D&D General DM Authority

[Oofta]

There are two possibilities:
1) somehow, you didn't make it clear that this is not a superhero game. In that case, you make it clear now —and PUFF! Problem solved. You either part ways, if you want to play different kinds of games, or they get it that ther idea doesn't fit
2) you are playing with a goddamn moron. Then, why are you playing with a moron?

For 1: I did.

For 2: I don't disagree but that still doesn't answer the question.

 

[Minigiant]

There are two possibilities:
1) somehow, you didn't make it clear that this is not a superhero game. In that case, you make it clear now —and PUFF! Problem solved. You either part ways, if you want to play different kinds of games, or they get it that ther idea doesn't fit
2) you are playing with a goddamn moron. Then, why are you playing with a moron?

A lot of DM authority issues come down to lack of clarity.

Like all authority, if the authority figure isn't clear they should not expect players to do or ask for thing they don't expect.

 

[Istbor]

So back to my example. The guy playing a monk thought he could do a Flash tornado. It did not fit the theme or style of the campaign in any way shape or form. This is not a communication problem, it's someone making up a powerful class feature that did not exist because I'm not running a superhero campaign.

How does it get resolved? Come on, this question is not rocket science.

Still sounds like a loss in some communication to me. Why did this person think it would fit the style or theme? Was this addressed in a session 0? Did they walk off the street and just join in the game this session? Why wasn't the feel of the world explained at that point?

I have never run a game where I lay out a campaign, and have someone ask if they can bring a character with a gunblade because, well, swords and cannons exist.

 

[Oofta]

Sit down with the player, find out what is their reasoning, what they want the ability to actually do and work towards a resolution.

"Hmm. So, sounds like something that would use 1 or more of your ki points - let's say 2; takes a standard action and targets one target in 30 feet (you use the rest of your movement to generate the "spin") and you have to move at least 15 feet to get "spun up" . Let's say you can essentially make a Flurry of Blows attacks, Prone strike and Stunning strike all in one go. Sound good? Let's see how it works."

(Honestly, if you have spellcasters [magic] in your campaign, superheroic feats like the above are nothing - it's just a question at which level they'd be appropriate. What's difference between a monk doing a super tornado by a ki-powered run vs. a wizard casting an air elemental and having it do the same thing?)

I understand where you're coming from and I do try to couch things as "No, but ..." however there are things that there just is no compromise.

This was an extreme example. A better example is Heat Metal. You have 3 options (and probably more) if you target someone in metal armor. Does the target have disadvantage:

1. Yes, as long as the caster maintains concentration.
2. The target gets a con save a the beginning of their turn.
3. No, armor is not 1 solid piece of metal, only a small portion of the armor is hot.

I've seen all 3 rulings from different DMs. Who decides which one is right? The caster rules 1, the DM rules 2.

 

[Oofta]

Still sounds like a loss in some communication to me. Why did this person think it would fit the style or theme? Was this addressed in a session 0? Did they walk off the street and just join in the game this session? Why wasn't the feel of the world explained at that point?

I have never run a game where I lay out a campaign, and have someone ask if they can bring a character with a gunblade because, well, swords and cannons exist.

No clue why they thought it would work I run a very "mundane + explicitly spelled out exceptions" campaign. You'd have to ask them.

It's also beside the point. The player said they did something the rules do not allow for, it was beyond what I would accept as a creative solution. How do you handle it?

 

[ccs]

"But... what if the player says the GM should have a different wallpaper in their living room? What if the player says the GM should have a different breed of dog? What if the player says the GM should legally change their name?"

If they're serious they'll be told to ST*U.
If they persist they'll be pointed out the door.

 

[Stormonu]

I understand where you're coming from and I do try to couch things as "No, but ..." however there are things that there just is no compromise.

This was an extreme example. A better example is Heat Metal. You have 3 options (and probably more) if you target someone in metal armor. Does the target have disadvantage:

1. Yes, as long as the caster maintains concentration.
2. The target gets a con save a the beginning of their turn.
3. No, armor is not 1 solid piece of metal, only a small portion of the armor is hot.

I've seen all 3 rulings from different DMs. Who decides which one is right? The caster rules 1, the DM rules 2.

DM is the final arbiter, though a player has the right to point out if he thinks the DM is misinterpreting the rules.

Like, for example, if the DM went with #2 or #3, the player could point out the Con save is only for keeping hold of the item, and armor doesn't just "drop off" by itself. If you heated a metal armor (such as chain, certain scale armor or plate), and you haven't gotten it off when damage is caused, you'd suffer the disadvantage. If the DM decides to stick with his ruling despite that, then that's how the DM has decided to run his game, and now everyone knows.

(BTW, I do despise the lack of save for Heat Metal and think that using it against worn/carried items should give the target a save)

 

[Istbor]

No clue why they thought it would work I run a very "mundane + explicitly spelled out exceptions" campaign. You'd have to ask them.

It's also beside the point. The player said they did something the rules do not allow for, it was beyond what I would accept as a creative solution. How do you handle it?

I would hit them with science, or suggest they use a spell to control/create weather.

Once we have agreed on the concept of the campaign and the level of, let's say 'zaniness', that is that. It isn't even me pulling authority, it is me pointing out we all agreed to the same premise. Maybe next adventure/campaign.

 

[Blue]

Then they just bring that up and any reasonable player is gonna be like "oh, right, I forgot about that". Case solved.

I see you missed the part "After talking about it in vague ways (so as not to spoil those elements of the plot to the others)..."

The player may not know the source of the plot elements is, let's say two kingdoms gearing toward war because they are both trying to annex the same unclaimed area between them.

I don't know we'll be able to move further - I am saying there are times there isn't a compromise and I don't feel like you're wiling to engage with that, just nitpicking my examples that are incomplete due to not having a partially run shared campaign behind them as context.

I can keep coming up with examples, but they aren't perfect. I ask you to take them at face value that the imperfect humans can not always find an acceptable compromise.

 

[Stormonu]

Whether super hero style martial moves should be allowed is one of the most hotly debated things in all of d&d

If you're using monks instead of fighters with unarmed fighting style, not allowing superhero style martial moves is an uphill battle where you've already shot yourself in both feet. More than half of the monk's abilities are supernatural/superhuman in nature in the first place.