Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DM Authority
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8163367" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>I think I agree, DM as Referee is perfectly fine.</p><p></p><p>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Wrong. Insultingly so. </p><p></p><p>But there might be some value in the fact that you can't tell the difference between "I am willing to compromise so that my friends have fun" and "I'm a clown"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Or, you know, I can keep playing DnD? </p><p></p><p>Because, again, I'm a DM. Not here recently because of Covid, because I don't feel I can run a game I'd be proud of online, or I'm just nervous, but I mostly DM. </p><p></p><p>And I love it. And I quite enjoy being a player. </p><p></p><p>It also amuses me how, having played games like Savage Worlds and Cold Steel Wardens where there are resources allowing the player to affect the narrative, you feel the need to put "force the GM" in all capital letters. Like it is some sort of... eldritch taboo horror. What, the GM deciding to run those games didn't give permission for players to play the game, and must be "forced" to follow the rules?</p><p></p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You don't seem to understand my position at all, possibly since you don't seem like you play DnD. </p><p></p><p>I actually did start to try Burning Wheel once. The person who was going to run it flaked after character creation. It seemed like an interesting system, but I don't think it would give me what I want from a DnD game, since it isn't DnD. </p><p></p><p>And, taking your insistence on "forcing" and the rules, I get the feeling you are missing the point that if I wanted to play a game like Burning Wheel... I'd likely have to run it myself. Maybe I could find an online game, but more than likely I'd have to get the rules, teach myself, and run it. </p><p></p><p>This also likely stems from the fact that you are missing the point that I am advocating as much as a DM as a player. Something so many people seem to miss about my position. They all assume I'm against DMs, when I myself am a DM. </p><p></p><p>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not saying anything is wrong with it per se, but it does lead to a bit of an issue in one sense. </p><p></p><p>If the group disagrees, you seek a different group. If the player disagrees, you potentially send them to find a different group. </p><p></p><p>On the plus side, in theory people will end up playing with people they agree with. </p><p>On the downside, disagreeing with the DM is seen as a problem that needs to be fixed. </p><p></p><p>Heck, the very act of saying "Hey guys, as a DM, I don't think my fun is more important than my players fun" got me a response that maybe DnD isn't the game for me. Whether or not that response was based in reality, that means that is it not so absurd for people to see the game in the context of the DM being more important than there players, and if DMs only surround themselves with people who agree with them...</p><p></p><p>I'm sure YOUR table isn't like that, I'm sure any individual person on this forum would say their table isn't like that. But the potential exists, and it stems from this same root.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay. </p><p></p><p>But "potentially about to break the rules via physical violence" is a bit different than "Came to me with an idea I don't like"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Enforce the rules is still not making the rules. </p><p></p><p>And I imagine most of the people in the crowd getting ejected are being ejected for wildly imappropriate behavior. Streaking, throwing things at the players, inciting violence, ect. </p><p></p><p>I'd bet a ref has never ejected a person sitting calmly in the crowd, but not wearing the team colors. Or wearing the colors of a team the ref personally despises.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Right, some do some don't. </p><p></p><p>Laying claim to "absolute and unquestioned authority" (I'm adding unquestioned since people seem to be using absolute in a dozen different degrees) would be a clear indication of going too far. </p><p></p><p>And yet, people in this thread seem tiptoeing right on that line. They are the DM. They are Final. They are Inevitable. And if the group doesn't like it, the DM finds a group who does.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'd say that is an entirely parallel discussion. </p><p></p><p>You can approach the game tactically as war without exploiting the rules in ways that are clearly egregious. </p><p></p><p>Because in both "DnD Combat as War" and "DnD Combat as Sport" one thing holds true. </p><p></p><p>DnD is a game we play to have fun.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Do you? </p><p></p><p>I personally, and many other DMs I've heard about, have given monsters over to Players to run and keep track of. Sure, it would be harder to run certain monsters and encounters that way. But it is far from impossible.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See, no, it isn't. </p><p></p><p>First and foremost it is the Groups Game. </p><p></p><p>It is possible, difficult but possible, to play DnD with no DM. It is impossible to DM a game a DnD with no players. </p><p></p><p>But, people want to say that the DM is the most important person at the table. They want to say that without the DM there is no game. They want to claim the game as the property of the DM. </p><p></p><p>But none of that is true. </p><p></p><p>And, since we like the "DM as Referee analogy" let me ask this. How many sports can be played without a referee? </p><p></p><p>Street Hockey? No ref</p><p>Pick-up game of Basketball? No ref</p><p>Field Football with a local community? No ref</p><p>Street Soccer? No ref. </p><p></p><p>Now, list every single sport that can be played with only the referee present. </p><p></p><p>.......</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See, I've never heard that the restrictions are brought up in the pre-session Zero. The pre-session zero seems to me to be, "Hey, I have a campaign idea" </p><p></p><p>Then during session zero is when you talk about the various house rules, restrictions, ect.