D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[AbdulAlhazred]

1. A player had his cleric suffer a crisis of faith, now believing that he is not one of his Deities chosen because of some in-game abilities that did not have the assumed effect. This was interpreted that he was not as close, important to his Deity or that he had disappointed or angered him in some way. Nevertheless he wanted to remain a servant of said deity but in a reduced capacity. When he went up a level and through some communing and some minor roleplaying scenes I used Rule 0 to enact the players wishes.
I transformed his 13 levels of cleric to 13 levels of Paladin. He wanted to rely less on his deity's mercy and more on himself to get the job done. He assumed he wasn't worthy to wield Kelemvor's direct might.

2. I changed the workings of Banishment to banish its victims to their heart's desires. Using Rule 0. Thus I placed 3 scenes before them that included items/places/people that were important to their characters. The players chose which was most important for their characters and that is where they were banished to. Allowing each of them to pursue character goals.

3. Our sorcerer at the table had struck a power pact with a devil some time ago. The newly forged Paladin (1 above) used Divine Sense in a scene and I using Rule 0 to rule that the sorcerer exhibited a fiendish taint which was inadvertently noticed by the Paladin. This led to 1-2 hours of intense and impressive roleplaying scenes between the PCs which revelation threatens to tear the party apart, significantly hamper their current mission and possibly irrevocably destroy relationships with NPCs and organisations. To the point where drastic character measures are being decided based on the future actions of the Paladin.

All the above occurred yesterday in our roleplaying session thanks to level of flexibility afforded to me by Rule 0.
As I understand it, in more structured games such as DW or AW I am beholden to the die to create hard moves. And that's fine.
I don't want to be that restricted, I love the freedom Rule 0 provides me. And based on the reactions of my players, so do they.

Sounds cool. I am of the opinion that in Narrativist games where these sorts of issues could potentially come up (in a very general sense) that they can be handled in various ways. So, lets say my Blades in the Dark character is something similar to a cleric, that is he's become a servant of one of the Dead Gods or something like that. he could easily have a crisis of faith. This would probably manifest during a score, though it might well have its roots in other game phases. The player might be stuck in a position where this is offered as a Devil's Bargain (but again, it would have deeper roots than that, story wise). Maybe the character traumas out, and acquires this profound crisis of faith. It could get wrapped up in their vice too. I could easily see a playbook feature being replaced by a more appropriate one (there's no explicit rule for this, but I've seen it happen in play).

As for the banishment thing, BitD is much less comprehensive in its explication of lore and cosmology than many games/settings are. I doubt there would be a rule to change here, the GM might come up with this, or it might be left to the players to work out, or suggest and implement. There isn't really any single specific center of authority over lore in BitD, so its pretty open.

BitD's rules on arcane and spirit stuff are also pretty loose, so basically I would not consider any rulings being needed, the player might suggest the possibility, and if its OK with the other people at the table then it would happen.

DW lets the GM make a move when A) a player gives them a 'golden opportunity' (something like ignoring an obvious danger that has been presented, the GM will now make that danger come into full force) B) when the players ask "what happens?" C) when a move produces a result of 6-, or whenever one states a move should be made by the GM. D) The GM might make a move, say announcing a doom or something like that at the 'proper time' (IE you might start a session where the PCs are back at the Steading by announcing a doom). In DW a 'crisis of faith' would be something entirely RPed. It might come along with a judgment that the PC's alignment has changed, or a bond being resolved, maybe a trip to Death's Door, etc. I don't see why a GM and player couldn't decide to rewrite the character using a different playbook at that point, if it makes sense to them. As with BitD, something like 'Banishment' would be entirely under the control of the table, as it isn't an element present in DW AFAIK. A conflict between PCs is also certainly possible, and again the rules are not so precisely stated as to preclude something like detecting evil on a demon pacted sorcerer.

