The crux of the issue comes down to using the same term in wildly divergent contexts.
I use absolute authority to mean the final judge, the narrator. Max and Lanefan may use it differently.
If you think using a different term would be conducive to better dialogue, I'd propose "final authority" or "referee".
I think I agree, DM as Referee is perfectly fine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the disconnect for you is that you seem to think the DM is supposed to be like a "party clown" there only for the players amusement. Whereas most people think the DM should be allowed to run a game that they find enjoyable.
Wrong. Insultingly so.
But there might be some value in the fact that you can't tell the difference between "I am willing to compromise so that my friends have fun" and "I'm a clown"
As a side note, there are a fair number of systems that have collaborative setting creation baked into the rules. There are also some systems that are built specifically to allow players to FORCE THE GM to allow them to add their own elements to the setting during gameplay. These systems are not D&D though. Those things are not things that D&D has ever included. In fact, those systems, IMHO, came about because of people like you who were dissatisfied with how D&D works.
My personal suggestion to you would be to abandon D&D and embrace other systems that do what you want D&D to do. My personal favorite is Burning Wheel, it's offshoots Mouse Guard and Torchbearer are also very good IMHO. There are many others, especially newer systems like the 2d20 lines (Star Trek Adventures), Cortex Prime, and the PbtA games.
Or, you know, I can keep playing DnD?
Because, again, I'm a DM. Not here recently because of Covid, because I don't feel I can run a game I'd be proud of online, or I'm just nervous, but I mostly DM.
And I love it. And I quite enjoy being a player.
It also amuses me how, having played games like Savage Worlds and Cold Steel Wardens where there are resources allowing the player to affect the narrative, you feel the need to put "force the GM" in all capital letters. Like it is some sort of... eldritch taboo horror. What, the GM deciding to run those games didn't give permission for players to play the game, and must be "forced" to follow the rules?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not? If a system other than D&D would serve someones needs much better than D&D why would I suggest they keep using D&D?
Sorry, but as someone who is not a fan of D&D in any sense, I always encourage people to find other systems that would better suit their needs.
Chaosmancer would be much better served by a system other than D&D. In fact to me it sounds like Chaosmancer wants a system that runs exactly the way Burning Wheel works. I would be disappointed with myself if I didn't point this fact out. Especially after seeing how often Chaosmancer brings up this argument and how passionate Chaosmancer seems about their position.
Not everyone thinks D&D is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Some of us think it's not very good at all. That's why so many other RPGs exist!
You don't seem to understand my position at all, possibly since you don't seem like you play DnD.
I actually did start to try Burning Wheel once. The person who was going to run it flaked after character creation. It seemed like an interesting system, but I don't think it would give me what I want from a DnD game, since it isn't DnD.
And, taking your insistence on "forcing" and the rules, I get the feeling you are missing the point that if I wanted to play a game like Burning Wheel... I'd likely have to run it myself. Maybe I could find an online game, but more than likely I'd have to get the rules, teach myself, and run it.
This also likely stems from the fact that you are missing the point that I am advocating as much as a DM as a player. Something so many people seem to miss about my position. They all assume I'm against DMs, when I myself am a DM.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what, if anything, is wrong with this approach?
Put another way, why on earth would I seek out a group of people just so I could disagree with them?
I'm not saying anything is wrong with it per se, but it does lead to a bit of an issue in one sense.
If the group disagrees, you seek a different group. If the player disagrees, you potentially send them to find a different group.
On the plus side, in theory people will end up playing with people they agree with.
On the downside, disagreeing with the DM is seen as a problem that needs to be fixed.
Heck, the very act of saying "Hey guys, as a DM, I don't think my fun is more important than my players fun" got me a response that maybe DnD isn't the game for me. Whether or not that response was based in reality, that means that is it not so absurd for people to see the game in the context of the DM being more important than there players, and if DMs only surround themselves with people who agree with them...
I'm sure YOUR table isn't like that, I'm sure any individual person on this forum would say their table isn't like that. But the potential exists, and it stems from this same root.
Heh - I can think of one instance in hockey where a referee tossed a player out of the game just for coming on to the ice for a faceoff, because even though said player had not broken any rules in the ref's opinion he was about to, by starting a fight.
Okay.
But "potentially about to break the rules via physical violence" is a bit different than "Came to me with an idea I don't like"
But they do enforce them, and within a game have the authority to enforce them however they damn well choose. Most of the time they choose more or less correctly, but we can probably all point to egregious examples of where they did not.
