Does the DM have all the power?

[jedipotter]

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. For example, to list just a couple off the top:

1. A lot of rules are broken, poorly written, incomplete, unclear, vague or just oddly copied from the 2E rules. The list of RAW and RAI has filled threads. As has lists of broken things. And others.

2. The game rules favor magic and spellcasters over mundane to an insane degree. Once you get past the low levels, the power of the spellcasters shoots up sky high. And the mundanes get little or nothing.

3. The game has lots of rules in lots of books, but lacks an over all vision. Each book, almost each paragraph is written at the whim of someone. And no one double checks anything, or edits anything. And other then vague statements like ''the newest book is right'', there is no help to sort out the mess.

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:

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.

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.

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.



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

What does everyone else say?

[Kane0]

My group generally operates with method 1, backed up by method 3. We can go about our business on the assumption that we arent out to ruin the game or abuse the rules, and trying to ensure that we can all have fun. If this somehow falls through, someone in the group will voice a concern to either the player or the DM. If the issue is not resolved within a reasonable amount of time (by the next session usually) then the DM will directly intercede and resolve things.

I'd be tempted to call this a fourth method, 'The veto'. The veto method works as per the gentlemans agreement but has a buffer in that anyone can 'veto' something with a properly voiced concern. The DM has final say on the veto and its outcome, as per Rule 0, to ensure everybody has the most enjoyable game possible.

Pros: its straightforward and everybody gets a fair say, allowing the game to flow with a minimum of fuss

Cons: Its vague and in some circumstances can collapse into debates which bogs down the game and can lead to resentment

[Calimehter]

The problem with 3 is that it only really works if 1 was at least somewhat in play already. If there is a huge disconnect between the people at the table about what to expect from the game, then trying to impose 3 on a continuous basis will just result in people leaving the table.

[torrasque666]

My group generally operates with method 1, backed up by method 3. We can go about our business on the assumption that we arent out to ruin the game or abuse the rules, and trying to ensure that we can all have fun. If this somehow falls through, someone in the group will voice a concern to either the player or the DM. If the issue is not resolved within a reasonable amount of time (by the next session usually) then the DM will directly intercede and resolve things.

I'd be tempted to call this a fourth method, 'The veto'. The veto method works as per the gentlemans agreement but has a buffer in that anyone can 'veto' something with a properly voiced concern. The DM has final say on the veto and its outcome, as per Rule 0, to ensure everybody has the most enjoyable game possible.

Pros: its straightforward and everybody gets a fair say, allowing the game to flow with a minimum of fuss

Cons: Its vague and in some circumstances can collapse into debates which bogs down the game and can lead to resentment

Gonna second going with this. Method 3 can't be absolute, but it does hold power. However, it is less......people friendly than method 1. Method 4, as outlined above, it probably the better way to run a game, but there is no one true best method. Each group is different and will respond differently to different control mechanisms.

[nedz]

It's much more complicated than this really.
It depends on the play style of the group, and also the spread of play-styles.
It also depends on how much rules knowledge exists within the group.

In one group I play with the spread of play-styles is wide, as is the spread of rules knowledge. This group uses method 3.

The other group I play with has a much more homogeneous play-style, at least in terms of OP level, with a similar spread of rules knowledge. This group uses method 3 which can be over-ridden by method 2.

It's probably relevant that the first group is more competitive, whilst the second values consensus more.

[Red Fel]

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.

If I understand the OP correctly, the question is what method of determining the meaning of the rules is best, or at least has popular support, and why. My response to that question would be a modification on #3, broken down as follows: The DM is the final say on rules. At the end of the day, it's the DM's call to make, and table cohesion requires that this happen so that we can move on. The DM is not infallible. He makes mistakes, and it is within the players' rights - indeed, their responsibility - to correct him, in a gentle and civil manner. The table comes first. If a rule change would benefit the table, the DM should consider it. This doesn't mean he should change the rules just to appease the angry voices, but if the DM has been employing a rule that consistently makes multiple players unhappy, and they offer a reasonable explanation and alternative, the DM has a responsibility to consider changing the rule. The DM is not inflexible. If the DM is mistaken or a reasonable change would benefit the table, as mentioned above, the DM has an obligation to table cohesion to consider changing his position. Just as the players need to accept the DM's rulings, they need to respect them; this means that the DM must avoid the appearance of arbitrariness. The DM is the final say on the rules. Once the players respect the DM, and the DM respects the players, the DM should make his rulings - in a responsible, attentive, and considerate manner - and the players should respect them.
Basically, players owe the DM the duty of correcting him when he errs, in a responsible and civil manner; the DM owes the players a duty of taking their feelings into consideration, when making a ruling; and the players then owe the DM the duty of respecting all reasonable and considerate rulings that result from the process. If any part of the process fails - players don't respect the DM, DM doesn't respect the players - the table has bigger problems than rules interpretation anyway.

