D&D General DM Authority

[Oofta]

I kinda lost you. I don't know, how you came to that conclusion from what I said.


And if everyone understands that the game is about overcoming challenges and is on board with it, then they'll make in and out of character decisions that lead to challenges to overcome. If someone wants to abuse, then they aren't in for the challenge -- and then why are they participating in such game at all?

If the game is about overcoming challenges, then it's everyone's job to create challenge, just like in a comedic game it's everyone's job to place set ups and deliver punchlines.

I'm just saying that certain people if given free reign will do things not even remotely allowed by the rules. Fortunately they're rare.

Maybe a better example (I wasn't the DM but it's still relevant) would be the guy playing a cleric of Odin that thought he could find anyone or anything any where any time because "Odin sees all" even though he was not even casting a spell or asking for divine intervention. This was to find the phylactery of a lich that had achieved basically demi-god status and we had (at that time) no idea where to even start.

As far as why some people want a "I win" button they can press at any time? I have no clue.

 

[Umbran]

Forcing the DM to run something he doesn't want to run is 1) wrong, and 2) will result in a DM who is not really into running the game, which is bad.

Maybe the DM coming into the situation so heck-bent on running one very specific thing is also not a great idea.

If the DM isn't so bent, then there's space for a conversation and compromise. Maybe it won't work out, but when a GM starts with noting "I have absolute veto power!!1!" maybe their head isn't in a great place to play a collaborative game.

 

[Campbell]

I do think for challenge oriented gaming it works better if the GM/DM does have authority over situation because it's more to face challenges you did not come up with. I do not think it necessarily works better if they also have arbitration rights over the rules. I prefer having some constraints when I run games (in the D&D space I prefer running PF2 and OSR games). I also think a more collaborative approach to initial setting can work fine.

There are reasons you might prefer to have more of a say in those other areas, but it is certainly not required for compelling challenge oriented play.

 

[loverdrive]

Maybe a better example (I wasn't the DM but it's still relevant) would be the guy playing a cleric of Odin that thought he could find anyone or anything any where any time because "Odin sees all" even though he was not even casting a spell or asking for divine intervention. This was to find the phylactery of a lich that had achieved basically demi-god status and we had (at that time) no idea where to even start.

I don't know the full story, but from how you are describing it, I'd say it was a good call -- the party has no idea where to start, so a little push would be nice. If I was the GM in such case I'd proactively say that cleric sees visions of distant lands or whatever.

I'm just saying that certain people if given free reign will do things not even remotely allowed by the rules. Fortunately they're rare.

And what I'm saying is, that when everyone is on board with kind of game you're playing, then they'll just agree on stuff that is aimed to build such game. In case of a game about challenge, they'll not abuse to give themselves unfair advantage. And if they do, then they're not in for the challenge and they shouldn't play a game about challenge.

Like, I don't know, when you're exercising, there's no one to stop you from just putting weights away to make the process easier, but if your goal is to get stronger, you wouldn't do such thing.

 

[Maxperson]

That doesn't actually respond to the point, Max. Why are you presuming that the player who pushes back in any capacity is a threat? This is the reason people keep thinking you want passive players.

You clearly misunderstood me. Below is the quote I was responding to. I was saying that hostility is not a part of it.

In D&D, if the players feel like, well, they are working together with the GM, then all the issues are resolved in a few words. If the players feel like they need to "win" the game and that the GM is their enemy, then having any "final word" will just make naughty word more hostile.

Yet you snatch those reins away from them the moment they disagree with you? Because that's exactly how it sounds. You not only can, not only will, but think it is vitally necessary to the preservation of the game that you do so. You, essentially, claim you must protect the players from themselves. Why?

I have no idea, because none of that is any part of what I am doing or claiming. In fact, it's so far gone from what I am saying that I can't even formulate a response to it other than to say that you've grossly misunderstood that as well.

 

[Umbran]

Maybe a better example (I wasn't the DM but it's still relevant) would be the guy playing a cleric of Odin that thought ...

I mean, yes, you can find folks who are not great. But anecdotes are not data, so a few really bad stories do not invalidate an approach, do they?

Folks look for an "I Win Button" largely because they have been taught that winning is the most important thing, right? In your game, was anything done to disabuse players of that notion?

 

[billd91]

If the issue is choosing a campaign and not simple in game ruling, seems like DMs and players need to get on the same page or made the mistake of starting before getting on the same page.

Well, no kidding. Is anyone saying anything different, really? The question in this thread and most of the others when this comes up is what happens when they aren’t on the same page.

 

[Maxperson]

It always comes down to this. But it seems every misses the other part.

A DM shouldn't be forced to run a campaign they dont want.
A DM should be playing the campaign with players who want a different campaign.

If the issue is choosing a campaign and not simple in game ruling, seems like DMs and players need to get on the same page or made the mistake of starting before getting on the same page.

I agree. The DM should be playing with people who share his playstyle. I've said that numerous times in threads. Perhaps even in this one, but I can't remember.

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe the DM coming into the situation so heck-bent on running one very specific thing is also not a great idea.

If the DM isn't so bent, then there's space for a conversation and compromise. Maybe it won't work out, but when a GM starts with noting "I have absolute veto power!!1!" maybe their head isn't in a great place to play a collaborative game.

My post wasn't about conversation and compromise, which I agree are part of playing the game. I was responding to the post that said majority opinion should control which way the situation would be resolved, which means that the DM simply by virtue of a vote, would be overruled and forced to run a game in a manner that could easily result in forcing him to run a game that he doesn't want to. That sort of vote and force method doesn't inherently involve conversation and compromise, either.

 

[Umbran]

So, I spent the chunk of the weekend absorbing the rules to a new RPG. It stood as a bit of a contrast to some things being said here.

For one thing, they refer to the Game Moderator, rather than "Master".

On page 3, they players are informed that part of their job is to "Maximize Everyone's Fun".

On Page 5, the GM is told about "Sharing the Creative Space"

At the beginning on the section about Moderating the game, they say the following:

"As the Game Moderator, you describe the world around the heroes, giving them people and places to interact with, and then engage in discussion with the players to move the story forward."

The GM is told that they should apply the rules, and make rulings, but the examples (and the book gives many) are of discussion and negotiation, rather than "laying down the law".

Oh, and in this game, characters may be taken out of a scene, but they don't die unless the player decides that is what they want to have happen.