D&D General DM Authority

[Thomas Shey]

You do not teach people on how to behave... wow... that's their parent's job.

You absolutely teach people how to behave around you all the time by your reactions. People don't live in a bubble where they're unaffected by people they interact with; they learn what sort of behavior gets what sort of responses and what they do and want to deal with all the time. If you think otherwise, you really need to reassess human interactions.

People absolutely learn from their GMs what sort of things are unwelcome and will get negative responses. And not all the signals about that are direct and overt.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I didn't have to "teach" them anything. Questions are always welcome. It's just that they have a decent grasp of the rules and if they have questions they've always asked.

Implying that I've brow-beaten them into submission is not blunt, it's insulting.

Take it as insulting if you so please. But I've seen far, far too many GMs who claim their groups are copacetic and fine with how they do things to talk to people in said groups and find out that they feel sometimes otherwise but it just isn't worth it to them to make an issue out of something for various reasons for me not to take claims about such things with a grain of salt. This does not mean you're a liar, or even necessarily wrong--after all, there are going to be people who are perfectly happy with a top-down approach that doesn't require that kind of engagement too. It just says that the fact you think so is not an indication that's true.

 

[Azzy]

As far as I'm concerned, the DM has only as much authority as the gaming group collectively agrees upon. (If the group agrees that the DM has total authority, that's as valid as agreeing to give the DM limited authority.) Both DM and players thereafter respect the breadth and boundaries of the authority that has been given. This is essentially an extension of the basic social contract.

DMs should take the tastes and preferences of the players in addition to their own before creating a campaign or setting (the goal here is for everyone in the group to have fun and enjoy themselves (otherwise, why play?). Everyone in the group shoud be treated treat with respect and try to create a social atmospere that is condusive to that enjoyment. (In essence, both DM and players should not be jerks and should be willing to reach compromises as necessary.)

I believe the sentiments behind quotes like "to whom much is given, much is required" and "with great power comes great responsibility" are something that one should consider.

 

[Thomas Shey]

8 years younger as a DM and yet, I do not think that Oofta was naive in his claim.

I didn't say he was naive in his; I said his question implied he thought he was naive in mine.

I have seen and introduced more than 300 players into the hobby over the years and everything, every type of players and DMs can be seen. Knowing your players can go a long way. But there will always be a new player that will try push his luck to see what the DM is actually made of. I have DM and Created a dozen or so tournament in the eighties and these players are out there.

At what point have I denied that?

On the last point... That is not a recommended procedure. That is the only procedure. Sure you can discuss a decision with your players, I do that all the time (Edit: well... only if the need arise). But the final say in every single decisions requires the approval of the DM. The approval of a decision does not have to be said out loud. Saying nothing is approving the decision in these cases.

And that's just expectations. As I've said before, there's no reason that has to be that way generically. And no one has said otherwise except by at least implying that its impossible to have a group that can do that by concensus. Which, essentially, calls people who say their groups do just that at least regarding rules (as Campbell has done multiple times) liars.

 

[Helldritch]

This is not teaching. This is having human interaction. Teaching is certainly not to show your players how to behave around you. This is you setting what you will and will not accept around you. Teaching implies new skills, knowledge. How to behave around you is not teaching. It is called interaction, friendship. But how to behave around you... this is not teaching.

 

[Oofta]

You know what, never mind.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is not teaching. This is having human interaction. Teaching is certainly not to show your players how to behave around you. \

I'm not going to continue a semantic argument.

 

[Oofta]

I get that some people claim to have complete harmony and never have a disagreement. I'm happy for them. It's great.

I've just never seen it and other than "take a vote" (I explained my issues with that above) there's no real explanation of how it works. I also haven't seen a good explanation as to why it's a an issue for a reasonable DM to be the final rules arbiter. It's not like it comes up very often.

There can be plenty of collaboration without deciding rules or designing worlds by committee.

Just as there's a wide spectrum in the collaboration side of things, there's a wide spectrum in the "DM is final rules arbiter". Saying that anyone on this thread who believes in the latter is stating anything like "I have the authority, power, and indeed duty to defend my game and my fun from the lawless, dissolute players who would tear it to pieces if allowed to run free. Only under my careful guidance can I, and thus the group, have fun." is ludicrous hyperbole and a strawman.

There is no one true way. Just because I've never seen a group where the DM never, ever has to make a final call doesn't mean it can't exist. It also doesn't mean that people that believe in DM as final rules arbiter are running some kind of gulag.

 

[Chaosmancer]

One of the things I enjoy about the game is overcoming challenges with the tools available, not the tools I wish I had. There's no one way to play the game, but some people would abuse anything goes.

I mean if you're okay with a 7 foot tall albino elf the frightens everyone in the room when he walks in (no, it's not in any way to a racial or class ability), a half-dragon half-vampire, a monk that can do a comic book Flash tornado by running around someone, then go for it. It's not the game for me.

Pointing this out again.

Your focus is on bad players abusing the game.

In fact, it is the same three bad players you always mention. Between them and the table at your local game shop full of trolls, you bring up the same examples over and over and over again.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Did I ever say I had to do it "very often"? I don't. I just reserve the right to do so when I DM and give the same respect to the DM if I'm playing. Sounds like you do as well. Glad we can agree on that.

I mean, I do have to correct Kim now and then, but that's just because while they're a lot of fun and I enjoy playing with them they don't always have a great grasp on the rules or what they can do in a situation. With them I just have to engage and figure out what they're trying to accomplish so we can figure something out.

An actual "no it doesn't work that way" with my current group? Over past year and a half or so I'm sure there was some things here and ther, but I don't remember what it was. Probably something simple like casting a bonus action spell in the same round as a regular spell. I've had other players that were always pushing things, but even then it wasn't something that happened on a regular basis.

The "impossible to reach an agreement..." is a straw man and something I've neither said.

Okay.

So since it is so rare, why is it so necessary? You have stated that the game cannot possibly work without a DM to enforce the rules, because people disagree. But, when we dig down into it for the last year and a half it has been "somethings here and there.... probably something simple (gives an example of a rule misunderstanding, not a full on disagreement)"


So, with that being the case, with it being rare and usually something that would be solved by opening the book and reading the rule, why then is it so hard for you to imagine a game that works without someone specifically needing to step in and be a "final authority"

It sounds like you haven't had to actually do that for months at a time, if not the entire year and a half. So why is this idea so impossible?

Edit: Looking at your next post... it seems to be because you think the players will begin bending and twisting the rules for every advantage. You are assuming bad faith players.