Really neither of those is common in my experience. Most often in my experience, most of the players won’t even have enough familiarity with the rules to weigh in at all. My regular group has one player who knows the rules fairly well (though she sometimes gets stuff mixed up with rules from previous editions) and four who know the basics well enough but aren’t particularly interested in any more than that. Usually if I need to make a ruling it’s because I forgot something, and it usually goes like “I forget how this works, so for now I’ll say [ruling], but [knowlegable player], can you look that up for next time when you get a chance?” and that’s pretty much it.
Really though, I think this discussion is more about who has narrative control than about rules disputes. If a player asks, “can I play a Genasi?” I would say, “They’re not native to the material plane, so we’d have to work together to figure out why your character was here and working with the rest of the party,” and I’ve never had other players object to something like that.
There are two things going on here though.
On one hand, you have people who aren't confident in their understanding essentially abstaining from the vote, which in this case is the same as agreeing with the DM. They don't know, so they trust that you do know.
But secondly, this can apply to narrative control as well. You say it has never happened (therefore again, the other players are abstaining and putting their weight behind you) but think about if it did. Think about for a moment if after you said they weren't native to the plane, the other players spoke up in favor of adding Genasi to this Material Plane.
Would you really override the entire table? Again, not saying it has ever happened or will ever happen, but thinking about if it did.
Does anyone hold the position that the DM is the ultimate authority? It seems to me that people are saying more that the DM is the final authority, and other people saying “I can’t believe people run their games so dictatorially!”
Yes. Perhaps not in this thread as it is a spin-off, but yes, people have stated on this forum that as the DM they have ultimate authority to do anything with the game, and that if their players don't like it, they can always leave.
I‘ve seen people on both sides of this discussion say something to the tune of “the DM has authority, but that authority is granted by the players.” And, yeah, that’s accurate. If the players collectively decide to overrule what the DM says, the DM’s options are pretty much to either concede the point, suggest a compromise, or if the issue is important enough to them, step down as DM. But that’s an exceptional circumstance, and if you’re DMing for a group where the majority of the players are regularly overruling you... You’re probably better off finding a different group.
The more common circumstance is that, when running a game for like a pickup group, you have your session 0, and maybe someone isn’t too keen on one of the table rules. In that situation, usually the player voices their disagreement, the DM considers their perspective, and either accepts, offers an alternative, or sustains their original ruling, at which point the player either agrees, or leaves the pickup group.
I think we are mostly in agreement with this. And, it makes me begin to wonder
If the DM position was seen closer to that of a tie-breaker, what would happen? I don't think it would change much in the obvious sense, because I feel like the majority of the time, the same things happen anyways. The rest of the players either don't have an opinion or don't know, so they default to trusting the DMs opinion. But maybe more people would be willing to speak up, or help the DM, with implementing parts of the rules, if it felt more like they were allowed to.
I know, for example, that a few of my players have been interested in crafting rules. And generally, I as the DM am told they are interested and then have to work by myself to figure it out. But what if a player came to the table and said, "I've been interested in crafting, I've found these resources, done a bit of work, I just need some help to smooth things out and make sure there are no obvious flaws I'm missing."
The DM is suddenly working far far less. And I know my gut instinct is that I still need to learn these rules anyways, I need to pick them apart and make sure I understand every interaction.... but do I really? Players are quite often left in charge of their own abilities, health tracking, gold, ect. Why not leave them in charge of the rules for their specialized sub-system?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a Forever DM (30 years now), all my players respect my rules, judgments, and setting guidelines. Not saying I am an awesome GM, but usually if a conflict does arise, I tell the player he can do it his way in his game, and would he like to be DM. That quashes any argument and the players go back to the game happily.
Latest one - a player does not like a house rule which limits greatly getting HD back (one per long rest, nothing more). We discussed, I explained I am looking for more resource management and a more deadly game. He disagreed, but we moved on.
I have kicked out players before of course. This is made easier by the fact that I play with tons of people I met online so I am not kicking out my buddy from high school, but more of an acquaintance. And there are SO MANY ONLINE PLAYERS, there are plenty who would fit my table. Toxic players are gone pretty fast these days lol
Not to call you out specifically, Dragonsbane, but your post kind of shows my original point.
The very first thing you said is that the group follows you. You are establishing that the majority of the table votes with you on most points. And, if a player protests, you essentially tell him that the role of DM is special, and that if they want the ability to do what they want, then they can run their own game.
Which, de facto, especially for an online game, would mean leaving the game and leaving all the people they are playing with, and abandoning all the time they've put into this game. It is, in a way, a threat.
And, you point out that you kick people, and that those people are easily replaced, but as someone who has also played a lot online, this is just as much a problem for a campaign as anything else. We had a stint where we were dropping and adding about two new players every two sessions for a while. Not only did it feel bad for our game, but the three of us who stayed really didn't care about any of the new people, because they were going to be gone. And since we didn't care, and didn't invest in them, they didn't stay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, though quite likely with different players plus the one who said yes.
That said, I hope I'd be a better judge of who to invite in to begin with than to blow the call on 5 out of 6.
See, this is only possible if you have multiple groups to play with. Because you are really just looking for people who agree with you. You wouldn't run that game with those players though.
