I hope the three core rulebooks have a "DM's clause".

[Geoffrey]

Without Rule Zero, a DM's campaign becomes susceptible to change at the whim of the designers of 4E. What if (for example) a DM doesn't have tieflings (or even demons, for that matter) in his campaign world? Must the poor DM either wedge into his campaign tieflings and all the other things that do not fit into his campaign world, or else scrap his whole world altogether and start a new one that incorporates all the stuff in the core 4E books?

That would be preposterous. A DM can spend countless hours over the course of years lovingly crafting his world. Conversely, a player character takes a number of minutes to create. To insist that the DM with his campaign world (representing years of work) compromise it on the whim of a player who spent 20 minutes min-maxing his new character is absurd. It would be especially egregious for a new player to join an established group and (by insisting upon some sort of character provided for in the 4E Players Handbook) try to change both the parameters of the campaign world and the feel of the group. Suppose (for example) there were a group of D&Ders who had been playing a "3rd edition rules, 1st edition feel" campaign (similar to that presented in Necromancer's products) since the advent of 3E. Then suppose the group converted to 4E, keeping the same campaign world. Finally, suppose a new player wanted to join but insisted upon playing a tiefling, regardless of any consideration besides the fact that tieflings are described in the 4E Players Handbook. It would be simplest to simply nip that in the bud by having a DM's clause such as I described in the opening post of this thread.

 

[rkwoodard]

3.5 Page 6

Hi,
In 3.5 Page 6 under Character Creation, In Large font (as a section heading)

CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER
Your DM may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from these rules.

Before even getting to ability roles, the Players Handbook points out that even the rules in the CORE PHB is subject to DM's rules and campaigns.

I have never ever understood why 3.x was considered to take power away from the DM. It certainly didn't in my group. In my group I am one of 3 primary DMs.

Thanks
RK

 

[theredrobedwizard]

Rule 0 is all well and good before the campaign starts, but what I get sick of is DMs that feel they can change the rules mid session just because. Telling your players about a houserule before a campaign starts is one thing, but halfway through your fourteenth session is not a place to go changing the rules of the world.

Maybe it's just me, but I've always believed that it takes more talent to be creative inside a rigid rules structure than it does to change the rules to fit your vision.

As both a player and DM, I hope we continue to move far away from the "You do what? A bolt of blue lightning flashes from the heavens and strikes your character. Take 20d6+10 damage, no save." syndrome of the earlier editions.

-TRRW

 

[shurai]

No kidding. I'm tired of playing with tyrannical DMs. I've played with a couple and the game is no fun at all.

The rules are there to keep things fun and balanced. DMs keep changing them to rules that are only fun for THEM and then get angry at the players who don't immediately accept the changes without any argument.

Are you objecting to this kind of power in and of itself, or rather its misuse? I think most definitions of roleplaying put more or less absolute authority into the hands of the Gamemaster, intentionally. I mean, read the words: Game Master.

I agree with you in the latter case, of course. DMs that abuse their players with the power of their possession are an evil, for sure, and a major detriment to the hobby.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If its in the DMG, you as a player have no RIGHT or BUSINESS looking at it.

I need to read it when I'm shopping for magic items.

 

[shurai]

Rule 0 is all well and good before the campaign starts, but what I get sick of is DMs that feel they can change the rules mid session just because. Telling your players about a houserule before a campaign starts is one thing, but halfway through your fourteenth session is not a place to go changing the rules of the world.

Maybe it's just me, but I've always believed that it takes more talent to be creative inside a rigid rules structure than it does to change the rules to fit your vision.

As both a player and DM, I hope we continue to move far away from the "You do what? A bolt of blue lightning flashes from the heavens and strikes your character. Take 20d6+10 damage, no save." syndrome of the earlier editions.

-TRRW

I think this is another criticism not of the DM's role as sovereign even when in disagreement with the rules, but rather of DMs misusing that sovereignty.

Many DMs through the years have fudged the rules intentionally, because they knew they could use such fudging to make the game more fun. I've done it, and I do it all the time, right at the gaming table.

 

[Geoffrey]

Hi,
In 3.5 Page 6 under Character Creation, In Large font (as a section heading)

CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER
Your DM may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from these rules.

Before even getting to ability roles, the Players Handbook points out that even the rules in the CORE PHB is subject to DM's rules and campaigns.

I have never ever understood why 3.x was considered to take power away from the DM. It certainly didn't in my group. In my group I am one of 3 primary DMs.

Thanks
RK

Thanks for the quote and your thoughts!

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Are you objecting to this kind of power in and of itself, or rather its misuse? I think most definitions of roleplaying put more or less absolute authority into the hands of the Gamemaster, intentionally. I mean, read the words: Game Master.

I agree with you in the latter case, of course. DMs that abuse their players with the power of their possession are an evil, for sure, and a major detriment to the hobby.

