D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Oofta]

You keep arguing against these points, but I haven't seen anyone arguing for them. I don't think they're positions anyone here holds.

Just people saying that if the DM has to tell a player "no" that the DM has automatically broken the trust of the player. That transparency is always better and so on. That if you have even one person at the table who disagrees with others that the individual should be kicked from the group because they're obviously playing "in bad faith".

The attitudes about people who prefer DM authority is quite dismissive. My preference for a game like D&D where rulings over rules and modifying the game to work for the group works better if there's one person who makes the final decision.

 

[clearstream]

Rule Zero: there is no Rule Zero.

Can GMs use Rule Zero to declare that Rule Zero doesn't exist in their game?

Well, as I have often pointed out, agreement to a rule is never enforceable by the rule. There are always background causes for agreement. What we can talk about is what the rule could look like and what effect it has for those who do agree to it.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Rule Zero: there is no Rule Zero.

Can GMs use Rule Zero to declare that Rule Zero doesn't exist in their game?

The Rule Zero of Rule Zero is... you don't talk about Rule Zero

 

[clearstream]

the authority of the rules has no grounding beyond moment-to-moment social agreement to follow them, of course people can change them however they want.

I believe folk can enter into a prior agreement to a rule, that has a determining effect on their acceptance of that rule at subsequent moments within the governed activity.

For example, I enter into a beginner's Chess tournament with a rule that we'll suspend en-passant. Should a moment subsequently arise in which that is called into question (my opponent has a knight positioned to take my advancing pawn through en-passant), we will normally reflect on the agreement we made up front and that will have an effect on our acceptance of the rule in this moment.

 

[gorice]

Getting back to Apocalypse World (and the start of this thread?) for a moment, I was just reading AW the other day, and I was struck by how much power the MC actually has. Possibly even more than a lot of DMs.

A lot of the advice/constraints amount to plain good GMing advice for any non-map-and-key game, like 'don't just drop rocks on your PCs' heads' and 'don't be stingy with information'. If a player wants some cool custom gear, or more money, the playbook's answer is... 'Ask the MC'.

Also, the advice to make prompts about character background ('why is this NPC punching you?'), and especially about scene framing and transitions ('ok, the sniper pins you down for the rest of the day...') would cause a riot at a lot of D&D tables.

I think the real difference is the strict prohibition on prepping plots or set-pieces, and the way the moves system forces rolls with meaningful outcomes in situations that might otherwise deflate or be resolved by GM fiat (with quantum ogres tempting the GM from somewhere in their peripheral vision). AW is, by its own admission, a very traditional, GM-heavy game, but it has guard-rails in place to prevent railroading, get the players to actually play their characters, and give actual results when you roll the dice.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I really, really wish a compromise was always possible. I mean, after a certain amount of arguing about something, most people will eventually let player who talks over everyone else the loudest win because they just get tired and it's not worth it. If you've never had that guy in your group (and it's almost always a guy) your lucky.

This has nothing to do with trust, etc. but I've DMed a lot for public games and we allow just about anyone to sit at the table unless they're outright abusive. Unfortunately being an opinionated A-hole doesn't usually meet the standard of kicking them. Of course I'll listen to people, but in the middle of a game they get a minute or so and then I make a ruling and we move on. If they want, we can discuss further after the game.

That, and a lot of times there simply isn't no "right" answer. I don't remember the last time I had to take a hard stance as a DM, it's usually just a "here's how I run it" and we move on because it's something like stealth. Even then it's typically something the person looks up after the call was made and we move on.

See, what I read from this is basically "my way of running things is not up for negotiation, so I will not compromise, period." Now, I expect that's a bit more extreme than the actual situation perhaps, but might the fact that compromise doesn't happen depend on the fact that YOU, as one of the parties involved, simply won't do it? It takes 2 to tango! Obviously there's no definitive answer here, this is all hypotheticals and we can only really talk factually about specific cases, but this is the reason people fail to compromise, because they CHOOSE NOT TO. We are all moral actors, our actions are our own and under our control, so we ARE responsible for the outcomes.

