D&D General DM Authority

[Campbell]

As an addendum I do not think it's just the GM who has stake in the types of characters people are playing. I think the whole group has an active interest. I mean we should all care about each others' characters so it behooves us all to speak up if we are not happy with the characters and/or setting details a player (including the GM) brings to the table.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Surely this is meant as parody....?

Considering that players believing they don't have agency would in itself be a result of having agency by choosing not to have agency....

 

[Charlaquin]

I think some incredibly interesting points were brought into the light by the intersection of @Charlaquin and @Thomas Shey

Because when I first read Charlaquin's example of the player pulling out a key that never existed, and the rest of the table agreeing with them, I laughed. Because, in my experience, the rest of the table is either silent (and expecting the DM to handle confronting someone, because they are mostly people who do not want a confrontation) or they are telling the other player to shut up and stop trying to cheat.

Yeah, it was a deliberately hyperbolic example. My actual experience is much more like yours. If the other players spoke up at all (which they probably wouldn’t), it would be to tell the player doing the key thing to knock it off.

And, like Thomas said, if you are making a ruling, and 4 out of 6 players disagree with your ruling... that's a problem. But, if you make a ruling and 5 out of 6 players agree with you... you almost didn't need to make a ruling at all.

Really neither of those is common in my experience. Most often in my experience, most of the players won’t even have enough familiarity with the rules to weigh in at all. My regular group has one player who knows the rules fairly well (though she sometimes gets stuff mixed up with rules from previous editions) and four who know the basics well enough but aren’t particularly interested in any more than that. Usually if I need to make a ruling it’s because I forgot something, and it usually goes like “I forget how this works, so for now I’ll say [ruling], but [knowlegable player], can you look that up for next time when you get a chance?” and that’s pretty much it.

Really though, I think this discussion is more about who has narrative control than about rules disputes. If a player asks, “can I play a Genasi?” I would say, “They’re not native to the material plane, so we’d have to work together to figure out why your character was here and working with the rest of the party,” and I’ve never had other players object to something like that.

And this is the part of the debate that gets twisted all around on itself. These arguments and debates usually focus on 1 DM and 1 player. And in that scenario, it is a 50/50 split of opinion. Except, it often then comes up that "My players all enjoy my games" or "I've been running for the same group for years and they all agree with me" or some other way to indicate that the "real" situation is the DM and five players against a single player, making it a 84/16 split in opinion, favoring the DM. Which obviously is a very different scenario.

That makes these discussions so difficult though, because you are either in a true 50/50 split, or you are assuming that the majority of the table is agreeing with you.

But how many DMs here would actually overrule a majority of their players? If you wanted to run a campaign about being in the Roman Republic, and 5/6's of your players said no, would you run the game? No. You've been overruled.

If you say that the stealth rules work X, but 5/6's of your players say it is Y, do we really think that the DM is going to insist on overruling their table, or do we think there is going to be a discussion as they try and convince the rest of the table to agree with them?

I think this is why the idea that the DM is actually the ultimate authority is losing traction. Because the authority the DM is deriving is from the rest of the table agreeing with them. If the table disagrees with them, then the authority vanishes.

Does anyone hold the position that the DM is the ultimate authority? It seems to me that people are saying more that the DM is the final authority, and other people saying “I can’t believe people run their games so dictatorially!”

I‘ve seen people on both sides of this discussion say something to the tune of “the DM has authority, but that authority is granted by the players.” And, yeah, that’s accurate. If the players collectively decide to overrule what the DM says, the DM’s options are pretty much to either concede the point, suggest a compromise, or if the issue is important enough to them, step down as DM. But that’s an exceptional circumstance, and if you’re DMing for a group where the majority of the players are regularly overruling you... You’re probably better off finding a different group.

The more common circumstance is that, when running a game for like a pickup group, you have your session 0, and maybe someone isn’t too keen on one of the table rules. In that situation, usually the player voices their disagreement, the DM considers their perspective, and either accepts, offers an alternative, or sustains their original ruling, at which point the player either agrees, or leaves the pickup group.

