D&D General DM Authority

[prabe]

Being unable to find a DM to run your preferred type of game is not being forced to play a game you do not want to play.

Which doesn't mean holding out for your ideal is a likely path to success, but there's a difference between "not my ideal game" and "a game I do not want to play." I think most people are willing to compromise (to different extents).

 

[Minigiant]

Why would I want to run a game for players that don't want to play the games I want to run?

You should not.

I also find it strange that a DM wouldn't use the large player pool to their advantage. I mean, if I want to DM a particular type of game and I have the ability to filter players until I find players that want to play the kind of game I want to run, why wouldn't I do that? Why would I run a game I don't want to run instead just to make the players happy?

Seriously! Do people actually DM games they don't enjoy just to make the players happy?!?

way to miss my point.

Being unable to find a DM to run your preferred type of game is not being forced to play a game you do not want to play.

Who said that?

I am saying is

DMs should say Hercules and Goku are banned at Session 0 not Session 4
The problem is a whole lot of DMs are waiting until Session 4 and getting upset,

 

[Oofta]

...
DMs also have the responsibility to clearly explain to what type of game they are running before the players accept to stay or leave at Session 0.
...

Has anyone said or implied otherwise?

 

[Minigiant]

Has anyone said or implied otherwise?

Many times.
Many times I've feel offense over players simply questioning them.
I love the "it's a secret" justification often used.

 

[prabe]

DMs should say Hercules and Goku are banned at Session 0 not Session 4
The problem is a whole lot of DMs are waiting until Session 4 and getting upset,

It wouldn't occur to me that someone would want to play Hercules or Goku in D&D. I might twig to Hercules if the player handed me a backstory (at which point I'd have to tell them there aren't any gods on my world, so no demigods). I wouldn't recognize Goku if he landed on me.

 

[generic]

DMs should say Hercules and Goku are banned at Session 0 not Session 4
The problem is a whole lot of DMs are waiting until Session 4 and getting upset,

This is probably the poorest analogy for differing expectations that you could have possibly picked.

 

[Blue]

Maybe I'm seeing things through rose-tinted glasses, but I've been in the hobby for a pretty long time and ran many open tables and convention games with people I've never met before and I've never seen somebody who isn't reasonable enough to reach an agreement on pretty basic things.

I think if there's a case where a player and the GM just can't agree on something, then there's some deeper problem
a) The player doesn't feel like they are in the same boat as the GM and aren't enemies
b) There's something unclear about what kind of game the group is playing, what the genre, the tone, the theme and the focus are
c) They fundamentally want some different things, but for some reason are still playing together
d) Someone is a complete idiot, but I seriously doubt that complete idiots engage in a such niche hobby in the first place

None of these problems is gonna be solved by expression of authority. The first one is probably gonna just get worse.

Fair enough. I just find there are times when there needs to be a decisions taken. Be it a disagreement between the DM and some backstory, or something that happens during a session and all of the others are waiting, or the DM wanting to run classic Dark Sun and a player wanting to play a triton paladin.

Ah, I think I have the example. Wizards publishes the Sage Advice compendium, questions that have come up where they have asked for official clarification on the rules, and the rules have been considered ambiguous enough that they felt the need to clarify it officially. (The Sage Advice feed has a lot more questions - the compendium is the only official, and it's curated to ones that are legitimately unclear.)

So, we have documented cases where a players and DMs are looking for clarifications. Is it a leap to believe that some of those clarifications could not have been resolved by a compromise at the table? Some of these can definitely be life-or-death, such as the one about what happens if a wild shaped druid is disintegrated down to 0 HPs. Since we know these are real questions that have come up, can you entertain the possibility that a DM reading it one way and a player reading it the other with their character's life on the line may not be able to find a compromise?

EDIT: Just to give context, I'm for compromise first, and think the DM only has the authority the players give him - if multiple players disagree then maybe that's not a good match. I just think that there are times humans will not be able to find an acceptable compromise even when acting in good faith, and being able to move forward is a good thing.

 

[Minigiant]

It wouldn't occur to me that someone would want to play Hercules or Goku in D&D. I might twig to Hercules if the player handed me a backstory (at which point I'd have to tell them there aren't any gods on my world, so no demigods). I wouldn't recognize Goku if he landed on me.

And that's my point.
There are many different types of people playing D&D now. So DMs cannot be vague.

This is probably the poorest analogy for differing expectations that you could have possibly picked.

That's literally what happens though.

The DM never explicitly states the campaign characteristics and a player defies one of them.

 

[Oofta]

You should not.

way to miss my point.


Who said that?

I am saying is

DMs should say Hercules and Goku are banned at Session 0 not Session 4
The problem is a whole lot of DMs are waiting until Session 4 and getting upset,

This just seems like such an odd ax to grind. I don't disagree - I think you have a point. DMs should be clear what kind of game their running.

But this...

Many times.
Many times I've feel offense over players simply questioning them.
I love the "it's a secret" justification often used.

Has never come up on this thread other than from you. Are there secrets about my world and details about upcoming events they don't know about? I sure hope so!

I mean, I don't know if you just got burned by some DM but can you point to one posting on this board that has said or implied that hiding the tone and general feel of the campaign is a good thing? I mean, sometimes it happens because the DM doesn't know how to clearly state things and players don't know how to ask. But on purpose? With intent? Not that I'm aware of.

 

[generic]

That's literally what happens though.

The DM never explicitly states the campaign characteristics and a player defies one of them.

When does this ever happen? Your original argument was about players being bait and switched for a different playstyle, and now you're arguing that players who don't bend to the DM's ideal for the game aren't at fault if the DM has never said anything.

I don't think anyone disagrees that a DM should make it clear what kind of game they're running.