D&D General DM Authority

[Chaosmancer]

Wow. "Socially suppressed"? As in the DM and his players are in an abusive relationship? Really?

I don't know what groups you've played with, but when it comes to resolving issues at the table it's generally the DM's problem. Somebody may correct someone else now and then, but addressing a social issue? They look to the DM. Same way they look to the DM to be the referee, most people would not feel that it was their place to chastise another player. I've had groups (sans the 1 person we were talking about of course) tell me that we needed to do something about the problem player.

Well, think about what you just said a bit.

If their is a social problem, it is the DM's problem. So, if a social problem comes up, a player by not being the DM, doesn't have the "role" of dealing with it.

That is where this idea of "social suppression" comes from. Because the player has this understood mentality that they are not supposed to get involved.

But, there is not a single real reason why a conflict at the table between two players has to be resolved by the DM. Anybody could handle that. But we default to the DM, because we think they have some extra weight or authority, whether or not they actually do.

 

[zarionofarabel]

That seems a terribly narrow-minded way to look at DMing. There's nothing wrong with only wanting to run D&D to the exclusion of other RPGs. I may not be fond of published adventures, but I won't fault a DM who runs them. Some games that focus on combat are tremendous fun. Downtime is an incredibly useful mechanic for keeping the game focused on the action when different player characters have personal agendas that would otherwise eat precious "screen time" and result in boring-ass spotlight-hogging. I thoroughly despise any definition of "role-playing" that means "improvisational playacting," and D&D should support my style of play as well as yours.

I would despair at the notion that my particular flavor of D&D (old-school board-gamey fantasy wargaming with a heavy emphasis on dungeon exploration and challenging the players) might be lost from the world while a story-driven, thespianism-heavy style flourished. If anything, we should all strive to see the variety of possible play-styles flourish, expand, and be celebrated.

As I said, many on these forums would consider me a bad DM as I loathe dungeon crawling, absolutely despise minis combat, and simply don't understand the D&D only crowd.

Much like you I despair at the notion of my style of roleplaying being lost to the world if D&D morphs in to a Gloomhaven clone. D&D is the most famous of RPGs, and if it becomes just another minis combat game that glosses over all the actual roleplaying then there is a good chance that kind of RP experience gets lost forever.

I have no doubt that many players of D&D do not, and would not, enjoy the kinds of games I run because they are completely divorced from the archaic wargaming roots the hobby has outgrown.

That one raises some red flags for me. The restrictions aren’t too bad, but “I run a game that is a little more gritty and mid-level fantasy” sounds like a very loaded sentence that I would definitely want the DM to elaborate on before agreeing to play, and “Role-playing is first person with limited/no out of character” is especially questionable to me. I mean, I get wanting to keep things in-character, on its own that wouldn’t concern me, but in context of that sentence, with the matter-of-fact assertion that “roleplaying is first person” gives the impression of someone who’s going to police roleplaying in ways I would find undesirable. You want to say no dragonborn or sorcerers in your campaign, fine, but don’t tell me how I’m allowed to roleplay!

The solution is easy, don't join that game!

 

[Chaosmancer]

Run the game the way you want. I'm not going to put other people sitting at the table into the position of saying "no", it's not fair to the other players. If you don't understand that, I can't help.

Huh?

How is it not fair? I get no one wants conflict, but saying that everyone should be empowered to weigh in and feel like their voice matters to the discussion isn't a burden that is unfair to put on them.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm so lost...

What the HELL is that cat eared blonde girl, and who the holy hammer of Torm...

Is the one named after computer memory?

A furry? After elf, things get murky for me as well.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I have no doubt that many players of D&D do not, and would not, enjoy the kinds of games I run because they are completely divorced from the archaic wargaming roots the hobby has outgrown.

"Archaic." "Outgrown." Care to rephrase that without sounding like you've got your head planted firmly up your own backside?

 

[Don Durito]

The solution is easy, don't join that game!

Ehh. While I tend to agree that DMs can run a game however they like that one sent up red flags for me too. Requiring everything to be in first person sounds unworkable (unless I'm understanding it wrong) and is certainly not something that should be advertised as new player friendly.

