D&D General DM Authority

[Thomas Shey]

If you're literally arguing with the DM I don't want you at my table whether I'm the DM or not. When I join a game, I accept that the DM has final authority. It's a game. If the DM doesn't work for me I walk.

And thus you absolutely are deciding he's owed that. So, yeah, I think my term was entirely apt.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is a strange example. Deciding what sort of campaign to play as a group, is by the rules as written not something the DM decides on his own. It is something you agree upon as a group.

That is not how several posters, including Oofta, have presented it in this thread and the previous. It has instead been presented as a Hobson's choice: "Take the campaign I'm deciding to offer, or nothing." Sometimes you hear vague references to re-tooling things, but the default has pretty much been, "I offer X, and people take it or leave it." (Usually with a "I have too many applicants so it's never a problem" addendum, which....well, I find it a mildly annoying digression, but it comes up enough that evidently multiple people see it as a vitally relevant point.)

How often, when you go to a friend's house for dinner, do you DEMAND anything at all? Is this how you folks run games - with DEMANDS and OBLIGATIONS and AUTHORITY?

I certainly don't. It's part of why I keep pushing back on this. All the insistence on having both absolute and ultimate authority (usually capitalized!) comes across as a red flag.

If someone at the table wants to have more combat, we'll talk about it, and I'll try to add some more of what they find fun so everyone can enjoy the game.

We do something really crazy. We discuss what we would like to do and the DM tries to incorporate some of our preferences. But then he rolls with it. We give some very general ideas and then unleash him.

....so, you negotiate, both give and get trust, and collaborate. In other words, you literally DON'T exhibit "ultimate" authority. You exhibit cooperative authority. Why are we arguing??

nor do I feel a need to resent his authority!

This, and most of the rest of this post, however...strikes me as completely irrelevant.

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.

I am genuinely, deeply confused here. Where is the "absolute" authority in this? How can an "ultimate" authority be called out by the subjects of that authority, such that the authority would be in error if it failed to listen to them?

Step away from the language of contractual agreements, and more to "I am having friends over for dinner." How does the discussion change?

Sadly, in other places and times, I have seen exactly this language devolve just as fast. Veganism and guests "demanding" food other than what's being served, for example. Civility never seems to enter the discussion.

The DM has responsibilities to all the players, including the DM. The DM can and should come up with things that all the players around the table will enjoy. That barbarian player complaining about a couple-three sessions without any fights isn't remembering the 5-hour session that was one fight or the other sessions that were one fight after another as the PCs ran a series of gantlets.

It's hard to muster much sympathy for that (especially since I would have specifically encouraged them not to do that).

It sounds, to me, like you are intentionally twisting the example here. The example given QUITE specifically said that the player was NOT informed about this in advance. Now, it would be entirely fair to say, "I can't comment on that, because I would personally ensure such an event never happens." But to act AS THOUGH you are responding to the hypothetical while changing it to be a different question entirely is a red herring.

So, let's say it isn't you. Let's say it's your friend Alice DMing, and your other friend Bob is the Barbarian in question. Alice goofed pretty hard and never told the group that the campaign would involve little to no combat, despite approving Bob's Barbarian. Bob made the (IMO far more minor) error of not explicitly asking whether the game would include combat, presuming that Alice would either say something, or comment on the character she approved for play, perhaps because Bob is used to your DMing style where you do always explicitly inform the player.

What behaviors are appropriate for Bob in this scenario? What responses are appropriate for Alice?

 

[Oofta]

It's worrying to be how many player behaviors are described as disruptive when I have run so many games I recognize that the vast majority of new players go through a period of feeling out their own actions in the game.

Most players act like idiots when they first start playing. That seems really normal to me.

Yet people (not people here) are putting this on the same level as players being genuinely disruptive towards the game and worse being negative towards other players.

I dunno maybe I am the only one who sees a clear difference.

I think there's a difference though. There are some players that I would not invite back to my table, and there are players that I enjoy but that I have to correct sometimes.

The former? The guy who had one of those giant D20s and would "roll" it by dropping it after he had put the correct number on top. Of course he also thought he was a werewolf, so there's that. Or the guy who rejected a plot hook he thought I had invested time into for no other reason than he thought it was funny to make me waste my time.

