D&D General DM Authority

[Umbran]

Now, the fact that the PHB is so unfriendly to new players is a problem that hurts the hobby, but that’s a whole different topic than the one we’re discussing here.

Considering how well the hobby is doing of late? I think we'd want to reconsider whether the PHB really is all that unfriendly.

 

[zarionofarabel]

This is from way back in the thread but... no. This is not the "player's job", in general. Maybe that's how you play at your table, but it isn't a given for games in general. Not all players have to be in "make the maximum out of the rules" mode.

System mastery is not the norm, at least not in my experience, especially with a game that is as complicated and complex as D&D.

 

[Jack Daniel]

No. My problem is that DM Scarcity + DM Authority + Zero Responsibility allows bad DMs to stay Bad DMs and teaches some naive DM bad practices.

I don't want the new generation of D&D fans to be corrupted as technology progresses. I don''t want D&D to fall because it became flooded with power hungry jerks and confused novices because no one encourages clear communication.

What gets to be called a bad DMing practice? Some treat dice-fudging as an absolutely necessary tool in the DM's kit and others consider it the death knell of player agency and the meaning of the game. Is it good or bad DMing practice to have a campaign with a plot? Should DMs always encourage players to talk in "voices"? Is moving an encounter or a location into the path of the PCs a clever way to conserve prep-work and take advantage of the indeterminacy of campaign details that haven't yet "hit the table," or is it wretched illusionism and quantum ogreing, a way of deceiving the players into thinking that they have choices they don't really have?

I would caution anyone against conflating "good DMing practices" with "personally preferred DMing practices." Beyond that, the idea that bad DMs can leverage their own scarcity to continue being bad DMs seems more like a boogeyman than a real phenomenon. It suggests that bad DMs can't grow into good DMs on their own, or that there's some sort of inertia that keeps bad DMs bad so long as they continue to have players.

To this I would ask, what do you personally do to fix this perceived problem?

Also, what exactly constitutes a bad DM?

For me a bad DM is a DM that has only ever run D&D games. Or only runs published adventures. Or only runs games that focus on combat. I skimmed a copy of Xanathar's and was devastated to find a "downtime" system that is basically built so groups can skip over anything that involves roleplaying things not focused on combat. To me a DM that uses a system like that is the worst kind of DM as their games probably have, IMHO, virtually no roleplaying. This is because to me roleplaying is the part of the game where the PCs are interacting with NPCs in something other than combat. I am not one of the DMs that thinks combat stats and magic items and mechanical bonuses means character depth. I have met many DMs and players that can't tell me what happened in their game, all they can do is rattle off combat stats or mechanical information.

So, how do we as a community decide what a DMs best practices should be? As far as I can tell from many of the interactions I have had on this forum, many would consider me a bad DM. Does that mean I should change how I DM to make others happy, or just not advise people of how I DM for fear of corrupting them into my bad DMing style?

Anyway, sorry for the rant. I think people can be jerks, but I am very skeptical about the idea that DMs can be objectively bad as there is no standard to live up to, the hobby is far to varied for that. With luck there will be a sudden spike in interest among the novices to become DMs and they will all start playing Mythras and Burning Wheel and Mouse Guard and M-Space and Far Trek and the hobby will be saved by system much better than D&D!

That seems a terribly narrow-minded way to look at DMing. There's nothing wrong with only wanting to run D&D to the exclusion of other RPGs. I may not be fond of published adventures, but I won't fault a DM who runs them. Some games that focus on combat are tremendous fun. Downtime is an incredibly useful mechanic for keeping the game focused on the action when different player characters have personal agendas that would otherwise eat precious "screen time" and result in boring-ass spotlight-hogging. I thoroughly despise any definition of "role-playing" that means "improvisational playacting," and D&D should support my style of play as well as yours.

I would despair at the notion that my particular flavor of D&D (old-school board-gamey fantasy wargaming with a heavy emphasis on dungeon exploration and challenging the players) might be lost from the world while a story-driven, thespianism-heavy style flourished. If anything, we should all strive to see the variety of possible play-styles flourish, expand, and be celebrated.