In at least these two games, I don't think there's a huge problem. I mean, it isn't likely that EXACTLY the story you outlined in your post will happen, but stories are like snowflakes, they never really repeat. Its safe to say that many cool story lines of similar sorts can arise in these games. The lack of a rule stating absolute GM authority doesn't seem necessary. The group at the table can certainly bend the rules. In our last BitD campaign we did that fairly often, not in big ways, but here and there someone at the table thought something would be cool and said "what if I rewrite these moves from this third party playbook and use them on my character?" (as an actual example). The moves (features) got reflavored and maybe adjusted a tiny bit, and the player added them to his sheet when he was getting enough XP. I think maybe he also replaced an existing feature, which the rules don't really cover, but it does seem like it can be appropriate sometimes.

Certainly when changes are of the nature of "this is a legal character, I just could not have gone from character sheet X to Y by any explicit rule in the game" that seems like a pretty minor 'hack'. Maybe in a very technical sense it is 'adding a special case rule' but I'd hardly bother to call it that. Honestly, I think in narrativist circles there is generally a lot less concern for this sort of thing. If the player wanted to add a whole new subsystem to the game, that might provoke a bit more extended debate.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well the thing is that if all players have agreed to the social contract of rule zero they trust the judgement of the DM to make the calls for the betterment of the game overall... so while you may personally object to a particular suggestion, you have agreed to ultimately put faith in the fact that you have given this person the power to make the definitive decision on those type of calls. This alleviates any type of deadlock decision where half the players are for and half are against a particular suggestion, and, again when playing in a traditional style, allows the player with the most holistic view of the overall campaign, including player goals and desires, to make the decision.

EDIT: Which is to say I've seen my fair share of group back and forth that ultimately goes nowhere for hours, leads to bad blood between specific players, because it becomes more personal, and also the dynamic where some players feel they have to side one way or another, not because it's what they desire but because of the dynamics of the players outside of the game.

EDIT 2: Also the DM being the final authority doesn't preclude him/her/they from listening to both sides and taking other views into consideration.

I think its hard to deal in infinite hypotheticals. There are undoubtedly people out there somewhere for whom an explicit rule 0 has made the difference between strife and peace. My feeling is this is a very small set, and that the same people at the same table with the same situation, except for rule 0 are like 99.9999% likely to arrive at the same conclusion regardless. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see no less table harmony in DW games or 5e games and I've played a fair amount of each system.

Beyond that, is rule 0 actually stated outright in that many cases? I mean, I know people claim it for things like all of TSR D&D, but I do not believe it was ever actually stated before 3e! Not to say that I don't think classic D&D assumes final authority of the GM, but where is it actually stated? What most RPGs state is much milder, that the GM is in charge of the setting, NPCs, and applying the rules. 4e aside I don't think there's a D&D that ever states that the GM is NOT the ultimate arbiter of everything, but I think its left a bit more open than that (again aside from 3e IIRC). 4e literally says to work things out at the table, though I think it would be reasonable to interpret it that the GM's opinion carries significant weight.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't see how any of these rely on the GM having unilateral authority to change the rules.

They rely on the GM eschewing his-her unilateral authority to not change the rules.

Can't they all be resolved under any system simply by saying 'Hey everyone, why don't we do this?'.

Not really on the fly during play. Unless you're willing to interrupt play mid-flight for a meta-discussion, the DM kinda has to rdecide these things on the fly as best as possible.

 

[Lanefan]

Some or all of these examples seem to have been with the consent of the players, but in general I would have a brief discussion about it.

I suggest that if people feel strongly enough about it that they would still object, and there is no compromise, having a rule zero sentence in the gamebook is not going to meaningfully smooth things over.

Maybe not smooth things over but a rule-0 sentence on disputes reading either "The DM's word is law" or "majority vote is law" sorts out the arguments in a hurry so you can get on with the game.

