D&D 5E What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?

[Nagol]

Also just to add - a GM does not have absolute authority over anything or specifically over ANYONE. He is not the RULER.

Of course I am. I control the whole in-game reality. If I say the PCs float to the ceiling and reman still as their opponents do the caramba around them, that's what happens.

That's because at any moment each and every person at the table can decide to say "no" and completely end the "authority" they have given the GM.

Authority given is still authority. Some philosophies suggest all power is given. If a player wants to stay at my table, he must suffer my rule.

If the "players" choose to they can get up, decide you are not the GM anymore, decide someone else is GM and start their own game with the same characters in their own view of the same situation( s) and that's it.

No violence needed to get rid of you. Just " we revoke the authority we let you play with."

The GM can refuse to GM but if he wants to game must find other players to then convince them to give authority.

So? The ability of someone to overthrow authority does not reduce the authority prior to the overthrow.

There is a direct link between "how much enjoyment do I as GM provide to my players" and "the authority i am given by them" in that without the former I likely not to keep the latter.

But, the choice to characterize a group agreeing to give the GM more control as being despotic GMed is telling.

It is despotic. There is a single person whose whims control the fate of the game. Is the DM doing a bad job? Time for a rebellion!

 

[Nagol]

Why not just leave it at Dungeon Master as the original game makers intended?

Because that is a noun and has no adjective complement.

 

[Nagol]

So a player came to me the other day with a great original backstory for his PC, checking with me if it's ok for the campaign.
It is a 10th level campaign so I told him - his advancement from 9th to 10th required something significant like the other existing PCs who destroyed a beholder who had been feeding on the essence of a fallen deity and once they slew the outer realm being they were a-washed by ectoplasm and supernatural energies which allowed them to awaken their minds and level up from 9th to 10th.

So he came back to me with something truly creative that fits so well into the realm lore and our multi-campaign story touching on his deity. He was not so sure if was going to allow it - but to his surprise I did.

As a Dungeon Master my input was to ensure that his advancement from 9th to 10th reflected something significant that would have happened to this character's past to ensure that it was consistent with the other PCs in the campaign.

Am I really a despot for that?

All too often, polarised lines seem to be drawn on these forum discussions, and just because someone is on the one side, people envision the worst qualities, when the line is very often blurred. My role as a DM is to ensure the consistency and integrity of the campaign not to crush PC creativity, and yet I still side with DM overall control because it makes sense given I'm the primary storyteller and can see the big picture.

Yes. You exercised supreme control over the world and its inhabitants and only relented to allow something once you were mollified. Sounds pretty par for the course to me.

 

[Hussar]

It's also rather telling that once you get outside of D&D, the moniker of "Master" often falls by the wayside. Heck even in earlier versions of D&D, the DM was referred to as referee. Vampire calls it a Storyteller. While FATE might call it a Game Master, I don't think the intent in FATE is that that person has the level of authority over the game that people seem to be advocating.

 

[Sadras]

@Sadras - the problem I have with calling it "Dungeon Master" is that I consider myself a DM. I regularly run D&D games. But, I certainly don't feel that I have the authority to eject a player for not wanting to play in my new campaign. I have a lot more loyalty to my players than that. If someone at my idea objected to my next campaign idea, I'd simply pitch another one. The notion that players are essentially disposable runs very, very against how I view the table.

Just to put our D&D group into perspective. I do not play AL, very much house games with a little online play with the same group as I'm very much a noob on roll20. I do not eject players as they are first and foremost friends. I'm the only consistent DM for our group running a long term D&D multi-campaign and host 90% of our games.

The other guys might try their hands at running a Westeros game, Eclipse Phase, Mass Effect, In Nomine (using Fate), Vampire and a few others but they usually do not last long enough or are short-term campaigns.
Our group does not seem to have the problem of a game being pitched and someone saying no. Everyone wants to play all the time, as much as we can, anything we can. The forum discussion that arose earlier in the thread from this is not something I can really comment on as it would seem absurd for someone in our group to say no to anything.

 

[Sadras]

Yes. You exercised supreme control over the world and its inhabitants and only relented to allow something once you were mollified. Sounds pretty par for the course to me.

I'm not sure I'd put that spin on it (relented). This site is clearly an indication we all view things differently.

Me: Dan we need a narrative of how you got to 10th because of ....(consistency with the remaining PCs)

Dan: How deep can the rabbit hole go?

Me: Pretty deep.

