D&D General DM Authority

[Helldritch]

Ok... you kick out the DM of HIS game only to let him play IN his game solo? Is it me or something is weird in this situation?

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

Thanks for the reply.
I am going based off this reply, that your answer to my previous questions is: Playing D&D without a DM is still playing D&D. I am trying my best to not assume anything here. Is that correct?

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

As I just posted to Charlaquin, thanks for answering the question. I am trying to understand. And, full disclosure, I started reading this thread around page 40. So I may have missed some things. I also don't want to assume answers from you, so I would ask the same as I did Charlaquin, is playing D&D without a DM still playing D&D? Thanks again.

 

[TheSword]

As I just posted to Charlaquin, thanks for answering the question. I am trying to understand. And, full disclosure, I started reading this thread around page 40. So I may have missed some things. I also don't want to assume answers from you, so I would ask the same as I did Charlaquin, is playing D&D without a DM still playing D&D? Thanks again.

Yes, if it uses the rules and systems of D&D.

But it doesn’t mean it is a particularly fun, engaging or entertaining way of playing for most people. Not for anything long term.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok... you kick out yhe DM of HIS game only to let him play IN his game solo? Is it me or something is weird in this situation?

Yeah. The fact that you can't kick the DM out of his game

 

[Campbell]

My personal position would be that playing Ironsworn in co-op mode is no farther removed from the roots of the game than a game like Fifth Edition that calls the DM a lead storyteller. Especially if play involves being led through that DM's linear plots. I would call both worthy descendants and part of the greater D&D tradition. Some of the people I play OSR games would call neither worthy of that mantle,

 

[Charlaquin]

Thanks for the reply.
I am going based off this reply, that your answer to my previous questions is: Playing D&D without a DM is still playing D&D. I am trying my best to not assume anything here. Is that correct?

Yes. Just like playing chess against yourself is still playing chess.

 

[Chaosmancer]

They aren't though. This is your misperception of the situation.

Dude, you are wrong. There is literally no other way to put this. If you tell someone who is standing a stove preparing food "You are not cooking" that means you are telling them they are doing something wrong. There is no other way to take this, except by twisting the words into such a contorted shape that somehow you say the exact same thing, but you aren't saying it.

Er, no. It just means that playing it that way makes them consider it not to be D&D, not that you are playing D&D wrong. In fact, it's impossible for them to be saying that you're playing D&D wrong, since to them you aren't playing D&D. In order for someone to be telling you that you are playing D&D wrong, they have to think you are playing D&D in the first place.

Literally, how is this so difficult. Are you seriously trying to defend the idea that by declaring something not even DnD anymore, we are suddenly no longer offering judgement about playing DnD wrong?

That is definitionally telling someone they are playing DnD wrong.

False Dichotomies are false.

3) They just view it as not D&D in their opinion, which means that they literally cannot be telling you that you are playing D&D wrong. They have to view what you are doing as D&D in order for them to be saying that you are playing it wrong.

MAx, you realize where this slope leads right? You realize that this argument then absolves anyone of judging another way of playing the game as long as they first say that the other person is no longer playing the game. This is gatekeeping at its worst. This is deriding someone for reading comics, but it is okay, because they aren't really reading comics in your opinion, so you aren't judging them.

It's impossible to play D&D without a DM and have no rules changed. The DM is part of the rules. There are dozens, if not hundreds of rules that you have to alter to be randomized or decided as a group, rather than the DM.

You know, if I was making a claim like that, you might maybe have a point.

Except, you know, I keep repeating for this EXACT issue that the point Oofta was responding to was playing a Hack and Slash Megadungeon, with few to no NPCs, where you kick down the door, kill the monster, take their stuff, and repeat.

No mention of whether or not there is a DM. Now, after establishing that is a style of DnD, we can back up and I can show how you can play that version of DnD without a DM. But since people were challenging the very idea that Hack and Slash Megadungeons are even DnD, and I have stated repeatedly that was what I was talking about, I am left with two possibilities.

1) No one is actually reading my posts, you and Oofta especially.

2) People are trying to hide judging a style of play behind the more acceptable judging the lack of DMs.

Both are problems. So which one is it?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't hold that opinion. Even if there had been no optional rules, it would still be D&D to me. I'm just saying that if you use rules to change other rules, you have still changed those other rules.

I also find it interesting that some of those who argued that if I am using D&D rules for Centaurs for my game that differ from the Ravnica Centaurs, I am changing rules, but are now arguing that using D&D rules to alter far more rules is not changing rules. It's highly amusing.

Wrong argument.

If you are using DnD rules to change DnD rules, then you are still playing DnD.

And again, the point was not "without a DM" the point was "HAck and Slash Megadungeon" and that changes no rules. Despite people who keep claiming it does.

I mean, I made an entire list of the rules not changed. Did you read it? Did you see ANY mention of DMs in that post?

 

[Maxperson]

Dude, you are wrong. There is literally no other way to put this. If you tell someone who is standing a stove preparing food "You are not cooking" that means you are telling them they are doing something wrong. There is no other way to take this, except by twisting the words into such a contorted shape that somehow you say the exact same thing, but you aren't saying it.

I'm not wrong, nor is there any contortion being done. If you are telling someone that is preparing food that they are not cooking, the only thing going on is that the person making the statement is oblivious to reality. For him to be saying that person is cooking wrong, he has to be saying that the person is cooking. You can't be cooking wrong if you aren't cooking. That's just a fact of life.

Literally, how is this so difficult. Are you seriously trying to defend the idea that by declaring something not even DnD anymore, we are suddenly no longer offering judgement about playing DnD wrong?

That is definitionally telling someone they are playing DnD wrong.

No, it isn't. To be telling someone that they are playing D&D wrong, you MUST be telling them that they are playing D&D. You can't play something wrong if you aren't playing it. That's common sense 101.

MAx, you realize where this slope leads right? You realize that this argument then absolves anyone of judging another way of playing the game as long as they first say that the other person is no longer playing the game. This is gatekeeping at its worst. This is deriding someone for reading comics, but it is okay, because they aren't really reading comics in your opinion, so you aren't judging them.

I utterly reject your ridiculous "slope." What I'm saying doesn't even begin to lead there. That statement would be humorous, but I think you are genuinely serious about it.

Except, you know, I keep repeating for this EXACT issue that the point Oofta was responding to was playing a Hack and Slash Megadungeon, with few to no NPCs, where you kick down the door, kill the monster, take their stuff, and repeat.

No mention of whether or not there is a DM. Now, after establishing that is a style of DnD, we can back up and I can show how you can play that version of DnD without a DM. But since people were challenging the very idea that Hack and Slash Megadungeons are even DnD, and I have stated repeatedly that was what I was talking about, I am left with two possibilities.

1) No one is actually reading my posts, you and Oofta especially.

2) People are trying to hide judging a style of play behind the more acceptable judging the lack of DMs.

Both are problems. So which one is it?

I've already said that I view it as D&D, so...