D&D General DM Authority

[Helldritch]

I'll have to agree with @Scott Christian on that last post.
I have a very democratic approach as to which rules we will use and those we will not. But once the votes are down. The campaign is set in stone and no rules will change and I am the final arbiter at the table. Of course if I err, I will listen and even change my call if I really erred. But most of the time, my ruling is final. A player might not be happy. But I will not change my mind once the final call is made. We can always talk about it after the game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

This, however, requires the position of DM and how he operates to be viewed as a "rule". I don't think that's an accurate way to characterize it.

 

[Maxperson]

This, however, requires the position of DM and how he operates to be viewed as a "rule". I don't think that's an accurate way to characterize it.

It's the way both the PHB and DMG are written, though. You have to ignore the fundamental default way to play D&D. It's absolutely a valid way to play, but it's does defy the default.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's the way both the PHB and DMG are written, though. You have to ignore the fundamental default way to play D&D. It's absolutely a valid way to play, but it's does defy the default.

That's absolutely fair, but I don't think you're changing a single rule to do that, and I think that's a non-trivial distinction. Claiming the DM-authority model is a rule of D&D has a different connotational loading than claiming its its default play mode (which is absolutely true) does.

 

[Maxperson]

That's absolutely fair, but I don't think you're changing a single rule to do that, and I think that's a non-trivial distinction. Claiming the DM-authority model is a rule of D&D has a different connotational loading than claiming its its default play mode (which is absolutely true) does.

I do think it's a rule. Rules don't have to be all about mechanics. If the books all over the place say, "THIS IS THE WAY IT IS!!!!!!!!", then it's a rule.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I do think it's a rule. Rules don't have to be all about mechanics. If the books all over the place say, "THIS IS THE WAY IT IS!!!!!!!!", then it's a rule.

Then I have to thoroughly disagree. Nobody is going to put in a set of house rules that they let the players decide mechanical decisions.

(There are games where the specific role of the GM is spelled out in ways that actively tell you if you change them you're changing the rules--some PbtA games do, for example. No incarnation of D&D does that; its a default procedure, but that's not the same as a rule.)

 

[Maxperson]

Then I have to thoroughly disagree. Nobody is going to put in a set of house rules that they let the players decide mechanical decisions.

Except you and others clearly already have. So that's wrong. If it comes down to a vote and the players can override you, you've put in a house rule that lets them decide mechanical decisions.

(There are games where the specific role of the GM is spelled out in ways that actively tell you if you change them you're changing the rules--some PbtA games do, for example. No incarnation of D&D does that; its a default procedure, but that's not the same as a rule.)

It's pretty clear that D&D isn't designed or intended to be run the way you do. That equates to a rule. It's not saying, "D&D can/should be run that way." It's say, "D&D is absolutely run this way."

 

[Thomas Shey]

Except you and others clearly already have. So that's wrong. If it comes down to a vote and the players can override you, you've put in a house rule that lets them decide mechanical decisions.

I absolutely have not. I have house rules. They're in PDFs handed out to everyone.

It's pretty clear that D&D isn't designed or intended to be run the way you do. That equates to a rule. It's not saying, "D&D can/should be run that way." It's say, "D&D is absolutely run this way."

Find that phrase and I'll believe you. Otherwise this seems to be elevating a long convention to a rule, and I'm not buying that.

 

[Argyle King]

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.


Actually, here is a great example to highlight what I mean.

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.



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.

I would argue that Rock & Roll bands do tend to have a leader -even if they aren't a conductor.

I somewhat agree with parts of the second part of your post. Though, I think a game where the players decide everything (or most things) on a whim would (for me personally) be somewhat mentally unfulfilling. I have no doubt that running a game that way is possible. I would likely even enjoy a session or two like that from time to time, but I would find it difficult to stick with that long term.

 

[Maxperson]

I absolutely have not. I have house rules. They're in PDFs handed out to everyone.



Find that phrase and I'll believe you. Otherwise this seems to be elevating a long convention to a rule, and I'm not buying that.

If you've played 5e, you know what I'm talking about. There is nothing equivocal about the wording. It is absolute with regard to the DM controlling the game and rules. The only part where the players can do anything outside of their PCs is an optional rule in the DM toolbox.