D&D General DM Authority

[Oofta]

@Oofta is right. You keep ignoring the whole discussion and you focus/nitpick on what you believe will prove your point by taking it out of its context. You're not a bad person, but your approach to most discussion is usually a twisted view of what was or what was not said. You cite the tiny bit that goes along what you want to prove and ignore the rest.

Again, you're a good open minded person. You have a lot to offer this forum for your analytical mind is also a kind one. But what you do is perceived as nitpicking (and I am sure it is not your intention) can get a lot of bad reactions. Try to see both sides of a post and temper yourself (something I must do myself, I am not perfect either). Nothing is ever fully black or white. There are a lot of shades of grey... (no I don't refer to that damn book...)

And for our subject...
Yes we are talking about rare exceptions where a toxic or very obnoxious player will want to pervert a campaign or drive the DM to "his" side. But if such players were so rare, why does everyone here have a story about some? When tournaments were done in the 80's, I have had my share, and more than one of this type of players. In fact, as I was often the Prime DM for the tournaments, I often had to come into a table and settle an arguement. Often giving a player a warning for not abiding by the rule of the DM. Only once in a dozen or so tournament have I to rule against a DM. Tournament rules and expectations were quite clear. Yet quite a few players were trying to pull off stuff that were not in the rules or simply bad interpretation.

One example: A player was insisting on casting Feign Death on unwilling subject as to put them on catalepsis and simply killing them. It was not how the spell was working and it degenerated into a shouting match between the DM and the player. I had to put that player out and it almost cost his team a place in the next phase of the tournament. Fortunately, once out of the game, I got to talk to the player and he finally understood that his behavior was not welcomed. He came to the next phase and behaved as was expected of him.

We all agree that, as the relationship between players and DM evolves, trust comes and frictions and arguements go down to become a rarity. And whenever we get a new player, most experienced DM will make sure that this new player will understand the written and the unwritten rules of the table. It's only when the DM does not inform the new player (be it online or live) that potential situations for arguments can arise. So I strongly believe that most situations can be resolved quickly without hurting the feelings of anyone.

First, I appreciate the effort, you are obviously much more diplomatic than I am at times. I mean, I finally broke a long standing rule and used the ignore function (at least for a while, just for my sanity), but I wish you luck.

I also agree that sometimes there are bad players. I think a lot of it though comes down to establishing acceptable behavior. I've been at a table (as player and DM) where a player started raising their voice when they didn't get their way. It was not a comfortable situation for anyone. The best solution was for the DM to stay calm and stick to their guns, possibly suggesting a longer conversation after the game, and hopefully after the player calms down. Worst case simply let them know they can calm down or they can leave.

Then there's a whole lot of in-between. Players that are simply very opinionated and persistent. In some ways they can be more difficult to deal with because you probably don't want the belligerent ones at your table anyway.

It's those opinionated/persistent ones in some ways that can be the most difficult to deal with. Sometimes they're all-around good people that for the most part you enjoy playing with. The thing is though, once they start pushing if you try to compromise, give an inch, they'll just keep pushing and pushing because they're convinced they're right and and they won't let up. I'm all for talking out an issue, maybe making a ruling in the moment and talking about it after the game, but sometimes prodding and prodding by the player just makes it worse.

Of course there's a whole spectrum of people, everywhere from never questioning to arguing on a regular basis in order to get a favorable rule for their PC on a regular basis. I'm lucky with my current group because I don't have anyone like the latter but if I had to guess I'd say in my experience they're somewhere around 5% of players (using my ever-so-scientific SWAG process) are going to want to regularly bend rules to benefit them. Often without ever accepting or realizing that they're bending the rules. On the other hand the experiences I've had is that they almost never push for rules that benefit other PCs unless it helps them.

Standard Disclaimer: reasonable people can and do disagree, so sometimes someone has to make a final decision. I think it works best overall if that person is the DM, but there is no one true way.

 

[Oofta]

Has it occurred to people that it's a pain in the neck to have to be asked to give your opinion if a real interpretation is reasonable or not. I suspect would most people would prefer there's a person to decide so that they can move on with the game.

Hell, I use to become really annoyed when there was a rule issue and the GM would root around in the books looking for an answer. "Just make a decision" I would think so we could get on with playing the game we were all there to play.

The GM controls the pace of the game so therefore the GM is naturally the one too lead. Hell even if you're making a ruling by consensus it's most likely the GM who's leading the discussion that leads to consensus.

Yeah, we generally have a 2 minute rule at my and my wife's table. At the most spend 2 minutes then make a decision and move on unless it's incredibly critical matter of PC life and death or some major plot point. We can always double check the rule later.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Agree with this. I like games that produce a compelling story as part of the process of play, but for my tastes we should be treating games as games.

How much weight you should put on the "role playing" part and how much on the "game" part is one of those things you can go around and around about in this hobby.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yep. Which is what inherently makes that technique soo bad in most cases. No one likes a bait and switch.

I've seen reports of people that did like the overall effect; its not impossible with the right group. I think I'd very much want a warning that the campaign might not be what it seems up-front.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Has it occurred to people that it's a pain in the neck to have to be asked to give your opinion if a real interpretation is reasonable or not. I suspect would most people would prefer there's a person to decide so that they can move on with the game.

It absolutely is for some people, which I've acknowledged from word one. I just don't buy it is for everyone, because I know its not, and there's no reason you can't have a group full of those people (I've certainly had at least two in each group I've run for).

Hell, I use to become really annoyed when there was a rule issue and the GM would root around in the books looking for an answer. "Just make a decision" I would think so we could get on with playing the game we were all there to play.

You're not everyone.

 

[cmad1977]

Then I will repeat that there are people that will bend rules to the breaking point and can be belligerent about it. Or they just make stuff up that is not in the realm of reasonable ruling. In addition some rules are just vague and need a final ruling.

If you've never hit that good for you. Personally I'll follow the advice in the PHB and DMG.

Who does this though? This doesn’t sound like something real people do. And if you game with people who would... why?
The issue here isn’t one of “where does authority lie?” Its “why are you playing with people that make you ask that question?”

 

[Don Durito]

You're not everyone.

No. Of course not.

Implying that it needs to be said is implying that I was suggested a universal.

Which is a dick move because it's twisting what I was saying to it's exact opposite.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm also not a piece of cheese.

Or in other words, implying that it needs to be said is implying that I was suggested a universal.

Which is a dick move because it's twisting what I was saying to it's exact opposite.

If I read too much into it, I apologize, but this thread has been pretty full of people willing to say what other people can't do, so I was kind of unwilling to assume you weren't overgeneralizing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Who does this though? This doesn’t sound like something real people do. And if you game with people who would... why?
The issue here isn’t one of “where does authority lie?” Its “why are you playing with people that make you ask that question?”

There are absolutely people who will game process given a chance. A group is perfectly capable of engaging with that problem just as much as an individual authority figure, if they're willing to.

 

[Oofta]

Who does this though? This doesn’t sound like something real people do. And if you game with people who would... why?
The issue here isn’t one of “where does authority lie?” Its “why are you playing with people that make you ask that question?”

I've seen it repeatedly to varying levels.