But the others? Well, Kim gets things wrong on a pretty regular basis. Tries crazy **** that just won't work (no, they aren't creating a Flash tornado). But ... they're not doing it on purpose, it's just the way they think. So I ask what they're trying to do and say "that doesn't work but ...". A lot of time it involves some crazy acrobatics stunt but if it works I give them advantage on the first hit or whatever makes sense. It is a balancing act, and probably one I don't always get right because nobody's perfect.

As far as acting like an idiot, I'm not sure that ever wears off.

 

[Blandco]

Absolutely. Even if all of my players said “we want Genasi to be from the material plane,” I would not make that change to my setting. I would offer an alternative;

Exactly. This is an incredibly important distinction. If there is real thought behind it but even then good DMs will offer an alternative.

Sadly most DMs I ran into during the research for my video heavily restricted PC character creation seemingly based on the vague idea that it made DM work "easier" for them. Most of them seemed to get this idea from watching Youtube videos without having any sort of individual reasoning for the restrictions.

The online DM Hivemind is broken right now according to what I experienced.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm beginning to think I'm the only DM who states the setting, theme, tone, and style of the campaign they are running beforehand.

Because these discussion constantly come down to people disagreeing on setting, theme, tone, and playstyle after Session 0. And when I mention it,many say "No no no no. That's not it." then go back to arguing setting, theme, tone, and playstyle.

Well, I mean, I've repeatedly tried to say that I wanted to talk about how you discuss those things DURING Session 0, and how you work to AVOID post-S0 problems. No one bit. In fact, the post was almost completely ignored.

If a campaign didn't have meaningful fighting in 3 sessions, can a pure-combat barbarian player DEMAND more big fights if he or she was not informed that this was a low combat storytelling game?

Does the DM have the authority to say "No" in that case?

"Demand" is always extreme, and thus not respectful. However, I do think the player should be empowered to say, "Hey guys...like, I specifically put together a combat-focused character, and y'all knew about that well in advance. I'm pretty frustrated that we seem to be in a low-combat game, and I'd like to request that we do some actual fighting, because otherwise I feel pretty cheated."

If you have a bad-faith player pounding his fists on the table and making a scene, the DM almost certainly already has the rest of the players on her side anyway. But if we don't presume bad-faith players, and instead presume something like the above? It's complicated. I expect the DM to be respectful in return, something like, "You know, you're right, I should have let you know about that sooner, especially since you clearly didn't take any options that would work well in a social setting. Let's talk about how we can fix it." And there absolutely are ways to fix it; perhaps it is an overall low-combat game, but the Barbarian gets to have some fun set-piece "duels" regularly, justified as being a rising star in the gladiatorial ring or a hot-tempered youth with a penchant for challenging foes (a la Romeo and Juliet). In the end, the DM may need to say, "No, I'm sorry, that's not the game I'm willing to run," but I really, genuinely do think that that is a SERIOUS mea culpa from this DM.

Of course the DM and players should talk. But it is clear to me that many think DM Authority comes with zero responsibility to the players.

Yeah, that's exactly what claims of (specifically capitalized) "Ultimate Authority" communicate to me. That the DM has absolute power and zero responsibility.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In my experience, when a group confronts an individual you end up in a situation where the individual is MUCH more likely to be defensive and react poorly. The group can decide, but it should still be a one-on-one talk with the DM. At least it should if successful rehabilitation is your ultimate goal.

Its an argument, but I'd also suggest when a whole group is telling you something is a bad idea, its less likely to turn into issues with the specific personal interactions with the player and the GM, so I think its just a trade-off. Someone can get their back up either way, but I'm not sold its intrinsically more likely when they're getting a reaction from a whole group.

(Caveat: that "whole" is important. As I've noted, its entirely possible that what instead happens is the GM gets support by two other players and the other three sit mum. That tends to be the limiting factor in the practical application of this principal IME.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

It’s interesting. If I had to bet, I would bet that the actual table experiences across groups represented by posters here are not as diametrically opposed as one would think.

Its almost like a projective test—-how people feel about choice, authority and so forth. In practice, people may be seeing the same things and focusing on what resonates with them more than they know.