I mean that it is possible for a person to be a good DM AND misuse their power. However, if the system reigns in their power slightly then they can be a good DM who CAN'T misuse their power.

For example: If it's accepted that the rule is that you need to roll a d20 to hit and add your modifiers and if your total is equal to or greater than the opponents AC then you hit then the DM and players are on an equal footing in terms of hitting each other. If the rule system tells the DM "Feel free to make up whatever you want, since it's your game and no one can question your authority" then you will have DMs who add to their attack rolls and subtract off the PCs attack rolls. Each one will have a "good" reason for it, but it'll happen.

The example I've given in other threads is the time I ran into the DM who insisted that I have a 90% chance of hitting my party with a missile weapon if I fired from the back of my party order. He told me this after I decided to fire an arrow I knew wouldn't hit (I needed a natural 20) and wouldn't let me take back my action. I figured, what the heck, I'm going to miss anyways so it won't hit anyone. Then I rolled a natural 1 and he decided on the fly that meant I AUTOMATICALLY hit one of my party members...and for DOUBLE damage.

When I insisted that the rules said there were no chance to hit a party member at all in 3.5 edition rules and that a natural one ALWAYS missed everyone...he referred me to Rule 0 where it told him he couldn't make up anything he wanted. As far as he was concerned that the rules were the starting point and each and every individual situation required new rules based on the circumstances of the moment. Every time a player tried something that offended his sensibilities the rules would become nearly impossible to succeed and normally horribly detrimental to the players. However, all of the enemies knew the limitations of this reality and how to stretch it so everything they did worked automatically.

I prefer a situation where the ability of the DM to change things is not actually WRITTEN anywhere. Everyone KNOWS things can be changed, but the default assumption is that nothing is. That way each change will be a big deal to players and thereby make DMs more hesitant to change things randomly and on a whim.

 

[shurai]

I mean that it is possible for a person to be a good DM AND misuse their power. However, if the system reigns in their power slightly then they can be a good DM who CAN'T misuse their power.

I have trouble believing that a good DM would misuse their power on a regular basis. Such a DM wouldn't be good by definition, surely?

The example I've given in other threads is the time I ran into the DM who insisted that I have a 90% chance of hitting my party with a missile weapon if I fired from the back of my party order. He told me this after I decided to fire an arrow I knew wouldn't hit (I needed a natural 20) and wouldn't let me take back my action. I figured, what the heck, I'm going to miss anyways so it won't hit anyone. Then I rolled a natural 1 and he decided on the fly that meant I AUTOMATICALLY hit one of my party members...and for DOUBLE damage.

When I insisted that the rules said there were no chance to hit a party member at all in 3.5 edition rules and that a natural one ALWAYS missed everyone...he referred me to Rule 0 where it told him he couldn't make up anything he wanted. As far as he was concerned that the rules were the starting point and each and every individual situation required new rules based on the circumstances of the moment. Every time a player tried something that offended his sensibilities the rules would become nearly impossible to succeed and normally horribly detrimental to the players. However, all of the enemies knew the limitations of this reality and how to stretch it so everything they did worked automatically.

I prefer a situation where the ability of the DM to change things is not actually WRITTEN anywhere. Everyone KNOWS things can be changed, but the default assumption is that nothing is. That way each change will be a big deal to players and thereby make DMs more hesitant to change things randomly and on a whim.

I kind of think this is bad DMing: Your character, being knowledgeable about archery (being a veteran warrior), should've known better. A good DM would've warned you first, and allowed you to take it back, possibly after a successful wisdom or intelligence check.

Also, not having the NPCs act under the same assumptions as the PCs is another obvious mark against this DM. Doing it arbitrarily and even maliciously, as seems to have been the case, maybe, is a third.

That means you've got a bad DM. Time to replace him, or DM yourself.

The thing is, the rules aren't really simulating the in-game reality; that's what your imagination is for. The rules and their attendant body of character statistics and such are reference points only, serving as a handy way to keep the mind's eye from wandering too far afield. It gives us focus and lends us order, but only as much order as we decide we want.

Rule Zero is a fine and beautiful thing, even at the table as opposed to campaign-planning-time. It's all we have against the modron's-march of turning this wonderful, organic, swirling color-show of a hobby into yet another way to turn a very complicated crank. Believe me, I've played in about a dozen systems over the years, and no amount of rules ever can save you from a bad GM.

 

[Glyfair]

I have trouble believing that a good DM would misuse their power on a regular basis. Such a DM wouldn't be good by definition, surely?

I think he means that he is a good DM outside of abusing his power. I've seen GMs who are close to this archetype. The game would be a 10 in 10 if you weren't frustrated by seemingly random and inconsistent rulings.

Rule Zero is a fine and beautiful thing, even at the table as opposed to campaign-planning-time.

I agree. However, the statement suggested above doesn't read like rule zero.