D&D General DM Authority

[Campbell]

Here's another hot take : RPGs are not a seller's market. They are a matchmaking market and by not valuing the people they play with enough many GMs lose out. Also players often lose out by giving their power away prematurely.

Until I realized that I needed to actively advocate for what I was looking for on both sides of the screen I was having a deeply unsatisfying play experience. We should all expect more from the people we play with and stop giving our power away.

I do not think anyone is obligated to run a game they do not want to, but GMs should value and respect the people they play with more and see them as peers. That peer relationship for me is mandatory. I would rather not play (on either side of the screen) than play without it. I think people becoming passive because of a culture of play where they are undervalued is a huge problem in gaming. I know it makes it harder for me to recruit the sort of players I am looking to play with.

 

[Blandco]

And don't even get me started on the whole - "Start the game at level 3" for ALL games including games that include new players that was all the rage about 5 years ago. (Oh God 6 years ago now.)

Literally the only place I saw online that had a majority of DM understanding why lower level sessions were needed were on the D&D Beyond forums. Every other place I checked online just blindly wanted to start games at level 3 because "It was too easy for PCs to die at level 1" "lower levels are boring" "PCs don't have enough to do at levels 1 and 2" "You can't run an eldritch Knight at level 1".

When I asked how a person who was new to D&D would understand what an eldritch knight was I got no response.

This was clearly caused by pretty much all streamed games starting at level 3 at that time.

In many ways the discussions around level 0 games have helped out a lot but in some cases are getting close to an over correcting response.

So in final I say that the DM is always right. Unless they are planning their games based on what someone else is doing online. Then they are generally always wrong.

 

[FrogReaver]

So in final I say that the DM is always right. Unless they are planning their games based on what someone else is doing online. Then they are generally always wrong.

Doesn't that mean they shouldn't be listening to your advice? Asking for a friend

 

[FrogReaver]

I looked for people accepting new players in games on Roll20 forums, Discord servers of popular Youtubers and LFG forums on D&D beyond.

Hardly any Youtubers are specifically instructing DMs to be restrictive because it's easier. However, there seems to be many DMs who are badly interpreting advice they watch online.

For example I never once found a game where all the basic PC choices from the PH were available. I am not pointing fingers but these DMs aren't getting the notion to restrict character options from the DM's Guide.

And more specific examples where DMs are implementing the Colville method of rolling stats which can easily cause some weird scenarios where a first time player might have to deal with an incredibly low stat. I would never suggest that new players start out rolling stats for multiple reasons.

One of the other strange pieces of advice floating out that is that if you as the DM don't understand a facet of 5E then don't include it in your game. I ran into DM's that just didn't allow certain spells because of "balance" issues.

Ect ect. It's not necessarily bad advice being given but rather advice that doesn't seem to be utilized properly by 90% of the online DMs I have encountered in the past couple of months.

There's also an issue of player entitlement. "I should be able to play whatever published race I want". "I should be able to use all the spells written in the book". Those aren't endearing qualities either IMO.

 

[Blandco]

Doesn't that mean they shouldn't be listening to your advice? Asking for a friend

Well...I mean SOMEONE online has to be correct about D&D? I am just a humble guy trying to look out for everyone in the hobby.

 

[Blue]

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

Off topic so I don't want to get into it too much, but I made two changes to Inspiration that helped a great deal with that.
1. You could use it after the die was rolled for a reroll. This helped keep it relevant and not the "oh, I forgot I had Inspiration to use".
2. Players give out inspiration. (Helps I have a mature and trustworthy group of players.)

 

[Blandco]

There's also an issue of player entitlement. "I should be able to play whatever published race I want". "I should be able to use all the spells written in the book". Those aren't endearing qualities either IMO.

If the DM claims to want to run a game of 5E and then does not not allow the PC races that are in the PH...

I don't think it's "Entitlement" to expect to be able to play something in the book that you bought as an eager board game enthusiast?

