D&D General DM Authority

[FrogReaver]

If you're using monks instead of fighters with unarmed fighting style, not allowing superhero style martial moves is an uphill battle where you've already shot yourself in both feet. More than half of the monk's abilities are supernatural/superhuman in nature in the first place.

I think your post here is evidence of just how hotly debated this concept is. I mean, I couldn’t even point to your idea being highly contested without you trying to defend it.

 

[Minigiant]

If you're using monks instead of fighters with unarmed fighting style, not allowing superhero style martial moves is an uphill battle where you've already shot yourself in both feet. More than half of the monk's abilities are supernatural/superhuman in nature in the first place.

Exactly.

The 5e DMG describes several flavors/genres of fantasy

• Herioc
• Sword and Sorcery
• Epic
• Mythic
• Dark
• Intrigue
• Mystery
• Swashbuckling
• War
• Wuxia

Most of the other DMGs do this as well.
If the DM doesn't state which one they are running clearly, all the headaches they get is on them. Especially when it comes to fighters, rogues, barbarians, and monks.

A rightful government can't fine or arrest people for crime they did not write down then state publicly. Same for a DM.

 

[DemoMonkey]

I have no idea why it's hotly debated. One side is self-evidently right and the other side are just being pig-headed.

 

[FrogReaver]

I have no idea why it's hotly debated. One side is self-evidently right and the other side are just being pig-headed.

I assure you I fall on the self evidently right side.

 

[Jack Daniel]

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.

IMO a good DM doesn't have any plot, never mind a precious one, in the first place.

But that doesn't mean that every game has a map full of quantum ogres until the player characters lay eyes on them and collapse the wave-function. The sandbox play-style is only meaningful if the sandbox is already pre-filled with toys such that you aren't playing on Schrödinger's hex-map.

@Oofta
Finally, when someone else DMs, I treat them exactly they way I expect to be treated when I am DM. What they say goes. I can question it, argue it, but once the decision is final I either accept it or also have the right to leave the game.

And I don't think I would want to play in any other type of game, either.

This is pretty much my perspective. When I'm the DM, it's my turn to be in charge of what setting elements, games rules, and playable character options get used. When somebody else DMs, then it's their turn—and I don't want to play in a campaign where the DM doesn't have a firm hand on the tiller.

Personally, I find most issues with DM authority are not so much as about refereeing the action in the game, but in the options available for the game. Especially those that don't allow for discussion, but are simply commandments handed down "from on high".

"There's no dragonborn in my game"
"I don't allow content from supplement X"
"I don't allow option X in my game; it's broken"

Well it should surprise nobody that I come at this from a very "First Edition-y," Gygaxian perspective, but—yeah, if I'm preparing the campaign, that means that I'm building a world and deciding on a set of mechanics to represent that world, and it's going to be bespoke to that campaign. Since I prefer to do all the world-building and the game-design in order to come up with a reasonably fleshed-out milieu before I ever present the campaign idea to any potential players, they don't have much opportunity to exert any contravening "authority" over the meta-game.

But then, I refuse to play editions that have lots of player-facing rules and character-building options, so there's also a built-in expectation that the players will be selecting from a small, curated menu of playable character types.

In-game, when I'm DMing I have the final world on what happens because it's my world and my rules, but I also want common sense and accurate knowledge to trump those rules wherever appropriate. If a player has expertise I lack or just plain presents a good argument, I'll defer to it. But it's still my decision, and I expect the same of any DM that I play with.

 

[prabe]

I have no idea why it's hotly debated. One side is self-evidently right and the other side are just being pig-headed.

I figure we're debating it so we can figure out who are the pig-headed ones.

 

[Oofta]

DM is the final arbiter, though a player has the right to point out if he thinks the DM is misinterpreting the rules.

Like, for example, if the DM went with #2 or #3, the player could point out the Con save is only for keeping hold of the item, and armor doesn't just "drop off" by itself. If you heated a metal armor (such as chain, certain scale armor or plate), and you haven't gotten it off when damage is caused, you'd suffer the disadvantage. If the DM decides to stick with his ruling despite that, then that's how the DM has decided to run his game, and now everyone knows.