And yes, I've run all sorts of games, in shops, libraries, schools, etc. as well as many games with my chosen friends, and some at cons. I don't see that there's any substantive difference. While I can IMAGINE some monumental jerk who is entirely intractable and who's demands are both absolute and absurd, I have not actually experienced that person. That is to say, if you explain, calmly and clearly, why you take a certain position and why you don't believe certain things should happen, then these people have either of two responses, they compromise, or they just leave. The ONLY exceptions here would be abusive, racist, etc. kinds of behavior, and when I ran into a group that insisted on doing this stuff I just shut down the whole game and that was that. But that one specific caveat aside, its an elf game, we can come to some mutually acceptable arrangement about any other part of it!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Just to add to the above ... let's assume Bob wants something to work one way and as a DM I want it to work another. Now Bob can be obstinate on stupid things and is a bit of a power gamer who tries to eek out edge cases. Pretty much everyone at the table realizes this, except Bob. What kind of compromise is there for this person? It's not like it's the DM vs the entire table, it's Bob trying to pull some shenanigan the DM doesn't want to deal with and the rest of the table either agrees with the DM or don't care.

I play in a game with a Bob. I'm not the DM, but every now and then the DM just needs to tell Bob that it doesn't work that way (i.e. taking too many actions or obviously bending the rules to the breaking point). I guess we could stop the game while we all tell Bob he can't do that, but several of the people at the table are newbies (Bob isn't) and simply don't know the rules. It doesn't rise to the level of disinviting Bob but if we have to switch times/venues to when Bob can't make it I don't think anyone will be too heartbroken.

I think there's an assumption there that 'compromise' or 'reaching an agreement' needs to involve one side giving up something. In this case Bob obviously doesn't press the point and goes back to playing however the other people at the table seem to want to play. Be careful though, there may be times when Bob's notion of how things should go might actually work well! I mean, again, this is all too hypothetical to say, but until you admit the POSSIBILITY of changing your position, you face the danger of a failure to reach an agreement.

 

[Aldarc]

I disagree that it is is pointless. It might not be a rule that you desire, but given that you can differentiate it from another rule with a somewhat similar affect (1. Users of an RPG can change the rules if they want to) it stands as a possible rule. (It changes or conditions 1., making it work differently.)

Nope. Cut it out. My entire point was that what I was describing about people being able to change the rules is not a rule. Stop trying to make this into a rule.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Nope.

Consider my example above, of a player feeling that it is unfair that only the one person gets to rework their character, not everyone. Their position is, in simple terms, "Either everyone should get this benefit, or no one should get this benefit." Meanwhile, my initial position is simply, "The cleric gets this benefit."

No one needs to compromise or give up things they value to make these positions align. It is as simple as, "Oh, that's okay, we can give everyone a chance to do the same thing. The reasons will be different though, so if anyone else wants to rework their character, even in a small way, we just need to sit down and work out the how and why." Likewise, if the player individually wants something (like, say, spending group money on a personal benefit), there's no compromise required in saying that they'll pay it forward or take a lesser share of future treasure or the like. That's just the players agreeing between themselves how treasure will be distributed, something everyone agrees needs to happen (assuming everyone is actually playing in good faith, of course.)

The only situations that actually meet your description are the ones where two+ groups want, on at least one axis, mutually exclusive things, and thus only one side or the other can get what they want.

My players haven't given me a situation yet where that is true. The closest they've come was when they approached a powerful NPC ally (a disguised gold dragon) and asked if he would be willing to come to their aid, should they get caught in a desperate situation. My immediate response was dismay, as I worried I would be robbing their victories of meaning if I said yes, but crapping on their agency if I said no, both terrible options. However, on reflection, I understood what their true desire was: a safety net, an emergency get-out-of-jail-free card just in case things went absolutely to $#!+. That isn't a compromise in my eyes; it navigates the Scylla and Charybdis of this problem well. So of course I worked out a solution and confirmed it was sufficient for their needs. TL;DR: NPC made them earrings, one lets them chat with each other freely so long as they're more or less on the same continen (crazy useful!) and the other can be sacrificed to summon the NPC to the party should desperate times call for it, but only once, and only briefly--an escape, a rescue, perhaps a few moments to turn a nasty fight around, but no more. All of my interests were satisfied (I did not feel I was wronging the party, neither robbing their victories nor ignoring their agency), and all of my players' interests were satisfied (they got a powerful NPC's help for an emergency, if needed.)