It's a board game. I have never seen someone throw away the boot in Monopoly for "reasons". Yet this is what I see in most discord servers in the LFG section.

 

[Campbell]

There's also an issue of player entitlement. "I should be able to play whatever published race I want". "I should be able to use all the spells written in the book". Those aren't endearing qualities either IMO.

I think it only becomes entitlement when players do not respect the GM's boundaries. Seeking games you can play the kind of character you want to play in is not entitlement anymore than seeking a job that has a certain set of benefits. Demanding behavior from anyone is not good, but seeking out the sort of experience you are after that's just being a good advocate.

If I'm running a game I'm going to seek out players who are going to care about each other's characters. That's seeking behavior.

Expression of a preference and being willing to seek out games that match it is not entitlement. Otherwise seeking out Vampire games rather than D&D games would be entitlement.

We should let the matchmaking process actually happen.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think it only becomes entitlement when players do not respect the GM's boundaries. Seeking games you can play the kind of character you want to play in is not entitlement anymore than seeking a job that has a certain set of benefits. Demanding behavior from anyone is not good, but seeking out the sort of experience you are after that's just being a good advocate.

If I'm running a game I'm going to seek out players who are going to care about each other's characters. That's seeking behavior.

Expression of a preference and being willing to seek out games that match it is not entitlement. Otherwise seeking out Vampire games rather than D&D games would be entitlement.

Right. But demanding a particular game include those preferences is. Calling it bad DMing if a game doesn't match your preferences is also just as bad IMO.

 

[Charlaquin]

I looked for people accepting new players in games on Roll20 forums, Discord servers of popular Youtubers and LFG forums on D&D beyond.

Hardly any Youtubers are specifically instructing DMs to be restrictive because it's easier. However, there seems to be many DMs who are badly interpreting advice they watch online.

Gotcha. So it’s conjecture on your part that these DMs are getting these ideas from YouTube.

For example I never once found a game where all the basic PC choices from the PH were available.

I don’t see the problem with that.

I am not pointing fingers but these DMs aren't getting the notion to restrict character options from the DM's Guide.

Sure they are.

As you start to develop your campaign, you’ll need to fill in the players on the basics. For easy distribution, compile essential information into a campaign handout. Such a handout typically includes the following material:

• Any restrictions or new options for character creation, such as new or prohibited races.

That’s straight out of the DMG. Granted, a lot of folks don’t actually read the DMG, but it 100% contains support for excluding player options that are in the PHB. There is no rule that everything in the PHB is fair game, nor has there ever been such a rule.

And more specific examples where DMs are implementing the Colville method of rolling stats which can easily cause some weird scenarios where a first time player might have to deal with an incredibly low stat. I would never suggest that new players start out rolling stats for multiple reasons.

Rolling stats is the default ability score generation method in 5e. Heck, Colville’s method is considerably more generous than the default method. 5e’s balance is not so precise that it can’t handle PCs nor having even stats, though I’ll grant that point buy or array is probably a bit more new-player friendly. Honestly though, if players are familiar enough with the rules to create their own character rather than using a pregen, they’re experienced enough to handle rolled stats. IMO.

One of the other strange pieces of advice floating out that is that if you as the DM don't understand a facet of 5E then don't include it in your game. I ran into DM's that just didn't allow certain spells because of "balance" issues.

So, the idea that you shouldn’t include a facet of the game if you don’t understand it is indeed very strange. But the “example” you point to, excluding certain spells for balance reasons, does not sound at all like an example of such a practice to me. Have you actually heard people share this piece of advice, or is it more conjecture on your part?

Ect ect. It's not necessarily bad advice being given but rather advice that doesn't seem to be utilized properly by 90% of the online DMs I have encountered in the past couple of months.

Granted, there’s lots of DMing advice out there of wildly varying quality, and there’s no accounting for how successfully different DMs will apply what advice. But your conclusions seem really dubious to me.