D&D General DM Authority

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I wasn't talking about running games; I was talking about decisions within them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I do think for challenge oriented gaming it works better if the GM/DM does have authority over situation because it's more to face challenges you did not come up with. I do not think it necessarily works better if they also have arbitration rights over the rules. I prefer having some constraints when I run games (in the D&D space I prefer running PF2 and OSR games). I also think a more collaborative approach to initial setting can work fine.

There are reasons you might prefer to have more of a say in those other areas, but it is certainly not required for compelling challenge oriented play.

Yeah, the desire to lump together "wants to have final say over situation" and "wants to have final say over rules" isn't super helpful for this discussion from either side of it.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You don't need to go back through everything. Just look at the post you just responded to. The first thing has you telling me that I said down when I said up. I then quoted the post I was responding to and bolded the portion where that person was saying down and then repeated that I was saying up.

Clearly you got that terribly wrong. I don't think you are doing this deliberately, unlike some here on this forum, but you are getting me very wrong a good portion of the time. All I can do is speculate on why. Maybe you're reading too quickly. Maybe you have pre-conceived notions and those color how you view my words. Maybe another language is your primary. Maybe something else. Only you really know what the probable reasons are.

Maybe slowing down when you read my posts would help. You're sincere in your responses and I'd love to have conversations with you, but we have to at least be on the same page about what we are saying for that to happen.

 

[Maxperson]

I wasn't talking about running games; I was talking about decisions within them.

PC decisions or rules decisions?

 

[Thomas Shey]

PC decisions or rules decisions?

The latter. I don't need to be the one to have final say on how fireballs interact with terrain features to be running the campaign I want.

 

[Maxperson]

The latter. I don't need to be the one to have final say on how fireballs interact with terrain features to be running the campaign I want.

Then it IS about running the game. Rules decisions fall under that umbrella.

 

[Oofta]

The latter. I don't need to be the one to have final say on how fireballs interact with terrain features to be running the campaign I want.

My answer to "how do you make decisions on rules" which I think this asking is in this post. Rulings like this are rare though and I would clarify that obviously I listen to feedback but someone has to make a final decision.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My answer to "how do you make decisions on rules" which I think this asking is in this post. Rulings like this are rare though and I would clarify that obviously I listen to feedback but someone has to make a final decision.

And I repeat I see no reason there has to be a single individual doing that unless the group is decided. As I've acknowledged before, you can have a group that doesn't want to engage that way for various reasons, but if they do, there's no reason it can't be "what the group thinks."

 

[Thomas Shey]

Then it IS about running the game. Rules decisions fall under that umbrella.

Its not about what game you're running, however, which is what you responded to me regarding. I don't need to decide every rules decision to be running a game I'm happy with, and if that is what the GM has to be doing to be happy with his game, yeah, I view him with more than just a bit of suspicion.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You don't need to go back through everything. Just look at the post you just responded to.

Okay. (I'll admit, what I said I'd do was getting very tedious, so I welcome a reason to stop.)

Your statement was:

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.

You are very clearly saying that the alternative to "becoming hostile" is to submit to the DM's authority without challenge. In other words, conflating a failure of submission with a demonstration of hostility. THAT is what I'm challenging.