Well, depends on the nature of the erroneous ruling. How do I know the DM is not changing things up to work better for their intentions. They may have a reason for it. It is not my place to interrupt their game and second guess them. I am player in the world they are creating. Why would I want to ruin that by forcing my ideas onto them?
Well that’s just a preference thing IMO. I’d rather field the question (“isn’t XYZ the rule?”) than continue misremembering a rule that affects a PC or situation.
I don't know what you mean by shortage of DMs. I've never implied any kind of authority by scarcity. In fact I've stated clearly that many players in my game DM, themselves. I afford them the same respect and authority that I expect when I DM. I think there are tons of DMs and tons of players, too. I personally feel pretty blessed in that I have never felt like I ever had a shortage of players to play in the games I run, or DMs to run games for me to play in.
That wasn’t directly about anything you said, sorry I was unclear. I was suggesting that the only path to authority I can see for DMs is via scarcity, as folks keep harping on the whole “the DM’s game, the players can walk if they don’t like it.” Thing, which seems to rely on the idea that DMs are scarce.
Your anecdote is unfortunate. That sounds like really poor DM'ing.
Well, it was pretty normal IME for DMs who aggressively insist that their “word is law”, in the sort of phrasing and such used by certain people in this thread.
I apologize because I think I've failed to communicate something that I assumed. I was assuming that the DM and all DM's I play with understand the fundamental basics of the rules. If Dex adds to ranged damage or not is such a fundamental that it should be brought up and resistance against such as a DM would be a poor choice of action. If a DM doesn't have an understanding of the rules and makes mistakes with basic rules elements, then I'm more up front about it. Heck... I have a combined 30 years experience with B/X, 4E, and 5E and I still make rules mistakes (I often get the rules systems mixed up). I'll happily take a rules correction from a player in that regard.
I'm talking about changing things like magic effects or monster abilities and so on that are more under the purview of the DM. Things that are expected but not pure rules. Things like these Trolls are not vulnerable to fire (maybe this DM has different Trolls in their game).
These are elements up to the DM and under their control. I don't have a right to second guess them.
Sure you do. You’re part of the game. If you choose not to, that’s perfectly fine, and social norms and ettiquetewill differ from group to group, of course.
When a person steps up to DM, they become the most important person in the group. The very fact that they are running the game makes that true. It is their campaign and their time to take the wheels (so to speak) and make the game their own.
I have...a very visceral negative reaction to this sentiment. I am a socialist, and that may be related, but...no. Absolutely, unwaveringly, unmovably, uncompromisingly, no. On this we will have no common ground. No one is most important. Period.
What’s more, it is the groups campaign. It may be my homebrew setting, but once I agree to run a game in it the campaign that results belongs to everyone in the campaign.
My least favorite player behavior is a persistent reluctance to add to and change and genuinely impact the game world, including at the worldbuilding level, btw. Don’t tell me you want to play an elf, talk to me about the person in your imagination and where they come from so we can create or discover their home together. They’re a Knight? What if their order like? Secular or religious? What gods or rulers do they serve? Are there several related orders? Do they compete?
A player sometimes has a backstory that benefits from me coming up with most of the details, so the player can discover it themselves, but when the game takes us to Whitestone by the gods I want to hear from Percy what Whitestone is like.
You are right in that this doesn't give the DM the right to be an a$$, but it does give them the right to make final rulings and determinations. It gives them the right to arbitrate the game, which is the fundamental duty of the DM.
If you don't accept the authority of the DM then how do your games go?
I think I'm missing something. I have trouble understanding how a game of D&D can occur with the players not accepting the authority of the DM to run the game. I know there are some story games and rpgs that are DM'less... do you use elements from those?
We just play the game. I’m confused by the question. D&D literally runs exactly the same at all times except when there is a conflict that isn’t resolved with a quick exchange*, at which point the conflict resolution is different.
The process before the game starts is where the difference is biggest. In my group, a DM coming to the group with a “take it or leave it” campaign ready to play, with no room for player input on the world (I want to play a guy who is from this sort of kingdom and where bards have this social role inspired by pre-Christian Irish bards) because it’s all set in stone already, as some folks here describe, just...would never happen. It literally just isn’t a thing.
We would tell the DM no, and they would either compromise or not run a game in the group.
And that very much includes me as the most regular DM, in spite of the fact that I am probably the least conflict avoidant person in the group, and the most confident in social situations.
if I propose a houserule that no one else likes, they will simply tell me no, and that’s that. The idea of insisting on my “ultimate authority” just feels...I really don’t want to offend anyone here but...I have a hard time seeing it as anything but a small guy trying to tell me how big he is. I don’t need to have everyone bow to my authority, I already know how strong I am. Not saying you or anyone else is doing that, it’s just how I would feel, and it’s relevant to the few aggressively “God DM” types I’ve met IRL.
maybe I’ve met, and dealt severely with, too many bullies in my life, and my view of social authority is colored by that. Maybe I’m so much a socialist that the idea of singular authority in a group activity is either laughable or offensive to me, depending on the context. Idk. (In D&D its laughable, not offensive, btw)
I just can’t fathom the need or desire for the DM to be seen or treated as extra special and very in charge. It’s...wholly alien to me.
I’m genuinely sorry if any of that offends. I’m not saying that you see DMing any sort of way, I’m just trying to explain how I feel about the idea of trying to stand over the table as an Authority Figure, when I know I have no need to do so in order to run the game.
I mean, when I set a DC or tell players that they can’t break a momentarily inconvenient rule, the players accept it. Because I’m the game POTUS, I have the veto.
But I only have the veto because we all agreed to give the DM the veto, and they can overrule me if they feel the need. And if I’m a player, bet your ass the DM will be overruled if we feel the need to, and bet just as surely that I’ll bite my tongue and abide by the consensus if I’m shut down by the group because I’m alone in my objection.
Because the group as a whole is the only Ultimate Authority.
*quick exchange meaning soemthing like “isn’t the rule Xyz?”
“Is it? Tell ya what we will say it is for now, John look it up since your turn won’t come around for about 4 turns?”
“Already on it, but I think Drew is right.”
Or
“Isn’t the rule XYZ?”
“It is, but it doesn’t really make sense for this situation, so I’m gonna run it this way instead if there are no objections.”
“That’s fair, it would be kinda weird to run it RAW, now that I think about it.”
