D&D General DM Authority

[FrogReaver]

Why oh why are 90% of our disagreements here regarding what basic words mean.

 

[Oofta]

Why oh why are 90% of our disagreements here regarding what basic words mean.

Maybe we need a DM to make the call?

 

[FrogReaver]

Maybe we need a DM to make the call?

We do have one! And when someone gets too angry and hostile they even kick them from our thread/site.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Why oh why are 90% of our disagreements here regarding what basic words mean.

Because a big part of most disagreements are communication breakdowns, and word choice is a major element in that?

 

[Thomas Shey]

What's better for you and better for other groups is rather subjective. I'd rather have a DM as the final rules arbiter whether I'm DMing or playing as long as the DM is reasonable and listens. Then again if they aren't reasonable, if they don't listen they probably wouldn't be a good DM no matter what style of play you prefer.

Of course it is. Which is why I've never argued its for everyone. Almost all my arguments have been against the idea that it can't work at all, or is intrinsically an inferior approach.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure. I think it was brought up pages ago about how it works when a player has more rules knowledge/experience than the DM and the rules questions get delegated to that player. Often with a DM veto option.

Its not clear why, in that situation, the GM should have a veto option other than tradition.

 

[FrogReaver]

Its not clear why, in that situation, the GM should have a veto option other than tradition.

Because it's understood that RAW or what the guy with the most experience would rule for his campaign isn't always the best answer for this campaign.

 

[Maxperson]

Its not clear why, in that situation, the GM should have a veto option other than tradition.

Because someone needs the veto power and if the players have it, the game breaks down. You can't run a game when the players are vetoing this and that. It's too disruptive.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Because someone needs the veto power and if the players have it, the game breaks down. You can't run a game when the players are vetoing this and that. It's too disruptive.

Funny, I've done that on and off for years and yet somehow I seem to keep games going. Unless you were assuming single-person vetoes.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Because it's understood that RAW or what the guy with the most experience would rule for his campaign isn't always the best answer for this campaign.

Seems like that's a reason for the GM to explain that to the players; if the players still disagree, that seems like they're not seeing it that way. And I'm back to suggesting that if the GM can't deal with that, there's a serious disconnect between him and his players somewhere (since he couldn't convince them it'd serve the game better).