Rule 0 and DM/player balance of power.

[Ydars]

Rule 0 states that the DM can change any rule or adjudicate any rule in the way he sees fit. Yet many editions of D&D have tended to display wide differences in the DM versus player "power".

Old games like AD&D and OD&D seemed to emphaise DM over player power, whereas many people have observed that WoTC seem to hate this kind of hand-waving and try to provide rules for everything. This has lead to the perception that even the DM has to follow the rules or be called out by the players, at least in certain groups.

So my question is; what is the ideal balance between players and the DM in terms of "power" and what would you like to see in the 4E DMG?

 

[jdrakeh]

. . . whereas many people have observed that WoTC seem to hate this kind of hand-waving and try to provide rules for everything.

The many people who have pointed this out have failed to take into account (or deliberately ignored for the sake of creating drama) the fact that Rule 0 still exists in D&D 3x and that providing more, other, rules does erase Rule 0 from existence (rather, it merely gives people more options to play with on the front end). Rule 0 and mechanically robust systems are not mutually exclusive.

In D&D 4e, I would prefer that the designers continue to take the same approach that they did in 3x -- keep Rule 0 in but provide rules for people who want mechanical options. This way both markets are satisfied, save for an unreasonable and vocal minority who claim that both things cannot exist simultaneously in the same edition of D&D (despite ten years of very clearly documented evidence to the contrary).

Going back to a model of few written rules seems counter-productive as that, clearly, is not what a majority of consumers want. On the other hand, removing Rule 0 and validating the paranoid projections of people who feel compelled to interpret the rules of games as though they were some kind of inviolable law doesn't seem to be a particularly smart move, either.

 

[Mark]

DM versus player

This is a fallacy. The DM facilitates challenges for the players and delineates the consequences of their actions. It is no great feat for a DM to destroy all player characters when he has the entire universe at his disposal.

 

[Ydars]

I agree with all the points so far but have noted an increasing tendancy, the longer I have played 3.5E, for players to dislike any DM fiat, even when it is in the interests of keeping the game fun and balanced. Its almost like they feel that I am "breaking the rules" in certain cases.

For example, sometimes I want NPCs that have particular skills. I don't want them to be high level in order to have +15 to diplomacy but this annoys certain of my players because they feel an NPC shouldn't have this skill at low level.

My argument is that the NPC is not an adventurer and hence has one or two specialist skills but somehow this doesn't satisfy them.

I never encountered this before 3.0E but maybe it was just my group.

One thing I do like about the 4E skill mechanic is the co-operative story telling aspect of task resolution. This is the way I liked to play it anyway and it looks like WoTC have enshrined this mechanically in an exciting way.

 

[darthkilmor]

For example, sometimes I want NPCs that have particular skills. I don't want them to be high level in order to have +15 to diplomacy but this annoys certain of my players because they feel an NPC shouldn't have this skill at low level.

My argument is that the NPC is not an adventurer and hence has one or two specialist skills but somehow this doesn't satisfy them.

How do they even know what level he is anyway?

 

[Celtavian]

re

The only time I use Rule 0 is when the rules don't provide a means to adjudicate a particular situation. This wouldn't be a concern of mine. Any rule changes I enact are discussed with players in advance. DnD is a collaborative game, not a DM vs Players game.

 

[jdrakeh]

I agree with all the points so far but have noted an increasing tendancy, the longer I have played 3.5E, for players to dislike any DM fiat, even when it is in the interests of keeping the game fun and balanced. Its almost like they feel that I am "breaking the rules" in certain cases.

For example, sometimes I want NPCs that have particular skills. I don't want them to be high level in order to have +15 to diplomacy but this annoys certain of my players because they feel an NPC shouldn't have this skill at low level.

My argument is that the NPC is not an adventurer and hence has one or two specialist skills but somehow this doesn't satisfy them.

I never encountered this before 3.0E but maybe it was just my group.

One thing I do like about the 4E skill mechanic is the co-operative story telling aspect of task resolution. This is the way I liked to play it anyway and it looks like WoTC have enshrined this mechanically in an exciting way.

I think the road block that you may be runnng into with not adhering to rules is that (from the example given) you don't let your players know up front (i.e., prior to play) that there will be certain departures from the RAW where NPCs are concerned. If this is indeed the case, I respectfully suggest that their response is more a product of communication failure than any rules issue.

If I let my players know up front that encounters will not always be balanced so that the opponents are of the same power level as the PCs, they have no issue with it (and, ironically, the guidelines in the DMG specifically mention mixing up enconters in this manner, so if you must point to a rule in order to make them happy, you can). YMMV, of course, as personality issues are unique to the players involved.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

This has led to the perception that even the DM has to follow the rules or be called out by the players, at least in certain groups.

As everyone carries on the fine traditions from the original three book set. I first encountered this with the red boxed set when I got started.

So my question is; what is the ideal balance between players and the DM in terms of "power" and what would you like to see in the 4E DMG?

A refinement of the current system. Namely, a little more articulation of advice about how to handle the communication issues surrounding Rule 0 (as discussed upthread), and perhaps some optional mechical rules for DMs to apply to play. Example: if you're playing with Hero Points or Action Points, when the players turn them in the DM gets to use them for the villains. Makes for some nice setups.

 

[pallandrome]

DnD is a game that requires at least some degree of trust between the MG and the PCs to function as intended. Since I know what is going on in the universe in which we play, and they do not, they will either trust me not to use this knowledge, and by extension "Rule 0", unfairly, or I will not run the game for them.

The corollary, of course, is that I MUST use "Rule 0" fairly, or they will not PLAY.

 

[Aus_Snow]

That NPC might've been able to get to +15 anyway. What about Skill Focus (Diplomacy) and Negotiator? If they're 3rd level or higher, they are at least able to have those two feats, according to the RAW. Skill ranks could be 6 or more (if it's a class skill - if not, it should be.) If Cha bonus is +4 (so, 18 Cha) then you have a total of. . . +15!

If the rules can do what you want them to do anyway, don't bother bending or breaking them 'just because' (this is purely advice, not 'the only way', obviously) - otherwise, find or make a ruleset that works for you.

But then, I'm not a big fan of Rule 0. It probably has its place, somewhere for some people. And that's cool. But I'd rather rulesets actually work, and work properly.