D&D General DM Authority

[Charlaquin]

This whole conversation came about because chaos was saying that a DM doesn't need authority and that you can play without a DM. I basically stated that, to me, I don't see how that would work and that it wouldn't feel like D&D to me. So here we are. It still doesn't feel like D&D to me, no matter what label others put on it. That doesn't make them wrong.

And that’s fine. “It doesn’t feel like D&D to me” is a different sentiment than “in my opinion it isn’t D&D.”

 

[Maxperson]

You realize that in this case comparing Oofta to a Flat Earther is far from complimentary, and that people tell Flat Earthers they are wrong constantly.

Sure. @Oofta is not entitled to be correct with his opinion. He might be. He might not be. That's the nature of subjective opinion. Others will agree and disagree.

Hack and Slash, Megadungeon play, with few or no NPCs. Let us set the DM issue aside, as I did in the post where Oofta declared this style of play "Not DnD" (because yes, I did set it aside. I had already shown this style could work without a DM, and was told this style was not DnD and that was what I was defending in that post)

What rules are we changing?

Still rolling the same dice.
Still making characters using race, Class, Background.
Health, Class abilities and AC are unchanged.
Skill Check rules are unchanged.
Monster statblocks from the Monster Manual, as they generally are
Still using the DMG to adjudicate stone, wood, ect.
Still using all the spells in the PHB, though some are obviously less useful without NPCs.


Sure, there are plenty of rules we aren't using.... but no rules were changed. So if we are playing DnD, using DnD rules, why isn't it DnD?

I'm not sure what you are "Playing out." You didn't answer my questions at all.

 

[Maxperson]

The issue is in the judgment, not in claiming it to be universal.

That's not true. The claim of "One True Wayism" leveled against @Oofta makes it about whether or not it's universal. If the response had just been, "Hey, I don't appreciate the way you are judging my playstyle." I wouldn't have responded.

The shape of the earth isn’t a judgment, it’s a measurable fact of reality. People who believe it to be flat are simply factually wrong. It’s a poor analogy here.

No it wasn't, because the point was that you can find people who will "judge things differently" with almost anything you put forth, not whether it was factual or not. People holding different judgments doesn't validate or invalidate the statement.

The reason those aren’t D&D isn’t their rule sets, it’s their names and brands. Unless you use a very broad definition of D&D that refers to fantasy roleplaying in general, but that’s a whole other discussion.

I can literally start with D&D and slowly over time, change all of the rules to match those rule sets. Is that D&D or did changing the D&D rules eventually make it not D&D? And if so, when did the change happen?

When two people play the game Dungeons and Dragons in different ways, and one of them says “in my opinion, the way you’re playing isn’t D&D,” they’re marginalizing that way of playing. Even if they acknowledge that the person playing it might think of it as D&D, they’re still judging it to not be so. The “in my opinion” only serves as a weak attempt to defend themselves from accusations of passing judgement. It’s like how “everything you say before ‘but’ doesn’t count.” Even if you claim it’s “just an opinion,” the opinion is still judgemental of other people’s play preferences.

There's a bit of marginalization there in that judgment, yes. I agree. There is not One True Wayism or even that you are doing it wrong.

 

[Oofta]

And that’s fine. “It doesn’t feel like D&D to me” is a different sentiment than “in my opinion it isn’t D&D.”

At what point does a baked dish go from being a pie to a cobbler? Both have a crust, both typically have some kind of a fruit filling.

Yet I wouldn't call a cobbler a pie or vice versa. They're different things but the distinction between the two is really quite arbitrary. What's the real difference between a cupcake and the oversized cupcakes that (generally) lack frosting that are called muffins? I can give a clear definition of a triangle vs a rectangle, but cobbler vs pie, muffin vs cupcake, D&D without a DM and a board game? Not so much. Saying "In my opinion" vs "doesn't feel like" to me is saying the same thing. I can't read your mind, or the mind of everyone who might read this message to know what is acceptable. If I had said "what you're describing is not D&D and anyone who says otherwise is stupid" then I would have absolutely crossed a line.

Maybe if we hadn't gone from "I disagree" to "you're telling me I'm playing wrong" with no in-between I could have phrased things differently.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's not true. The claim of "One True Wayism" leveled against @Oofta makes it about whether or not it's universal. If the response had just been, "Hey, I don't appreciate the way you are judging my playstyle." I wouldn't have responded.

