Does the DM have all the power?

[danzibr]

I never really considered #2 an option. It's not getting much love in this thread.

In the future, I may go with #2.

[OldTrees1]

No, your paraphrasing is a tautology. "It works every time" was literally his entire argument in favor, so it's hardly taking him out of context to address that single phrase.

The Pro Section says "It works every time"
The Con Section says "Some DM might not do it right"
If that pair of sentences does not scream tautology, then you are examining the sentences individually and thus out of context.

JP may be right, JP may be wrong, but at least we can be fair.

[TheIronGolem]

I never really considered #2 an option. It's not getting much love in this thread.

In the future, I may go with #2.

It's a very good option for rotating-GM games. You still let the GM make rulings on the fly when disputes arise, for the sake of keeping the game going uninterrupted, but afterwards you discuss and debate the matter, vote, and the DM agrees to act in accordance with the result.

Mind you, this still requires elements of #1, which shows that these options aren't really so starkly divided.

[Tengu_temp]

Gentleman's Agreement is the best way. Even if a player is unintentionally being a jerk or breaking the game, you can tell them what's the problem and they should stop. And if they don't and intentionally keep on causing trouble, then they're probably not the kind of player you want to have in your game anyway - if they don't shape up after a warning, kick them out.

The most important thing in a game is to keep good ooc communication, and to be honest with each other. If someone is being problematic, don't try to handle it indirectly by making up rules, or by voting - just talk to them and explain what the problem is.

Also, another thing that baffles me is the inflexibility of the "players can always vote with their feet" stance some people seem to have. Do you really thing that when players encounter something they don't like in the game, they should leave? And when a player is being problematic, the DM should kick him out? Because that's pretty damn drastic if you ask me. First, talk to the DM or the player, explain your problem and see if you can reach some kind of agreement. Leaving the game or kicking a player should be the last resort, not the first one.

Pros: It works every time.

Totally unbiased "my favorite rule is obviously the best one" view for the win.

[Jeff the Green]

I think of it like a representative democracy: The DM has decision-making authority, but mostly because it's tedious to vote on everything. (The other part is that the DM has more information about the plot and, depending on the group, rules.) If a significant number of the players decide they don't like his style, they can vote him out (whether by saying "this isn't working; come play on the other side of the screen" or flat out leaving), and if they don't like a particular ruling, they can override him.

Exactly what can be overridden is subject to the ladies'/gentlemen's agreement and appropriate (but certainly not absolute) deference to the larger amount of work the DM puts in; usually mechanics is open to this and story isn't, but even story can be as well. If the party is creeped out by an NPC (and not in a good way) they're entitled to tell the DM not to use that NPC anymore, and if the party is disturbed by the general theme (or one player has an extreme level of discomfort), they're entitled to tell the DM to change it.

[BWR]

The Pro Section says "It works every time"
The Con Section says "Some DM might not do it right"
If that pair of sentences does not scream tautology, then you are examining the sentences individually and thus out of context.

I think you mean 'contradiction', not 'tautology'.

IMHO: The DM does the vast majority of the work, runs the setting and has the final word. Period.
Players should be allowed to voice their opinions and desires and protest at what they feel bad calls or unfair treatment, if the situation is bad enough. GMs should in general take complaints seriously and listen to objections, but are under no obligation to do anything other than what they want.
The job of the player is to not make things less fun for the other players and GM, and to in general go along with some stuff they might not like all that much to keep the game and fun running smoothly.
The GM's job is to make things fun for the players. If many of your decisions make players unhappy, you should look very closely at what you are doing wrong and consider a different course of action.

The GM does not have and should not have to cater to every whim and every little wish a player might have. Players should not have to sit through tons of unfair actions and having their characters rendered useless by act of plot.

[prufock]

I'm going to assume this as your end goal:

Everyone wants to have fun and have a good time

1.The Gentleman's Agreement At it's most basic every one just gives a high five and says ''lets all be cool''. A bit more is the DM might ask each of the players ''lets just have fun and don't be a jerk''.

Pros: It's easy. It take almost no effort.

