D&D General DM Authority

[Lanefan]

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?

Yes, though quite likely with different players plus the one who said yes.

That said, I hope I'd be a better judge of who to invite in to begin with than to blow the call on 5 out of 6.

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?

This one depends on why the players are disagreeing with the rules/rulings.

IME players far more often disagree with rulings (or rules) that are to their characters' disadvantage; and after listening to what they say I-as-DM then have to try to assess whether the disagreement is a legitimate issue or just an attempt to make things easier on their characters.

If it's a legitimate issue, or they can show me it's legitimate, discussion continues and I'm open to suggestions.

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.

Put another way, maybe it's losing traction because players feel more entitled to disagree?

My take - with which not everyone will agree, but that's nothing new - is that this is a result (in D&D at least) of more and more mechanics and rules being moved to the player-side as the editions have gone along, thus causing players to see a lot more of what's under the hood.

 

[Lanefan]

As an addendum I 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.

That almost immediately verges into telling other people what to play and-or how to play it, which is a powderkeg with a lit fuse. Hard no, thanks.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

First question: why is a player even trying to singlehandedly introduce something on the scale of a whole kingdom into an established setting? (I'd almost certainly hard-no this right away to head off subsequent issues noted below)

Second question: if this player can add in his own kingdom, do the other players then have to be offered the same opportunity? (in the interests of fairness, I'd say this is essential)

Third question: where does it go from there? You've now got potentially four or five new realms in your setting, and likely have to rework a lot of your game-world's history and backstory to account for their existence (in my case, this would be a see-you-in-a-few-months situation); and then fit them in with the realms and nations you already had.

Setting, particulary on the large scale, is the purview of the DM.

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

e) It's a subtle power play by the player to test how easily the DM can be swayed and-or what the DM will put up with.
f) It's an overt power play by either the DM (to take or assert authority) or the player (to reject or deny the DM's authority).

If the DM holds firm if-when e) happens, the problem is usually solved. If-when f) happens, there's one fewer player at the table next session.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Better yet IMO would be "OK; as you sneak up close the guard's going to get another chance to notice you. If he blows that then you can try for the throat, but keep in mind you'll be nowhere near as likely to get it as Alice's Assassin would be." Then see what Lorenzo's player does next; and if he does go for the guard and succeeds on the sneaking I'd give him the straight kill only on something like a natural 19 or 20 to hit; with anything over about a 15 giving either a crit or auto-max damage or something like that.

I don't want to shut down Lorenzo's player for trying something creative, but I don't want to make Alice's character redundant either. Sometimes this can be a real tightrope walk.

 

[Imaculata]

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

This is a strange example. Deciding what sort of campaign to play as a group, is by the rules as written not something the DM decides on his own. It is something you agree upon as a group.

I can prepare a campaign set in the Roman era just fine without any player's approval, but whether they want to play one is not something I decide for them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Toxic players are gone pretty fast these days lol

Why does disagreement that doesn't vanish immediately automatically imply toxicity?

 

[Oofta]

Are you actually reading what I wrote? What I said was, to use your phrasing, "the player of the monk makes up whatever crazy power he wants and the majority of the group thinks its fine". My reaction as a GM is "Well, okay then." If that happens repeatedly, then yes, I think the group is dysfunctional because the group's expectations and the GMs are seriously out of sync.




The rest of the group saying no. How is that complicated?

Why so cranky?

Anyway, to put it simply I disagree. It would be like @Charlaquin and his player's PC having the key to the dungeon door. There are rules for a reason and sometimes the best thing you can do as a DM for the long term health of the campaign is say no. There was another thread about a DM who was burning out because they felt they had lost control of the game and the party just took long rests (in his example) whenever they wanted.

If it's happening all the time? Then yeah, that could be a problem. To be honest I've never seen that except for people that shouldn't be DMing in the first place. But this is also a strawman to a degree, the rest of my table thought the monk was being an idiot.

Don't get me wrong, I ask for feedback all the time; but there are still times I'll say no regardless of feedback. Why? Well for one, quite frequently it's just one person with a strong personality trying to get their way. What appears to be consensus is really just other people going along or that just don't care (and yes people have thanked me for standing firm against one person). In other cases it's ignorance.

The DM along with all their other hats is also a player that wants to enjoy the game. If I'm not the right DM for the group, maybe someone else should judge. Since I have a hard time keeping my groups down to 6 and once I get an established group it tends to last for years I'm not going to worry about it too much.

No DM can be the right DM for all players, not all players are right for the group.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Sadly, I've had the same experience. Eventually the guy left shortly before I was going to stop inviting him, but I don't get it. He went out of his way to be obstinate and would brag about how he had ruined my plans by refusing to follow a plot hook. For some reason he thought I spent a lot of time prepping certain plots (I didn't, I'm just good at improv) and he took joy in the fact that he made me waste my time.

But yes, sometimes there's only apparent consensus because one individual's personality overwhelms everyone else. If they want to run the game they should step up and DM.

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.

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

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.

It's group dependent. I feel that some leeway is a good thing, but sometimes players can go overboard (see the movie Gamers 2 for an example). Tying it to a resource mechanic is a really good idea, as meaningless crap won't happen.

If there's some kind of house rule and reasonable limitations, that's fine. But I know people that would have abused it if there was no limit.

 

[Oofta]

So what did the player say when you pointed out that he is only running twice as fast as a guy wearing plate mail?

Just gave me an odd look. Like I said, in hindsight I could have handle it better because I had just cracked a joke and most of the people were laughing. Nobody's perfect and nowadays I'd say something along the lines of "that's not going to work, what are you trying to do ..." or something along that line.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Ha freakin' ha.

This is a red herring. Bad DMs will be bad DMs. Nobody has said that DM authority extends to controlling PCs.