D&D General DM Authority

[Chaosmancer]

You're conflating two different things here. Oofta said high-stress rulings, where there's a real conflict with what a given player thinks should happen, are rare. Not that the DM making decisions or rulings is rare.

In D&D as usually played, the DM is constantly making routine adjudications. I share some of Scott's curiosity as to how this works in the described GM-less/GM-full game, which specifically says one of the player has the role of adjudicator/decision maker at any given time. Do they use a strict rotation schedule of some kind? Do they wind up defaulting to one player 80% of the time who's either charismatic, pushy, or just demonstrates a great creative flair and/or fair judgement?

While I agree with you that in most pure applications of the written rules where you're playing with folks who have good rapport, DM-as-authoritative-judge-to-lay-down-the-law is rarely needed, in instances where any kind of subjective judgment needs to apply, either you have one person saying "that's a great idea and I'm awarding a +2 bonus to your check!" and "yep, the tree is wide enough that you can hide completely behind it", or you have to spend table time hashing out all those little things amongst a committee.

Sure, but I don't see those as actually being that hard to implement.

"I think I'll jump behind this pillar and hide."

"Yep sounds good to me, in that case I'll..."

That's about all you would need, and they wouldn't really discuss it unless someone had an objection.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Rule adjudication decisions are rare. Decisions like "what can I see", "how tall is the tree", "can I grab that chandelier and swing over the guys in the way" are things a DM has to decide all the time. Along with how the NPC responds, what DCs should be, is the rogue hidden. That's not even touching on world building, secrets or exploration which I'm not sure how that would work without a DM. Not saying it can't, I just don't know how it could be much more than a glorified dungeon crawl.

As far as rules adjudication, there are active questions on this message board that basically boil down to "how does this rule work". If there were one true ruling we wouldn't need Sage Advice.

But think about the context I've been saying.

This type of play works best with Mega-dungeons and hack-and-slash games. Which yeah, those are basically Dungeon Crawls. That is still DnD.

Few NPCs involved. Is the Rogue hidden gets handled by being behind cover and rolling stealth. Questions about if the cover is big enough might come up, but they are all working together, so they can generally all agree on the scene and what is in it fairly quickly. Or roll.

How tall is the tree... why are you asking? You are part of the group who is making the decisions of what is in the scene. You are basically asking yourself if the tree is big enough. And again, if someone disagrees, they bring it up and then you discuss.

 

[Oofta]

But think about the context I've been saying.

This type of play works best with Mega-dungeons and hack-and-slash games. Which yeah, those are basically Dungeon Crawls. That is still DnD.

Few NPCs involved. Is the Rogue hidden gets handled by being behind cover and rolling stealth. Questions about if the cover is big enough might come up, but they are all working together, so they can generally all agree on the scene and what is in it fairly quickly. Or roll.

How tall is the tree... why are you asking? You are part of the group who is making the decisions of what is in the scene. You are basically asking yourself if the tree is big enough. And again, if someone disagrees, they bring it up and then you discuss.

D&D is a whole lot more than dungeon crawls for a lot of people. If it works for you, great.

The rest? I was just making it clear game decisions the DM makes all the time, that I've made in recent games.

You were conflating those types of decisions with rules decisions which are rare with my current group.

 

[Sakuglak]

We have several players who DM and while we might articulate an argument, whoever is running the game has final say over what makes sense for their world.

 

[loverdrive]

I would have thought this would be both obvious and unquestioned.

I mean, what players ever go into a game with the goal of making their characters fail?

I think that default assumption is everyone at the table want to have fun time.

"My wizard snaps his finger and mighty lich ceases to exist! This is it fellas! Oh, we have another four hours we planned for this session?" obviously, isn't fun.

We're talking about D&D here, only without a DM. In all other respects I thought the theory was to keep it as close to the status quo as possible, hence my questions.

Oh, then I misunderstood you. Still gonna clarify as I see things anyway.

Which immediately leads to meta-game complications, in that IME players are generally not cool with having to pretend they don't know something and have their characters run afoul of it.

My mantra, repeated: player knowledge and character knowledge, where possible, should be as close to the same as they can be.

When you are GMing, there's probably all sorts of NPCs who know way less than you do, which isn't a problem, right?

If we assume that the players want to use every possible way to make their characters succeed that wouldn't work, of course, but I think that with or without a GM, players should see their characters pretty much in the same light as a GM sees NPCs. Y'know, as characters and not avatars of themselves.

So, setting design by committee. Got it. Ditto for dungeon or adventure design?

I honestly don't understand what you mean by dungeon and adventure design in this context. Adventure is whatever happens on-screen, dungeons are a subset of places that are shown on-screen. The characters enter the armoury — ok, now there's an armoury in these dwarven ruins.

 

[Maxperson]

How tall is the tree... why are you asking? You are part of the group who is making the decisions of what is in the scene. You are basically asking yourself if the tree is big enough. And again, if someone disagrees, they bring it up and then you discuss.

That sounds about as fun to me as having all of my teeth pulled. But if you're having fun doing it that way, more power to you.

 

[Mannahnin]

Sure, but I don't see those as actually being that hard to implement.

"I think I'll jump behind this pillar and hide."

