D&D General DM Authority

[Chaosmancer]

I play in the real world where sometimes people disagree. That's all.

Congrats.

Sometimes in the real world people disagree, and very few times do I have a final authority step in and tell me the answer to that disagreement.

But, clearly you must, because it seems that your position is that it is impossible to reach an agreement with someone without a Final Authority, therefore DnD needs a Final Authority, or else the game can't function.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, I've run a campaign that I explicitly had the players help create the setting. It was a mess, and I gradually-then-suddenly got tired of it. Now, I have a setting that I created that has blank spaces in it, which the players are encouraged to fill (so far, as part of the process of creating their characters' backstories, but it's not impossible there's some other way the players could create setting material.

I've been involved in games wherein players could alter setting details at any time. I eventually came to find it harder to run such a game with any consistency because I have a much harder time keeping track of details I didn't create. It's a failing, but I can work around it. As a player, I didn't really like the sense the game-world was ... unreliable; this might be related to my preferences as a GM.

But this is a case of "Anecdotes aren't data"

You had one experience where it was a mess, but that doesn't mean that everyone who tries it is going to end up with a mess.

And, with keeping track of details, perhaps some of the digital organization tools could help with that. I don't know.

All I am saying is that people are presenting this like it is a fact, if more than one person is creating the world, it will be a mess, no matter what, and if you want a better game experience you need to have a single creator in charge of it. But that is blatantly not true. Collaborative worlds are created all the time, and not all of them are messes. Quite a few of them are very good.

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

Well, for D&D that is the best way to run the game because that's how it was designed to be run.

That does not necessarily follow.

Heck, I've been forced to listen to about a dozen car shows recently. Many cars are designed and built by companies with factory made parts. But, depending on what you want out of the car, those factory made parts are not the best parts for the car. In fact, you can often make the car far superior with custom made parts.

"It was designed this way" does not mean "This is the best way"

Having direct rules sure helps though! Not having them means the DM can just say NO and there is nothing a player can do except complain. Backstory is not important in D&D as no one cares where your PC came from, and ties to the community don't matter as PCs are usually murderhobos.

Wrong.

Well, I guess not wrong that the DM can say No and it seems the player can do nothing, that is kind of the thing I've been talking about. That DMs shouldn't do that.

But Backstory matters a lot, murderhobo PCs are very often seen as a problem, not the status quo of the game (at least anymore) and sometimes people do care where you came from.

What case? The case that I believe DMs are completely justified in running their games from a position of authority? The reason I believe that is because that's what it says to do in the DMG! The PHB also tells players to expect that to be the normal method of play. The fact that you personally are dissatisfied with that aspect of D&D, but refuse to consider playing in games with different systems boggles my mind! But to each their own, continue to be frustrated that few DMs will ever run their games the way you would like them to. I found my solution to the "I don't like how D&D works problem" years ago. I started playing games that used systems other than D&D! You would be surprised how many non-D&D DMs run their games in a much more collaborative fashion when the rules dictate they should!

You know what your argument here is reminding me of? Coverture.

"I have the legal authority to do this thing, therefore it is the way things are and the best way for things to be/ I am completely justified in that position."


Sure, I could play games other than DnD. Guess what? I do. When I want a super hero game, I don't play DnD. When I want a Horror Game, I don't play DnD. But when I want a fantasy adventure? I play DnD.

And the fact that I run DnD in the ways that I advocate for? Shows that DnD can be run that way.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Yeah, that seems a tad extreme to me.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, it seems me and you are very close to full agreement. There are some minor quibbles, but for the most part we seem to be thinking along similar lines.

It is just hard to separate moderate views from the extreme views that I occasionally see.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As usual, the thread has zoomed past me at supersonic speeds, but here goes. Some of these are quite old at this point, but they raise points worth discussing.

Again I am reading emphasis on players being bad actors wanting to "win".

I, and others, would not turn to challenging this so often if it were not literally cropping up every other post, repeatedly portraying any form of disagreement as either an effort to destroy the DM's setting, or an effort to "win" the game. Player bad faith is an INSTANTANEOUS assumption in these threads. It happens over, and over, and over again. Every time it's challenged, someone backs down...only to do it again two posts later. It's incredibly frustrating, particularly since these very same people get ruffled feathers when you say anything that even vaguely hints at DM bad faith.

