D&D General DM Authority

[Charlaquin]

The idea that any player is free to establish any detail they want to about the world and the DM just has to accept it is patently absurd to me.

DM: You come to a locked door in the dungeon
PLAYER 1: I use the key my grandfather left me to unlock it.
DM: Um... Your grandfather didn’t leave you the key to this random door in the middle of an orc-infested ruin...
PLAYER 1: Well, lets come to a consensus.
OTHER PLAYERS, (who also want to open the door): We all agree he did.
DM: ಠ_ಠ

Obviously the DM should take the players input into account and try to compromise, which often will be a simple matter to accomplish. But the nature of the game is such that one player is in control of the environment and the other players are not. It is therefore not always reasonable for the DM to accommodate the players’ every whim.

 

[Oofta]

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

And if they say that they really want to play a half-dragon half-vampire (with a scarf that magically flutters in the wind), what then? If they say that Odin tells them where the BBEG is even though the BBEG has taken all the necessary precautions to avoid magical detection? I mean, it's not like they were using a specific spell or even divine intervention, they just declared that "they ask and because Odin sees all Odin knows the answer".

If you've never seen any conflict ever in any game you've ever played you are a rare unicorn in my experience.

 

[Oofta]

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

No worries. No wonder I was confused.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Oofta

IME, the DM is god in the game. Their word is law because they create the world the players play in. They control everything that happens, literally, and have the power to override any die roll, any rule. If a player doesn't like it, they can always leave.

Does that mean they have to be mean or unreasonable? Of course not. Like you said, a lot of times I will listen to any reasonable argument, etc. but frankly as DM I am putting a hell of a lot more time into the game than the people playing and as such I want it to be an experience I am going to enjoy as well.

Finally, when someone else DMs, I treat them exactly they way I expect to be treated when I am DM. What they say goes. I can question it, argue it, but once the decision is final I either accept it or also have the right to leave the game.

And I don't think I would want to play in any other type of game, either.

 

[Oofta]

The idea that any player is free to establish any detail they want to about the world and the DM just has to accept it is patently absurd to me.

DM: You come to a locked door in the dungeon
PLAYER 1: I use the key my grandfather left me to unlock it.
DM: Um... Your grandfather didn’t leave you the key to this random door in the middle of an orc-infested ruin...
PLAYER 1: Well, lets come to a consensus.
OTHER PLAYERS, (who also want to open the door): We all agree he did.
DM: ಠ_ಠ

Obviously the DM should take the players input into account and try to compromise, which often will be a simple matter to accomplish. But the nature of the game is such that one player is in control of the environment and the other players are not. It is therefore not always reasonable for the DM to accommodate the players’ every whim.

If the PC had an inherited trinket that was a key (that had been previously established) I might roll to see if it works. I mean, it might be 1 in a 1,000 but there's still a chance.

But yes, PCs can't just make up stuff on the spot with no limits. Someone has to maintain world consistency even if the group has agreed that players can make broad changes.

 

[Minigiant]

The DM has authority over some things

The players have authority over some things.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

In most disagreements you can’t just say that one side is being unreasonable. Usually it’s due to people coming at something from two totally different starting points.

 

[Oofta]

In most disagreements you can’t just say that one side is being unreasonable. Usually it’s due to people coming at something from two totally different starting points.

Or that there is simply no right or wrong answer, just different conclusions.

 

[loverdrive]

In most disagreements you can’t just say that one side is being unreasonable. Usually it’s due to people coming at something from two totally different starting points.

Then they just have a communication problem and clear that up. Come on, that's not rocket science.

 

[Helldritch]

Interesting thread.

Here is how it works at my table.
We have a very democratic approach to the game. We reached consensus on which optional rules we allow in the game (house or officials). Once these are agreed upon. A campaing is set in stone rule wise.

Once in game, the DM (that is me) has rhe final say as the ultimate arbiter of a situation. Of course, I can be wrong or misinterpret some things, but the way we do things means that if I make a mistake, I will always correct the the mistake. But if something happens that is outside players' knowledge and we a contentious decision, we take note. I write the event and the situation and once the even can no longer affect the game, I show them what was leading me to take the decision that I took. My players trust me enough to know that I would not make things up for the fun of it.