Is the DM the most important person at the table

[CleverNickName]

Feel free to disagree with that if you want to, but that would involve taking on the definition, not posting a pic of a solo module and saying 'gotcha'. Feel free to address the Forge definition, the Meilahti School definition, or any other critical definition you like.

I knew it was going to be an unpopular answer to your question. It remains true that for the example you gave (one player and one DM, which can you do without?), the rules support doing without the DM.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why? It's pretty central to the point of the thread in this case and a very reasonable example to bring up on CNN's part. Does solo count is an important question, because if it does count then we need to account for it in any review of authority and importance at the table.

Or you could drop the whole pretext for opening up that can of worms and instead focus on the actual point of the thread -

Whether the DM is the most important person in a game that uses a DM.

 

[FrogReaver]

I knew it was going to be an unpopular answer to your question. It remains true that for the example you gave (one player and one DM, which can you do without?), the rules support doing without the DM.

You cannot play the D&D game any of us visualize without a DM. You can play a game very similar to what we all would call D&D without a DM - but I don't think any of us would call those the same thing.

 

[Fenris-77]

I knew it was going to be an unpopular answer to your question. It remains true that for the example you gave (one player and one DM, which can you do without?), the rules support doing without the DM.

Not unpopular at all, I think it's a great question. Personally, I don't think it's roleplaying and I personally disagree with you, but I set out the critical definition thing because that's kind of where people look for answers to that question that aren't personal opinion. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't make it not an interesting question, to which other people may have interesting answers.

 

[FrogReaver]

And the GM has the authority to say "Nope, we're done with this scene". Maybe the GM elaborates that they don't want to RP out the PC bargaining with the shopkeeper or whatever.

It's easy to Monday morning quarterback...

I've made use of this myself when a PC seduces someone. I don't care whether or not the player wants to play out the bedroom scene because that ain't happening.

Just because it's justifiable to use a technique to bypass a bedroom scene - which is likely a fairly common use and justification - that doesn't mean any use of that technique is justifiable for any reason whatsoever.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I somewhat disagree, but assume that you are correct. So what? On the gaming night in question - given how the game progressed - the most important thing that happened all night was the player intervening to help move the story forward.

So I see the issue, you are defining importance as "possessing the most authority. No one disagrees that the DM has the most authority. Instead, I counter that importance is based on what is actually done - not what one is empowered to do but remains undone.

Actually, I've mostly avoided using the term "important" in this thread because it's such a subjective term. Even in this case. You're saying that this player was the most important because he progressed the story. Fair enough, I accept that. Your initial post actually made it sound like the player was derailing the game, hogging the spotlight for a half hour to play pranks, and that you were somehow powerless to stop them.

It's easy to Monday morning quarterback...

Just because it's justifiable to use a technique to bypass a bedroom scene - which is likely a fairly common use and justification - that doesn't mean any use of that technique is justifiable for any reason whatsoever.

Huh? Monday morning quarterbacking? @Lanefan said that a player could say they're not finished with a scene. I pointed out that a GM has the authority to declare the scene over regardless. That's not Monday morning quarterbacking.

It's justifiable in all sorts of cases, like the shopping scene. If a player is spotlight hogging, such as haggling with merchants for hours, I would say it is good GMing to say something like, "Buy whatever you like. Based on your Persuasion roll he gives you a 10% discount. Moving on..."

Similarly, if the players are attending a fair and the BBEG shows up and destroys it, it's too late to ride the tea cups no matter how much the player wanted to. Unless the GM is willing to allow a retcon, of course.

In any case, this isn't about what is and isn't justifiable. We could undoubtedly both come up with about a million examples illustrating both good and bad GMing using this technique.

My point was that it is well within the GM's authority to do so in a traditional RPG like D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

@Lanefan said that a player could say they're not finished with a scene. I pointed out that a GM has the authority to declare the scene over regardless.

And, absent any other reason to be uncomfortable with the scene in question, were I the player I'd likely challenge that authority on the spot.

An argument would probably follow.

It's justifiable in all sorts of cases, like the shopping scene. If a player is spotlight hogging, such as haggling with merchants for hours, I would say it is good GMing to say something like, "Buy whatever you like. Based on your Persuasion roll he gives you a 10% discount. Moving on..."

Depends.

What if the player has a deeper reason for haggling with the merchants (which the GM may or may not even know about!)? Maybe the player is thinking along lines of the PC establishing contacts for later reference, or casing shops for later thefts, or trying to establish her character as being a diehard cheapskate in order to influence later negotiations over treasury division. It might be ages until any of this comes to light.

Players can have secrets too.

Similarly, if the players are attending a fair and the BBEG shows up and destroys it, it's too late to ride the tea cups no matter how much the player wanted to.

Exactly. This is one valid way of cutting a scene short, if a bit heavy-handed and probably not repeatable very often.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Unpopular answer: you can do without the Dungeon Master.

Technically you can also do without the players. Just a DMPC or two. I don't recommend it as roleplaying - although it is a way of writing fiction...

 

[CleverNickName]

Technically you can also do without the players. Just a DMPC or two. I don't recommend it as roleplaying - although it is a way of writing fiction...

I suppose you could just play Baulder's Gate, too...

 

[FrogReaver]

Actually, I've mostly avoided using the term "important" in this thread because it's such a subjective term. Even in this case. You're saying that this player was the most important because he progressed the story. Fair enough, I accept that. Your initial post actually made it sound like the player was derailing the game, hogging the spotlight for a half hour to play pranks, and that you were somehow powerless to stop them.

There was one player doing that. And I was powerless to stop him - at least within the bounds of our social contract - because if I could have done so I would have.

That isn't to say there was no possible technique that could have been used to stop him - there probably was and I have some ideas for what to attempt in the future - but in the heat of the moment in the middle of the game that night I exhausted every avenue I could see. That to me is powerlessness - is it not to you?

More importantly, as I noted in my initial post - there was another player that was able to progress the game to a point we could move forward.

Huh? Monday morning quarterbacking? @Lanefan said that a player could say they're not finished with a scene. I pointed out that a GM has the authority to declare the scene over regardless. That's not Monday morning quarterbacking.

You weren't in that game, in the heat of the moment and you are telling someone they should have done X in that game, in the heat of the moment. That's precisely what Monday morning quarterbacking is.

It's justifiable in all sorts of cases, like the shopping scene. If a player is spotlight hogging, such as haggling with merchants for hours, I would say it is good GMing to say something like, "Buy whatever you like. Based on your Persuasion roll he gives you a 10% discount. Moving on..."

I would say more precisely it depends on the game, the group, their social contract, their expectations, what they find fun etc.

Similarly, if the players are attending a fair and the BBEG shows up and destroys it, it's too late to ride the tea cups no matter how much the player wanted to. Unless the GM is willing to allow a retcon, of course.

Sure but they already had their destination and the BBEG was nowhere in sight...

In any case, this isn't about what is and isn't justifiable. We could undoubtedly both come up with about a million examples illustrating both good and bad GMing using this technique.

It definitely is about justifiability. If you aren't justified in using the technique in a given situation - then the technique is off the table.

My point was that it is well within the GM's authority to do so in a traditional RPG like D&D.

And what we are saying is that isn't necessarily the case...