D&D General DM Authority

[prabe]

The first one is adversarial Dming. It simply should not be done unless it furthers the plot (and even then, it should be rare to the extreme).

I firmly believe that while the PCs may (and probably will) have enemies and/or adversaries, the DM should not be the enemy of the players (or really the PCs).

 

[Oofta]

Sure, in some games, the Rules Authority is a player, not the DM, simply because he has the best grasp of the rules.

In my experience the DM regularly gets input from the players. Nobody has a grasp on 100% of all the rules in the game, I know sometimes I'll ask different people who are more familiar with the specific rules area and other times people will just chime in.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't understand how Chaosmancer can assert that groups can handle rules debates without a DM as final arbiter. I understand the thesis of group consensus, but there needs to be a referee, after all.

And, as @Maxperson said, these rules questions are exceedingly common, and, at the table, require a DM to intervene as referee.

Coin flip.
Roll for it.

1v1 No Items Final Destination.

 

[Helldritch]

I firmly believe that while the PCs may (and probably will) have enemies and/or adversaries, the DM should not be the enemy of the players (or really the PCs).

Fully agree on that.
But on the rare cases I did that, it was to further the plot or to "push" players in a certain direction/adventure.
Example: An Efreet arrived, killed a player, took his ring of protection +2 (nothing else) and just before going away, the efreet said: "Know that it was the wish of Excapode the Insolent to have a ring of protection such as the one your friend had. I will give it to him in his secret base located near the caves of the Redbone Goblin tribe!" Killing a player was a bit meh... but boy when he got raised was he mad. They went after that NPC with a rage I rarely saw. A bit too adversarial to my taste, but it got the job done. I should say that it also taught my players that an efreet's wish is not necessarily a good thing. Especially when poorly worded.

 

[loverdrive]

This is a bit tangential to the issue, but how do my fellow ENWorlders handle NPCs authored in by players?

I've found that player retention over family and "friend" NPCs can be useful for relieving DM strain, but quickly becomes unfeasible if said NPC supposedly has access to goods or services which the player desires.

That becomes a problem only if players try to win the game instead of, well, doing what they are supposed to do — crafting a story.

Vast majority of people I play with will much more likely come up with a NPC who wants their character dead than one who can give them super magic sword.

 

[Altheus]

I suppose. I've known DMs that are less interested in world building and more interested in running a series of adventures (to the point that they're only concerned about the details of the setting that are important to the actual adventures that they run). In such cases, the DM is usually content with players authoring setting details through their characters backstories as long as it doesn't contradict what they have already established, and are likely to run with the player's ideas. This is probably much less common, but still a very fun approach to DMing.

Content? I positively encourage it. I make a world roughly then the players build characters and I ask them lots of questions like, you're an Elf? Ok, what does that mean? Where do your people live? Is that an elvish place or mixed? What social class do you occupy? What religion do you follow?

Why should I do all of the heavy lifting with regard to world building?

 

[Oofta]

Content? I positively encourage it. I make a world roughly then the players build characters and I ask them lots of questions like, you're an Elf? Ok, what does that mean? Where do your people live? Is that an elvish place or mixed? What social class do you occupy? What religion do you follow?

Why should I do all of the heavy lifting with regard to world building?

Do you create a new setting every campaign?

There's no right or wrong way, different DMs enjoy different things, but I can see where this would be easier with blank slates.

Also, is this done collaboratively or separate?

 

[FrozenNorth]

...and people who enjoy exploring worlds probably have a hard time enjoying exploring and figuring out what they helped create.

I disagree. Let’s use Lanefan’s paladin (from a few posts above) as an example.

Baseline (Lanefan): If the player wants to play a paladin, and if they roll well enough, Lanefan provides the order(s) that are available. The player can propose modifications to better fit his character.

Level 1: The player comes up with the order, they describe its history, the NPCs he has dealt with, and sets out its tenets, which may differ from those in the PHB.

Level 2: As above, but the player specifies that he has come to (starting town) because there is a great evil in the area, and he has sworn to defeat it. He also adds that his order has a chapter house in the town.

Level 3: As above, but the great evil lurks in the Fane of the 5 kings, 3 km outside of town, and the reason why he was sent is that there are rumors of corruption in the (town’s chapter house).

Level 4: As above, but the player states that the paladin has a personal connection to the evil (perhaps an ancestor sealed away), and it is the chapter house’s leader, Guy Biscorne, who is corrupt.

In all cases, except arguably the last one, a player who enjoys exploring the world would have very few constraints in exploring the world. Even multiplying what is created by 5 (for each player), would leave a ton of stuff to surprise the players with.

Even the last one leaves space for the characters to be betrayed by the member of the chapter house who stood up for them against Biscorne, or for the ancestor to be puppetmastered by some greater evil, or for the Fane to have sunk to the bottom of a lake in the intervening years, requiring a different approach.

 

[FrozenNorth]

That's simply untrue. Hell, there are times when my wife and I don't agree on something, yet we love each other and are very happy. We're coming up on 12 years together, 9 of it married come March.

[...]

You guys on that side of the issue make it sound like every disagreement has to be a major deal breaker, when the fact is, the vast majority of the time they are just minor disagreements.

I’m with Chaosmancer with this one, but I think that the two sides are using different definitions for “disagreement”.

“Disagreements” are like “I want pasta for supper and my wife wants chili”. This is the equivalent of the rules disagreements referred to in this thread. There is no ultimate authority between my wife and I, but somehow, we manage to agree on what to eat (every single night even!).

I have difficulty envisaging our having a sufficiently serious disagreement that we wouldn’t be able to come to a decision on.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Example: An Efreet arrived, killed a player, took his ring of protection +2 (nothing else) and just before going away, the efreet said: "Know that it was the wish of Excapode the Insolent to have a ring of protection such as the one your friend had. I will give it to him in his secret base located near the caves of the Redbone Goblin tribe!" Killing a player was a bit meh... but boy when he got raised was he mad. They went after that NPC with a rage I rarely saw. A bit too adversarial to my taste, but it got the job done. I should say that it also taught my players that an efreet's wish is not necessarily a good thing. Especially when poorly worded.

I’m going to steal this idea.