D&D General DM Authority

[Oofta]

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.

Having a different opinion does not invalidate your opinion.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Yes. You can easily use random tables to generate and populate a dungeon, and using the D&D rules, explore and loot that dungeon, and it would certainly be D&D. It wouldn’t be D&D I’d want to play, but it would be D&D.

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

You’re telling them they’re not playing D&D, which implicitly invalidates their opinion that it is D&D. It can’t both be D&D and not be D&D, so if your opinion is that it isn’t D&D, your opinion must necessarily be that their assessment of it as D&D is factually incorrect.

 

[Oofta]

Yes. You can easily use random tables to generate and populate a dungeon, and using the D&D rules, explore and loot that dungeon, and it would certainly be D&D. It wouldn’t be D&D I’d want to play, but it would be D&D.

You’re telling them they’re not playing D&D, which implicitly invalidates their opinion that it is D&D. It can’t both be D&D and not be D&D, so if your opinion is that it isn’t D&D, your opinion must necessarily be that their assessment of it as D&D is factually incorrect.

No, I'm telling them, what I have continued to say is, that I would not consider it D&D but if they do it's fine.

On the other hand what you seem to be saying is that I can't express my opinion, no matter how careful I am to make it clear that the intent is not to invalidate anyone else's opinion, because you disagree. Do you not see the double standard? It's okay to express an opinion as long as it agrees with yours?

If I said "It's not D&D no matter what you say" it would be one-true-wayism. I've never said that.

Sometimes there is no one true answer, whether it comes down to opinions on what qualifies as D&D or how to interpret a specific rule.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, I'm telling them, what I have continued to say is, that I would not consider it D&D but if they do it's fine.

On the other hand what you seem to be saying is that I can't express my opinion, no matter how careful I am to make it clear that the intent is not to invalidate anyone else's opinion, because you disagree. Do you not see the double standard? It's okay to express an opinion as long as it agrees with yours?

Look, a game must either be D&D or not be D&D. Both things can’t simultaneously be true. If it is your opinion that a game is not D&D, it must necessarily be the case that you think people who think it is are wrong - otherwise it would be D&D.

As you have astutely observed, this goes both directions - since it is my opinion is that D&D without a DM is D&D, it must necessarily be the case that I think people who think it isn’t are wrong. That’s why I call that stance out as one-true-wayism, as it is implicitly limiting to what can be considered D&D.

I’m not saying you aren’t allowed to have a different opinion. I’m saying that the opinion you are expressing limits D&D to what you consider to be D&D, which is the definition of one-true-wayism. If that is not your opinion, then you are not expressing whatever your actual opinion is very clearly.

If I said "It's not D&D no matter what you say" it would be one-true-wayism. I've never said that.

It doesn’t matter. A game can’t be D&D and not be D&D at the same time, so if you say it’s your opinion that a game is not D&D, the “no matter what you say” part doesn’t need to be stated. It is the only logically valid conclusion to be drawn from your statement. If I “this is D&D” and you say “no it isn’t”, you’re saying that I’m wrong. We can certainly disagree about whether or not it’s D&D, but it’s my opinion that your stance limits what can be considered D&D based on your criteria. To one true way, you might say.

Sometimes there is no one true answer, whether it comes down to opinions on what qualifies as D&D or how to interpret a specific rule.

No, there’s a true answer. A game is D&D, or it is not. We are disagreeing on whether a particular game qualifies as D&D, and my opinion is that your view is too exclusionary - or in common parlance, one-true-wayist.

 

[Oofta]

Look, a game must either be D&D or not be D&D. Both things can’t simultaneously be true. If it is your opinion that a game is not D&D, it must necessarily be the case that you think people who think it is are wrong - otherwise it would be D&D.

In this case, I disagree. It's a label, nothing more. You can change a lot of things in the game but at a certain point it loses the label.

As you have astutely observed, this goes both directions - since it is my opinion is that D&D without a DM is D&D, it must necessarily be the case that I think people who think it isn’t are wrong. That’s why I call that stance out as one-true-wayism, as it is implicitly limiting to what can be considered D&D.

I’m not saying you aren’t allowed to have a different opinion. I’m saying that the opinion you are expressing limits D&D to what you consider to be D&D, which is the definition of one-true-wayism. If that is not your opinion, then you are not expressing whatever your actual opinion is very clearly.

