D&D General DM Authority

[Oofta]

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"

I'm done responding to you on this. Have a good one.

 

[prabe]

Considering "the DM failed to inform the player" was the point, I don't see how that's "twisted" at all.

I believe the absence of any conversation at all is at least as much "the player failed to ask."

When you have a choice between interpreting someone's intentionally hypothetical question in such a way that makes it interesting and not obvious to solve, or completely trivial and obvious, maybe don't take the trivial interpretation?

Because the hypothetical question wasn't at all clear, and I can see someone getting petulant about a shortage of thing-killing moments if they'd built a character just for that and it didn't happen. I'm less sympathetic to that, precisely because I explicitly discourage it.

Does this mean Alice has some kind of responsibility toward Bob? Because that's kind of the point here, asking whether Bob is being reasonable to expect certain things from Alice because of her choice to take up the DM role. In particular with that last bit: can Bob expect Alice to accept him re-writing his character (at least mechanically, even if not narratively)?

So, I wouldn't expect a player to re-spec without talking to the DM about it, so ... yeah, I think Alice has a responsibility to allow Bob to make a character that will allow him to have more fun with the campaign he's in.

Oh I know all that stuff. What I was saying is that technically the Queen could take back her absolute power at any moment. The fact that it would be almost impossible to actually do is beside the point.

TECHNICALLY CORRECT IS THE BEST KIND OF CORRECT

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay, lets talk practicality here. This is about creating a Genasi character, so we are clearly in session 0.

So, in your pitch before session zero, do you really give every salient detail of your entire setting? I doubt it, your "pitch" was probably far smaller, and probably focused on the campaign goals. Something like "I want to a game focusing on the PCs building a stronghold in the wilds of my world, vying for power and control against other forces."

So, yes, the players agree that sounds like fun. They like that idea.

Session Zero comes around, and one player has an idea for a Genasi born in the material plane, and before you can interject, the idea spreads like wildfire, and they are pumped. And when you tell them the idea doesn't work, because the Genasi can't be born on the Material plane, they ask you to change that.

They still want to play your campaign, they are still cool with a lot of your setting, but as a group they've decided that this is a cool idea and they want to explore it.

All well and good. And at that point, I would say, “It’s an important part of my setting that Genasi aren’t native to the material plane, so if we go this route, we’ll have to do some thinking about why your characters are exceptional, and you’ll need to be prepared for the other inhabits of the world to find you all very alien. I’m willing to do that work if you folks are, but if that doesn’t sound like fun to you, maybe we should consider a different party; or maybe a different setting if you’re all really jazzed on the idea of playing a Genasi party. I’m sure I could translate the themes I pitched to you into like Forgotten Realms or something.

Now, notice how all this plays out?

You pitched the campaign idea to them, meaning that at some level, you want them to play. Maybe they want you to DM as well, but they didn't come to you with a campaign idea and ask you to run it, you pitched to them.

You pitched your setting. They didn't say that they wanted to play in your setting, that was just what you offered, and they were willing to concede that point. After all, it is your setting, and there might be elements of your plot that require pieces from that setting.

So, we are halfway through this list you created of what the players wanted.... and it is more likely all about you. Maybe your expeirence is wildly different than mine, but I don't often have people walk up to me and ask me to run a DnD campaign in my homebrew setting for them. Usually I go to them.

Which means, before session 0, before anything, just from the pitch, the players are compromising with the DM. They are listening to the DM say "Hey, I've got an idea, I think you'll enjoy it. Let me use my world and give me 4 hours of your day for months on end, and I think we can have fun" So, the players already conceded to the DM. And you are using that fact as a bludgeon to demand that they must concede further.

After all they agreed to let you DM. They agreed to let you use your homebrew world. Therefore they must agree to your other restrictions.

Can you see the problem with how this is playing out?

Not really? None of that seems unreasonable to me, beyond maybe your choice of words with “using that fact as a bludgeon to demand that they concede further.” It’s a negotiation. Here’s what I was thinking of running. Sound fun? Cool. Oh, you wanted to play characters that don’t really fit into the setting? Ok, let’s talk about that and figure out how they fit. If you’re not willing to do that, maybe we consider re-drafting the pitch around the characters you are interested in playing. If you’re not willing to do that either, then we seem to be at an impasse. Maybe what we want out of the game is just not compatible. That’s fine, we don’t need to play this game together if it isn’t going to be mutually enjoyable.

