D&D General DM Authority

[Oofta]

Play that occurs at Conventions, or other Public Tables, be it AL, the RPGA, or other similar entities is a fringe element of the limited slice of persons that play Roleplaying games.

Perhaps, something in the structure of Public Games facilitates disruptive play.
Perhaps, something in the structure of Private Games, dissuades disruptive play.

I assign very little probative value to personal anecdotes about A-holes on Discord Severs, or A-holes in AL, or A-holes in Living FR or Greyhawk.

Most games of D&D, past and present, are not public. Most participants in RPG games, past and present, were not involved in public games.

Crying out "What about Adventure League Games?!" is like the cry of
"What about the children?!" from the great satanism/suicide outcry of the 1980s.

It seemingly leads to proposing overreaching and authoritarian policies, in response to issues that are not well understood, and is 'fixing' a problem, most games, don't have.

I'm not saying it always happens, I'm saying it can happen. I've experienced it with both public and private games. Maybe you've been lucky and it's never happened to you. Congratulations! You've been lucky! But it does happen.

Therefore my advice for DMs boils down to:

Try to make the game fun for everyone including yourself. Listen to people but don't have long discussions about the rules at the table during the game, make a ruling and if there's a longer discussion do it after the game. Don't be afraid to tell people that you simply need to think about it and remember that sometimes there is no way to please everyone, sometimes there is no "right" answer. While you can and should listen to your players, as a DM you make the final call.​

​

See also the PHB and DMG on the role of the DM. Feel free to disagree with my advice. But saying that it doesn't happen? Ignorance may be bliss but it's still ignorance.

 

[Oofta]

Alright, this thread has moved at friggin' light speed, so I'm only going to respond to people that quoted me for now. We'll see if I can keep up later.


That's kind of intended. Change requires adaptation. Adaptation is a vital DM skill. Players always provide a source of change, but becoming too comfortable with too many unchanged world elements seems a real risk for this style.

Change for the sake of change is also meaningless, I don't see the point. Besides, my world does change because of the actions of PCs and because I wanted to tell a different style of story. It all becomes part of the world's changing history: empires rise and fall, old ways die away, regional-apocalypses happen or are stopped having ripple effects across the world.

It's fine if it's not your style but calling it a " becoming too comfortable with too many unchanged world elements seems a real risk" is extremely judgmental and unjustified.

Sure, I grant that. I could potentially see squeezing ten years total out of the world I've got now (we're at about two years now, so two five-year games in total seems reasonable). But that's in part because so much of it has very light definition, such that going there or living there would be a new discovery for everyone, including me. But given how precisely, comprehensively, and interconnectedly you've explicitly said your world is, I just can't imagine there being enough things to fill 20+ years of gaming. I have a pretty active imagination, and I guarantee you I couldn't have imagined all the stuff to make even three years of playable game for the world I actually run.

To each there own. I'm not telling you your style of DMing is right or wrong, please return the favor. Thanks.

 

[Charlaquin]

Kicked out of what?

Kicked out of the group.

The campaign and game, which the DM still has and controls, and can get more players for. They haven't removed him, they have quit.

Without players, there is no campaign or game. The DM can find new players, yes, but that is then a different group and therefore a different campaign.

It's not only not a fact, but it's flat out wrong. They cannot take the game with them. Even if one of them "continues" the game, they are in fact starting a new game under similar circumstances that will not play out in the same way.

Whatever you gotta tell yourself, I guess.

 

[Campbell]

I'm not saying it always happens, I'm saying it can happen. I've experienced it with both public and private games. Maybe you've been lucky and it's never happened to you. Congratulations! You've been lucky! But it does happen.

Therefore my advice for DMs boils down to:

Try to make the game fun for everyone including yourself. Listen to people but don't have long discussions about the rules at the table during the game, make a ruling and if there's a longer discussion do it after the game. Don't be afraid to tell people that you simply need to think about it and remember that sometimes there is no way to please everyone, sometimes there is no "right" answer. While you can and should listen to your players, as a DM you make the final call.​

​

See also the PHB and DMG on the role of the DM. Feel free to disagree with my advice. But saying that it doesn't happen? Ignorance may be bliss but it's still ignorance.

