Ahem. The rules are up to the DM. The DM is God. Worship the Glorius DM!

[Stormfalcon]

"What is your security clearance, Friend Citizen?"

"Red, Friend Computer!"

"What is the security clearance for this document in your possession that is treasonly titled 'The Rules', Friend Citizen?"

"Ummm...Ultraviolet, Friend Computer?"

"What is the penalty for possession of materials above your security clearance, Friend Citizen?"

"Ummmm....summary execution...?"

ZapZapZapZapZap

"Troubleshooter squad X9-84445-LU@-577, please wait as YOU-R-GNR 4 is transported to your current location to replace YOU-R-GNR 3. This wait will not be long as he will be quickly delivered by our newly-improved Trasportbot Tube system with improved vacu-speed action courtesy by our loyal friends in Research and Development. Have a nice day, Friend Citizens!"

Any other questions as to the status of the GM?

 

[Mark Chance]

The DM is not god - he's just one player among several. He has more responsibilities, and more control over the story than do the other players - but he's not omnipotent, and certainly should not act like he is.

There shall be no hint of the creeping disease of egalitarianism at Our gaming table. We shall not tolerate such a sickness. Rather We expect Our players to grin, cut capers, and obsequiously chase plot hares for Our amusement.

 

[Barak]

Hmmmk. And a DM sitting all by his lonesome at a table looks rather silly, although I suppose he could sit his collection of Care Bears around the table and lord his "power" over them, too.

 

[Henry]

I know I shouldn't jump in another one of these... but I only live once.

As a DM, having final authority is not the same as being "God."

For the sake of a smooth-running game, it should be agreed at the table that the DM has final rules authority, but the DM should also have the sense enough to hear out complaints and address them, even if it is after the session is finished. A DM should also be consistent in any rulings, and a player should have a chance to alter things in the face of any retroactive rulings, if that ruling will negatively impact them. If a DM changes (for example) the way haste works, the player who just bought 3 scrolls of haste and finds them useless now should have a chance to correct that.

I favor DM dictatorships, but ENLIGHTENED and COOPERATIVE DM dictatorships. Even if I am a player in a game. After all, even if I don't like a final ruling, I have my chance to run things as I see fit when I'm DM. And as a final result, if a DM is by their action running things into the ground repeatedly, I have the option of not playing, and picking back up when we switch games.

 

[Skade]

Hmmmk. And a DM sitting all by his lonesome at a table looks rather silly, although I suppose he could sit his collection of Care Bears around the table and lord his "power" over them, too.

Who told you about the Care Bears?

Seriously though, a certain amount of power needs to reside in whoever is currently running the game. If everyone at the table were to be able to make rules decisions, it would quickly degrade into chaos. Someone has to make the final decision, and excepting situations where the DM simply has no clue about the rules, that decision lies with him. In the instance that the DM has no idea about the rules, you have to ask, why is he running the game in the first place? You agreed to the game, and though I think it's appropriate to help him through the session, after that you have to ask if his lack of understanding for the rules really hindered the game. If it did, you simply don't agree to a game until he knows the rules a bit better.

A game should be egalitarian in many aspects. Respect and consideration should be equal around teh table, but when it comes to the arbitration of the rules and the creation and application of the game the DM comes first.

Oh, and Mark, thanks for the sig.

 

[diaglo]

do you agree it is okay to call the referee in a sporting contest names or push him?

if you answered yes to this D&D is not the game for you.

DMs are referees. they always have been. and always will be.

if you agree to abide by the ref's decision even though you are able to point out the mistakes later then you are playing D&D correctly.


edit: and by the same token, a referee who uses his authority to abuse the players should not be in the game either.

 

[Cerubus Dark]

Hmmmk. And a DM sitting all by his lonesome at a table looks rather silly, although I suppose he could sit his collection of Care Bears around the table and lord his "power" over them, too.

Something tells me you have done this before.....

[DM mode on]
I can create worlds.
I can create Monsters for those worlds.
I can create NPC's to live on said worlds.
I can create Gods for the NPC's to worship and love.
I can create vast and wonderful places to see and explore.

All of which are useless without the heros to wander the land.
[DM mode off]

 

[Rel]

I know I shouldn't jump in another one of these... but I only live once.

Henry, you're just darling when you're shouting wisdom into the howling winds of indifference.

 

[Yair]

The DM is not a referee. Nor is he just a player.

The DM is a player, but he plays a different game. It is the DM's goal to have fun while playing his game, just as it is for any other player. This can come from building up worlds, plots, NPCs, or watching how the PCs creatively destroy all his carefully-wrought plans depeding on the DM (the latter works for me). But it doesn't come from identifying with his character the way it is for the other players. (Well, mostly; and DMs that do that I think fall into traps of making stars of their favorite NPCs or railroading to maintain their beloved plots.)

The DM can sometimes serve as referee, but this isn't his position. His position is to do what it takes to keep the game moving. Sometimes this means refereeing, sometimes it means just the opposite (such as fudging dice to save the necks of the PCs, changing something on the fly, and so on). The goal is to keep the game moving, fun, and fair - not to be a rules lawyer, which is what a referee is.

The godhood of the DM depends on the chosen style of play of the group. Some games do work as freeform games, where the DM makes the rules on the fly, but that's not d20. Most games agree to a set of rules, and the DM is expected to largely abide by it - making exceptions, for him or the players, only when sticking to the rules will distract from the fun of the game. It is part of the "contract" between DM and players, much like the players expect the world in a Scarred Lands campaign to be fairly close to the official setting, at least in atmosphere and main points, and not to have the plot centered, say, on Star Wars.

That's my view of the DM's role, anyways.

 

[Korgan26]

I totally agree with Yair. I DM 10 times more than i play and i love it! I play a game of give all the info the players need to succseed but they have to pay attention to get it, I love it and my players love it. but if there is arguments that the players can't work out then they look to me, or we come to a consensus. I am not god or a baby sitter, I'm there for fun like everyone else.
I play also only i get a world not a character sheet.