I hope the three core rulebooks have a "DM's clause".
Doug McCrae
Legend
Trade in magic items is assumed in the 3e core rules.Scarbonac said:
IceFractal
First Post
Ultimately, the power lies with the group, not with any one person, not even the DM. Now a DM is perfectly within their rights to say "When I am running the game, this is how things work." But conversely, the group is then within their rights to say "Ok, well then we choose a different game than the one you run.".
The point is that nobody actually want it to come to an ultimatum like that, so an agreement is made in advance - someone volunteers to DM, and says which game they will run and with what houserules, and the rest of the group agrees to play in it.
But the decision about houserules should happen right there and then. If you're going to run a game where you can change the rules around whenever you want, then that should be stated up front, just as if you were going to run a game in a different system. If people want to play in that game, then go for it - otherwise, figure something else out.
The point is that nobody actually want it to come to an ultimatum like that, so an agreement is made in advance - someone volunteers to DM, and says which game they will run and with what houserules, and the rest of the group agrees to play in it.
But the decision about houserules should happen right there and then. If you're going to run a game where you can change the rules around whenever you want, then that should be stated up front, just as if you were going to run a game in a different system. If people want to play in that game, then go for it - otherwise, figure something else out.
Henry
Autoexreginated
This is a frequently occurring thread topic -- the power of a DM as final fair arbiter of a game, versus tryannical DMs who abuse such a power and make hostile players as a result. It always shocks me to learn just how many absolutely horrible DMs are out there, because I've run into one or two, but have never had that experience frequently. I'll take a DM-as-arbiter game with a good DM over ANY game where the group has to play strictly by the rules any time, because I've played both mediocre games controlled by the books' rules, and I've played in stellar games where the DM had more control over rules and outcomes, and for me the experience is worlds better in the latter than the former.
By the same token I've played in "collaborative" games where the players had partial control over the game world ("I take the rope holding the chandelier and swing from it" when the DM has mentioned neither rope nor chandelier) and those are just as fun -- but ANY game requires ALL the players (the DM is a player too, of course) being vested in making sure the whole group has fun. A DM who can't read his players is a terrible DM, and a player who makes life hell for a DM by browbeating him with rules minutiae is a bad player, no matter what style anyone is using.
That may sum it up, best of all.
By the same token I've played in "collaborative" games where the players had partial control over the game world ("I take the rope holding the chandelier and swing from it" when the DM has mentioned neither rope nor chandelier) and those are just as fun -- but ANY game requires ALL the players (the DM is a player too, of course) being vested in making sure the whole group has fun. A DM who can't read his players is a terrible DM, and a player who makes life hell for a DM by browbeating him with rules minutiae is a bad player, no matter what style anyone is using.
IceFractal said:
That may sum it up, best of all.
Then he darn well have better said something about it before I started playing.
Failure to note house rules and important divergences from the standard assumptions of D&D prior to the beginning of gaming automatically makes you a bad DM. No exceptions.
He also had better have come up with some kind of alternate use for money, or eliminated high wealth, and he needs some alternative to the balancing effect that sale of magic items is assumed to have in D&D. And if he hasn't thought up that, then he's got no business having house rules. He's not good enough to have house rules, his campaign is going to be broken, and I'm going to be angry that I got suckered into wasting my time.
Bah. I've had great campaigns where the DM had significant house rules. I've never had a great campaign with the sort of DM who loudly proclaims that he's the god of gaming and that we all have no rights but what he grants us. Even if technically true, the sorts of people who shout it from the rooftops rarely use that power well.
This is a game. It is played by more than the DM. It is played by a group of people around a table.
It is the DM's world and he is the arbitrater of that world, but he is not the final arbitrater. The final arbitrater is the players: all of them, including the DM. The group ultimately decides together most of how the game procedes. The DM cannot play without the other players and the other players cannot play without a DM.
The DM has a social contract with the players to be fair and consistent and to specify his house rules up front (and to specify additional house rules as they come up in the game for the first time, but then to be consistent with them). The players have a right to kick out a bad DM and start up a different game with a different DM any time they want.
All players have the right to look through any book they want. It's a game.
I walked out mid-game on a bad DM once. Only once, but he was a total idiot. Fortunately, most DMs are not. I have also walked out on a few games after a session or two when it became apparent that the game was not my cup of tea, but those were between sessions. Personally, I refuse to stay in an uncomfortable game.
All players have the ultimate right to vote with their feet if they so desire.
So, DMs beware. You are not a deity. You are one player out of several and your power can be curtailed just as quickly as it is granted. Anybody who needs special clauses in the books to tell the players that it is the DM's game though, should not be DM in the first place. JMO.
It is the DM's world and he is the arbitrater of that world, but he is not the final arbitrater. The final arbitrater is the players: all of them, including the DM. The group ultimately decides together most of how the game procedes. The DM cannot play without the other players and the other players cannot play without a DM.
The DM has a social contract with the players to be fair and consistent and to specify his house rules up front (and to specify additional house rules as they come up in the game for the first time, but then to be consistent with them). The players have a right to kick out a bad DM and start up a different game with a different DM any time they want.
All players have the right to look through any book they want. It's a game.
I walked out mid-game on a bad DM once. Only once, but he was a total idiot. Fortunately, most DMs are not. I have also walked out on a few games after a session or two when it became apparent that the game was not my cup of tea, but those were between sessions. Personally, I refuse to stay in an uncomfortable game.
All players have the ultimate right to vote with their feet if they so desire.
So, DMs beware. You are not a deity. You are one player out of several and your power can be curtailed just as quickly as it is granted. Anybody who needs special clauses in the books to tell the players that it is the DM's game though, should not be DM in the first place. JMO.
Gentlegamer
Adventurer
The title is Game Master, not Game Custodian or Game Trustee.mhacdebhandia said:
You'll abide by my rulings, Monkey Boy.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
Players need to be told that the DM must be allowed to change rules. DM's need to be told that they must not abuse this privilege. BOTH need to be told to make their opinions known and work out differences LONG before it becomes a problem DURING a game. Nothing more is needed. Nothing less will suffice.
Agree with the OP.
As to the objectors: the fact of the (oft exaggerated) existence of bad cops does not prove that civil law enforcement should be abolished, or that the cop on the beat should have to convene a meeting of the local citizen's oversight council before breaking up a fight between a couple of drunks.
A good game, like a trim ship, is not a democracy. A DM, like a captain, should be a benevolent dictator. If he's not benevolent, that's not an argument against captains in general, it's an argument against this doofus in particular.
As to the objectors: the fact of the (oft exaggerated) existence of bad cops does not prove that civil law enforcement should be abolished, or that the cop on the beat should have to convene a meeting of the local citizen's oversight council before breaking up a fight between a couple of drunks.
A good game, like a trim ship, is not a democracy. A DM, like a captain, should be a benevolent dictator. If he's not benevolent, that's not an argument against captains in general, it's an argument against this doofus in particular.
