D&D General DM Authority

[Maxperson]

You decided on the implication, I implied no such thing. Perhaps in the future you should not read so much into what someone posts and just read what they actually post.

You implied it, even if inadvertently. For the future, when you tell someone that another game might suit them better, you are implying that D&D doesn't suit them and that's not your call to make.

 

[zarionofarabel]

The odds of the Queen arriving there with the backing of the British and American armies, Tom Cruise arriving there with the backing of the British and American armies and Micky Mouse arriving there with the backing of the British and American armies are roughly equal.

What does that have to do with anything?!?

Also, as I stated previously, I was using the Queen technically still being able to dissolve the Canadian Parliament as an example for something, not as something that I actually think could or would happen. Perhaps you should check on a line of linked posts before jumping in the middle of them to start an argument about something that wasn't part of those linked posts.

You implied it, even if inadvertently. For the future, when you tell someone that another game might suit them better, you are implying that D&D doesn't suit them and that's not your call to make.

I implied nothing. It's not my fault you feel that I did. I will also continue to tell people whatever I feel like telling them, and if that happens to be that I think systems other than D&D might suit them better I will do that. Sorry if you don't like that, but it's not your call to make.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Charlaquin: "Why are you using that term, no one is using that term"

Me: "People are using that term, heck the OP even asked about the definition of that term in the first post"

You: "HOW DARE YOU LUMP ME IN WITH YOUR FICTIONAL GROUP OF MAKE-BELIEVE DM'S YOU TROLL."



Yep, this is totally my fault for point out that you used a term in the first post. I should never have stated obvious facts with no judgement what so ever.


Also, in your hunt for definitions, did you catch where @Maxperson kept insisting they keep absolute authority over their game even when all the players leave? Or the repeated times that Maxperson has said that they have the authority to do anything they want, given to them by the books, but that they don't excerise that authority that they explicitly have because... whatever reason they give.

Or are you to busy being insulted about the fact that I stated a neutral fact about something you legitimately said, with no judgement, to care about that?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

You've played with a lot of people for a long time. Particularly your wife if memory serves.

Just as an example, a theory if you will, has your wife ever in the last, what? Twenty years? Has she ever declared something similar to jumping from a chandelier with a divebomb attack and gave a recommendation on the rules she is thinking that would call for, that you agreed with?

For example, if a Chandelier is 20 ft up, I could see doing an acrobatics check, dealing likely an extra 2d6 damage from the fall, while the player takes a d6 from the impact.

You might disagree, propose something else, but here is the kicker. If we can reach an agreement on what is reasonable, then we don't need a referee or a "final authority" to rubber stamp it.

That is what @Campbell is talking about. If people can propose ideas, and in a quick discussion come to something they both agree is a reasonable way to work that idea, then you don't need a "Final Authority" to approve of it. You've done the work already.

 

[Maxperson]

Also, in your hunt for definitions, did you catch where @Maxperson kept insisting they keep absolute authority over their game even when all the players leave?

Who else would have authority over my game if all the players are gone? Santa Claus? It would be a lonely, boring game, but if I really felt like it I could play it solo.

Or the repeated times that Maxperson has said that they have the authority to do anything they want, given to them by the books, but that they don't excerise that authority that they explicitly have because...

Because of the social contract and I'm not a dick. And I didn't say that I didn't exercise that authority. I said I wasn't a jerk about it. When an issue arises I make a ruling and 9 times out of 10 it is accepted with no debate and we just move on. That rare time when someone feels strongly about it, we a short discussion at the table, then I make a ruling after considering the arguments and we move on. If a player still has an issue, then after the game we as a group can have a longer discussion where it may or may not change.

I take them into account and compromise where I can, but compromise isn't always possible.

 

[Charlaquin]

Charlaquin: "Why are you using that term, no one is using that term"

Me: "People are using that term, heck the OP even asked about the definition of that term in the first post"

You: "HOW DARE YOU LUMP ME IN WITH YOUR FICTIONAL GROUP OF MAKE-BELIEVE DM'S YOU TROLL."

Yeah, sorry for my part in that. I have a bad habit of saying “no one is saying [blank]” when what I really mean is “I’m not saying [blank].” That’s something I need to work on.

 

[Charlaquin]

You've played with a lot of people for a long time. Particularly your wife if memory serves.

Just as an example, a theory if you will, has your wife ever in the last, what? Twenty years? Has she ever declared something similar to jumping from a chandelier with a divebomb attack and gave a recommendation on the rules she is thinking that would call for, that you agreed with?

There’s always a chandelier.

 

[Charlaquin]

What does that have to do with anything?!?

Also, as I stated previously, I was using the Queen technically still being able to dissolve the Canadian Parliament as an example for something, not as something that I actually think could or would happen. Perhaps you should check on a line of linked posts before jumping in the middle of them to start an argument about something that wasn't part of those linked posts.

I think what Max was trying to communicate (as was I with my earlier socialist revolution comment) was to illustrate that your example was a poor one.

 

[Oofta]

Charlaquin: "Why are you using that term, no one is using that term"

Me: "People are using that term, heck the OP even asked about the definition of that term in the first post"

You: "HOW DARE YOU LUMP ME IN WITH YOUR FICTIONAL GROUP OF MAKE-BELIEVE DM'S YOU TROLL."



Yep, this is totally my fault for point out that you used a term in the first post. I should never have stated obvious facts with no judgement what so ever.


Also, in your hunt for definitions, did you catch where @Maxperson kept insisting they keep absolute authority over their game even when all the players leave? Or the repeated times that Maxperson has said that they have the authority to do anything they want, given to them by the books, but that they don't excerise that authority that they explicitly have because... whatever reason they give.

Or are you to busy being insulted about the fact that I stated a neutral fact about something you legitimately said, with no judgement, to care about that?

I may have missed it, but you never did define what "ultimate authority" means to you. Then again there have been a lot of posts. My understanding of your definition is a DM that demands obeisance and does not allow feedback which does not match the definition of anyone who believes that the DM is the final rules arbiter.

As far as players and DMs, what should I say? Neither a DM nor a player should play a game they don't enjoy, a DM can't be "forced" nor are they automatically expected to run a game to suit the whims of a player or even players.

You've played with a lot of people for a long time. Particularly your wife if memory serves.

Just as an example, a theory if you will, has your wife ever in the last, what? Twenty years? Has she ever declared something similar to jumping from a chandelier with a divebomb attack and gave a recommendation on the rules she is thinking that would call for, that you agreed with?

For example, if a Chandelier is 20 ft up, I could see doing an acrobatics check, dealing likely an extra 2d6 damage from the fall, while the player takes a d6 from the impact.

You might disagree, propose something else, but here is the kicker. If we can reach an agreement on what is reasonable, then we don't need a referee or a "final authority" to rubber stamp it.

That is what @Campbell is talking about. If people can propose ideas, and in a quick discussion come to something they both agree is a reasonable way to work that idea, then you don't need a "Final Authority" to approve of it. You've done the work already.

Has my wife ever made a ruling I disagreed with? Absolutely. Many times. Last time was just a couple of sessions ago. I disagreed, briefly explained why (I tend to have a better memory for specific rules) she confirmed her ruling and we moved on. After the game we chatted about it a bit more but she didn't change her ruling.

I still disagreed with her ruling but it was her game, her rules. Sometimes something either works or it doesn't, it's just part of the game and the role of the DM as defined by the rules.

 

[Oofta]

There’s always a chandelier.

Yep, much like in the last Avenger's movie where they're out in the middle of an open field and spider man is swinging on ... something. If a chandelier is needed, it appears. Until it's needed it's existence is indeterminate.