D&D General DM Authority

[Oofta]

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



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.

See, I just think that would put many players in an uncomfortable situation. Its hard to tell people no, especially when they have a forceful personality.

But as I've said repeatedly, I don't even remember the last time I had to do more than a rules reminder with my current group. That doesn't mean I don't reserve the right to be the final arbiter of the rules. Doesn't mean you have to.

 

[Thomas Shey]

See, I just think that would put many players in an uncomfortable situation. Its hard to tell people no, especially when they have a forceful personality.

You absolutely can have groups with people for whom that's true. One of my two does. The other doesn't. So you figure out if its true, you don't make it as an assumption.

But as I've said repeatedly, I don't even remember the last time I had to do more than a rules reminder with my current group. That doesn't mean I don't reserve the right to be the final arbiter of the rules. Doesn't mean you have to.

At the risk of being blunt, that's only relevant if you haven't already taught your group that questioning rules is unwelcome. The same people who don't want to tell other people something is a bad idea will often be the people who don't want to buck a GM who's made it clear that's considered Bad.

 

[Helldritch]

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.

8 years younger as a DM and yet, I do not think that Oofta was naive in his claim. I have seen and introduced more than 300 players into the hobby over the years and everything, every type of players and DMs can be seen. Knowing your players can go a long way. But there will always be a new player that will try push his luck to see what the DM is actually made of. I have DM and Created a dozen or so tournament in the eighties and these players are out there.

On the second point: A lot of that do happens. Most players that want to "modify" or "participate" in the DM's world will want to get something (read here:"an advantage of some sort") to make their character better. Ho I am the 7th in line for the throne of Mayfair... yeah... been there, done that. So yep, Oofta is right. Unless the DM calls it. Players should not triffle with world building. I did and still allow players to make villages and what not for their back ground, but the characters the players play can have no benefits in that creation. With this single restriction, I see a lot less willingness and desire to build the world. That said, some of the best creations in my world came from players. The second restriction is to respect the tone of the campaign. And this one is easier said than done.

On the last point... That is not a recommended procedure. That is the only procedure. Sure you can discuss a decision with your players, I do that all the time (Edit: well... only if the need arise). But the final say in every single decisions requires the approval of the DM. The approval of a decision does not have to be said out loud. Saying nothing is approving the decision in these cases.

 

[Oofta]

You absolutely can have groups with people for whom that's true. One of my two does. The other doesn't. So you figure out if its true, you don't make it as an assumption.



At the risk of being blunt, that's only relevant if you haven't already taught your group that questioning rules is unwelcome. The same people who don't want to tell other people something is a bad idea will often be the people who don't want to buck a GM who's made it clear that's considered Bad.

I didn't have to "teach" them anything. Questions are always welcome. It's just that they have a decent grasp of the rules and if they have questions they've always asked.

Implying that I've brow-beaten them into submission is not blunt, it's insulting.

 

[Helldritch]

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"?

It is only in recent editions that the Gods are in the service of their worshippers... Do it this way.
Mortals, especially clerics are there so serve their gods, not the other way around. The gods offer them a lot and in exchange, the mortal worship them. Asking for a god to do your work is demeaning and offensive to the gods. In addition, gods must be very careful as the enemies of the gods might use this "distraction" to undermine the work of the god in an other prime, region, dimension or whatever.

To better understand, if you ever get your hands on the immortal set of D&D, read it. Immortals (gods) bet powers to further their goals, yet, they must keep of lot of power to respond to "emergencies". So when two or more gods are vying for the control of something, they will put power in the balance (and the winner might win the power of the loser) but the more power you invest in an endeavor, the less you have to cope for emergencies. It is a delicate balance where divine intervention can cost a whole continent/world etc... My older group understands this as 4 out of 6 players played the immortal set. But it is really a good interesting read.

 

[Helldritch]

You absolutely can have groups with people for whom that's true. One of my two does. The other doesn't. So you figure out if its true, you don't make it as an assumption.



At the risk of being blunt, that's only relevant if you haven't already taught your group that questioning rules is unwelcome. The same people who don't want to tell other people something is a bad idea will often be the people who don't want to buck a GM who's made it clear that's considered Bad.

You do not teach people on how to behave... wow... that's their parent's job.
You can inform them of the rules at your table though...

