D&D General DM Authority

[Thomas Shey]

How would it not be viable? As the DM in a top down approach I have the right to boot any player from the game. There may be logistics problems (such as playing at said person's house), but that doesn't change the fact that it can always happen. The converse to this is the fact that players may leave the game at any time, and this is the balance of power the players control. If the DM doesn't fit the group's overall desire, they have the option to simply start another game with a different DM. Because of this most DMs won't be a tyrant, at least for long.

As I've commented before, this is only true when there's a reasonable pool of players and GMs available. If there's not, the question comes down to "Is the situation bad enough I'd rather just not play at all?"

The balance of power between the DM and players is based on mutual trust. Some people don't deserve that trust, and abuse it whenever convenient. This is why the saying came about: "no D&D is better than bad D&D." When younger I would have disagreed, but back then I could play almost every day, so a bad session wasn't a big deal. Now my gaming is limited to one session a week, and so I don't want to deal with any problem players, even passive aggressive ones. One could argue that this automatically leads to a consensual approach, but that's only on the surface. Even if we are all reasonable adults, we know the DM has final say, even if they seldom use it.

But again, there's a lot of muddy middle cases here where the DM or players behavior is annoying, and not something someone would prefer to deal with, but not enough to not play at all.

 

[loverdrive]

First question: why is a player even trying to singlehandedly introduce something on the scale of a whole kingdom into an established setting? (I'd almost certainly hard-no this right away to head off subsequent issues noted below)

Because why not. To bring up something cool or interesting. Or to make a point stronger. Just an example of something similar happening (relatively) recently at our game:

Kazimir Podivniy, a party wizard and a historian is arguing with the head of a relatively large mercenary group, who is allying with the Cult of Black Sun in exchange for bringing her long dead son back to life. So, Kazimir says something along the lines of "There once was a great kingdom in the north. Their crystal towers touched the sky, their great gardens blossomed all year round. They knew no blight, no famine, they kept Death herself at bay. But now? Now there's nothing but barren wasteland. Their great towers are now ruins in the middle of withered forests, and only unquiet spirits, who have no place in Heaven or Hell are wandering there, cursed for all eternity. This is what you get when mortals play with things they don't understand. There's always a price, a price paid in blood." (recalled from memory and translated from Russian, so of course it's not exact words).

There wasn't any great kingdom with crystal spires five seconds before, but now it's always been there.

Second question: if this player can add in his own kingdom, do the other players then have to be offered the same opportunity? (in the interests of fairness, I'd say this is essential)

Can't see why not.

e) It's a subtle power play by the player to test how easily the DM can be swayed and-or what the DM will put up with.
f) It's an overt power play by either the DM (to take or assert authority) or the player (to reject or deny the DM's authority).

If the DM holds firm if-when e) happens, the problem is usually solved. If-when f) happens, there's one fewer player at the table next session.

I don't get it. What's the point of trying to test bounds, when you are in the same team.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As a DM I like having ultimate control of the lore and setting of my homebrew world. It is not a collaborative efford with my players.

On the rulings however, I do think everyone has a say. We tend to play things by the book, but there are always edge cases. Whenever the rules are unclear, we agree on the best interpretation together. There is no point in me making a particular ruling, when the whole group thinks that ruling is wrong and/or unfair. Fairness and consistency are my goal after all. Homebrew rulings are made in agreement with the whole group.

An important distinction that I sometimes think gets lost in these discussion. While I think the former is a defensible argument too, they aren't the same argument; they're talking about GM power in two different spheres, and players who have no issue with one may well have more with the other.

What to do if the group doesn't agree though? Well, we had just such an issue come up a few times in the last few months. We had a DM who would often change how a particular feat worked based on the circumstances. The player who had that feat rightfully called him out on it. She told him that he was undermining her character's capabilities by not being consistent with the rules, and if he kept doing it, that she'd rather pick a different feat. She was right, but this was but a symptom, as there were lots of similar conflicts with that DM. He wasn't open to our criticism, so eventually we quit his game.

It can be pretty frustrating to have such a DM. The rules as written explicitly say that your character can do a particular thing, and on a whim the DM keeps changing how it works and when you are allowed to use it. And if that DM is not open to any criticism from the entire group, then what more is there to do than to stop playing?