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, but that is again a fundamentally different situation. Though, it does again lead to an interesting scenario. One you will probably say never happens. </p><p></p><p>But, let us say that you do have mid-campaign turnover. Karl comes to the game and wants to play a Tiefling and gives a brief backstory. </p><p></p><p>You, as the DM, say no. </p><p></p><p>But, your table (lets say 4/5 players) says "Nah dude, let him play a tiefling, that sounds like a cool story and it ties in with X, Y and Z" </p><p></p><p>My point isn't that this is going to happen. I'm sure your players would never say that. But if they did, how should a DM react? Should they tell their table that the idea they are interested in has no place, or do you defer to the desires of the group to include this story? </p><p></p><p>I don't see a value in overriding the players. </p><p></p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Fair enough, I see it more as moving to a different project, but that is a perception thing with poor analogies making things muddy.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which, hey, I've built settings too, I get that. </p><p></p><p>But, this does get into a problem for players who want to affect the setting with their backstory. They likely don't want to quit the game and DM themselves, but they also can't change any lore, because you did it solo and won't change it. </p><p></p><p>Additionally, while I fully agree that in general I would be highly reluctant to change my settings lore, I also want to acknowledge that it is possible that a player is going to come to me with an idea that is better than what I have. It has happened. Different perspectives can make a world richer, more nuanced, and just plain better than a single vision. </p><p></p><p>Not by neccessity, not guaranteed, but the possibility exists.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It isn't that specifically, I'm just trying to find the limits. Where is the point where the DM changes? I saw the change to a different setting as the DM switching to a different project, but I can see the point that running a different campaign they are less excited about is the same thing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It sounds fair, but there have been phrasings of that idea that don't sit well with me. </p><p></p><p>The idea that the DM is in no way obligated to do something they don't want to do is juxtaposed with the plyaer having the choice between doing something they don't want to do, or leaving. </p><p></p><p>Sure, if the DM drives away all their players, they don't get what they want either, but since they are still running and pitching games, they are going to keep taking that same idea around until someone wants to do what they want to do. Players... just have to get lucky.</p><p></p><p>And, the DM is presented by some people as having a... "sanctioned authority" to never compromise. They can, maybe they should, but they never have to. At that isn't seen as a bad thing. In fact, compromising too much is seen as a bad thing for the DM. </p><p></p><p>But players who never compromise are villified, and compromising too much? Never really presented as a problem. </p><p></p><p>They are treated as very differently, and I don't understand why.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See, this is all I was getting at. </p><p></p><p>There is a point where the DM has to compromise. If we are looking for the limits of DM authority, that is where it is at. </p><p></p><p>And never compromising isn't a good thing, whether you are a DM or a player.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, but I guess I'm just curious how far it goes before we are okay to say "Dude, you are taking this too far"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly, and I don't want to know everything from the start. But knowing that you are willing to let me add something like a monastery full of NPCs? That's usually all I want. That gives me a lot of room to create my story and play within the sandbox. </p><p></p><p>A player asking to rewrite your entire setting or alter multiple races is probably going too far. But one asking for a minor change, or for adding some small elements to the setting? I don't see that as being unreasonable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8163367, member: 6801228"] I think I agree, DM as Referee is perfectly fine. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wrong. Insultingly so. But there might be some value in the fact that you can't tell the difference between "I am willing to compromise so that my friends have fun" and "I'm a clown" Or, you know, I can keep playing DnD? Because, again, I'm a DM. Not here recently because of Covid, because I don't feel I can run a game I'd be proud of online, or I'm just nervous, but I mostly DM. And I love it. And I quite enjoy being a player. It also amuses me how, having played games like Savage Worlds and Cold Steel Wardens where there are resources allowing the player to affect the narrative, you feel the need to put "force the GM" in all capital letters. Like it is some sort of... eldritch taboo horror. What, the GM deciding to run those games didn't give permission for players to play the game, and must be "forced" to follow the rules? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You don't seem to understand my position at all, possibly since you don't seem like you play DnD. I actually did start to try Burning Wheel once. The person who was going to run it flaked after character creation. It seemed like an interesting system, but I don't think it would give me what I want from a DnD game, since it isn't DnD. And, taking your insistence on "forcing" and the rules, I get the feeling you are missing the point that if I wanted to play a game like Burning Wheel... I'd likely have to run it myself. Maybe I could find an online game, but more than likely I'd have to get the rules, teach myself, and run it. This also likely stems from the fact that you are missing the point that I am advocating as much as a DM as a player. Something so many people seem to miss about my position. They all assume I'm against DMs, when I myself am a DM. