D&D General DM Authority

[generic]

Perhaps my point wasn't clear, or perhaps I misunderstood you, but I think this is where my issue comes from.

"working with the players to come up with a lore-friendly reason"

If we call this a "painting within the lines" proposal, then I want to ask you why the lines can't be moved.

Sure, maybe they will be happy playing your exact same campaign in a different setting. Maybe they'd be fine changing the campaign exciting. Maybe they are willing to paint within the lines. All of those are imminently possible, even likely.

The one thing that they cannot do, the one thing that the DM never does for the players, is move the line.

DMs move the lines all the time for their own purposes. But never, never will they move them for a player. And I don't get it. Why not? What is so terrible about this? You would rather not DM than move the line you drew in your campaign world.

I don't get it. There is no scenario where the DM budges. The very idea of it gets me accused of all of these terrible things. The lines can be moved. We move them all the time while building or rebuilding our campaign worlds. DMs often say they'd allow their players to change anything through their actions in the game world.

But never in session zero.



I know, but like I said, a lot of familiar faces over here from over there, and Oofta did specifically spin this off of the discussion we had over there.



The question I had was where the DM accepted the Authority of the Group.

And the answers I've received is they don't. They either negotiate the group into a place the DM accepts, or they leave.

On the flip side of this hypothetical though, if it is a single player putting forth an idea... the DM either negotiates the player into a place the DM accepts, or the player is booted.

So, this seems to answer the question of the thread. The DMs authority, by some people, is seen as so vast and encompassing that the DM is never required to compromise on anything. They may choose to, but they are never required to, if their desires aren't being met, then they leave and find a group who will agree with them.



Only if they want to, which is the catch isn't it? If the DM doesn't want to agree, then they simply don't.

That's why I turned to the group example, because I was seeking some limit. I've been told dozens of times that players should compromise. That good players wouldn't ask their DMs to press the envelope or allow something they didn't already pre-approve (other thread) but the DM has a full choice. If they don't want to compromise? That is perfectly fine. If they do? Then that is also perfectly fine.

After all, they are the DM.



Maybe.

I've got no problem with a DM using a moderate veto power. Sometimes, it is necessary. What frustrates me is this constant dichotomy. This constant refrain that reminds all players, the DMs word is final, and if they don't like it, it won't happen.

And if a player advocates for something they want that the DM says no to? Then the player is in the wrong, maybe not the first time. But I have been asked why a player would even ask about making a character of a race or story the DM hadn't already approved. So clearly some people out there see even the act of working on the fringes as being problematic.

But if the DM wants it, it will happen.



Which is fair, and I'm sorry I've got a background in this discussion that is coloring my responses.



I think you are correct that there are more extreme views out there. The problem is that both the moderate and extreme sides are using very similiar langauge, so sometimes it is hard to tell where the differences actually lie.



Okay, but I think we are talking past each other a little bit.

Yes, I agree pulling out an item that solves the problem, when they didn't have that item before, is not a good style. Especially for an exploration game.

But, at session 0, when you show the players the map and say "you are starting in the town of Hummer" is there really a problem with them helping design that town? Maybe a few of the closest local spots? There is still everything else to explore.

I mean, I get wanting to keep the mystery for exploring the world, but I don't see why that prevents the players from helping sketch a few details, or to change one or two things.




That is some of it, and thank you for your considerations.


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



Right, read the rest of that post please.

I making up things no one said, as he quotes someone saying that exact thing.



Not trying to imply either.

But when your words, which are all I can see, paint a picture, I'm going to point it out. When you say that you would not change some aspect of the game you like, no matter what, I'm going to point out that that seems like a rather extreme position, when the other half of the table is supposed to seek compromise on everything they want, unless it matches with what you want.




Again, you said that the DM was vital to the functioning of a DnD game.

Then, when I pointed out that there are rules, specific rules written by the game company, for multiple editions, which would allow a fully functional game without a DM, what was your response?

That I was strawmanning.

And again, we've had a few posters point this out. If you only want the "final word on rules judgement" why are you using the terms "Absolute Authority". That isn't what other people are using that phrase to mean.

