D&D General DM Authority

[Scott Christian]

Well, no videos. Not a lot of people record themselves playing DnD in the first place. But found some links. Two involve an app people specifically designed to help with the situation, and one is a person's blog post about running the game with no DM, because no one wanted to be a DM.

How to Play D&D or Pathfinder Solo or In A DM-less Group, Nations Software

Despite what you may have heard, it's quite possible to play Pathfinder or D&D alone.

www.nations-software.info

Press Release recent news | page 1 of 282 | Game Developer

www.gamasutra.com

Five Easy Steps to a DM-less 5E

5 easy steps is an interesting read. Not sure why they wouldn't just post a video. Theorizing about something in an after-the-fact write up is often very different than what happens in the moment. But I commend them for trying. It seems like a good experiment for them and their table. Although, I would like to point out two things about their table:
1. They still say someone needs to be in charge, it's just that the person in charge rotates. That still is very much like a DM. Then he goes on to say that the other players cannot argue with the person's decisions when they are in charge. That is old school DMing, and also leads to...
2. Their table really sounds like an improv group with some dice: always go with the flow (say yes to everything), make sure everyone has a turn, don't take things personally, etc.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you want a game without combat, not sure why you'd play D&D.

Got to agree; seems the wrong tool for the job.

 

[Campbell]

Basically. As I said, there's a different semantic loading to one over the other; among other things, the "DM is leader" procedure can theoretically still be in play while being indistinguishable from a group that more formally makes rules decisions group decisions, just because the DM always does it that way anyway when there's any issue.

(Again, just so as to make sure no one conflates the positions together, I'm not talking here about campaign element participation).

I also think there is a fundamental difference here between interpretation and being able to decide which rules are in play. I have been in a number of groups where the GM is expected to treat the rules of the game the way a judge would treat the legal code. They have the social capital to interpret the rules, but changes still require agreement from the table either as part of the pitch for the game or negotiated during the course of a game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I also think there is a fundamental difference here between interpretation and being able to decide which rules are in play. I have been in a number of groups where the GM is expected to treat the rules of the game the way a judge would treat the legal code. They have the social capital to interpret the rules, but changes still require agreement from the table either as part of the pitch for the game or negotiated during the course of a game.

Of course the problem can be that the difference is sometimes--subtle.

 

[Scott Christian]

Basically. As I said, there's a different semantic loading to one over the other; among other things, the "DM is leader" procedure can theoretically still be in play while being indistinguishable from a group that more formally makes rules decisions group decisions, just because the DM always does it that way anyway when there's any issue.

(Again, just so as to make sure no one conflates the positions together, I'm not talking here about campaign element participation).

Sorry Thomas, I am just trying to clarify. Are we only talking about a DM being an arbitrator of a rule in a given situation. Such as:
Player 1: I shoot the goblin with my crossbow.
DM: Ok, give me a roll.
Player 2: Don't forget the hobgoblin next to his is granted an attack of opportunity.
DM: Oh yeah, player 1, are you sure you want to fire?

Such as a table can clarify rules to the DM, whether it is in their favor or not.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sorry Thomas, I am just trying to clarify. Are we only talking about a DM being an arbitrator of a rule in a given situation. Such as:
Player 1: I shoot the goblin with my crossbow.
DM: Ok, give me a roll.
Player 2: Don't forget the hobgoblin next to his is granted an attack of opportunity.
DM: Oh yeah, player 1, are you sure you want to fire?

Such as a table can clarify rules to the DM, whether it is in their favor or not.

Not only that but "Hey, that seems like a dumb rule; it does X, Y and Z, which doesn't seem desirable in general"; "I don't really see that problem, but what does everyone else think?"

Even with a GM who functions as arbiter, there's nothing stopping that sort of structure. So did that "change" a rule? (Not talking about the obvious actual rules change that is being discussed above).

 

[Lanefan]

Why? They are all playing at the same table. If they all agreed to the rule the first time, why would it be a problem to use the same rule a second time?

You're assuming they all agreed. I'm not.

One of the privileges of DMing is that you get to set the rules; and if you don't like the way another DM has done somehting you can change it.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea of DM-less D&D (which would in fact be DM-full D&D, as everyone would in effect be part-DM, part-player) and running into some snags:

Who designs the setting on both a macro (kingdoms, cities, etc.) and micro (dungeon layout) scale? Or, if the dungeon is being generated randomly (for which there's systems all over the place) without a larger setting behind it, who does the random rolling for such?

Who runs the opposition? Even in a random dungeon you're sometimes going to random up some opponents, who plays those? (and if it's one of the players, isn't that person immediately in a conflict of interest in regards to running both sides of the combat?)

Who keeps the secrets? In a randomly-generated dungeon the dice will occasionally come up "trap", which becomes rather pointless if everyone knows about it. Ditto secret doors, teleporters, and other such delights. And any sort of mystery-based plot or story goes out the window if everyone already knows the secret behind the mystery.

If playing online e.g. on roll20, can DM privileges (such as to assign tokens, hide/reveal the map, etc.) be assigned to more than one participant in a game?

 

[Oofta]

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea of DM-less D&D (which would in fact be DM-full D&D, as everyone would in effect be part-DM, part-player) and running into some snags:

Who designs the setting on both a macro (kingdoms, cities, etc.) and micro (dungeon layout) scale? Or, if the dungeon is being generated randomly (for which there's systems all over the place) without a larger setting behind it, who does the random rolling for such?

Who runs the opposition? Even in a random dungeon you're sometimes going to random up some opponents, who plays those? (and if it's one of the players, isn't that person immediately in a conflict of interest in regards to running both sides of the combat?)

Who keeps the secrets? In a randomly-generated dungeon the dice will occasionally come up "trap", which becomes rather pointless if everyone knows about it. Ditto secret doors, teleporters, and other such delights. And any sort of mystery-based plot or story goes out the window if everyone already knows the secret behind the mystery.

If playing online e.g. on roll20, can DM privileges (such as to assign tokens, hide/reveal the map, etc.) be assigned to more than one participant in a game?

At a cursory glance at the links, it's basically dungeon crawls and variations of the same. Different people switch off playing the monsters, although it's not really clear. Maybe I'm just not grokking the concept though.

I mean I play solitaire sometimes, but I wouldn't say I'm playing cards.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're assuming they all agreed. I'm not.

One of the privileges of DMing is that you get to set the rules; and if you don't like the way another DM has done somehting you can change it.

Okay, 4 out of 5 of them agreed.

Next game... 4 out of 5 of them would still agree.

The only change would come from that one person, who would then be trying to use their temporary position of power to force people they know don't want that ruling to accept that ruling... which seems like a bad move.