D&D General DM Authority

[Oofta]

Do not be sorry. We are all humans after all. If anything, I should plead guilty of the same. And you are right, after 100+ posts, it is easy to misread, misinterpret or draw false conclusions. Hell, sometimes answering to somebody might mean that an other one posted and invalidate or modify the meaning/intent of the message you were writing. Again, I am guilty of that too. Try as I may, I am not 100% perfect (but sooo close! ). Jokes' asides we all make mistakes. As long as we can forget each others, we can further our discussions.



The bad cases usually happen with new players that do not know what is acceptable or not. And in new, I mean new to a table and not necessarily inexperienced. We all come from different experience and what is normal at a table might not be at an other. Many houserules are often forget to be house rules and assumed to be rules. Period. So when a player comes to a new table, his old habits might kick in and all of a sudden... BOOM! A big arguement erupts like a volcano. As I have done many tournaments in the days, my opening speech as DM in chief and organizer was to tell everyone to remember that house rules were just that. House rules and they had no place in tournaments. In one big tournament we had 25 DMs... each with his (and one was a she) house rules. So we all had to be on the same page and we adjusted our rulings accordingly. Me and two others were there to be sure that if an arguement at a table was erupting, we would be there to either support or invalidate a DMs decision. It happened once or twice, that we invalidated a DM. Most of the time, it was a player knowingly or unknowingly applying a house rule to the situation.

The true toxic/abusive player is a rarity. But they are there. Most of the time, it is a nice chap trying to get a small advantage for his character. We are all humans after all.

When it comes to players that "push" a lot of times it's also just a matter of expectations and theme. Take the guy who wanted to have lunch with a god because he was a mid level cleric. After we moved, he tried DMing for a while and based on updates from the group (before it fell apart) it was quite the gonzo campaign with a lot of crazy stuff. Which, if the whole group is in on it and having fun could be cool. But my campaign and all my other players were into a more grounded campaign style (for D&D).

I don't even think he ever even understood that he was pushing the boundaries, he just thought that it was the way it should work and never accepted the limitations. Add in an assertive personality and there were just times we had to take a hard line with the guy because otherwise he just kept pushing. Which is just to say there's a whole spectrum of players, from people who just want to roll some dice to those that feel entitled to a co-DM position because they think their ideas should override everyone else's ideas and opinions.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think it works in the other way. Saying even wives and husbands disagree is fairly compelling to show that random strangers or even friends around the table will disagree as well.

I think it’s a good example for that.

Fair enough. Though I don’t know that there was anyone disputing that “people who play D&D will occasionally disagree”.

I still stand by “Same principle, different application”. If you are playing with someone, most times you can reach an agreement on individual rules. If the differences really are irreconciliable, then perhaps you shouldn’t play together.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Are you even talking about the same thing?

Bait & switch campaigns? DMs holding back relevant information about the campaign to preserve the surprise?

 

[Helldritch]

When it comes to players that "push" a lot of times it's also just a matter of expectations and theme. Take the guy who wanted to have lunch with a god because he was a mid level cleric. After we moved, he tried DMing for a while and based on updates from the group (before it fell apart) it was quite the gonzo campaign with a lot of crazy stuff. Which, if the whole group is in on it and having fun could be cool. But my campaign and all my other players were into a more grounded campaign style (for D&D).

I don't even think he ever even understood that he was pushing the boundaries, he just thought that it was the way it should work and never accepted the limitations. Add in an assertive personality and there were just times we had to take a hard line with the guy because otherwise he just kept pushing. Which is just to say there's a whole spectrum of players, from people who just want to roll some dice to those that feel entitled to a co-DM position because they think their ideas should override everyone else's ideas and opinions.

Well, I have seen such campaigns too from other DMs and they can be quite unsettling for the more... "traditionals"? DMs... When everyone at the table are ready to accept this type of campaign. It can quite fun from what I heard. These are not my style but what suits some might not suit others. What is important, is that everyone is aware of what the campaign will look like. When you do not expect something like this, it can lead to what you experienced.

Not everyone wants to limit themselves to one role but if you do not like to co-DM, then explain it to the player. I am not the co-DM type either. I hate it up to a certain point and within certain limits. If these are accepted, good. If the player wants to add to my campaign to get any advantages for his/her character; it will be tough luck for that player. It will not work.

Usually, if someone wants to add to my campaign.
1) No advantage to current characters or future characters in the current campaign.
2) Fully Word compatible. And I must have that file (obviously).
3) Must respect the tone of the campaign (easier said than done, believe me).
4) Must not introduce new races/classes/gods unless I already asked for these.

With these limitations, I do not often see players willing to do worldbuilding with me. But I do see some trying their hands at it.

 

[Oofta]

Bait & switch campaigns? DMs holding back relevant information about the campaign to preserve the surprise?

Doesn't it depend on the plot twist? Assuming the standard "doing quests for the king", there's a difference between surprise twist and bait & switch IMHO. Does it turn out that the king is an imposter? Surprise. After doing a couple of adventures the group is teleported up to a spaceship and now suddenly you're doing an esper genesis space fantasy game? Bait & Switch.

I don't see a problem with the former no matter which side of the DM screen I'm on. It's the DM's world after all. I don't see a point to the latter and can't imagine it happens very often.

 

[Dausuul]

Not a criticism, but a data point: my experience is that most DMs, myself included, believe that their secrets are more clever than they think.

Often, what is lost: creating a character appropriate to the campaign, or with ties with the land, is more than what is gained.

Agreed. I used to think this kind of intentional switch was clever. I have learned better.

