I mean, presumably you read or listened to my pitch, and either agreed you wanted to play in the setting, or made a different suggestion.
The same argument still stands. Five of the six players wanted me to DM. Five of the six players wanted to play in my setting. Five of the six players wanted to play in the material plane. Five of the six players wanted Genasi to be a playable option. And five of the six players were unwilling to work with me to figure out how their Genasi characters fit into my setting’s material plane despite not being native to it. That’s the hypothetical you’ve proposed to me. I’m sorry, but I don’t think it would be unreasonable of me not to be willing to bend on all of those positions when they players are not willing to bend on any of them.
Okay, lets talk practicality here. This is about creating a Genasi character, so we are clearly in session 0.
So, in your pitch before session zero, do you really give every salient detail of your entire setting? I doubt it, your "pitch" was probably far smaller, and probably focused on the campaign goals. Something like "I want to a game focusing on the PCs building a stronghold in the wilds of my world, vying for power and control against other forces."
So, yes, the players agree that sounds like fun. They like that idea.
Session Zero comes around, and one player has an idea for a Genasi born in the material plane, and before you can interject, the idea spreads like wildfire, and they are pumped. And when you tell them the idea doesn't work, because the Genasi can't be born on the Material plane, they ask you to change that.
They still want to play your campaign, they are still cool with a lot of your setting, but as a group they've decided that this is a cool idea and they want to explore it.
Now, notice how all this plays out?
You pitched the campaign idea to them, meaning that at some level, you want them to play. Maybe they want you to DM as well, but they didn't come to you with a campaign idea and ask you to run it, you pitched to them.
You pitched your setting. They didn't say that they wanted to play in your setting, that was just what you offered, and they were willing to concede that point. After all, it is your setting, and there might be elements of your plot that require pieces from that setting.
So, we are halfway through this list you created of what the players wanted.... and it is more likely all about you. Maybe your expeirence is wildly different than mine, but I don't often have people walk up to me and ask me to run a DnD campaign in my homebrew setting for them. Usually I go to them.
Which means, before session 0, before anything, just from the pitch, the players are compromising with the DM. They are listening to the DM say "Hey, I've got an idea, I think you'll enjoy it. Let me use my world and give me 4 hours of your day for months on end, and I think we can have fun" So, the players already conceded to the DM. And you are using that fact as a bludgeon to demand that they must concede further.
After all they agreed to let you DM. They agreed to let you use your homebrew world. Therefore they must agree to your other restrictions.
Can you see the problem with how this is playing out?
I do not claim the DM has unilateral authority. The DM is the arbiter of the rules, and often the curator of the setting. D&D is also a group activity, and navigating it therefore requires consideration for the other participants. And yes, that means the players can collectively decide not to support a DM’s rulings or creative decisions. These statements do not contradict each other.
And yet, you, Abeir-Toril I think, Lanefan definitely. All of you said you would either override the group or leave.
You aren't claiming unilateral authority... but if the players collective decide to not obey your authority, you're out.
And again, in my experience as a DM and as a player, it is the DM going out and recruiting people, not the other way around. One time I had people come to me and ask me to DM. And that was a long time friend whom I had gotten into DnD, but because of scheduling conflicts he had never had me as a DM.
So, you go to them, you want them as players, but if they overrule you, you go and find other players.
All what talk of the DM’s absolute authority? The only people I see claiming the DM has absolute authority are the anti-DM authority crowd.
Here and there in this thread, and this entire thread spawned from another thread where that conversation was far more prevalent.
We are bringing it up, because it was the heart of the disagreement last time. Heck, go read the OP again, Oofta very clearly asks "So for those that say they don't believe in DM as ultimate authority, what does that mean?" or some variation at least twice.
Which was quickly followed by people saying that yes the DM has authority to do what they want.
It isn’t. DM-as-Referee is in fact the very language of the pro-DM authority crowd.
I’m getting the impression you’re more opposed to the word “authority” than to the actual positions the people who say the DM has final authority espouse.
Or maybe you are confused on the role of a referee.
A referee in football doesn't make the rules. They don't chose the teams of players, they don't decide how the stadium is designed. They are only there to settle rules disputes.
