D&D General DM Authority

[Thomas Shey]

I totally understand that to a certain degree that's just how some people are. We're not good gaming fits.

Always fair. Not everyone belongs at the same table.

I also have experience with players who want to take a more active role, but lack the confidence to do so. I know it took me a long time to find other people I could be comfortable playing with confidence around. I have seen the negative reinforce that occurs in a lot of groups towards standing out in anyway. I have been there as a player and seen players blossom when the given chance to do so.

Also entirely fair.

 

[Maxperson]

Yep. I want my Paladin punchinator. But SA says no. But I say yes. This is my game. So I have my punchinator anyway. But everyone should have a punchinator. Absolutely everyone!

I do.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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"?

You are responding to "not all players act in bad faith" by saying "But what do you do when a player acts in bad faith"

Does seem to be missing the point trying to be gotten across.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

There is no "have to" or "don't have to." It's just how we play the game and it works just fine for us. If it doesn't work for you, that's fine, but you should really put away your judgmental attitude about those of us who don't play your way.

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.

Okay. But so what. I'm not you and you aren't me. We can have different views and playstyles without needing to "look hard at why."

 

[Maxperson]

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

You know, in the very post you just responded to @Oofta gave two reasons, and I'm sure I've seen others given. Clearly, bad faith isn't the only reason.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

In my opinion, neither bad faith players nor bad faith DMs should be discussed. Both are too rare to worry about when talking about something as general as DM authority.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I understand where you're coming from and I do try to couch things as "No, but ..." however there are things that there just is no compromise.

This was an extreme example. A better example is Heat Metal. You have 3 options (and probably more) if you target someone in metal armor. Does the target have disadvantage:

1. Yes, as long as the caster maintains concentration.
2. The target gets a con save a the beginning of their turn.
3. No, armor is not 1 solid piece of metal, only a small portion of the armor is hot.

I've seen all 3 rulings from different DMs. Who decides which one is right? The caster rules 1, the DM rules 2.

Not sure how much it matters in terms of the overall conversation, but none of these rulings is right. It's if the creature takes damage from the spell, and the caster has to spend a bonus action to inflict the damage each turn. No damage done, no disadvantage.

 

[Oofta]

You are responding to "not all players act in bad faith" by saying "But what do you do when a player acts in bad faith"

Does seem to be missing the point trying to be gotten across.

How many times do I have to repeat: it's not just about bad actors.

People come to different conclusions. Sometimes someone needs to make a call.

My wife made a ruling a couple of games ago that I disagreed with. But she was the DM, it was her call.

On the other hand I don't even remember what it was because as I've said before and continue saying : it's not a big deal, it's not always about bad actors no matter how many times you tell me what I'm saying.

 

[Oofta]

Not sure how much it matters in terms of the overall conversation, but none of these rulings is right. It's if the creature takes damage from the spell, and the caster has to spend a bonus action to inflict the damage each turn. No damage done, no disadvantage.

So I forgot the bonus action, it wasn't particularly pertinent.

 

[Gammadoodler]

So I forgot the bonus action, it wasn't particularly pertinent.

As it relates to the options presented, it would, because none of them reflect how the spell works.

Either
1. the creature takes damage and holds or wears the thing being heated. In which case, they get the disadvantage.
2. They take the damage and drop or somehow get rid of the thing they took damage from, in which case, no disadvantage, or
3. They don't take damage and so don't incur disadvantage.

So if you say the creature takes the damage, there is no ambiguity regarding if pieces of whatever are touching it, and there is no ambiguity in the spell's effect.