For this very reason I think the best advice that you can give any DM, is what @iserith often says: Yes... and! The DM should be facilitating play, not constricting it. This does not mean that rules should be completelty discarded at every turn, but the DM should try his best to allow their players to do what they want to do within the framework of the rules.

Actually, I think those are two different arguments too; an argument over consistency on one hand, and flexibility on the other.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure it does: the GM's power to punt said person out of the game.

And if you have a group that doesn't like what one player is doing, they can collectively do so too. There's no real difference here except that one person doesn't get to decide it unilaterally.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The problem with "rule by consensus" that I see is multiple.

First, it's simply a matter of time and flow of the game. In order to keep the game time moving I'd rather have a rules discussion outside of game time. Want to chat about it after the game? Have a discussion about house rules? Sure. Just not in the middle of the climatic fight against the squirrel of doom, please. Besides if someone is questioning there's times when as a DM (or player) I want time to mull it over and think about the options.

Sure, nothing about my examples precludes that.

In fact, I would argue that unless it is of dire importance right in that moment, rules should always be discussed outside of the game.

I think the reason you bring up this example, is because you are conflating "final say" with "Ruling in the moment" but the advice always always always is that you make a quick call now, and then look up the real rule later and address how you will be moving forward, either with the split-second decision, or with the more researched answer.

A lot of people simply don't care and they'll go with whatever option is the easiest socially. If given a choice they'd abstain. Oftentimes there can be one person who pushes their ideas on others; if you ask questions where that person does not know who is answering what the answers change. You can get situations where people simply don't understand how the game works.

True, but you'll notice I do keep mentioning that.

As an aside, I do wonder how much of that is because we always tell players they don't need to care. I've seen it where there is an attitude of "You don't need to worry about how it works, you just need to roll the dice and tell me what you are doing" which I imagine leads to a bit of complacency.

But even with simple player stuff, like planning, not knowing what you can do or how things work, can really hurt your ability to make good plans. Which makes me consider this not only a seperate issue, but one that is kind of troubling for the game as a whole.

Players think from their perspective and what will be good for the PCs at the moment. They often don't think about what it means to the balance of the game. Yes, getting a long rest whenever you want is fun, but it also makes any kind of challenge difficult to set up; in addition a lot of people don't enjoy the game on easy mode. I know I don't. I've had people thank me privately when I didn't let a single player push their agenda. The same people didn't really say much when we had the discussion as a group.

See, but these two pieces are in opposition.

You say players are only going to think about what they want in the moment. But, they don't want an easy game.

And, thinking about these responses, and how often this comes up, it starts to seem like a lack of trust in the players. Not all of them, because you had that silent group that was content to let you as the DM handle the situation, but I feel like a lot of people want to declare the DM as an ultimate authority, because otherwise the players will cheat and break the game for their own short term amusement.

Sure, bad players are bad. But if we want to talk about DM authority in the abstract sense, where it derives from, where its limits are, I don't think relying on "but if I don't have the ultimate authority, bad players will cheat and break the game" is terribly helpful.

And, as you'll see in my other post, ignorance is a thing that can be fixed. I'm sure we would all agree that a player with a strong understanding of the game's balance is very often not causing problems by proposing things that break that balance.

Sure, a bad player won't care, but a good player will realize the balance implications, and instead of proposing "I want to do X" they may approach it was "I want to do something like X, but I can't think of a way to balance it, do you have any ideas?" Which, is a much more collaborative and easy process.

Last, but not least there are many times when the DM simply understands the rules better than most of the people in the group. A lot of players are quite casual about the game (I know, shocking!) and don't really understand how the rules work or interact with each other.

Obviously a DM should try to reach consensus, I just don't remember many times when there was such a clear line.

Guess I should have read your last point, but this is also... kind of an excuse, isn't it?

"My DM authority derives from the ignorance of my players about the rules" is a very poor foundation for authority, because it disappears once the players understand the rules, which should be the goal of the group. Maybe not every rule and every interaction, but educating yourself on how the game works often does lead to more fun for everyone.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Why does disagreement that doesn't vanish immediately automatically imply toxicity?

Cynically, lese majesty. Less cynically, people who put speed and flow as a priority over everything else.

