D&D General DM Authority

[pming]

Besides, the correct wording for a happy marriage is "Yes dear, you're right dear, I was wrong dear."

Yes! I agree! But try telling her that!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Charlaquin]

I guess you could set up a poll. Not sure it wouldn't just devolve as most of these threads have lately. At least we haven't started arguing about the "C" word yet.

Yeah, that’s pretty much why I didn’t

 

[Thomas Shey]

If I change direction of a campaign it's generally with feedback from the players or at their behest. After all they're in charge of their PCs actions.

There's also a thing called "secrets that get revealed that can change direction" which has been part of some awesome campaign moments. But true bait-and-switch? Why would any DM do that?

Usually they're trying for some sort of "heroes out of place" or "the world isn't what you think it is" kind of effect, and think it'll work better if both the players and characters are unaware. Sometimes that can even work, depending on the specific players and how much they're willing to go with the flow. With others its an absolutely terrible idea because if they wanted to play a game of type X, they'd have signed on for a game of type X.

 

[Oofta]

Usually they're trying for some sort of "heroes out of place" or "the world isn't what you think it is" kind of effect, and think it'll work better if both the players and characters are unaware. Sometimes that can even work, depending on the specific players and how much they're willing to go with the flow. With others its an absolutely terrible idea because if they wanted to play a game of type X, they'd have signed on for a game of type X.

It's certainly not something I'd throw at every group. You have to know your players, you don't want to get into the "it was all a dream" territory to back out a campaign people are not enjoying.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's certainly not something I'd throw at every group. You have to know your players, you don't want to get into the "it was all a dream" territory to back out a campaign people are not enjoying.

Yup. But some people will defend doing it up, down and sideways, even though its abundantly clear some players just hate that sort of thing.

 

[loverdrive]

There's also a thing called "secrets that get revealed that can change direction" which has been part of some awesome campaign moments. But true bait-and-switch? Why would any DM do that?

Well, deliberately defying expectations can work, like with Spec Ops: The Line, which deceives you into believing that it's just another bog standard gung-ho military shooter, and then punches you in the guts, but that's not something that could be pulled off easily without backfiring.

 

[Ancalagon]

In my view, yes, GMs have "authority" because the group has agreed they have that role. But I bristle at the idea that's often presented that the GM's authority grants them more power in the group than other players. For example, situations in which the GM "kicks out" a player who doesn't want to play in the GM's preferred style of game.

The players have the power of not playing the game the GM is running. The reverse is also true! I've had to kick out players before (... once. It's really rare). The rest of the group agreed with my decision (a knife was involved...) but even if they hadn't, what are they going to do, force me to GM?

Running a game is hard, takes lots of prep and can be draining. I, as a GM, have to be running something I'm invested in to a certain level. If a player insist on playing a game, or playing a certain way, that doesn't work with me (it's not something I can accommodate)... then that player doesn't belong in my game. If the rest of the group thinks this player is awesome and really want to have that player stay, and keep playing that way well... I guess one of you can GM then?

 

[Altheus]

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?

I try to create a new world each time, and this is done together in session 0. I do have to then do a lot of filling in on the fly before play proper happens. This is done collaboratively in that everyone works together to come up with the world.

I've turned this up to 11 in my currently starting world, the only races that exist currently in the world are those chosen by the PC's, human gnome and halfling. There are remains of other races, ruins and artefacts left around but the world has been through so many apocalypses there aren't that many people left. There aren't any clerics loose in the world either, as far as anyone knows the gods have forsaken it. I would have worked with whatever they gave me and I was hoping for some stranger choices.

 

[Musing Mage]

Earlier this year, shortly before everything went to crud due to the pandemic, I was in a conversation with a young and new player who was insistent that the DM's 'job' was to cater to the players in his group and give them what they wanted. That they weren't allowed to 'exclude' expansions if the players wanted them, and how he simply would refuse to play in any game where the DM forced 'restrictions' on him.

He couldn't figure out why I was laughing so hard. Seriously, I wish him well in his search for the right game...

It's the DM's game: they set the tone, as well as prepare and run the sessions, so they have final say.

Yes, a good DM will be adaptable, but I take umbrage with entitled players who demand changes. Sorry, but if a player doesn't like the game they are free to go elsewhere or run a game themselves to their tastes.

Now get off my lawn!

 

[Campbell]

Earlier this year, shortly before everything went to crud due to the pandemic, I was in a conversation with a young and new player who was insistent that the DM's 'job' was to cater to the players in his group and give them what they wanted. That they weren't allowed to 'exclude' expansions if the players wanted them, and how he simply would refuse to play in any game where the DM forced 'restrictions' on him.

He couldn't figure out why I was laughing so hard. Seriously, I wish him well in his search for the right game...

It's the DM's game: they set the tone, as well as prepare and run the sessions, so they have final say.

Yes, a good DM will be adaptable, but I take umbrage with entitled players who demand changes. Sorry, but if a player doesn't like the game they are free to go elsewhere or run a game themselves to their tastes.

Now get off my lawn!

So I think no one was in the wrong here. You both had clear boundaries and honored them. I do reject the characterization of the player as entitled. He might have trouble finding a game because he is so selective, but that's not entitlement to me.

I mean like if a player wants to find a game to play that is some other edition you would never describe that as entitlement even though it might be harder to find.