D&D General DM Authority

[Oofta]

Well, think about what you just said a bit.

If their is a social problem, it is the DM's problem. So, if a social problem comes up, a player by not being the DM, doesn't have the "role" of dealing with it.

That is where this idea of "social suppression" comes from. Because the player has this understood mentality that they are not supposed to get involved.

But, there is not a single real reason why a conflict at the table between two players has to be resolved by the DM. Anybody could handle that. But we default to the DM, because we think they have some extra weight or authority, whether or not they actually do.

That's putting the cart before the horse, assuming there is any "social suppression". I also disagree, groups can be dysfunctional for a lot of reasons including a player that dominates the game even though they aren't DMing.

I can only relay what I've seen. When there's a problem player there can be some feedback from other player but eventually it's up to the DM to deal with it. It's happened in games I've been involved with when I was just a player and when I was a DM. Without the DM there is no game, the DM can choose to not include the player in future games.

Ideally it would never get to that point, but then again if wishes were horses we'd probably be knee deep in horse crap.

 

[Oofta]

Huh?

How is it not fair? I get no one wants conflict, but saying that everyone should be empowered to weigh in and feel like their voice matters to the discussion isn't a burden that is unfair to put on them.

That's not what I said or even close. As a DM if there is a problem player, I'm not going to make other people resolve the problem for me.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I personally don't think the book is a great teacher itself. However, I recognize the possibility that this is fine, because it could easily be that folks learning from the book is a rare occurrence. Online actual play, tutorials, and people bringing their friends in may be taking the teaching role, so that the book simply doesn't have to do that job.

To be fair, D&D has a separate resource to teach beginning players: the Beginner Box.

No defence for the DMG though, that book is terrible (who begins their DM focussed book with 2 chapters on planar cosmology? Something that could be entirely excised from the game without most people noticing?)

 

[Oofta]

It's not the players' job to outright cheat - I'd never in my life promote that!

It is, however, clearly in their interests to advocate for rules favourable to the PCs and to seek out advantageous loopholes in the rules that already exist. It then falls to the DM to push back against that advocacy when it goes too far, and to close loopholes either before they're discovered or as soon afterwards as possible.

When I was running LFR game days, we had a group of players that would always want to sit together. We called them the "rules lawyer cheese weasels group" because they would exploit every nook, cranny and vague wording out there to their advantage. They also always chose to game with the DMs that didn't have as firm a grasp on the rules or that were easily bullied.

So to say that all players will always want or vote for balanced and fair rules is, IMHO, male cow poo. The other problem is that it only takes one or two players with that attitude to be the loudest voices at the table. If everyone including the DM likes this style of play there isn't a problem. Personally I would not and we've had other threads where people were on the verge of quitting DMing because of similar issues.

 

[Campbell]

The idea that you need a final arbiter in order is provably false because people roleplay without RPGs all the time. They also play games that lack GMs without major issues. The idea that without a GM our games would descend into chaos or unruly players would be able to "ruin" it is just provably false because people do this all the time without that happening. A group of people is just as able to deal with unruly behavior or address player behavior which is a hindrance to the experience.

There are a lot of reasons to pursue a more top down arrangement. Particularly for more exploration focused play. You just do not need it to have a functional game.

 

[Campbell]

It's not the players' job to outright cheat - I'd never in my life promote that!

It is, however, clearly in their interests to advocate for rules favourable to the PCs and to seek out advantageous loopholes in the rules that already exist. It then falls to the DM to push back against that advocacy when it goes too far, and to close loopholes either before they're discovered or as soon afterwards as possible.

I do not do this and would not play with people who did in any game. It's poor gamesmanship. It also does not require a GM to deal with. It's no less problematic in card games or board games and yet people find a way to deal with it.

From my perspective a lot of the stuff players try to get away with is similar to the rebellious outbursts of teenagers with strict parents. It's finding out where their barriers are.

 

[Charlaquin]

The idea that you need a final arbiter in order is provably false because people roleplay without RPGs all the time. They also play games that lack GMs without major issues. The idea that without a GM our games would descend into chaos or unruly players would be able to "ruin" it is just provably false because people do this all the time without that happening. A group of people is just as able to deal with unruly behavior or address player behavior which is a hindrance to the experience.

There are a lot of reasons to pursue a more top down arrangement. Particularly for more exploration focused play. You just do not need it to have a functional game.

I agree that a top-down arrangement isn’t needed to keep the game from descending into chaos. It’s just the way D&D is designed to work. As you say, such an arrangement is desirable for what you call “exploration focused play”, which from my understanding of what you use that term to mean is precisely the type of play D&D is designed to facilitate.

 

[Oofta]

The idea that you need a final arbiter in order is provably false because people roleplay without RPGs all the time. They also play games that lack GMs without major issues. The idea that without a GM our games would descend into chaos or unruly players would be able to "ruin" it is just provably false because people do this all the time without that happening. A group of people is just as able to deal with unruly behavior or address player behavior which is a hindrance to the experience.

There are a lot of reasons to pursue a more top down arrangement. Particularly for more exploration focused play. You just do not need it to have a functional game.

I also don't need a deck of cards to play monopoly. D&D can be very collaborative but it needs a lead storyteller that sets the stage, sets up challenges. Even if you resolve all rules disputes by vote there still has to be a DM that has a certain amount of authority.

I've never seen a game that the DM wasn't the owner of at least the current scenario and final rules referee. Have you? Or is this just hypothetical "I play with friends so there's never a single disagreement ever"?

 

[Campbell]

I also don't need a deck of cards to play monopoly. D&D can be very collaborative but it needs a lead storyteller that sets the stage, sets up challenges. Even if you resolve all rules disputes by vote there still has to be a DM that has a certain amount of authority.

I've never seen a game that the DM wasn't the owner of at least the current scenario and final rules referee. Have you? Or is this just hypothetical "I play with friends so there's never a single disagreement ever"?

Of course when we play D&D the GM has the specific authority over some areas such as framing the situation. I'm just saying that does not extend to generalized social authority or being completely unbound by social norms or the rules of the game.

Personally when I run roleplaying games I leave rule arbitration or the introduction of house rules as a group matter.

Also on the contrary I play mostly with friends so we disagree all the time. We just work it out.

 

[Minigiant]

Any advice on how to do that?

For me, I have a wiki type campaign documents in Obsidian Portal*. In it I have an intro page that describes what type and style of campaign I'm going to be running with a short intro story and a "current situation" and a link to the known timeline. I also have links to character creation guidelines and restrictions, other links include the pantheon of the region, maps and so on. It would take a while to read everything if people are interested so I do a quick "what I do" on the invite/intro post or email. If it's not clear that I value RP and story from everything, it should be.

But even with all of that, hundreds of words if not thousands I'm sure I don't communicate everything. How could I other than to stream some of my old games?

*Not the greatest site in the world, but I've been using it for a while now and transferring all my info would be painful.

Common language

I really wish pages 34-41 of the DMG (Playstyle and Type of Fantasy) were in the PHB

To me, one of the basic problems with D&D is that the community has grown so large and aged so much that we don't have common terms for the descriptions on worlds and campaigns. Well we don't use them.