D&D (2024) The Role of the DM in One D&D

[Scott Christian]

I know some on this board feel that the DM's power has lessened in the 5e era. I don't see how this is quantifiable, but it doesn't make the matter moot. So, the question begs - what can One D&D do to bring back the role of a stronger DM?

I was having a discussion with a friend, and we came up with this. In D&D Beyond (or whatever program they will use), ask a few basic questions before the player builds the character.

1. Question One: Where is your DM holding the current campaign? (This might limit species and classes. The top answer could be homebrew which includes everything. That could be spelled out in the drop down menu.)
2. Question Two: Is your DM using feats?

That was all we thought were needed. He liked the idea of settings dictating species and classes. (I too, think it is smart to have a setting be the driver of such things for RPGs. I just think in D&D it doesn't matter.) More importantly for me, I like the fact that it formally transfers the reigns over to the DM. I think that is important, especially for new players.

Ideas? Thoughts? Love it? Ditch it?

 

[Clint_L]

I'm confused - those already exist as toggles in DnDBeyond.

I'm the wrong person to talk to about empowering DMs, though. I turned my last session into a hybrid of D&D and Fiasco and everyone at the table had an equal say in the story.

 

[R_J_K75]

I know some on this board feel that the DM's power has lessened in the 5e era. I don't see how this is quantifiable,

I've said this many times over the last 20+ years and I believe it started in 3E. You are correct that its not quantifiable in a traditional sense, but 3E seemed to quantify the rules more, with little room or need for interpretation. There wasnt much need for DM intervention in alot of cases when a player could just cite rule "x" or rule "y". IMO this isnt as prevalent in the 5E era as there is some stuff that is left vague on purpose. I was reading the 2E PHB this week and there are lots of instances where it specifically says how some rules are used is determined by the DM. More of this in 1D&D could be helpful. Another thing Ive noticed over the last 20 years is players rarely consult the DM when making PCs and pushback pretty relentlessly if the DM tries to modify or ban a rule to suit their game/campaign.

 

[Clint_L]

I've said this many times over the last 20+ years and I believe it started in 3E. You are correct that its not quantifiable in a traditional sense, but 3E seemed to quantify the rules more, with little room or need for interpretation. There wasnt much need for DM intervention in alot of cases when a player could just cite rule "x" or rule "y". IMO this isnt as prevalent in the 5E era as there is some stuff that is left vague on purpose. I was reading the 2E PHB this week and there are lots of instances where it specifically says how some rules are used is determined by the DM. More of this in 1D&D could be helpful. Another thing Ive noticed over the last 20 years is players rarely consult the DM when making PCs and pushback pretty relentlessly if the DM tries to modify or ban a rule to suit their game/campaign.

Why would you let a player push back relentlessly? That's a DM problem, not a player problem. If they want to run a campaign, they are more than welcome. I could use a break! My players have tons of freedom to contribute to the story, even by improvising details of the environment as long as they don't abuse it. But if I'm running the game, I'm running the game.

Maybe it's because I have decades as a teacher, but I don't get into arguments while playing. We agree on the rules at session 0, and during the game we keep the story moving. If you think I've made a mistake, let me know, and I'll think about it and clarify. Once I've clarified, that's it. If you still disagree, we can talk about it later, but I'm not letting you derail a game over it. It's the same in my classroom - bring the issue to my attention, I'll consider and clarify (maybe I was wrong! It happens!), but once I've clarified there's no debate. Talk to me outside of class if there is still an issue. Make a convincing case and I'll change my mind, but not if you keep coming at me while class or game is in session.

I've been playing since 1e and I have never found there to be a problem with DM agency.

 

[Greg K]

I was reading the 2E PHB this week and there are lots of instances where it specifically says how some rules are used is determined by the DM.

It was in 3e. It was stated multiple times in the DMG for 3.0 (and I have been told for 3.5) which is why many players were not aware of it.