Every conversation, as far as I've seen it, has boiled down to DMs saying, "I have the authority, power, and indeed duty to defend my game and my fun from the lawless, dissolute players who would tear it to pieces if allowed to run free. Only under my careful guidance can I, and thus the group, have fun." And I just cannot fathom it. Every player that doesn't meekly submit is a threat, either a selfish "I must WIN" type or an anarchistic "I must DESTROY the DM's pride and joy" type.

Why does the DM need this "ultimate" or "absolute" authority? Why do people assume that the player's nature only permits these three states (meek submission, selfish looting, or hostile destruction)?

Or else there are just different playstyles than yours and people can play differently from you without needing to "win" or things becoming hostile when the DM makes a ruling.

That doesn't actually respond to the point, Max. Why are you presuming that the player who pushes back in any capacity is a threat? This is the reason people keep thinking you want passive players.

I have yet to see anyone advocate for that. The last thing I want are passive players. I want proactive players that are going to take the reins if they want and go do whatever they want their PCs to do.

Yet you snatch those reins away from them the moment they disagree with you? Because that's exactly how it sounds. You not only can, not only will, but think it is vitally necessary to the preservation of the game that you do so. You, essentially, claim you must protect the players from themselves. Why?

That's a misrepresentation of the broader point.

On most of these things, I totally agree, but let's use this in a practical context. Sure, it's hypothetically valid to have a game with no real DM, where narrative agency is guided by the rules and everyone, but that's not what we're discussing.

So a DM is only a "real" DM if they exercise authority that does not have limits or the ability to question it? Better be careful--this is sounding like "no true scotsman" territory. I'm pretty sure actually-existing DMs do, in fact, work with such approaches.

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.

I do not see how this does not become the absolute authority you claim to reject. If the DM has final--unquestionable--authority, and the right to never budge even one iota on each and every setting element unless it just so happens to strike her fancy to do so, what is the difference? That sounds pretty iron-fisted to me, even if it may rest within a velvet glove, as the saying goes.

People are likely to get upset when you imply, as you've done to Oofta and I, that we're either Tyrant DMs or selfish jerks without engaging in a peaceful dialogue.

Of course, I do understand that you may have felt either ganged up on or as though people were dismissing you out of hand.

When pursuing any question beyond the flat "no" (which many posters have explicitly said requires no further explanation) is treated as hostile to the DM's fun, it is not hard to see the DM as a "Tyrant" as you call it. Someone who demands meek submission, or ejection for being a threat to the game. Something that, AFAICT, nearly every "final arbiter"-promoting DM here has been very quick to note. When every discussion about what kinds of questions are allowed, about whether the players can push back a bit and get some concessions from the DM, leads to at least one person talking about how they eject players from their game, it feels quite a bit like "my way or the highway," like "question me and you'll be sorry," like "if you don't agree with my rules, I will eliminate you." Isn't that pretty tyrannical?

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.

Forcing the player to play something she doesn't want to play is 1) wrong, and 2) will result in a player who is not really into playing the game, which is bad.

You may want to reflect on the fact that I literally already made that argument in a previous thread, and you rejected it pretty handily.

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.

I don't understand. What is the difference? When you are playing a game where the whole point is to play a role--acting out a character's behavior--isn't "playing the game" equivalent to "setting up cool scenes"? Not every scene will be cool, and the coolest scenes often require many dull scenes and sometimes even some uncool scenes (loss, betrayal, fear, etc.) in order to happen....but we roleplay these various scenes that would not be interesting to us on their own in order to get to the scenes that we desire to see.

Why else would you play a tabletop roleplaying game? I am not being even slightly facetious. I literally don't understand what other reason someone would have for it. Catharsis, power fantasy, curiosity, self-challenge, optimization, immersion...these are all specific flavors, simply defining what "cool scenes" one looks for. Even abnegation is a form of cool scene (letting the mind relax), just one much more diffuse than is normally sought.

I play in the real world where sometimes people disagree. That's all.

I play in the real world, where if one side of a disagreement insists on never budging, that makes them a jerk.

Two can play at this bickering, or we can try to look for the reasons why you think the ONLY solution to disagreement is having a Hobbesian absolute monarch under his principle of "no wrong can be done to a consenting party." Like, this comes across pretty plainly as a Hobbes vs Locke situation here. You are claiming that there has to be a place where the buck stops. That there has to be, somewhere along the line, a single authority whose judgments cannot be questioned and whose power has no limits, because any limited power can always be questioned and challenged, thus leading to anarchy and dissolution, because the natural condition of people is lawless and corrosive to flourishing. That is literally the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, just focused on how to run a game together rather than how to run a government.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not saying anything is wrong with it per se, but it does lead to a bit of an issue in one sense.

