D&D General DM Authority

[Charlaquin]

….A lot of DM authority issues come down to lack of clarity….. Or Players not accepting a NO unless the DM hits over the head with a 2 by 4.

…I have no idea why it's hotly debated. One side is self-evidently right and the other side are just being pig-headed….. OINK OINK lol

…I figure we're debating it so we can figure out who are the pig-headed ones….. Easy. ANY of y’all who don’t agree with me.

You know it’s been a long thread when this exact joke has been made in it twice.

 

[Umbran]

Are YOU a GOOD enough player to enable the DM and other folks have a good time at the table?

So, as I've noted, language matters.

There is a difference between, "are you doing a good job" and "are you good enough". The first is judging the work, the second is judging the value of the person.

If your goal is to make people feel bad, by all means, judge the value of the people. If you want to improve what's happening at the table, keep the focus on the events, not the people.

 

[generic]

You ah...

You do know that Goku is based on Sun Wukong, the Monkey King, from Journey to the West, right?

Just asking, because Journey to the West is the good stuff.

Yes, and Star Wars is based on medieval legend.

The origin of one does not imply that it fits in fantasy.

Let's say that I argue that Cyberpunk is based on Greek myth, there's not argument to be made that it fits within a mythological fantasy setting of the ancient world..

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That would end in either the players all leaving and forming a new group, or the DM being forced to sign the Magna Carta and running combat for the players.

Absolute power can also exist simultaneously with an elected government. Here in Canada we have a Constitutional Monarchy. The Queen of England is technically, still in charge. We are allowed to have a Parliament through her good graces. If the Queen really wanted to she could come to Canada, go to Parliament, wave her hands around and shout "you're all fired" and poof, we are back to being ruled solely by the Queen.

Erm...yeah, so this is literally exactly wrong.

Constitutional monarchy is explicitly not absolute power. Like, that's literally part of the definition of "constitutional monarchy." Any government that limits the power of the royal sovereign by way of a constitution is, definitionally, not a government where the royal sovereign holds absolute power. As Brittanica.com puts it: "Constitutional monarchy, system of government in which a monarch (see monarchy) shares power with a constitutionally organized government. The monarch may be the de facto head of state or a purely ceremonial leader. The constitution allocates the rest of the government’s power to the legislature and judiciary." (Emphasis and links in original.)

The power is shared, and therefore is not absolute. Period. Canada does not have an absolute monarch. It has a constitutional monarch, whose role is largely ceremonial.* Were the Queen to exercise any effort at absolute power, the Canadian government would make her role truly ceremonial. Just as how, in England, the Queen theoretically has the ability to deny Royal Assent to any law, an absolute veto that Parliament can't override. It hasn't been used since the 19th century because the monarchs of England have understood that doing so would be political suicide. Royal Assent is effectively a rubber stamp.

*Properly speaking, the role isn't even fulfilled by the Queen. It's fulfilled by the Governor General, who while theoretically appointed by the Queen, is appointed so "on the advice" of the Canadian PM. Note here that this term, "advice," in constitutional law means something much different from its ordinary usage; this "advice" is legally binding, meaning the Queen doesn't get to decide "no, I'm going to nominate X person instead." Should she truly object to an appointment, there would likely be a polite closed-door discussion about an alternative appointment, but ultimately, her authority is again a rubber stamp and nothing more.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Erm...yeah, so this is literally exactly wrong.

Constitutional monarchy is explicitly not absolute power. Like, that's literally part of the definition of "constitutional monarchy." Any government that limits the power of the royal sovereign by way of a constitution is, definitionally, not a government where the royal sovereign holds absolute power. As Brittanica.com puts it: "Constitutional monarchy, system of government in which a monarch (see monarchy) shares power with a constitutionally organized government. The monarch may be the de facto head of state or a purely ceremonial leader. The constitution allocates the rest of the government’s power to the legislature and judiciary." (Emphasis and links in original.)

The power is shared, and therefore is not absolute. Period. Canada does not have an absolute monarch. It has a constitutional monarch, whose role is largely ceremonial.* Were the Queen to exercise any effort at absolute power, the Canadian government would make her role truly ceremonial. Just as how, in England, the Queen theoretically has the ability to deny Royal Assent to any law, an absolute veto that Parliament can't override. It hasn't been used since the 19th century because the monarchs of England have understood that doing so would be political suicide. Royal Assent is effectively a rubber stamp.

*Properly speaking, the role isn't even fulfilled by the Queen. It's fulfilled by the Governor General, who while theoretically appointed by the Queen, is appointed so "on the advice" of the Canadian PM. Note here that this term, "advice," in constitutional law means something much different from its ordinary usage; this "advice" is legally binding, meaning the Queen doesn't get to decide "no, I'm going to nominate X person instead." Should she truly object to an appointment, there would likely be a polite closed-door discussion about an alternative appointment, but ultimately, her authority is again a rubber stamp and nothing more.

Oh I know all that stuff. What I was saying is that technically the Queen could take back her absolute power at any moment. The fact that it would be almost impossible to actually do is beside the point.

 

[generic]

Oh I know all that stuff. What I was saying is that technically the Queen could take back her absolute power at any moment. The fact that it would be almost impossible to actually do is beside the point.

She can't, her powers are limited by the Constitution. She holds no other legal, moral, or religious right to reclaim control of the government.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes, and Star Wars is based on medieval legend.

The origin of one does not imply that it fits in fantasy.

Let's say that I argue that Cyberpunk is based on Greek myth, there's not argument to be made that it fits within a mythological fantasy setting of the ancient world..

The DM designs the world.

If the DM wants his world to have a fantasy China and Nigeria attached to his fantasy England, one would expect monkeymen and spiderman first before Elven Cao Cao and brown skinned dwarves.

 

[generic]

The DM designs the world.

If the DM wants his world to have a fantasy China and Nigeria attached to his fantasy England, one would expect monkeymen and spiderman first before Elven Cao Cao and brown skinned dwarves.

Obviously, but the person I was responding to seemed to imply that Goku fit in vanilla fantasy.

 

[Minigiant]

Obviously, but the person I was responding to seemed to imply that Goku fit in vanilla fantasy.

Goku from Dragonball (not Dragonball Z, GT, or Super) is a straight up basic D&D monk of a custom race.

 

[generic]

Goku from Dragonball (not Dragonball Z, GT, or Super) is a straight up basic D&D monk of a custom race.

That's a fair argument to make, but Z, GT, and Super all exist.