D&D General DM Authority

[DND_Reborn]

Does the DM have the authority to say "No" in that case?

Of course they do. If the barbarian player isn't happy with the style of game the DM is running, the player is always free to leave.

Again, the DM does 90%+ of the work in the game. They have to be able to run a game the way they want to run it.

If the majority of players want a different style, someone else can DM or the DM can find a different group to play with.

When I was first getting back into 5E and looking for players, a friend of mine and I met with a couple who were about to start a new game. After meeting with the couple, it became very clear to me (from the types of characters they wanted and their attitude that we were "interviewing to play with them") that they were not people I wanted to play with. My friend as invited to play with them because they got on better with him, but I wasn't. Happily, I left (my friend declined) and we ended up finding others and creating our own group which has been together for the last two years.

Back when I was running AD&D, we never had issues and I was part of a group with about 10 members for over a decade. Once you find people who want to play the same style of games, such things are rarely an issue.

 

[Umbran]

How would it work in D&D 5E?

I might suggest using Inspiration as the resource spent.

Advantage at just the right time when you want it can be pretty potent, so apply that same potency to something that isn't intended to be terribly important or high risk, and generating an auto-success seems reasonable, to me.

You can tie this to their backgrounds, bonds and flaws (or just the character's established style, if you aren't using those things). The Outlander may have a bit of herb the party needs. The rogue may have one extra dagger they forgot about. The scandalous Bard has already flirted with a barmaid in this place last week and she's positively disposed toward them. Small stuff, not "I just happen to have brought the one artifact that kills the BBEG with me from there."

 

[generic]

If a campaign didn't have meaningful fighting in 3 sessions, can a pure-combat barbarian player DEMAND more big fights if he or she was not informed that this was a low combat storytelling game?

Does the DM have the authority to say "No" in that case?

As a DM, if I had not informed the player that my campaign would not include moments of combat, which the Barbarian player desired, I would feel as if I had misrepresented the style of the game.

However, the social contract of most tables doesn't revolve around players demanding that something else happen in the DM's story.

The DM is of course free to say "no", and, I would argue, is under no common obligation to run combat scenarios merely because that's the demotic perception of a D&D game. This is one of the elements which I, personally, would always advise a player about prior to play, but it doesn't fall under a contractual obligation between player and DM.

 

[Campbell]

The player can demand anything they want. The DM isn't under any obligation to provide big meaningful fights (in your example) but the DM would be wise to listen when the players complain about things like that. If the campaign is at a place narratively where big meaningful fights don't make sense, some assurance to the barbarian's player that this is a temporary state would be in order (and this sort of thing is why I encourage players to build characters with things to do out-of-combat as well in in-combat).

Pretty much. No one is under any obligation here. Everyone has the right to set personal boundaries and the ability to walk away if they do not have their expectations or desires met.

 

[Asisreo]

I might suggest using Inspiration as the resource spent.

Advantage at just the right time when you want it can be pretty potent, so apply that same potency to something that isn't intended to be terribly important or high risk, and generating an auto-success seems reasonable, to me.

I also believe there's something called "Plot Points" where a player can expend a plot point to change the dynamic of the scene by introducing new characters and other means.

 

[Umbran]

The player can demand anything they want. The DM isn't under any obligation ...

Demands. Obligations. Authority.

How often, in writing words like that, do folks seem to just outright forget that the idea here is to have a bunch of people around a table having a good time?

How often, when you go to a friend's house for dinner, do you DEMAND anything at all? Is this how you folks run games - with DEMANDS and OBLIGATIONS and AUTHORITY?

 

[Jack Daniel]

Where that line is, between Hard Authority and Soft Authority, and how much is too much varies from group to group, and player to player, and sometimes even session to session.

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.

I'm no expert on group dynamics. But I think it's not at all uncommon in many different kinds of social situations for a natural "leader" role to emerge, and very often that falls to whoever has the strongest personality/charisma/willpower or the most expertise concerning whatever the group's "project" is. In D&D groups, the DM is all too often both of these.

Speaking personally, I typically know far more about the rules than any single player I referee for. (Not that there's a whole lot there to memorize if I'm running OD&D, but at least I do my homework. Whereas playing a character in that system hardly requires that level of effort.) Typically, I find that this is enough to maintain an unlimited supply of (what @Michael Silverbane calls) both "Soft" and "Hard" Authority over the campaign.

The exercise of Hard Authority on my part might run into a limit if I were to encounter a player who was adversarial enough in their approach to my campaign that they felt the need to get into a "contest of wills" concerning a ruling I've made or a restriction I have in place. But it's never happened. Likely for the same reason most players don't bother to read the rules: they're just there to play and they tend to go along with whatever to move the game along.

So, having never been in the unfortunate position of getting into a childish pissing-contest over an aspect of an elf-game, I can't say whether or not I'd automatically win by virtue of being the DM. And if I did get into such a contest of wills and then win, I couldn't say whether it was because I was the DM and thus "the" authority over that campaign; because I've been a DM for a long time and am therefore in some sense "an" authority over reffing campaigns; or pure, willful cussedness on my part outlasting the hypothetical adversary. There would be no way to tell for certain.

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!”

So what's the difference between "Ultimate Authority" and "Referee that creates the campaign world people will be playing in"? Is there one?

"Ultimate" and "final" are synonyms in this case. That's what "ultimate" means: final. That's why second-from-final is called "penultimate" and third-from-final is called "prepenultimate" etc.

