D&D General DM Authority

[Charlaquin]

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.

I don’t disagree with any of these statements. But also, people make mistakes, miscommunications happen, and sometimes that conversation ends up happening mid-campaign. When it does, the DM still has authority, and the players can decide to accept or leave when that conversation ends up happening. Obviously it’s less than ideal. In a perfect world these things would always get hashed out in session 0. But here in reality, you can’t expect DMs to run a game they don’t want to be running because they failed to effectively communicate what kind of game they wanted to run prior to the start of play.

 

[generic]

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.

I mean, if that's what your point was all along, I'd agree. The DM should tell players what the game is beforehand, and shouldn't bait and switch.

What I can't agree with is DMs being forced to run a certain type of game out of some obligation to provide DMing services for players.

Care to clarify the context of that last statement?

 

[zarionofarabel]

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.

Why would I want to run a game for players that don't want to play the games I want to run?

This idea absolutely blows my mind. What makes you think that I would want to spend my leisure time doing something I don't enjoy?

Now, if I was getting paid to DM a game I don't enjoy then it would be a job not a hobby so that would be a different story.

But seriously, why would I spend even one moment of my leisure time doing something I don't like? Do people do that?

I also find it strange that a DM wouldn't use the large player pool to their advantage. I mean, if I want to DM a particular type of game and I have the ability to filter players until I find players that want to play the kind of game I want to run, why wouldn't I do that? Why would I run a game I don't want to run instead just to make the players happy?

Seriously! Do people actually DM games they don't enjoy just to make the players happy?!?

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

Well then maybe WotC should pay me to DM games I don't enjoy in order to help upkeep the health of the hobby!

 

[Minigiant]

I don’t disagree with any of these statements. But also, people make mistakes, miscommunications happen, and sometimes that conversation ends up happening mid-campaign. When it does, the DM still has authority, and the players can decide to accept or leave when that conversation ends up happening. Obviously it’s less than ideal. In a perfect world these things would always get hashed out in session 0. But here in reality, you can’t expect DMs to run a game they don’t want to be running because they failed to effectively communicate what kind of game they wanted to run prior to the start of play.

I mean, if that's what your point was all along, I'd agree. The DM should tell players what the game is beforehand, and shouldn't bait and switch.

What I can't agree with is DMs being forced to run a certain type of game out of some obligation to provide DMing services for players.

Care to clarify the context of that last statement?

I think the crux of the problem is that this is a idea prominent in D&D that DMs don't have to tell players anything or that their pitch is allowed to be vague.

If this is popular, then you get these situation constantly where players do appropriate things not expected by the DM.

The DM should not be force to run a game they don't want to run.
The Players should not be forced to play a game they don't want to play.

Sure there will be hiccups and mistakes.
However if it happens constantly and dramatically, it's a community problem. And to me, it stems from clear communication at Session 0 being optional.

 

[reelo]

Why would I want to run a game for players that don't want to play the games I want to run?

This idea absolutely blows my mind. What makes you think that I would want to spend my leisure time doing something I don't enjoy?

I also find it strange that a DM wouldn't use the large player pool to their advantage. I mean, if I want to DM a particular type of game and I have the ability to filter players until I find players that want to play the kind of game I want to run, why wouldn't I do that? Why would I run a game I don't want to run instead just to make the players happy?

Seriously! Do people actually DM games they don't enjoy just to make the players happy?

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[prabe]

Why would I want to run a game for players that don't want to play the games I want to run?

This is a remarkably good question. I suppose there's a reciprocal question along the lines of "Why would I want to play with a DM who doesn't want to run the game I want to play?" Forcing someone to DM in ways they don't want to seems no better than forcing someone to play in ways they don't want to.

Well then maybe WotC should pay me to DM games I don't enjoy in order to help upkeep the health of the hobby!

From what I've seen you post, this would be a grievous strategic error.

 

[generic]

The DM should not be force to run a game they don't want to run.
The Players should not be forced to play a game they don't want to play.

Being unable to find a DM to run your preferred type of game is not being forced to play a game you do not want to play.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I am genuinely, deeply confused here. Where is the "absolute" authority in this? How can an "ultimate" authority be called out by the subjects of that authority, such that the authority would be in error if it failed to listen to them?

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. I will say that authority figures can be questioned. And as many rebellions the world over have proven, absolute authority is actually granted by the subjects of that authority. In RPG terms, all of the players can quit the game leaving the DM without players.

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?

I would posit that the player would speak up and tell the whole group that they want more combat. If the entire group is happy without combat, then the Barbarian player is again left with the original options of either making a new character or leaving the game.

 

[Oofta]

Big quoting time

Nothing in the rulebook tells you to build balanced characters.
Some DMs do run all grind,hack and slash.

Again the "Responsibility to your players" part is ignored.

If seems like a large percentage of DMs would rather have DMs filter though all the players for a perfect match (or submissive players) rather than have DMs be responsible to explain their worlds clearly to the players.

And people wonder why players are asking for "weird stuff" at the table.


That's why I belive in using the clear descriptive terms in the DMG so that everyone understands what's going on.

Everyone knows what a wizard or gnome is.
Everyone should know what Mythic or Hack and Slash is.

They let it slide and said nothing.
Hence the problem.

Unfortunatley there are calls forDM help but no one wants to talk about it due to risk of revealing their own faults.

Demand is a strong word.
Could not think of a lighter way to say "Hey buddy. You did not tell me that this campaign would barely have real fights."

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.

Where do you get the idea that I don't explain my campaign to potential players? I do. Then, when we're chatting about the campaign before it starts or during session 0 (when we first actually talk together as a group) I talk about more specifics on direction. That, for example my current campaign is largely urban based, little traditional dungeon crawling and that I value RP and out-of-combat. Double check everybody is good with that and let people know they can tweak their PC if they want. Every once in a while I double check and make sure people are getting what they want out of the campaign.

Such high-falutin words get tossed around like "responsibility". Repeat after me. "It's a game. It's only a game." Yes, I "filter through" players when I send out invites. I explain what I'm thinking, what type of world and so on. It's no different than if you go to a downtown restaurant district in many cities and they have the menu posted outside the door. If you don't like what you see on the menu you move on. If the restaurant can't attract business they change the menu or go out of business. Same with a DM.

I am but one sole DM in a giant ocean of DMs and players. I can only bless a handful of players with my super awesome DM skills. Why cast a wide net when all I can handle is a single fishing pole. Hmm ... starting to run out of analogies here.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

In the universe there are certain polar opposites. Light and dark. Hot and cold. The way you play D&D and the way I play D&D.

I already knew from past discussions this, but this is another solid confirmation that we play entirely different games.

I consider my "job" as a player is to do whatever I can to enhance the fun everyone else has at the table. Literally everything else is a means to that end. I would never once consider creeping my position of power until the GM reigned me in as an acceptable method of doing so.