And yet, you, Abeir-Toril I think, Lanefan definitely. All of you said you would either override the group or leave.

I said I would offer an alternative, and leave if no mutually agreeable alternative can be found. In any negotiation, there are things people are willing to compromise on and things people are not willing to compromise on. Using my homebrew world as the setting for a campaign is something I’m willing to compromise on. Changing the lore of my homebrew setting is not. I fail to see how that makes me some kind of tyrannical dictator.

You aren't claiming unilateral authority... but if the players collective decide to not obey your authority, you're out.

This is a gross mischaracterization of the position I’ve been arguing. I’m not claiming I’ll walk if the players don’t obey my every decree. I’m saying I reserve the right to make the final call on rules disputes (a right I have seldom had the need to exercise) and to decide the setting details, as is the DM’s role. If the players want to provide their input, I am more than happy to take it into consideration, but I will make the final decision. If the players all collectively agree that they don’t like the setting details I’ve decided on, I’m willing to negotiate, but one point I am not willing to concede is the lore of my own homebrew setting. It’s baffling to me that anyone would find this an unreasonable position, let alone authoritarian.

And again, in my experience as a DM and as a player, it is the DM going out and recruiting people, not the other way around. One time I had people come to me and ask me to DM. And that was a long time friend whom I had gotten into DnD, but because of scheduling conflicts he had never had me as a DM.

Sure, that’s pretty consistent with my experience as well. And since I am generally the one taking the initiative to invite people to my game, I’m generally going to invite people I know have similar taste in fantasy to me. So this hypothetical scenario where the whole group is overruling me on the subject of whether or not Genasi should be native to the material plane is kind of absurd; it just isn’t likely to happen, because the people I would ask to play are people I think are likely to be on the same page with me as to baseline setting assumptions.

So, you go to them, you want them as players, but if they overrule you, you go and find other players.

This has never really happened to me. This is all an extremely dubious hypothetical.

Here and there in this thread, and this entire thread spawned from another thread where that conversation was far more prevalent.

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.

Which was quickly followed by people saying that yes the DM has authority to do what they want.

Or maybe you are confused on the role of a referee.

A referee in football doesn't make the rules. They don't chose the teams of players, they don't decide how the stadium is designed. They are only there to settle rules disputes.

I just think some of y’all are interpreting phrases like “ultimate authority” in as uncharitable a way as possible. Especially when the folks your arguing with have consistently stated that they do take their players’ desires into account and negotiate with them.

The DM has the full authority (for some) to decide what races and classes their players are,

Um, what? I’ve never heard of anyone deciding what races and classes their players are. Many DMs provide a limited set of options for players to choose from, but that’s not even in the same ballpark as choosing the players’ races and classes for them. And providing a limited set of playable options within a particular setting is bog-standard setting design. Dark Sun lacks divine magic and most of the standard fantasy races. Lots of settings exclude “monstrous” races as PC options. Vedalken are a race from Magic: the Gathering, for which playable racial stats exist to allow for the possibility of playing in that setting, but don’t generally exist in most D&D worlds. Hell, the DMG advises the DM to make a document of up to two pages laying out the scope of playable options for their setting. This is not outlandish stuff.

they chose the world, they control everything in that world, they decide how everyone reacts, they even get to decide whether or not your action succeeds or fails. Remember, you only roll the dice if the DM tells you to, if they say you failed, you failed.

As well it should be. That’s what makes D&D work as a roleplaying game.

At the far end of the spectrum, perhaps a position no in this thread is actually taking but we have to be aware of it, the DM controls nearly every aspect of the game. Location you meet, time you meet, who you are playing with, all of it.

I think those meta-game group management things are generally arrived upon as a group. Maybe the DM is the one who facilitates that negotiation, but generally you work together to figure out when and where works best for everyone.

Sure, maybe people aren't taking it that far, but you yourself sees asking players to play in your game as them asking you to DM. You might be willing to bend on a racial choice, but you still want it acknowledged that you have the full authority to not bend, especially since the players are being so unreasonable and not bending.

