D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Xamnam]

Another pink elepant: Why is Rule 0 (and the game at large) so often presented in terms of what power the GM alone has, rather than the group as a whole playing by consensus? Especially considering that Rule 0 generally gets brought up precisely when a decision needs to be made on the fly. EzekielRaiden's many recent posts on consensus and trust speak quite clearly to that. Sure, somebody has to make the snap decision, but following it up with "Is that cool for everybody?" doesn't seem all that hard to do.

I think that's largely a function of the most generalized structure of D&D that the arbiter of the rules / referee, and person who usually has more complete knowledge of any given situation, is the one that responsibility is marked out to. The game certainly wouldn't break if that were changed. I do think other games/styles thrive more with that specific choice, though.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Another pink elepant: Why is Rule 0 (and the game at large) so often presented in terms of what power the GM alone has, rather than the group as a whole playing by consensus? Especially considering that Rule 0 generally gets brought up precisely when a decision needs to be made on the fly. EzekielRaiden's many recent posts on consensus and trust speak quite clearly to that. Sure, somebody has to make the snap decision, but following it up with "Is that cool for everybody?" doesn't seem all that hard to do.

I think it largely is a matter of perception.

Either folks are assuming that it only makes sense for the GM to have such authority. Or they assume that the GM must have such authority.

I think that’s why Rule Zero is being cited as a source of flexibility. But it’s not Rule Zero doing that work. The rule could be “when the rules don’t provide an answer, ask the player whose birthday is closest to coming up next and let them decide”. Call it Rule Birthday.

Rule Birthday provides the same amount of flexibility as Rule Zero.

 

[niklinna]

I think that's largely a function of the most generalized structure of D&D that the arbiter of the rules / referee, and person who usually has more complete knowledge of any given situation, is the one that responsibility is marked out to. The game certainly wouldn't break if that were changed. I do think other games/styles thrive more with that specific choice, though.

Yes but that's the pink elephant that folks don't see, isn't it?

 

[niklinna]

I think it largely is a matter of perception.

Either folks are assuming that it only makes sense for the GM to have such authority. Or they assume that the GM must have such authority.

I think that’s why Rule Zero is being cited as a source of flexibility. But it’s not Rule Zero doing that work. The rule could be “when the rules don’t provide an answer, ask the player whose birthday is closest to coming up next and let them decide”. Call it Rule Birthday.

Rule Birthday provides the same amount of flexibility as Rule Zero.

Exactly. Or the GM could just say, "Hey folks, how shall we handle this?"

It's quickest to have one designated person to come up with a spot rule, of course, and generally if everybody's cool then play just hums along. But I think if anybody notices and issue with a spot rule, I think they should feel they can bring it up without being kicked from the table (to cite one extreme example I've seen advocated).

 

[Xamnam]

I think they should feel they can bring it up without being kicked from the table (to cite one extreme example I've seen advocated).

Wow! Yeah, no, absolutely.

 

[clearstream]

I'm not putting FKR against Narrativism. In fact MesserSpiel is clearly derived from a Narrativist game design. Minimal super-lightweight games are not a bad thing, I've used several different ones at various times. My reaction to FKR is really like my reaction to any of these 'Revival' things. They're fine, but none of them is some sort of great revelation or incredibly better way to make an RPG. Sometimes the enthusiasm gets a bit out of hand!

For sure, I found some of the initial excitement over-hyped.

I'd certainly consider using MesserSpiel for a certain use case. OTOH I'm perfectly happy to use 4e, one is not inherently a better concept than the other.

Also agree.

Again, there's no denigration going on here. I'm quite skeptical about the suitability of very minimalist systems for more than certain niche use cases, but I'm not against them. I also think that there's a certain sense in which the sheer genius of what Dave and Gary did has become kind of discounted. Yes, the game they produced was a bit primitive in some respects, but every part of what they did was carefully considered and battle-tested. If they added rules, this was not some haphazard enterprise. I agree we can do better today, but we're building on the shoulders of giants, and I'd consider Gary's game design chops, at a 'what kind of game architecture will work?' level over that of ANY modern RPG designer.

That's good to hear. I've never discounted their achievements. That said, I also do not discount the achievements of the designers of editions since then. (Though I'm not super-fond of 2e. And I'd perhaps controversially put 3e, 4e and 5e on equal footing.)

 

[clearstream]

Exactly. Or the GM could just say, "Hey folks, how shall we handle this?"

It's quickest to have one designated person to come up with a spot rule, of course, and generally if everybody's cool then play just hums along. But I think if anybody notices and issue with a spot rule, I think they should feel they can bring it up without being kicked from the table (to cite one extreme example I've seen advocated).

This is right, of course. And @Xamnam 's observation about aligning power with knowledge chimes with me. Also I believe there is worth (but not ncecessity) in its alignment with control of adversity.

 

[Oofta]

Exactly. Or the GM could just say, "Hey folks, how shall we handle this?"

It's quickest to have one designated person to come up with a spot rule, of course, and generally if everybody's cool then play just hums along. But I think if anybody notices and issue with a spot rule, I think they should feel they can bring it up without being kicked from the table (to cite one extreme example I've seen advocated).

If that [the bolded part] happened, I would no longer play with that DM whether I was the one being kicked out or not. Fortunately I've never seen it nor have I heard it being advocated in person or on this forum.

 

[Oofta]

When I DM I make rulings during the game if necessary but follow up with a "Let's discuss it after the game". There are, of course, exceptions if I'm just misunderstanding something. It's about speed of play and flow, 99% of the time it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things and I'd rather the game keeps flowing (whether I'm the DM or player) than to figure out the "correct" answer.

When it comes to house rules, most of mine are beneficial to the players. I do listen to feedback and try to get consensus but I'm the only one that has to be happy with the direction of the game. I've never had anyone quit because of a ruling, I can't even remember having a significant disagreement. Had a minor disagreement on the idea that heat metal needed to be tweaked*, but it was a two-minute discussion and we moved on.

My experience is that the hypothetical control freak DM either doesn't exist or isn't a DM for long. If you want to vote on everything, go for it. I don't think it's necessary, I play with (mostly) mature adults. If a DM has house rules or consistently makes calls I don't like I'll discuss it with them. If it persists, I'll find another game. No DM is for everyone.

*This came up fairly early in my DMing 5E, I think auto-perma-disadvantage on anyone wearing armor is unbalanced for the spell level. I was always holding back from using it on the PCs because I thought it was stupid, but it was a go-to spell for the bard. I changed the rule so that if it's cast on armor it does damage, no disadvantage after the first round. Still powerful, no longer the first spell cast every combat with a bad guy in armor.

 

[Imaro]

I think that's largely a function of the most generalized structure of D&D that the arbiter of the rules / referee, and person who usually has more complete knowledge of any given situation, is the one that responsibility is marked out to. The game certainly wouldn't break if that were changed. I do think other games/styles thrive more with that specific choice, though.

Sorry... quoted the wrong post... pretty much agree here.