As noted, some players feel powerless when a DM makes a ruling. This may be due to the DM's poor manner in doing so, or it may simply be the fact that some players are argumentative about the rules. It happens. Similarly, some DMs aren't very good at DMing, and may abuse the privilege. It happens, and they are bad DMs. But bad players or bad DMs don't change the fact that somebody has to be the last word, and that burden - along with a host of other responsibilities - falls to the DM.

[Troacctid]

Certainly the DM should have final say. Adjudicating the rules is a big part of their job description. I thought that was pretty widely accepted. It's why when there's an open-ended rule that needs interpretation or a variant that needs greenlighting, we say "Ask your DM," not "Ask your fellow players." Maybe that's not the norm with other systems, but in D&D, it's the usual assumption. Unless I'm misunderstanding the question?

Edit: Also, I agree with everything Red Fel just said.

[atemu1234]

To answer the title, no. They share power, I like to think equally.

[Kelb_Panthera]

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.



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

What does everyone else say?

The underlined is laughably untrue unless your pool of available players is as deep as the pacific.


There's no getting around the fact that the DM has to have an asymetric degree of power over the game when compared to the players for it to run smoothly but trying to claim absolute power is overreaching by a good ways. Beyond anything else D&D is a social activity and the nature of such activities tends to put anyone who pushes his or her views and beliefs on the group at odds with any but the most docile, laissez faire companions.

As for the spoilered points about the game's flaws, I won't deny they exist but what was said in the OP is a bit exaggerated.

Yes, the game does assume a high density of magic but that doesn't actually break the game unless you haphazardly try to "fix" it by trying to reduce or impede parts of it without careful consideration. A low magic, low wealth game is certainly doable but it requires a pretty solid understanding of the metagame to make the necessary tweaks to have it run smoothly. That said, high magic density being the default assumption is a style thing and not an error that necessarily needs to be "fixed."

The dysfunctional rules are, for the most part, common sense fixes; i.e. drown healing: obviously your HP shouldn't increase because you're being done harm by water in your lungs or lack of water over your gills, etc.

Finally, of course the game doesn't have a focus accross all of its various supplements. That's not what the game's designers were trying to create. They were trying to create a wide pallette of options for customers to make a game that fits their taste within the basic assumptions that were made for the mathematical portion of the game to work reasonably well.

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.

[Extra Anchovies]

The DM does indeed have all of the power:

"If you don't like my rules, don't play at my table."

The strict enforcement of this power may convince players to leave rather than accept your rules, but as a DM nobody can force you to run a game in a certain way.

[OldTrees1]

Method 1 for the win!

If it was ever tested, my group would be a combination of 2 and 3. The group as a whole decides what game to play. The GM picked in in charge. At any time the group can change its mind.

However in practice it is
A: "Hey I have an idea for a campaign!"
Rest: "Oh what is it?"
A: "______"
Rest: "Sounds fun!"
Game begins and ends without incident.

[aleucard]

The DM may TECHNICALLY have all the power in the game should they want it, but even they can't prevent their players from voting with their feet or, should they go REALLY overboard, their fist. Always remember that, by definition, you're outnumbered. Using your position as a DM to screw with the players maliciously is a good way of having to pay a visit to the hospital to get your (presumably loaded, if your players' opinions are right) dice removed from unmentionable places. The only ABSOLUTE rule in this game is that it's supposed to be fun for ALL involved. It's your job as a DM, first and foremost, to guarantee this occurrence. If anything else about the game comes first, you should probably not be DM.

[Kelb_Panthera]

"If you don't like my rules, don't play at my table."

"If you burn bridges it's going to be difficult to get around."


Again, a DM should have the majority of the power in a gaming group, he does the majority of the paperwork after all, but absolute power is overreaching. If the players have -no- influence over the game then they're very likely to quickly become bored and disenfranchised with the game, leaving the DM working against himself. An otherwise skilled DM can keep this result at bay for a time but it will almost certainly come to pass eventually.