(BTW, I do despise the lack of save for Heat Metal and think that using it against worn/carried items should give the target a save)

Well, option #2 borders on house rule but I've considered #3 myself just because I think it's a stupid application of the rule that nerfs very specific builds needlessly. But that's another thread.

 

[Oofta]

I would hit them with science, or suggest they use a spell to control/create weather.

Once we have agreed on the concept of the campaign and the level of, let's say 'zaniness', that is that. It isn't even me pulling authority, it is me pointing out we all agreed to the same premise. Maybe next adventure/campaign.

Except they obviously don't agree, they knew how I ran things and no I'm not going to argue basic physics or lack of a spell.

You're still dodging answering the question. What answer is there other than "You may be faster than Usain Bolt but you are not The Flash. It doesn't work."

 

[Quickleaf]

I've only been DMing a little for a pair of 9 year olds, thanks to the pandemic and a recent move. However, playing with my nephew and his friend is really opening my eyes to the co-creative aspect of role-playing.

I never gave them the "I'm the DM so I'm the one who plays all the NPCs and tells the story" spiel at the beginning. We just dove into character creation and I've winged it.

One of the incredible things about playing with them is how unfiltered their ideas are about what cool thing might happen next. It's certainly keeping me on my toes! Some of the examples you gave as conflicts were just another session with the kids, and pretty much everything was up for grabs...

• Homebrew Design: "Can I make up my own feat? It lets me charge past other monsters, attack with my axe, then with my shield which I throw, and then breathe acid (for a black dragonborn) which does extra damage, then my shield boomerangs back to me..." (I thought about it for a moment, asked some clarifying questions – and naturally insisted he act out what he wanted to be able to do – then said "OK!"
• Pacing Control: "Then we go back to the wizard and he gives us--" "But the wizard is mysteriously gone. Everyone at the inn says he left in the dead of night." "OK, OK, OK, so we convince the townspeople to take care of our giant spider pets, then we tell the frost giant lady to carry us to the edge of the hills. We're going to find my castle! Do you have those cards for exploration that we used before?" "Yeah, we're going to find his castle!"
• Story Hooks / Usable Options: "OK, Uncle Aaron, we talked and we were doing these drawings and we decided you need to put these dragons we drew in the game. There's a yellow one, a green and red one, a rainbow one, and this red one is the leader..." "Yeah, and we each are going to make friends with a dragon, like we did with the giant spiders, and even ride them..."
• NPC Control: "And then the mayor says--" "Oh! And then the mayor says 'I think I have just the thing, and pulls out a....um..." "It's a map of the nearby lands, with the Troll Hills marked out, a castle keep in the middle, and a circle of standing stones at the edge." "Oh, that's my castle, the one I found the piece of paper for!" "He says: You can have this map if you promise to find the wizard. And I say: We will find the wizard, but I cannot promise that he won't answer for what he did."
• Treasure Placement: "And when you climb down the ladder into the cellar..." (They go into an incredibly detailed description, drawing out the room on our white erase board, with treasures everywhere) "Uh...so...ok, that's what you think is in the room..." (I narrate as they discover half the chests are actually mimics in a 'yes, but' move, then let them puzzle out how to get the treasures in the others, and then list the treasures they find)...
• Backstory Revelation: "Did you draw a spear there, buddy?" "Yes, it's a spear inside a case and the case has 5 old letters on it but only the first 'D' and the fourth 'R' are still visible. The rest are empty. It's a clue to my character's actual name. When I touch the spear, I see myself in a room. It's an illusion, but I don't realize it..." (a couple minutes of narrating his PC's vision and getting a spooky ghost who is kind of possessing him)

 

[Stormonu]

Except they obviously don't agree, they knew how I ran things and no I'm not going to argue basic physics or lack of a spell.

You're still dodging answering the question. What answer is there other than "You may be faster than Usain Bolt but you are not The Flash. It doesn't work."

This has gotten me curious about the source of the question (since I've already posted about how I'd answer it) - was this a power the player just wanted to flat-out add or was it based on some build he'd put together that gave him an insane movement rate and he wanted to turn it into an attack or somesuch?