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

[KarinsDad]

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.

You'd be surprised at what players can discern at a game.

And personally, I do not think any DM absolutely KNOWS that action A will always make the game "more fun" than action B. People do not have that level of foresight, especially when party decisions are generally made by the players, not the DM. Just having 3 extra hit points of damage on the party Rogue could result in a totally different direction being taken by the players and their is no way the DM is going to be able to anticipate this every time.

The most surprising and fun elements of the game usually come out of spontaneity, not planning.

DM's can fudge all they want. If one does it to me and I repeadtedly catch him at it, I will vote for a new DM and new DMing style. From my POV, he is breaking the social contract when he does that, regardless of whether I can detect it or not. There really is no need to railroad a game in this manner and a DM who does so has lost perspective that there is more than one player at that table.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Re: players reading the DMG:Why? Tell the DM what you're looking for; the DM should reply with a cost and availability...assuming your character would even know such items exist.

It recently happened in our campaign that the party was visiting Waterdeep, in preparation for an Underdark expedition. Several of the characters went shopping for magic items, while one character had a mini-adventure about seeking out the temple of his new deity.

If we weren't allowed to read the DMG, but had to request the GM to tell us the prices etc. of the things we wanted, the whole thing would have taken much longer, disrupted the mini-adventure, and generally been an annoyance for everyone involved.

As for knowing the stuff existed, our average level was around 8, and there were several characters with high Knowledge: Arcana skills, as well as one character w. the feat Mercantile Background. For us not to know roughly what sort of magic items we could find, and at what price range, would be bizarre.

 

[Cergorach]

I'd like to see the 4E Players Handbook have on page 1 a short statement similar to the following: "The content of this book is only a starting point for Dungeon Masters. They are encouraged to add to, subtract from, and/or alter any of this book's rules or content to suit their campaigns. Therefore, be sure to check with your Dungeon Master before you create your character about any special additions, subtractions, or changes to this book's content in his campaign."

I would dislike such a statement, it only confuses folks that aren't intimately familiar with the game. It kind of says to the uninitiated that the 300 page rule book they bought with their hard earned cash isn't actually a rulebook and they are dependant on the GM for the actual rules, that's a lot of ambiguity.

If you have a campaign that is different fom the default, you should give your players a short sheet with changes to the PHB. A lot of us actually play with friends and heavy handed GM techniques are just not ok to use with friends, so you discuss what's cool and what's not. Most of the time that means that if someone wants something in the campaign it's ok, unless the group disagrees or someone vetos the idea (the GM usually has more veto power then the players, but it's best not to misuse that power). Some of the things that got vetoed in our game: a certain player playing another drow necromancer, me playing another elven fighter/mage/thief (you can only go through so many of those before the rest of the players start to get tired of it), using Ravenloft as a campaign setting, and many more.

 

[Gentlegamer]

It kind of says to the uninitiated that the 300 page rule book they bought with their hard earned cash isn't actually a rulebook and they are dependant on the GM for the actual rules, that's a lot of ambiguity.

That's just it, the "rules" are really just tools and guidelines to help the DM adjudicate the game. No written rules are necessary to play a role-playing game.

 

[Korgoth]

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.

I guess there's a misunderstanding of terms, here. A dictator is just one who dictates, i.e. he has the final authority. If he doesn't listen to reasonable advice, he's not benevolent. There's no rule-book cure for a doofus DM. The only way to cure that problem is to get a new DM.

Of course, the other side of that is that sometimes a reasonable DM will listen to your reasonable advice and still decide in favor of the also reasonable counter-point. The definition of reasonable is not "always agrees with me".

 

[Gentlegamer]

Of course, the other side of that is that sometimes a reasonable DM will listen to your reasonable advice and still decide in favor of the also reasonable counter-point. The definition of reasonable is not "always agrees with me".

Quite right! Reasonable people can disagree and still be reasonable.

 

[Logan_Bonner]

Working on some text for PH1 Chapter 1 just before GenCon, I made sure it explained the key conceits of D&D, including Rule 0 (though I think it's important to state the DM doesn't have the authority to run a D&D game that's only fun for himself).

 

[Campbell]

Working on some text for PH1 Chapter 1 just before GenCon, I made sure it explained the key conceits of D&D, including Rule 0 (though I think it's important to state the DM doesn't have the authority to run a D&D game that's only fun for himself).

Will we be seeing more information about how D&D is played ? Given D&D's status as a gateway RPG of sorts I think that sort of introductory material is important for new players.

 

[howandwhy99]

That's just it, the "rules" are really just tools and guidelines to help the DM adjudicate the game. No written rules are necessary to play a role-playing game.

I agree.

RRPHB
"Referees for Removing Player's Handbooks"

Players don't need these to play. It's called Behind the Curtain.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just for the record:

1) I'm firmly in the "DM is the final arbiter of the rules of the campaign" camp. I'm also a big fan of player input. However, in my role as DM, I'm not going to let player desires get ahead of the internal consistency of the campaign- if there are no halflings in the campaign world, no amount of pleading will change that.

2) Player access to books IMC is completely open. Once again, though, just because you the player are aware of ______, doesn't mean ______ exists in the campaign.

3) Depending upon the particular campaign, unrestrained shopping for magic items has been something I've allowed and disallowed. In a world awash in magic, there is no real reason why someone couldn't use their gold to purchase a +2 shortsword. Conversely, a low-magic world may not have enough magic items in the entire campaign to support a single magic store. I never stop my players from asking, though.

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.

What weight your voice would carry about a rule in my campaign would vary in proportion to the reason for the rule.

If the rule covered something peripheral to the campaign...say, a particular way of handling "Situation Z" and there were many other viable ways of handling "Situation Z," your opinion would matter greatly.

If, OTOH, your opinion was in regards to something integral to the campaign's very structure, say..."Orcs are extraplanar beings who are innately evil, so they can't be a PC race" or "Elves are a sentient form of fey plant life, with the following vulnerabilities..." your opinion, quite bluntly, wouldn't matter very much.

Call it what you will, but in the latter case, your only choices would be to operate within the campaign rule or not play in the campaign.