"Yep sounds good to me, in that case I'll..."

That's about all you would need, and they wouldn't really discuss it unless someone had an objection.

What would be the basis of the objection? What you're now describing, to me, sounds much more like collective storytelling than a D&D game.
Not to say that you can't have a fun game that way, but it's a fundamentally different experience to say "I want to hide behind the pillar, therefore the pillar is naturally big enough", or "My character wants to hide behind the pillar , but I think it would be more dramatic if the pillar is not actually wide enough, therefore it is not wide enough", than to interact with a quasi-objective world created and defined by a semi-neutral designated author-type person.

The usual DM/player split of roles and responsibility creates much more a feeling of interacting with another world with its own "reality" and logic and verisimilitude than collectively all sharing the author voice and making up what could be important details on the fly.

Exploration and Discovery are experiences which are much better simulated when I as a player don't know the answer but I can trust the DM to answer any given question in the role of my senses as I explore a world. And I know that for for many questions they or the scenario writer has already defined the environment before I thought to ask; and certain details might be more important than I initially realize, or bear hidden significance that I can discover! This makes that secondary world feel and act more like an objective reality, rather than an arbitrary fiction subject to my whims in the particular moment when I think to ask.

This brings to mind a great blog post Ben Laurence (the creator of Through Ultan's Door) wrote about old-school play, but which I think applies pretty much equally to modern D&D, about the pleasures of Secrecy and Discovery, and contrasting the play style with more story-oriented games like Powered by the Apocalypse.

Pleasures of the OSR: Secrecy and Discovery

This is the first in a series of posts that try to say something about the theory of the OSR style of play. I promise never to use jar...

maziriansgarden.blogspot.com

 

[Chaosmancer]

D&D is a whole lot more than dungeon crawls for a lot of people. If it works for you, great.

sigh

Of course DnD is more than that. I actually don't personally like mega-dungeon hack and slash games.

But the point I was originally countering was "It is impossible to play DnD without a DM"

Well, a hack and slash, kick down the door, kill the monster, take their stuff, repeat style game is still DnD. Might not be our favorite, but DnD it still is.


Now, if you want to say that it is impossible to play DnD in the style you prefer without a DM... then I'd say of course it is impossible. Because your style was built and predicated on the role of the DM existing.

Analogies are often in adequate, but if someone said to me "It is impossible to play soccer without a referee" I'd tell them they were wrong, if they said "It is impossible to hold the FIFA World Cup Soccer Tournament without a referee" well... I'd say they are right.

The game is bigger than one style though.

 

[FrogReaver]

sigh

Of course DnD is more than that. I actually don't personally like mega-dungeon hack and slash games.

But the point I was originally countering was "It is impossible to play DnD without a DM"

Well, a hack and slash, kick down the door, kill the monster, take their stuff, repeat style game is still DnD. Might not be our favorite, but DnD it still is.


Now, if you want to say that it is impossible to play DnD in the style you prefer without a DM... then I'd say of course it is impossible. Because your style was built and predicated on the role of the DM existing.

Analogies are often in adequate, but if someone said to me "It is impossible to play soccer without a referee" I'd tell them they were wrong, if they said "It is impossible to hold the FIFA World Cup Soccer Tournament without a referee" well... I'd say they are right.

The game is bigger than one style though.

Do you remember the point the post you are replying to was originally countering?

 

[Chaosmancer]

What would be the basis of the objection? What you're now describing, to me, sounds much more like collective storytelling than a D&D game.
Not to say that you can't have a fun game that way, but it's a fundamentally different experience to say "I want to hide behind the pillar, therefore the pillar is naturally big enough", or "My character wants to hide behind the pillar , but I think it would be more dramatic if the pillar is not actually wide enough, therefore it is not wide enough", than to interact with a quasi-objective world created and defined by a semi-neutral designated author-type person.

The objections would be based on other people's perceptions of the pillars.

"Wait, didn't someone say those pillars were broken, is it even tall enough to hide behind"

Many many many issues I've seen with DMs setting the scene is that the players picture something different than the DM. But, if we give the DM all of the authority, then the players are challenging them by acting on information they don't have.

Hence why you have to ask "is this pillar wide enough to hide behind" because you need to confirm with the DM that your understanding matches theirs. I'm sure we can all think of examples where confusion and lack of understanding of the environment caused problems.

But, in this example, there should be no confusion. The group established the pillars existed, they might even have drawn a quick map. And if the players are confused.... it is treated like being confused, because they aren't challenging the author and trying to change the scene, they are working to clarify what had been decided.

The usual DM/player split of roles and responsibility creates much more a feeling of interacting with another world with its own "reality" and logic and verisimilitude than collectively all sharing the author voice and making up what could be important details on the fly.

Exploration and Discovery are experiences which are much better simulated when I as a player don't know the answer but I can trust the DM to answer any given question in the role of my senses as I explore a world. And I know that for for many questions they or the scenario writer has already defined the environment before I thought to ask; and certain details might be more important than I initially realize, or bear hidden significance that I can discover! This makes that secondary world feel and act more like an objective reality, rather than an arbitrary fiction subject to my whims in the particular moment when I think to ask.

Sure all of that can be true. But it doesn't have to be true.

There are other ways to play.