Cons: It's vague. While sure most players can agree they won't do the really, really broken or annoying things that the rules let them do....not everyone will be on the same page. Not everyone will agree on what ''being a jerk'' is, and most often a person who is or plans to be a jerk won't admit it. A lot a jerks will preach like they are a paladin right up until they slam the door.

And it really only covers the big stuff. Once you start getting down to individual feats, powers, spells and even lines of text, there is much less agreement.

It's only as vague as you make it. Conversation about what is considered "jerk behaviour" can clear up vagueness.

As for the last point, how granular does it need to be? The point is to have fun; as long as everyone is having fun, the gentleman's agreement hasn't been broken. When one person ceases to have fun, the gentleman's agreement requires reviewing to see why and correct it. Conflict is resolved through agreement.

2. The Vote simple enough, each person in the group gets one vote. Anything that needs to be decided is just placed up for a vote.

Pros: This has the illusion of fairness and the right thing to do, as nothing is more right then a vote.

Cons: Voting is not perfect and does not make miracles. Voting only works if everyone either all thinks the same way anyway or if each person could somehow vote without bias, selfishness or other emotions. And nothing stops the jerk from voting they way they want.

Not everyone has to agree or think the same way, and there's no reason they need to vote without bias. In fact, the whole voting process is designed to allow for bias. It's purely "majority wins."

The real cons here aren't having a single jerk voting against the rest, it's having one person who isn't on the winning side for (m)any votes. This person is more likely to cease having fun than the jerk.

3.The DM has all the power The DM, as they are impartial as they don't have a character in the game, decides everything. The DM takes on the burden of making sure the game is fun for everyone.

Pros: It works every time.

Cons: Some players don't like it as it makes them feel powerless. Some DM might not do it right.

It doesn't work every time. If the DM's idea of fun is different than even one person, your goal hasn't been achieved. If none of the players agree, you don't have a game.

[afroakuma]

#1 for the win. The entire point of a gentleman's agreement is that the parties involved know they're on the same page. One cannot have a gentleman's agreement between two people who are not, because in that case one of them is not, under the definition of the concept, a gentleman.

Part of the gentleman's agreement in this context is due deference to the designated authority - but that authority is granted by the players, not the default property of the DM, and can be withdrawn easily.

Very true. I once saw a game where after the DM made a self-serving ruling against the wishes of the rest of the table, they proceeded to play as though he'd never said anything and his so-called "power" completely broke down. If your only recourse is to keep shouting "No, Dave is dead" when everyone else plays as though Dave is still alive, you can't reasonably claim to have any of the power, let alone all of it. It is not a victory for "DM power" if people leave the table, and if you're at someone else's table (from a physical ownership standpoint) then it's even sillier to hope you can assert your authority in that fashion (see also the tale of That Lanky Bugger).

[OldTrees1]

I think you mean 'contradiction', not 'tautology'.

I guess the pessimistic reading would be a contradiction: "Always works and sometimes doesn't work."
However it can also be read optimistically as: "Always works when done right."
Either way is a valid in context interpretation. Either way it is worthy of criticism, just not the naive "You said an unqualified 'always' " method that I replied to.

[Jeff the Green]

It doesn't work every time. If the DM's idea of fun is different than even one person, your goal hasn't been achieved. If none of the players agree, you don't have a game.

One of the main concerns I have about DM-God Equivalency is that it has the potential to create an atmosphere where, even if the DM is responsive to player concerns and willing to be flexible, players may feel that they shouldn't speak up when they don't like an aspect of the game. I also think that even a benevolent God-DM can have their sense or concern for player dissatisfaction blunted by the paradigm.

[Flickerdart]

I guess the pessimistic reading would be a contradiction: "Always works and sometimes doesn't work."
However it can also be read optimistically as: "Always works when done right."
Either way is a valid in context interpretation. Either way it is worthy of criticism, just not the naive "You said an unqualified 'always' " method that I replied to.

Everything works when done right, that's what "done right" means. But some methods (such as benign dictatorship) are harder to get right than others.

