D&D General DM Authority

[Campbell]

"Supposed to do"?

Agree with this. I like games that produce a compelling story as part of the process of play, but for my tastes we should be treating games as games.

 

[Helldritch]

So, accuse me of lying, ignore the evidence that I wasn't lying, and when I confront you about it, you decide you are going to start ignoring me.

Because I... was right about what you said?

Gives a whole lot of weight to your arguments I suppose.

@Oofta is right. You keep ignoring the whole discussion and you focus/nitpick on what you believe will prove your point by taking it out of its context. You're not a bad person, but your approach to most discussion is usually a twisted view of what was or what was not said. You cite the tiny bit that goes along what you want to prove and ignore the rest.

Again, you're a good open minded person. You have a lot to offer this forum for your analytical mind is also a kind one. But what you do is perceived as nitpicking (and I am sure it is not your intention) can get a lot of bad reactions. Try to see both sides of a post and temper yourself (something I must do myself, I am not perfect either). Nothing is ever fully black or white. There are a lot of shades of grey... (no I don't refer to that damn book...)

And for our subject...
Yes we are talking about rare exceptions where a toxic or very obnoxious player will want to pervert a campaign or drive the DM to "his" side. But if such players were so rare, why does everyone here have a story about some? When tournaments were done in the 80's, I have had my share, and more than one of this type of players. In fact, as I was often the Prime DM for the tournaments, I often had to come into a table and settle an arguement. Often giving a player a warning for not abiding by the rule of the DM. Only once in a dozen or so tournament have I to rule against a DM. Tournament rules and expectations were quite clear. Yet quite a few players were trying to pull off stuff that were not in the rules or simply bad interpretation.

One example: A player was insisting on casting Feign Death on unwilling subject as to put them on catalepsis and simply killing them. It was not how the spell was working and it degenerated into a shouting match between the DM and the player. I had to put that player out and it almost cost his team a place in the next phase of the tournament. Fortunately, once out of the game, I got to talk to the player and he finally understood that his behavior was not welcomed. He came to the next phase and behaved as was expected of him.

We all agree that, as the relationship between players and DM evolves, trust comes and frictions and arguements go down to become a rarity. And whenever we get a new player, most experienced DM will make sure that this new player will understand the written and the unwritten rules of the table. It's only when the DM does not inform the new player (be it online or live) that potential situations for arguments can arise. So I strongly believe that most situations can be resolved quickly without hurting the feelings of anyone.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure you can. You just need a good reason. I was running a campaign for the players and about 6 weeks in, it became very apparent that this particular kind of campaign wasn't one I could do justice to. I told the players that at the next session and said I was changing it, since I could not make it all that enjoyable. They understood and the campaign shifted mid stream.

I would view that as implicit player permission though...

 

[FrogReaver]

So, accuse me of lying, ignore the evidence that I wasn't lying, and when I confront you about it, you decide you are going to start ignoring me.

Because I... was right about what you said?

Gives a whole lot of weight to your arguments I suppose.

Many consider purposeful omission to be lying. You were omitting a ton of obvious facts about what he was saying in order to paint a picture that he meant something he didn't mean.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure. But it's equally reasonable for them to disagree on what the vague rule means and not be able to come to a consensus. We see it here all the time in threads. Multiple interpretations with different people thinking that they are right. So #3 is an example of a situation where people very often don't come to an agreement and need a DM ruling.

It strikes me that this conversation is a much more fitting example. If only there was a DM who they could refer to as a final authority. Maybe Oofta wouldn't have walked away.

 

[prabe]

I would view that as implicit player permission though...

It's at any rate explicitly not a bait-and-switch, as the term is usually used.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's at any rate explicitly not a bait-and-switch, as the term is usually used.

Yep. Which is what inherently makes that technique soo bad in most cases. No one likes a bait and switch.

 

[Imaculata]

All of those are fair points, but there is an oddity standing out to me. Well, two at least.

1) You seem almost offended that he was so invested in your world that he was thinking up characters to put into it. Since your entire focus seems to be on how much of a bother it is to deal with, and not the content of the characters, I'm left to assume that they are perfectly fine characters, just not yours. But... the reason that the art of Fanfiction exists is because people are so enthralled by the various worlds and characters that they desire to add to that story, or riff off of it.

I'm not offended, but I am annoyed that he put me in the awkward position of having to say no to him, after he put such a lot of work into it.

2) Secondly... the part I bolded. You say that you have a special bond with the characters you create, that you run homebrew because you don't want to run other people's stuff... then you say the other players have the same problem.

But that doesn't make any sense. They don't create characters, they can't have a special bond to your characters in the way that you are saying, they aren't running homebrew worlds, they are playing in yours. So... do the other players not like these characters just because you don't like them and feel like you can't roleplay them? I don't understand what their objection is, because in terms of interacting with a character, it doesn't really matter to them who came up with them.

They like my world and my characters, and they absolutely feel a bond with them. These are characters they have known for several years now. They don't like someone else (even if it is a fellow player) inserting their own characters into something they like. It is an unwelcome addition. Further more, if someone were to name these nameless npc's, they'd prefer it to be me.

It's kind of like reading a book from your favourite author, and another reader coming in and making their own additions. The additions aren't necessarily bad, but no one asked for it.

As a group we have an agreement that the DM writes and runs the world, and the players write and run their own character. The only collaberation occurs when we want to weave their backstories into the world I created.

 

[Don Durito]

Has it occurred to people that it's a pain in the neck to have to be asked to give your opinion if a real interpretation is reasonable or not. I suspect would most people would prefer there's a person to decide so that they can move on with the game.

Hell, I use to become really annoyed when there was a rule issue and the GM would root around in the books looking for an answer. "Just make a decision" I would think so we could get on with playing the game we were all there to play.

The GM controls the pace of the game so therefore the GM is naturally the one too lead. Hell even if you're making a ruling by consensus it's most likely the GM who's leading the discussion that leads to consensus.

 

[Lanefan]

Agree with this. I like games that produce a compelling story as part of the process of play, but for my tastes we should be treating games as games.

I agree but from almost the opposite direction: I like games that produce a compelling story organically from within themselves, without anyone having to "craft" it (other than maybe the DM giving it a boot-up to get things going at the start), to the point where the game part almost becomes secondary.