D&D General DM Authority

[Oofta]

Because people are different?
There are many different images of a monk in many cultures and subcultures.

If the DM doesn't set the baseline assumption, any headaches they get from genre confusion is their own fault and falling back on Authority at that point erodes it.

The baseline assumption is that you follow the rules of the game. As you stated, in order to play a mythic game you have to add house rules. We never did that.

But it still goes back to the basic question. This happens in a game. It's not a mythic style campaign. How should it be handled? What option is there except for the DM to say "no", possibly with follow up questions and suggestions?

 

[Thomas Shey]

How do you as a player know what the capabilities of the BBEG are, or what their ultimate motivation is? I mean clarifying if you think the DM misread a spell is one thing, but telling the DM they're running an NPC wrong would be like the DM telling a player they're running their player wrong. I don't do either.

I absolutely think both can be legitimate under limited circumstances.

 

[Helldritch]

Just explain to the player that this is not that kind of game. You are not in a super hero game or a manga. It is medieval fantasy. Any sensible person will understand that.

 

[generic]

Ultimately, the players and the DM are working in a collaborative manner to create an enjoyable, shared fiction, but the DM sets the rules.

Not happy with my ruling on grappling the moon? Too bad, that's the way I'm running the game.

In the case that everyone else at the table thinks that grappling the moon is reasonable and fun, I'm liable to sacrifice my investment in the fiction for everyone else's enjoyment. Need I do that? No, of course not. The DM is the ultimate arbiter, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the DM's decisions are always going to be fun for everyone, or, even, necessarily correct.

As for what constitutes the "tipping point", I'm very willing to die on the hill of common sense.

In a pragmatic sense, I'll make it clear; I play with a certain type of group, and we've agreed on what is fun, for the most part, because of the time which we have spent playing together.

These issues don't come up because players don't suggest them, if a certain player found the greatest enjoyment in grappling the moon, my table would not be for them, and if the entire table found grappling the moon to be more fun than anything else, I would not be the correct adjudicator for them, because my personal beliefs as to how the fiction should be run would be getting in the way of their fun.

 

[generic]

I absolutely think both can be legitimate under limited circumstances.

I'd argue that a DM correcting a player character's rules set is far more appropriate than a player correcting the DM's reading of a spell, but, as you said, both have their place.

 

[Minigiant]

If the DM presumes the rules as published in the book as the baseline, and the player presumes something else, I'm not sure how you can say the DM is entirely at fault here. Falling back on DM Authority is plausibly not the best way to handle it, but that's different than genre expectations.

The DM can't just assume. Part of DM Authority is the Players Acceptance of it. And Players can't truly accept what they do not know.

For example the 5e PHB is written with a "Herioic Fantasy" assumption and the "DM may run a different genre" assumption.

One cannot say the "DM has the Authority to change the genre" and "The DM can't change the genre".

 

[Thomas Shey]

That ignores how the games are normally ran. You don’t default to consensus rulings because developing the consensus on a contentious topic (assuming one can even be developed) takes away from game time and everyone else’s enjoyment. The whole exercise breaks the flow of the game and usually puts at least some people out of the mindset to enjoy the rest of the game.

I consider a focus on speed in exclusion of everything else to do more harm than good to a game. I'm aware this isn't a popular view.

 

[Stormonu]

And if the DM hasn't said anything about those houserules, why would the player presume houserules to allow mythic stunts like this are in play?

Older editions of the game purposely hid certain mechanics behind the DM's screen, for one thing. Depending on the DM, sometimes the only way to find out if something is allowed or disallowed is to try it and see what happens. Likewise, a lot of players don't know the game front to back and inside and out and rely on the DM to have the knowledge of what the game engine allows or disallows.

 

[generic]

To elaborate on the above, the base assumption of D&D is that your character's rules set dictates how they react to the DM's actions, and interact with the fiction. Conversely, the DM is in control of any and all things they deem fit. Want to use obscenely over-powered spells? Certainly not off the table. Does the DM's evoker use Warlock spells with enhanced hit dice? Again, no problem. Applying the same logic to the player character would lead to a world of one-hit obliterators.

This all leads back to the fact that the DM is, ultimately, the arbiter.

The balance of power is not equal, nor should it be seen as such.

 

[Minigiant]

The baseline assumption is that you follow the rules of the game. As you stated, in order to play a mythic game you have to add house rules. We never did that.

But it still goes back to the basic question. This happens in a game. It's not a mythic style campaign. How should it be handled? What option is there except for the DM to say "no", possibly with follow up questions and suggestions?

The DM is supposed to state the genre ahead of time. Once it is stated, the DM can say "No. We aren't running a game of that type." all they want.

It's like play Uno. You have to state the houserules before the game starts.