D&D General DM Authority

[Oofta]

This came up on another thread, but there's a lot of things going on over there so I thought I'd repost.

How do you view DM authority? Some people say that they feel that "DM as ultimate authority" is outdated, but what does that really mean? According to the rules, the DM is the final arbiter of the rules, the guy who makes the final call.

From the PHB

One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee.​

From the DMG:

A Dungeon Master gets to wear many hats. As the architect of a campaign ... as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.​

...​

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game.​

In games I've run or played in, the DM makes the final call on rules. They come up with the campaign world and broad campaign, decide restrictions and house rules.

Gathering feedback is typical and if someone challenges or requests a change the answer can be anywhere from "Yes", "Cool idea, let me think about it", "What does everyone else think?" to "No, but here's what we can do" to "No". Ultimately the DM makes the final decision. The actions of the PCs are up to the player with exceptions like some groups not allowing evil characters, no PVP or of course dominate and similar. In my campaigns PCs can and do have lasting impact through their actions.

Spoiler: Examples of conflicts

• Specific game rules: take (random thing that has come up based on text that could be interpreted multiple ways) Heat metal. If cast on armor player says "they are at disadvantage as long as I maintain concentration". DM says "the way I interpret it, the target gets a con save every round to see if they're at disadvantage". Or even the DM banning/modifying the spell.
• Player disagreeing on power level: Similar to specific game rules, the player says they're chosen of their god so their god helps out in ways that are not indicated by the rules.
• Playable options: player says they're playing a tortle. DM previously said what races are allowed and tortles aren't on the list. Does it matter if the rest of the group is happy with the list the DM came up with?
• World building: player points to a spot on the map and makes up a kingdom and story. DM says that conflicts with previous lore or doesn't fit the campaign such as a highly technologically advanced civilization in a low technology world.
• Player wants to play a gunslinger with 6-shooters in a world where guns don't exist. Multi-shot auto-loading hand crossbows are also not a thing (at least at lower levels).

Some of these examples come from my personal experience - including a guy who thought he could run so fast that he could create a tornado like The Flash or the guy who wanted to play a half-dragon half-vampire. I had a guy who worshipped Odin who insisted that since Odin "saw all" he could find anyone on any plane of existence despite spells to obscure detection just by calling up his buddy on speed dial. Oh, and the player would just "pop up to have lunch" with Odin, even though he had no way of attuning a fork to that plane and planar travel is explicitly limited.

So for those that say they don't believe in DM as ultimate authority, what does that mean? Conflicts on rules and rulings always come up now and then how do you handle it if the DM doesn't have final say?

I'm not saying that any style of game is right or wrong, it's just that I have never seen a game in real life where the DM did not have the final say. Which isn't to say that the games aren't collaborative, they are, at least to a degree. But in my experience the DM simply has to be the referee at times.

 

[commandercrud]

"You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

 

[robus]

With great power comes great responsibility. Heavy is the head that wears the crown etc etc

 

[Thomas Shey]

Frankly, I don't even see the "final authority" as a particularly strong necessity, and I absolutely think the top-down attitude it has bred in some people when it comes to GM has been more malign than not over the years.

 

[FrogReaver]

Frankly, I don't even see the "final authority" as a particularly strong necessity, and I absolutely think the top-down attitude it has bred in some people when it comes to GM has been more malign than not over the years.

I agree with the attitude part, but most things good have a way of being corrupted for some. I’m not sure that’s a particularly strong argument against the necessity of a “final authority”.

So if there is no final authority then how do the kinds of conflicts that were referred to in the OP get resolved?

 

[loverdrive]

So if there is no final authority then how do the kinds of conflicts that were referred to in the OP get resolved?

Through reaching consensus?

 

[FrogReaver]

Through reaching consensus?

What happens when consensus can’t be reached?

 

[Oofta]

Through reaching consensus?

If that's not possible? I mean, what kind of consensus is there to a monk running so fast they can create a tornado?

 

[BookTenTiger]

GMs have authority in the way a group of friends say, "Jake hasn't had a turn to pick a lunch spot in a while. Jake, where do you want to go?"

Some of those conflict examples are conflicts the player is having with the rules (there are defined ways to control weather, speak with gods, and planar travel).

But otherwise the GM has taken on a role because the other players in the game have agreed to that role. When the GM says "This is how I interpret the rules," they can do so because the other players have imbued them through their trust and the invisible social contract. If they are doing so in a way that is rude, mean, or self-serving, then the role of GM is not right for them.

Other than that, I think GM Authority is just an illusion some people call upon when they want to avoid the work of conversation and compromise.

 

[Oofta]

GMs have authority in the way a group of friends say, "Jake hasn't had a turn to pick a lunch spot in a while. Jake, where do you want to go?"

Some of those conflict examples are conflicts the player is having with the rules (there are defined ways to control weather, speak with gods, and planar travel).

But otherwise the GM has taken on a role because the other players in the game have agreed to that role. When the GM says "This is how I interpret the rules," they can do so because the other players have imbued them through their trust and the invisible social contract. If they are doing so in a way that is rude, mean, or self-serving, then the role of GM is not right for them.

Other than that, I think GM Authority is just an illusion some people call upon when they want to avoid the work of conversation and compromise.

But then the group has elected/decided that the DM of the moment is the authority, right? I mean, ultimately it's a social contract because if players don't like the DM they'll leave. I know I've left games because of it.

I don't see much of a distinction.