Should wizards of the coast ever publish a official players rights hand book which all Dungeon Masters must abide by, What would be some of the official rights as a player you would want to see added to the book?
No
Any such agreements should be made within each individual group, with the DM and players agreeing to what suits them, rather than being dictated by one remote person's view of what should happen. D&D is such a good game because it's flexible, and everyone can customise it to suit their group and campaign, so any attempt to force DMs to abide by any rules would first be against one of the game's greatest strengths, and secondly fail due to everyone ignoring it.
There should be a section in the DMG about making sure you run a game that's suitable to your group, ideally containing suggestions for having a Session Zero to discuss the group's expectations and any 'rights' or responsibilities.
Unless you intended this thread to be one of those humourous "101 things my DM is not allowed to do", in which case, go ahead.
Seems like the type of thing gaming groups should work out themselves.
I would personally aggressively ignore such a book. I tend to be anti-authoritarian.
bawylie wrote:
GamerNotHater wrote:
The DM has no power beyond what the players give to him willingly - there definitely doesn't also need to be a book that says "hey player, don't give the DM any of this stuff."
I know most people take it to the extremes and say that your options as a player are to accept the DM as all-powerful and unquestionable, or walk out the door - but the reality, when not dealing with a jerk, is that the player can vocalize any concerns to the DM and, because we have established that this DM is not a jerk, the two will find a compromise, because if the DM ever says "my way or the highway," the players can all say "goodbye," and then one of them can decide to be DM for the rest... while the DM that decided to be "all-powerful" is left alone, with no ability to simply declare himself a player and actually get some gaming in, and on the search for a new group.
Maybe it's just because I have been my groups' (many distinct groups of people in several different states) primary GM for my entire gaming career, but I have always felt there is a simple truth to being a DM that no one ever acknowledges: You run what the players want, or you don't have anyone to run for - and that means the players have all of the power.
bawylie wrote:
Methen wrote:
Krusk wrote:
GamerNotHater wrote:
Absurd.
The social contract at the beginning of the game outlines all interpretations of rules and table manners.
If a player brought me a book like that, I would boot them from the table immediately for insulting me with that. That would be like buying your girlfriend underwear 3 sizes too big.
Go ahead, try it.
bawylie wrote:
Methen wrote:
Seems to me that that kind of "document" (is there really enough for a book? what game are youe playing if there is?) implicitly puts the players and the GM in an adversarial positions. That's not really how it works, for me and many others. The game is about cooperative story telling, not about winners or losers or beating or tricking others. When I think about things like that, it makes me not want to play. (I've been in a few "bad" games before. Fortunately, they were limited time, by design or choice)
Yeah, if you are playing someplace where you feel like you need an outside authority - say a game publisher like WotC - to spell out player rights... You really need to consider if that is a place you want to play.
TjD
The issue is not the players needs rights, as if they are living under suffrage, its that the DM needs knowledge, ideas, and a vision of what good play is like. If you can't prove it to your DM, then show it to them by DMing a campaign. Or inviting someone who is good to DM a session or three. There must be give in take in any collaborative gaming experience.
DaBeerds wrote:
BlackLibrary wrote:
Methen wrote:
Methen wrote:
Methen wrote:
DaBeerds wrote:
I volunteer right now to be on the Gaming Police Flying Death Squad which enforces player rights with great justice...
I can't really soften the statement that this idea is foolish and impractical on so many levels it's laughable. First, you put WotC in the position of being all-knowing, all-seeing and declaring what's right and wrong for every group in the world. It assumes WotC has power to enforce this one-vision-fits-all ideal. It assumes players will actually all agree that they need the same rights. Are they going to enforce this for EVERY version of D&D ever published?
Personally, I HAVE a document which I hand to players which details what I personally feel are rights and responsibilities of both players and myself as DM. Frankly I think every DM could do a lot worse than to have their own such handout - but not one that inflicts MY rules on them but which they agree to along with THEIR players. I don't expect that other DM's or players will all feel the same way I do about making up new rules, fudging dice, or metagaming. It isn't important that WE ALL follow the same rules. It is only important that INDIVIDUAL DM's and their players agree to abide by rules that fit THEIR GAME.
When WotC doesn't just try to dictate to me how I am to run my game but says that MY PLAYERS are the ones who get to tell me how to run the game I will gladly lead the revolution.
If you're not playing for money, or at a level where an infringement on you as a player would result in a crippling loss, I don't really see the point of a Magna Carta. To be fair, I've never been in a position where I feel the DM is abusing their power, but that's mainly because I make a point of playing with friends whom I don't want to cheat against, and vica versa, because we're more concerned about having fun than "winning."