If the group disagrees, you seek a different group. If the player disagrees, you potentially send them to find a different group.

On the plus side, in theory people will end up playing with people they agree with.
On the downside, disagreeing with the DM is seen as a problem that needs to be fixed.

Heck, the very act of saying "Hey guys, as a DM, I don't think my fun is more important than my players fun" got me a response that maybe DnD isn't the game for me.

From what I read, it seemed that response and that statement aren't connected. The "DnD isn't for me" bit seemed to be in response to a series of playstyle preferences you laid out; and some people suggesting other systems that might better suit your tastes.

Enforce the rules is still not making the rules.

And I imagine most of the people in the crowd getting ejected are being ejected for wildly imappropriate behavior. Streaking, throwing things at the players, inciting violence, ect.

I'd bet a ref has never ejected a person sitting calmly in the crowd, but not wearing the team colors. Or wearing the colors of a team the ref personally despises.

You'd most likely win that bet.

However - and this is my point - that it has never happened doesn't mean that it could never happen. It could happen on Jan 13 when the NHL starts up: a referee might pick some random schlub from the crowd (assuming fans are allowed!) and toss him out of the rink and, though morally in the wrong, would be completely within his rights and purview to do so.

I personally, and many other DMs I've heard about, have given monsters over to Players to run and keep track of. Sure, it would be harder to run certain monsters and encounters that way. But it is far from impossible.

While I can't say I'd never do this, I've yet to do it and it'd have to be an extremely unusual situation to make it happen.

A non-player who's stopped by to sit in on the game? Sure - here, do some rolling for me. But players only track and roll for things that are on their side: the PCs, their henches, things the PCs have summoned or charmed, and so forth.

See, no, it isn't.

First and foremost it is the Groups Game.

We're not going to agree on this one, I can see it now.

It is possible, difficult but possible, to play DnD with no DM. It is impossible to DM a game a DnD with no players.

DM-less D&D is possible but would almost certainly be a completely different experience for all involved; and while fun to try once I can't imagine anyone lining up to try it twice.

You could turn adventure or dungeon generation over to some sort of randomizer - but then someone (or everyone) would have to keep careful records of what the randomizer pushed out to provide consistency should the party return there later.

You could turn opposition generation (a.k.a. spawning) over to a randomizer but someone - or everyone, taking turns - would still have to run the opposition as well as their own PC(s).

The one thing you probably couldn't randomize would be setting generation, unless you wanted to end up with something that'd almost certainly be geographically impossible.

But, people want to say that the DM is the most important person at the table. They want to say that without the DM there is no game. They want to claim the game as the property of the DM.

Yes, yes, and almost-yes. The characters are the property of their players.

But none of that is true.

And, since we like the "DM as Referee analogy" let me ask this. How many sports can be played without a referee?

Street Hockey? No ref
Pick-up game of Basketball? No ref
Field Football with a local community? No ref
Street Soccer? No ref.

And again, every one of those provides a considerably different experience than playing an organized, refereed game in the same sport. Unlike DM-less D&D, however, that experience can still be fun for all involved.

See, I've never heard that the restrictions are brought up in the pre-session Zero. The pre-session zero seems to me to be, "Hey, I have a campaign idea"

Then during session zero is when you talk about the various house rules, restrictions, ect.

I think you see session 0 as being something different than I do.

To me session 0 is roll-up night, where dice hit the table and characters are made. Enough setting prep etc. is already in the can to provide a backdrop for getting started and then some. Everyone there has accepted the invite to play and has already been told of any restrictions (I call this phase session -1) probably in one-on-one communication in whatever setting or manner works at the time.

The having of a campaign idea (which in my case means constructing a whole new setting from scratch) happens months if not years before any of this.

Sure, but that is again a fundamentally different situation. Though, it does again lead to an interesting scenario. One you will probably say never happens.

But, let us say that you do have mid-campaign turnover. Karl comes to the game and wants to play a Tiefling and gives a brief backstory.

You, as the DM, say no.

But, your table (lets say 4/5 players) says "Nah dude, let him play a tiefling, that sounds like a cool story and it ties in with X, Y and Z"

My point isn't that this is going to happen. I'm sure your players would never say that.

Seeing as they already agreed to a game without Tieflings, I'd be rather surprised if they did.

