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