D&D General DM Authority

[Oofta]

I mean, yes, you can find folks who are not great. But anecdotes are not data, so a few really bad stories do not invalidate an approach, do they?

Folks look for an "I Win Button" largely because they have been taught that winning is the most important thing, right? In your game, was anything done to disabuse players of that notion?

It's really group and individual dependent. With my current group I can't remember the last time I had to reign someone in other than the occasional rules reminder and the guy who just needs a bit of "the rules don't work like that but here's what will..." now and then. With the latter case, the guy's intent is in the right place, we just have to figure out the details sometimes.

But ... there are some people who will just push. Trying to disabuse them of that notion? I don't know. I've been in games where if the player didn't dominate combat or took damage they would pout. In the case of the cleric (different person), he just always pushed for things. At one point the group sat down with the DM when the person wasn't there and explained how it was hurting their enjoyment. So we (led by the DM) just chatted with him about what the issues were and we made some changes. It sort of worked for a while.

Is there a better way? Not sure, each situation is unique. Sometimes it's just a personality conflict. If the entire group was into what, for a lack of a better term, extreme game play then I'm sure it works. That 5th level group can take out Tiamat or whatever. As a DM I have infinite dragons if need be. But if the whole group (including the DM) isn't on board it can be frustrating.

 

[prabe]

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.

I had one experience as a DM where it was a frustrating mess for me to run, and I had another experience where as a player I found it difficult to navigate the game-world when it kept changing on pretty basic levels. While any two points will make a line, it at least seems plausible that I have preferences for setting that at least are mostly from one mind, and that don't change in play. That doesn't mean people with different preferences are wrong, though it plausibly indicates we shouldn't game together.

 

[Umbran]

But ... there are some people who will just push.

Yep. No question.

For purposes of this thread, the question then comes - Is it a good idea to put emphasis on GM Authority all the time to handle a thing that happens only occasionally?

The new rulebook I quoted above does have a quick section on problematic players, btw - it recognizes that such folks may come up. However, it leans into the collaborative style anyway.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

You clearly misunderstood me. Below is the quote I was responding to. I was saying that hostility is not a part of it.

I have no idea, because none of that is any part of what I am doing or claiming. In fact, it's so far gone from what I am saying that I can't even formulate a response to it other than to say that you've grossly misunderstood that as well.

Alright. Y'know what? Since people have so repeatedly said this isn't what they're saying, despite me feeling very strongly that it IS what they're saying, I'll go back. I'll comb through the whole damn thread and find every example where it seems to me that that's what you've said. I'll do my homework. Perhaps then it will be worth a response, rather than "well I didn't say that" yet again.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

So....about that "no one is telling you you can't have your fun" thing......

 

[zarionofarabel]

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"

Well, I'm going to assume that most DMs will continue to run the game the way it was designed to be run.

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.

I doubt that. I would have to see some actual data on that assertion, not just your personal opinion, as several threads on these forums and others leads me to believe otherwise.

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.

Sure you can run it that way, a way it was not really intended to be run, but I doubt many people will. I think most people will continue to run it the way the books instruct them to run it, with the DM having authority over the game.

 

[zarionofarabel]

So, I spent the chunk of the weekend absorbing the rules to a new RPG. It stood as a bit of a contrast to some things being said here.

For one thing, they refer to the Game Moderator, rather than "Master".

On page 3, they players are informed that part of their job is to "Maximize Everyone's Fun".

On Page 5, the GM is told about "Sharing the Creative Space"

At the beginning on the section about Moderating the game, they say the following:

"As the Game Moderator, you describe the world around the heroes, giving them people and places to interact with, and then engage in discussion with the players to move the story forward."

The GM is told that they should apply the rules, and make rulings, but the examples (and the book gives many) are of discussion and negotiation, rather than "laying down the law".

Oh, and in this game, characters may be taken out of a scene, but they don't die unless the player decides that is what they want to have happen.

All this is awesome! However, this is the outline for the GMs duties in a game that is not D&D. The books that instruct people how to play D&D say something different. If D&D was designed with a collaborative playstyle in mind, they would probably have instructions like this game does, but they don't, because D&D isn't designed to be run that way.

Also, I absolutely love games that don't allow PC death without express player permission. It's surprising sometimes how it can change how players run their PCs!

 

[Oofta]

Alright. Y'know what? Since people have so repeatedly said this isn't what they're saying, despite me feeling very strongly that it IS what they're saying, I'll go back. I'll comb through the whole damn thread and find every example where it seems to me that that's what you've said. I'll do my homework. Perhaps then it will be worth a response, rather than "well I didn't say that" yet again.

What has been said is that the DM is the final rules arbiter. They establish the campaign world and the players have minimal impact outside of their PCs actions. That someone has to resolve disagreements on the rules.

Many people have also acknowledged that sometimes players and DMs aren't a good match, that they fundamentally disagree on how to spend their recreation time.

Big difference from that and controlling the game with an iron fist.

 

[Oofta]

Yep. No question.

For purposes of this thread, the question then comes - Is it a good idea to put emphasis on GM Authority all the time to handle a thing that happens only occasionally?

The new rulebook I quoted above does have a quick section on problematic players, btw - it recognizes that such folks may come up. However, it leans into the collaborative style anyway.

I guess I would have to see real world examples of what collaborative play because I will freely admit I don't know how it would work in D&D or how it would be all that different.

When it comes to DM responsibility to me there are different broad categories.

• World building: I have a world. It's very much a sandbox once the PCs appear on the scene but even then, I control the world and figure out how it reacts to the PCs. I probably want to maintain a bit more narrative control outside of the impact the PCs have because I've used the world for a long time. I can easily see why a lot of people would not care. I also don't know if many players really would not want to contribute to world design, it's just not their forte.
• Campaign tone: I admit it. I don't want to run a game for thugs or murder hobos so I make that clear in the invite. I do also limit races and have minor class restrictions and ban a handful of spells (mostly long distance teleport for world-specific reasons). So that includes no evil, no PVP, no intra-party theft. This is an area where sometimes different people just want different things and I don't see why it's a problem to acknowledge that. I had a guy quit the campaign because he really wanted to play evil PCs so I wasn't the right DM for them. No harm, no foul.
• Rules: Here's where I think the collaborative model can break down. Maybe. Or maybe I just don't understand. Some players are casual and don't have a firm grasp on the rules, or there's just different ways of ruling. A lot of times specific rules correction can come from another player, it's not really a "conflict" more of a "correction". Unfortunately, this is also where problem players are the biggest issue in my experience.
• Events and NPCs: players can and do come up with family, friends, organizations. I reserve editorial control (mostly for consistency and secrets). Not sure how collaborative that could be ... part of the fun of D&D is exploration and discovery.

When it comes to what the PCs do, the direction of the campaign, that's largely collaborative. At the end of a session if we're not in the middle of something the group decides what to do next. I propose options based on current plot hooks the group can also suggest new directions. That gives me time to prep for the next game.

But it's not like just because the DM is the final rules arbiter and architect means that they rule the game with an iron fist. It's just that they set the stage and enforce the rules of the game if there's a disagreement.

 

[Minigiant]

Well, no kidding. Is anyone saying anything different, really? The question in this thread and most of the others when this comes up is what happens when they aren’t on the same page.

My point is that many DMs aren't clear and many players are passive and the more major problems and disagreements can be avoided most of the time preemptively.

But when I say we need proper descriptions and labels, people turn away.