And there have been discussions, rule judgements are a minimal part of the game. Usually, any confusion on the rules is based on forgetting what the rules are, and a group is fully capable of looking them up and deciding what the rules are. Maybe there needs to be a tie-break, or someone that everyone looks to to make that call, but that is a far far cry from any sort of "absolute authority"

The crux of the issue comes down to using the same term in wildly divergent contexts.

I use absolute authority to mean the final judge, the narrator. Max and Lanefan may use it differently.

If you think using a different term would be conducive to better dialogue, I'd propose "final authority" or "referee".

 

[FrogReaver]

a large portion of this comes down to who yiu are playing with. If it’s friends I’ve had for 20 years then I’m going to be a lot more accommodating and vice versa.

but if I’m playing with random strangers on the net that I have never played with before there’s not the same personal dynamic and it’s pretty freaking easy to find some other random people online to play with that are willing to play exactly what I’m running.

 

[Maxperson]

The crux of the issue comes down to using the same term in wildly divergent contexts.

I use absolute authority to mean the final judge, the narrator. Max and Lanefan may use it differently.

If you think using a different term would be conducive to better dialogue, I'd propose "final authority" or "referee".

The game uses it differently as well. The DMG uses it like we do. Pages 4-5 are pretty clear that it's the DMs world/setting/creation and the players are exploring that.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Redacted to save space.

I think the disconnect for you is that you seem to think the DM is supposed to be like a "party clown" there only for the players amusement. Whereas most people think the DM should be allowed to run a game that they find enjoyable.

As a side note, there are a fair number of systems that have collaborative setting creation baked into the rules. There are also some systems that are built specifically to allow players to FORCE THE GM to allow them to add their own elements to the setting during gameplay. These systems are not D&D though. Those things are not things that D&D has ever included. In fact, those systems, IMHO, came about because of people like you who were dissatisfied with how D&D works.

My personal suggestion to you would be to abandon D&D and embrace other systems that do what you want D&D to do. My personal favorite is Burning Wheel, it's offshoots Mouse Guard and Torchbearer are also very good IMHO. There are many others, especially newer systems like the 2d20 lines (Star Trek Adventures), Cortex Prime, and the PbtA games.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the disconnect for you is that you seem to think the DM is supposed to be like a "party clown" there only for the players amusement. Whereas most people think the DM should be allowed to run a game that they find enjoyable.

As a side note, there are a fair number of systems that have collaborative setting creation baked into the rules. There are also some systems that are built specifically to allow players to FORCE THE GM to allow them to add their own elements to the setting during gameplay. These systems are not D&D though. Those things are not things that D&D has ever included. In fact, those systems, IMHO, came about because of people like you who were dissatisfied with how D&D works.

My personal suggestion to you would be to abandon D&D and embrace other systems that do what you want D&D to do. My personal favorite is Burning Wheel, it's offshoots Mouse Guard and Torchbearer are also very good IMHO. There are many others, especially newer systems like the 2d20 lines (Star Trek Adventures), Cortex Prime, and the PbtA games.

It's not cool to tell someone or even recommend that they quit D&D for some other system. D&D may not have been designed for that style of play, but D&D is flexible enough to allow it, and I think there is some small support for it in the 5e DMG.

 

[zarionofarabel]

It's not cool to tell someone or even recommend that they quit D&D for some other system. D&D may not have been designed for that style of play, but D&D is flexible enough to allow it, and I think there is some small support for it in the 5e DMG.

Why not? If a system other than D&D would serve someones needs much better than D&D why would I suggest they keep using D&D?

Sorry, but as someone who is not a fan of D&D in any sense, I always encourage people to find other systems that would better suit their needs.

Chaosmancer would be much better served by a system other than D&D. In fact to me it sounds like Chaosmancer wants a system that runs exactly the way Burning Wheel works. I would be disappointed with myself if I didn't point this fact out. Especially after seeing how often Chaosmancer brings up this argument and how passionate Chaosmancer seems about their position.

Not everyone thinks D&D is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Some of us think it's not very good at all. That's why so many other RPGs exist!

 

[JiffyPopTart]

D&D may not have been designed for that style of play, but D&D is flexible enough to allow it, and I think there is some small support for it in the 5e DMG.