 

[Charlaquin]

Restricted class race choice (but not that severe).

That one raises some red flags for me. The restrictions aren’t too bad, but “I run a game that is a little more gritty and mid-level fantasy” sounds like a very loaded sentence that I would definitely want the DM to elaborate on before agreeing to play, and “Role-playing is first person with limited/no out of character” is especially questionable to me. I mean, I get wanting to keep things in-character, on its own that wouldn’t concern me, but in context of that sentence, with the matter-of-fact assertion that “roleplaying is first person” gives the impression of someone who’s going to police roleplaying in ways I would find undesirable. You want to say no dragonborn or sorcerers in your campaign, fine, but don’t tell me how I’m allowed to roleplay!

 

[Maxperson]

System mastery is not the norm, at least not in my experience, especially with a game that is as complicated and complex as D&D.

@Lanefan wasn't even talking about just system mastery, but cheating. He was saying it's the players' job to try and cheat and the DM's job to stop it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Considering how well the hobby is doing of late? I think we'd want to reconsider whether the PHB really is all that unfriendly.

There are many factors contributing to the hobby’s success. I don’t think the Player’s Handbook is one of them. I could be wrong about that, but either way the hobby’s success is not a reliable indicator that the PHB is doing its job well, as the success could easily be in spite of the PHB rather than because of it. At any rate, even if the PHB is helping more than it hurts, it still has a LOT of room for improvement.

 

[Minigiant]

What gets to be called a bad DMing practice? Some treat dice-fudging as an absolutely necessary tool in the DM's kit and others consider it the death knell of player agency and the meaning of the game. Is it good or bad DMing practice to have a campaign with a plot? Should DMs always encourage players to talk in "voices"? Is moving an encounter or a location into the path of the PCs a clever way to conserve prep-work and take advantage of the indeterminacy of campaign details that haven't yet "hit the table," or is it wretched illusionism and quantum ogreing, a way of deceiving the players into thinking that they have choices they don't really have?

Maybe we as a community should have a discussion about it for once.

I would caution anyone against conflating "good DMing practices" with "personally preferred DMing practices." Beyond that, the idea that bad DMs can leverage their own scarcity to continue being bad DMs seems more like a boogeyman than a real phenomenon. It suggests that bad DMs can't grow into good DMs on their own, or that there's some sort of inertia that keeps bad DMs bad so long as they continue to have players.

I think bait and switch is a universally hatred bad DM tactic.

However I see it happen accidentally all the time. A huge chuck of threads on the net DMs about player problems involve players and DMs not being on the same plane of ideas.

If you have a person whose main source of fantasy are very differernt from another, they must get on the same page. Adding a dynamic where one person has ultimate authority on top of that is a recipe for disaster if they don't clear up mindsets.

 

[Don Durito]

A lot depends on your reference points. A lot of people on forums here and elsewhere seem to assume that references to anime or computer games will be universally recongised.

My reference points for fantasy are almost all fiction.

The other thing is the strange belief that words like "gritty" or "low fantasy" or "heavy role-playing" actually convey information whereas they're pretty much vacuous.

"This game will be set in a city state republic. A big part of the campaign background will be based around the elections for the rulers of this republic. I'd like to run a game in which the PCs become involved as players of one kind or another in these politics. Things like spying, blackmail, negotiation etc will be major parts of the game. There will be combat, but it should ideally be linked to goals related to the above, and may not always be the best approach. There will not be traditional dungeon crawling" - says something about the game.

Saying "a role-playing heavy game in a low fantasy city" means nothing.

 

[Charlaquin]

A lot depends on your reference points. A lot of people on forums here and elsewhere seem to assume that references to anime or computer games will be universally recongised.

My reference points for fantasy are almost all fiction.

The implication being that anime is real.

 

[prabe]

The implication being that anime is real.

My references and inspirations are mostly from novels and short stories--and infrequently from actual Fantasy. It's plausible that @Don Durito meant something similar.