And only with new players do you have to constantly inform yourself about how they feel about a situation. Over doing it might also be seen as babysitting and offensive to some. I have been playing with some of my players for 37 years now. I think I know them quite right (though every so often they get to surprise me.) From what I garner from Oofta's post over time, he knows his players through and through. I would not assume inexperienced, bad or toxic DMing from his part.

 

[TheSword]

It’s possible to have the authority to do something without it being a good idea, or even an option taken 1 time in a 1000. It doesn’t mean the authority isn’t there. It’s a final call, not a go-to-solution.

I expect as DM the opportunity to review player background and design. Including all third party material or UA. It doesn’t mean that I would intervene regularly. However I certainly have in the past needed to when a player had wildly different expectations to the rest of the group and wasn’t willing to make amendments voluntarily.

I think it’s sometimes good for players to channel criticism through an authority figure like a DM to avoid conflict between players. In the amateur theatre world it can be considered bad form to directly criticize a fellow player ... you raise it with the Director if you feel strongly.

 

[Helldritch]

It’s possible to have the authority to do something without it being a good idea, or even an option taken 1 time in a 1000. It doesn’t mean the authority isn’t there. It’s a final call, not a go-to-solution.

I expect as DM the opportunity to review player background and design. Including all third party material or UA. It doesn’t mean that I would intervene regularly. However I certainly have in the past needed to when a player had wildly different expectations to the rest of the group and wasn’t willing to make amendments voluntarily.

I think it’s sometimes good for players to channel criticism through an authority figure like a DM to avoid conflict between players. In the amateur theatre world it can be considered bad form to directly criticize a fellow player ... you raise it with the Director if you feel strongly.

You are right. Having the right to do something does not mean the obligation to do it. I tend to reach concensus whenever possible but at the same time, IF I have to make a call, I will do it without a second thought. I will stay impartial but if it is a player vs player issue I will insist on them to resolve their problem outside the game, with a nice cold beer in hand. And if they need me as a moderator, so be it. It will have the plus side of me getting a nice cold beer with friends (but I am more of a Bourbon and Cognac type)

As for the additionnal material. If something is not accepted at session zero. It will not be added unless a vote from the players agree to it and as long as it does not interfere with the setting. Otherwise, I am pretty open to almost everything. (No evil, no torture or distasteful things like that).

 

[Haffrung]

I think it’s sometimes good for players to channel criticism through an authority figure like a DM to avoid conflict between players. In the amateur theatre world it can be considered bad form to directly criticize a fellow player ... you raise it with the Director if you feel strongly.

This is a great point. A player may be reluctant to raise a criticism or judgement of another player’s wishes because, absent the defined role of GM, it could come across as personal. It‘s why a soccer play may be reluctant to call out a teammate who complains to referee all the time - best to let the coach handle that.

 

[Oofta]

It’s possible to have the authority to do something without it being a good idea, or even an option taken 1 time in a 1000. It doesn’t mean the authority isn’t there. It’s a final call, not a go-to-solution.

I expect as DM the opportunity to review player background and design. Including all third party material or UA. It doesn’t mean that I would intervene regularly. However I certainly have in the past needed to when a player had wildly different expectations to the rest of the group and wasn’t willing to make amendments voluntarily.

I think it’s sometimes good for players to channel criticism through an authority figure like a DM to avoid conflict between players. In the amateur theatre world it can be considered bad form to directly criticize a fellow player ... you raise it with the Director if you feel strongly.

I would say that the vast majority of questions that come up are resolved with a simple conversation and occasionally looking up a rule. Even when it's a DM ruling it's not like it's ever been a big deal in a very, very long time. The DM makes a decision, we move on. Sometimes we'll chat about it more offline.

When it comes to backgrounds and downtime stories, I do have editorial input but most of the time it's the player wanting a specific aspect of their PC and I help fill in the blanks. For example when creating a new PC, where do they come from? Can we link some of their history to historical events either through their family or (especially long lived races) their own story.

But I've also been in situations where we basically had to have an intervention. One player was dominating play (long story) in a way that was detrimental to the group. One day that player was late to the game so we all chatted with the DM about what the issues were ... then she talked one-on-one with the player. I think that worked a lot better because he didn't feel attacked or put upon.