D&D General DM Authority

[Blue]

In that case, any good GM will throw out their precious plot out of the window. It's like GMing 101: things that weren't shown on-screen exist in Schrödinger state.

You're making unwarranted assumptions. I agree that it's not true until it hits the table. But no where have I said this hasn't hit the table. Let's go with this would invalidate things that have already come up, which is why the DM wasn't willing to compromise.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, this happens without all the snark. If the GM has the BBEG act in a way that seems to violate the rules of the game, or the "narrative rules" of the campaign story, the players should and often do speak up.

How do you as a player know what the capabilities of the BBEG are, or what their ultimate motivation is? I mean clarifying if you think the DM misread a spell is one thing, but telling the DM they're running an NPC wrong would be like the DM telling a player they're running their player wrong. I don't do either.

 

[BookTenTiger]

This seems a bit of a side arguement. No one is arguing that compromise and collaboration are not part of the toolbox. But there OP gave a number of examples in the spoiler block where a player wants X and the DM wants Y. Let's take the player pointing at a blank spot on the player-facing map and making up a kingdom and story. That kingdom will change the political pressures and invalidate much of the plot. After talking about it in vague ways (so as not to spoil those elements of the plot to the others) and offering a different location, the DM and the player still are at loggerheads.

Unlike "what to watch on Netflix", D&D does provide an explicit mechanism - DM authority - to break the deadlock and get all of the other players back to the fun.

Heck, RPGs have rules in the first place to avoid two kids playing army: "I shot you" "Nuh huh" "Did so" "You missed". Having a DM empowered to extend that beyond what is explicitly covered by the written rules is the next logical step.

Of course we try compromise and collaboration. In general, everyone wants to have a good time and works towards that. But those aren't the cases being discussed.

How do you feel about DM authority when those have been exhausted and there is still a conflict?

As an elementary school teacher, when I reach a point of butting heads with a student it's too late for any kind of authority. It's time to take a step back and resolve whatever conflict is leading to that situation. I may be the authority in the classroom, but that doesn't mean I'm authoritarian. I have authority because of the social agreement between students and I, something I reinforce with clear classroom rules, practice following those rules, and discussions about following the rules.

Look, in any argument where the GM has Authority just because they have Authority, I'm going to strongly disagree. I think it's an unhealthy way to treat a group of friends, and I think it leads to unhealthy, authoritarian relationships between the GM and players. The GM has authority because it's an agreement between all the players. When a player is resisting that authority, I think the healthy thing to do is not to go all authoritarian and say "My way or the highway," but to take a step back and compromise and collaborate.

Please don't conflate this with players being in conflict with the rules. The rules are the authority of the rules.

 

[Oofta]

In that case, any good GM will throw out their precious plot out of the window. It's like GMing 101: things that weren't shown on-screen exist in Schrödinger state.


And the fact that the players don't know some important information is a damn huge red flag anyway.

What if it's something that some players do know? As part of Bobbie's back story they're a spy from kingdom X. You don't want to spoil Bobbie's secret.

In other cases, I have a very long running campaign world. People new to the group may not know about things that happened in a previous campaign and the other player's characters don't know either.

It's not always about "precious plot points" it's about pre-established canon that the player may not know about.

 

[BookTenTiger]

How do you as a player know what the capabilities of the BBEG are, or what their ultimate motivation is? I mean clarifying if you think the DM misread a spell is one thing, but telling the DM they're running an NPC wrong would be like the DM telling a player they're running their player wrong. I don't do either.

So the DM doesn't have authority over how players play their characters?

Yeah, there's a limit to the roles anyone plays at the table. The hyperbolic example you provided has only one solution: an authoritarian GM. But it's ridiculous, and if that situation has come up then something in the social contract between the players at the table is broken.

"But... what if the player says the GM should have a different wallpaper in their living room? What if the player says the GM should have a different breed of dog? What if the player says the GM should legally change their name?"

 

[Oofta]

As an elementary school teacher, when I reach a point of butting heads with a student it's too late for any kind of authority. It's time to take a step back and resolve whatever conflict is leading to that situation. I may be the authority in the classroom, but that doesn't mean I'm authoritarian. I have authority because of the social agreement between students and I, something I reinforce with clear classroom rules, practice following those rules, and discussions about following the rules.

Look, in any argument where the GM has Authority just because they have Authority, I'm going to strongly disagree. I think it's an unhealthy way to treat a group of friends, and I think it leads to unhealthy, authoritarian relationships between the GM and players. The GM has authority because it's an agreement between all the players. When a player is resisting that authority, I think the healthy thing to do is not to go all authoritarian and say "My way or the highway," but to take a step back and compromise and collaborate.

Please don't conflate this with players being in conflict with the rules. The rules are the authority of the rules.

But the rules are open to interpretation. Different people will have different interpretations.

I don't want to get into the weeds of anything specific, but different DMs run Heat Metal differently is one example. Some say a target in armor has disadvantage as long as the caster has concentration, some say the target gets a con save every round to avoid disadvantage, I had one say that the armor is not one solid piece of metal so it didn't apply.

Who's right?

 

[Istbor]

DM authority, is only as powerful, as the trust the group and the DM place within one another.

I had a much longer detailed write-up, but really, after re-reading it I removed it. It just circled back to one thing over and over to me. Just as this discussion seems to.

It is all a social issue. A contract with you and whoever are running the player characters at the table. If all participants can't communicate the goal of the game, to have fun, then you are going to run into issues.

Whether that be a rule that gets interpreted wrong, or some odd behavior by a DM that gets called out. It comes back to how well do you communicate.

Are you going to have some people run into conflict, or even a player or DM acting in bad faith? Sure.

Do I personally think that is a reason to say, "Well I am the DM, this is my game, if you don't like it, there is the door"? No. That conversation should never start (or really end) with that.

 

[Oofta]

So the DM doesn't have authority over how players play their characters?

Yeah, there's a limit to the roles anyone plays at the table. The hyperbolic example you provided has only one solution: an authoritarian GM. But it's ridiculous, and if that situation has come up then something in the social contract between the players at the table is broken.

"But... what if the player says the GM should have a different wallpaper in their living room? What if the player says the GM should have a different breed of dog? What if the player says the GM should legally change their name?"

Outside of "no PVP" that we agree to as a group? No, I will never tell a PC what they think or do. I don't allow evil PCs in my campaign so I will let a player know if they're pushing the boundaries of what I would allow and that if they become evil they become an NPC. But they're still free to do whatever they want within the capability of the PC in the world.

But again, how does a player know what an NPC is thinking, what they have planned or even if they are something other than what they appear to be? That elf just shrugged off a fireball? You just don't know that it's really an ancient red dragon. It's not hyperbole and I have no idea where you're coming from.

 

[loverdrive]

You're making unwarranted assumptions. I agree that it's not true until it hits the table. But no where have I said this hasn't hit the table. Let's go with this would invalidate things that have already come up, which is why the DM wasn't willing to compromise.

Then they just bring that up and any reasonable player is gonna be like "oh, right, I forgot about that". Case solved.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Outside of "no PVP" that we agree to as a group? No, I will never tell a PC what they think or do. I don't allow evil PCs in my campaign so I will let a player know if they're pushing the boundaries of what I would allow and that if they become evil they become an NPC. But they're still free to do whatever they want within the capability of the PC in the world.

But again, how does a player know what an NPC is thinking, what they have planned or even if they are something other than what they appear to be? That elf just shrugged off a fireball? You just don't know that it's really an ancient red dragon. It's not hyperbole and I have no idea where you're coming from.

You know what? I got your post and Warpiglet's posts mixed up. Sorry about that!