D&D General DM Authority

[generic]

I just think there's a point beyond you have to start questioning whether the player is playing the character in a way that seems coherent and sane, and I don't think incoherent and insane PCs (or even, normally, NPCs) make for a good game for much of anyone outside of very specific contexts when everyone knows that's going to be a thing going in, and sometimes even then (Malkovians, I'm looking at you).

I'm not one to pass judgement on what a player-controlled agent feels, or the the manner in which that character acts, so, I honestly could not care less if the kind-hearted nun has suddenly become a sadistic murderer because the player had a bad day.

I find that enforcing any kind of prerequisite for reasonable roleplaying falls less under Game Master fiat, and more under "you're not playing your character right".

But, if your players enjoy it, it's not the wrong way to play.

 

[Minigiant]

"The DM may run a different genre" =/= "The GM will run a different genre."

I agree.

If the DM hasn't told you they're running a different genre than the PHB (and other core books) take as the baseline, the DM isn't running a different genre.

I disagree.
The books are designed around a baseline assumption.
However the players cannot assume that assumption unless the DM states they are using that assumption.
If so, then the players have the authority as they can claim to have never agreed to the genre of game the DM is running.

 

[generic]

I agree.

I disagree.
The books are designed around a baseline assumption.
However the players cannot assume that assumption unless the DM states they are using that assumption.
If so, then the players have the authority as they can claim to have never agreed to the genre of game the DM is running.

I'd agree to this.

Although the average D&D campaign might cleave to the standard, heroic fiction, there's no rule basis for that, it's just convention.

There's quite a difference between being told you're playing D&D, and showing up for Shadow of the Demon Lord, and expecting Heroic Fantasy, and arriving at an Apocalyptic 5E table.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

Yeah, I think the bigger issue here is not that the player misunderstood the tone of the game (though that is an issue as well), but that they tried to perform a maneuver that is far outside anything their class allows. I mean, yes, it’s an RPG and you can try anything. But that doesn’t mean anything you try has a chance of succeeding. In that situation I would tell the player, “that action doesn’t seem like it would have a reasonable chance of succeeding. You can attempt it if you really want to, but I can tell you now that it will fail without a roll. Would you like to try something else?”

If it became a consistent thing that the player was regularly trying actions that were well outside the realm of what I would consider plausible, I would have a talk with them to try and realign our expectations about the game’s tone. If that didn’t work, I would probably eventually ask them to leave the game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not one to pass judgement on what a player-controlled agent feels, or the the manner in which that character acts, so, I honestly could not care less if the kind-hearted nun has suddenly become a sadistic murderer because the player had a bad day.

I find that enforcing any kind of prerequisite for reasonable roleplaying falls less under Game Master fiat, and more under "you're not playing your character right".

But, if your players enjoy it, it's not the wrong way to play.

I'm not going to say they always enjoy it--no one ever appreciates being told they're doing something wrong--but its rare enough, and usually* toothless enough if the rest of the group doesn't agree that its not much of a problem for them.

* The exception being in game systems where some personality elements are mechanically enforced in the first place, where while I still primarily leave the operation to them, I'm outright expected to intervene on occasion. For example if you have a game system where you've chosen Acrophobia as a trait, and then want to go tightrope walking, you've already signed off on some interference by playing in that system and choosing that trait.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'd agree to this.

Although the average D&D campaign might cleave to the standard, heroic fiction, there's no rule basis for that, it's just convention.

There's quite a difference between being told you're playing D&D, and showing up for Shadow of the Demon Lord, and expecting Heroic Fantasy, and arriving at an Apocalyptic 5E table.

Yeah, there's such a thing as a summary of what a campaign/game is about being too terse.

 

[generic]

I'm not going to say they always enjoy it--no one ever appreciates being told they're doing something wrong--but its rare enough, and usually* toothless enough if the rest of the group doesn't agree that its not much of a problem for them.

* The exception being in game systems where some personality elements are mechanically enforced in the first place, where while I still primarily leave the operation to them, I'm outright expected to intervene on occasion. For example if you have a game system where you've chosen Acrophobia as a trait, and then want to go tightrope walking, you've already signed off on some interference by playing in that system and choosing that trait.

Yes, of course. If the players have signed on to the contract of being hobbled by a fear, illnes, et cetera, there's no loss of player agency, as the player chose that feature.

 

[Lanefan]

Please don't conflate this with players being in conflict with the rules. The rules are the authority of the rules.

The DM is the authority of the rules.

 

[generic]

The DM is the authority of the rules.

This, so much this. A conflict with the DM is a conflict with the rules. The difference is that the DM can be reasoned with. RAW isn't going to change its mind no matter how much you shout at it.

Pretty good deal for the players, I'd say.

 

[Lanefan]

You say this ...

No, I will never tell a PC what they think or do.

... and in the very next sentence contradict yourself with this ...

I don't allow evil PCs in my campaign so I will let a player know if they're pushing the boundaries of what I would allow and that if they become evil they become an NPC.

You can't have it both ways.