 

[loverdrive]

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.

Honestly, I don't understand you. Let's start over.

Okay, so a player introduces some fact that contradicts some things that have already been established, though player characters don't have the full picture. I'll assume two things:
a) Everyone at the table are reasonable people
b) They have some established trust

In such case, I honestly can't imagine a situation where simple "wait, there's something planned, but I won't spoil it for you -- but how about that other blank spot on the map, how about we put your new kingdom there?" wouldn't suffice. But, more importantly, I don't think appealing to "GM has final say" or whatever if agreement still wasn't reached would make work either. Like, the conflict wouldn't just go away.

Maybe I'm seeing things through rose-tinted glasses, but I've been in the hobby for a pretty long time and ran many open tables and convention games with people I've never met before and I've never seen somebody who isn't reasonable enough to reach an agreement on pretty basic things.

I think if there's a case where a player and the GM just can't agree on something, then there's some deeper problem
a) The player doesn't feel like they are in the same boat as the GM and aren't enemies
b) There's something unclear about what kind of game the group is playing, what the genre, the tone, the theme and the focus are
c) They fundamentally want some different things, but for some reason are still playing together
d) Someone is a complete idiot, but I seriously doubt that complete idiots engage in a such niche hobby in the first place

None of these problems is gonna be solved by expression of authority. The first one is probably gonna just get worse.

So, I think when you talk about “parting ways if you want to play different kinds of games” and “not playing with a moron” and when the DM authority crowd talks about kicking players out, you’re talking about the same thing. I suspect the key difference may be that the DM authority crowd is working from a baseline assumption of a single forever-DM for a mostly regular group of players, and in that context “parting ways” with a player or deciding not to play with them pretty much looks like that player “getting kicked out” of the game.

Maybe, but I think "kicking the player out" is a bit too strong. Like, I have a friend who doesn't enjoy dark drama (tm). He's a fine dude and the first person I go for when I want something lighthearted and/or comedic, but he isn't playing in a current war drama about 2004 Iraq invasion -- we both know that he wouldn't enjoy it and couldn't bring something valuable to the game.

 

[Shiroiken]

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

How would it not be viable? As the DM in a top down approach I have the right to boot any player from the game. There may be logistics problems (such as playing at said person's house), but that doesn't change the fact that it can always happen. The converse to this is the fact that players may leave the game at any time, and this is the balance of power the players control. If the DM doesn't fit the group's overall desire, they have the option to simply start another game with a different DM. Because of this most DMs won't be a tyrant, at least for long.

The balance of power between the DM and players is based on mutual trust. Some people don't deserve that trust, and abuse it whenever convenient. This is why the saying came about: "no D&D is better than bad D&D." When younger I would have disagreed, but back then I could play almost every day, so a bad session wasn't a big deal. Now my gaming is limited to one session a week, and so I don't want to deal with any problem players, even passive aggressive ones. One could argue that this automatically leads to a consensual approach, but that's only on the surface. Even if we are all reasonable adults, we know the DM has final say, even if they seldom use it.

 

[loverdrive]

I'll jump into analogy land once again.

Situation: Lorenzo de la Crux, a 3rd lvl Dex-Fighter Battlemaster is sneaking in the shadows and there's a Veteran guard standing on watch, who have failed his Perception check to spot Lorenzo.

Bob, playing Lorenzo says: "So, he doesn't know I'm here, right? I want to sneak up on him and slit his throat."

GM says: "Well, you can try to slit his throat, but amount of damage you gonna deal wouldn't be enough to kill him outright."

And Bob, pretty justifiably answers "Why? That's like classic action-flick move!"

Technically correct answer would be "Sorry, that's just rules."

A better answer would be "Yeah, that sounds reasonable and it's definitely something you can expect to see in a movie, but here's the thing: Alice is playing Assassin. Killing people stealthily in one blow is her thing. If we would overrule HP and attacking rules now, her character will become pretty much useless -- now everyone can one-shot people from the shadows, but Lorenzo've got twice as much HP, better AC and makes two attacks per round. Doesn't sound fair, if you ask me."

