D&D General DM Authority

[Thomas Shey]

If the table is playing a game where PCs can routinely stunt in such a manner (I'm most familiar with Mutants and Masterminds, but I'm positive there are others), then it's a fine thing to do and for the GM to allow. In 5E ... not so much. If the consensus at the table is they want to be playing something other than 5E, there's a simple solution to that.

Honestly, I really don't care. I'd normally prefer the group make it clear if they want a different style of game than I'm offering before hand, so I can pick a different system and run a different campaign, but again, if they're one off view is "Monks do these supernatural sort of things, so this seems appropriate" then that's as it is. If I'm finding that sort of dissonance regularly, I get back to the group dynamic being dysfunctional from the get go.

That's the gig; the reduction ad absurdems used to justify the top-down approach have already pretty much used a dysfunctional group to rationalize it out the gate. Otherwise, you've got one guy who has a out-of-touch idea, and the rest of the group goes "Dude, no." I don't need to lift my Holy Scepter to make it happen.

 

[generic]

I consider a focus on speed in exclusion of everything else to do more harm than good to a game. I'm aware this isn't a popular view.

Depends on the priorities of your playgroup, I'd argue.

We only have (at most) three hours to meet weekly, so, combat takes up enough time as it stands. A quick adjudication of a rule, or the application of the oft-mentioned rule of cool is preferable to a lengthy debate.

If I ran 6 hour sessions, this wouldn't be an issue, and lawyering of the fiction would fall more evenly to the players, as well the Game Master.

 

[FrogReaver]

I consider a focus on speed in exclusion of everything else to do more harm than good to a game. I'm aware this isn't a popular view.

That's quite a leap. Saying speed is important does not equate to "speed in exclusion of everything else"

 

[prabe]

The DM can't just assume. Part of DM Authority is the Players Acceptance of it. And Players can't truly accept what they do not know.

For example the 5e PHB is written with a "Herioic Fantasy" assumption and the "DM may run a different genre" assumption.

One cannot say the "DM has the Authority to change the genre" and "The DM can't change the genre".

"The DM may run a different genre" =/= "The GM will run a different genre." If the DM hasn't told you they're running a different genre than the PHB (and other core books) take as the baseline, the DM isn't running a different genre. If there's no ability for your character (class feature, spell, whatever) that allows you to run at ~24 MPH around someone and generate a tornado, you can't do that.

Older editions of the game purposely hid certain mechanics behind the DM's screen, for one thing. Depending on the DM, sometimes the only way to find out if something is allowed or disallowed is to try it and see what happens. Likewise, a lot of players don't know the game front to back and inside and out and rely on the DM to have the knowledge of what the game engine allows or disallows.

If someone has been playing older editions and is relying on the kindness of strangers to catch up on 5E, this might merit some slack. If someone is coming from nothing but Supers games that allow such stunts as a matter of course, that might also merit some slack.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'd argue that a DM correcting a player character's rules set is far more appropriate than a player correcting the DM's reading of a spell, but, as you said, both have their place.

I wasn't even talking about mechanical bits. I think its kind of legitimate to call out when someone is playing a character in a radically different way than they've previously done so. A perfectly legitimate response is "I have my reasons", but at the very least those reasons should become visible at some point.

 

[generic]

I wasn't even talking about mechanical bits. I think its kind of legitimate to call out when someone is playing a character in a radically different way than they've previously done so. A perfectly legitimate response is "I have my reasons", but at the very least those reasons should become visible at some point.

I don't call out players for changing their character's decisions. It doesn't cleave to my ideal of free will, and my players don't enjoy being forced to sever themselves from their character's motivations. If they did enjoy this type of play, your statement would be valid.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Depends on the priorities of your playgroup, I'd argue.

We only have (at most) three hours to meet weekly, so, combat takes up enough time as it stands. A quick adjudication of a rule, or the application of the oft-mentioned rule of cool is preferable to a lengthy debate.

If I ran 6 hour sessions, this wouldn't be an issue, and lawyering of the fiction would fall more evenly to the players, as well the Game Master.

A reasonable position in that context, with the caveat that if that was the best I could manage I don't think I'd bother; its too small a timeframe to get anything of account done with any of the kind of games I prefer.

 

[generic]

A reasonable position in that context, with the caveat that if that was the best I could manage I don't think I'd bother; its too small a timeframe to get anything of account done with any of the kind of games I prefer.

Fair enough, to each their own.

I don't take gaming seriously in terms of simulationism anymore, it's treated more as a reasonably real environment wherein the players can engage with the story of the game, not concern themselves with deep issues, either physical or moral.

But, again, if that's what you enjoy, I can't object.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't call out players for changing their character's decisions. It doesn't cleave to my ideal of free will, and my players don't enjoy being forced to sever themselves from their character's motivations. If they did enjoy this type of play, your statement would be valid.

I just think there's a point beyond you have to start questioning whether the player is playing the character in a way that seems coherent and sane, and I don't think incoherent and insane PCs (or even, normally, NPCs) make for a good game for much of anyone outside of very specific contexts when everyone knows that's going to be a thing going in, and sometimes even then (Malkovians, I'm looking at you).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fair enough, to each their own.

I don't take gaming seriously in terms of simulationism anymore, it's treated more as a reasonably real environment wherein the players can engage with the story of the game, not concern themselves with deep issues, either physical or moral.

But, again, if that's what you enjoy, I can't object.

Its not an issue of simulation; its an issue of the kind of game elements I prefer. Let's just say PF2e is my sweet spot when it comes to D&D-oids, not OSE.