D&D General DM Authority

[Charlaquin]

I wonder who that could be...

It’s cool, I don’t think @Lanefan would be at all opppsed to their game being described that way.

 

[Minigiant]

It is pretty close, since Drew awards the "points" for the actions the players take. The only thing missing is in the shows the players are actually doing things and in D&D the players are telling what they are doing and rolling dice...

The points don't matter though

 

[Charlaquin]

The points don't matter though

An apt analogy then, since you can’t win D&D.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The points don't matter though

Very true (or so we are told... ; ) )

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

While I agree that it is best practice for DMs to always be forward with every expectation, and it behooves the player to ask questions, I disagree that the burden here is equal. If the player presents a character for review and the DM approved it, by implication, the DM thinks that character is compatible with the game. I'd call failing to respond to that a much greater error.

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.

And I can see (and have seen) DMs get petulant when players take incredibly broadly-stated stuff. E.g. "dark fantasy" can mean anything from "a little bit of gothic horror" to "outright body horror, corrupting magic, lots of death, and Mature Themes™." "Like Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit" can mean anything from "dramatic high-fantasy with powerful wizards, immortal elves everywhere, and saving entire kingdoms" to "gritty low fantasy where wizards are incredibly rare, a +1 sword is impressive treasure, and a fight with giant spiders could be a TPK."

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.

Alright. So, there are some things that, in certain circumstances, a player can truly expect a DM to offer them when asked. Even if the DM isn't keen on it, it would be a mistake in a context like this for the DM to say no. That's really all that I wanted confirmed here.

 

[Minigiant]

The problem many newbies face is they don't know until they play for a while--heck, it even happens to veterans. shrug

So, IMO, it doesn't have to happen at session zero, but it will likely happen at some point, and then is when the conversation needs to take place or DM/player can simply part ways.

Indeed.

And 5e is flooding the game with newbies.

For people who are timid, shy, or such and don't feel comfortable speaking up for themselves, I'm sorry but that is on them--I am not a mind reader. I ask if my players are okay with X and Y and Z, but if a player doesn't speak up when they aren't, I can't help them. I give them the chance in what I hope is a comfortable and safe atmosphere, but that's about all I can do.

I don't want to say D&D attracts a lot of the types who hold disagreements in and let it simmer to a boiling point but..

you know.

 

[Oofta]

I'm going to presume it's someone @Oofta is disagreeing with, but I'm not going to ask for more specificity than that.

Nah. Just a style that's more old-school than what I run.

 

[Lanefan]

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

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

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.

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

Which only means that as DM I want to be somewhat careful when inviting players that the players I invite are likely to be more or less on board with what I'm intending to run, right?

That said, mistakes both long- and short-term inevitably happen on both sides of the screen, and a certain level of tolerance and-or forgiveness is essential.

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.

More than that, the referee is there to enforce the rules and - in at least hockey and soccer-football - is noted in the rules as being in complete charge of that 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.

The DM has to have some control or greater say over when you meet, if not where, as if the DM can't be there there's no game. In contrast, when a player can't make it the game can still sail.

Further, IME the DM is almost invariably also the host; mostly for practical reasons: nearly all the materials* for that game are at the DM's residence and to carry that stuff around every week soon becomes a nuisance.

* - over a long campaign this can build up to a rather impressive amount of stuff. That said, putting some of the game materials online has reduced the need-to-carry slightly - probably by about half a box.

You really needed to read my post more closely then. Some of the people I have been responding to have immediately gone towards various ways of cheating. The example that brought me into this thread was that if the players had equal authority to the DM, the player wold simply declare that they have the key that unlocks the door ahead of them and unlock it. That came from Charlaquin.

Oofta has quite often in this thread talked about a player demanding that they run so fast they create a tornado. Or a character who was so intimidating that everyone was immediately scared of them no matter what. Or a player who made sure the number they wanted was on top and then dropped their oversized d20 so it landed on the value they wanted.

Yes, neither of these would fly here.

Jack Daniel asked if we were okay with the players memorizing monster stats, something many older DMs would view as cheating.

Including me.

At one point, I believe in the other thread, the idea of players having some control got taken to the point of them declaring themselves immune to damage, and refusing to change their hp.

Taking your word here, as I didn't follow this other thread. Still, that's pretty over-the-top.

Seeking to change the rules to be more favorable to the players? Purposefully looking for loopholes that are clearly not intended for the sake of eking out an advantage? How are those much different? I guess they aren't "Breaking the rules" but they are clearly doing things they and the DM both know they are not supposed to do.

If they're not breaking the rules then how are they doing something they know they're not supposed to do?

Hell, I'm no powergamer by any stretch but if I stumble over an exploit in the rules that works to my advantage I'm going to use it till the DM tells me to stop.

 

[Lanefan]

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

As do I, while at the same time recognizing and acknowledging that I'm in a conflict of interest when doing so.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Monstrosity? Monstrosity???

Who you calling a monstrosity?!