Taking player desires and tastes into consideration, giving them a share of the power, makes the game more engaging for all parties and makes it much less likely that they'll decide to move onto another DM's game, another game, or give up the hobby entirely. It also tends to strengthen the interpersonal relationships between the DM and his/her players.

Naturally, a DM does have to assert a certain degree of authority but it's not absolute authority, at least not in any better than average game or any game in an area with a limited pool of players.

[Svata]

Theoretically. However if you weild the power like a cudgel, refusing to listen to any complaints from your players, even when your entire playgroup complains about a ruling, because you are the DM, and your word is absolute, you are a bad DM, a wannabe tyrant, and will likely not have players long. At all.

[Phelix-Mu]

For me it's much as Red Fel said. Players have a voice, as they are an intrinsic part of the system, and the DM is going to be pretty lonely if he chases them all off (not that one can't run a solo mission oneself, but it's basically a different game at that point). But the DM is the conductor of this orchestra, and since the instrumentalists have only small portions of the sheet music, they really look to the DM for how stuff is handled.

Now, a big part of being DM is to properly communicate expectations to players OOC and to be candid and up front about houserules and such, as much as can be anticipated in a system that is far more complex than the ruleset can properly address at every turn. If the DM is going to houserule on the fly and disregard RAW when convenient, the DM should let players know that such can be expected. Likewise, if the DM is going to treat RAW as ironclad and hold everyone to the letter of the law, then that too should be something the players know about.

The story is essentially cooperative, though. The DM may write the broad script for the plot and the npcs and so forth, but the characters are going to be a driving force behind most of the important stuff that happens, and so the players of those characters are inherently important. Failure to consider the players and treat them with the dignity they deserve will only hurt the chances that the story will be good, and, moreover, is likely to diminish fun. But, again, while the players are very important, they are not the arbiters of the rules, nor the interpreters of the interactions that occur. The DM has a heavy burden to snatch cohesion from otherwise disparate elements, but is given broad and sweeping power to make it happen.

The real trick of DMing, however, is to have the power and never need to use it (or never need to use it all). Around a familiar and friendly table, suggestions and rules discussion can be part of friendly banter, and allow otherwise thorny issues to be ironed out with a minimum of rankling. A DM can encourage this kind of atmosphere, but it's not something that can be mandated, and generally is an organic process that emerges as the players and DM come to trust each other and the dynamic of the table.

Needless to say, this multilayered dialectic is complicated at many levels, and generally resists easy categorization. Moreover, each table is unique, and translating from one table to another is often less than productive.

[atemu1234]

The DM does indeed have all of the power:

"If you don't like my rules, don't play at my table."

The strict enforcement of this power may convince players to leave rather than accept your rules, but as a DM nobody can force you to run a game in a certain way.

This kind of falls flat for me, as I DM at someone else's house :smallbiggrin:.

[GreyBlack]

To the OP: Yes and no. The DM does have all of the power in the game space, whether for good or ill. Outside the game space, there can be some form of agreement between the players and DM to make sure things don't get too out of hand. For example, I tend to run a build by my DM to make sure I'm not pulling some outright broken shenanigans that he can't handle or that would massively outshine the party (I currently run with an unoptimized bard and a ninja/fighter in Pathfinder, so I'm currently running a T4 Ranger 3/Barbarian 17 focusing on natural attacks and tactical movement/combat maneuvers), but the build is still mine to use. In the game space, I abide by the DM's decisions, as if the DM doesn't have full power, then the rules simply won't work and no story or game can progress. Ever see a game of basketball without a referee? How often do you hear the "Hey! Foul!" "Nah man, no foul" thing? Same here.

[ericgrau]

1. The Gentleman's agreement: Stick to the rules but don't try to break them or find loopholes. As many mistakes as D&D has, others systems have many more. You can manage. This doesn't mean players don't try their best and aren't constantly challenged and threatened. It means you fight desperately to win yet without resorting to cheesy tricks or obvious rules mistakes. Once you accomplish that easy task, the biggest threat to fun is less obvious but milder power creep. Not anything that will break the world in twain. That's where the DM should set limits, if any, not waste his time on pointless unnecessary house rules like "no infinite wish loops". The agreement is practical not theory, and works way better in practice than in theory. It's not hard to pull off at all, and tends to be the norm rather than the exception. Especially away from the world of forum power gaming, it's quite common. That's the one drawback to an otherwise wonderful and helpful online community.

