D&D General DM Authority

[JiffyPopTart]

They’re mildly amusing at best.

I'm both old and someone that finds them pretty funny.

 

[Oofta]

The point I was responding to was asking why I'm talking about it at all, because no one except the "anti-DM Authority" crowd has been using that term.

Well, you used that term. And while it has been poorly defined, just last page (page 28 as I see we've jumped another 5 pages) Max was again saying the DM does have absolute authority to do anything. Zarionofarabel was using the example of the Queen of Englad overthrowing the Canadian government. So, clearly some people see this term as meaning far more than some minor restrictions and a moderate veto power.

And it seems by your response, then you would say that those people claiming ultimate authority, with full dismissal of every position they don't like, is not something that is okay. Other people seem to think that that is okay. To the point of potentially overriding the entire group.

So, if you mean "Absolute Authority" to mean "I listen to my players and incorporate their ideas where I can. I have some minor rules to make play easier, and I encourage my players to discuss with me" Then I'd say you aren't using the term to mean anything like what some other posters have said.

I used the term to ask people what it meant to them. There's no accepted definition of absolute authority. I'm not Maxperson but he doesn't dismiss every position he doesn't like and explicitly states so.

@Chaosmancer is correct. There are a number of us that know that the DM has absolute authority. Those on our side also say, though, that the DM should not be a jerk about it and should if necessary, discuss things with the players before issuing the ruling.

I'm curious about the first paragraph. Should the group not support a ruling or creative decision, what other than remove themselves from his game can they do? If nothing, then the DM has absolute authority over the game.

If you want to quibble about details, discuss it with max. You are, however, making up naughty word people have never said.

 

[Don Durito]

Goku? Epic Rap Battles?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Maybe you've never had a problem player. Having an honest conversation with them pointing out the behavior that is not acceptable in the game can be difficult at best. Whether that's rude comments made about other players, hogging the spotlight to the detriment of other players, being overly argumentative during the game session it is not easy to have an honest conversation. If everybody at the table chips in, it's far more likely the problem player will get defensive and upset.

You say you've never hit the issue. Good for you. Then you don't know what it's like to deal with it.

As far as rule disputes, what can I say. Someone has to have the final say. In every game I've ever been involved with that was functional that was the DM. I've talked to DMs who regret allowing options or letting things slide when they were felt bullied and brow-beaten in to making decisions they didn't agree with. Sometimes there is no compromise, there is only "no".

And again, you ignore over half my examples to focus on one thing.

Bad Players.

Yeah, I've had a few. They suck. People can be rude, crude, bullies, inattentive, power-hungry, I could go on.

They are the minority. Always.

You know what most of the rules disputes I've seen are? Lacking knowledge of what the rule says. Very very few times has it been an actual grey-area. And almost never when it is a grey-area is there someone who doesn't recognize it is a grey area. Barring being online on a forum.

And, generally, what happens is that the DM asks the table "here is the houserule I'm thinking of, what do you think?" That's putting it to a vote. That is letting the table the decide. That is not the DM using their authority. If they did, they'd just impose the rule without asking. And if the players said they didn't like it... they'd just do it anyways. That is exercising Authority.


I know you get constantly frustrated with people bringing up Bad DMs. You say it all the time that you aren't a bad DM, that this or the other thing is true. But, there is a pattern to your posts Oofta. You almost always bring up Bad Players. You constantly give an example of a bad player, you constantly mention you need your authority because of bad players, you can't let people ask for new races because of bad players.

Just take a moment. Imagine a table with no bad players. No one trying to abuse anything. No one seeking rules loopholes, no one trying to break the game or shout louder than the rest.

What authority does the DM need at that table? A table with no Bad Players. None current, none future.

 

[Minigiant]

Perhaps it's not fair of the general audience to expect them to know that level of detail about any particular character.

I literally only know who Goku is because he was featured on Epic Rap Battles....and he was fighting Superman.

The point was that someone was trying to say Goku didn't belong in vanilla D&D fantasy except for Goku being more or less a basic D&monk until the second series Dragonball Z.

Goku being paired up with Superman should be informative of his overall impact and popularity in the media he is from.