And, if you are in a situation where you can't just casually scare up five new people to play with, I think many people would try to find a different game to run.
This one depends on why the players are disagreeing with the rules/rulings.
IME players far more often disagree with rulings (or rules) that are to their characters' disadvantage; and after listening to what they say I-as-DM then have to try to assess whether the disagreement is a legitimate issue or just an attempt to make things easier on their characters.
If it's a legitimate issue, or they can show me it's legitimate, discussion continues and I'm open to suggestions.
So, on one hand, I notice that you are immediately pivoting to a "cheating players" paradigm, where every player is going to do anything they can for any advantage. Which makes this a very hard conversation to have.
But also, lets drill down a bit deeper into this example.
Rules like stealth are often bemoaned as having multiple valid interpretations. You have the majority of your table, (I'm using 5/6's) who tell you that they want to run with a specific interpretation.
I'm not going to say there is no room for conversation, but what actual value is there in overruling the majority of the table? Again, I'm talking about a valid interpretation of the rules, something that I imagine if a DM running their table told you as a player, you'd agree to, but in this case, it is the overwhelming majority of your table telling you how they want it to be run. Why would this be a problem?
Put another way, maybe it's losing traction because players feel more entitled to disagree?
My take - with which not everyone will agree, but that's nothing new
- is that this is a result (in D&D at least) of more and more mechanics and rules being moved to the player-side as the editions have gone along, thus causing players to see a lot more of what's under the hood.
Sure, but I don't see that as a bad thing. How is having a more informed and more invested group to play with a negative? Because they might disagree with me?
I mean, I know I'm going to get a lot of "cheating player" responses, things about players starting with legendary artifacts or a million hit points or whatever. But, in my experience, most players aren't that way. And understanding more of the game, and being willing to speak up and advocate for what they want is a good thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a strange example. Deciding what sort of campaign to play as a group, is by the rules as written not something the DM decides on his own. It is something you agree upon as a group.
I can prepare a campaign set in the Roman era just fine without any player's approval, but whether they want to play one is not something I decide for them.
Sure, but I'm trying to show a larger pattern here.
We as DMs often are not confronted by the entire table disagreeing with us. So it is hard to think up "valid" examples. One of those examples is the campaign pitch. I know there are many DMs on this forum who are long-term DMs for long-term groups, running multiple campaigns back to back.
And generally, those DMs bring multiple pitches, because if they only brought one, and it is shot down, they aren't going to say "I'm the DM and this is what we are doing anyways."
And many many times, when someone gives an example of a single player vs the DM, the rest of the table is assumed to side with the DM. Granting them that extra authority of the group, but I think this is mistaken for being the DMs sole authority.
Which is why I keep bringing up this point, what happens when the vast majority of the group disagrees with the DM? If the DM truly has an ultimate authority and final say, then they would get their way. But, I feel like what often happens is they back down, because the group has more authority than the DM alone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every game style needs setup. I admit that this sort of thing doesn't fit well into the default tactical approach of, "I have set up the world as a set of challenges that are here to test you/your characters, let us see if you WIN!" Because then the point is, "use whatever rules you are given to WIN!". If you don't shift the player mindframe, this won't work well.
Exactly, a lot of DMs seem to be very worried about their players trying to "win" the game, but if you have incentivized them to have that mindset, then that is exactly what you are going to get.
We've all heard stories of DMs who are very strict with the rules, and then the players find a rules loophole and exploit it for a victory. And it feels like the player "won" but that entire attitude was cultivated by the DM making it seem like the way to win the game was to be better at the rules than they are.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This actually raises a rather interesting question for the more modern and collaborative clique of DMs: do you have every expectation that the players will be reading through the DMG and MM, looking for magic items that they want (maybe even requesting and then expecting to "find" them), learning and memorizing monster stats?
The magic items, yes.
Now, I homebrew a lot of magic items. I prefer things that are very different from what is in the DMG, but I think it is both easier and more enjoyable if the player has some idea what sort of things are possible.
As for the monster stats... first off, even as a DM I don't have have most monsters memorized, but this does lead into the second thing. As a DM I need to know that information... and when I'm a player, I still know that information.
So, to give a quick pivot to the question, would anyone here have a problem if a current or former DM wanted to play in their campaign? They have full access and knowledge of the Monster Manual and the DMG, they are probably going to instantly recognize clues that you leave about the various monsters, even some of the obscure things.
For me, I don't care if they are reading the books when it isn't time for the game. Heck, I have many players I've encouraged to become DMs. But, I would have an issue with them pulling the book out in the middle of the fight and looking the stats up. You know what you know, I can't stop that, but if you are doing metagame research in the moment... that's a bit naughty word.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup. Though you do have to address the issue that a lot of players have internalized not bucking the GM whether they disagree or not, which can make that picture less clear.
And that would probably make it moot if there wasn't a lot of pressure for players not to rock the boat too hard.
Yeah, there is a lot of this idea floating around that the player who argues with the DM is "causing a problem"
People are gathering to have fun, not cause problems, so they don't argue with the DM. But this makes the players more passive, and the consquences of that can cause ripple effects.
