D&D General DM Authority

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I'd suspect in out-of-rules decision making, while the GM is usually one one in games that have one at all to make the decision, there's still sometimes some discussion; after all, in all but the most everything-is-a-special-case rules systems, he's usually going to be basing the decision on some sort of extent rule or on applying real world or fictional logic to the situation (where little rule engagement may be possible), so there's still room to go "Hey, that seems off."

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.

No, there's been arguments on both fronts; I've largely stayed out of the campaign design/tone argument, because I think its complex and I haven't entirely liked either set of opinions dominant on the topic in the thread. I'm much more willing to argue that its possible for rules decisions to be made by consensus, depending on the interests of the player group.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Then what are you saying? Because it seems like you think I somehow intimidate my players into acquiescence while cackling like a cartoon villain. You've never really explained why you think DM as final rules arbiter is an inherently bad thing. I've answered why I don't like rules decisions by committee.

I'll repeat because you keep ignoring it: If it works for you, great.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Advocating for their characters is not mutually exclusive with paying attention to what's beneficial for everyone, including for the overall health of the game. Not everyone can be arsed to do so, but that's not the same as saying its impossible or intrinsically undesirable.

 

[Oofta]

Advocating for their characters is not mutually exclusive with paying attention to what's beneficial for everyone, including for the overall health of the game. Not everyone can be arsed to do so, but that's not the same as saying its impossible or intrinsically undesirable.

It may be desirable, but not everyone will consider the overall group (including the DM) or the game. It's not necessarily intentional but some people just have difficulty seeing the need for balance.

I'd rather have a DM that's as impartial as possible making decisions. YMMV.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Yet again, you are claiming the only reason for a DMs authority is because of Bad Faith players.

 

[Campbell]

In general a lot of the reason I take the tack I do is a fundamental belief that players have forgotten their own power and generally become more passive than they should. In the wild the biggest issues I run into as a GM are players who constantly look to me to set the pace, to provide guidance, and to resolve disputes with other players. I think we should be encouraging people to speak out more, engage more, and take more ownership. At least it would make running games for strangers a lot easier for me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Then what are you saying? Because it seems like you think I somehow intimidate my players into acquiescence while cackling like a cartoon villain. You've never really explained why you think DM as final rules arbiter is an inherently bad thing. I've answered why I don't like rules decisions by committee.

I'll repeat because you keep ignoring it: If it works for you, great.

You seem to be ignoring I'm defending a position that isn't, in fact, practical for the groups I'm running for. I've mentioned that multiple times, specifically to you, which is another reason I'm concluding you're not paying attention. Its not that I'm saying DM as rules arbiter is intrinsically bad; sometimes a group really wants that on the whole, and when they do, that's cool. Sometimes its not the perfect solution, but its the best available because of the constitution of the group.

But if a group doesn't want that, the desire of the GM to do it that way none the less, is bad, because he's putting his needs and desires ahead of the group as a whole. And to say it has to be that way because it can't work otherwise without problems projects specific group dynamics on everyone, everywhere.

I can absolutely say if I cherry-picked particular players I've had over the years and put them in the same game, they could collectively manage rules disagreements without anyone getting worked up, and in a way that would produce a perfectly functional game. These were not people in complete harmony with me or each other. But they were people still capable of looking around and going "well, I might prefer it this way, but the rest of the group wouldn't" and "much as I'd kind of like this, its probably not the best for this game." I've never happened to have all those folks in the same campaign at the same time, so other considerations are in play, but it tells me its possible to make that work, something you don't seem to believe is the case. And it has virtues that the result is more intrinsically likely to suit the group as a whole than a single GM trying to guess what serves them best. And describing it as "a group in total harmony" is mischaracterizing it like crazy.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Which, because I mentioned you had a pattern in your responses, are only needed when a Bad Faith player comes to the table.

But, Bad Faith GMs should not be discussed, because no one here is talking about them.

 

[prabe]

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 don't disagree that it may not have been handled as well as it might have been, but my experiences are my experiences. The "change in play" was more the case in the game that I played in than the one I GMed, but the dissonance between the players' ideas for the world and my own preference was definitely a feature of the game I ran. It turns out that I'm not super-awesome at sharing world-building, and/or that the people I game with have ideas I'm not super-happy running. There are blank spaces in the world, and players are encouraged to fill them in their backstories, but that's about as collaborative as I'm comfortable with.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In general a lot of the reason I take the tack I do is a fundamental belief that players have forgotten their own power and generally become more passive than they should. In the wild the biggest issues I run into as a GM are players who constantly look to me to set the pace, to provide guidance, and to resolve disputes with other players. I think we should be encouraging people to speak out more, engage more, and take more ownership. At least it would make running games for strangers a lot easier for me.

Well, to take the other side here, there are a pretty large number of players who really actively don't want to be quite that involved. I understand the idea that they can make running the game harder, but nudging them toward doing more is often working against their natural personalities and what they want to be doing at the game table, and I don't think you're going to get too far with those.

As an example, I know people who are nonconfrontational enough who, if they're forced to resolve their own disagreements with others at the table, will just give in. Virtually every time. They find that more acceptable than dealing with other people in anything resembling a confrontation.

As another, there are absolutely people who go to a game to, as I put it "Look for their chalk marks." They want to roleplay their characters, but they really don't want to do a lot of active decision making about what direction they need to go in what they're doing or anything similar. They're cheerfully happy to have another player do it rather than a GM, but they don't want to do it themselves. Hell, some days I'm that way myself.