This all poits to my point that the audience in D&D has expanded and in order to mantain Authority, DM of open calls and groups will have to be clearer about their campaigns.

 

[Oofta]

And again, you ignore over half my examples to focus on one thing.

Bad Players.

Yeah, I've had a few. They suck. People can be rude, crude, bullies, inattentive, power-hungry, I could go on.

They are the minority. Always.

You know what most of the rules disputes I've seen are? Lacking knowledge of what the rule says. Very very few times has it been an actual grey-area. And almost never when it is a grey-area is there someone who doesn't recognize it is a grey area. Barring being online on a forum.

And, generally, what happens is that the DM asks the table "here is the houserule I'm thinking of, what do you think?" That's putting it to a vote. That is letting the table the decide. That is not the DM using their authority. If they did, they'd just impose the rule without asking. And if the players said they didn't like it... they'd just do it anyways. That is exercising Authority.


I know you get constantly frustrated with people bringing up Bad DMs. You say it all the time that you aren't a bad DM, that this or the other thing is true. But, there is a pattern to your posts Oofta. You almost always bring up Bad Players. You constantly give an example of a bad player, you constantly mention you need your authority because of bad players, you can't let people ask for new races because of bad players.

Just take a moment. Imagine a table with no bad players. No one trying to abuse anything. No one seeking rules loopholes, no one trying to break the game or shout louder than the rest.

What authority does the DM need at that table? A table with no Bad Players. None current, none future.

Dude, I'm done arguing with you. Read the PHB and DMG on the role of the DM because that pretty much sums up how I approach this. The DM is main story teller and referee that makes the final call on the campaign setting, rules, house rules and restrictions.

 

[Don Durito]

This thread has got me imagining a game with no DM but run by committee.

Fred: Ok I open the door.
Barney: It's probably locked.
Wilma: I agree it would be locked
Betty: What's the DC? Let me check the book. It doesn't say.
Fred: Ok. I have the 3rd edition PHB somewhere around here - that will probably say. DC 15.
Fred rolls. Ok we open the door - what do we think is in this room.
Betty: Probably two Ogres.
Wilma: I think 3.
Barney: Ok 3 let's roll initiative.

I've also noticed that on Roll20 some people are charging money to DM a game. Well, since there's nothing special about the DM's roll, I figure I might go there and charge money to play in a game.

 

[FrogReaver]

This thread has got me imagining a game with no DM but run by committee.

Fred: Ok I open the door.
Barney: It's probably locked.
Wilma: I agree it would be locked
Betty: What's the DC? Let me check the book. It doesn't say.
Fred: Ok. I have the 3rd edition PHB somewhere around here - that will probably say. DC 15.
Fred rolls. Ok we open the door - what do we think is in this room.
Betty: Probably two Ogres.
Wilma: I think 3.
Barney: Ok 3 let's roll initiative.

I've also noticed that on Roll20 some people are charging money to DM a game. Well, since there's nothing special about the DM's roll, I figure I might go there and charge money to play in a game.

You might be on to something. Those DM's charging to run a game would probably be well served paying a very good and engaging player to play in his game as it would probably allow him to run better games and charge even more.

 

[Don Durito]

To be fair to pay to play, I think the majority of Roll20 GMs who charge money are really just trying to get back the money they spend on Roll20 pro subscriptions and WOTC modules and compendium material on Roll20. They're quite expensive, so it's only fair the cost should be distributed. I don't think there are many people out there who actually make any kind of profit.

 

[Minigiant]

This thread has got me imagining a game with no DM but run by committee.

Fred: Ok I open the door.
Barney: It's probably locked.
Wilma: I agree it would be locked
Betty: What's the DC? Let me check the book. It doesn't say.
Fred: Ok. I have the 3rd edition PHB somewhere around here - that will probably say. DC 15.
Fred rolls. Ok we open the door - what do we think is in this room.
Betty: Probably two Ogres.
Wilma: I think 3.
Barney: Ok 3 let's roll initiative.

I've also noticed that on Roll20 some people are charging money to DM a game. Well, since there's nothing special about the DM's roll, I figure I might go there and charge money to play in a game.

I taught a 6 year old to run 4e.

With enough random die tables, you could probably run a very basic game of D&D with no DM.