D&D General DM Authority

[loverdrive]

What happens when consensus can’t be reached?

Then why are you even playing together? And I seriously doubt that in such case, having someone to slam their fist on the table would make anyone happy.

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

Well, that seriously depends on type of game you're playing -- that sounds pretty reasonable in a game inspired by, say, Naruto, but wouldn't work in a game inspired by Conan. And if you aren't on the same page about the genre and the tone, then you need to solve that problem first.

Maybe I'm lucky and only ever played with reasonable people and there are tons of complete morons out there, but I have a pretty hard time imagining such scenario in an actual game. Unless there are some serious problem in communication, which can easily be solved, when such question arises.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Hey we all think BBEG should do this instead of that. That’s not his personality or motivation? Too bad we reached a consensus you dumb authoritarian DM! We voted and we are in charge!

 

[BookTenTiger]

Hey we all think BBEG should do this instead of that. That’s not his personality or motivation? Too bad we reached a consensus you dumb authoritarian DM! We voted and we are in charge!

I mean, this happens without all the snark. If the GM has the BBEG act in a way that seems to violate the rules of the game, or the "narrative rules" of the campaign story, the players should and often do speak up.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Hey we all think BBEG should do this instead of that. That’s not his personality or motivation? Too bad we reached a consensus you dumb authoritarian DM! We voted and we are in charge!

This if off topic, but I have run campaigns before in which I have the players spend a few sessions playing as the powerful big bads, doing big bad stuff, before switching back to their normal characters. I found that the players are way more ruthless as villains than I am!

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I mean, this happens without all the snark. If the GM has the BBEG act in a way that seems to violate the rules of the game, or the "narrative rules" of the campaign story, the players should and often do speak up.

I think my point stands. Someone has to have more knowledge and control in order to provide something ‘other’ to interact with. I am not so worried about that level of power:

If a DM targets a player, constantly plays favorites or whatever, yes players should speak up. But generally the designated DM should run it as seen fit and players should try to roll with it and place some trust that it will lead to a good end.

If it frequently does not, vote with your feet.

 

[Asisreo]

No one ever suggests it outright because that would obviously make you a bad person to disrespect people in a group game. But they definitely do disrespectful things at the table. Ironically, its usually adults that show this antisocial behavior towards fellow players rather than children.

Things like interrupting players, being on your phone, ignoring people's requests without proper acknowledgement, name-calling, distracting the table, PvP actions, and whining about the game to other players via text messaging are all things that I've seen in games.

I think its good to review on what's "being disrespectful" means. Oftentimes, such incidents can be corrected by talking with the player who may not realize they're being disrespectful in the first place. That will help in the future though its best not to understand whats disrespectful before behaving in such a way because everyone will now be more aware of any other disrespectful behaviors you may unintentionally exhibit. You can't undo all wounds.

Sure, but that like a rather trivial point that everyone already agrees with. Has anyone suggested players not be respected?

 

[Blue]

When I played Monopoly with my family as a kid we quickly reached consensus on which rules we would use and which we would ignore. Why should it be any more difficult with a game of D&D?

What if consensus can't be reached on where to go for dinner? Or what music to listen to? What to watch on Netflix? Is there always someone in these situations who is the "authority" who gets to make the final decision?

I would argue that compromise and collaboration are two important parts of what you call GM Authority. For example, one compromise a GM makes is that they will refer first to the rules when making a decision. The GM should be the facilitator of the game, and there are many ways they can make that role work. Being a final arbiter of rules is one way, but it's not the only way.

This seems a bit of a side arguement. No one is arguing that compromise and collaboration are not part of the toolbox. But there OP gave a number of examples in the spoiler block where a player wants X and the DM wants Y. Let's take the player pointing at a blank spot on the player-facing map and making up a kingdom and story. That kingdom will change the political pressures and invalidate much of the plot. After talking about it in vague ways (so as not to spoil those elements of the plot to the others) and offering a different location, the DM and the player still are at loggerheads.

Unlike "what to watch on Netflix", D&D does provide an explicit mechanism - DM authority - to break the deadlock and get all of the other players back to the fun.

Heck, RPGs have rules in the first place to avoid two kids playing army: "I shot you" "Nuh huh" "Did so" "You missed". Having a DM empowered to extend that beyond what is explicitly covered by the written rules is the next logical step.

Of course we try compromise and collaboration. In general, everyone wants to have a good time and works towards that. But those aren't the cases being discussed.

How do you feel about DM authority when those have been exhausted and there is still a conflict?

 

[Oofta]

One PLAYER steps up. You need to be a player and lead which runs a line, but everyone needs to understand that someone is in charge in the way that guides and is the referee. As the DM, you also need to understand that everyone is there to play and have fun. You need to provide that to the players, but also to yourself.

When this cannot be had, the DM is the final voice. Is there a reason why the DM is is usually the one most invested and buys all the books, and has all the minis, and maps, and etc...

Other threads though have DMs talking about how the loudest voice in the room ran rampant over their campaign and it was leading to burnout. I don't see how that is a good thing.

I can certainly see situations where someone has a better grasp of the rules, that happens all the time. But it's up to the DM to ask them, or to agree to that person's ruling. At least in every game I've ever played.

 

[loverdrive]

That kingdom will change the political pressures and invalidate much of the plot. After talking about it in vague ways (so as not to spoil those elements of the plot to the others) and offering a different location, the DM and the player still are at loggerheads.

In that case, any good GM will throw out their precious plot out of the window. It's like GMing 101: things that weren't shown on-screen exist in Schrödinger state.


And the fact that the players don't know some important information is a damn huge red flag anyway.

 

[Oofta]

Then why are you even playing together? And I seriously doubt that in such case, having someone to slam their fist on the table would make anyone happy.


Well, that seriously depends on type of game you're playing -- that sounds pretty reasonable in a game inspired by, say, Naruto, but wouldn't work in a game inspired by Conan. And if you aren't on the same page about the genre and the tone, then you need to solve that problem first.

Maybe I'm lucky and only ever played with reasonable people and there are tons of complete morons out there, but I have a pretty hard time imagining such scenario in an actual game. Unless there are some serious problem in communication, which can easily be solved, when such question arises.

Really? I guess I have a hard time seeing how that happens unless you have limited experience with a variety of people. The monk who thought he could be The Flash was an extreme example but it was not an anime or superhero inspired campaign.

But you've never had a rule, a spell, a class power come up that the player said "X" and the DM said "Y"? Ever? I mean, I've been spectator and on both ends of such things. Every time the DM makes the final call.