Authority over games

[ZeroGear]

Recently I had a discussion with a friend about who had the final say over what players got to do in games:
My argument was that if the DM felt that players should not have the power to throw around wish, miracle, and resurrection spells like cheep candy, he had the right to restrict access to them and tell the spellcasters said spells were unavailable to them.
My friend argued that since these spells were part of the core rules, the players should be allowed to access them no matter what, and of the whole group wanted to play with said spells, it would pretty much override the DM's decision.

I am NOT asking anyone which one of us is right, as we both have our valid points, but what is your opinion as to who in the game gets to be the final authority as to what is and is not allowed in games?

[TheOneHawk]

Dm is god. If his setting doesn't have any race other than gnomes, you play gnomes. That said, changes to the core rules should be discussed with players before hand

[neonchameleon]

1: The DM has final authority
2: Every time the DM needs to invoke that authority both respect for the DM and the fun everyone has at the table decreases
3: The purpose of the rules is to get everyone on the same page - non-simple house rules do the opposite
4: If you don't want high powered casters you shouldn't be playing or DMing high level 3.X

[Eldan]

Ideally, you'd discuss it out. The DM will argue why these spells are overpowered or don't fit, the group will argue why they want them and in the end, you come to a mutual agreement. That will probably not happen.

After that, it gets complicated. You need house rules to play D&D, even if you perhaps don't notice. There's situations the rules don't cover, rules that simply don't work, things which are so grossly overpowered that the game just ends once you use them and rules that everyone just forgets.

"It's in the core rules" is really never an argument. So is drown healing and monks nonproficient with unarmed strikes.

The second argument is better: the group wants it. In the end, the DM is DM because the group makes them DM. Yes, the DM has power. He creates the setting. But the group has just as much power: they can always make someone else DM or just walk out of the game. Then no game happens and no one is happy.

[prufock]

Rule 0. If the DM has a ban list, though, he should make that clear from the get-go.

[dehro]

agreed, a good DM has a shortlist of variations, houserules and stuff that he doesn't like or want to see in his games.. and lets the players know them before the first session even starts, so they can make up their mind whether they accept those rules.
once a player accepts the rules, he loses the right to protest against them...even if all the other players agree with him. it's then up to the DM to conduct the game in such a manner that those limitations and house-rulings don't become a problem.

[Jormengand]

My argument was that if the DM felt that players should not have the power to throw around wish, miracle, and resurrection spells like cheep candy, he had the right to restrict access to them and tell the spellcasters said spells were unavailable to them.

This is why they have an extremely costly material, and in some cases even experience cost. (Except in PF, where it's "just" material.)

[dehro]

This is why they have an extremely costly material, and in some cases even experience cost. (Except in PF, where it's "just" material.)

by the time they get to cast those spells, they may well be wealthy enough to afford them with minimal hindrance. a DM should be free to set the limitation so that he doesn't have to worry to keep his players on medium-low income the entire time

[BayardSPSR]

Dm is god.

This is one thing I've never liked. Why should a DM's interpretation be followed if every player at the table reads a rule differently? I don't think one voice should rule an entire group; if there's a disagreement on rules, then discussion and a vote are the way to solve it. It should take more than "I'm the DM and I say so" to make an argument.

[Eldan]

"I'm the DM I say so" has two justification.

First, when there's information the players can't know yet. There's a hidden reason for why X happens.

Second, during actual gameplay. Nothing kills the mood faster than rules discussion, so the ability to say "No discussion now, this is what will happen now" is extremely valuable.

[dehro]

This is one thing I've never liked. Why should a DM's interpretation be followed if every player at the table reads a rule differently? I don't think one voice should rule an entire group; if there's a disagreement on rules, then discussion and a vote are the way to solve it. It should take more than "I'm the DM and I say so" to make an argument.

because that's pretty much his role, he's the arbiter of the game.. should he be irrational and antagonistic people will just walk away from the game and pick a new DM..on that they can vote. on the interpretations of the rules as long as they play within his DM-ing, they cannot.

[Jormengand]

by the time they get to cast those spells, they may well be wealthy enough to afford them with minimal hindrance. a DM should be free to set the limitation so that he doesn't have to worry to keep his players on medium-low income the entire time

Of course, but the spells themselves are designed in such a way that you probably don't want to be casting them three times a week.

[Eldan]

There's pretty much never a situation where Wish or Miracle wouldn't help.

[neonchameleon]

"I'm the DM I say so" has two justification.

First, when there's information the players can't know yet. There's a hidden reason for why X happens.

Second, during actual gameplay. Nothing kills the mood faster than rules discussion, so the ability to say "No discussion now, this is what will happen now" is extremely valuable.

I disagree with point 2. "Because I'm the DM and I didn't think of that" kills the mood stone cold dead faster and harder than any rules argument.

[valadil]

if the whole group wanted to play with said spells, it would pretty much override the DM's decision.

