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.
I know you are talking about "most players" but I think you are missing the practical points here for favor of seeing what you want to see.
I, as a person who usually DMs, am also a player, and I know the rules. Therefore, if a rule question comes up, I generally know it. I don't need the DM to tell me, and in fact, I sometimes (since I play with some newer DMs at times) know the answer when they don't.
In fact, there is always going to be a "most experienced player" who has the best grasp of the rules, right? But why are they required to be the DM?
In fact, as someone said earlier, isn't it a laudable goal to have every player well-versed in the rules? Sure, some people are going to not care enough, but there is also a reason behind that. They are told they don't need to care. The DM will handle it. Which just increases the burden on the DM, who needs to constantly keep track of the player's abilities and how they work in addition to everything else, because the players don't need to learn the rules themselves.
Something that we would all agree, is not an ideal situation.
Au contraire: you are assuming those players are acting in bad faith, where they are in fact merely following the unspoken directive of advocating for their characters.
Advocating for your character is not the same as trying to run like the Flash and create a tornado. Or being a person who is so scary people are scared by your very existence (and you happen to be a 7 ft tall albino elf). Or the gods having you on speed dial to guide you to exactly where artifacts and quest objectives are.
And those were the examples that we have been given repeatedly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
I've seen a lot of that as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Which, like I've said, I get that.
I mostly am objecting to the idea put forth that it can never work and that it always creates an inferior game regardless of the people involved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asking people for individual answers to a question and then complaining when this individual's answer doesn't speak of situations not my own isn't cricket, old boy. Try again.
Didn't ask for individual answers.
You said it was impossible to have a game without a DM because the DM needs to run the monsters.
I said it was possible for the players to run the monsters, and that groups have done so.
You replied that you wouldn't like playing that way.
Well, you might not like cricket, but that doesn't make it impossible to play old boy.
Because the game, in the end, usually* belongs to the DM. She's put (and continues to put) the effort and prep in, she's done the legwork, she's not only driving the bus but is also its mechanic and - often - purchaser.
And if the game she wants to run isn't to anyone else's tastes (which, in a group of friends who already know each other, is rather unlikely), then she's out of luck.
* - I'll except pick-up games, one-offs, and some AL games here: pick-ups and one-offs because they tend to grow out of a group sitting around and deciding what to play for the night and who will DM; AL games because the DM has to answer to a higher authority, that being the AL organizers.
So, it is hers, because she has put in all the effort to make it happen... and when she sits down with no players the game doesn't happen.
And during the game, the players are driving the action, but the game in no way whatsoever belongs to them, even though it would be impossible without them and they are shaping the directions it goes in?
That doesn't make sense.
I probably should have put the word 'worthwhile' in there somewhere.
Again, you judgements of how much you might enjoy it in no way make it impossible.
I hate banana taffy, I find it disgusting. That does not make Banana Taffy impossible to make or sell.
The point was made that it is impossible to play DnD without a DM. It is not. People can and have played that way. Just because you wouldn't like it, doesn't mean it is not possible, or that someone else might not like it.
First off, yes: stats are rolled here, end of story.
If someone rolls stats that allow for a Paladin and wants to play one, I'll direct the player to the deities chart that shows which deities support Paladins (Paladins are as divine as Clerics and based out of temples, I've never done the separate Paladin-holy-order thing; and a non-divine Paladin would be a Cavalier instead) and the player can either pick a deity then - which would determine which culture the PC is of - or can wait until determining culture/background and then revisit the deities list and pick at that point.
So, you have already determined the only possible places a paladin could be made, and the possible cultures they could come from.
Usually decisions like that are the player's to make. Since the player is in control of their character
Not necessarily. A player might have the very best of intentions yet still mess something up rules-wise, be it intentionally or not; and the DM has to sort it out.
What part of that prevents a reasonable discussion and clarification of the rules, perhaps by another player who is highly knowledgeable in the rules? Why must the DM be the one to sort of rules confusion?
Here's a question, I know you are a fairly old player, probably considered a veteran. Have you ever sat at a table with a new player, and helped correct them when they make a rules mistake? Even if you were a fellow player and not the DM? Because that is literally the types of conversations I'm talking about that I keep getting told only the DM can have, and only if they have "Final Authority"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay. My own personal experience and many threads on many forums lead me to believe the opposite. How would we prove who's right? Hard data? As far as I know there is none and/or it would be impossible to get said data. So it's just our personal opinions. So then I guess we will simply continue to disagree, at least I will until such time as you can prove your personal opinion by providing hard data.
Would hard data like pointing to Oofta's post where he literally says he doesn't tolerate murderhobos help prove that a lot of tables don't tolerate murderhobos?
I mean, that would make three of us. You, me, and Oofta.
Or maybe, instead of me providing hard data, you could provide hard data showing that the majority of games do include murderhobos.
That's what's this thread is about isn't it? I'm not sure why you think people will agree with your position simply because you told them about it. Personally, I will continue to run games like D&D the way they were designed to be run, with the DM having authority over the game.
I'm not sure why people keep telling me things are impossible just because the book is written with an assumption of one model.
And yet here we are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
1) "there are people that will bend rules to the breaking point" -> Bad Faith
2) "Or they just make stuff up that is not in the realm of reasonable ruling" -> Bad Faith
3) "some rules are just vague and need a final ruling" -> Not bad faith, but doesn't answer the question of why a group can't come to a consensus about the ruling instead of needing one person to declare it.
So, the only non-bad faith argument in that post was the one that could absolutely be solved by a group of people talking it out.
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.
And yet I can't seem to get away from Bad Faith player examples.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing I have trouble understanding is why - if so many players out there really do help develop the setting, craft collaborative stories, and make rulings on the mechanics - there's such a shortage of GMs? Because a player doing all that stuff is 80 per cent of the way to being a GM.
Because we tell players that being a DM is hard. They need to be the rules expert who knows all the answers. They need to be strong enough socially to lead the entire table. They need to craft worlds entirely unique to them. They need to schedule everything, provide the location, ect ect ect ect.
Of course most players don't think they can do all that. Even the mild acknowledgement that they aren't rule experts disqualifies them from the perceived role of the DM.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My experience is that there's - in very broad strokes - two types of players: those who also frequently DM and those who do not.
Those who also DM tend to, when they criticize or disgree, not necessarily be seeking advantage by so doing: they're looking at the game as a whole.
Those who do not also DM tend to be seeking advantage via their criticisms or disagreements: they're looking out for themselves.
And note that I specifically say "tend to" in each of the above, as I've seen opposite examples both ways.
If a player happens to be a DM, they tend to care about the game as whole.
But those not blessed with the DM mantle tend to only look out for themselves.
Again, your bias towards seeing DMs are somehow special is... really blatant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it sounds alot like you are saying "any players that can't come to an agreement" are extreme and unreasonable players. That's not the case IMO. Reasonable people are unable to come to an agreement about a topic all the time.
No.
I am saying that reasonable people can come to an agreement. They do it all the time.
Yes, occasionally they might disagree, but that does not lead to the sort of behavior Oofta keeps claiming. And in fact, Oofta seems to refuse to acknowledge that it is even possible for reasonable people to agree, because it allows comes back to the fact that they won't and therefore the DM needs to step in and decide for them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