[OldTrees1]

Everything works when done right, that's what "done right" means. But some methods (such as benign dictatorship) are harder to get right than others.

Completely agree.

As I said earlier, my group uses a version of 1 that acts like a version 3 slaved to version 2. (Group is cooperative, group selects a GM/campaign, GM runs the campaign)

Honestly I think any group dynamic that is defined by its conflict resolution rather than its non conflict interaction is bound to have problems from the focus on conflict. A group that is cooperative first and dictatorship second would have fewer problem than a group that is a dictatorship first and cooperative second.

[nedz]

I prefer the consensual approach, but it can depend upon how many Type A characters you have in your group (that's OOC characters). In such a group then the other player's views tend to get over-shadowed. In short: all groups are different, and what works well for one group may be a disaster for another.

[jedipotter]

I'll be honest, I don't see what #1 is doing on the list. I agree that it's important; "Don't be a jerk" is a valuable mantra for any social gathering, not just gaming groups. But it's not a means of rules interpretation, which appears to be the basis of the thread; it's a code of conduct.

.

Nice list, I like it.

That the game's designers didn't do any double checking or editing is patently absurd. Did they do a fantastic choice accross the entire system; hells no. That's well documented but within any given set of the core rulebooks plus one supplement and/or one campaign setting things are -fairly- consistent in such a manner that some basic character building competence will be enough to keep most PC's alive and victorious most of the time unless the DM significantly departs from the game's design expectations.

TL;DR: The game's design flaws are not nearly as bad as the OP makes them sound and the DM doesn't need and shouldn't have absolute power to make a fun and functional game.

It is kinda obvious no one double checked anything. Or they just did the ''yup'' checks where they just said everything was right without looking. Or worst of all they had the writers double check their own stuff and you know they each said ''yup, my stuff is good''.

As just a normal person who games as a hobby in my free time , with a full time life with other commitments....if you had given me the ''close to the final copy'' of the rules, I could have pointed out the 100 or so things that needed attention. It is obvious they did not do that.

And the ''mighty magic''/''useless mundanes'' and the ''Holiday Tree Effect''' are huge design flaws.

The most important thing in a game is to keep good ooc communication, and to be honest with each other. If someone is being problematic, don't try to handle it indirectly by making up rules, or by voting - just talk to them and explain what the problem is.

Though, sadly, talking does not always work

Also, another thing that baffles me is the inflexibility of the "players can always vote with their feet" stance some people seem to have. Do you really thing that when players encounter something they don't like in the game, they should leave? And when a player is being problematic, the DM should kick him out? Because that's pretty damn drastic if you ask me. First, talk to the DM or the player, explain your problem and see if you can reach some kind of agreement. Leaving the game or kicking a player should be the last resort, not the first one.

Again with the talking. The problem is what to do when talking does not work? And, as i said, it is the last resort. But some players are just jerks and want to start problems....kinda pointless to talk to them.

Totally unbiased "my favorite rule is obviously the best one" view for the win.

What, to honest for you?

[OldTrees1]

What, to honest for you?

More like you misattributed the occasional failure to lack of skill("not doing it right"). While Method 3 can work, if we assume you are "doing it right" in your own estimation then we can cite concrete examples of players that would suffer under that method. Since suffering is not the objective, we can identify that the occasional failures of Method 3 cannot be all excused away as lack of skill.

[afroakuma]

And, as i said, it is the last resort. But some players are just jerks and want to start problems....kinda pointless to talk to them.

No, kind of pointless to play with them. If people at the table are legitimately "just jerks" who "want to start problems," then they aren't worth playing with. On the other hand, if you're labeling them that way because you're not finding a solution after talking, then the next step after talking is introspection, not dictatorship.

Again with the talking.

You say this like it's the wrong answer in a collaborative activity with regard to how the persons involved can best enjoy it.

The problem is what to do when talking does not work?

If talking's not working then either you haven't done enough of it or someone doesn't want it to - and that person might be you. At which point a different approach to the conversation is needed, starting with identifying what the participants' goals are. That includes the DM's.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And the ''mighty magic''/''useless mundanes'' and the ''Holiday Tree Effect''' are huge design flaws.

