D&D General DM Authority

[prabe]

I see it more as a desire to cut risk out of the game; because the unspoken bit here is that while the PC has a +100500 magic sword the opponent doesn't have any effective means to counter it (i.e. doesn't have +100501 armour or an equally-powerful weapon), and so the PC can curb-stomp any opposition at no risk to self.

The player still wants the combat and the feel of winning it, only at no risk.

I'd thought of that possibility, too. It's plausibly worth asking the player if it's a matter of not liking combat or not liking the risks of combat, if you can muster doing so without coming across as judging the player--even better if your game is one that can accommodate different preferences, here.

 

[Lanefan]

How many bands have a conductor? Most if not all classical large symphonic bands have a conductor, but do Jazz Bands? Rock and Roll bands? Having a conductor can solve many issues, they can help fine-tune the sound of the band for the location, keep people together, act as a focal point for the audience and announce the next piece.... but you don't need a conductor for every single band, and for many bands, having a conductor would be a detriment, not a boon.

Whether or not there's someone waving a baton around, there's always someone "in charge" within any band. Who that person is can change even from song to song, but in performance there's always someone (usually but not always the drummer) setting the pace and timing and keeping things together, and in studio there's almost always someone (usually the songwriter) telling or suggesting to others what to play and when.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd thought of that possibility, too. It's plausibly worth asking the player if it's a matter of not liking combat or not liking the risks of combat, if you can muster doing so without coming across as judging the player--even better if your game is one that can accommodate different preferences, here.

If a player in my game isn't willing to put a PC at risk they're at the wrong table, end of story.

 

[prabe]

If a player in my game isn't willing to put a PC at risk they're at the wrong table, end of story.

Yeah, that's clear to anyone who reads your posts. I meant more a "general you" than a " @Lanefan you."

 

[Chaosmancer]

If I believed the correct rule would mean my PC dies I'm fine. If I don't then there's a problem.

But that's the thing, it's a rules disagreement. Bob believes the correct rule means his PC doesn't die.

You are trying to frame this as Bob not wanting to follow the rules and that's not what it is.

Okay, but this circles back around. The debate is about what the correct rules are, and if it is important enough to debate, them you, Bob, Janet, Matt and Cynthia can talk it out.

And if no one wants to take the ruling where Bob's character dies, then there is no problem.

And if the group figures that the actual correct ruling is where Bob's character dies, then they make their case for the rule. And, since it is only about the rules, if it goes against Bob... well, Bob would likely accept it. Because there is no one at the table who actually wants Bob's character to die, they'd all be much happier if he didn't.

And, bonus round, if they think the rules would lead to Bob's death, but none of them want Bob to die... they can houserule it.


The only problems I can see come from a scenario where Bob thinks you guys are trying to kill off his character on purpose, but that requires us adding in a stipulation that Bob doesn't trust the group's decisions.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Whether or not there's someone waving a baton around, there's always someone "in charge" within any band. Who that person is can change even from song to song, but in performance there's always someone (usually but not always the drummer) setting the pace and timing and keeping things together, and in studio there's almost always someone (usually the songwriter) telling or suggesting to others what to play and when.

True, but lets keep with this analogy for a bit.

Queen is a good example because if memory serves me every single member has written at least one award winning song. So... who is in charge of the Band Queen?

I mean, I know famous bands break up all the time, but assuming they are in their best years of cooperation, would we really see the situation where (looking up names) the Drummer Roger Taylor makes a suggestion about changing the rhythym of the song and the band says "No man, Freddie is our lead vocalist, so he gets final say on everything"?

I mean, like you said, who is in charge can change from song to song. Compare that to DnD and having a group that changes DMs adventure to adventure, or even session to session. Are you really going to see anybody pull the "I'm the DM and I have final say" card, when they are all working together?

And part of that comes because at the very end of your post, you conflated two things that are very different.

Telling the others what to play and when is very very very different from suggesting what to play and when. That is the difference between "I am in charge" and "We are working together" which is what I keep trying to bring focus too.

 

[Lanefan]

True, but lets keep with this analogy for a bit.

Queen is a good example because if memory serves me every single member has written at least one award winning song. So... who is in charge of the Band Queen?

I mean, I know famous bands break up all the time, but assuming they are in their best years of cooperation, would we really see the situation where (looking up names) the Drummer Roger Taylor makes a suggestion about changing the rhythym of the song and the band says "No man, Freddie is our lead vocalist, so he gets final say on everything"?

Not knowing much about the internal dynamics of Queen, I can only posit that given as all of them wrote songs, the "in-chargeness" would probably default to whoever's song was being played/discussed at the time.