I still sometimes do it by accident. My last campaign, which wrapped up this past Saturday, was supposed to be big on politics, but it ended up being a traditional "Quest to Defeat Ancient Evil," with most of the political stuff sidelined. There were a number of reasons for this (one of the biggest being that D&D offers very little support for a game where "kill it with fire" is not the go-to solution), and the players were cool with how it turned out, but I still feel like I could have done a better job matching the initial pitch to the actual plot.

The DM mantle will now pass to another member of the group, so I get to kick back as a player for a year or two, which will be nice. (And I am perfectly happy to hand over Supreme Executive Power to the other guy. He's going to be putting in the work, he gets to make the calls.) I'm going to use the time for some hard thinking about what kind of game I want to run next time and how to ensure that the way I present it lines up with the way I run it. One of the lessons I take from my last game is "Don't design the campaign around a Big Reveal."

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fair enough. Though I don’t know that there was anyone disputing that “people who play D&D will occasionally disagree”.

I still stand by “Same principle, different application”. If you are playing with someone, most times you can reach an agreement on individual rules. If the differences really are irreconciliable, then perhaps you shouldn’t play together.

As I've noted, sometimes there are reasons to play with people you have significant ongoing conflicts on. The simplest reason is limited player pool, but its not the only one. The line where someone decides the problem is too severe to try and work around is going to vary considerably.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Doesn't it depend on the plot twist? Assuming the standard "doing quests for the king", there's a difference between surprise twist and bait & switch IMHO. Does it turn out that the king is an imposter? Surprise. After doing a couple of adventures the group is teleported up to a spaceship and now suddenly you're doing an esper genesis space fantasy game? Bait & Switch.

I don't see a problem with the former no matter which side of the DM screen I'm on. It's the DM's world after all. I don't see a point to the latter and can't imagine it happens very often.

Usually this is about campaigns that turn out to be radically different from what was on the label, not just ones where some elements are not what they seem. Its entirely possible under those circumstances to build a character who's abilities are heavily rendered useless by the reality of the campaign. Its a little less of an issue with D&D proper since it tends to force certain common abilities on all characters of a type, but it can be a big issue with build-from-the-ground-up systems, and even with things like D&D--well, the ranger with all the wilderness skills who finds himself stuck in the city floating in the void for the campaign is going to be a little less than happymaking. Or the bard with all the social skills who finds himself out in the howling wilderness with nothing but hostile peoples to encounter, and not even many of those.

 

[Oofta]

Well, I have seen such campaigns too from other DMs and they can be quite unsettling for the more... "traditionals"? DMs... When everyone at the table are ready to accept this type of campaign. It can quite fun from what I heard. These are not my style but what suits some might not suit others. What is important, is that everyone is aware of what the campaign will look like. When you do not expect something like this, it can lead to what you experienced.

Not everyone wants to limit themselves to one role but if you do not like to co-DM, then explain it to the player. I am not the co-DM type either. I hate it up to a certain point and within certain limits. If these are accepted, good. If the player wants to add to my campaign to get any advantages for his/her character; it will be tough luck for that player. It will not work.

Usually, if someone wants to add to my campaign.
1) No advantage to current characters or future characters in the current campaign.
2) Fully Word compatible. And I must have that file (obviously).
3) Must respect the tone of the campaign (easier said than done, believe me).
4) Must not introduce new races/classes/gods unless I already asked for these.

With these limitations, I do not often see players willing to do worldbuilding with me. But I do see some trying their hands at it.

I do the co-DM thing with my wife to a degree. We run in the same campaign world but we have different regions. When there's crossover we discuss it, We've even done "switch DMing" now and then if someone wants a break we'll swap DM roles. We've also done "crossover" events where we'll mix and match groups. It's worked well except when she has to spoil some surprise because it's in a shared area so we can discuss it.

I think it works with my wife because she agrees on general tone and feel of the campaign and we know not to step on each other's toes without checking first. That, and she doesn't expect to make DM level decisions when she's a player and vice versa.

The issue I was talking about was a player that they seemed to feel entitled to be a co-DM and shape the way the world worked that exceeded the limitations we had set down at session 0. That they wanted DM level authority while they were a player without ever even discussing it.

 

[Charlaquin]

And to put my money where my mouth is...I will offer up an example that happened in my own games...

The GM (not me) had a pressure plate trapped hallway. We knew it was pressure plated traps but didn't have a rogue to disarm them. We (I was a Wizard PC) decided to take the fighters shield, cast Levitate on it, and push the shield back and forth riding it down the hallway like an air hockey puck so we didn't trigger the traps. The GM announced "HAHA, you fly down the hallway and set off all the traps because the levitating shield still puts all the weight on the ground.

This set off a very long argument of all the players versus the GM on whether or not a levitating shield would set off traps that were pressure plated.

In an Ultimate GM Arbiter game, we would have had a dead fighter.

In a collaborative game, we would have table voted it that Levitate doesn't create ground pressure and moved on with the adventure.

Both styles are different ways of looking at the situation, but even today when I GM, I still allow player majority to overrule my initial rulings because of this one incident.

Which way did the shield sled end up getting ruled?

Personally, I wouldn’t have ruled that levitation creates ground pressure in the first place, but in a situation like that where the whole table disagrees with my interpretation of the physics of a spell, I would have a hard time deciding how to rule. On the one hand, I probably have a good reason for the way I interpret it, but in the other hand, if the whole group disagrees with my reasoning on the matter, maybe it isn’t as good a reason as I thought. What I would probably do is try to hear out their arguments for why they think it should work the way they interpret it, and try to accept their explanation as charitably as possible. Only if their reasoning just plain does not make sense to me no matter how I try to think about it would I overrule them.