It's easy to get upset when you don't understand why things you see as cool and fitting get rejected. But when you understand the underlying design and v i s i o n, explained in clear and honest manner -- you'd probably feel that you are trusted and respected.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Have not read most of the thread, but IMO @Oofta you're forcing a false dichotomy here. That is, "DM has absolute and unquestionable authority" and "DM makes final calls" are two distinct things. You can avoid the former yet keep the latter. Compare vetos. US Presidents have much power, and specifically veto power. Congress formally calls most shots, and CAN override...but rarely does. A veto is not formally absolute, but in practice almost always the "last word."*

DMing can work similarly. Players have a lot more influence than you give credit for, and it's not like they're obligated to play. After all, without them there is no game, just as without a DM there is no game. If a DM truly upsets her whole group, they'll tell her off, and likely force the DM to back down or reevaluate. (Unless she childishly flips the table when challenged, but I'm assuming good faith here.) Yet in practice, DM veto is usually fatal to player opposition, and DM insistence is usually heeded even over personal protest. The analogy isn't perfect, but it covers well enough the difference.

I'll let Jefferson cover this "DM makes final call" without "DM's power is absolute+unquestionable" idea:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

So yeah. I reject the idea that DMs have absolute, unquestionable power. I do not reject that DMs make final calls. It works out pretty well, especially when you have people participating in good faith. IMO, much better than absolute and unquestionable power, as such diplomacy makes players feel valued and supported.

*As of 12/20/20, there have been a total of 1516 ordinary vetoes, of which 111 have been overridden, a rate of only 7.3%. When over 90% of non-pocket vetoes are not overridden, I think it's safe to say that the veto is, in fact, almost always the last word.

 

[Imaculata]

As a DM I like having ultimate control of the lore and setting of my homebrew world. It is not a collaborative efford with my players.

On the rulings however, I do think everyone has a say. We tend to play things by the book, but there are always edge cases. Whenever the rules are unclear, we agree on the best interpretation together. There is no point in me making a particular ruling, when the whole group thinks that ruling is wrong and/or unfair. Fairness and consistency are my goal after all. Homebrew rulings are made in agreement with the whole group.

What to do if the group doesn't agree though? Well, we had just such an issue come up a few times in the last few months. We had a DM who would often change how a particular feat worked based on the circumstances. The player who had that feat rightfully called him out on it. She told him that he was undermining her character's capabilities by not being consistent with the rules, and if he kept doing it, that she'd rather pick a different feat. She was right, but this was but a symptom, as there were lots of similar conflicts with that DM. He wasn't open to our criticism, so eventually we quit his game.

It can be pretty frustrating to have such a DM. The rules as written explicitly say that your character can do a particular thing, and on a whim the DM keeps changing how it works and when you are allowed to use it. And if that DM is not open to any criticism from the entire group, then what more is there to do than to stop playing?

For this very reason I think the best advice that you can give any DM, is what @iserith often says: Yes... and! The DM should be facilitating play, not constricting it. This does not mean that rules should be completely discarded at every turn, but the DM should try his best to allow their players to do what they want to do within the framework of the rules.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Sure it does: the GM's power to punt said person out of the game.

 

[Dragonsbane]

As a Forever DM (30 years now), all my players respect my rules, judgments, and setting guidelines. Not saying I am an awesome GM, but usually if a conflict does arise, I tell the player he can do it his way in his game, and would he like to be DM. That quashes any argument and the players go back to the game happily.

Latest one - a player does not like a house rule which limits greatly getting HD back (one per long rest, nothing more). We discussed, I explained I am looking for more resource management and a more deadly game. He disagreed, but we moved on.

I have kicked out players before of course. This is made easier by the fact that I play with tons of people I met online so I am not kicking out my buddy from high school, but more of an acquaintance. And there are SO MANY ONLINE PLAYERS, there are plenty who would fit my table. Toxic players are gone pretty fast these days lol