 

[Aldarc]

I think its hard to deal in infinite hypotheticals. There are undoubtedly people out there somewhere for whom an explicit rule 0 has made the difference between strife and peace. My feeling is this is a very small set, and that the same people at the same table with the same situation, except for rule 0 are like 99.9999% likely to arrive at the same conclusion regardless. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see no less table harmony in DW games or 5e games and I've played a fair amount of each system.

Beyond that, is rule 0 actually stated outright in that many cases? I mean, I know people claim it for things like all of TSR D&D, but I do not believe it was ever actually stated before 3e! Not to say that I don't think classic D&D assumes final authority of the GM, but where is it actually stated? What most RPGs state is much milder, that the GM is in charge of the setting, NPCs, and applying the rules. 4e aside I don't think there's a D&D that ever states that the GM is NOT the ultimate arbiter of everything, but I think its left a bit more open than that (again aside from 3e IIRC). 4e literally says to work things out at the table, though I think it would be reasonable to interpret it that the GM's opinion carries significant weight.

Not entirely sure if 3e stated it as in terms of how Rule 0 gets thrown around here. From what I vaguely recall, 3e's "Rule 0" was effectively about asking whether your DM has house rules, though I could be mistaken.

Edit: As seen below:

0. CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER
Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules. You might also want to know what character types the other players are playing so that you can create a character that fits in well with the group.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Sounds cool. I am of the opinion that in Narrativist games where these sorts of issues could potentially come up (in a very general sense) that they can be handled in various ways. So, lets say my Blades in the Dark character is something similar to a cleric, that is he's become a servant of one of the Dead Gods or something like that. he could easily have a crisis of faith. This would probably manifest during a score, though it might well have its roots in other game phases. The player might be stuck in a position where this is offered as a Devil's Bargain (but again, it would have deeper roots than that, story wise). Maybe the character traumas out, and acquires this profound crisis of faith. It could get wrapped up in their vice too. I could easily see a playbook feature being replaced by a more appropriate one (there's no explicit rule for this, but I've seen it happen in play).

As for the banishment thing, BitD is much less comprehensive in its explication of lore and cosmology than many games/settings are. I doubt there would be a rule to change here, the GM might come up with this, or it might be left to the players to work out, or suggest and implement. There isn't really any single specific center of authority over lore in BitD, so its pretty open.

BitD's rules on arcane and spirit stuff are also pretty loose, so basically I would not consider any rulings being needed, the player might suggest the possibility, and if its OK with the other people at the table then it would happen.

DW lets the GM make a move when A) a player gives them a 'golden opportunity' (something like ignoring an obvious danger that has been presented, the GM will now make that danger come into full force) B) when the players ask "what happens?" C) when a move produces a result of 6-, or whenever one states a move should be made by the GM. D) The GM might make a move, say announcing a doom or something like that at the 'proper time' (IE you might start a session where the PCs are back at the Steading by announcing a doom). In DW a 'crisis of faith' would be something entirely RPed. It might come along with a judgment that the PC's alignment has changed, or a bond being resolved, maybe a trip to Death's Door, etc. I don't see why a GM and player couldn't decide to rewrite the character using a different playbook at that point, if it makes sense to them. As with BitD, something like 'Banishment' would be entirely under the control of the table, as it isn't an element present in DW AFAIK. A conflict between PCs is also certainly possible, and again the rules are not so precisely stated as to preclude something like detecting evil on a demon pacted sorcerer.

In at least these two games, I don't think there's a huge problem. I mean, it isn't likely that EXACTLY the story you outlined in your post will happen, but stories are like snowflakes, they never really repeat. Its safe to say that many cool story lines of similar sorts can arise in these games. The lack of a rule stating absolute GM authority doesn't seem necessary. The group at the table can certainly bend the rules. In our last BitD campaign we did that fairly often, not in big ways, but here and there someone at the table thought something would be cool and said "what if I rewrite these moves from this third party playbook and use them on my character?" (as an actual example). The moves (features) got reflavored and maybe adjusted a tiny bit, and the player added them to his sheet when he was getting enough XP. I think maybe he also replaced an existing feature, which the rules don't really cover, but it does seem like it can be appropriate sometimes.