When the people making the claim of one-true-wayism agree that it’s about judgement and not about universality... it’s about judgement and not about universality. It’s possible you have a different idea of what “one true wayism” means and are mistakenly arguing against a different claim that no one is actually making.

No it wasn't, because the point was that you can find people who will "judge things differently" with almost anything you put forth, not whether it was factual or not. People holding different judgments doesn't validate or invalidate the statement.

You’re making my case for me here. You can find people who hold opposing positions to any claim, therefore merely acknowledging that your claim isn’t universal doesn’t absolve you of the implications of your claim.

I can literally start with D&D and slowly over time, change all of the rules to match those rule sets. Is that D&D or did changing the D&D rules eventually make it not D&D? And if so, when did the change happen?

The Ship of Theseus argument doesn’t work here because whether or not it’s the same ship, it’s still the Argo. It might be that at some point the Argo became a different sailing vessel, but this new vessel is still a ship that is called the Argo. Likewise you can house rule D&D to the point that it no longer resembles itself, but it’s still D&D, even if it’s a completely different game than what you started with.

There's a bit of marginalization there in that judgment, yes. I agree. There is not One True Wayism or even that you are doing it wrong.

Marginalizing others’ play preferences is literally what One True Wayism is.

 

[Scott Christian]

I am confused. Are there people on here saying, that playing D&D without a DM, is still D&D?

 

[Oofta]

I am confused. Are there people on here saying, that playing D&D without a DM, is still D&D?

Yes. In addition, if you disagree and that in your opinion it is not, you are telling them they're playing wrong.

 

[FrogReaver]

When the people making the claim of one-true-wayism agree that it’s about judgement and not about universality... it’s about judgement and not about universality. It’s possible you have a different idea of what “one true wayism” means and are mistakenly arguing against a different claim that no one is actually making.

You’re making my case for me here. You can find people who hold opposing positions to any claim, therefore merely acknowledging that your claim isn’t universal doesn’t absolve you of the implications of your claim.

The Ship of Theseus argument doesn’t work here because

IMO. If One-true-wayism means that anyone can call anything D&D and be defended for it then one-true-wayism is a crock of crap.

But one-true-wayism isn't about "calling anything D&D". It's about acknowledging that there are a wide variety of playstyles which others find fun. It's about acknowleding there's a wide variety of ways to play D&D. It's about not telling others what they should find fun. It's not about acknowleding that everything is D&D as long as someone is willing to call it such - that would be absurd.

 

[Campbell]

I guess I just do not see much value in telling people they are not actually doing what they think they are doing. How does that actually lead to a productive conversation ? Especially when we are talking about something as subjective as D&D that resulted in several official versions that are dramatically different games.

I also think history, board culture, and context matters here. In almost every case where I have encountered that particular line of argument it has been used to question the legitimacy of the game, play techniques, and often the poster as something worthy of consideration. In my experience it has been used to shut down conversation rather than delve into it.

 

[Charlaquin]

At what point does a baked dish go from being a pie to a cobbler? Both have a crust, both typically have some kind of a fruit filling.

Yet I wouldn't call a cobbler a pie or vice versa. They're different things but the distinction between the two is really quite arbitrary. What's the real difference between a cupcake and the oversized cupcakes that (generally) lack frosting that are called muffins? I can give a clear definition of a triangle vs a rectangle, but cobbler vs pie, muffin vs cupcake, D&D without a DM and a board game? Not so much.

This is a flawed analogy. Cobbler and pie are different things, and the distinction between them is vague and kind of arbitrary, yes. D&D and Tunnels and Trolls are different things, and the distinction between them is vague and kind of arbitrary. If you play D&D, differently than the rules describe, it’s still D&D, even if it may now more closely resemble Tunnels and Trolls. If you change a pie recipe, it’s still pie, even if it now more closely resembles cobbler.

Saying "In my opinion" vs "doesn't feel like" to me is saying the same thing.

But you aren’t the only person in the conversation. It’s understandable to not realize that the distinction will carry meaning for your audience that it did t for you, but when the audience expresses that the message they received is different than the one you intended to send, refusing to adapt your message and defending the way you originally said it is just being inconsiderate.

I can't read your mind, or the mind of everyone who might read this message to know what is acceptable.

You don’t have to read anyone’s mind, we have told you in no uncertain terms how your message is coming across.