They're not flaws. They're design choices that were made and you, personally, disagree with. That's not the same thing.

The magic item christmas tree was done deliberately and surprisingly well. It's biggest flaw is that casters and skillful types have a lot more leeway in getting interesting items, rather than simple +X items, compared to the warrior types. All in all a success in my opinion.

The caster supremacy thing was also a deliberate action though its execution was dramatically more poorly done. It was the designer's intent that mundanes should rule the lower levels, casters the higher, and that the two would have a rough parity in the mid levels. At low and middle optimization levels this even manifests properly with a fair amount of frequency.

The problems with this are twofold.

Some consider this inherently poor design. Its pay now for fun later in the casters and rule now suck later for the non-casters philosophy strikes some as innappropriate, their belief being that the game should be balanced across the board.

The other problem is, of course, that a skilled player can shift the point of parity deep into low levels; a problem that only became magnified as the game developed.

You can say the implementation was terrible but you can't universally call those things flaws just because you don't like them.

[OldTrees1]

If talking's not working then either you haven't done enough of it or someone doesn't want it to - and that person might be you. At which point a different approach to the conversation is needed, starting with identifying what the participants' goals are. That includes the DM's.

Jumping on,
Another reason talking might not be working is when there is a misunderstanding. Especially an unrecognized misunderstanding. In those cases talking is still the solution but the nature of the talking changes to address this new issue(specifically there is a shift from intending to convince to intending to understand).

However for full disclosure I would also have to mention that sometimes an issue does not have a solution that includes both parties. Mutually exclusive tastes can result in issues that talking will solve but will solve by not continuing the game with the entire group. This is still an example of talking working.

[Yahzi]

If the players pull a rules trick I didn't think of, I let them get away with it once. After that I ask them if they want to change the rules so it doesn't work anymore... or if they want to keep the rule and let the enemy do it too.

They usually choose to change the rule.

[Earthwalker]

Totally unbiased "my favorite rule is obviously the best one" view for the win.

What, to honest for you?

I have to say I enjoy the irony of 3 working every time as long as its done right. Namly the DM shows no bias in thier deciions.

Oddly my gaming group is the same for two different games with two different DMs. This makes the idea of rules clarification different from most groups I would imagine. We don't have a formal vote ut for most rules everyone at the table wieghs in. That ruling that carries on for both games.

Having only 1 DM decide just doesnt work as the other DM might not like it and we arent wanting two sets of house rules.

Of course sometimes one of the DMs will make a quick ruling (if this is happening in game) and then it will be reviewed by all later.

Its very difficult to get one rule for all as games are so different so its even hard to choose what is the best choice.

[Threadnaught]

So a group of people sits down to play 3.5 D&D (or Pathfinder). Everyone wants to have fun and have a good time, but there is just one big problem: the Game Rules. There are lots of problems with the 3.5 D&D game rules, and they can ruin a game in no time.

The Great Cheater has returned to do battle with the Rudisplorkers' Guild once again? We accept the challenge you issued by creating this thread, by posting in this thread.

Indeed the rules when followed strictly to the letter, they can ruin things. That's why there are numerous small house rules, such as the one to prevent Drown Healing, or The Giant's Diplomacy fix.

So, if a group of people is sitting down to play a game of 3.5 D&D, they have to address the problems with the game. And there are three basic ways of doing it:

Basically yes, but you are over simplifying the problem, the effectiveness of two options and the flaws of your own preferred solution that is, playing with toys.

1.The Gentleman's Agreement At it's most basic every one just gives a high five and says ''lets all be cool''. A bit more is the DM might ask each of the players ''lets just have fun and don't be a jerk''.

Pros: It's easy. It take almost no effort.

Cons: It's vague. While sure most players can agree they won't do the really, really broken or annoying things that the rules let them do....not everyone will be on the same page. Not everyone will agree on what ''being a jerk'' is, and most often a person who is or plans to be a jerk won't admit it. A lot a jerks will preach like they are a paladin right up until they slam the door.

