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

[Aldarc]

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

Perhaps not as telling as your choice to put a misconstrued strawman argument into my mouth.

I had certainly not intended that my remarks would have devolved into a derailed discussion of the "title" used to describe the DM or accusations of tyranny. I did not call anyone a despot nor were my comments meant to serve as slander. For analogic purposes, I said that even if supreme executive power rests in one benign autocrat with good intentions for the greater good, I would still prefer governance with a greater distribution of power between the masses. The allusion to "enlightened despots" was meant to be taken as a historical reference of such autocrats, particularly given the in-vogue notions then of absolute monarchies. Plus, this was all to say that distrust in a position need not require "abuse" or "bad faith" by a moral agent in that function. But I certainly distrust certain cultural behaviors acquired and exhibited around the DM role and its authority, which I discussed before, but I did not call anyone a despot for it. Furthermore, I did not claim this as a universal prescription for what is best for everyone and every table/nation but I was only speaking about my own play preferences.

Please have a pleasant day.

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.

In Apocalypse World, it is the Masters of Ceremonies (MC), but that doesn't have quite the same connotations.

As you say though, Fate does use the term GM. But there is a greater distribution of power between the players and GMs, with the GM section even advising the GM to have the players help. There is even a subsection entitled: "You're the Chairman, Not God." Plus, there is some semblance of checks and balances within the in-game economy of play.

 

[Maxperson]

"Absolute power" is also negative, but that did not stop you from describing how you envision the role. But as I said before, you can rename it to "autocrat" or something else less derogatory if you like. But that's again missing the forest for the trees.

Again. The term is DM. Nothing more. Nothing less. Unless it's Al. You can call me Al.

 

[Maxperson]

Yup, silly buggers with a dictionary. Ignoring the base meaning of the word which is a ruler or other person who holds absolute power. Or, ignoring the primary meaning for the secondary one. Yeah, that's pretty much par for the course.

But, ok, if that doesn't float your boat, howzabout benevolent dictator?

We don't hold absolute power. If we did, the players couldn't quit the games if they don't like what we do.

 

[Maxperson]

Imagine a context where the GM says "It's the NPCs mage's turn. <rolls some dice> Tara, you take 11 hp from magic missiles!" That would not be atypical in D&D play, at least as I've experienced it. Presumably it doesn't preclude Tara's player declaring a Shield spell. Or an Uncanny Dodge.

And in the instant the DM says that, the result in the fiction is magic missiles streaking from the NPC to the PC, striking him for damage. Exactly how, other than to rewind time, does the shield spell help the PC? The damage has already been done.

 

[Aldarc]

Again. The term is DM. Nothing more. Nothing less. Unless it's Al. You can call me Al.

My issue is not with the term - a rose by any other name - but the nature and culture of authority surrounding the role. If I say that I'm allergic to dogs,* but then you suggest that I refer to it as der Hund, that does nothing to address the allergy issue. You are quibbling about the term. I'm concerned about my allergy.*

* For the record, I am not allergic to dogs. And also they're all good dogs, Brent. 14/10

 

[Maxperson]

[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?

Oooh! Good point! Tonight I'm going to instruct one of my players to go jump off the building roof. He's going to have to do that since well, I have authority over him, right?

We have power over our game, not the players. Period. Booting the player wasn't an exercise of authority over the player. It was an exercise of authority over the game.

[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.

It's entirely irrelevant how you view DM in that regard. The game gives DMs that power whether you like it or not. If you then cede some of that power away to the players, that's your decision. You can do what you like with that authority over the game.

 

[5ekyu]

Oooh! Good point! Tonight I'm going to instruct one of my players to go jump off the building roof. He's going to have to do that since well, I have authority over him, right?

We have power over our game, not the players. Period. Booting the player wasn't an exercise of authority over the player. It was an exercise of authority over the game.



It's entirely irrelevant how you view DM in that regard. The game gives DMs that power whether you like it or not. If you then cede some of that power away to the players, that's your decision. You can do what you like with that authority over the game.

First part - yup

Second part - waiting for the anti-storyteller term crowd to follow the "master" to "despot" line and presume that any Gm who calls himself a storyteller must be running roughshod over his players by telling *his story* over theirs or some such stuff.

i am thinking we may need to switch to Grand Poobah since we all know *our* poobah don't stink.

:-=))

 

[Oofta]

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.

As a DM I create and run campaigns that I think will be fun for everyone, myself included. That has meant that occasionally I've lost a player or two over the years and I don't see a problem with that.

For example, one guy really wanted to play an evil character. I have a well established rule against that, I just don't want to deal with it. We parted ways amicably because I accept that not every game or every DM is for everyone. He was soon replaced by someone else because I DMed a lot for our living campaign and I effectively had a waiting list.

So if I understand correctly, according to you I should have allowed him to run an evil character? Even though the rest of the group was perfectly fine with my rule? When I have no problem getting new players or retaining the majority of old ones?

 

[Aldarc]

We don't hold absolute power. If we did, the players couldn't quit the games if they don't like what we do.

Though I understand that you are arguing that a GM's power requires a governing consent, I don't think that the absolute power of monarchs, for example, is measured by the (in)ability for its people to leave.

We have power over our game, not the players. Period. Booting the player wasn't an exercise of authority over the player. It was an exercise of authority over the game.

It's entirely irrelevant how you view DM in that regard. The game gives DMs that power whether you like it or not. If you then cede some of that power away to the players, that's your decision. You can do what you like with that authority over the game.

It's almost as if this is actually the problemic issue(s) that I have been talking about all along.

 

[SkidAce]

For analogic purposes, I said that even if supreme executive power rests in one benign autocrat with good intentions for the greater good, I would still prefer governance with a greater distribution of power between the masses.

Player: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
DM: Be quiet!
Other Player: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
DM: Shut up!
Player: I mean, if I went around saying I was an despot just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
DM: [grabs Player] Shut up! Will you shut up?!
Player: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
DM: [shakes Player] Shut up!
Other Player: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!
DM: Bloody Player!
Player: Ooh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?