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

[shurai]

A lot of systems do not put absolute authority in the hands of the GM. For example, in The Dying Earth the player gets to decide how many re-rolls to pay for. In RQ the player gets to roll her PC's background. In D&D the player gets to decide how much BAB to put into Power Attack. In TRoS the player gets to choose the PCs Spiritual Attributes. In OGL Conan the player gets to decide the consequences of spending a Fate Point to vary the situation in her favour (although the GM also has the power to set parameters for the extent of variation).

I think we may be disagreeing about what we are disagreeing about. : ] I think these are all examples of player-character choices, which are, yes, in the hands of players and not the GM in most systems. But notice that your particular example of Power Attack can actually show how the GM has the final power in terms of the effects of character choices. The DM can easily just mark off the bad guy's hit points as if Power Attack hadn't been used, and say nothing.

Ask yourself, if the DM did cheat this way, how would you know? Is it possible a DM has done this to you already without your knowledge? In a way, the DM's ability to conceal this sort of thing is proof that the DM holds that power legitimately -- it's built in to the game and, I believe, even recommended by the DMG.

Right now some of you are thinking this is shenanigans, but it's a question of play style. Some people hate to fudge die rolls and such because they want to let the story develop without "intervention." I'm from the other camp: If the adventure is more fun with the DM cheating a bit, I'm okay with that. It's not like I know anyway, and I can just as easily squint a little bit and not see the DM doing it.

A GM who arbitrarily changes the rules or the game-mechanical consequences of a player's choices is significantly deprotagonising that player. Most of the time this isn't fun, unless the player's goal is simply to have the GM lead her through a story that the GM has already decided in advance.

Arbitrarily, yes, but conscientiously, that's another matter. : ] The GM can intervene only when its really necessary, which isn't often, and can do so in a way that isn't obtrusive and actually adds to the game.

 

[Minicol]

Umm, dude, pretty much this exact statement is in the 3e DMG. People seem to think that it's not, but, really, it is.

Never mind that it is repeatedly stated in book after book that X is an option and to check with your DM first.

But, yes, 3e castrated all DM's and anyone who DM's 3rd edition (or 3.5) is just a mindless yes man for his power gaming munchkin players.

Well, I do not have the problems you guys have, and I have run a fair number of homegrown campaigns.

I make clear from the beginning that I may restrict some options from the players at any moment, and if that happens, they can choose another equivalent alternative. However, I rarely, if ever do it. I also tell them that I expect them to create an interesting and coherent character, rather than a ridiculous multiclassed munchkin "thingie".

In fact, in three years, I only had to resort to that rules twice : one to stop a player to create a ridiculous fighter by taking repeatedly the same broken 3rd party feat every time he gained a new one, and the other one is a special case :

I was running a GH campaign, and a player wanted to join us, but he said he wanted a FR campaign. I said no way, but allowed him to play a mage from the FR, come here through some freak accident. He complained a lot, but accepted that.

After a few games, he started exhibiting lots of strange spells, and seemed much more powerful than the rest of the group. When I asked him about this, he confessed that he was playing the same character in other campaigns, and was pooling the xps and treasure he gained elsewhere. I again said no way. He complained non stop and cried unfair.

Then he had an argument with another player outside of game, and I stopped invited him. Just for the record, he was not a young hot-headed teenager, but a father of two and businessman.

DMing is a lot of work, so I don't DM for people who are not adult enough to respect the others. I know there are some abusive DMs, but there a lot more abusive players. The answer is short : they are not worth the bother to play with. If they want absolute freedom to play whatever, fine : they can do it alone.

 

[Minicol]

Hi,


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

I think this may have a lot to do with the popularity of RPGA Living Greyhawk, where the DM has no power whatsoever to alter anything from the written adventure.

 

[pogre]

Outside of RPGA, why does anyone play with a "bad" DM?

I do feel a certain amount of authority and right to change the game prior to a campaign. If a player has a big problem with a houserule or change in expectations I certainly listen, explain my position, and then make a decision.

I have a player who loves psions. He asked me to include psionics. I declined and explained my reasons and he continued to play. I certainly would have understood if he instead would have said, "This does not sound like my kind of game. I think I will sit it out."

I'm pretty much a core only guy. However, some of my players like to look at new stuff to bring into the game. If they provide me the rules to look over I usually say yes. By provide, I mean loan me the book for a few minutes so that I can look it over. I also often use the caveat, if I find this unbalancing or have difficulty adjudicating this ability I may ask you to remove it and take another choice.