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not saying anything is wrong with it per se, but it does lead to a bit of an issue in one sense. If the group disagrees, you seek a different group. If the player disagrees, you potentially send them to find a different group. On the plus side, in theory people will end up playing with people they agree with. On the downside, disagreeing with the DM is seen as a problem that needs to be fixed. Heck, the very act of saying "Hey guys, as a DM, I don't think my fun is more important than my players fun" got me a response that maybe DnD isn't the game for me. Whether or not that response was based in reality, that means that is it not so absurd for people to see the game in the context of the DM being more important than there players, and if DMs only surround themselves with people who agree with them... I'm sure YOUR table isn't like that, I'm sure any individual person on this forum would say their table isn't like that. But the potential exists, and it stems from this same root. Okay. But "potentially about to break the rules via physical violence" is a bit different than "Came to me with an idea I don't like" Enforce the rules is still not making the rules. And I imagine most of the people in the crowd getting ejected are being ejected for wildly imappropriate behavior. Streaking, throwing things at the players, inciting violence, ect. I'd bet a ref has never ejected a person sitting calmly in the crowd, but not wearing the team colors. Or wearing the colors of a team the ref personally despises. Right, some do some don't. Laying claim to "absolute and unquestioned authority" (I'm adding unquestioned since people seem to be using absolute in a dozen different degrees) would be a clear indication of going too far. And yet, people in this thread seem tiptoeing right on that line. They are the DM. They are Final. They are Inevitable. And if the group doesn't like it, the DM finds a group who does. I'd say that is an entirely parallel discussion. You can approach the game tactically as war without exploiting the rules in ways that are clearly egregious. Because in both "DnD Combat as War" and "DnD Combat as Sport" one thing holds true. DnD is a game we play to have fun. Do you? I personally, and many other DMs I've heard about, have given monsters over to Players to run and keep track of. Sure, it would be harder to run certain monsters and encounters that way. But it is far from impossible. See, no, it isn't. First and foremost it is the Groups Game. It is possible, difficult but possible, to play DnD with no DM. It is impossible to DM a game a DnD with no players. But, people want to say that the DM is the most important person at the table. They want to say that without the DM there is no game. They want to claim the game as the property of the DM. But none of that is true. And, since we like the "DM as Referee analogy" let me ask this. How many sports can be played without a referee? Street Hockey? No ref Pick-up game of Basketball? No ref Field Football with a local community? No ref Street Soccer? No ref. Now, list every single sport that can be played with only the referee present. ....... See, I've never heard that the restrictions are brought up in the pre-session Zero. The pre-session zero seems to me to be, "Hey, I have a campaign idea" Then during session zero is when you talk about the various house rules, restrictions, ect. Sure, but that is again a fundamentally different situation. Though, it does again lead to an interesting scenario. One you will probably say never happens. But, let us say that you do have mid-campaign turnover. Karl comes to the game and wants to play a Tiefling and gives a brief backstory. You, as the DM, say no. But, your table (lets say 4/5 players) says "Nah dude, let him play a tiefling, that sounds like a cool story and it ties in with X, Y and Z" My point isn't that this is going to happen. I'm sure your players would never say that. But if they did, how should a DM react? Should they tell their table that the idea they are interested in has no place, or do you defer to the desires of the group to include this story? I don't see a value in overriding the players. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fair enough, I see it more as moving to a different project, but that is a perception thing with poor analogies making things muddy. Which, hey, I've built settings too, I get that. But, this does get into a problem for players who want to affect the setting with their backstory. They likely don't want to quit the game and DM themselves, but they also can't change any lore, because you did it solo and won't change it. Additionally, while I fully agree that in general I would be highly reluctant to change my settings lore, I also want to acknowledge that it is possible that a player is going to come to me with an idea that is better than what I have. It has happened. Different perspectives can make a world richer, more nuanced, and just plain better than a single vision. Not by neccessity, not guaranteed, but the possibility exists. It isn't that specifically, I'm just trying to find the limits. Where is the point where the DM changes? I saw the change to a different setting as the DM switching to a different project, but I can see the point that running a different campaign they are less excited about is the same thing. It sounds fair, but there have been phrasings of that idea that don't sit well with me. The idea that the DM is in no way obligated to do something they don't want to do is juxtaposed with the plyaer having the choice between doing something they don't want to do, or leaving. Sure, if the DM drives away all their players, they don't get what they want either, but since they are still running and pitching games, they are going to keep taking that same idea around until someone wants to do what they want to do. Players... just have to get lucky. And, the DM is presented by some people as having a... "sanctioned authority" to never compromise. They can, maybe they should, but they never have to. At that isn't seen as a bad thing. In fact, compromising too much is seen as a bad thing for the DM. But players who never compromise are villified, and compromising too much? Never really presented as a problem. They are treated as very differently, and I don't understand why. See, this is all I was getting at. There is a point where the DM has to compromise. If we are looking for the limits of DM authority, that is where it is at. And never compromising isn't a good thing, whether you are a DM or a player. Sure, but I guess I'm just curious how far it goes before we are okay to say "Dude, you are taking this too far" Exactly, and I don't want to know everything from the start. But knowing that you are willing to let me add something like a monastery full of NPCs? That's usually all I want. That gives me a lot of room to create my story and play within the sandbox. A player asking to rewrite your entire setting or alter multiple races is probably going too far. But one asking for a minor change, or for adding some small elements to the setting? I don't see that as being unreasonable. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DM Authority
Top