Now as for absolute authority, that's a different matter. Yes, I think there can be a difference between an Absolute Authority and a referee who worldbuilds the campaign milieu. The mere fact of worldbuilding the setting doesn't actually imply anything about how heavy-handed or collaborative the referee will be when it comes to either selecting/designing/house-ruling game mechanics or applying and adjudicating them in-game.

For a DM to be an Absolute Authority over the campaign, they'd have to approach it in a certain very traditional fashion, being both the worldbuilder of the setting and the "keeper" of the rules (in the old sense that the DMG and MM were "for DM's eyes only" and players ought not to peek at either), soliciting no player input regarding either setting lore or game rules.

This actually raises a rather interesting question for the more modern and collaborative clique of DMs: do you have every expectation that the players will be reading through the DMG and MM, looking for magic items that they want (maybe even requesting and then expecting to "find" them), learning and memorizing monster stats?

 

[Minigiant]

The player can demand anything they want. The DM isn't under any obligation to provide big meaningful fights (in your example) but the DM would be wise to listen when the players complain about things like that. If the campaign is at a place narratively where big meaningful fights don't make sense, some assurance to the barbarian's player that this is a temporary state would be in order (and this sort of thing is why I encourage players to build characters with things to do out-of-combat as well in in-combat).

Isn't by accepting the player have the right to get the type of game argeeed upon when they choose to stay at a table?
If so, does DM authority come with the obligation to grant the type of campaign pitched?

Of course they do. If the barbarian player isn't happy with the style of game the DM is running, the player is always free to leave.

Again, the DM does 90%+ of the work in the game. They have to be able to run a game the way they want to run it.

If the majority of players want a different style, someone else can DM or the DM can find a different group to play with.

When I was first getting back into 5E and looking for players, a friend of mine and I met with a couple who were about to start a new game. After meeting with the couple, it became very clear to me (from the types of characters they wanted and their attitude that we were "interviewing to play with them") that they were not people I wanted to play with. My friend as invited to play with them because they got on better with him, but I wasn't. Happily, I left (my friend declined) and we ended up finding others and creating our own group which has been together for the last two years.

Back when I was running AD&D, we never had issues and I was part of a group with about 10 members for over a decade. Once you find people who want to play the same style of games, such things are rarely an issue.

Does the barbarian player have the ability to claim some of the DM's authority if the DM pitched a hack n slash or a balanced type campaign.

I mean if I dumped Cha because the DM said this is a fighty game, I might not flip a table but I might cause a stink if there was no fighting in 3 sessions.

Isn't it the same as a homicidal party blending everything they saw to fleshy pulp when the DM pitched an intrigue game?

As a DM, if I had not informed the player that my campaign would not include moments of combat, which the Barbarian player desired, I would feel as if I had misrepresented the style of the game.

However, the social contract of most tables doesn't revolve around players demanding that something else happen in the DM's story.

The DM is of course free to say "no", and, I would argue, is under no common obligation to run combat scenarios merely because that's the demotic perception of a D&D game. This is one of the elements which I, personally, would always advise a player about prior to play, but it doesn't fall under a contractual obligation between player and DM.

What if the DM did not inform there would be moments of not fighting?
Does the DM authority hinge on the DM throwing a random encounter of bandits in between the shopping with merchants, carousing with commoners, and cavorting with nobles?

 

[generic]

What if the DM did not inform there would be moments of not fighting?
Does the DM authority hinge on the DM throwing a random encounter of bandits in between the shopping with merchants, carousing with commoners, and cavorting with nobles?

I see no need to change my response from the above.

If the DM does not inform that there will be moments of not fighting, it really hinges on the type of campaign which the players showed up for.

If I advertised a D&D game with no description, I'm under no obligation to include combat. If I advertised a classic, combat-saturated game, there's still no formal obligation, but I'd try to include combat because of what I advertised, and what people want to play. Generally, in real life, someone will just ask, after the session, if I could maybe add some more fights, and then, I'll try to add some the next time we play.

 

[prabe]

Isn't by accepting the player have the right to get the type of game argeeed upon when they choose to stay at a table?
If so, does DM authority come with the obligation to grant the type of campaign pitched?

I think the player can--and should--talk to the DM if the campaign is going in a different direction than the campaign pitch implied. Sometimes campaigns drift, especially if the DM is responding (especially if they're following) the players' lead on what happens. If the DM is following the players' lead, the situation you're describing implies a mismatch among the players, as much as between one player and the DM.

Does the barbarian player have the ability to claim some of the DM's authority if the DM pitched a hack n slash or a balanced type campaign.

Nope.

I mean if I dumped Cha because the DM said this is a fighty game, I might not flip a table but I might cause a stink if there was no fighting in 3 sessions.

Sounds as though the player made a choice and is dealing with consequences thereof.

Isn't it the same as a homicidal party blending everything they saw to fleshy pulp when the DM pitched an intrigue game?

In the sense there's a mismatch of style/expectation, kinda yes, though what you're describing is if someone built a Party Face/Smooth Talker PC and the rest of the party went murderhobo. Presuming in your main example the rest of the party are enjoying the non-fighty sessions.

What if the DM did not inform there would be moments of not fighting?

Do you really think players need to be informed that they will not be in-combat each and every moment of each and every session?

Does the DM authority hinge on the DM throwing a random encounter of bandits in between the shopping with merchants, carousing with commoners, and cavorting with nobles?

Nope. As I said, if there are players looking for a different game, the DM would be wise to listen to them, but what authority the DM has doesn't hinge on the kinds of encounters/situations are arising in the campaign.