.
It is taken for granted that the character build and action resolution rules will be as set out in the PHB and DMG (and when the rulebooks break those rules, as with psionics and hybrids, they give a lot of support to explain and integrate the new approach). Page 189 of the DMG, in talking about the GM being rules designer, appears mostly to be contemplating minor tweaks to the action resolution rules.
The game clearly assumes that GMs will be building encounters more-or-less along the lines set out in the DMG (for example, a lot of powers are only useful if the GM builds encounters containing interesting terrain), and that the reward rules will be applied more-or-less as written (for example, the maths relies upon enhancement bonuses and paragon paths rely upon action points). That said, the rulebooks also canvass a few different options for rewards (eg item-free enhancement bonuses, adding rituals into treasure parcels, relying more-or-less heavily on player wish lists for items, dropping XP in favour of an 8-to-10 encounter approach). But even though p 121 talks about varying the rate of advancement, this isn't really supported (eg there are no alternative treasure parcels for a game with slower XP advancement).
The biggest area of flexibility is obviously with respect to game elements used. Here, the rulebooks assume that the GM will be deciding what monsters and traps are used (and provide support for the GM to design new monsters and traps). They assume that the players will decide what races, classes, paragon paths, epic destinies, powers and feats are used (and provide lots of opportunities for players to buy new books with this sort of stuff in it!). Magic items are in a middle ground - players are assumed to control the introduction of some items (via rituals and wish lists) but the GM also has some control here (via treasure placement and artefacts).
These divisions of responsibility aren't arbitrary, either. If part of the game experience, for a player, is expressing him/herself through her PC, it makes sense that the player has primary control over introducing those elements. Conversely, if the GM's role is to provide adversity and narrate the gameworld, it makes sense that the GM has primary control over elements like monsters and traps. It equally makes sense that the GM is given more freedom of design - unlike a player, who typically identifies very strongly with his/her PC's interests, a GM does not identify his/her own interest as a participant in the game with the interests of his/her monsters, and thus the GM can be relied upont to build balanced monsters (provided sound guidelines are presented). Players, on the other hand, who have a standing temptation to overpower their PCs, are obliged to draw upon independently designed lists of game elements (and this also sells books!). Looked at in this light, the absence (for example) of magical research rules is a feature, not a bug.
Once the players design their PCs (following the character build rules), and the GM combines monster, traps and so on into encounters (following the encounter building guidelines), it is the function of the action resolution and reward mechanics to unite the players' PCs with the GM's situations so as to create a compelling fantasy gaming experience. It therefore makes sense that neither the players nor the GM is given authority over those rules - rather, the game designers provide them, with the implicit guarantee that the rules will deliver the promised experience. It is not up to the GM to unilaterally decide whether or not this guarantee has been kept - it is up to the table as a whole. Thus the GM has no special power to vary these fundamental aspects of the rules.
As I said above, D&D traditionally has a different attitude to the purpose of the rules and the role of the GM - in particular, the rules are generally seen as being simply a tool that
the GM then uses to deliver the compelling fantasy gaming experience. In that traditional sort of approach, it is natural to give the GM more authority over the rules. That traditional approach also creates a lot of scope for player/GM conflict of the sort that Scribble and others are talking about upthread.
But 4e departs from this traditional model and adopts a more modern approach. Rightly or wrongly, it is premised on the assumption that if a GM and players follow the rules of the game, a compelling experience will result. In this respect it is like HeroQuest, Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, The Burning Wheel etc.
).