But if they did, how should a DM react? Should they tell their table that the idea they are interested in has no place, or do you defer to the desires of the group to include this story?

In this particular example, if the Tiefling's intentionally a once-only thing then I'd probably let Karl play one, though reluctantly: it'd be the same for bookkeeping purposes as if Jerry's PC somehow got permanently polymorphed into one. If Tieflings are to be introduced as a full new PC-playable creature, however, that's in fact a lot of work for me-as-DM behind the scenes to update my rules etc. to factor in this new race (my rule-set is almost entirely homebrew these days) which I might not be keen on doing; even less so as I personally don't like Tieflings in the slightest. In this case Karl and the others would probably be out of luck.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Unless you-as-PC are yourself setting up some sort of an adventure for other PCs, which I've seen happen.

 

[Oofta]

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?

One of the things I enjoy about the game is overcoming challenges with the tools available, not the tools I wish I had. There's no one way to play the game, but some people would abuse anything goes.

I mean if you're okay with a 7 foot tall albino elf the frightens everyone in the room when he walks in (no, it's not in any way to a racial or class ability), a half-dragon half-vampire, a monk that can do a comic book Flash tornado by running around someone, then go for it. It's not the game for me.

 

[Oofta]

Congrats.

Sometimes in the real world people disagree, and very few times do I have a final authority step in and tell me the answer to that disagreement.

But, clearly you must, because it seems that your position is that it is impossible to reach an agreement with someone without a Final Authority, therefore DnD needs a Final Authority, or else the game can't function.

Did I ever say I had to do it "very often"? I don't. I just reserve the right to do so when I DM and give the same respect to the DM if I'm playing. Sounds like you do as well. Glad we can agree on that.

I mean, I do have to correct Kim now and then, but that's just because while they're a lot of fun and I enjoy playing with them they don't always have a great grasp on the rules or what they can do in a situation. With them I just have to engage and figure out what they're trying to accomplish so we can figure something out.

An actual "no it doesn't work that way" with my current group? Over past year and a half or so I'm sure there was some things here and ther, but I don't remember what it was. Probably something simple like casting a bonus action spell in the same round as a regular spell. I've had other players that were always pushing things, but even then it wasn't something that happened on a regular basis.

The "impossible to reach an agreement..." is a straw man and something I've neither said.

 

[Oofta]

I play in the real world, where if one side of a disagreement insists on never budging, that makes them a jerk.

Two can play at this bickering, or we can try to look for the reasons why you think the ONLY solution to disagreement is having a Hobbesian absolute monarch under his principle of "no wrong can be done to a consenting party." Like, this comes across pretty plainly as a Hobbes vs Locke situation here. You are claiming that there has to be a place where the buck stops. That there has to be, somewhere along the line, a single authority whose judgments cannot be questioned and whose power has no limits, because any limited power can always be questioned and challenged, thus leading to anarchy and dissolution, because the natural condition of people is lawless and corrosive to flourishing. That is literally the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, just focused on how to run a game together rather than how to run a government.

Good grief. Again ... the DM is the final arbiter of the rules. But the "absolute monarch" is a steaming pile of stinky strawman manure.

No one has said anything that would justify your level of hyperbole and exaggeration.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I just see it as inefficient and not necessary. It's not like it comes up that often, nor do most people sitting at the table have a firm grasp on the situation or the rules to make a call.

In addition, I have seen players, and other threads have talked about, how some people will twist and bend the rules to favor their PC every time. Fortunately I don't have that kind of player any more, but if you do then it just becomes the loudest voice in the room that makes the decision. I don't think that's healthy.

 

[loverdrive]

I mean if you're okay with a 7 foot tall albino elf the frightens everyone in the room when he walks in (no, it's not in any way to a racial or class ability), a half-dragon half-vampire, a monk that can do a comic book Flash tornado by running around someone, then go for it. It's not the game for me.

I kinda lost you. I don't know, how you came to that conclusion from what I said.

One of the things I enjoy about the game is overcoming challenges with the tools available, not the tools I wish I had. There's no one way to play the game, but some people would abuse anything goes.

And if everyone understands that the game is about overcoming challenges and is on board with it, then they'll make in and out of character decisions that lead to challenges to overcome. If someone wants to abuse, then they aren't in for the challenge -- and then why are they participating in such game at all?

If the game is about overcoming challenges, then it's everyone's job to create challenge, just like in a comedic game it's everyone's job to place set ups and deliver punchlines.