Disruptive play absolutely does happen. I happen to believe that a Strict Father model of DMing makes disruptive play more rather than less common. I have a view of leadership that encourages giving all the people playing a game a real sense of ownership because in the long run when people feel valued they contribute more and disrupt less. I also think groups are able to handle this pretty well.

Like I said elsewhere there are strong gameplay reasons for a more top down arrangement, but I do not believe disruptive players are one.

 

[Umbran]

First, reference-style text can still be included in an appendix, where it can be compressed even better than a "semi-normal" style allows.

The point is getting missed by a significant margin.

You are actually arguing my point - the reference text and the teaching text aren't the same text - you're actually shoving one of them off into it's on sub-work, the appendix. What you've now created is two separate texts bound together - a reference text and a teaching text. But these combined text is larger than either one of them alone, again, by definition.

And, let's face it, most of your players don't actually need the teaching text for very long. Once they have the hang of it, they may refer to it once in a blue moon. But every player is expected to refer to the reference text for the life of their gaming career. So, you have a teaching text that you need for a couple months, and a reference text you need for years (to decades, even).

Why are you making the player lug around a text they rarely actually use? Maybe that information ought to be elsewhere than in the day-to-day use book, hm?

As for "hey, kids, remember, HP aren't health", that is already there: "Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. " Are you sure the PHB that they are already ignoring on this point is the place to put that reinforcement?

 

[Maxperson]

Kicked out of the group.

Okay. That may or may not be true, depending on the group, but now you're conflating group with game. Those are two different things.

Without players, there is no campaign or game. The DM can find new players, yes, but that is then a different group and therefore a different campaign.

Same game, though. It goes how he runs it still. No player can take a game from a DM and run it the same way. It will be run differently, making it a new game.

Whatever you gotta tell yourself, I guess.

That does appear to be what you are doing, yes.

 

[jasper]

"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?

Are YOU a GOOD enough player to enable the DM and other folks have a good time at the table?

 

[zarionofarabel]

Alright. What happens if the entire group is either (explicitly) ambivalent, or also combat-positive? Are there any valid expectations Bob might have of Alice? Does Alice have any responsibilities to Bob, or the group at large, because of their request?

That would end in either the players all leaving and forming a new group, or the DM being forced to sign the Magna Carta and running combat for the players.

Absolute power can also exist simultaneously with an elected government. Here in Canada we have a Constitutional Monarchy. The Queen of England is technically, still in charge. We are allowed to have a Parliament through her good graces. If the Queen really wanted to she could come to Canada, go to Parliament, wave her hands around and shout "you're all fired" and poof, we are back to being ruled solely by the Queen.

 

[Oofta]

Disruptive play absolutely does happen. I happen to believe that a Strict Father model of DMing makes disruptive play more rather than less common. I have a view of leadership that encourages giving all the people playing a game a real sense of ownership because in the long run when people feel valued they contribute more and disrupt less. I also think groups are able to handle this pretty well.

Like I said elsewhere there are strong gameplay reasons for a more top down arrangement, but I do not believe disruptive players are one.

There's a big difference between referee and "Strict Father" model. You seem to keep going from "DM authority" to "DM telling everybody what to do with no collaboration".

I run a very collaborative game, I think it works better. I also establish what the world looks like before the PCs show up on the scene and make a final ruling. Once again, I'm not telling you that your way is wrong but it's a massive leap to go from running the game as described in the PHB and DMG to "players must treat the DM as lord and master".

 

[jasper]

….A lot of DM authority issues come down to lack of clarity….. Or Players not accepting a NO unless the DM hits over the head with a 2 by 4.

…I have no idea why it's hotly debated. One side is self-evidently right and the other side are just being pig-headed….. OINK OINK lol

…I figure we're debating it so we can figure out who are the pig-headed ones….. Easy. ANY of y’all who don’t agree with me.