I'm a bit leery of the idea in 4E that they will be constantly adding to the core. However, already in my game I do not use a bit of the core. I ban monks (flavor reasons), I ban magic missile (adjudicating issues), and res always costs you a level (fun reasons). My players are always very gracious when I explain why I'm not using something. Sometimes they explain an easier way to adjudicating a rule, which I find very helpful.

The game is absolutely a collaborative effort. I think players should have significant input on the rules. I want my game to be about fun above all. However, the guy doing most of the work does get the final say. Being clear and open about expectations is the key.

Having said all of that, in RPGA or other similar situations, DMs have no right to change or modify rules.

 

[Glyfair]

Outside of RPGA, why does anyone play with a "bad" DM?

Remember it's not typically a black and white issue. Most DMs have weaknesses and strengths. The "bad everywhere DM" is pretty rare. Maybe he's a good DM except in a few areas where he is bad. Maybe he's a great DM in an area or two, with one huge weakness. I've played with a DM that was great in most areas, but had one gaping hole in his style that hurt a lot of sessions.

Also, sometimes it's because your choices are another bad DM (maybe worse, maybe bad in a different way) or no DM (or maybe DMing when you don't want to). If you look you'll see threads from people that don't have anyone to game with, or have such high standards that they don't want to play with the people they can find. Sometimes a game that's flawed is better than no game.

 

[Bront]

I agree with the OP. I'd also like to see something up front in the 4e PHB stating that under normal circumstances* the DMG and MMs are off-limits to players.

* - unless a player is also a DM; even then, when functioning as a player the same restrictions apply.

Lanefan

Ha! You want them to put a disclaimer for some people to NOT buy one of their books? Think about that for a moment.

 

[Lanefan]

Ha! You want them to put a disclaimer for some people to NOT buy one of their books? Think about that for a moment.

::shrug:: Yeah, I know...though 1e seemed to sell well enough with the disclaimers in place, so it *can* be done...whether WotC has the chops to do it for 4e is a wide open question.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

notice that your particular example of Power Attack can actually show how the GM has the final power in terms of the effects of character choices. The DM can easily just mark off the bad guy's hit points as if Power Attack hadn't been used, and say nothing.

Ask yourself, if the DM did cheat this way, how would you know? Is it possible a DM has done this to you already without your knowledge? In a way, the DM's ability to conceal this sort of thing is proof that the DM holds that power legitimately -- it's built in to the game and, I believe, even recommended by the DMG.

<snip>

If the adventure is more fun with the DM cheating a bit, I'm okay with that. It's not like I know anyway, and I can just as easily squint a little bit and not see the DM doing it.

<snip>

The GM can intervene only when its really necessary, which isn't often, and can do so in a way that isn't obtrusive and actually adds to the game.

The question is: is this legitimate, or cheating?

When it comes to stopping PCs dying, I am startng to think that giving players' control - through Fate Points or something similar - is prefereable to having the GM decide to tweak things a bit in the players' favour.

When it comes to stopping PCs winning, I am more leery of GM intervention. Ignoring the consequences of Power Attack is, in effect, adding HP to the monster during the middle of the fight. That seems to be depriving the players of the fruits of their effort.

Perhaps it depends on what the understanding is between players and GM. If the goal of the game is for the players to win, with their PCs, against the challenges set by the GM, then it would be unfair and cheating for the GM to fudge in the way you descibe. If the goal is for the players to explore a certain plot or resolve a certain conflict, then it may be understood as between everyone at the table that the GM is entitled to deploy game elements so as to facilitate this goal (if you like, the GM has a more-or-less unlimited supply of Fate Points).

So I still see the ultimate sovereignty being pooled between GM and players.

I should add, my perspective on this is as a GM rather than a player - I haven't played in an RPG for probably over 10 years.

 

[delericho]

I agree that Rule Zero should stay, although I would stick with the wording from the 3.0 PHB.

However, given the use of the DI, and the near-impossibility of handling house rules in an electronic character generator, I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see a much reduced emphasis on the use of the same in the new edition.

 

[Hussar]

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.

No thanks. Sorry, have zero interest in playing with dictatorial DM's, no matter how benevolent. My voice should carry some weight at the table. If I think that someone's house rule is crap, I should be able to say so and expect that my opinion will have some effect.

My players help me craft my campaigns all the time by coming up with stuff I haven't thought of and helping me see the ramifications of changes I might make. I would never, ever try to place myself as the sole ruler of the game and would remove myself from any game where the DM saw himself as top of the dog pile.

Then again, in our group of seven players, six of us DM in other campaigns, so, we're pretty DM heavy at the table to begin with.