The DM has the full authority (for some) to decide what races and classes their players are, they chose the world, they control everything in that world, they decide how everyone reacts, they even get to decide whether or not your action succeeds or fails. Remember, you only roll the dice if the DM tells you to, if they say you failed, you failed.
At the far end of the spectrum, perhaps a position no in this thread is actually taking but we have to be aware of it, the DM controls nearly every aspect of the game. Location you meet, time you meet, who you are playing with, all of it.
Sure, maybe people aren't taking it that far, but you yourself sees asking players to play in your game as them asking you to DM. You might be willing to bend on a racial choice, but you still want it acknowledged that you have the full authority to not bend, especially since the players are being so unreasonable and not bending.
In fact, while perhaps it was missed in the flood of posts, not a single person in this thread, said that they would change a ruling if the group disagreed with the DM. You gave multiple possibilities, but you would definetly seem to be salty about them breaking faith with you. Lanefan keeps insisting he needs context to understand why the group wants the ruling, because if it isn't a good reason, he'll tell them no that his ruling stands.
No one said they would follow the will of the group. Not a single person. They did say they would break up the group and find people who would follow their will though.
Because D&D is asymmetrical and those games are not. D&D is designed for one player to control the environment and the other players to each control a single character within that environment.
Okay, but there are asymmetrical board games too. And actually, wouldn't these issues be worse in symmetrical games? People have talked about how players will cheat, or bend the rules to benefit only themselves. In a symmetrical game where everyone is of equal authority, wouldn't that be even worse?
But it isn't. So, why are we laboring under the assumption that the DM needs authority to prevent the players from cheating? Which to remind you, was exactly the type of example you gave early on in this thread. Post #41 by my count.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
You really needed to read my post more closely then. Some of the people I have been responding to have immediately gone towards various ways of cheating. The example that brought me into this thread was that if the players had equal authority to the DM, the player wold simply declare that they have the key that unlocks the door ahead of them and unlock it. That came from Charlaquin.
Oofta has quite often in this thread talked about a player demanding that they run so fast they create a tornado. Or a character who was so intimidating that everyone was immediately scared of them no matter what. Or a player who made sure the number they wanted was on top and then dropped their oversized d20 so it landed on the value they wanted.
Jack Daniel asked if we were okay with the players memorizing monster stats, something many older DMs would view as cheating.
At one point, I believe in the other thread, the idea of players having some control got taken to the point of them declaring themselves immune to damage, and refusing to change their hp.
Seeking to change the rules to be more favorable to the players? Purposefully looking for loopholes that are clearly not intended for the sake of eking out an advantage? How are those much different? I guess they aren't "Breaking the rules" but they are clearly doing things they and the DM both know they are not supposed to do.
And a lot of people are putting forth that the only way to reign in these players, is for the DM to have the most authority, to be able to kick those players, and insist based solely upon their role, that their preferences are the ones being met.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority as DM doesn't mean "what I say goes, always!".
snip
The DM's final word sets the course of the entire game.
Think about how you started your post, and how you ended it. Because you contradicted yourself.
And, what is the player solutions you present?
It means that the DM is the arbiter of the fiction, and gets to choose what happens in it. Bad DM? Move to another group. Don't wanty to play only humans? Find another DM. Unhappy with a DM's ruling? Either debate it or simmer in eternal wrath.
It's not a question of the DM being the ultimate authority, it's a question of the role of the DM, as Game Master and bender of the rules. It's perfectly reasonable to expect the DM to tell you what kind of game they're running, and to expect that the DM will be willing to take player input, but all of these things don't imply player control of the narrative or the rules.
Is the DM bad? Leave
Want to play something they don't like? Leave
Unhappy? You can debate it, but their word is final, so they don't have to listen to you. Or you can leave.
What is expected of the DM? They will inform you of their decisions. Oh, they might deign to take input, but they don't need to. And if you don't like it? Leave.
Because the DM has control of the narrative and the rules, and their word is the final say.... but they that doesn't mean that what they say goes... because you can just leave?
Are you seeing the confusion here about how you give the DM the power to control everything, present leaving the game as the only solution, and yet want to say that it isn't "what the DM says goes, and that's that?
