D&D General DM Authority

[Thomas Shey]

Even in something as simple as Monopoly, you rarely have everyone agreeing on everything. In an RPG like D&D it's something that I've never seen. The DM has to make decisions where there is disagreement.

I've yet to see someone explain why majority opinion won't do intrinsically. The best one can say is there's implementation problems in many (but not all) groups. So "has to" is an overly broad statement.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Does anybody else suspect that 95% of the horrible scenarios and outcomes used as arguments in this thread never actually occur at real tables?

Given some of the truly appalling gaming situations I've either seen directly or heard from trusted sources over the years, I'm perfectly willing to assume the non-completely hyperbolic ones have occurred on occasion. That doesn't mean I think they're frequent enough to justify the conclusions some people are making, though.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Every scenario I've mentioned is true sadly.

What I have a hard time believing is that there is never, never ever a disagreement at the game table.

What I'd like to see is where anyone said that, rather than it can be resolved other ways.

Edit: I'm thinking that Loverdrive may have posted that now, in which case I agree its definitely an outlier.

 

[loverdrive]

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.

Or people feel like everyone at the table is willing to help set up cool scenes and not screw them over.

As for "never questioning the person most insistent on a specific answer", I'd say, yeah, most of the time. If something is important to one player and isn't a big deal to everyone else, why bother disagreeing?

 

[Campbell]

We played Blades in the Dark yesterday. It's not D&D, but it is an RPG. We had several disagreements about rules, but we worked things out pretty quickly. We have strong personalities. Things can get contentious sometimes, but we work naughty word out. Finding people you can collaborate with well is key. Creative disagreements and confusion about rules are going to happen regardless of authority structures,

I think a lot of people value social harmony a lot more than we do though. We're a lively bunch.

 

[Maxperson]

I've yet to see someone explain why majority opinion won't do intrinsically. The best one can say is there's implementation problems in many (but not all) groups. So "has to" is an overly broad statement.

Forcing the DM to run something he doesn't want to run is 1) wrong, and 2) will result in a DM who is not really into running the game, which is bad.

 

[Maxperson]

Or people feel like everyone at the table is willing to help set up cool scenes and not screw them over.

I want to play the game, not set up "cool scenes." Gameplay can and often is cool, but trying to design a cool scene would take away from my enjoyment of the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which... is most DMs.

Like, between DMs who only run RAW AP's and settings, and DMs who present crafted curated worlds, there is very very little space where DMs are willing to collaborate.

Yep. DMing seems to appeal mostly to folks who want to create their own worlds. It’s unfortunate for players who want a more collaborative storytelling experience, but it is what it is. Those games do exist of course, but they’re the minority in the D&D space. There are other systems where that collaboration is more expected though.

And that is made worse I think by this invasive perception that somehow doing so is bad. Which isn't something you've claimed, but it is something I've seen a lot of people express over the years. That somehow allowing this freedom to co-create will inevitably lead to a mess.

Hmm. Well, I certainly don’t think that. There’s nothing wrong with that style of play, it’s just a different preference.

Perhaps, but again, it is hard to tell when people say they are fine working with their players, yet still feel the need to argue over the fact that they don't NEED to work with their players, they simply choose to.

I’m just not sure this is an accurate perception of what’s being argued. Maybe I’m wrong about that though,

It is the perception of the compromise though.

Some DMs seem to think that them compromising with their players is... anything from a sign of weakness to a strange and baroque idea. Not all DMs, but it is pervasive enough to notice.

That’s not the impression I get from most folks who support DM authority. There are some out there who feel that way though, for sure. I just don’t think they’re representative of the play style as a whole.

But, a player compromising is, practically ideal. Even better if the player is just perfectly in-line with the DM to begin with.

Well, yeah. Obviously it’s preferable to have someone go along with what you want than to have to compromise. It would also be ideal, from a player perspective, if the DM was perfectly in-line with their interests to begin with.

I know you didn't follow the other thread, but there was a moment where I was asking about a player in a situation with a DM who was banning an idea explicitly because they thought the idea was stupid and not worth playing.They were explicitly judging the player. The person gave a lot of responses of potential things, but ended with "or better yet you could trust your DM"

Yeah, that seems a tad extreme to me.

Which is why I think there is a need to point out that DMs should be more cautious with how we present things. If we present this facade that we are more important than our players, it becomes even harder to find DMs who aren't abusing their power and bargaining power.

Sure. I certainly don’t mean to give off the impression that DMs are more important than players. They just have a different role. And, it should probably be kept in mind that the DM is probably investing significantly more time and labor into the game than any of the players are. That doesn’t make them more important, but it is something I think often goes under-appreciated.

Perhaps, some DMs have also expressed that they have so many players that if they don't agree with exactly the rules the DM prefers, the DM just finds new players.

Lucky DMs, I guess.

I mean, I probably could find a wealth of players to filter through for ones that perfectly matched my own interests, but... That would require a lengthy process of weeding out players whose tastes might be very different than mine, which doesn’t seem worth it to me. I’m good sticking with a group of friends, who have similar enough interests and are willing to compromise to meet each others’ needs.

Right, I think it is less that I come in with an established idea, and more that knowing I have the freedom to make that impact means I'm less worried about overstepping while I'm riffing on an idea.

Because when I'm coming up with ideas, they don't always limit themselves to easy borders. I might hear an idea from your setting, remember a piece of lore from a class and ideas start popping and I end up creating NPCs and building a bit of something.

Sure. That’s stuff I would personally be fine with for the most part. I’d just want to have a dialogue with the player about those ideas, and to redirect if something they wanted to create contradicted other important lore or something like that.

 

[TheSword]

I don’t see why a variety of methods of resolving authority aren’t appropriate.

As a DM there are things I don’t care about at all - e.g what official class you pick for your character... Let the player decide.

There are things I care strongly about - players building a character that is motivated to adventure and work well with the other players. Or what magic item are available in the campaign. Or the genre of the campaign. Rope trip and Leomunds Hut not being available etc... in this case if you want me to DM - and presumably you do - then that’s the deal.

Lastly there are things I am ambivalent about. Precisely what a fireball will set fire to, what method of ability score generation we use, specific rules interactions etc.... It makes perfect sense to turn this question to the players. Ask “how do you guys want to run with this rule” and remember I’ll get the benefit too when I’m not DM. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

When it comes to discussions we tend to be sensible. If one person feels strongly and the others are ambivalent we go with the player who feels strongly. If two players disagree strongly or if everyone is ambivalent we go with a simple vote. Effectively were democratic but with a built in Veto ... a bit like the UN.

 

[Minigiant]

Forcing the DM to run something he doesn't want to run is 1) wrong, and 2) will result in a DM who is not really into running the game, which is bad.

It always comes down to this. But it seems every misses the other part.

A DM shouldn't be forced to run a campaign they dont want.
A DM should be playing the campaign with players who want a different campaign.

If the issue is choosing a campaign and not simple in game ruling, seems like DMs and players need to get on the same page or made the mistake of starting before getting on the same page.