D&D General DM Authority

[Oofta]

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

So back to my example. The guy playing a monk thought he could do a Flash tornado. It did not fit the theme or style of the campaign in any way shape or form. This is not a communication problem, it's someone making up a powerful class feature that did not exist because I'm not running a superhero campaign.

How does it get resolved? Come on, this question is not rocket science.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

Communication doesn’t resolve all disagreements.

 

[Stormonu]

Personally, I find most issues with DM authority are not so much as about refereeing the action in the game, but in the options available for the game. Especially those that don't allow for discussion, but are simply commandments handed down "from on high".

"There's no dragonborn in my game"
"I don't allow content from supplement X"
"I don't allow option X in my game; it's broken"

I've been guilty of this myself at times (currently running Greyhawk and disallowing a character to run a gunslinger-style character as gunpowder/guns don't work in the world, according to old 1E lore - excepting Myrlynd, of course). I am certainly more open to unusual requests than I used to be, but I still sometimes run into issues where players where players want options that I'm concerned may make it a headache to run the game. More often than not, if the player can come up with storyside exposition that gets me interested or excited about including the content, I'll generally let it in. If it's pure mathematical advantage, it'll probably get denied or allowed with a heavy dose of "if it becomes a problem, expect a nerf/tweak/disallow".

 

[DND_Reborn]

Communication doesn’t resolve all disagreements.

Sometimes lack of communication is what resolves them.

I know I've been in many disagreements where the only answer was to stop the conversation.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sometimes lack of communication is what resolves them.

I know I've been in many disagreements where the only answer was to stop the conversation.

That’s very fitting here.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Especially those that don't allow for discussion, but are simply commandments handed down "from on high".

"There's no dragonborn in my game"
"I don't allow content from supplement X"
"I don't allow option X in my game; it's broken"

These are the types of examples of things I won't allow because I want the game to be fun for me as well as the players. Stupid character concepts or silly races and classes are prime examples of crap I don't want in any game I am running. They ruin the game for me, and I am just as important as my players.

 

[loverdrive]

So back to my example. The guy playing a monk thought he could do a Flash tornado. It did not fit the theme or style of the campaign in any way shape or form. This is not a communication problem, it's someone making up a powerful class feature that did not exist because I'm not running a superhero campaign.

How does it get resolved? Come on, this question is not rocket science.

There are two possibilities:
1) somehow, you didn't make it clear that this is not a superhero game. In that case, you make it clear now —and PUFF! Problem solved. You either part ways, if you want to play different kinds of games, or they get it that ther idea doesn't fit
2) you are playing with a goddamn moron. Then, why are you playing with a moron?

 

[Stormonu]

So back to my example. The guy playing a monk thought he could do a Flash tornado. It did not fit the theme or style of the campaign in any way shape or form. This is not a communication problem, it's someone making up a powerful class feature that did not exist because I'm not running a superhero campaign.

How does it get resolved? Come on, this question is not rocket science.

Sit down with the player, find out what is their reasoning, what they want the ability to actually do and work towards a resolution.

"Hmm. So, sounds like something that would use 1 or more of your ki points - let's say 2; takes a standard action and targets one target in 30 feet (you use the rest of your movement to generate the "spin") and you have to move at least 15 feet to get "spun up" . Let's say you can essentially make a Flurry of Blows attacks, Prone strike and Stunning strike all in one go. Sound good? Let's see how it works."

(Honestly, if you have spellcasters [magic] in your campaign, superheroic feats like the above are nothing - it's just a question at which level they'd be appropriate. What's difference between a monk doing a super tornado by a ki-powered run vs. a wizard casting an air elemental and having it do the same thing?)

 

[FrogReaver]

Sit down with the player, find out what is their reasoning, what they want the ability to actually do and work towards a resolution.

"Hmm. So, sounds like something that would use 1 or more of your ki points - let's say 2; takes a standard action and targets one target in 30 feet (you use the rest of your movement to generate the "spin") and you have to move at least 15 feet to get "spun up" . Let's say you can essentially make a Flurry of Blows attacks, Prone strike and Stunning strike all in one go. Sound good? Let's see how it works."

(Honestly, if you have spellcasters [magic] in your campaign, superheroic feats like the above are nothing - it's just a question at which level they'd be appropriate. What's difference between a monk doing a super tornado by a ki-powered run vs. a wizard casting an air elemental and having it do the same thing?)

Whether super hero style martial moves should be allowed is one of the most hotly debated things in all of d&d

 

[Charlaquin]

There are two possibilities:
1) somehow, you didn't make it clear that this is not a superhero game. In that case, you make it clear now —and PUFF! Problem solved. You either part ways, if you want to play different kinds of games, or they get it that ther idea doesn't fit
2) you are playing with a goddamn moron. Then, why are you playing with a moron?

So, I think when you talk about “parting ways if you want to play different kinds of games” and “not playing with a moron” and when the DM authority crowd talks about kicking players out, you’re talking about the same thing. I suspect the key difference may be that the DM authority crowd is working from a baseline assumption of a single forever-DM for a mostly regular group of players, and in that context “parting ways” with a player or deciding not to play with them pretty much looks like that player “getting kicked out” of the game.