Easy, when the only member of a group not calling out a jerk for their assholish behaviour is the jerk themselves, they're probably being a jerk. In a fair group with a fair DM, anyone who starts problems in the group would be punished almost instantly.
Nobody in this scenario is a saint, but they are all human and humans are capable of a whole range of thoughts and emotions, when humans cooperate they multiply their effectiveness by at least the amount of humans total, and this game is best played as cooperative interactive storytelling. Anyone with a high enough intellect to understand that, should know that they are more likely to enjoy the game if the whole group works together.

2. The Vote simple enough, each person in the group gets one vote. Anything that needs to be decided is just placed up for a vote.

Pros: This has the illusion of fairness and the right thing to do, as nothing is more right then a vote.

Cons: Voting is not perfect and does not make miracles. Voting only works if everyone either all thinks the same way anyway or if each person could somehow vote without bias, selfishness or other emotions. And nothing stops the jerk from voting they way they want.

This really works best when players as a group are deciding how they themselves want to progress in a game, or when it is the players co-DMing the game for the DM, who takes the role of the only player.

Though it is useful for enforcing a gentleman's agreement. Also, if someone is allowed to play and votes are put forward, it is rather unfair to deny them a vote on what they can and can't do, be careful Great Cheater, it seems as though you are using the designation of "jerk" as an excuse to bully one of your "players".

3.The DM has all the power The DM, as they are impartial as they don't have a character in the game, decides everything. The DM takes on the burden of making sure the game is fun for everyone.

Pros: It works every time.

Cons: Some players don't like it as it makes them feel powerless. Some DM might not do it right.

...

I need to do this one in pieces.

3.The DM has all the power The DM, as they are impartial as they don't have a character in the game, decides everything.

You're right, the DM doesn't have a singular character that they control. They control every NPC, monster, object, the weather, whether or not there's an earthquake, the geography, volcanoes, the time of day and the PCs' involuntary reactions.
DMs control everything but the voluntary actions of the PCs, so they have nearly all the power already, the only way they can have ALL the power, is to stop playing a game with other people and start playing with toys while calling it D&D.

Pros: It works every time.

The arrogance here is astounding. It looks like me when I'm talking down to people about why they suck at The Elder Scrolls III (Morrowind), IV (Oblivion) and V (Skyrim), except at least I have the decency to be right most of the time.

Cons: Some players don't like it as it makes them feel powerless. Some DM might not do it right.

I am seriously surprised here that you acknowledge players as people with their own feelings. Not so much that you implicate yourself as the god of DMing and the only person in the world capable of DMing a game well, because you've done that several times before, but to mention the players' feelings as if they actually matter to you, that is surprising.

So, the only one I see that works is number three.

Of course, because otherwise you'd have to play an actual game with real people, rather than being able to play with toys like always.

What does everyone else say?

A combination of all three is the best way to run a game. It may not be the best for everyone, but it is the most commonly used method and the one with the most recorded cases of successful games.
Players when invited to game all vote (2) with the DM on what to play, they (and the DM) agree (1) not to be jerks, whenever a player decides to be a jerk, or the DM considers them to be doing something jerkish the DM may decide (3) to prevent it from happening or ask the other players what they feel (2), and the jerk may due to peer pressure and/or the DM's forceful hand, change (1) their own behaviour to fit into the group better.


It also appears to me that the majority of other posters have noted the over simplification of the OP, by mentioning how a composition of these is required for most games.


tldr: The best way to play a cooperative game about cooperating with the other players, is cooperation.


Edit: Good fight sithriddle, I'm disappointed you didn't leave behind anything to question, as it can be rewarding to pursue and receive an answer from you.

