D&D General Respeckt Mah Authoritah: Understanding High Trust and the Division of Authority

[Lanefan]

That's too bad. That's a lot of time for players to sit there watching you think. I'd quickly disappear into my phone never to be seen again.

It's not like I agonize for hours. I can't recall one where it took me longer than just a few minutes if it's just me making a ruling; I've usually got it nailed within just a few seconds. The ones that take longer are those where someone disagrees and the whole group gets involved; those discussions can go (and in the past have gone) all night.

As I said, discuss it after the session if it needs to be discussed with the group. If you need to think about it more, think about it between sessions.

My point is there is no "after the session". When the session ends, people leave (or more accurately, the session ends because it's late and people have to leave); and these days communication during the week is minimal to none. So it's either discussed during this session or during the next one. (note I'm talking pre-covid in all cases here)

They're there for you to actually run the game and to actually play.

It's a question of short-term pain for long-term gain; if it takes us half an hour to talk out something that's going to potentially affect our game for the next ten years, let's sort it out right now and have done with it.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Eh. It's a game. Nothing is invalidated if we rule different for the next game or if, as sometimes happens, we had a rule wrong. I'm not going to create a houserule to change a spell from the book just because we read it wrong the first time. We just shrug and move on. Things have changed a lot over the years, the rules are just an expression and mechanical implementation of what the characters can do. So we have dwarves that can cast spells, female characters that can have a 20 strength, any number of things have changed over time.

If we were to change something major we'll discuss it as a group and potentially keep the current interpretation for the current campaign.

That’s if there.

“Look, we are doing it this way for now. I will read up on it later. Let’s move on. You guys read about it too. Don’t let me forget.”

And move on.

But I play with friends…I imagine it’s not as easy with randos ata a game store…

If I can’t google fu and decide in mere minutes, I don’t want to waste previous game time. And we may do it differently after we research it more…

 

[Lanefan]

Eh. It's a game. Nothing is invalidated if we rule different for the next game or if, as sometimes happens, we had a rule wrong. I'm not going to create a houserule to change a spell from the book just because we read it wrong the first time. We just shrug and move on. Things have changed a lot over the years, the rules are just an expression and mechanical implementation of what the characters can do. So we have dwarves that can cast spells, female characters that can have a 20 strength, any number of things have changed over time.

The advantage of having put all the spells online is that I can go in and edit the write-ups to include any rulings. Honest misreadings (always a risk when your game is based on something written by Gygax!) generally get baked in as part of the game thenceforth.

If we were to change something major we'll discuss it as a group and potentially keep the current interpretation for the current campaign.

I've been in games where major changes (up to and including a change of edition!) were made on the fly and have rarely if ever been happy with the result in terms of how it feels both in the fiction (why did the entire physics of the setting just change?) and at the table (this character I'm used to playing isn't the same as it was).

Both in and out of character the question "If I could (or couldn't) do something yesterday, all other things being equal why can't (or can) I do it today?" is enough to wreck the game for me.

 

[Lanefan]

Telling new people that "you have to get it right the first time or live with it forever" is GUARANTEED to make sure most people never even try to be a referee.

That's fine with me - it means we get referees willing to live with their mistakes and in the end become better for it.

 

[overgeeked]

It's a question of short-term pain for long-term gain; if it takes us half an hour to talk out something that's going to potentially affect our game for the next ten years, let's sort it out right now and have done with it.

Sure. And for some if there’s that kind of short-term pain there will be no long term. Clearly it works for you and yours. It would not work for me. Hashing out a ruling for 30 minutes would mean I’d left 20 minutes ago. It’s the referee’s job to make the call and keep the game moving.

 

[overgeeked]

That's fine with me - it means we get referees willing to live with their mistakes and in the end become better for it.

I will never understand this attitude. You’re human. You cannot ever be perfect. So why pretend like that’s the minimum baseline to be a referee?

 

[Lanefan]

Running games of any kind will teach you to be a better GM, but the form of the large hardback adventure has a tendency to emphasize a very linear narrative. Official adventures since 2e have tended to have this format, which is quite different from the location-based adventures of OD&D, B/X, and 1e (though those have never disappeared completely, even from first party stuff.)

What running pre-published stand-alone modules can teach a DM is some general ideas of what goes into making an adventure; and running them shows that DM which parts appeal to the table and which maybe don't. The expectation being, of course, that the DM can then go on and write/design their own adventures if so desired.

Running end-to-end APs, however, might not provide the same lessons.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. And for some if there’s that kind of short-term pain there will be no long term. Clearly it works for you and yours. It would not work for me. Hashing out a ruling for 30 minutes would mean I’d left 20 minutes ago. It’s the referee’s job to make the call and keep the game moving.

You clearly run with less stubborn people than do I. The referee can only make a call and keep the game moving if everyone is willing to allow that to happen, but if someone (or several someones) digs in their heels then a discussion is inevitably going to follow - regardless of how often you repeat "The DM is God - Abide or Die" to them.

 

[Lanefan]

I will never understand this attitude. You’re human. You cannot ever be perfect. So why pretend like that’s the minimum baseline to be a referee?

The minimum baseline is not to be perfect, it's to be willing and able to incrementally approach closer to perfection regardless how imperfect you were to begin with.

I mean, hell, when I started I was an awful DM. I'm nowhere near perfect now, but I'd like to think that having learned from many errors I'm better than I was; and that's what counts.

 

[overgeeked]

You clearly run with less stubborn people than do I. The referee can only make a call and keep the game moving if everyone is willing to allow that to happen, but if someone (or several someones) digs in their heels then a discussion is inevitably going to follow - regardless of how often you repeat "The DM is God - Abide or Die" to them.

I’d guess I’ve run with equally stubborn or more stubborn people. I typically play with a table of eight people across three generations, all but one is close family. Brothers, children, cousins, etc. We are a loud and argumentative group. We learned a long time ago that if we start to argue we won’t stop and will spend the whole evening just arguing. So yep, referee’s in charge. Don’t like it, pack your books and leave. Despite that, we’ve now been playing together for almost 40 years. Excepting the kids who’re younger than some of our dice of course.