And when you add that to the sheer vagueness of the tone in which the GM described their game, it sends out clear warning signs. A "little more gritty and low fantasy" is meaningless garbage. What does that mean? You're going to use lingering injuries? The gritty realism rest variant?

It's exactly the kind of poor communication I referred to above.
It doesn't really tell me anything about what I could expect from the game.

I also can't help but think (based on personal experience) that if the GM can't clearly describe the kind of game they want to run then quite likely they haven't thought it through clearly to themself.

 

[zarionofarabel]

"Archaic." "Outgrown." Care to rephrase that without sounding like you've got your head planted firmly up your own backside?

Nope.

To be honest I'm really hoping that the plethora of famous IPs that are now being, and soon will be, published by different companies using systems that are completely divorced from wargaming and D&D will draw a significant percentage of the D&D crowd away. As I said, my style of running games is not popular with the D&D only crowd, but I am unapologetic in my love for my style.

 

[loverdrive]

There are many factors contributing to the hobby’s success. I don’t think the Player’s Handbook is one of them. I could be wrong about that, but either way the hobby’s success is not a reliable indicator that the PHB is doing its job well, as the success could easily be in spite of the PHB rather than because of it. At any rate, even if the PHB is helping more than it hurts, it still has a LOT of room for improvement.

I'd say that PHB is mostly okaish, but DMG is just... I don't even have words to describe a book for (potentially new) game masters that contains next to zero actual advice on how to run games, starts with damn COSMOLOGY instead of "ok, here's how manage spotlight, here's how to pitch the campaign in a clear way" and optional rules 90% of which can't provoke any reaction except "wtf these guys have been smoking".

Especially optional rules make me think that whoever was writing DMG was some kind of Monte Cook fan, who've decided to put "system mastery" and trap options into a book for game masters.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'd say that PHB is mostly okaish, but DMG is just... I don't even have words to describe a book for (potentially new) game masters that contains next to zero actual advice on how to run games, starts with damn COSMOLOGY instead of "ok, here's how manage spotlight, here's how to pitch the campaign in a clear way" and optional rules 90% of which can't provoke any reaction except "wtf these guys have been smoking".

Especially optional rules make me think that whoever was writing DMG was some kind of Monte Cook fan, who've decided to put "system mastery" and trap options into a book for game masters.

The DMG does contain some valuable DMing advice. It’s just abysmally organized and presented.

 

[Umbran]

Ok. I disagree, but I don’t see any point arguing about it here.

It is only arguing if you're set on not changing your mind. I can demonstrate the point almost trivially.

Here is a basic recipe for bread, in 102 words:

Spoiler: in the spoiler for space

4 1/2 to 5 cups (542g to 600g) Bread Flour
1 tablespoon (11g) sugar
2 1/4 teaspoons instant yeast
2 1/2 teaspoons (15g) table salt (not kosher)
1 2/3 cups (379g) water, lukewarm (90°F to 110°F)
cornmeal, for coating the pan
Stir together all of the ingredients (except the cornmeal) in a large bowl to form a dough.
Knead dough for six minutes.
Allow to rise at room temperature until it has doubled in size.
Form loaves.
Allow loaves to rise for 45 minutes.
Slash top of loaves.
Bake in 450 degree oven for 45 minutes.
Allow to cool.

Now, this recipe is a good reference. It fits on an index card, and it tells you all the amounts and temperatures and times. But it doesn't tell you much about the sub-processes. It doesn't tell you how to measure the amounts, or describe the motion of kneading, for example. Or how to shape the loaves. Or how to know when it has risen enough. Or how deep to slash.

All those things can be taught by text. But, the result will no longer be 102 words. It won't fit on an index card, and so, for a person who already knows how to knead and shape and such, the result is not as good a reference, as you need to scan over more material in order to find the temperatures and times.

Repeat the same, for a 200+ page book. The teaching how will expand the book significantly - it is now more costly, with more information that you don't need much once you have learned, but now have to carry around and flip through to find the embedded reference information.