D&D General DM Authority

[Umbran]

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...

"Formal obligations". Sheesh. Are you a GM for hire, with a contract or something?

Who gives a crumb about formal obligations? I want to know instead, in each of these situations - Are you doing a good job as a GM to enable the folks at the table to have a good time?

 

[generic]

"Formal obligations". Sheesh. Are you a GM for hire, or something, with a contract or something?

Who gives a crumb about formal obligations? I want to know instead, in each of these situations - Are you going a good job as a GM to enable the folks at the table to have a good time?

Very, very, very true...

I might use the type of pedantic, rambling arguments we all tend to lean on in these discussions, but, at the end of the day, it's obscene to speak of contractual obligations, power differentials in the social contract, and all of that horse excrement.

If someone at the table wants to have more combat, we'll talk about it, and I'll try to add some more of what they find fun so everyone can enjoy the game.

 

[prabe]

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?

Sorry to offend your sensibilities. I was mirroring the language I was replying to. I'll grant that the word "authority" is being thrown around a lot, here, starting with the title of the thread, but I didn't use it in the post you're responding to.

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?

If I'm hosting people for dinner, I consider myself to have an obligation to make sure I'm cooking food they'll be able to enjoy in good health. This means I ask after any allergies, sensitivities, aversions, and/or preferences, when I invite people. Kinda oddly, this seems like something of an apt analogy for GMing. YMMV, of course.

 

[Oofta]

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."

That assumes I remember to use inspiration. But I appreciate the suggestion.

We do already use an optional rule for miscellaneous trinkets, sometimes I have a plan for them sometimes I just wait until something makes sense, funny, or can add something of interest to the story. There's even a "mystery key" as a common magic item that gives you a 5% chance to open any lock. My current group has a rogue so that hasn't come up.

I'm not a stickler for inventory details, and people can have all sorts of miscellaneous stuff so it's probably a question of where we draw the line.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

We do something really crazy. We discuss what we would like to do and the DM tries to incorporate some of our preferences. But then he rolls with it. We give some very general ideas and then unleash him.

he could tell people were tiring of a series of desert temple complexes. We were pushing level 8. He gave us a damn survey! You could say you wanted wilderness, urban, other dungeon and so forth.

but problem with DM authority does not come up really. We are friends and take turns DMing over the years. What we might do given our 40 years of friendship is mildly gripe... then lay off.

but if the DM says something has occurred the last thing we do is vote about it. We suck it up and talk about it after the game or just suck it up.

things don’t always go your way in a dangerous realm. I think mostly we roll with it. We are adults. Getting your exact way has become less of a thing since we are now in our 40s. Group fun is more important than my fun in each moment. Sometimes it’s my turn...my specific preference and sometimes it’s yours.

overall though we listen to the dm. You don’t shut the game down by having a fit. We did that when we started out occasionally at 10 or 11. Later we occasionally told the DM we thought he had given us too many magic items!

the whole thing is a joint enterprise but the DM is the leader and we count on whomever that is at the time to make calls. We might try to influence some maybe a grumble a little but ultimately defer. If I don’t like it now, a few hundred more yards and a short rest later and the situation can be exactly to my liking.

but DM is in charge because we elected him. We the players! We can throw him out of his seat but we are not rewriting g the constitution. The next person to sit at the head of the table in turn is in charge as well.

I realize that playing at stores or with strangers is different. But being a visitor with a passport means you can travel! There are advantages. The relationships might not be as tight to start but there is more freedom too.

for me the solution is not to make every decision a majority rules thing or to rewrite the long held rules and assumptions of the game. It’s to engage in dialogue or to walk if the coat is not high to do so. But I don’t want to tear down the DM or his tools.

I want something outside of myself to strive against. The DM as a separate decision making entity kindly provides a sense of unknown and breathes life into adversaries. I don’t need to know everything he does; I don’t WANT to.

nor do I feel a need to resent his authority! When I go to the doctor I pay them and trust them to make decisions. When I play D&D, I empower the DM to set the stage for fun. I then interact and make use of that opportunity. He is not going to bat 1.00! But with some trust the overall is generally very fun.

 

[zarionofarabel]

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?

I my opinion the DM would be at fault for not informing the Barbarian player that it was a low combat game. The Barbarian player should demand that combat be included as that is what they want. If the DM says no, then the DM is a bad DM (and a jerk) and the Barbarian player would be well advised to find a DM that will at least inform the players of the kind of campaign they want to run.

Is this how you folks run games - with DEMANDS and OBLIGATIONS and AUTHORITY?

Well, as a DM I have had players DEMAND that I allow them to play characters that don't fit the campaign premise. I've also had players tell me I'm OBLIGATED to make the game fun for them by fulfilling their DEMANDS. I've also been told that as DM I have no AUTHORITY to run a campaign that I am interested in and that I am actually OBLIGATED to run the kind of campaign the players DEMAND.

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?

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?


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 think the problem is that the Barbarian player was not informed of the kind of campaign that the DM was going to run. If that is the case one of two things can happen, either the player makes a character that does fit the campaign, or the player leaves the game. However, by not informing the players of the premise of the campaign it proves that the DM is not very good. If nothing else the players and DM should discuss what kind of campaign is to be played before PCs are created so the players can make characters that fit the campaign premise.

 

[Umbran]

That assumes I remember to use inspiration. But I appreciate the suggestion.

Yeah, I get the point. How to remember Inspiration is another discussion. But making it more interesting is among the techniques, anyway.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Isn't DM authority built on the idea that the DM knows more about the world and is better equipped to maximize fun at the table?

I mean many in these many thread have saidthe players agreed to the DM's Authority by sitting at the table? However I am seeing by the many many many many comment here and there that most of the arguments are due to the DM never stating what the players are agreeing to.

Well of course a barbarian player playing a class with little room for CHA nor social skills will be upset if they expected a combat heavy game and didn't get one.

If DM are constantly not informing their players what the game is, it would be very common for players to sit down expecting a different game from the one the DM is running with the wide array of humans playing D&D now. And this wide array would include people who don't wait under after session to calmly talk about the campaign over coffee and baked snacks.

But with this heavy resistance,it is obvious why we keep having this problem.

 

[Umbran]

Sorry to offend your sensibilities.

It isn't specifically you, and it is less about offending me as it is... look about how you are talking about a thing that is supposed to be fun?

I was mirroring the language I was replying to.

Yep. And I was just noting that the language we use tends to channel our thoughts, and maybe it was time to question the language. Step away from the language of contractual agreements, and more to "I am having friends over for dinner." How does the discussion change?

Kinda oddly, this seems like something of an apt analogy for GMing.

It isn't odd at all. You think that analogy was chosen at random?

 

[Minigiant]

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

Of course the DM and players should talk.

But it is clear to me that many think DM Authority comes with zero responsibility to the players.

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

Consequences the playerwere not informed of.

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?

Yes.

Says so in the DMG that there are 3 playstyles of D&D. Players should be informed which one they are participating in before they roll up their PCs.

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.

So the DM has no responsibilites to the players and can change up the game whenever they want to suit their desires?