D&D General DM Authority

[Oofta]

Pointing this out again.

Your focus is on bad players abusing the game.

In fact, it is the same three bad players you always mention. Between them and the table at your local game shop full of trolls, you bring up the same examples over and over and over again.

It's just an exemplar.

Most rules decisions are quite minor.

 

[Azzy]

I also haven't seen a good explanation as to why it's a an issue for a reasonable DM to be the final rules arbiter.

In adjudicating the rules during a game, it is indeed reasonable for the DM to be the final arbiter (and that is generally the default by the books). I can see where some groups may take a different stance (like those that agree to play only RAW or RAW + House rules) where anything that doesn't require DM interpretation (as those situations arise) is dependent upon an agreed upon reading of the rules (and/or shared house rules), and the DM can be "corrected" in adhering to those rules. For the situations that the rules don't cover, though, I would assume that such groups would have the DM as the final arbiter. Though, again, certain groups may go with a consensus in such situations. Different strokes and all that.

So, I think there's little, if any, disagreement on that front. I believe that that the disagreement is that DMs should consider the players tastes et al. when creating their campaign, its tone, and what goes in it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm just saying that certain people if given free reign will do things not even remotely allowed by the rules. Fortunately they're rare.

Maybe a better example (I wasn't the DM but it's still relevant) would be the guy playing a cleric of Odin that thought he could find anyone or anything any where any time because "Odin sees all" even though he was not even casting a spell or asking for divine intervention. This was to find the phylactery of a lich that had achieved basically demi-god status and we had (at that time) no idea where to even start.

As far as why some people want a "I win" button they can press at any time? I have no clue.

Ah right, the odin player. I forgot that was another example you use all the time.

 

[Oofta]

Okay.

So since it is so rare, why is it so necessary? You have stated that the game cannot possibly work without a DM to enforce the rules, because people disagree. But, when we dig down into it for the last year and a half it has been "somethings here and there.... probably something simple (gives an example of a rule misunderstanding, not a full on disagreement)"


So, with that being the case, with it being rare and usually something that would be solved by opening the book and reading the rule, why then is it so hard for you to imagine a game that works without someone specifically needing to step in and be a "final authority"

It sounds like you haven't had to actually do that for months at a time, if not the entire year and a half. So why is this idea so impossible?

Edit: Looking at your next post... it seems to be because you think the players will begin bending and twisting the rules for every advantage. You are assuming bad faith players.

I'm not assuming bad faith, at least not intentional. But two reasonable people can come to different conclusions. If that weren't the case we wouldn't have Sage Advice.

Just because I don't need to make a final ruling very often doesn't mean I don't reserve the right to do so. In different groups with different players it was more common, it's kind of luck of the draw.

 

[Azzy]

Maybe a better example (I wasn't the DM but it's still relevant) would be the guy playing a cleric of Odin that thought he could find anyone or anything any where any time because "Odin sees all" even though he was not even casting a spell or asking for divine intervention. This was to find the phylactery of a lich that had achieved basically demi-god status and we had (at that time) no idea where to even start.

In cases like this, it isn't the DM that needs to make rulings to stop this sort of thing. Instead, the entire group (both DM and the other players) needs to have a discussion with the player about what sort of behavior is acceptable.

 

[Oofta]

In adjudicating the rules during a game, it is indeed reasonable for the DM to be the final arbiter (and that is generally the default by the books). I can see where some groups may take a different stance (like those that agree to play only RAW or RAW + House rules) where anything that doesn't require DM interpretation (as those situations arise) is dependent upon an agreed upon reading of the rules (and/or shared house rules), and the DM can be "corrected" in adhering to those rules. For the situations that the rules don't cover, though, I would assume that such groups would have the DM as the final arbiter. Though, again, certain groups may go with a consensus in such situations. Different strokes and all that.

So, I think there's little, if any, disagreement on that front. I believe that that the disagreement is that DMs should consider the players tastes et al. when creating their campaign, its tone, and what goes in it.

I agree that the DM should take the group into consideration and obviously I want people to have fun. For that matter, the players now and then point things out when I goof. Nobody's perfect.

In cases like this, it isn't the DM that needs to make rulings to stop this sort of thing. Instead, the entire group (both DM and the other players) needs to have a discussion with the player about what sort of behavior is acceptable.

When it comes to bad behavior, I'm not sure there is a right answer. It would be easy for a player to feel ganged up on, it can be difficult especially when people are passionate about their PC (which is good to a point).

 

[Oofta]

Ah right, the odin player. I forgot that was another example you use all the time.

Most rulings are so minor that we all forget about them 5 minutes later. It's the extreme examples that stick with you.

 

[Chaosmancer]

(Chunk, how do we keep moving nearly 10 pages a day?)

You'd most likely win that bet.

However - and this is my point - that it has never happened doesn't mean that it could never happen. It could happen on Jan 13 when the NHL starts up: a referee might pick some random schlub from the crowd (assuming fans are allowed!) and toss him out of the rink and, though morally in the wrong, would be completely within his rights and purview to do so.

Why then would you want to claim an authority which to use is morally wrong?

