D&D General DM Authority

[Jack Daniel]

Gary said "FINAL ARBITER," so that's what I'll run with.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Gary said "FINAL ARBITER," so that's what I'll run with.

The man knew his stuff, for certain.

 

[Oofta]

Gary said "FINAL ARBITER," so that's what I'll run with.

View attachment 130856

I've just never seen any functional table where that wasn't the case. As much as some people seem to claim they never, ever have conflict I think the game needs a final arbiter of the world and the rules.

 

[Campbell]

I've just never seen any functional table where that wasn't the case. As much as some people seem to claim they never, ever have conflict I think the game needs a final arbiter of the world and the rules.

I think there is a pretty large gulf between never having conflict and being unable to work things out without someone stepping in.

 

[Maxperson]

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

That's not what I said, though. I said it wasn't designed for it, not that anything prevented it. It wasn't designed for collaborative storytelling.

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.

There are no mechanics built in to support it, though. Hence not designed for it. In a system designed for collaborative storytelling, the mechanics support that style. D&D doesn't prevent it, but neither does it support it.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Because it assumes that they aren't smart enough or are too incompetent to know that there are other systems out there, and that they aren't trying to make D&D work because they like D&D.

It's not bad to let someone know that system X works great for that. It is bad to tell someone that D&D isn't for them or they should leave it for another game. It's not your place to tell that to someone.

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.

Unless of course @Chaosmancer loves D&D and wants to make D&D work for his preferred playstyle, regardless of whether D&D was designed for it or not.

 

[Oofta]

I think there is a pretty large gulf between never having conflict and being unable to work things out without someone stepping in.

Conflict doesn't mean arguments, raised voices or incipient fisticuffs. It means that someone asks about a ruling, for a clarification, says something along the line of "I don't think that's the way it works". Perhaps they try to do something outside of the rules and someone has to decide if it's within the realm of innovative gameplay. Someone wants to swing from the chandelier and do a dive-bomb attack on the enemy so the DM has to adjudicate actions, risk and outcomes on the fly. I want to encourage thinking outside the box, but there still has to be limits. That's while I'll say "That doesn't work" I try to follow up with "here's why, what are you trying to do" and/or "here's some options".

Saying someone has to "step in" implies an exaggerated level of aggression(?), I'm just saying that the DM is the final arbiter of the rules, at least in every functional game I've been involved with.

 

[jasper]

I don't think that it automatically makes said players "bad" and need to be disposed off immediately -- it's not like they're sending me dick pics or something.

Of course, roots of the issue can be outside of the table -- but they need to be addressed anyway. A shell-shocked player just needs time and some effort to build trust.

Rewording. A shell-shocked gamer needs times and some effort to build trust. (Gamer covers the DM too.)

 

[Charlaquin]

Snipping most of the meta-discussion about the argument itself to focus on the points.

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.

See, I would say running the campaign in a different setting, or changing the premise of the campaign to focus on planar travel would be moving the line. If I pitched the campaign I did, in my setting, it’s because that’s what I want to run. Those are points I’m willing to compromise on. Changing the lore of my setting is not.

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.

Yes, I would rather not DM than change my setting’s lore. I put a lot of work into my setting, I don’t want to change it. I’ll run another setting if my setting doesn’t meet the group’s needs.

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.

Why do you not consider choosing to run a different setting that more closely aligns with the players’ needs “budging?” Why is it so important to you that a DM change their setting to suit the players’ desires?

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.

What’s the alternative to negotiating to a place the DM accepts? Running a game they don’t accept? I don’t think that’s a fair expectation. The DM shouldn’t be obligated to run a game they don’t want to, just as the players shouldn’t be obligated to play in a game they don’t want to.

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.

Again, what are the alternatives? The DM running a game they don’t accept? The player playing in a game they don’t accept? When two people reach an impasse, the options are either to find a mutually agreeable compromise, or to agree to disagree.

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.

Why would the DM run a game that doesn’t meet their desires?

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.

Why would the DM agree to something they don’t want to agree to?

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.

If the majority of the group is against the DM, the DM’s only recourse is to compromise or leave (which is really just another compromise, since presumably they want to run a game). If the table out-votes the DM, one way or another, the DM has to bend. They can bend by amending something about the world, the campaign, or the rules to meet the players’ desires, or they can bend by accepting that this isn’t the group for them. This mirrors the options a player has when the table out-votes them. The player can bend by amending something about their character concept, their character build, or their understanding of the rules, or they can bend by accepting that this isn’t the group for them. The only real difference is in the scope and scale of what the player controls vs. what the DM controls. By the way D&D is designed, the player has control over their own character, and the DM has control over everything else. This is why, as I say, the design of D&D almost necessitates a top-down power structure.

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.

Different people have different thresholds of tolerance for such things I suppose. Personally, I invite players to work with me if they want to play options that are outside the scope of what’s presented in the campaign pitch. For other DMs it’s a hard limit. As I’ve said, in any negotiation people have some things they’re willing to compromise on and some things they’re not. What those things are will vary from person to person and negotiation to negotiation. Maybe some folks on the extreme end aren’t willing to compromise on much of anything, and I probably wouldn’t want to play with them. But, that’s their prerogative, whether they are a DM or a player.

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’s something I might be ok with, to a limited extent. It’s large-scale setting lore that I’m not willing to budge on. Small, local changes to suit the players’ interest? Yeah, that’s probably fine. I’m not going to sit down with the players and co-create the starting town or whatever, but if a player wants there to be like a monastery for their monk order in the town that I hadn’t planned for or whatever, sure. But I don’t play to build a world together with my players as I go. I play to have the players discover a world I’ve created for them to explore. (That’s also my preference as a player, by the way. I don’t want to invent setting details, I want to discover them.)

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

No problem.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Because it assumes that they aren't smart enough or are too incompetent to know that there are other systems out there, and that they aren't trying to make D&D work because they like D&D.

It's not bad to let someone know that system X works great for that. It is bad to tell someone that D&D isn't for them or they should leave it for another game. It's not your place to tell that to someone.

I didn't tell them that D&D wasn't for them, I did the suggest that other systems might be better thing.

Unless of course @Chaosmancer loves D&D and wants to make D&D work for his preferred playstyle, regardless of whether D&D was designed for it or not.

Sure. But it's the constant insistence that there is a systemic problem with group/table dynamics caused by how the system works that needs to be addressed within the community of D&D players that leads me to believe that @Chaosmancer needs would be better served with a different system.