Infiniti2000 said:
I don't think that means what you think it means, even if we put 'rule zero' back into 3.5.
I'm using the term "Rule zero" loosely here to describe the basic principle that the gamesmaster/DM trumps the rulebooks. I could care less how WotC worded it in 3.0e or that they left it out in 3.5e. The principle behind it is decades older than 3rd edition. The final authority of the gamesmaster has been a staple of RPGs since I started playing 25 years ago and I have never seen it so heavily under assault as I have in the past 5 years.
It's a well established concept in roleplaying games and used to be held pretty darn sacred. I'm perpetually astonished by how 3e/3.5e seems to have given some players the idea that the rulebook trumps the DM somehow. :\ Perhaps this is part of the sense of player empowerment that was mentioned in prior threads. I know I've noticed a much greater tendency to challenge DM rulings among players when using 3e/3.5e but I've tended to usually dismiss that as being caused by the sheer weight of the mechanics.
The rulebooks present the official rules and thus serve as a good baseline for discussion in places like ENworld or for new players joining a campaign. They are the "official" version of the game. However, just about any DM I've ever seen has his own particular take on interpretation (often differing enough that he or she feels compelled to introduce house rules) and most will tweak the rules in some fashion or another to suit their needs. The rules are a tool, not a straightjacket.
The idea that a DM controls the game isn't something that needs to be written up as a rule. It goes to the fundamental nature of what the DM is - the arbiter. Gamesmasters serve a three-fold role. First, they establish basic storylines and plot elements. Second, they play the role of all characters besides the player characters. Third, they are the final arbiter and interpreter of the rules in their game.
I don't subscribe to the "DM is God at their table" philosophy (that's just a great way to alienate players) but I sure as heck think that any player who tries to somehow overturn a DM's final ruling on something is out of line, especially if this is done at the table and delays the game. If a rules question is raised, then players and the DM should discuss it and after listening to all views and giving it due thought, the DM makes a ruling. End of discussion on that rules issue for now - keep playing.
If you really feel it is a poor decision, you can revisit the issue with the DM after the game session (e.g. present the errata or a sage advice collumn and argue that that is a good way to interpret the point in question). In the end, it is still up the DM the decide. Their final say is the only
unquestionable source of rules interpretation.
What if a player keeps hounding a DM over rules issues after the DM has made clear that their ruling is final? Sounds like a player asking to become persona non grata. That is certainly not a trait I would welcome. :\
What if a DM keeps making poor rules interpretations (at least in your view)? Then perhaps this person's game is not the right one for you. Different players enjoy different games. Different gamesmasters run games differently (something radically so).
Presenting a DM with text from a rulebook or an errata is like submitting statute, regulations or jurisprudence to a judge. Clearly written points are highly likely to be read the same way by all parties but more obscure points are prone to different interpretations. In addition, a judge can be just plain wrong. That doesn't change the fact that his rulings are binding. Even if the DM is factually wrong and has completely screwed up, their final ruling is still the only unquestionable interpretation of the rules in that campaign. The DM is the judge and their is no court of appeals even when they make a bad call. For better or worse, that's the nature of the game.
If a DM keeps making bad judgements, the only choices are to find another judge (i.e. change DMs) or live with it. Otherwise you'll just sit their arguing rules all the time and never actually playing. A DM who consistantly makes bad judgements is likely to have no players soon enough so the problem is kind of self-correcting. Most DMs slowly get better at rules interpretation and also tend to develop their own quirks and biases over time (e.g. favouring "realism" or "cinematic action").
Anything written on paper can be questioned, house ruled or otherwise trumped in a given game... even the rulebooks themselves. The rulebooks only represent an semi-unquestionable source of
official rules. I haven't ever met a veteran DM who used just official rules or strict RAW. Only the DM running the game says what books (and what parts of those books) are core to their specific game.
This thread asked about
unquestionable sources. In any particular campaign, the rules buck stops at the gamesmaster. They are the final arbiter and thus their final word is in effect unquestionable. The only effective way to question it is to leave the table or disrupt the game outright, neither of which are viable strategies for anyone who wants to enjoy their game.
If you want to restrict the discussion to unquestionable sources of
offical rules interpretation, then I'd have to answer none of the above. All have their flaws and are thus questionable at times. The core rules are the best official materials since they are universally recognized but they have their typos, errors and other flaws. As far as human interpretation goes, several regular posters on EN World stand out - Hypersmurf in particular - as presenting well reasoned views.
