Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8162719" data-attributes="member: 6801228">The ultimate authority. Why? I haven't done it much, but I do remember that multiple editions of the game (I think every edition since 3rd) has had rules for randomly creating a dungeon and "DM-less" play. And, while the game is less narratively interesting, for a hack and slash game, that would seem to work just fine. And Hack and Slash, kick down the dungeon door, style games are fully functioning DnD games, right? Same with megadungeons. So, assuming that you have a random dungeon generator, complete with monsters and loot, and a group of veterans who know the rules and that have no issue separating player knowledge from character knowledge... Could you not have a fully functional game of DnD without a DM?I think the answer is yes, you can. It wouldn't be my prefered style, but it is certainly a functional DnD game. And, a lot of the responses I've gotten over these last few threads have shown a... disdain for the players hope of the DM facilitating their fun. I actually got accused more than a few times of wanting to treat the hypothetical DM as my slave for wanting them to compromise on an aspect of their world-building. I find it troubling. Because, I think you are right. In the real world, when things are functioning properly, the DM and Player both try and make the game as fun as possible for everyone. But, for whatever reason, the idea has snuck in that the best way for that to happen is for the DM to ban, restrict, and monitor their players. Because bad players will try and ruin the game, and DMs need to be ready with the hammer of justice to beat them down. Which then seems to slowly morph into, "if you don't like what I'm offering, then leave. If you stay, you submit to my rules." Which doesn't sound like trying to facilitate fun. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'm not saying it is unreasonable, but I am trying to make a point. You started out your last post by listing all the things the players had asked for. They asked you to be DMThey asked to play in your settingThey asked to be in the Material WorldThey asked to play Genasi They asked to play Genasi from the Material World. But, that wasn't the real situation. It almost never is. You asked to the DM. You presented your setting. Now, if the players aren't interested in your campaign, you are willing to try and find a different campaign, but you aren't willing to budge on certain points. Potentially, I'm carrying a little too much over from the last thread, but so many of the same actors are on the stage, it is hard not to, but there was a lot of discussion on that thread about how players were being unreasonable by not being willing to bend on their desires. A lot of times they were called entitled, or a whole bunch of other things. But, DMs don't need to bend either. And, maybe you won't bend on your homebrew setting, but some DMs also don't bend on the lore of established settings either. And a lot of the time, if there is something a player wants badly enough, the only recourse is to become a DM. So, here we have the situation, maybe not specifically from you but in general.A single player, they should bend to the DM. The DM... really never has to compromise. The closest we get is that the DM is free to take the players opinions into consideration, but that is always presented as the DM being gracious, not as something they have to do. And even if the entire group wants something, the DM might negotiate with them. Or they could end up deciding the group won't work and they will leave. I have yet to come up with a single scenario where people have agreed that DM should bend or back down. Ever. No matter what scenario I present. The DM might kindly agree to negotiate, or they might decide the game isn't going to work. But never has someone said "As a DM, I'd change my mind." But, players should back down. In fact, in the previous thread, it was questioned why a player would even attempt to push the envelope and not ask for something that the DM didn't approve.But that is what it takes to even get people to consider that the DM should change their mind. And despite you inviting the players, you presented it as the players asking you to DM. Kind of strange, isn't it? You ask them to play, but you present it as though they asked you.Sure, but if we are talking about the limits of DM authority, this seems to be what we have to talk about. A DM against a single player, the player seems to always be in the wrong. Always be overruled. Maybe not specifically for you, but that is how it seems from this perspective. Even the entire table overruling the DM seems to be a grey area. Maybe it would matter. After all, it never even happens, so most DMs don't know how to react to that.Then why do you keep saying it is ultimate authority?Again, discussions from the other thread. There seemed to be no limits. A DM could hand out Pre-generated characters, and that was perfectly fine. So, yes, that seems to be something that people think a DM is perfectly fine to do.But, if we are as uncharitable with DMs as we are with players, we have to recognize that it is entirely possible that that agreement that the DM can use that understanding to act improperly.Exactly, that seems to be a reasonable position. And yet, I was told that it would matter about the context. That if the players were only all agreeing on that interpretation because it was in their favor, he might overrule them anyways. That would be excersising Ultimate Authority, wouldn't it? But you seem to be of the opinion that doing so would be improper. So, perhaps, you are not advocating for Ultimate Authority?But none of that is what people are saying they need the authority for. No one is claiming they need Ultimate Authority to run the environment or the NPCs.And yet, that is the majority of what people are talking about. Almost exclusively. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Except, they aren't co-writers. A Co-Writer gets to make decisions about what characters are in the story, they get to decide what cities are like, the locations. At best they are actors. And, as to the rest of it, again, why are we always assuming the players are acting in bad faith. Why is the example "I want to leap over the moon!" ? Every player example is them cheating, breaking the game, or something similar. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Which is something we are trying to advocate for. Increasing Player involvement across the board. But, it must fall to the DM is what I'm being told. They must be the one to handle issues. Ect.</blockquote>

Verification