You're almost certainly correct in the majority of cases. I run in a relatively traditional way; I'm just extremely sensitive to any sense that I'm running away from the game my players want, and I think viewing things in a potentially more group-agreement way is a defense against that. Alas, as I've referenced, a lot of players are really hesitant to tell you that, so in practice I have to do the usual evaluation as best I can. But I absolutely think a game where more players were more committed to being involved in rules and game direction disputes would be healthier in most cases.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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. <snip>No DM can be the right DM for all players, not all players are right for the group. <snip> Well for one, quite frequently it's just one person with a strong personality trying to get their way.

Literally no one has disputed the first two, AFAICT. The latter is literally not what we're talking about. (Giving one response to save space.)

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.

"Strawman" only applies if the argument is a fake set up to criticize you. If we're operating from an asked hypothetical, or from a story where you didn't tell us everyone else thought the monk was being dumb, it's not a strawman.

More importantly: It's nice to see you recognize that bad-faith DMing actually does occur, and actually can be a problem. I just have a lower tolerance for it, it seems.

First, it's simply a matter of time and flow of the game.

Improvisation is a vital DM skill. Why not exercise it with these rulings as well?

A lot of people simply don't care and they'll go with whatever option is the easiest socially. <snip> You can get situations where people simply don't understand how the game works.

The go-with-the-flow-option in D&D is to listen to the DM, not one "strong personality" player, so I don't see the relevance. If the players don't know how the game works, that's an error that should be corrected. The players should know how the game works when they play it!

Players think from their perspective and what will be good for the PCs at the moment.

Your anecdotes are nice, but fail to be more than that. And, as stated above, if you're going to ask that we assume good faith on the part of the DMs in these scenarios, please assume good faith on the part of the players. Asking to have infinite resources or instantly win is bad faith in almost anything.

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.

While I accept that casual players are a thing, and should be worked with, at least a fundamental understanding of the rules should always be a goal for every player. And whether or not the DM is more rules-experienced is both (1) only true some of the time, and (2) irrelevant to the vast majority of good-faith player requests.

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

You may be surprised to know that others' experience differs. Mine, for example--on both sides of the screen.

So what's to stop the player from doing the same thing to the BBEG? Just make up a narrative where they win?

Being respectful, good-faith players. C'mon man, you got openly frustrated with people ascribing bad faith to DMs in the race-options thread.

P.S. Of course both sides should treat each other with respect.

Then why even ask the opening questions? Those are not things you ask if you're treating your DM with respect.

I was thinking about it and I have a confession to make. I have no idea what people mean when they say "Ultimate Authority". I mean, there's a whole range of things that can be done and I separate bad DMing as a separate category. People should treat each other with respect, what people have to say should be heard and so on.

As far as I'm concerned, "Ultimate Authority"--especially when capitalized thus, giving it extra emphasis--SPECIFICALLY means NOT treating others with respect, NOT hearing what they have to say, and NOT taking any form of criticism or discussion. I mean, we literally have in this thread a person saying that any player dispute that doesn't immediately evaporate when the DM says "no" is toxic. That's a pretty big red flag for "you don't actually respect my thoughts or opinions, and you don't trust me to behave appropriately if given any leeway."

But I do think the DM is the referee and makes the final call. There's nothing wrong with a DM establishing the campaign world and it's restrictions. If nobody is interested in the campaign you change direction. So what's the difference between "Ultimate Authority" and "Referee that creates the campaign world people will be playing in"? Is there one?

Respect of player views, and in particular, the possibility that the player might have an idea in some way "better" than the DM's; actively seeking to meet in the middle whenever possible on disputes; actively facilitating player goals and engagement; and trusting that, barring meaningful evidence to the contrary, the player's requests are made in good faith to try for a more enjoyable game experience for everyone, rather than assuming any player is inherently coercive or abusive.

As stated above: "Ultimate Authority" communicates to me "I claim absolute authority and zero responsibility, and if you don't like that for any reason whatsoever, I have some choice words to treat you with before summarily booting you." Cooperative authority values consensus, diplomacy, compromise, and facilitation, and recognizes that a positive social experience means certain requirements due to respect, appropriateness, decorum, trust, etc.

So what's the difference in actual game play?

As far as I'm concerned, you're pretty much NOT acting as an "ultimate authority" here. Yes, "ultimate" can be a synonym for "final," but it can also have other meanings--and I had assumed those other meanings (transcendent, supreme, categorical, and, yes, absolute) were very much intended alongside "final," particularly because people kept capitalizing it. Hence why I said you can fork "final say" apart from "Ultimate Authority," because work-a-day final authority and truly unsurpassable authority aren't equivalent.