 

[prabe]

Cynically, lese majesty. Less cynically, people who put speed and flow as a priority over everything else.

I think those who are more concerned about "speed and flow" will be more willing to talk outside the immediate moment. Those who see any questions (my understanding of "lese majesty" as you're using it) as threats will not. Maybe player attitude/phrasing will make a difference in some cases.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Why so cranky?

Because I've answered the question before and you act like you're not reading it?

Anyway, to put it simply I disagree. It would be like @Charlaquin and his player's PC having the key to the dungeon door. There are rules for a reason and sometimes the best thing you can do as a DM for the long term health of the campaign is say no. There was another thread about a DM who was burning out because they felt they had lost control of the game and the party just took long rests (in his example) whenever they wanted.

And that's where you have to earn the trust where you tell the players "There are elements in play here that I can't talk about that are influencing what I want to do here. Let it pass?"

But that's something you need to earn, not something that's owed. The latter having been an assumption in the hobby for so long is as toxic as anything a player can do.

Again, if the players as a group want something the GM really doesn't on any consistent basis, that indicates a problem with the group interactions with a whole; in a group actually on the same page, it shouldn't be a constant problem. And if one such event is enough for the GM to not be able to take it (after explaining to the players why its a problem) I cannot help but think the problem isn't with the players.

If it's happening all the time? Then yeah, that could be a problem. To be honest I've never seen that except for people that shouldn't be DMing in the first place. But this is also a strawman to a degree, the rest of my table thought the monk was being an idiot.

In which case the lack of authority on your part wouldn't have mattered, barring a group not willing to tell him to get over it (which, as I've acknowledge, can be a thing, which is why I'm not entirely in the other camp here, but that's specifics of the sociodynamics of the group, not a generic problem with process).

 

[Oofta]

Have not read most of the thread, but IMO @Oofta you're forcing a false dichotomy here. That is, "DM has absolute and unquestionable authority" and "DM makes final calls" are two distinct things. You can avoid the former yet keep the latter.

So what's the difference in actual game play? I mean, I have an established campaign world, I'm clear on what type of world it is and in broad brushstrokes what kind of campaigns I run. People have to make PCs that will fit that world, I don't have rules discussion much more than a quick clarification at the table (longer discussions afterwards are fine). I get feedback on house rules but I made the final decision on the few that I do have.

But I'm always getting feedback on campaign and direction. At the end of sessions if we aren't in the middle of something I ask people where they want to head next so I can prep. Players are always free to go whatever direction or do whatever they want (I'll improvise if I need to). The only exceptions are no PVP and no intra-party theft.

So because I have final say, don't let players make major changes to the story other than through PC actions, am I acting as an ultimate authority? Where's the line between referee, world builder, ruler of NPCs (there's some wiggle room there, depending) and "ultimate authority"?

 

[FrogReaver]

I my opinion the DM would be at fault for not informing the Barbarian player that it was a low combat game. The Barbarian player should demand that combat be included as that is what they want. If the DM says no, then the DM is a bad DM (and a jerk) and the Barbarian player would be well advised to find a DM that will at least inform the players of the kind of campaign they want to run.

Well, as a DM I have had players DEMAND that I allow them to play characters that don't fit the campaign premise. I've also had players tell me I'm OBLIGATED to make the game fun for them by fulfilling their DEMANDS. I've also been told that as DM I have no AUTHORITY to run a campaign that I am interested in and that I am actually OBLIGATED to run the kind of campaign the players DEMAND.

I think the problem is that the Barbarian player was not informed of the kind of campaign that the DM was going to run. If that is the case one of two things can happen, either the player makes a character that does fit the campaign, or the player leaves the game. However, by not informing the players of the premise of the campaign it proves that the DM is not very good. If nothing else the players and DM should discuss what kind of campaign is to be played before PCs are created so the players can make characters that fit the campaign premise.

IMO. Lapses in communication happen. Sometimes it's the Dm's fault. Sometimes it's the players fault. But even if it's the DM's fault the solution isn't to change everything up and give the player whatever it was he had wanted. The best answer is usually, sorry for the miscommunication - if you would like to create a new character that better fits this campaign feel free. If not you can step away or we can ask the group if they would be good with starting a new combat centric campaign.