Dan: Because something kinda dawned on me. Something pretty crazy....

Sends me his pitch which includes Kelemvor (FR deity of the dead) as well as a prose of a conversation between PC and the Deity.

Me: Yes. Great Idea.

Dan: Now I'm really excited.

 

[5ekyu]

When playing D&D I don't want to be in author-stance, thinking of myself as a participant in group creation of a story, since what I want is you-are-there immersion, seeing the world through the POV of my PC. I found that 4e D&D had a nice solution in some of the combat powers, where the PCs had an in-universe ability to determine the outcome; previously only the domain of magic. This would work equally well for non-combat, where eg a Bard type character could use a power to determine how the Duchess reacts to the news. But if I as player get to determine the outcome, then I get taken out-of-character. This makes RPGing somewhat inherently fragile - the GM has authority to determine the outcome, but it had better be generally consistent with what the players think is reasonable or else the game breaks down. But I don't see a good alternative - I do like the Free Kriegsspiel approach that the GM always needs to be able to explain & justify their decision.

Yup - I refer to this as "say yes, unless you have a compelling reason to say no" approach.

Sometimes it seems some folks choose to not distinguish between "can say no" and "will say no" when it comes to supporting a perceived need for absolute divisions.

 

[Sadras]

Because that is a noun and has no adjective complement.

At least enlightened is a complementary (and complimentary) adjective.

 

[5ekyu]

Huh.
[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], you booted a player out of your gaming group because he didn't want to play a game that you wanted to play. You've never disputed that. Now, since no other player at the table could possibly do that, how exactly do you not have authority over someone?

Funny how the idea that you would pick a different day, create a new group and run what you wanted to run was never even mentioned as an option. No, instead you booted the player and more than a few people in this thread saw nothing wrong with that.

But, apparently, that doesn't mean authority over someone somehow...

Frankly, call it throat warbler mangrove for all I care. The point is that "traditional" DM'ing places virtually all the power in the hands of the DM.
[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] - the problem I have with calling it "Dungeon Master" is that I consider myself a DM. I regularly run D&D games. But, I certainly don't feel that I have the authority to eject a player for not wanting to play in my new campaign. I have a lot more loyalty to my players than that. If someone at my idea objected to my next campaign idea, I'd simply pitch another one. The notion that players are essentially disposable runs very, very against how I view the table.

"Huh. [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], you ***booted a player out of your gaming group*** because he didn't want to play a game that you wanted to play. You've never disputed that. Now, since no other player at the table could possibly do that, how exactly do you not have authority over someone?"

The above is simply not true.. The player was not booted from our gaming group.

To be clear, after one campaign ended, I told one of those players he would not be invited into the next campaign I and the other players would be playing in (that we wanted to play in) because that player had for years across multiple campaigns stated and shown an extreme negative reaction to one of that next campaign themes.

That player agreed. The other players agreed.

He was not kicked from the gaming group. We continued other games with him weekly. He joined us again in the campaign after that and continued to be a great player in many of our games for many years to come until he passed Christmas last.

It's not my job here to try and deal with other posters difficulty in understanding relationships and commitments exist at different levels and scale. There are professionals for that.

but when it comes to this degree of BS, I see a need to respond.

Now as to your other claim that no other player could do that at the table... again wrong.

When that player passed, the question of replacement came up.

So I put it to a group choice.

First the decision to seek a replacement was approved.
Then each submitted candidates.
Then we had discussion with EVERYONE having a veto.
Nobody was going to be forced to allow a player in they did not want in the game, even me.
Fact is, my suggested addition was vetoed by another player, just as I vetoed someone else's. We each had the same authority.

As for this nonsense...

"Funny how the idea that **you** would pick a different day, create a new group and run what you wanted to run was never even mentioned as an option. No, instead you booted the player and more than a few people in this thread saw nothing wrong with that.
But, apparently, that doesn't mean authority over someone somehow... "

Linking this to the post you were responding to - referencing the players can step aside create their own game and play in response to a bad GM - yes absolutely he could have done that. He ended up choosing to spend more time on his miniature wargames. We all had lots of activities we participated in.

But you seem to be twisting that into **me** as hm offering to run a new game for him and that's a different thing - to most people.

I had no authority over his choosing to play in other games, with other people or who he chose to game with - none at all.

All I have is the authority to control who I wont play with in a given moment. Just like all the other players do.

 

[5ekyu]

double post - odd server hits this am.