I mean, like you said, who is in charge can change from song to song. Compare that to DnD and having a group that changes DMs adventure to adventure, or even session to session. Are you really going to see anybody pull the "I'm the DM and I have final say" card, when they are all working together?

In the moment, yes I would expect to see that. The problems would arise if that ruling was expected to carry over to times when others were DMing.

And part of that comes because at the very end of your post, you conflated two things that are very different.

Telling the others what to play and when is very very very different from suggesting what to play and when. That is the difference between "I am in charge" and "We are working together" which is what I keep trying to bring focus too.

I'm in something of a band and oftentimes I write, or at least come up with, our songs. But, while I usually know what I want it to end up sounding like, most of the time I have to phrase it as suggestions as the other two guys know tons more about music than I do!

 

[Helldritch]

And in the calm voice example you use the word "menacing". A calm person "menacing" me is far less acceptable than a person loudly yelling "Oh, come on! Are you serious?!" Even if they slap the table in the process.

The menacing part was not directed at me but at a young DM in a tournament in which I was one of the organizer. Fortunately, an arbiter understood the menace and when I came in, the person was a lot less menacing all of a sudden. At 6'1'' and only 190 pounds at that time, I was still way bigger than most teenagers of my age. I asked him to quit the tournament right now and he left (not that he had much of a choice). This was a big handicap for his group but even his teammates were not agreeing with him. That guy was a bit too much aiming for the first prize. Never saw him in an other tournament.

There are degrees, and we don't have good words to express those degrees with accuracy. But I am going to say this, I have been in situations where I have had to swallow my frustration and anger, where I have tried to just let things slide. It never helps unless you are never in the same situation again, at a gaming table where you expect to meet on a regular basis? Pretending that you are not upset or angry just to look better is not the right way to do things. Because the person across from you has no idea what you are feeling, and it can't be addressed until you let them know. And if that means you get a little loud and a little forceful with your words? Then so be it. I prefer that to the silence of people just dealing with it.

Fully agree with this part. Been there done that. I'm all for good discussions and explanations. With a beer or a nice bourbon or cognac I don't drink often so having a drink with a friend is always a good reason and a nice way to settle things down. It always worked out so far.

 

[Scott Christian]

Right, and having a leader can create issues. It doesn't always create issues, but it can create issues.

My entire point is that there are pros and cons, and that sometimes leaders are not needed, and sometimes their existence causes more problems than it solves.

Are you talking about D&D or in general?
There are times you do not need a leader = true.
There are times you need a leader = true.
There are times no leader can cause issues = true.
There are times a leader can cause issues = true.
I don't think anyone would ever disagree with that.

But we are not talking about music. (If you insist on the analogy - all bands have a leader. The guide if you will that leads them in tempo and directs them where to go. Especially jazz bands.) But, D&D is not a band. It is not a kitchen. It is not a business. Sorry I brought those up. D&D is a game where the rules specifically state that you are choosing someone to lead the game. The entire system is set up to have a person make all the judgement calls. That is the game works for better or worse.

 

[Scott Christian]

But again, you are making a general statement with specific assumptions.

In a Beer and Pretzel, Hack and Slash game is there necessarily any behind the scenes information? Is there necessarily a single story to tell?

And why can't the table come to a consensus about what the DC might be? We have a scale, Easy: 10, Medium: 15, Hard: 20, Nearly Impossible: 25 and a lot of items and things pre-listed out.


And if anything happens that doesn't make sense... well, they know exactly why it happened. No one at that table is going to be overly upset that they did a listen check, failed because everyone agreed it would be hard to listen through a thick wooden door, and opened it to find the random dice table says Ogres in platemail. The player can say "I totally would have heard that" and everyone else... is likely to agree, but they all know that they made a decision, and that decision was upheld.

I mean, when the group makes a decision, who do you get angry at when the decision turns out differently than you expect? It wasn't the DM hiding information from you for a cheap surprise, you guys made your calls, and the dice made a silly situation, something you knew was possible when you started a game this way.

Sorry Chaos, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. You want this game to be something else. You consistently argue for it to be something that it is not. The rules of the game are very clear. The play dynamics are very clear. If you want to change them for your table, and have a consensus every time there is a judgement call, go ahead. I hope you film it so I can watch and see how it goes. I would be interested. But doing that 20 times a game seems like a slugfest in my head. (It might not be in real life.) It seems like you are adding parts, and the more parts the greater chance something goes wrong. (It might not be in real life.)

So again, round table is cool. I have a game that plays like a round table - but it is not D&D. Because D&D has specific rules.