Now, aside from the above, I DO think you are at least a little overprotective of the world you've established, from the way you've described how you do things. But I'm also of the opinion that exclusively playing in the same campaign world for 20+ years is...maybe not "unhealthy," that has judgmental implications I'd rather avoid, but...I guess "inhibiting"? It discourages a wide variety of opportunities for improvisation, and (IMNSHO) runs far, far too great a risk of Elminster Syndrome or Lord British Syndrome By Proxy. These names are tongue-in-cheek, of course, but I do really mean some serious concerns by using them. That is, invincible (but inactive) retired characters (Lord British), or stupidly powerful and meddlesome ones (Elminster).

Perhaps it's because of generational differences, or maybe our brains are just wired differently, but I'd lose my friggin' mind if I tried to squeeze 20 years of gaming out of a single campaign world, no matter how richly-detailed it was.

And DONE. There. Responded to like, two dozen posts. Hopefully didn't crush anyone beneath TOO large a wall of text along the way.

 

[Oofta]

That is not how several posters, including Oofta, have presented it in this thread and the previous. It has instead been presented as a Hobson's choice: "Take the campaign I'm deciding to offer, or nothing." Sometimes you hear vague references to re-tooling things, but the default has pretty much been, "I offer X, and people take it or leave it." (Usually with a "I have too many applicants so it's never a problem" addendum, which....well, I find it a mildly annoying digression, but it comes up enough that evidently multiple people see it as a vitally relevant point.)

What can I say? I've run games in the same campaign world for decades now. There are some restrictions and structures in place that I don't feel the need nor do I want to change.

Changing things would matter much. I have time and energy to run a campaign for 6 people (well, 5 because my wife plays). When I open up my game to new players I'm clear on what I offer, what the restrictions are and what style of campaign I'm going to run. While I'm quite flexible in what PCs do and how it affects the world, the assumptions of the world don't change. Even if those assumptions did change I would still only have 6 players.

I don't run a steampunk campaign, so if that's what a player is looking for I'm not the right DM for them. I just find it kind of baffling that this is in any way an issue. I like ham and pineapple pizza on a whole wheat crust from a local pizzeria. It's not for everyone so they go someplace else. My time is limited so I'm going to offer the best game I know how, that means running a campaign in my homebrew setting.

 

[Charlaquin]

This actually came up in a recent video I was making.

A few years ago there was a lot of advice out there that you should not be precious with your D&D and that allowing players to make meaningful choices, even when those choices destroyed what is in your DM folder, was important.

Now, having gone online trying to find games accepting new players, I have found so many games advertising themselves as "5E" that had so many changes in the basic rules that I don't understand how the DM could still honestly consider that game a "5E" game. And I am not some sort of absolute purist.

So what I’m hearing is, “don’t be precious about your DM folder, but do be precious about what’s in the WotC-published books.”

I get it, when you use a lot of homebrew, especially when it comes to mechanical changes, you can run into a Ship of Theseus problem. At what point does your set of house rules stop being D&D. But, D&D that cleaves closely to the published material is not inherently superior to heavily customized D&D.

You can run whatever sort of game you like of course and as a DM you have a responsibility to run that game.

However, with this new attitude of saying "No" to players, from character creation to ever aspect of the game where the 5E book allows the players to make their own choices ... It just seems like any sort of collaborative gameplay is just stripped away so players are just passive audiences to the DM's story and nothing they do has any real impact.

That’s a little extreme, don’t you think? Are players just passive audiences in a game of Dark Sun because they can’t play gnomes or Paladins?

Which is fine if every DM was a professional writer. But they are not, and I feel bad that everyone is missing out on how ANYONE can run a fun game of D&D if they just don't stray to far away from the collaborative nature of the game. You don't NEED to be a good writer to run a fun custom game of D&D if you allow your players to actually play. But you can't be precious about what is in your DM's folder.

This seems incredibly elitist to me. Only professional writers can make a curated game fun. Nevermind that the line between amateur and professional is blurrier than ever thanks to online distributors like the DM’s Guild. If your setting isn’t in a WotC-published hardcover, it isn’t good enough to be worth running. Better do a collaboratively-created setting if you want any hope of running a fun game! Give me a break.