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

[Cergorach]

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.

The "rules" are also there for the players so they know how to influence the world, so it's important that the players know the rules, having them written down makes the whole process that much easier. While it was fun when we played cops and robbers it usually went "Bang! Your dead!", "No, i'm not!". As a GM i want my players to know what they can and can't do, and if they do something dangerous they'll know the consequences in advance, so that i don't have to play 'common sense' for the players while running the rest of the world. The same goes for when i'm a player, if i climb a steep mountain, i want to know how difficult it's going to be compared to how good i am. I really don't like it when the GM is throwing the rules in the wind without some fair notice (unless of course it's a plot device, such as a reality shift).

That little section at the front of the PHB is for the new players, most of whom this is their first experience playing an RPG, don't confuse them with uncertainties. Although rule 0 is fine when worded carefully (i'm certain WotC will do an excellent job), further explanation of how to change rules and introducing them in your game should be left to the DMG and should be an entire chapter on it's own.

 

[Geoffrey]

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).

Sounds good to me!

 

[Hussar]

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.

See, I've pretty much given up on the whole D&D is my art thing. The idea that my campaign is locked tight into certain ideas is not terribly interesting to me anymore. If the player wants something, I'll try my best to accomodate that rather than telling him that my imaginary world is inherently better than his.

 

[Reynard]

See, I've pretty much given up on the whole D&D is my art thing. The idea that my campaign is locked tight into certain ideas is not terribly interesting to me anymore. If the player wants something, I'll try my best to accomodate that rather than telling him that my imaginary world is inherently better than his.

I agree that it is important for players to have fun, but I think that some degree of campaign and setting versimilitude must be maintained. It isn't insulting a player's imagination to say "Dwarves can't be wizards" and stick to it; the player who adamantly demands to play a dwarf wizard in the campaign that defines dwarves as "non-magical" or somesuch is the one who is wrong in that instance.

If there is good communication before the start of the campaign, such problems won't arise. There can be some negotiation, and often players have great ideas that make the campaign and/or setting cooler. I once started a campaign with the statement,, "No elves and no ninjas" and one player convinced me, through good argument and the promise of increased dun, to allow him to play and elf ninja. it improved the campaign by an immesurable amount, because the nation of elf ninjas became central to the campaign and setting. however, that doesn't mean I allow any old thing, especially after a setting or campaign has been established.

Givinga player the opportunity to convince you that he idea is a good one that fits the campaign and will increase everyone's fun is good DMing; giving a player whatever he wants, just because, is bad DMing.

 

[Glyfair]

I agree that it is important for players to have fun, but I think that some degree of campaign and setting versimilitude must be maintained. It isn't insulting a player's imagination to say "Dwarves can't be wizards" and stick to it; the player who adamantly demands to play a dwarf wizard in the campaign that defines dwarves as "non-magical" or somesuch is the one who is wrong in that instance.

I think there can be some variations here. In one game maybe the world was designed in such a way that "non-magic dwarves" are important to the setting detail. Maybe they were able to stand up in the past to a BBEG because they couldn't use magic. In that case, I 100% agree with the stance of disallowing wizard dwarves.

On the other hand, there is the case where there isn't an important reason in the campaign why there can't be an exception. The only reason in the campaign that dwarves can't be wizards is because the DM doesn't like dwarves being able to be wizards. The only campaign relevance of dwarves being non-magic is the DM mentioned that one fact. In that case, it's something that should probably be discussed with the group. If the DM is "dwarf-wizard phobic" the group can take that into account.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which was basically my point.

Generally speaking, I don't rule much out, and I generally like input from my players. I like 3rd party stuff and use it pretty liberally. I only ask for final review to prevent abuses (like stacking feats with different names but same/similar effects, using classes that are obviously from a setting with a different power level, etc.).

But if I tell you the campaign world has no PHB races- as was the case in my last one- there is a definite, non-arbitrary reason to it. And if you think that it sucks you can't play an Elf, that's your problem. Don't play.

My decision on races in the campaign was no different than WotC setting the racial perameters of Eberron to include Warforged, denying spellcasting to Clerics in Dragonlance, or making Psionics essential in and eliminating metal from DarkSun. I had a reason for excising the PHB races- including them would have been totally inconsistent with the setting.

My current campaign W.I.P. (which I started working on in 2006) will include some of the PHB races...but in greatly modified form. I've been polling my players for info and incorporating some of their suggestions. However, suggestions that don't fit the campaign's core concepts won't be included. They can't be. Inclusion would disrupt the campaign's internal consistency.

 

[Counterspin]

D&D's tactical part is half the fun for me, if not more, as a player and a GM. As a GM, I'll let you play or use anything that is balanced because I want your tactical fate to be in your own hands. Ditto for magic items. I want you to live and die based on your own choices.

As a player, I want access to more options so that I can explore new tactical paths. If there isn't some interesting new thing to explore, I probably won't play. D&D without tactics just doesn't do it for me.

Which is not to say I don't like RP. I love RP, I run RP exclusive games, I play in RP exclusive games. I play D&D for the crunch builds and the tactics.