D&D General DM Authority

[Minigiant]

I think at that point there has been a really major communication breakdown that needs to be addressed over and above the issue at hand.

(And, by the by, I think if you think using the terminology the game uses to describe a campaign will automatically prevent communication problems with getting the players on the same page, you're an incredible optimist.)

Shared terminology wont solve everything. But it is a start and might solve a lot of these communication problems.

The rulebook has rules for lots of things that aren't combat. It seems reasonable to take at least some of those into account when making a character.

If the player isn't sure about what kind of game to expect it makes sense to me to talk to the DM.

I believe as a DM, the onus is on the DM first to explain their game.

Since it's their setting and campaign.
Since they have authority.

 

[prabe]

I believe as a DM, the onus is on the DM first to explain their game.

Since it's their setting and campaign.
Since they have authority.

It's a reasonable expectation.

It's also reasonable to expect the players to look for clarification/s if needed.

 

[generic]

I believe as a DM, the onus is on the DM first to explain their game.

Since it's their setting and campaign.
Since they have authority.

Wait, so what is it? Does the DM have authority over their game, or are they obligated to run a game which others want to play?

At least keep it consistent.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

This is assuming the lack of combat is the DM's doing in the first place. But what if it's simply down to the rest of the players finding non-combat ways of getting things done for those three sessions?

 

[Charlaquin]

It feels like many are usingDM scarcity, the large player pool, and the amount of work in DMing as an excuse for DMs to ignore player wishes and allow for DMs to simply filter through players until they find ones with the same ideals or one that will simply accept the DM's.

I don't think it's healthy for D&D at all.

What’s the alternative? Demanding that DMs run games for groups who don’t share their interests? Not unless you pay them. It’s their leisure time, they have a right to spend it playing games they enjoy with like-minded people. If you can’t find a DM whose interests align with yours, then maybe you should try DMing.

 

[Minigiant]

Wait, so what is it? Does the DM have authority over their game, or are they obligated to run a game which others want to play?

At least keep it consistent.

Ugh

DMs have authority over their games.
DMs also have the responsibility to clearly explain to what type of game they are running before the players accept to stay or leave at Session 0.

If the players start doing weird stuff that don't match your campaign on Session 1+, you as the DM should be able to state "That doesn't match the setting/theme/tone/playstayle that we agreed upon".

If you cannot, that is 1000% on you as the DM for being unclear.

 

[Lanefan]

Because why not. To bring up something cool or interesting. Or to make a point stronger. Just an example of something similar happening (relatively) recently at our game:

Kazimir Podivniy, a party wizard and a historian is arguing with the head of a relatively large mercenary group, who is allying with the Cult of Black Sun in exchange for bringing her long dead son back to life. So, Kazimir says something along the lines of "There once was a great kingdom in the north. Their crystal towers touched the sky, their great gardens blossomed all year round. They knew no blight, no famine, they kept Death herself at bay. But now? Now there's nothing but barren wasteland. Their great towers are now ruins in the middle of withered forests, and only unquiet spirits, who have no place in Heaven or Hell are wandering there, cursed for all eternity. This is what you get when mortals play with things they don't understand. There's always a price, a price paid in blood." (recalled from memory and translated from Russian, so of course it's not exact words).

There wasn't any great kingdom with crystal spires five seconds before, but now it's always been there.

In the wizard's mind, maybe. Nothing says any of that has to have been real (in the setting); the wizard could simply have been piling on the BS in order to help win his argument.

Wizards do that now and then, you know.

I don't get it. What's the point of trying to test bounds, when you are in the same team.

Same team?

The DM's out to kill my PCs. I'm out to keep them alive. Flip those roles when I'm the DM.

 

[generic]

Ugh

DMs have authority over their games.
DMs also have the responsibility to clearly explain to what type of game they are running before the players accept to stay or leave at Session 0.

If the players start doing weird stuff that don't match your campaign on Session 1+, you as the DM should be able to state "That doesn't match the setting/theme/tone/playstayle that we agreed upon".

If you cannot, that is 1000% on you as the DM for being unclear.

Okay, so, let's say I'm running a Hack and Slash game, and I explain what that is. Can a player reasonably complain about lack of role-playing? If I don't bend to their request, am I fostering a "toxic" DM entitlement environment?

 

[Minigiant]

Okay, so, let's say I'm running a Hack and Slash game, and I explain what that is. Can a player reasonably complain about lack of role-playing? If I don't bend to their request, am I fostering a "toxic" DM entitlement environment?

If you stated that the game is Hack and Slash, the player accepted that by staying.
They cannot reasonably complain later.

The problem is more DMs than I would like to hear are running Hack and Slash, Dark Fantasy, or whatever without telling the players that. So problems arise Session 1+.

Communication should not be voluntary anymore. It should be mandatory. Either the DM or the Players should be require to figure out what kind of game the campaign is before Session 1.

D&D's audience is too wide and broad to run on assumptions.

 

[Lanefan]

So, on one hand, I notice that you are immediately pivoting to a "cheating players" paradigm, where every player is going to do anything they can for any advantage.

That's the player's job. If they're not doing it, or at least trying, they're failing to fulfill part of their role.

It's the DM's job to resist this.

Which makes this a very hard conversation to have.

But also, lets drill down a bit deeper into this example.

Rules like stealth are often bemoaned as having multiple valid interpretations. You have the majority of your table, (I'm using 5/6's) who tell you that they want to run with a specific interpretation.

I'm not going to say there is no room for conversation, but what actual value is there in overruling the majority of the table? Again, I'm talking about a valid interpretation of the rules, something that I imagine if a DM running their table told you as a player, you'd agree to, but in this case, it is the overwhelming majority of your table telling you how they want it to be run. Why would this be a problem?

Again, it depends where the disagreement stems from.

So, to give a quick pivot to the question, would anyone here have a problem if a current or former DM wanted to play in their campaign? They have full access and knowledge of the Monster Manual and the DMG, they are probably going to instantly recognize clues that you leave about the various monsters, even some of the obscure things.

As a player who is also a DM, I very much dislike this in myself when playing: I know stuff I shouldn't know.