D&D General DM Authority

[Lanefan]

“What your character is doing constitutes evil behavior, and evil characters aren’t allowed in this campaign. If you go through with it, your character will become an NPC” is not telling the player what their character thinks. It’s giving the player an ultimatum: you character can think this way, but if they do they will no longer be appropriate for this campaign.” @Oofta ‘s two statements do not contradict each other.

Perhaps. When I read it I equated "telling the player what their character thinks" with "telling the player how to play their character".

 

[Charlaquin]

Perhaps. When I read it I equated "telling the player what their character thinks" with "telling the player how to play their character".

But again, “if your character does this, they will become evil and therefore not appropriate to this campaign” isn’t actually telling the payer how to play their character. They are perfectly free to play their character that way. But if they do, the result will be that the character becomes an NPC. Just as you’re free to have your character strip nude and poke a sleeping ogre. But if they do, the result will be that the character becomes dead.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I do state the house rules before the game, and the genre. Most games I've played we do. Which still doesn't answer the question I've been asking.

 

[Oofta]

Honestly, I really don't care. I'd normally prefer the group make it clear if they want a different style of game than I'm offering before hand, so I can pick a different system and run a different campaign, but again, if they're one off view is "Monks do these supernatural sort of things, so this seems appropriate" then that's as it is. If I'm finding that sort of dissonance regularly, I get back to the group dynamic being dysfunctional from the get go.

That's the gig; the reduction ad absurdems used to justify the top-down approach have already pretty much used a dysfunctional group to rationalize it out the gate. Otherwise, you've got one guy who has a out-of-touch idea, and the rest of the group goes "Dude, no." I don't need to lift my Holy Scepter to make it happen.

So let me get this straight. The monk in my game should have just been able to make up whatever crazy power they want. A DM who enforces the rules of the game just part of a dysfunctional group?

Because the monk story happened. I'm not sure I could make up something like that. The question is how is a group supposed to deal with it if not DM being a referee and saying "no"?

 

[Oofta]

Depends on the priorities of your playgroup, I'd argue.

We only have (at most) three hours to meet weekly, so, combat takes up enough time as it stands. A quick adjudication of a rule, or the application of the oft-mentioned rule of cool is preferable to a lengthy debate.

If I ran 6 hour sessions, this wouldn't be an issue, and lawyering of the fiction would fall more evenly to the players, as well the Game Master.

In groups I've been involved with that worked well, the ruling is made within a minute or two with the DM occasionally stating "that's how I'm ruling for now we can discuss off-line". Game time is too short, rules discussions during play are too disruptive.

 

[Minigiant]

I do state the house rules before the game, and the genre. Most games I've played we do. Which still doesn't answer the question I've been asking.

If the DM stated the agreed upon genre, the DM can say "No, that'actionis not of the type of game we are playing."

 

[Oofta]

You say this ...

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

You can't have it both ways.

How is it a contradiction? If I tell the PC's there's a pool of lava and they decide to go for a swim they'll take damage. I'll make sure the consequences of their choice is clear, I don't ban them from making that choice.

The only exception is no PVP or stealing from party members.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I do state the house rules before the game, and the genre. Most games I've played we do. Which still doesn't answer the question I've been asking.

You know, this is one of the things about 5E that strike me as strange-- "genre".

The genre was always medieval fantasy for me and everyone I played with in AD&D for several decades. Sure, sometimes that medieval period was from another culture, but it was still the same "time period".

Now, we have all these other sorts of genres people want to support or play in. It just strikes me as odd, personally.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So let me get this straight. The monk in my game should have just been able to make up whatever crazy power they want. A DM who enforces the rules of the game just part of a dysfunctional group?

I would have let the monk run around the enemy all they wanted, shouting "Hey, look, fellas! I'm creating a cyclone or something!" as they all watch him barely raise any dust and the enemy stares at the crazy monk running in circles and shouting. That's what the PC can do...

Now, if it doesn't have the effect the player wanted, tough. The DM decides that, not the player.

 

[Oofta]

On the first part ... You can't do that yet. At least for me, I don't like to be beholden that you're only locked into what some other game designer (who isn't at your group's table) wrote on the page. If a player comes up with something out of the box that strikes me as interesting, why not run with it? In fact, that monk tornado trick (and a few similar actions) is something I'm going to add to my homebrew rules*.

As for the latter, I have had plenty of players over my years of gaming who have never owned or even broke open a PHB (relying on the DM to walk them through character creation and leveling). They'd show up and play and be invested in their character, but often were turned off by the idea of sitting down and poring over the books - no interest in digging into the games guts and just wanting to have a good time and let the DM worry about the game mechanics. (And then there is my wife, whose learning disability makes it frankly impossible for her to sit down and read the PHB front to back, if she wanted to - but that's an unusual case in itself).

On the monk...

Spoiler

~24 MPH? Sure, until the monk busts a chi point into it and turns it into supernatural speed.

Off the top of my head homebrew rules...

WHIRLWIND OF BLOWS (6th level)
Alternate monk feature for Disciple of Elements
As an action, you expend 2 ki points and choose a target within 30 feet of you, who is no closer than 15 feet away. In a burst of sudden speed you move adjacent to the foe and begin whipping about the opponent, buffeting with winds or blows created by circling them rapidly, like a tornado. You make an attack as if using Flurry of Blows. If a blow hits, the target must make a Constitution saving throw. On a failure, the target is knocked prone and stunned until the end of your next turn. Regardless of the number of hits, the target only makes one save.

STEPS OF THE WIND (9th level)
Alternate monk feature for Disciple of Elements
In the blink of an eye, you draw on your inner ki and run or leap to your destination, faster than those around you can react. As an action, you can expend 5 ki to use Dimension Door on yourself.

FLASH TRAVEL (13th level)
Alternate monk feature for Disciple of Elements
By will or inhuman speed, you instantly transport yourself to a destination of your choice. As an action, you can expend 8 ki to use Teleport on yourself. You can expend an additional ki point for each additional willing being you wish to accompany you, up to a maximum additional beings equal to your Wisdom modifier.

If you want to add house rules, feel free. If the player wants a specific ability or house rule they need to discuss it with me before the game.

As far as speed, teleport doesn't count and the 24 MPH was already assuming dash as an action along with step of the wind.