D&D General DM Authority

[Asisreo]

Respekt mah Authoritah!

DM's are both entertainers and referees in the game. You don't want to run a game no one wants to play in because no one would be having fun. At the same time, the players should understand that you're doing your best to provide them with entertainment and you're likely not being paid to do so.

DM's have a world, rulebook, notes, and your characters to juggle the entire time. In effect, the world is your DM's character. She makes the stats, the background, and she roleplays it to its entirety.

DM's should definitely be respected. But then again, shouldn't all players at the table?

 

[FrogReaver]

GMs have authority in the way a group of friends say, "Jake hasn't had a turn to pick a lunch spot in a while. Jake, where do you want to go?"

Some of those conflict examples are conflicts the player is having with the rules (there are defined ways to control weather, speak with gods, and planar travel).

But otherwise the GM has taken on a role because the other players in the game have agreed to that role. When the GM says "This is how I interpret the rules," they can do so because the other players have imbued them through their trust and the invisible social contract. If they are doing so in a way that is rude, mean, or self-serving, then the role of GM is not right for them.

Other than that, I think GM Authority is just an illusion some people call upon when they want to avoid the work of conversation and compromise.

I mean I’ve been in groups where the GM was much newer to the system than some of the players. Rules questions or corrections that didn’t require much judgment were typically taken up by them.

But it was still a “this is how the rules do it, if there’s a good reason to alter it feel free”

 

[BookTenTiger]

If that's not possible? I mean, what kind of consensus is there to a monk running so fast they can create a tornado?

What happens when consensus can’t be reached?

When I played Monopoly with my family as a kid we quickly reached consensus on which rules we would use and which we would ignore. Why should it be any more difficult with a game of D&D?

What if consensus can't be reached on where to go for dinner? Or what music to listen to? What to watch on Netflix? Is there always someone in these situations who is the "authority" who gets to make the final decision?

I would argue that compromise and collaboration are two important parts of what you call GM Authority. For example, one compromise a GM makes is that they will refer first to the rules when making a decision. The GM should be the facilitator of the game, and there are many ways they can make that role work. Being a final arbiter of rules is one way, but it's not the only way.

 

[FrogReaver]

Respekt mah Authoritah!

DM's are both entertainers and referees in the game. You don't want to run a game no one wants to play in because no one would be having fun. At the same time, the players should understand that you're doing your best to provide them with entertainment and you're likely not being paid to do so.

DM's have a world, rulebook, notes, and your characters to juggle the entire time. In effect, the world is your DM's character. She makes the stats, the background, and she roleplays it to its entirety.

DM's should definitely be respected. But then again, shouldn't all players at the table?

Sure, but that like a rather trivial point that everyone already agrees with. Has anyone suggested players not be respected?

 

[aco175]

From the PHB
One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee.

One PLAYER steps up. You need to be a player and lead which runs a line, but everyone needs to understand that someone is in charge in the way that guides and is the referee. As the DM, you also need to understand that everyone is there to play and have fun. You need to provide that to the players, but also to yourself.

When this cannot be had, the DM is the final voice. Is there a reason why the DM is is usually the one most invested and buys all the books, and has all the minis, and maps, and etc...

 

[BookTenTiger]

But then the group has elected/decided that the DM of the moment is the authority, right? I mean, ultimately it's a social contract because if players don't like the DM they'll leave. I know I've left games because of it.

I don't see much of a distinction.

I mean I’ve been in groups where the GM was much newer to the system than some of the players. Rules questions or corrections that didn’t require much judgment were typically taken up by them.

But it was still a “this is how the rules do it, if there’s a good reason to alter it feel free”

In my view, yes, GMs have "authority" because the group has agreed they have that role. But I bristle at the idea that's often presented that the GM's authority grants them more power in the group than other players. For example, situations in which the GM "kicks out" a player who doesn't want to play in the GM's preferred style of game.

 

[loverdrive]

What happens when consensus can’t be reached?

Then why are you even playing together? And I seriously doubt that in such case, having someone to slam their fist on the table would make anyone happy.

If that's not possible? I mean, what kind of consensus is there to a monk running so fast they can create a tornado?

Well, that seriously depends on type of game you're playing -- that sounds pretty reasonable in a game inspired by, say, Naruto, but wouldn't work in a game inspired by Conan. And if you aren't on the same page about the genre and the tone, then you need to solve that problem first.

Maybe I'm lucky and only ever played with reasonable people and there are tons of complete morons out there, but I have a pretty hard time imagining such scenario in an actual game. Unless there are some serious problem in communication, which can easily be solved, when such question arises.

 

[Blue]

The DM has exactly as much authority as the players grant them. Which, if not enough, may cause the DM to renegotiate or stop DMing.

I like when players want to add things to the world, but I hold veto power. If the players weren't okay with that even after I explain that's important to me, I probably would stop running for them. But more often the answer is yes - from player input in Session 0 the moon is actually the skull of a decapitated god, the earth its it's body which is the source of magic, the dwarves have been genocided and the drow are a created race to take their place and "mine the bones of the earth" for magical materials. Halflings are also a created servitor race. None of that was me, all I said yes, and it's majorly shaped the campaign.

On the other hand, my personal take is that the DM only has authority within the game. For example, a DM can veto a new player (I don't want them in the game), but can't unilaterally add one (because thr group hanging out is a function of everyone). But that's among a long standing group of friends I play with. In another game DM can invite without clearing anything (and we've gotten what I've considered too many players and it's impacted my fun when one DM was running). And ina store game it's a whole different dynamic.

 

[loverdrive]

[DATA EXPUNGED]

 

[FrogReaver]

Then why are you even playing together? And I seriously doubt that in such case, having someone to slam their fist on the table would make anyone happy.

Because the way consensus problems are solved is by electing a leader to defer to when such situations arise.

Whether that’s lets elect joe because he hasn’t got to choose where we eat in a while or the dm is elected because he’s most neutral member by virtue of not having a character to advocate for.