And it's beyond just the players on the ice. If the referee wants someone in the crowd ejected, that person gets ejected.
Enforce the rules is still not making the rules.
And I imagine most of the people in the crowd getting ejected are being ejected for wildly imappropriate behavior. Streaking, throwing things at the players, inciting violence, ect.
I'd bet a ref has never ejected a person sitting calmly in the crowd, but not wearing the team colors. Or wearing the colors of a team the ref personally despises.
Such is the life of a DM, for better or worse.
Some go overboard by trying to control what characters people play and how they play them; or by constantly forcing the players/PCs into scenarios via any number of railroad tactics (which, it must be noted, can be fine once in a while but only once in a while). Most, however, don't go overboard; and recognize that with their authority also comes responsibility.
Right, some do some don't.
Laying claim to "absolute and unquestioned authority" (I'm adding unquestioned since people seem to be using absolute in a dozen different degrees) would be a clear indication of going too far.
And yet, people in this thread seem tiptoeing right on that line. They are the DM. They are Final. They are Inevitable. And if the group doesn't like it, the DM finds a group who does.
Perhaps; and now you've raised the question "D&D: sport or war?", off we'll go for another 30 pages...
I'd say that is an entirely parallel discussion.
You can approach the game tactically as war without exploiting the rules in ways that are clearly egregious.
Because in both "DnD Combat as War" and "DnD Combat as Sport" one thing holds true.
DnD is a game we play to have fun.
If you're referring to random dungeon generators, those are DM-side tools to aid in dungeon creation. You still need a DM to run what gets randomly generated, and to play the opposition.
Do you?
I personally, and many other DMs I've heard about, have given monsters over to Players to run and keep track of. Sure, it would be harder to run certain monsters and encounters that way. But it is far from impossible.
Missing the point.
It's first and foremost the DM's game. Players can suggest, request, etc., but if the DM says no then so be it. The flipside, of course, is that a DM who says no too often might look up from behind the screen one night and find an empty table...
See, no, it isn't.
First and foremost it is the Groups Game.
It is possible, difficult but possible, to play DnD with no DM. It is impossible to DM a game a DnD with no players.
But, people want to say that the DM is the most important person at the table. They want to say that without the DM there is no game. They want to claim the game as the property of the DM.
But none of that is true.
And, since we like the "DM as Referee analogy" let me ask this. How many sports can be played without a referee?
Street Hockey? No ref
Pick-up game of Basketball? No ref
Field Football with a local community? No ref
Street Soccer? No ref.
Now, list every single sport that can be played with only the referee present.
.......
There's the problem. If restrictions don't come to light until you've all gathered for session 0 it's already too late. Ideally, they're brought to light during the invitation process that leads up to session 0, such that by the time you all sit down to roll up your characters you're already familiar with - and have accepted, as part of accepting the invite - whatever restrictions there may be.
See, I've never heard that the restrictions are brought up in the pre-session Zero. The pre-session zero seems to me to be, "Hey, I have a campaign idea"
Then during session zero is when you talk about the various house rules, restrictions, ect.
We-ell, in a long campaign that sees player turnover it can happen. Oftentimes IME players coming in mid-campaign don't go through the same inform-and-invite process the starting players did. Instead it's a case of one of the players brings a friend to sit in, the friend then gets interested and rolls up a character on the spot, and only later do concerns arise.
Sure, but that is again a fundamentally different situation. Though, it does again lead to an interesting scenario. One you will probably say never happens.
But, let us say that you do have mid-campaign turnover. Karl comes to the game and wants to play a Tiefling and gives a brief backstory.
You, as the DM, say no.
But, your table (lets say 4/5 players) says "Nah dude, let him play a tiefling, that sounds like a cool story and it ties in with X, Y and Z"
My point isn't that this is going to happen. I'm sure your players would never say that. But if they did, how should a DM react? Should they tell their table that the idea they are interested in has no place, or do you defer to the desires of the group to include this story?
I don't see a value in overriding the players.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See, I would say running the campaign in a different setting, or changing the premise of the campaign to focus on planar travel would be moving the line. If I pitched the campaign I did, in my setting, it’s because that’s what I want to run. Those are points I’m willing to compromise on. Changing the lore of my setting is not.
Fair enough, I see it more as moving to a different project, but that is a perception thing with poor analogies making things muddy.
Yes, I would rather not DM than change my setting’s lore. I put a lot of work into my setting, I don’t want to change it. I’ll run another setting if my setting doesn’t meet the group’s needs.
Which, hey, I've built settings too, I get that.