[FearlessGnome]

I'm only eight sessions through my first campaign as a DM, but I've been a player for several year long campaigns. Number one is king, except when it isn't. When you have genuine disagreements, the gentleman's agreement doesn't work. At which point... Number three is pretty much necessary. I've decided to put things up for a vote when I didn't much care either way: Pathfinder feat progression or no? We can vote on that. I'll just make monsters and NPCs slightly stronger to adjust for the extra feats. Whether to roll for hp or using some fraction of the max, we can vote on that. Deciding which spells are banned? There will be no vote. You can't use spell x, nor will I. Cursed item x is not available in stores, no vote. Rule 1 when possible, rule 3 when not. Rule two when it doesn't compromise the DM's campaign.

Anyone can leave when they want, and heck I'd love for someone else to DM, but since I'm the only one willing to do it you play by my rules. And my players seem happy so far. No quabbles except from the guy who keeps trying to sneak in homebrew without telling me.

[atemu1234]

You know, JP, I think the problem here is this: In D&D, the players and the DM collaborate to work a story. They all follow the fundamental rules of the game. Even the DM. The DM, however, is also supposed to fix rules that the group (not just him) considers broken, and move from there. You seem to have written up a whole new system, borrowing a little from 3.5.

[The Insanity]

Only by consensus.

[Vva70]

The notion that the DM might "have all the power" or not is false. There is no real power to be had. D&D is a cooperative game. Without some form of gentlemen's agreement, there is no game.

The default assumption of D&D is that the DM is responsible for adjudicating the rules. There are other ways of doing it (such as by vote), but I suspect that DM adjudication is most common as well as default. But DM adjudication doesn't mean "the DM has all the power." It means "the players and DM agree to let the DM adjudicate the rules." That agreement is key. The only real "power" that any one person has is in deciding whether or not to participate. The host (which might be a player, DM, or someone else entirely) also has the "power" to ask someone to leave the premises. But the DM can only adjudicate the rules if the players agree, and the players can only acquire a DM through someone agreeing to perform that role.

All other mechanisms for group cohesion, rule adjudication, and problem solving must flow from a mutual desire to work together. That's not to say that every person will agree on every decision or that every person will be totally satisfied all the time. But it is to say that no one person in the group has ultimate authority, independent of the rest of the group.

As for preferred mechanisms, I believe that it's often situation-dependent. In the middle of a session, it's usually best to trust the DM to make a rule so as not to slow the game down. Outside of a session or during breaks, it's usually best to talk it over and see if a consensus can be reached. If no consensus can be reached, then the decision can fall either to the DM or to a vote, depending on which the group is more comfortable with.

[eggynack]

3.The DM has all the power The DM, as they are impartial as they don't have a character in the game, decides everything.

It's been pointed out a lot that this, the thing about being impartial, is mistaken. What's been pointed out less, from what I can see, is why it's mistaken. The fact of the matter is, the DM often has a particular vested interest in the outcome of events, beyond his role as impartial rules judge. The simplest way to look at this is in the fact that DM's often have a basic intended narrative for how they want the game to progress. The DM wants the players to travel through the hideous forest, fight their way a dank cave, and slay the mighty BBEG prepared in wait in the cave's depths. In a sense, depending on how invested the DM is in that narrative, said narrative could represent the DM's character, and if a given ruling would sway the world towards or away from a given outcome, then the DM will be biased in terms of how they rule.

As an example of this, let's look at the aforementioned cave situation. The party has some access to teleportation, so the DM thought to put up teleportation blockers both on the cave and in the surrounding forest. The intent is that they'll be able to teleport close, but will have to face some danger before reaching the climactic battle. However, what the DM didn't realize is that the party has access to master earth, which bypasses said teleportation blockers, meaning that the spell's user can potentially gank the BBEG with a scry and die technique.

This maneuver is obviously rules legal, but there is at least some incentive for the DM to think that it's not, just as there would be incentive for the players to think that it's not if faced with teleporting druid assassins. The situation is obviously an extreme case, as the legality is an easily understood and known object, but in cases of greater ambiguity, the DM is similarly likely to be biased in favor of the ruling that coincides with their planned narrative, if one exists. Sandbox games avert this somewhat, as the DM has less intent for narrative progression, but given your past stated distaste for sandbox games, it seems rather disingenuous to claim perfect DM impartiality.