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

[Dannyalcatraz]

I do not relish the thought of some players trying to force a DM to allow races, classes, equipment, spells, etc. in his campaign for no other reason than that such things are in the Players Handbook.

And

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.

Even without that quote, my understanding of the past 30 years in the hobby is that in any RPG and any campaign, the DM decides what options are available for the players to choose from. It is, after all, his campaign world. He's setting up a framework in which the game will occur- and that requires setting boundaries. The quote merely makes that crystal clear.

He may ask for input from his players...but its not required that he do so. He can excise or include races, classes powers, spells, tech, and the like at will during the design process.

I've personally played in several campaigns in which "core" material was excised. In D&D alone, I've encountered games without monks and/or paladins, no PC races other than humans, no divine magic, no arcane magic, no magic at all and so forth. Why? Because those elements that had been eliminated were not appropriate to the setting.

If Psionics were made Core in 4Ed (which I'm in favor of, but I'm aware is not the case), it may pressure a GM to include it...but if psi isn't part of the setting he's modeling, there is no reason on earth to include it.

Besides, consider the flip side- if it isn't in the rulebooks, is a DM barred from including it? Of course not!

 

[Adso]

I really think there is a balance here. It is the DM's game, but it also is a game and a player, through reading the rules, should have a good idea of how things will work.

For instance, to use 3.x examples, A player's feat or spell should not be subject to DM fiat, unless that is explained when the player takes the feat or spell.

"Oh, Joe, in my game Power Attack works differently."

is much better than

"Oh, Joe, this time Power Attack works differently."

DMs should also not take away player functionality arbitrarily just because they didn't happen to think about it when writing the adventure. Instead, it is much better to congratulate the player, and then take revenge on the resourceful bastard later.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

No sentence in a book can replace fairness and a level-headed conversation between players and DMs. It may give courage to those who feel overwhelmed by insistent players, yes, so for some it may be helpful. At the end of the day, it is only a game.

 

[Jackelope King]

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.

Sounds like my first DM. Awesome worlds to explore, fascinating NPCs, and truly excellent quests to go on. However, he also had a "pet PC" who he essentially showered with loot on a regular basis while leaving the rest of us with equipment best suited for the old Slavelords modules. He also had a penchant for occassionally killing off a character if he got mad at the player or just decided that he didn't like the character anymore.

I have learned to hate this style of gaming with a passion. I don't game to play "DM May I". I don't want my characters to die just because the DM is a Giants fan and I'm wearing an Eagles jersey. The "DM = ALL-POWERFUL" mantra of older editions never sat well with me, even though I tend to run more games than I play.

People who call for returning power to the DM make me wonder why they want that power in the first place. I for one am much happier letting the rules do most of the adjudicating so I can do some gaming. And if it makes the players more on equal-footing with the DM? So much the better. PCs do the darndest things, and it's when they have the freedom and power to do those things that the game is the most fun.

 

[Treebore]

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."

A similar statement could be included on page 1 of both the DMG and the MM, only addressed to DMs rather than to players.

Why?

Because I do not relish the thought of some players trying to force a DM to allow races, classes, equipment, spells, etc. in his campaign for no other reason than that such things are in the Players Handbook. The DM in such a case could simply refer the player to the very first page of the Players Handbook and say, "Look. Not only is it in the core rulebook, but it's on the very first page. There are no _____ in my campaign. Case closed."

Nothing a printer, some scissors, and tape or glue couldn't fix for your game books.


And as the header for your "house rules" document.

 

[Lanefan]

Re: players reading the DMG:

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

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.

Lanefan

 

[howandwhy99]

I agree. Rule Zero and the like "all rules are guidelines" play help to shape the community.

 

[WayneLigon]

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

If I'm a player, I have every right and expectation to be as familiar with that book - or any other material - as you, no exceptions, period. I hope you don't actually think your players are unfamiliar with that book, providing they have an interest in it.

 

[pemerton]

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.

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).

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.

In terms of house-ruling, I think that co-operation and negotiation are preferable to GM fiat. If the game is not going to be 4E D&D but variant D&D, then why shouldn't everyone in the play group should have a say in deciding exactly what variant is to be played?

 

[Fifth Element]

If its in the DMG, you as a player have no RIGHT or BUSINESS looking at it. Likewise, if a DM decides that a rule is broken or a ruling better suits the campaign, he/she has the right to pitch, alter it or add to it as he/she sees fit.

That's quite an "old school" (which here means "archaic and outmoded") perspective. The players are people too, and obviously have a right to read any book they please. A draconian DM may soon find himself without players. How many sudden, arbitrary rule changes are players supposed to accept without consultation?

A DM can be the final arbiter of a decision, but the view that he should be all-powerful and that players must accept his decisions without question is misguided.