D&D General DM Authority

[Chaosmancer]

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".

This question keeps coming up.

If you run a highly collaborative game, where players say can matter just as much as the DM, why are you arguing against us and insisting that the DM must have the final word, no matter what?

The only thing I can think of is that you have had so many bad experiences that you automatically ready the Veto Shield to protect you and your game from Bad Players. But, as @Campbell said rather well, the stricter we make our games, the more likely we are to have either passive players or rebellious players.

And if a player is coming from a tyrannical DM who insisted that their word was the final law, and then you say "I have the final ruling on anything at the table" would you really blame them for fearing that you are going to be just like the last guy? How are you going to convince them otherwise, except by agreeing that sometimes what they want is what is going to happen? Without qualifying it with a "as long as I agree with you"

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's not the players' job to outright cheat - I'd never in my life promote that!

It is, however, clearly in their interests to advocate for rules favourable to the PCs and to seek out advantageous loopholes in the rules that already exist. It then falls to the DM to push back against that advocacy when it goes too far, and to close loopholes either before they're discovered or as soon afterwards as possible.

It absolutely should not be in either case. I've outright pointed out problem areas in rules to GM, even if they were in my favor. I consider it keeping my powder dry, so if I'm pointing out problem areas that favor them its not just who's ox is getting gored. Same about bringing rules to a GM's attention; I'm not going to just do it when its to my benefit.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, and Star Wars is based on medieval legend.

The origin of one does not imply that it fits in fantasy.

Let's say that I argue that Cyberpunk is based on Greek myth, there's not argument to be made that it fits within a mythological fantasy setting of the ancient world..

I went ahead and googled it, just because I was curious.

There are about 15 different RACES of demons or other evil forces in the Dragonball extended universe. With tons of named characters and at least two different realms. Minimum. As well as 41 unique characters referred to as either a witch or a wizard.

Links if you don't believe me.

Demons

dragonball.fandom.com

Witches/Wizards

dragonball.fandom.com

I would think that this is fairly definitive in saying that, yeah, Goku can trivially fit into Fantasy. Considering they have a lot of fantasy elements.

That's a fair argument to make, but Z, GT, and Super all exist.

So do levels 7, 15, and 20.

Heck, if you go to older editions, you could be level 100 or have Divine Ranks as a God. Wasn't it called the Immortals series?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It absolutely should not be in either case. I've outright pointed out problem areas in rules to GM, even if they were in my favor. I consider it keeping my powder dry, so if I'm pointing out problem areas that favor them its not just who's ox is getting gored. Same about bringing rules to a GM's attention; I'm not going to just do it when its to my benefit.

Same. I often step in and remind people of effects or rules, even when they hurt the party.

 

[Oofta]

We are bringing it up, because it was the heart of the disagreement last time. Heck, go read the OP again, Oofta very clearly asks "So for those that say they don't believe in DM as ultimate authority, what does that mean?" or some variation at least twice.

I was asking because no one has given me a clear definition.

Does "ultimate authority" mean that

• The DM establishes the world (including locations, races, classes, gods, so on and so forth)
• The players have to run changes to the world past the DM and get their approval until their PCs interact with the world at which point they change and influence the world based on their PC's actions.
• Is polite and listens while encouraging feedback but makes the final call on rules
• May have some minor restrictions such as no evil PCs, no PVP, no intra-party theft

Then, yes I'm okay with that.

If "ultimate authority" means that the DM is an absolute dictator that doesn't allow or listen to feedback, puts people on railroad tracks, tells players what their PCs think and do, shuts people down immediately if they dare question? Then no, that's not okay.

But since there's not a clear definition how can you say that because I ask people to define it that you know what I think, how I DM or what I think is acceptable?

 

[Minigiant]

I just think DM Authority is being eroded by the sheer number of passive, rebellious, and apathetic players being breed from untrained, novice, or outright bad DMs that I think there should be big discussions on DMing to save the practice.

Those DMs who have perfect long them groups and have no problems can stay out the discussion if they wish. But as people of different backgrounds, ages, ethnicities, cultures, subcultures, and minds enters the D&D community with the popularity of 3e, 4e, and of course 5e, we need to prepare DMs and players for the new world.

And if DM Authority is the way, then we must teach players to recognize when a game won't be fun or isn't fun and empower them to leave if the DM's doesn't match theirs.

 

[generic]

[snip]
Is the DM bad? Leave
Want to play something they don't like? Leave
Unhappy? You can debate it, but their word is final, so they don't have to listen to you. Or you can leave.

What is expected of the DM? They will inform you of their decisions. Oh, they might deign to take input, but they don't need to. And if you don't like it? Leave.

Because the DM has control of the narrative and the rules, and their word is the final say.... but they that doesn't mean that what they say goes... because you can just leave?

Are you seeing the confusion here about how you give the DM the power to control everything, present leaving the game as the only solution, and yet want to say that it isn't "what the DM says goes, and that's that?

I mean, the DM is ultimately the narrator. And yeah, DM's aren't obligated to listen to players as much as players aren't obligated to listen to DMs.