I'd strongly agree with this statement. There is nothing baked into the 5e rules that prevents collaborative storytelling at all.

The players and GM can create the entire world collaboratively. I have done this very thing in one campaign where I asked a series of questions and the players answered with the things they wanted to add.

The GM and players can collaborate on a campaign premise. If everyone is really into pirates they can ask the GM tondo a pirate campaign and the GM can oblige in the world they created.

The GM and players can collaborate on individual adventures. Perhaps one player, the ship captain, can invent a Dread Pirate Roberts that has been sighted in the waters and the gM can design an adventure around how the players describe him.

The GM and players can even collaborate during the game. Maybe the player with the Bard states out of the blue "I guess we need some horses to get there fast....I happen to know a guy that owes me a favor, he probably would let me borrow a horse if I promise to return it."

None of the example above are bumping up against 5e design, and all are illustrative of how a healthy collaborative game goes, not just players clumsily trying to randomize and adventure as proposed earlier.

 

[Lanefan]

Again, you are seeking a group who won't disagree with you.

And if you had a group who would disagree with you, you would feel like you made a mistake, and should have found a different group.

And what, if anything, is wrong with this approach?

Put another way, why on earth would I seek out a group of people just so I could disagree with them?

"Completely in charge" is a real misnomer.

The Referee can't decide which players are allowed on the field, unless they are breaking the rules.

Heh - I can think of one instance in hockey where a referee tossed a player out of the game just for coming on to the ice for a faceoff, because even though said player had not broken any rules in the ref's opinion he was about to, by starting a fight.

The referee can't tell them they can't run a particular formation, unless they are breaking the rules.

And those rules? The referee has no control over them. They enforce them, they don't make them.

But they do enforce them, and within a game have the authority to enforce them however they damn well choose. Most of the time they choose more or less correctly, but we can probably all point to egregious examples of where they did not.

And it's beyond just the players on the ice. If the referee wants someone in the crowd ejected, that person gets ejected.

In charge of the game setting, the game time, the game's participants (by choosing the players), the games theme, the games rules, the games location.

They are put in charge of pretty much everything.

Such is the life of a DM, for better or worse.

But, for some people even all that seems to not be enough. They need to be controlling more, and the players aren't responsible for any of it. They are... passive in the entire affair.

Some go overboard by trying to control what characters people play and how they play them; or by constantly forcing the players/PCs into scenarios via any number of railroad tactics (which, it must be noted, can be fine once in a while but only once in a while). Most, however, don't go overboard; and recognize that with their authority also comes responsibility.

So, to go back a step, when you responded to my post about action like these, you were not understanding the context.

And really... I wouldn't. I mean, I'd likely go to the DM and see if this is just a combo or if it is a loophole. Because, why would I want to do something that I know the DM is going to ban the second I do it?

Because I don't know the DM is going to ban it, do I?

Not only is that no fun, but it is also just... poor sportsmanship.

Perhaps; and now you've raised the question "D&D: sport or war?", off we'll go for another 30 pages...

Putting Goku as a character into DnD is not hard.

I'll have to take your word for this: I don't know the difference between a goku and a gas tank.

Sure why not, obviously your point about the DM being 100% neccesary to the functioning of the game can't be disproven by... literally talking about the rules of the game which allow you to play without a DM.

Clearly I'm just twisting your words and creating strawmen, by talking about the literal rules of the game, which tell you how to play without a DM.

If you're referring to random dungeon generators, those are DM-side tools to aid in dungeon creation. You still need a DM to run what gets randomly generated, and to play the opposition.

Missing the point.

Where some DMs are unwilling to bend on their setting, they are also unwilling to bend on a published setting.

The entire table is asking for something. Every player is asking you to bend, and what is the general response I've gotten?

"I should be more careful in choosing my players."

Not that the DM should change anything, but that they should find players who already want to do what the DM desires to do. I guess DMs should only facilitate the enjoyment of players who agree with them.

Missing the point.

It's first and foremost the DM's game. Players can suggest, request, etc., but if the DM says no then so be it. The flipside, of course, is that a DM who says no too often might look up from behind the screen one night and find an empty table...

And, again, mostly in the other thread, but restriction after restriction is possible. During Session 0 is when those restrictions come to light.

