D&D General DM Authority

[Maxperson]

So...

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

Why are we even arguing?

How did you even get that?

The very last paragraph stated that sometimes I don't change the ruling. That is possible because I'm the ultimate authority. I just don't use it that way very often.

 

[Oofta]

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.



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.



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

Every group I've ever been involved with will occasionally have something that needs to be resolved. The person who makes the final call is the DM. That's far different from the DM never asking for or listening to feedback.

But obviously you are a perfect DM who has perfected something I've never seen any group accomplish over the decades I've played so there is no reason to continue the discussion.

 

[Haffrung]

This thread comes up on every RPG forum about twice a year. And every time I'm struck by the differences in my 40 years of experience playing RPGs, and the theorycraft and prescriptions bandied around online. Anyway, in my experience:

* Most players don't want to collaborate on building a world, deliberately crafting a story, or developing sub-systems and houserules. They just want to play their PCs. This narrow focus is one of the main draws of being a player, and why most players don't want to ever GM.

* Given the narrower focus that players have, they often don't consider how their wants might negatively affect the rest of the players, the game system, or the DM's campaign. Which doesn't mean they're obnoxious or selfish - they just aren't in a mindspace where they're concerned about whether their stack of ranged attack abilities overshadows other PCs or makes the GM's campaigns less challenging or satisfying.

* This makes the GM the obvious choice for making the final call when a) something comes up that isn't covered in the rules, b) the game or campaign is getting unbalanced, and c) the group doesn't quickly agree on a solution to a or b. The GM, by the nature of their role, handles big-picture matters in the game. Just as a coach on a sports team is concerned about more than the play of an individual, and the director of a play is concerned about more than just the performance of one actor. And yes, there are sports teams that manage without coaches, and plays that are wholly collaborative and have no director. But both are rare, and with good reason.

In tabletop RPGs, GM authority is a practical consideration more than anything. Few people enjoy a session getting bogged down in debates or looking up and interpreting rules. One of the core jobs of a GM is to keep the game moving. I suspect this is why my experiences at the table are so different from the opinions bandied about on forums. At the table, a decision needs to be right away, in real time; whether that ruling is perfectly balanced mechanically, or respects egalitarian ideals and the right to self-actualization of everyone at the table are only considerations when sitting back in our chairs, puffing metaphorical pipes, and tapping away on our keyboards for hours and days on end.

 

[Charlaquin]

So...

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

Why are we even arguing?

That doesn’t scan with what @Maxperson said. He said most of the time he’ll change his ruling to go with what the group wants. He also said there are some times, when he feels it’s important, where he’ll sustain his ruling.

In other words, he does have ultimate authority. He has the ability to overrule a group decision, but the won’t exercise that ability unless he has a good reason to do so.

The fact that you took his post to mean he doesn’t have ultimate authority only further confirms my suspicion that the people opposed to such authority are really just opposed to the word authority rather than the way the people who support it actually use it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Every group I've ever been involved with will occasionally have something that needs to be resolved. The person who makes the final call is the DM. That's far different from the DM never asking for or listening to feedback.

The fact its been done that way does not mean it has to be, and I've yet to see you explain why, except to suggest that its impossible for a group do to so without abusing the GM.

But obviously you are a perfect DM who has perfected something I've never seen any group accomplish over the decades I've played so there is no reason to continue the discussion.

You clearly have been ignoring the fact that I don't do it that way. I don't do it that way because I have some conflict-averse players and some strong personalities.

The difference is that I can recognize not every group is like that. A group that's willing to join in to make decisions collectively should be able to do so fine and "no group I've had could do so" is not a counter-argument to that--it just says you haven't had such a group.

 

[Charlaquin]

* Most players don't want to collaborate on building a world, deliberately crafting a story, or developing sub-systems and houserules. They just want to play their PCs. This narrow focus is one of the main draws of being a player, and why most players don't want to ever GM.

I think this might be less true now than it has been in decades past. I mean, I do think it’s still true, but I think the majority of players who aren’t really interested in participating in worldbuilding is rapidly shrinking.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm going to do some of what I view as straight talk here.

Both players and GMs get what my wife calls "scar tissue" in interacting with the other. This can convince them that they have to do things a certain way or certain consequences they don't like will occur. They've often come by these conclusions honestly by hitting situations or people for whom their conclusion was entirely correct. If they're out of luck, they've hit these repeatedly.

But I think before universalizing, I think it would really pay for people to step back and remember the particular situations and people they've hit are not universal. They may or may not even be common. Then its possible to ask the question of whether something has to be done a particular way, its best practice to do something in a particular way, or its just sometimes necessary to do something in a particular way with some groups. And distinguish all three of those from each other and the fourth case of you, as a GM, just wanting to do something a particular way (and whether that fact should automatically carry significant weight).

 

[Oofta]

The fact its been done that way does not mean it has to be, and I've yet to see you explain why, except to suggest that its impossible for a group do to so without abusing the GM.



You clearly have been ignoring the fact that I don't do it that way. I don't do it that way because I have some conflict-averse players and some strong personalities.

The difference is that I can recognize not every group is like that. A group that's willing to join in to make decisions collectively should be able to do so fine and "no group I've had could do so" is not a counter-argument to that--it just says you haven't had such a group.

And I'm happy for you. I've just never seen it, don't see how it would work 100% of the time, nor do I see why it's much of an issue. You can say "it works because I says it does" and again ... that's great. I've never seen anyone do it. I also don't know how you would deal with problematic groups which unfortunately do exist.

Take just one example. Guy running a cleric of Odin. The group is tasked with hunting down the phylactery of an epic level lich who has successfully kept it hidden for centuries. He just wants to have a chat with Odin (no divine intervention, no spell) to know exactly where the phylactery is and where it's hidden. In a campaign world where the gods are "distant". His justification? When it's pointed out that it doesn't work that way, he insists that it does because "Odin sees all".

How do you resolve that other than the DM saying "no it doesn't work that way"?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think this might be less true now than it has been in decades past. I mean, I do think it’s still true, but I think the majority of players who aren’t really interested in participating in worldbuilding is rapidly shrinking.

I also think, as I've noted throughout the thread, that there's a difference between "This won't work with a lot of groups because so many players have tunnel vision and/or don't want to do the lifting" and "this won't work for any group". The former is a salient argument; hard to prove, but not unfounded. The latter is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And I'm happy for you. I've just never seen it, don't see how it would work 100% of the time, nor do I see why it's much of an issue. You can say "it works because I says it does" and again ... that's great. I've never seen anyone do it. I also don't know how you would deal with problematic groups which unfortunately do exist.

Not do it with them. You seem to be confusing me with someone saying to do this every time.

Take just one example. Guy running a cleric of Odin. The group is tasked with hunting down the phylactery of an epic level lich who has successfully kept it hidden for centuries. He just wants to have a chat with Odin (no divine intervention, no spell) to know exactly where the phylactery is and where it's hidden. In a campaign world where the gods are "distant". His justification? When it's pointed out that it doesn't work that way, he insists that it does because "Odin sees all".

How do you resolve that other than the DM saying "no it doesn't work that way"?

Look at the rest of the group and go "Do you guys really think short-cutting every search for something because of this is a good idea?" Even my most power-gamey players would likely go "nah."

That's the gig; you seem to assume not only will there be problematic players, but that absolutely every group will be filled with them.