D&D (2024) D&D Dungeon Master’s Guide (2024)

[Micah Sweet]

No, it implies that neither camp has the final word.

Let's take a hypothetical scenario. A DM and their players sit down to play a game of D&D. The players want bog standard D&D as the PHB presents it. The DM wants a low-magic grim and gritty style game with only humans and no full casters. The players balk at this for various reasons (one player likes elves, one likes their wizards, etc). The two sides are at a stalemate. How do we resolve this?

The God Emperor DM declares they are running their LMGaG game and you either play it or get to stepping. Maybe they browbeat some players into staying (those who didn't protest as hard or feel they don't have a choice). Others leave. Assuming the ratio of quitters to stayers is high, the game ends up dying while the DM tries to find new players.

Likewise, if the players veto the game and the DM acquiesces, then the DM has a miserable time and eventually drops. Maybe a different player steps up, but barring that, game dies.

So total victory is bad on either side. But if the DM is open to making his game a little more open and less grim dark while the players are willing to accept some restrictions on options, you can negotiate a truce. It requires both sides to be flexible in their expectations, willing to change elements, and open to accepting they won't get 100% of what they want.

But most DMing advice often comes down to the idea that the DM never needs to compromise their vision and the players must make the compromise in order to experience the joy of said vision. That, in my experience, ends with DMs finding their play groups have found better things to do on game night. Seen it, been part of it. And yes, entitled players are just as bad faith as entitled DMs. No side is without flaws, but one side gets told by people on the Internet that its flaw isn't bad, is a right given by their title. And that needs to change.

What if one side wants something specific, and the other side explicitly doesn't want that? There are situation where a compromise isn't possible, and someone gets what they and someone else doesn't.

 

[Remathilis]

What if one side wants something specific, and the other side explicitly doesn't want that? There are situation where a compromise isn't possible, and someone gets what they and someone else doesn't.

That depends on what it is and why each side is so entrenched. I don't believe most conflicts of this type are insurmountable, but if you do have one where both sides cannot find compromise, then clearly there were irreconcilable differences and it's best both parties go separate ways. Assuming both parties negotiated in good faith, there is no shame in finding no compromise is possible.

The key is "negotiate in good faith" from both sides.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I mostly wanted the superheroics toned down. Something between Shadowdark and 5e, maybe sitting at 3/4 of the way towards 5e is probably what I would actually want. C

I'd take 3/4 of the way between Shadowdark and 5e for complexity as well as superheroics - and we'd have a very very good game.

For my absolute preference, we'd notch down the complexity of spellcasting another notch, and increase the complexity of gear (with mechanically interesting mundane gear before we get into magic items, and magic items starting smaller than they do in 5e and building from there).

But that's just ideal wishes on my part.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That depends on what it is and why each side is so entrenched. I don't believe most conflicts of this type are insurmountable, but if you do have one where both sides cannot find compromise, then clearly there were irreconcilable differences and it's best both parties go separate ways. Assuming both parties negotiated in good faith, there is no shame in finding no compromise is possible.

The key is "negotiate in good faith" from both sides.

My point is, there is not always a middle ground between two points, so sometimes one side gets what they want and one side doesn't. It's not about being "entrenched". It's about preference.

 

[Oofta]

No, it implies that neither camp has the final word.

Let's take a hypothetical scenario. A DM and their players sit down to play a game of D&D. The players want bog standard D&D as the PHB presents it. The DM wants a low-magic grim and gritty style game with only humans and no full casters. The players balk at this for various reasons (one player likes elves, one likes their wizards, etc). The two sides are at a stalemate. How do we resolve this?

The God Emperor DM declares they are running their LMGaG game and you either play it or get to stepping. Maybe they browbeat some players into staying (those who didn't protest as hard or feel they don't have a choice). Others leave. Assuming the ratio of quitters to stayers is high, the game ends up dying while the DM tries to find new players.

Likewise, if the players veto the game and the DM acquiesces, then the DM has a miserable time and eventually drops. Maybe a different player steps up, but barring that, game dies.

So total victory is bad on either side. But if the DM is open to making his game a little more open and less grim dark while the players are willing to accept some restrictions on options, you can negotiate a truce. It requires both sides to be flexible in their expectations, willing to change elements, and open to accepting they won't get 100% of what they want.

But most DMing advice often comes down to the idea that the DM never needs to compromise their vision and the players must make the compromise in order to experience the joy of said vision. That, in my experience, ends with DMs finding their play groups have found better things to do on game night. Seen it, been part of it. And yes, entitled players are just as bad faith as entitled DMs. No side is without flaws, but one side gets told by people on the Internet that its flaw isn't bad, is a right given by their title. And that needs to change.

You can't have a game without a DM. Technically you don't have a game without players either, but getting players isn't typically an issue unless there are other reasons for a limited pool of players such as where you live. It's not about "victory" or "acquiescence", it's about the DM being happy and invested in running a game. It's about finding the right matchup of DM and players. I'm not the right DM for everyone and if I tried I likely wouldn't be happy or very good at it.

I have no problem adjusting the game to suit players to a certain degree but, yes, the DM has always and will always have the final say and more say in the game than the players. That and if you get 6 players at the table, odds are at least some of them will have different idealized concepts of they game they want to play.

 

[Remathilis]

My point is, there is not always a middle ground between two points, so sometimes one side hits what they want and one side doesn't. It's not about being "entrenched". It's about preference.

Yes, I addressed this. Irreconcilable differences exist. But if both sides tried to find common ground and failed, that's life. If your play group is six people and four players and the DM agrees and one player doesn't, that player is probably the odd man out, but if all five players and the DM disagree, then it's the DM who has to decide if it's worth finding a whole new play group to get what they want. The DM has no more right to impose his preferences on others any more than any other player does.

 

[Remathilis]

You can't have a game without a DM. Technically you don't have a game without players either, but getting players isn't typically an issue unless there are other reasons for a limited pool of players such as where you live.

Yup, it's the notion that "players are plentiful, so who cares what they think" that drives people from the hobby.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, I addressed this. Irreconcilable differences exist. But if both sides tried to find common ground and failed, that's life. If your play group is six people and four players and the DM agrees and one player doesn't, that player is probably the odd man out, but if all five players and the DM disagree, then it's the DM who has to decide if it's worth finding a whole new play group to get what they want. The DM has no more right to impose his preferences on others any more than any other player does.

So long as someone else is willing to DM instead, sure. Not always the case.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yup, it's the notion that "players are plentiful, so who cares what they think" that drives people from the hobby.

None of that changes the fact that you can't have a game without a DM, like it or not.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, I addressed this. Irreconcilable differences exist. But if both sides tried to find common ground and failed, that's life. If your play group is six people and four players and the DM agrees and one player doesn't, that player is probably the odd man out, but if all five players and the DM disagree, then it's the DM who has to decide if it's worth finding a whole new play group to get what they want. The DM has no more right to impose his preferences on others any more than any other player does.

I've had bad DMs. I've had DMs that had obviously burned out but were passive aggressive about it rather than just admitting they were tired of DMing. They eventually didn't have players. No amount of "compromise" would have made them better DMs.

But I've also had DMs that just weren't running the kind of game I wanted to play and I dropped out. They still had plenty of people at their table and I moved on to other games that did fit what I wanted out of the game.

Yup, it's the notion that "players are plentiful, so who cares what they think" that drives people from the hobby.

You know what would drive people from the hobby? People trying to DM a style of game they don't like and therefore doing it badly. If the DM ain't happy, ain't nobody happy. If the DM is just phoning it in, it becomes obvious quickly.