D&D General DM Authority

[FrogReaver]

Seems like that's a reason for the GM to explain that to the players; if the players still disagree, that seems like they're not seeing it that way. And I'm back to suggesting that if the GM can't deal with that, there's a serious disconnect between him and his players somewhere (since he couldn't convince them it'd serve the game better).

I'll put it this way. As a player, I don't want to be put into a position where I have to say, I agree with the interpretation of this rule that means my best friend Bob's PC is dead.

 

[Maxperson]

Funny, I've done that on and off for years and yet somehow I seem to keep games going. Unless you were assuming single-person vetoes.

Someone people are okay with the game being disrupted. If that's how you roll, fine. It would destroy the kind of game I run and enjoy.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'll put it this way. As a player, I don't want to be put into a position where I have to say, I agree with the interpretation of this rule that means my best friend Bob's PC is dead.

Fair enough, though given I've seen my group encourage interpretations of rules that where clearly to the disadvantage of the group, and individually has got the person's own character killed, I have to kind of see someone who objects to that as kind of lacking the courage of their convictions about the rules. If you can only argue about how the rules work when they work to your benefit, its hard for me to see that as not kind of hypocritical.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Someone people are okay with the game being disrupted. If that's how you roll, fine. It would destroy the kind of game I run and enjoy.

Or some of us don't consider it particularly disrupting.

 

[Maxperson]

Or some of us don't consider it particularly disrupting.

 

[FrogReaver]

Fair enough, though given I've seen my group encourage interpretations of rules that where clearly to the disadvantage of the group, and individually has got the person's own character killed, I have to kind of see someone who objects to that as kind of lacking the courage of their convictions about the rules. If you can only argue about how the rules work when they work to your benefit, its hard for me to see that as not kind of hypocritical.

Huh? All I'm saying is that there are social pressures beyond the immediate concern of the ruling. You seem to be saying that anyone that is influenced by such social pressures is weak or dishonest something. That's absurd.

 

[FrogReaver]

Or some of us don't consider it particularly disrupting.

1. Has your group ever voted about whether they should just delegate someone to act in this capacity instead of having everyone vote all the time?
2. If you have and everyone agreed, how do you know your strong personality and opinions on the subject (aka social pressure) isn't what earned that consensus instead of each individual actually believing this is a better way to do things?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Huh? All I'm saying is that there are social pressures beyond the immediate concern of the ruling. You seem to be saying that anyone that is influenced by such social pressures is weak or something. That's absurd.

No, no, that part is what I was acknowledging as being entirely legit.

That was more a side comment that if said friend would argue the rule one way when it got his character killed and another way if it hadn't, I can't have much respect for that. As I commented earlier in the thread, your assessment of rules shouldn't be just based on how it benefits you (which doesn't mean it isn't just that for a lot of people, because it obviously is).

 

[Thomas Shey]

1. Has your group ever voted about whether they should just delegate someone to act in this capacity instead of having everyone vote all the time?
2. If you have and everyone agreed, how do you know your strong personality and opinions on the subject (aka social pressure) isn't what earned that consensus instead of each individual actually believing this is a better way to do things?

Regarding your second point, because in the cases involved there, all the players involved were strong enough personalities it wasn't a concern (again, remember I haven't done this with all groups as I've noted repeatedly).

Regarding your first, you're making an assumption this happened all the time. Most of the time it was either clear enough from the rules involved or no one cared enough to disagree in the first place.

(This is another one of those things; just because a group reserves the right to make a group decision on something doesn't mean they need to do it all the time. You can still have a default decision-maker and have it only come up when there's a conflict).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Just sayin' there's a case beyond "You don't care about disruption."