I don't think either has occurred in my game. I actively engage with my players both in and out of game, both individually and collectively, to make sure their needs are being met. As noted above, I have encouraged an environment where, if someone has an issue, they can bring it to me and I will anonymously discuss it with the group, that way the quiet folks can speak up without having to scrape up their courage first (as someone with at least mild social anxiety, that's something I very much understand.) When there are instigator players, I work with them to make sure their interests are aligning with the group's; as I said, something of a facilitator role, rather than referee or autocrat.

Everyone at the table wants everyone else to have a great time. That means everyone understands that just getting amazing/fun/desirable things for themselves is not enough, or worse, actively detrimental. The party shares gear; the Bard once spent quite a bit of his personal money on a magic ring of flight, only to later acquire a different ability to fly on his own; the ring has since been shared with the party on the regular, such that I want to say the Battlemaster has actually worn it more than the Bard has. This wasn't a request; it was actively volunteered by the Bard, because doing so was helpful to the group and its goals.

That's all you need: a genuine commitment to helping everyone have fun, not just yourself. Finding ways to build a great experience for others, not just yourself. Obviously, still have fun and do awesome things. My job as GM is to help make that happen. Agenda: "portray a fantastic world," "fill the characters' lives with adventure"; Principles: "embrace the fantastic," "be a fan of the characters." My players, likewise, have their own job to do, namely doing adventurous things and being fantastic while doing them. And one of the best parts of most fantasy adventures is struggling alongside your True Companions as you journey forth.

I don't believe @Oofta has any selfish motives here, he's expressing a desire for 'order', a certain type of authority structure in the context of game play which he's comfortable and familiar with. This leads to a perceived need to be the authority on classic GM things. This need produces conflict when juxtaposed with other people's incompatible needs. This is where, for example, the teachings of Buddhism can be highly useful, explaining that it is the annihilation of these desires, these needs, which produces higher states of existing. I mean, its a bit overblown maybe to apply this to an RPG, and I'm certainly not trying to sell something here so to speak, but looking into this kind of tradition can be an extremely effective way to see the root of these issues and unravel them. You could also look at it from an Existentialist perspective I believe, but I'm on far less certain ground there, so I will just observe that the idea of personal responsibility for problems is strong in that tradition.

 

[Oofta]

See, what I read from this is basically "my way of running things is not up for negotiation, so I will not compromise, period." Now, I expect that's a bit more extreme than the actual situation perhaps, but might the fact that compromise doesn't happen depend on the fact that YOU, as one of the parties involved, simply won't do it? It takes 2 to tango! Obviously there's no definitive answer here, this is all hypotheticals and we can only really talk factually about specific cases, but this is the reason people fail to compromise, because they CHOOSE NOT TO. We are all moral actors, our actions are our own and under our control, so we ARE responsible for the outcomes.

And yes, I've run all sorts of games, in shops, libraries, schools, etc. as well as many games with my chosen friends, and some at cons. I don't see that there's any substantive difference. While I can IMAGINE some monumental jerk who is entirely intractable and who's demands are both absolute and absurd, I have not actually experienced that person. That is to say, if you explain, calmly and clearly, why you take a certain position and why you don't believe certain things should happen, then these people have either of two responses, they compromise, or they just leave. The ONLY exceptions here would be abusive, racist, etc. kinds of behavior, and when I ran into a group that insisted on doing this stuff I just shut down the whole game and that was that. But that one specific caveat aside, its an elf game, we can come to some mutually acceptable arrangement about any other part of it!

I've had argumentative players who want their interpretation of the rules which simply was different from how I understood the rule. It's rare and if you've never run into that person you're lucky. You've never had someone ask "How do you handle [fill in the blank?" Because that's incredibly common in every public game I've played. It's not a matter of being a jerk or uncooperative, there are just some things that are open to interpretation or intentionally left open ended.

In the current game I'm playing in we discussed this kind of thing in the session 0. We chatted a bit, I made some suggestions and we discussed it but ultimately the DM made a decision. I was fine with it. For example, if I was deciding on what kind of fighter to run I may ask how they handle the shield master feat. I allow people to make the bonus action shield bash to knock enemies prone before their attack, I think the feat is effectively worthless if they have to take it after all attacks are resolved. I'm perfectly okay with whatever the DM decides, it may just change my PC's build. That is the kind of thing I see at the table when it comes to disagreements.

In my example there is no right or wrong, no definitive answer unless you take Sage Advice as gospel. It's just a judgement call someone has to make, including the importance of Sage Advice. Same way with are what source books, multi-classing, feats, etc. allowed.