That a DM could do something morally wrong is not a good thing, but you seem to want to defend the right they have to exercise just that authority.

While I can't say I'd never do this, I've yet to do it and it'd have to be an extremely unusual situation to make it happen.

A non-player who's stopped by to sit in on the game? Sure - here, do some rolling for me. But players only track and roll for things that are on their side: the PCs, their henches, things the PCs have summoned or charmed, and so forth.

That you would do so is rather beside the point that other people have done so.

And since they have, and it worked, then it logical to then put forth that a DM is not strictly neccessary to run the monsters. Because, sometimes, people let the Players run the monsters.

We're not going to agree on this one, I can see it now.

Why is saying the game belongs to the entire group a deal breaker for you?

DM-less D&D is possible but would almost certainly be a completely different experience for all involved; and while fun to try once I can't imagine anyone lining up to try it twice.

You could turn adventure or dungeon generation over to some sort of randomizer - but then someone (or everyone) would have to keep careful records of what the randomizer pushed out to provide consistency should the party return there later.

You could turn opposition generation (a.k.a. spawning) over to a randomizer but someone - or everyone, taking turns - would still have to run the opposition as well as their own PC(s).

The one thing you probably couldn't randomize would be setting generation, unless you wanted to end up with something that'd almost certainly be geographically impossible.

"I can't see people liking it, therefore it is impossible for people to like" seems like an incredibly weak argument.

Yes, yes, and almost-yes. The characters are the property of their players.

Considering we just proved that you can run DnD without a DM, something you flat out admitted was possible, then how can you turn around and say that "yes, you cannot run DnD without a DM"

I mean, I can't tell you what to to think, but refusing to acknowledge your own admission and stating that you are the most important person at the table? That seems like a very tenous position to have.

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.

Um... first off, you can't claim that it isn't fun for them. You literally have nothing to base that on except the fact that you can't imagine it would be fun.

Secondly, "a different experience" is not "a different game"

Yeah, an NFL player has a different experience than the guys playing football in the park, but they are still playing the same game to a large degree.

I think you see session 0 as being something different than I do.

To me session 0 is roll-up night, where dice hit the table and characters are made. Enough setting prep etc. is already in the can to provide a backdrop for getting started and then some. Everyone there has accepted the invite to play and has already been told of any restrictions (I call this phase session -1) probably in one-on-one communication in whatever setting or manner works at the time.

The having of a campaign idea (which in my case means constructing a whole new setting from scratch) happens months if not years before any of this.

So the players need to know every houserule, every public knowledge detail and all of that months before the game?

No, that is when you start making things, but that isn't when the players are informed of them.

I guess if you do a whole bunch of pre-session zero talking, that is when these things might come up, but seeing "the dice hit the table" and realizing you probably have everyone roll their stats... a player might roll stats that inspires them to play a paladin during session 0. Being a paladin they would want to be part of a holy order.

Do you honestly restrict them to a specific and limited group of potential holy orders, with no input from them at all?

In this particular example, if the Tiefling's intentionally a once-only thing then I'd probably let Karl play one, though reluctantly: it'd be the same for bookkeeping purposes as if Jerry's PC somehow got permanently polymorphed into one. If Tieflings are to be introduced as a full new PC-playable creature, however, that's in fact a lot of work for me-as-DM behind the scenes to update my rules etc. to factor in this new race (my rule-set is almost entirely homebrew these days) which I might not be keen on doing; even less so as I personally don't like Tieflings in the slightest. In this case Karl and the others would probably be out of luck.

Which again, I don't get. I don't see the value in overriding the group. I don't see myself as more important than the other people sitting at the table.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

I have been wondering if part of the issue we are running into stems from the choice all those decades ago to say "Dungeon Master". I'm honestly a little sick of that title, especially since it doesn't seem accurate.

(And no, I don't see the problem in it being related to "Master of Ceremonies" as I'm sure someone will immediately say, for one thing, that title seems to apply to officially hosted events which are like stage productions. Which is not how I'd describe most DnD games)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

See, that is the thing though.

A lot of people don't present this as a preference. A lot of people present it as though a collaboratively built world must by its very nature be an inferior product.

The "change in play" is a sign, to me, of a poorly executed version of what we are talking about. Especially since it caused problems for you to be able to navigate the world.

Just because the only time someone served hotdogs to you they were burnt black and tasted horrible doesn't mean that it is impossible to make a hotdog that tastes good.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

I could point to several games I have played and several more that I have watched and a lot of conversations on these forums that would tell me that I am right.

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.

So.. because most people will continue doing a thing means... what exactly? You admit it is possible, so why can't we discuss doing it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I get that some people claim to have complete harmony and never have a disagreement. I'm happy for them. It's great.

This is such a gross misrepresentation of most of the people arguing against you, I have to conclude at this point you're not even trying.

 

[Lanefan]

Edit: Looking at your next post... it seems to be because you think the players will begin bending and twisting the rules for every advantage. You are assuming bad faith players.

Au contraire: you are assuming those players are acting in bad faith, where they are in fact merely folliwng the unspoken directive of advocating for their characters.