Certainly when changes are of the nature of "this is a legal character, I just could not have gone from character sheet X to Y by any explicit rule in the game" that seems like a pretty minor 'hack'. Maybe in a very technical sense it is 'adding a special case rule' but I'd hardly bother to call it that. Honestly, I think in narrativist circles there is generally a lot less concern for this sort of thing. If the player wanted to add a whole new subsystem to the game, that might provoke a bit more extended debate.

Out of interest since it wasn't clear in the reply and I got curious when you were referring to the game's mythos, is BitD set within a fantasy setting that includes God's and magic and supernatural creatures?

 

[Lanefan]

I don't necessarily agree that the DM choosing to implement a change you don't like is grounds for your faith being shaken, again he is concerned with the most beneficial choice for the entire table vs. your personal preference. As an example if everyone at the table wants to play with feats in 5e except you and the DM decides to allow feats...is your faith shaken at that point. Putting it a different way...would you feel the same way if a decision you didn't agree with was enacted because the majority of the group wanted something you didn't... would your faith in the group be shaken at that point?

Speaking from experience, my answers here are yes and yes.

 

[AnotherGuy]

It's great that you listen and try to work towards what your players want... but my understanding as we've discussed this is that you are still the final authority of your game at the end of the day. Now maybe you follow certain best practices but it still sounds like you're a singular, but benevolent, authority figure.

I don't think this style of asking the table is unique. Not necessarily on everything but on occasion when the DM is unsure. There are indeed many moments where I listen to players inputs on a new spell being tried out - usually read aloud, we offer musings and opinions and then I make a call based on the tables input and the fiction. I think, perhaps mistakenly, that this method would be common with face-to-face games with friends particularly those with a roughly equal amount of experience. It seems very natural to me. It may be even within the 5e book as advice, I dunno.

EDIT: In fact one of the banished PCs in my 2nd example upthread landed up in Sigil. The others found themselves back in Waterdeep and tried to locate their friend. So as a table we went through the spells to see what, if any, would be available and useful through the guilds and churches that would assist with locating their friend and/or bringing him back. The table settled on a Contact Outer Plane casting to locate their missing companion. That seemed like the best option.
I don't count myself as all knowing of the rules.

 

[Lanefan]

"Compromise" implies at least one person is giving things up. That's why I didn't use that word. I look for consensus-building. Helping everyone walk away happy. That's the whole point.

If there's a dispute, you by definition cannot reach consensus without some or all of the participants compromising their position.

My experience with consensus-run groups (both in and out of RPGing) is that either a) true consensus tends to generate results where nobody walks away happy, or (more often) b) consensus is used as bad-faith cover by the most persuasive person and-or best lobbyist in order to ultimately get their way.

 

[clearstream]

I don't think this style of asking the table is unique. Not necessarily on everything but on occasion when the DM is unsure. There are indeed many moments where I listen to players inputs on a new spell being tried out - usually read aloud, we offer musings and opinions and then I make a call based on the tables input and the fiction. I think, perhaps mistakenly, that this method would be common with face-to-face games with friends particularly those with a roughly equal amount of experience. It seems very natural to me. It may be even within the 5e book as advice, I dunno.

SFAIK the 5e game text doesn't contain an express rule zero. Perhaps the most concrete statements are on DMG4-5

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game.

and

The rules don't account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session. For example, a player might want his or her character to hurl a brazier full of hot coals into a monster's face. How you determine the outcome of this action is up to you.

Does being in charge of the game mean you can change existing rules, or is it limited to filling gaps? Who knows!? Perhaps it just means you get to choose which optional and variant rules are in play? The reader will have to decide for themselves...