But, this does get into a problem for players who want to affect the setting with their backstory. They likely don't want to quit the game and DM themselves, but they also can't change any lore, because you did it solo and won't change it.
Additionally, while I fully agree that in general I would be highly reluctant to change my settings lore, I also want to acknowledge that it is possible that a player is going to come to me with an idea that is better than what I have. It has happened. Different perspectives can make a world richer, more nuanced, and just plain better than a single vision.
Not by neccessity, not guaranteed, but the possibility exists.
Why do you not consider choosing to run a different setting that more closely aligns with the players’ needs “budging?” Why is it so important to you that a DM change their setting to suit the players’ desires?
It isn't that specifically, I'm just trying to find the limits. Where is the point where the DM changes? I saw the change to a different setting as the DM switching to a different project, but I can see the point that running a different campaign they are less excited about is the same thing.
What’s the alternative to negotiating to a place the DM accepts? Running a game they don’t accept? I don’t think that’s a fair expectation. The DM shouldn’t be obligated to run a game they don’t want to, just as the players shouldn’t be obligated to play in a game they don’t want to.
Again, what are the alternatives? The DM running a game they don’t accept? The player playing in a game they don’t accept? When two people reach an impasse, the options are either to find a mutually agreeable compromise, or to agree to disagree.
Why would the DM run a game that doesn’t meet their desires?
Why would the DM agree to something they don’t want to agree to?
It sounds fair, but there have been phrasings of that idea that don't sit well with me.
The idea that the DM is in no way obligated to do something they don't want to do is juxtaposed with the plyaer having the choice between doing something they don't want to do, or leaving.
Sure, if the DM drives away all their players, they don't get what they want either, but since they are still running and pitching games, they are going to keep taking that same idea around until someone wants to do what they want to do. Players... just have to get lucky.
And, the DM is presented by some people as having a... "sanctioned authority" to never compromise. They can, maybe they should, but they never have to. At that isn't seen as a bad thing. In fact, compromising too much is seen as a bad thing for the DM.
But players who never compromise are villified, and compromising too much? Never really presented as a problem.
They are treated as very differently, and I don't understand why.
If the majority of the group is against the DM, the DM’s only recourse is to compromise or leave (which is really just another compromise, since presumably they want to run a game). If the table out-votes the DM, one way or another, the DM has to bend. They can bend by amending something about the world, the campaign, or the rules to meet the players’ desires, or they can bend by accepting that this isn’t the group for them. This mirrors the options a player has when the table out-votes them. The player can bend by amending something about their character concept, their character build, or their understanding of the rules, or they can bend by accepting that this isn’t the group for them. The only real difference is in the scope and scale of what the player controls vs. what the DM controls. By the way D&D is designed, the player has control over their own character, and the DM has control over everything else. This is why, as I say, the design of D&D almost necessitates a top-down power structure.
See, this is all I was getting at.
There is a point where the DM has to compromise. If we are looking for the limits of DM authority, that is where it is at.
And never compromising isn't a good thing, whether you are a DM or a player.
Different people have different thresholds of tolerance for such things I suppose. Personally, I invite players to work with me if they want to play options that are outside the scope of what’s presented in the campaign pitch. For other DMs it’s a hard limit. As I’ve said, in any negotiation people have some things they’re willing to compromise on and some things they’re not. What those things are will vary from person to person and negotiation to negotiation. Maybe some folks on the extreme end aren’t willing to compromise on much of anything, and I probably wouldn’t want to play with them. But, that’s their prerogative, whether they are a DM or a player.
Sure, but I guess I'm just curious how far it goes before we are okay to say "Dude, you are taking this too far"
That’s something I might be ok with, to a limited extent. It’s large-scale setting lore that I’m not willing to budge on. Small, local changes to suit the players’ interest? Yeah, that’s probably fine. I’m not going to sit down with the players and co-create the starting town or whatever, but if a player wants there to be like a monastery for their monk order in the town that I hadn’t planned for or whatever, sure. But I don’t play to build a world together with my players as I go. I play to have the players discover a world I’ve created for them to explore. (That’s also my preference as a player, by the way. I don’t want to invent setting details, I want to discover them.)
Exactly, and I don't want to know everything from the start. But knowing that you are willing to let me add something like a monastery full of NPCs? That's usually all I want. That gives me a lot of room to create my story and play within the sandbox.
A player asking to rewrite your entire setting or alter multiple races is probably going too far. But one asking for a minor change, or for adding some small elements to the setting? I don't see that as being unreasonable.