You're either deliberately misrepresenting my argument or being obtuse. I made the simple argument that the DM must act as the referee, the ultimate authority, by virtue of their position as narrator. What I did not argue was that you should "just leave" if you don't like a DM's decision, nor did I present leaving the game as the only solution.

Because, yes, ultimately, I believe that the DM has to act as referee and narrator, and you can argue with the DM all you like, and maybe come to a compromise, but the very fuinction of the game relies on the DM as narrator, not on the players as narrators of the story at large.

In a real, functional world, the DM and players try their best to facilitate each other's fun. Furthermore, referencing your first point, yes, that's absolutely valid. If you want to play something the DM doesn't want to run, you can't force the DM to run it, you can leave.

 

[Oofta]

Why? Legitimately and seriously, why?

Look, I take up that burden most of the time. But there was one time I didn't.

The one and only time I was asked to run a game, instead of me asking them, I told my friend that I would run it. But he needed to find the players, and he needed to deal with scheduling conflicts, and he needed to find us a place to play.

He wanted the game, so he could put in the legwork to make it happen. There weren't any major personality disputes, but if there had been... why should it fall to me to handle them? Again, usually I do. Usually I take on the role of mediator and scheduler and location finder and a dozen other things. but why am I required to do those things? Why must it be me, if I'm the DM?

No other activity with a group of friends works this way. No sports team works this way. No movie production works this way unless it is incredibly small.

So why does DnD work this way?




Sure, but problem players aren't the only thing we were talking about.

Rules confusion was a thing we were talking about
Setting lore was a thing we were talking about.

We were talking about a lot of aspects of DMing, but people keep coming back to one of two positions.

1) I am the DM and I control this

2) There are problem players and as the DM I need to handle them

A rules dispute is not necessarily involving a problem player. The setting choices, races ect don't neccesarily involve a problem player. So, how is empowering players to speak up in those moments forcing them to deal with a problem player?

Maybe you've never had a problem player. Having an honest conversation with them pointing out the behavior that is not acceptable in the game can be difficult at best. Whether that's rude comments made about other players, hogging the spotlight to the detriment of other players, being overly argumentative during the game session it is not easy to have an honest conversation. If everybody at the table chips in, it's far more likely the problem player will get defensive and upset.

You say you've never hit the issue. Good for you. Then you don't know what it's like to deal with it.

As far as rule disputes, what can I say. Someone has to have the final say. In every game I've ever been involved with that was functional that was the DM. I've talked to DMs who regret allowing options or letting things slide when they were felt bullied and brow-beaten in to making decisions they didn't agree with. Sometimes there is no compromise, there is only "no".

 

[generic]

Maybe you've never had a problem player. Having an honest conversation with them pointing out the behavior that is not acceptable in the game can be difficult at best. Whether that's rude comments made about other players, hogging the spotlight to the detriment of other players, being overly argumentative during the game session it is not easy to have an honest conversation. If everybody at the table chips in, it's far more likely the problem player will get defensive and upset.

You say you've never hit the issue. Good for you. Then you don't know what it's like to deal with it.

As far as rule disputes, what can I say. Someone has to have the final say. In every game I've ever been involved with that was functional that was the DM. I've talked to DMs who regret allowing options or letting things slide when they were felt bullied and brow-beaten in to making decisions they didn't agree with. Sometimes there is no compromise, there is only "no".

I agree completely.

It all comes back to the DM being the facilitator of the narrative and the world's rules.

The players have agreed that you have the authority, at the table, to make the rules and judge the outcomes.

If you try to distribute narrative authority to the players, that wouldn't exactly make for a very fun experience, in my view, whether you're a player or a Dungeon Master.

 

[Oofta]

Bad Dms are Bad
Bad Players are Bad.

Assuming all DMs are bad is offensive to the other side,


So why do we keep assuming vast swaths of the player base are bad?

I mean, congrats, you know a couple of bullies. But why are we insisting on tight control of EVERYONE because they might be a bully?

I don't assume players are bad. Fortunately bad players are a small percentage. Why do you keep insisting that I have "tight control of EVERYONE"? It's a strawman and not justified by anything I've said. My decisions and style may not be what you do, but it is what is indicated in the PHB and DMG. Maybe you should contact Mearls and Perkins and ask them.

 

[generic]

I just think DM Authority is being eroded by the sheer number of passive, rebellious, and apathetic players being breed from untrained, novice, or outright bad DMs that I think there should be big discussions on DMing to save the practice.

Those DMs who have perfect long them groups and have no problems can stay out the discussion if they wish. But as people of different backgrounds, ages, ethnicities, cultures, subcultures, and minds enters the D&D community with the popularity of 3e, 4e, and of course 5e, we need to prepare DMs and players for the new world.

And if DM Authority is the way, then we must teach players to recognize when a game won't be fun or isn't fun and empower them to leave if the DM's doesn't match theirs.

A new world where the "master" of the game no longer functions as the narrator?