2. Magic: Be generous with magic items. If the casters are somewhat optimized, then be even more generous with magic items. Taken to the extreme you can cast just as well as a full caster via expensive enough items making any caster levels redundant and useless, but you don't need to take it that far. Rather guys with pointy metal sticks also wielding a tremendous array of magical toys is an expected part of the system and there's no shame or inadequacy in that. It doesn't even have to be use magic or poke with metal stick; leave that to the gishes. You can blend. You can both fly to a foe to poke foe for example. You can use your high strength and adamantine weapon to smash obstacles and create "shortcuts". Spell storing weapons are wonderful. Dust of disappearance is a great way for the whole party to win and to trigger your sneak attack spamming. Etc.

3. The DM should have the final say on all rules to move things along. It's not worth it to crack open a book for every little rule. If you don't know and nobody is going to die from it, make something up. If it bothers the player or the DM then look it up after the session is over or during a break. The campaign won't fall to pieces because you got a rule wrong. But it can and often does fall apart from moving at a snail's pace. If you have a bad DM then you deal with the DM, not argue over every rule in painfully slow fashion. Make suggestions *after the session ends*, switch DMs, whatever.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

The strict enforcement of this power may convince players to leave rather than accept your rules, but as a DM nobody can force you to run a game in a certain way.

This cannot be stated enough. If all else fails, the players can always vote with their feet.

[atemu1234]

This cannot be stated enough. If all else fails, the players can always vote with their feet.

Yes, what could possibly go wrong with that?

Seriously. The players and the DM are equal. The DM makes the setting, they choose the story, they're the heroes, they're the ones who get songs and tributes in their names, they're the ones that get happy endings or die trying.

It isn't as simple as, "I'm DM and I say so" or the players can leave. This doesn't work for anyone, there needs to be compromise.

[Trasilor]

I think Red Fel's post pretty much sums up my gaming table.

Roleplaying games is a cooperative game. By design, a group of adventurers goes forth to change history (or some other such endeavor :smallbiggrin: ). Yes you can play a PVP style of game, but the general intent of the game is to have fun together. This also applies to the DM and players.

The DM and players both are there to have fun - an everyone should recognize this and respect it. Rules which detract from this should be discussed and resolved.

I guess in the end, if your table is having fun, you are doing it right. :smallamused:

[Necroticplague]

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.

Just because they don't have a character, doesn't make them impartial.They do still have goals of their own, and a bias towards rulings that would result in that outcome, as opposed to others.

[TheIronGolem]

Pros: It works every time.



Nothing works every time.

[Vhaidara]

Pros: It works every time.

Except when the GM is bad, inflexible, ignorant, stubborn, and/or this (http://irolledazero.blogspot.com/).

My groups use the first two, with GM fiat being used only rarely (Thought Bottles, stacking Explosive Runes, etc). We all agree to not be jerks and enjoy the game. How do we determine if someone is being a jerk? We vote. If most of the party thinks you're being a jerk, you are being a jerk. I support this method even after it got me evicted from all of my campaigns (3 in total) by my roommate and a former friend.

[OldTrees1]

Nothing works every time.


Except when the GM is bad, inflexible, ignorant, stubborn, and/or this (http://irolledazero.blogspot.com/).
Look under the description and the Con for that section. It basically boils down to "When the DM accepts the role of being impartial and is impartial, then everything is resolved impartially."

[Vhaidara]

Look under the description and the Con for that section. It basically boils down to "When the DM accepts the role of being impartial and is impartial, then everything is resolved impartially."

The point we're making is that JP claimed
Pro: It always works
Con: Except when it doesn't

Which means that there is nothing supporting the statement, made by JP in the first post of the thread, that the only method that works is number 3.

[TheIronGolem]

Look under the description and the Con for that section. It basically boils down to "When the DM accepts the role of being impartial and is impartial, then everything is resolved impartially."

Which, in addition to being tautological, is a far cry from "works every time".

[OldTrees1]

The point we're making is that JP claimed
Pro: It always works
Con: Except when it doesn't

Which means that there is nothing supporting the statement, made by JP in the first post of the thread, that the only method that works is number 3.

Your reply to me was much better than your post I replied to.


Which, in addition to being tautological, is a far cry from "works every time".

Um, that was my point? JP did not say it worked every time unless you quote him out of context. In context he said a tautology.

[TheIronGolem]

Um, that was my point? JP did not say it worked every time unless you quote him out of context. In context he said a tautology.

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.

[Flickerdart]

#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.

The entire game works on trust. If you don't trust your friends, it won't work.

[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.