 

[James Gasik]

All rules are subject to the DM's fiat. Unfortunately, when 3e came out, we got the internet as well, and a lot of players, tired of abusive DM's had a forum to start sharing stories, and came to the realization that "maybe some DM's shouldn't be final authorities on rules". And maybe asking your DM to actually stick to RAW, especially on things like player wealth and access to magic items, which were now assumed to be part of the system, was a good thing.

YMMV, of course, but I sure felt this way, and I'm a DM myself. I have tons of horrible stories of DM's I knew who took all the wrong lessons from Gary's comments in the 1e DMG and were petty tyrants, perfectly willing to stomp on any enjoyment a player might eke from the experience.

So just remember, all you good DM's who want more leeway, remember there are terrible DM's who honestly shouldn't have any.

 

[Clint_L]

And maybe asking your DM to actually stick to RAW, especially on things like player wealth and access to magic items, which were now assumed to be part of the system, was a good thing.

Wait, what? What are RAW on player wealth and access to magic items? Those are totally at the DM's discretion. I prefer a fairly low level magic item campaign for gameplay reasons, and I'm not shy about it. I also don't give out huge piles of treasure. I think games where the characters are mega-wealthy get boring. Maybe that's not what you meant.

Also, I cheerfully veto RAW any time they lead to a situation that doesn't make sense.

 

[James Gasik]

Wait, what? What are RAW on player wealth and access to magic items? Those are totally at the DM's discretion. I prefer a fairly low level magic item campaign for gameplay reasons, and I'm not shy about it. I also don't give out huge piles of treasure. I think games where the characters are mega-wealthy get boring. Maybe that's not what you meant.

Also, I cheerfully veto RAW any time they lead to a situation that doesn't make sense.

The Wealth by Level guidelines that 3e was designed around?

EDIT: I was responding to what Greg K was saying, maybe I should have quoted that to be clear.

 

[kunadam]

I agree with Clink_L that it is abolutely up to the DM to decide on the amount of wealth and magical items. The CR calculation depends on it. But then encounter design is also up the the DM. So if in my low magic setting I do not throw monster at my players that could be only hit by +3 weapons, which does not exist in the setting, that is entirely up to me.
I feel that some rules were implemented to mitigate the problem with stingy DMs. For example, that as a wizard you get new spells every level and you do not have to pay the price in gold. But of course your DM can also rule that the cost for the special ink is covered by your local magic university for all the service you have done for them.

 

[MNblockhead]

I've always preferred the term judge or referee of dungeon/game master. My general style when running campaigns is:

1. Give 2-3 options of the kind of campaign I'm interested in running, along with theme, overall playstyle, what the world is like, and any variant/homebrew rules.

2. The group comes to a consensus on which campaign we want to play.

3. I write up a short campaign guide that spells out an variants from RAW, general expectations for the campaign, etc. Usually there is some back and forth to tweak things.

4. Session Zero. One last discussion to make sure everyone is on board. Whether players come with characters already made, make them together, or I run a funnel game depends on the campaign.

5. During play, we agree that a ruling can be challenged. I don't mind a bit of rule lawyering, it is actually part of the fun of the game for me. But we keep it very short (a few minutes at most), and I as the judge makes the final ruling. We can revisit between sessions.

6. As the campaign progresses, we re-evaluate rules. When something becomes an issue for us, we'll make homebrew something to fix it. For fun we name the rule on the PC or NPC or event that necessitated the rule.

Now that I've been running 5e for almost a decade, I've gotten much better at foreseeing certain issues that could arise depending on the type of campaign I want to run. My default style of RAW plus player-vetter homebrew works well in most campaigns, I generally don't throw rules out for story. But that has backfired on me. Most notably in my Curse of Strahd campaign. It was one of my favorite campaigns for almost the entire year we played it, but the ending was anti-climatic, leading to a fairly easy defeat of Strahd and little actual exploration of the castle. This was largely due to my sticking with card reading for Strahd's location. If I would have just fudged the location and had him located somewhere else, it would have been a much more satisfactory ending to the campaign, but I stuck to the rules as presented in the book.