There's the problem. If restrictions don't come to light until you've all gathered for session 0 it's already too late. Ideally, they're brought to light during the invitation process that leads up to session 0, such that by the time you all sit down to roll up your characters you're already familiar with - and have accepted, as part of accepting the invite - whatever restrictions there may be.

Unless by pre-existing you were assuming the discussion happens after session 0, which has never once been the position put forth.

We-ell, in a long campaign that sees player turnover it can happen. Oftentimes IME players coming in mid-campaign don't go through the same inform-and-invite process the starting players did. Instead it's a case of one of the players brings a friend to sit in, the friend then gets interested and rolls up a character on the spot, and only later do concerns arise.

 

[Oofta]

What I'm saying is that if they can't reach an agreement and need an arbiter, then they have a deeper problem that isn't actually about a ruling or a scene they are arguing about -- and this problem needs to be addressed and solved in order to have a good game where everyone can bring something valuable to the table.

And, by the way, there are systems out there without a game master. In, say, Microscope, when it comes to individual characters, one person just narrates what their character is doing and if it influences another person's character -- the second person narrates what happens to them. Yeah, this allows for things like "I killed you!", "No, I had a super-puper magical shield, and I shot back and killed you!", but that never happens if people at the table understand the game and work together.

In D&D, if the players feel like, well, they are working together with the GM, then all the issues are resolved in a few words. If the players feel like they need to "win" the game and that the GM is their enemy, then having any "final word" will just make naughty word more hostile.

I just disagree. True disagreements at my table are uncommon, especially once there's an established group. But they still happen. I disagreed with the DM a couple of sessions ago, she made a ruling we went on. That's called ... normal where I come from. It was resolved in a few word: I said "I think A" the DM said "I rule B" and we went on.

About the only times I can ever imagine there never being a disagreement is if you ignore them and have selective memory, people never question the DM, people (including the DM) never question the person most insistent on a specific answer.

This has nothing to do with hostility, DM vs player, anyone "winning". It's just a simple fact that people disagree on rulings because D&D is designed to have a lot of flexibility in play. Take the stealth rules for example. I like them, but they leave a lot up to judgement, the DM is the one making the judgement call.

As far as other games, I don't see how it's relevant.

 

[Oofta]

Sure man, I'm always at fault and always just make up things people have never said.

Makes me wonder why I try and have conversations with you when it inevitably turns into you personally attacking me. Especially in this case.

I was asked why we are using the words "Absolute Authority" and told that only the "anti-DM authority side" has used them.

I mentioned that you used the words, asking what they mean to people. I mentioned that other people have explicitly made statements not only claiming absolute authority but giving no limits on that authority.


You are offended because I'm "making up naughty word people have never said" while quoting someone who literally says "The DM has absolute Authority" The thing you are telling me is naughty word that no one has ever said.

Right, insult me, then ignore me. Why not. It isn't like you started a thread asking questions that I'm trying to discuss.

Nobody on the "pro-DM-authority" side has defined ultimate authority as anything close to what you seem to define it as. I found maxperson's quote where he stated he is ultimate authority which also explicitly stated that he listens to his players. You seem to be making up your own definition of ultimate authority that goes way beyond what anybody else has defined (that I've seen) and then use the made up definition to claim there's an issue.

Here's aebir-toril's definition

...
The real kicker is that when I say "absolute authority" I don't mean an iron-fisted DM who runs their game their way and their way only, I mean a DM who must, by necessity, act as the final word on rules judgements. Setting concerns are entirely parallel.

Maxperson goes back to the DMG, which I agree with

The game uses it differently as well. The DMG uses it like we do. Pages 4-5 are pretty clear that it's the DMs world/setting/creation and the players are exploring that.

Here's my thoughts on what the term means, not that I use it to say that I have ultimate authority.

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?

I simply asked for a definition of ultimate authority and you lump me in with what is, as far as I can tell, a non-existent group of DMs that have to have absolute control over every aspect of the game. It's a straw man to say that anyone that uses the term ultimate authority means the same thing, much less that they assert control over PCs, tell them what their PCs are thinking or any of the other statements that you have made.

If you feel like I've violated the policy forum with anything I've said feel free to report me.