In fact, while perhaps it was missed in the flood of posts, not a single person in this thread, said that they would change a ruling if the group disagreed with the DM. You gave multiple possibilities, but you would definetly seem to be salty about them breaking faith with you. Lanefan keeps insisting he needs context to understand why the group wants the ruling, because if it isn't a good reason, he'll tell them no that his ruling stands.

I don’t know what Lanefan does, and in general they seem to be an outlier in the way they run their game, which as I understand it is some manner of kitbashed monstrosity built on the back of AD&D. Myself, I have a table rule that rules discussions not interrupt play (as the DMG recommends.) If a rules question does come up, I make a ruling in the moment and take note to return to the issue later, when it won’t interrupt the flow of play (again, as the DMG recommends.) At that time, I will listen to the players’ input on the matter and will make a more permanent decision. Certainly if the majority of players agreed on an interpretation of a rule that I disagreed with, I would agree to their interpretation unless I had a very good reason not to, and I can’t really imagine what such a reason might be.

No one said they would follow the will of the group. Not a single person. They did say they would break up the group and find people who would follow their will though.

Well, now someone has, I guess. It’s a fast-moving thread, I haven’t been able to keep up with everything.

Okay, but there are asymmetrical board games too. And actually, wouldn't these issues be worse in symmetrical games? People have talked about how players will cheat, or bend the rules to benefit only themselves. In a symmetrical game where everyone is of equal authority, wouldn't that be even worse?

Generally symmetrical games have very strictly defined rules, and introducing house rules to them is a group decision. That is also the case in some asymmetrical games. In D&D, the nature of the game is so asymmetrical that it often doesn’t make sense for the players to have equal input on all things. The DM is in control of the environment and everything in it save the players’ characters. It makes sense that the DM be the authority on the rules governing the environment and its responses to the players’ characters’ actions. The DM is in fact part of the game’s core action resolution system, so that authority is important for them to have to be able to fulfill that role.

But it isn't. So, why are we laboring under the assumption that the DM needs authority to prevent the players from cheating? Which to remind you, was exactly the type of example you gave early on in this thread. Post #41 by my count.

I think that’s a rather silly assumption myself. The players trust the DM not to cheat, the DM should likewise trust the players not to cheat; and frankly, the DM having authority over the rules or not really has very little bearing on the likelihood of cheating.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Aebir-Toril makes an excellent point. The DM is the story teller, not the players. The players can try things in the world the DM creates, but the DM decides (along with dice maybe) the outcome of the attempts.

If I have a monk player who says "My monk will use Step of the Wind, leaping off of the cliff, and jump over the moon!" the player can certainly have the monk use Step of the Wind and leap off of the cliff, but the DM decides how the monk will then fall to the ground and look like an idiot. If a monk subclass gives them a feature called "Unearthly Leaps" which allows them to do such crazy things, and the DM (in the decision for his game world) hasn't vetoed that class feature, then fine... the monk will leap over the moon and the DM will narrate it as such.

Anyone who doesn't think the DM isn't the authority doesn't seem to realize the DM is the author of the story they are all sharing. The players, at best, are co-writers.

Now, if you do a sort of round-robin DM game where each session someone takes a turn DMing, the same is true but in that group the role (and the power) of the DM belong to that individual for the session alone. Rules, et al would have to be by committee then I suppose.

 

[generic]

Adding on to @6ENow!'s post, the player can certainly direct the narrative through their actions, before Chaosmancer takes it out of context, but the DM always narrates the result of the action taken.

 

[prabe]

Anyone who doesn't think the DM isn't the authority doesn't seem to realize the DM is the author of the story they are all sharing. The players, at best, are co-writers.

I'm the scenarist. The players are the playwrights. If one wants to embrace the metaphor you're deploying.

 

[zarionofarabel]

TECHNICALLY CORRECT IS THE BEST KIND OF CORRECT

Technically being technically correct is technically the only kind of correct...technically...

Also, in court it is...

Also, why are you yelling?!?

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm the scenarist. The players are the playwrights

Umm... aren't these pretty much the same thing?

 

[Garthanos]

So why does DnD work this way?

4e brought more agency to players it was one of the elements which was rejected ... D&D was restored to DM totalitarianism.

 

[prabe]

Umm... aren't these pretty much the same thing?

Nope. Scenarist writes at most a synopsis or outline; the playwrights craft the dialogue and work out the specifics.