D&D General DM Authority

[Crit]

This is like part 3 of the DM Authority trilogy, at least for as long as I've been present on the site. Which hasn't been long, but whatever.

Anyway, I would single out "Player" and "referee" in those definitions. The DM's job is to keep the engine running, but they are simply a player with more responsibilities, whose job it is to make decisions on whichever issues. The DM has authority to "end" a discussion with their say so, but nowhere in the DMG or PHB does it imply being the only hand on the wheel for the whole experience. Anything beyond the definition is personal style, and IMO I prefer the mutual-construction flexibility approach. "Absolute authority" is coming on a little strong, and I don't approach the position thinking about it like that. In the quest for "having a good time," how much does this come up? I guess it depends on the group, but still.

Generally, in my understanding of your position, I think it's a hair too much in the DM's court. It all depends on what's being shot for by each group. I'd be fine with fiddling with the setting of the campaign in the name of increasing a player's fun, because the work being put into it doesn't decrease my fun. That's purely hypothetical, because I leave blank space for future development in my settings, and generally I incorporate most DnD-associated things in it already.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Of course the DM is the ultimate authority. My players don't believe in player agency, and the best times they've had is when they sit around enraptured for hours as I as the DM run the game as a huge second person narrative, telling them what their characters are doing and rolling for them when necessary.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not sure what you mean, as with DM as final arbiter you can resolve pretty much every situation. A consensual approach can work, but all it takes is one jerk to ruin everything. I try not to play with people like that anymore, but I had less options in high school and college. I've literally played with someone in college who felt their job as a player is to ruin the DM's adventure and campaign plans.

All it takes is one person who doesn't buy into the top down approach, and he can spend a lot of time passive-aggressively (or just flat out aggressively) sabotaging process too. Nothing about any theoretical final power on the GM's part stops that.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Of course the DM is the ultimate authority. My players don't believe in player agency, and the best times they've had is when they sit around enraptured for hours as I as the DM run the game as a huge second person narrative, telling them what their characters are doing and rolling for them when necessary.

For real?

I am about DM for creating a world and letting players know how it reacts to their actions.

telling players what their actions are? Bridge too far by a long shot for me. Respectfully that sounds awful. If you are joking I apologize for being thick headed.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's only true when the GM is well on-page with the group as a whole--in which case, its not really top down.

If the DM is not on the same page with the group as a whole, I would question why they’re playing with that group. They would do better to find players whose interests are better suited to the sort of game they want to run.

Its a meaningless distinction if he never makes a decision the group as a whole disagrees with (and no, agreeing to play under him is not an indicator that's true--you can very well be part of a group that wants a particular person to GM but doesn't extend him complete carte blanche. The opposite assumption is begging the question).

If the group agrees for a person to DM and then disagrees with that DM’s decisions, they need to discuss their disagreement and come up with a compromise. Maybe that compromise is changing the decision, or maybe the compromise is that someone else DMs. The solution will vary from group to group and from disagreement to disagreement.

For example, there are some things I’m willing to bend on - if you really want to play an Eladrin even though it’s an important element of the setting that they’re gone from the material plane, I’m willing to work with you to figure out why your character is an exception to the rule and what that will mean for your character in-play. If the group dislikes that setting decision on the whole, I’m willing to consider running a game in a different setting. If the group insists that they want to be able to initiate checks rather than the standard player describes action, DM describes the results, calling for a check as necessary to resolve uncertainty in the results, that’s not something I’m willing to bend on. I might consider running a game in a different system with a different action resolution mechanic, but I will not DM D&D that way.

If you think that’s a meaningless distinction from running the game by group consensus, that’s exactly my point.

Some of them aren't. But I suspect some very much are. In my particular case, I can ask the question (as I did a ways above) that answers the question starkly: if you're running a game, and a simple majority of your players disagree with a decision on something, what do you do? If the answer is "Do it my way anyway" generically (as compared to in special cases) then I think you're on the other side of a pretty clear divide, and I expect there's at least a few people in this thread that would answer that way.

I don’t think very many people would answer “do it my way anyway.” Some people might answer “don’t DM for those players,” and I don’t think that’s an unreasonable answer. The DM accepts a lot of labor and responsibility in the name of entertaining the players. If the players are unwilling to compromise on a few things that the DM considers important to their enjoyment of the game, it is entirely reasonable for the DM to decline taking on that labor and responsibility.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Nothing about any theoretical final power on the GM's part stops that.

Telling the player to leave the group does it quite well.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, change that to....
Player 1: I spend a Bennie, and use the key my grandfather left me to unlock it...

....and suddenly this becomes a reasonable mechanic, the GM gets control over by throttling the number of Bennies available.

I mean, sure, but that’s not a mechanic that exists in D&D. If I recall correctly, the DMG has some optional rules for such a “Plot Point” mechanic, and if the group agrees they want such a mechanic in play, great. I personally would not want to use such a mechanic in a D&D game I was DMing.

Tie anything to a resource, and it becomes a meaningful tactical choice for the player.

Sure. This seems rather tangential to the topic at hand though.

There's a fairly pervasive fear that, if given more ability to establish things in the world, they will abuse this and break the game.

I don’t doubt there is. However, I don’t think this is the reason for most folks who prefer the DM be the final arbiter of the rules and/or setting.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is like part 3 of the DM Authority trilogy, at least for as long as I've been present on the site. Which hasn't been long, but whatever.

Its been a theme lately, and one thread ends up sparking up another.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Telling the player to leave the group does it quite well.

Nothing about a consensual approach stops that, either, if its viable in the first place.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Nothing about a consensual approach stops that, either, if its viable in the first place.

Why wouldn't it be? Unless you are playing at that player's home or they rode to the game with someone else...

Otherwise, not an issue at all.