It doesn’t matter. A game can’t be D&D and not be D&D at the same time, so if you say it’s your opinion that a game is not D&D, the “no matter what you say” part doesn’t need to be stated. It is the only logically valid conclusion to be drawn from your statement. If I “this is D&D” and you say “no it isn’t”, you’re saying that I’m wrong. We can certainly disagree about whether or not it’s D&D, but it’s my opinion that your stance limits what can be considered D&D based on your criteria. To one true way, you might say.

No, there’s a true answer. A game is D&D, or it is not. We are disagreeing on whether a particular game qualifies as D&D, and my opinion is that your view is too exclusionary - or in common parlance, one-true-wayist.

Except I'm not telling anyone that they're wrong. Opinions can differ based on preferences and perspective. There are times when opinions are in the eye of the beholder. If you like Rocky Road ice cream and I prefer chocolate, neither one of us is "right".

Any way this is going around in circles. If someone plays a game without a DM they aren't doing anything wrong, I just wouldn't personally consider it D&D but if someone else does that's fine. Feel free to have a different opinion because it's not worth arguing about.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

Can I ask a serious question. Not being sarcastic.

If you saw someone playing chess against themselves. And they insisted that their version of chess is just as much chess as the people who play against opponents. Would you say their definition of chess is valid? Skewed? Correct? What word would go there?

 

[Charlaquin]

In this case, I disagree. It's a label, nothing more. You can change a lot of things in the game but at a certain point it loses the label.

Right, but again, the game either merits that label or it doesn’t. We may disagree about the point at which it loses the label, but wherever you think the line lies, the only logically valid conclusion is that you think people who think it lies elsewhere are wrong about that.

Except I'm not telling anyone that they're wrong. Opinions can differ based on preferences and perspective. There are times when opinions are in the eye of the beholder. If you like Rocky Road ice cream and I prefer chocolate, neither one of us is "right".

No, but that’s a preference. If you were saying you prefer D&D with a DM, I would have no objection to that (in fact I would agree with you). But you’re saying you don’t think it’s D&D. The appropriate analogy would be saying you don’t think rocky road is ice cream.

Any way this is going around in circles. If someone plays a game without a DM they aren't doing anything wrong, I just wouldn't personally consider it D&D but if someone else does that's fine. Feel free to have a different opinion because it's not worth arguing about.

Obviously they aren’t doing anything wrong, I don’t think any of us disagree about that. When you say “I wouldn’t personally consider it D&D,” the logical implication is “and therefore I would consider people who call it D&D to be in error.” If you don’t believe they’re in error, then it isn’t logically consistent to say you believe it isn’t D&D.

 

[Scott Christian]

Yes. You can easily use random tables to generate and populate a dungeon, and using the D&D rules, explore and loot that dungeon, and it would certainly be D&D. It wouldn’t be D&D I’d want to play, but it would be D&D.

What about all the things that are not attached to tables? I am thinking of the dozens of judgement calls DMs make during a session?

 

[Charlaquin]

What about all the things that are not attached to tables? I am thinking of the dozens of judgement calls DMs make during a session?

There are ways to handle those judgment calls, either by making them collectively, by setting up a system whereby responsibility for making those calls falls on different people at different times (perhaps taking turns doing so), or by relegating those judgement calls to random number generation.

For instance, the Mythic system can be grafted on to any RPG to make it GM-less. It works by the players asking yes/no questions and having the answer determined by the roll of a die, with four possible outcomes: yes, no, dramatically yes, or dramatically no. It requires a little interpretation on the part of the players, but it works well enough. I wouldn’t really be the biggest fan of D&D using the Mythic system, but I would still call it D&D. Maybe “Mythic D&D” in contexts where that degree of specificity is warranted.

 

[prabe]

Can I ask a serious question. Not being sarcastic.

If you saw someone playing chess against themselves. And they insisted that their version of chess is just as much chess as the people who play against opponents. Would you say their definition of chess is valid? Skewed? Correct? What word would go there?

That question is both leading and missing the point. D&D, as a non-competitive game, doesn't really need an "other side" the way chess does. I mean, some DMs are more antagonistic than others, but they're still not the other side, exactly.

What about all the things that are not attached to tables? I am thinking of the dozens of judgement calls DMs make during a session?

As has been discussed practically ad nauseum upthread, there are ways to devolve the DM's authority to the table. Maybe one player is more of a rules-lawyer than the rest, and fair: That's the one making most of the rules decisions. Maybe other decisions are by concensus, or at least vote, around the table. It's really not difficult to conceive of ways to handle these things, as a practical matter. Whether they'd feel like D&D--or whether the game you played that way would do what one prefers a game of D&D do--is a matter of taste and preference.