D&D General DM Authority

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Why? They are all playing at the same table. If they all agreed to the rule the first time, why would it be a problem to use the same rule a second time?

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!

Sure, and that is my point. Groups of people can work together without requiring a dedicated leader who tells everyone what is going to happen.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Except we keep having people speaking up and saying "it isn't required to work that way"

And the response is "Yes, it has to work that way, no other way can possibly work"


Sure, the game was designed with a DM in mind, but that doesn't mean a DM is required. That doesn't mean that the DM is required to make all the judgement calls. That is the default state, that is the expected state, but you can still have a game that is recognizably DnD, played by people who are having fun, that has no DM at the table.

There has not been a single thing that a DM has been said to do that could not be done by a group of players with no DM.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Rule Zero: All of these rules can be changed.

You admit, you have played a game "round table" as you called it. That means it is possible. I'm not saying every game has to be this way, I'm not saying that everyone would enjoy it being this way, I'm not saying that it is the superior way to play, I'm not saying any of that.

I am saying it is possible.

You could have a group, likely of veteran players, sit down and play DnD without a DM. It can be done. They can have fun in the process.

That is all. That is the extent of my claims. It is possible, people can have fun doing it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.)

Agreed 100%

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Sure, long-term it might be really hard.

But, by that same token, I generally find Hack and Slash Megadungeons to be dreadfully boring and unfulfilling. And that I think is where this type of game would be easiest to run.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What are you talking about? Combat is one of the fun parts of D&D. No combat, no fun.
Sessions without combat will happen and my players are perfectly fine with that. But a campaign where combat is set to a minimum? Come on. No one would ever want that.

Like @FrogReaver said, I'm coming in to disagree.

One of my play-by-post games that I've had the most fun in has gone on for a long time with minimal combat. I've had more fun out of combat in most games than in combat, where I generally just race the other side to zero hp.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I stand by what I said. A whole campaign without a single combat, no protagonist, no antagonist would simply be boring to the extreme. Imagine that RPG
Politics, THE RPG.
A game where you emulate politicians. Decide laws and amendments. Debate over and over on coma and periods. And what will you take for lunch?
Nope, not my cup of tea. Never knew a player that did not like combat. I do not say that the campaign should be an endless stream of combat, far from that. It is a role playing game. But a game with absolutely no combat would be as boring as a game with an endless chain of combats. It is the blend of combats, interactions with the world and the exploration of the world that makes a campaign interesting.

Or Indiana Jones the RPG

Or any of dozens of Survival style situations, no combat but resource management.

Or you could do a kingdom building game, where you don't fight yourself, but you need to allocate resources, build infrastructure and deal with geo-politics. I've actually read a few play-by-post games like that, and they can be fascinating.

Not everyone is going to like that sort of thing, but they can be a ton of fun.

 

[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.

(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.)

Here's the rule from DMG page 235.

"You might need to set a policy on rules discussions at the table. Some groups don't mind putting the game on hold while they hash out different interpretations of a rule. Others prefer to let the DM make a call and continue with the action. If you gloss over a rules issue in play, make a note of it (a good task to delegate to a player) and return to the issue later."

It says very clearly that you(the DM) set the policy. Not the players. Not the group. The DM. That policy can be group discussion, or DM makes the call, but the group doesn't get to decide which. The DM does per that rule.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

What are you talking about? Combat is one of the fun parts of D&D. No combat, no fun.
Sessions without combat will happen and my players are perfectly fine with that. But a campaign where combat is set to a minimum? Come on. No one would ever want that.

Pro Tip: Never use an absolute on the internet such as "No one would ever want that." You know it's going to be incorrect as soon as you type it.

 

[Maxperson]

Pro Tip: Never use an absolute on the internet such as "No one would ever want that." You know it's going to be incorrect as soon as you type it.

Yep. There are people out there who want to be killed and eaten by another human. If you can find people who want that, you can certainly find people who want an entire campaign with zero combat.