With respect, this strikes me as an outcry about the supposed behavior of a DM, not all DM's. From what I can gleam reading the OP and subsequent posts favoring OP's position, their argument seems to be that they need a central rulebook that is accepted by all, some kind of set-in-stone rules that can never be violated. My argument would be that any group that needs such rules should not be playing together, and I would quite possibly also suggest they shouldn't be associating with each other socially, either. If a DM honestly needs to have some kind of "Bill of Rights" to stop him from abusing his players, he should stop DM'ing and get back to running North Korea. If players are so paranoid about DM abuse that they feel the need to band together against the "oppressor", then they have completely missed the entire point of D&D. I cannot speak for others, but when I play D&D, it's with friends. But even when it isn't, there shouldn't be a need for a written rule of conduct because society at large has a unwritten code of conduct that should easily protect against the kind of abuses a "rights book" would shield against. As for the argument that as a business, WotC should publish it because "profit!", the loss in playerbase for essentially telling the plebians (in a snarky voice, hopefully) that "these are things you can never do, and you need these rules to live by!" would far outweigh any profits to be gained.
If your DM is being enough of an ass that you're even considering this rights book as a good idea, find a new DM.
As much as I loathe the concept of some sort of media-appointed "geek ambassador," I think Wheaton's Law is about as close to a "Bill of Rights" as anyone needs for D&D.
Well, since you're the same guy who started this gem, I feel safe in not taking you seriously.
Not having read anything that came before:
A player has the right, upon deciding he is sufficiently unhappy with the way his DM is handling some issue, to decide to not play in that group any more.
Said player has the right to offer to DM a new campaign.
He has the right to invite his current group members and his DM to become players in the new campaign. This offer may not be made during a gaming session.
All the other players plus the DM have the individual right to say, "Thanks but no thanks."
All the other players have the right to play in a new campaign that is not just the old DM's campaign with that particular issue handled differently.
Simply put; no not really.
If I join a game and the DM is rather strict with rules ( but is rather lax if you stick by them ) then you ask what you can get away with, or ask why you can't.
In the game I'm DM'ing at the moment, if you can explain it... build it, alter it. Go for it. Only thing I'm personally denying is *racial* polymorphing; which the party has agreed on, as I'm letting alot of various and fun things slide - I'm just shocked none of the party took it as a chance to play one of the top 3 races (seriously, no one picked any of 'em, so more fun for me 
)
Now a good book to pick up and purchase, would be a combined article of 4E dragon mag rules - call it the 'Dragon compordium' (sp) 4th Edition (include start + end years)
I'd buy that in a heartbeat, as it'd be a physical copy and useful for any DM who might not have access to CHARop or this website (for whatever reason).
BRJN wrote:
RedSiegfried wrote:
BRJN wrote:
GM, Storyteller, MC (Master of ceremonies) or "guy who bought the brown book" are all terms I've heard. Not a huge fan of Storyteller, but the others work well enough for me. I personally favor "Guy who bought the brown book" because it really emphasizes the role's responsibilities, duties, powers, and rights.
Swap brown for your editions color.
Game
Operations
Director
?
Sea-Envy wrote:
I call myself "the Dungeon F---ing MASTER."
but that's more to do with reminding myself of my duties than lording authority over players.
So, I advise to define what the job is to you and give it the name that fits. For me, even if I play guddawful Vampire, I'm not a Storyteller - I'm the Dungeon F---ing MASTER.
I like "Dungeon Buddy."
iserith wrote:
Dungeon Master is fine.
Man_in_the_Funny_Hat wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
RedSiegfried wrote:
DaBeerds wrote:
@MrCustomer,
And I have no problem with a DM making stuff up to cover things not covered by the rules, and/or changing the rules so the game is more fun for all at the table.
What I do have a problem with is a DM making a ruling, having a player interject saying, "I'm sorry but the way X is supposed to be done is A, B, and C" and the DM unilaterally saying, "no we are doing X my way because I am the DM. If you don't like it too ******* bad."
To the OP: Not really. Though it'd be worth publishing advice about how to negotiate a social contract that everyone can and will abide by. Not to mention advice on people, notably GM's, declaring they have rights out of thin air and ways of dealing with that and also advice on when to cut your losses on such a person and decline to play further. Also material on how you can still be friends with someone even if you don't game with them - and the corollary, just because you're gaming with people doesn't mean you're necessarily friends with them (being friends involves doing atleast some other activities with them)
GamerNotHater wrote: