D&D General DM Authority

[Oofta]

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."

Then I will repeat that there are people that will bend rules to the breaking point and can be belligerent about it. Or they just make stuff up that is not in the realm of reasonable ruling. In addition some rules are just vague and need a final ruling.

If you've never hit that good for you. Personally I'll follow the advice in the PHB and DMG.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I didn't mention what game you are running. I said forcing the DM to run a game he doesn't want to. Rules decisions are part of running a game.

Let's say the DM is running D&D and he is enjoying it. If the players can force rules decisions on him, and those decisions affect the running of the game, which they often do, then the odds are good that you are now forcing him to run a game that he doesn't want to. If he wanted to play that way the players wouldn't have had to force the issue.

You may be okay with the players dictating to you how run the game, but that's not the norm. Most people will resent having to run a game that they no longer like.

That's why it's so important to get players that match the DM's preferred playstyle.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Your statement was:

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.

I didnt say anything about "without challenge." My players sometimes challenge my rulings and when they do we discuss it. More often than not it's not that big of a deal and I change my ruling, assuming the majority of players want me to change it. If it's a tie among players or only one player, I may or may not change my mind based on the argument presented.

Once in a while it is a big deal and I don't change my mind. That's okay. They accept the ruling and we move on with no hostility ever entering the mix. That's the way they do it when they DM as well.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I didn't mention what game you are running. I said forcing the DM to run a game he doesn't want to. Rules decisions are part of running a game.

I stand by my prior statement; if you have to be making all the rules decisions to be "running the game you want to", I think you should be looking hard at why. I certainly would be.

Let's say the DM is running D&D and he is enjoying it. If the players can force rules decisions on him, and those decisions affect the running of the game, which they often do, then the odds are good that you are now forcing him to run a game that he doesn't want to. If he wanted to play that way the players wouldn't have had to force the issue.

Massive excluded middle there. I may have a preference in one direction but that doesn't mean its going to break my heart to do it another way, especially if the majority of my players prefer it. Its not all about me.

You may be okay with the players dictating to you how run the game, but that's not the norm. Most people will resent having to run a game that they no longer like.

That's why it's so important to get players that match the DM's preferred playstyle.

I'm not convince that its not the norm because people have been taught that's how it is, not because its some natural law.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Then I will repeat that there are people that will bend rules to the breaking point and can be belligerent about it.

Not to put to fine a point on it but..."So?" I don't have some special talent for dealing with belligerent people that the rest of the table is somehow lacking in.

Or they just make stuff up that is not in the realm of reasonable ruling. In addition some rules are just vague and need a final ruling.

And again, how is it that the GM is somehow capable of deciding what's reasonable while the majority of the group isn't?

If you've never hit that good for you. Personally I'll follow the advice in the PHB and DMG.

There's nothing especially sacred about GMing advice from rule books. You've still not answered my main point which is "Why is your decision making somehow better than the collective decision making of the group, assuming the group is willing to do so?"

 

[Oofta]

I stand by my prior statement; if you have to be making all the rules decisions to be "running the game you want to", I think you should be looking hard at why. I certainly would be.



Massive excluded middle there. I may have a preference in one direction but that doesn't mean its going to break my heart to do it another way, especially if the majority of my players prefer it. Its not all about me.



I'm not convince that its not the norm because people have been taught that's how it is, not because its some natural law.

I have to ask. How many people and groups have you played with? Ever judge public games? Never had a player that was always pushing the boundaries?

Serious "issues" are incredibly rare. No, I'm not going to put it up to a vote every time someone wants to do something not allowed by the rules because there are people who I've seen groups that would always want to play with the DM that they could push around. After a while, no one wanted to DM for the group.

If you've never hit that, bully for you. I almost never have to make a ruling with my current group. But I have in the past and probably will in the future. It's called following the rules of the game as spelled out in the DMG.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Sounds cool! It’s great that there are different games to serve different play styles.

 

[Campbell]

This year I have probably played with close to 40 different people across a variety of games. I have no real interest in public games. I pretty much avoid game stores. I did run some Adventurer's League at a brewery with a group that has around 6-7 tables a week a couple years back. Never ran into much in the way of issues other than a player who expressed concerns that I made him feel bad for the monsters.

I'm decently selective about who I play with on either side of the screen. If someone is a bad actor remove them from the situation.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I didnt say anything about "without challenge." My players sometimes challenge my rulings and when they do we discuss it. More often than not it's not that big of a deal and I change my ruling, assuming the majority of players want me to change it. If it's a tie among players or only one player, I may or may not change my mind based on the argument presented.

Once in a while it is a big deal and I don't change my mind. That's okay. They accept the ruling and we move on with no hostility ever entering the mix. That's the way they do it when they DM as well.

So...

You aren't the ultimate authority. Group consensus can override you, and you'll adjust.

Why are we even arguing?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have to ask. How many people and groups have you played with? Ever judge public games? Never had a player that was always pushing the boundaries?

I've been GMing for 45 years, including a wide variety of people, and back in the day, convention games. Among my regular group, I've got at least three fairly hard core rules lawyers, and have had for decades. So yes, if you're implying I'm making this argument from a naive position, I'd suggest you think again.

Serious "issues" are incredibly rare. No, I'm not going to put it up to a vote every time someone wants to do something not allowed by the rules because there are people who I've seen groups that would always want to play with the DM that they could push around. After a while, no one wanted to DM for the group.

So your premise is that only groups that want to abuse the GM want to be involved in the decision making? That's a claim that as a generalization requires some pretty strong support.

If you've never hit that, bully for you. I almost never have to make a ruling with my current group. But I have in the past and probably will in the future. It's called following the rules of the game as spelled out in the DMG.

Having all the decisions made by the GM is not a "rule". At most its a recommended procedure.