Majority rules is dumb. What happens if the group is about to TPK and the party leader raises a vote to remove the Dragon from the board? All the players say yes, the Dragon disappaears. Then the players vote to gain five levels and vorpal weapons. Oh and the party also votes that the GM's cousin can join the game with his character from another game, even though he was playing V:tM. The rules aren't compatible, but party vote! Now they are.

[TheStranger]

I don't think either side is "right" with regard to who gets to make these decisions. I'm not 100% sure that either side is "wrong," either.

The DM is the arbiter of the rules and the game world. However, the DM has this authority by the agreement of the players. Ultimately, everybody at the table - DM and players - is there so that everybody can have fun. No one person, DM or not, should make things less fun for everybody else, and a DM on a power trip will soon find himself without a group.

On the other hand, the players have agreed to put the DM in the position of being the final arbiter of the rules, and part of that is accepting that the rules don't always work in their favor. If players won't accept a rules (or setting) decision that disadvantages them, they'll soon find themselves without a DM.

So I guess my answer is that neither side has the right to make a final decision, and that both sides have an obligation to consider the other side's position and be open to compromise.

[Totally Guy]

because that's pretty much his role, he's the arbiter of the game.. should he be irrational and antagonistic people will just walk away from the game and pick a new DM..on that they can vote.

I find it funny that the social awkwardness of actually doing that is baked right into the fundamentals of the hobby.

[Evo_Kaer]

I'd say as long as the game is running and an immediate rules discussion come up, the DM gets the last word. I let my players talk to me about it so long as it doesn't take forever, but I get the final say (sometimes they are right and I agree. I can be wrong too).

If it's something, like wish/miracle exisiting as you say, then that should be discussed with the players. Talk to them about why you don't want those spells and they should tell you why they want them. Maybe you reach a consensus. For example allow them, but with harder restrictions.


That being said, I would probably solve this whole thing ingame.
Scrolls of wish/miracle cost at least 28825 gp each. That's not really cheap. Although I don't know the lvl of your player's characters, so for all I know, they might be epic lvl and have so much money, they could buy an entire plane and send all inhabitants away.
BUT!!! Someone needs to make those scrolls, right? Even NPCs can't have an endless supply of wish scrolls. Also you should consider demand & supply. If your players like to buy lots of those scrolls, they will get more expensive.

Another way for miracle would be that whoever casts it gets a visit from his/her deities herald, warning them about their power abuse.

For wish there is also one very interesting note in the ELH: When handling wishes, the multiverse takes the point of least resistance. The example in there was: If a character wants that nothing can harm them ever again, the wish will just raze their existance from the very face of the multiverse. Thus ensuring that no harm can be done to that person anymore.
Though that suggestion is for when players get overly extreme with their wishes.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think it's important for the GM to have some authority, but not fiat authority. They need to remain true to the world, they need to be fair to players, and they need to be a fan of the players, giving them challenges to test their mettle but not being an adversary who wants to crush them...because they're an adversary with unlimited narrative power.

Well, okay. There's a lot I can say about this. But basically--I don't think "DM is god" is necessarily a good dynamic for the game. I think...

The best way I'd term it is that the GM is a steward of the story and the game world. Their job is to keep the world spinning, and to set the players possible courses of action to trace through.

[DigoDragon]

If the DM has a ban list, though, he should make that clear from the get-go.

I agree with this. I always make it a point at the start of any campaign to write down a list of banned/houseruled materials for my players. Also, if it's banned for players, it's banned for me as well. Seems only fair.

[Ultimate_Coffee]

When it all comes down to it, the DM gets final say. This is reiterated differently depending on the game you are playing, but the general consensus is that the DM makes the final rule on everything. If the DM says no, then the answer is no, even if he is directly overruling the Core Rules.
This being said, a DM who abuses this power will quickly find himself without a gaming group.
Personally, I find that DND becomes very unbalanced at high levels, so I run E6. My players don't mind, but I make it very clear on what the world is about before we begin the first session.
If E6 seems too drastic however, you could always try a compromise. In my oppinion, spells like wish are dangerous to throw around, without wording a wish really well, you can do a lot of damage. And any divine spell is governed by the deity granting the power. A miracle spell has to fit into the gods wishes. If not... no miracle. Its as simple as that.
But if your players are unwilling to compromise and sacrifice these powers, and these powers are detremental to your game. Then you can always just stop DMing. I know I'm not willing to run a game with people that aren't willing to compromise to the power limits of my world...

[erikun]

The GM has the right to not use or disallow any material in the sourcebooks. They should make such decisions judiciously, as players are likely coming to the game expecting all such material to be allowed by default, and disallowing it might make character concepts awkward or impossible to play.

The players have the right to use any material in the sourcebooks. They should make judicious use of them, as intentionally causing problems in the gameworld outside what the GM can handle can grind the game to a halt.



For a game like D&D, I tend to fall on the side of the DM to decide what can and cannot be allowed. D&D typically places the lion's share of the campaign workload on the DM's shoulders, and it is purely up to the DM to decide what is appropriate in the campaign, what adventures to create, and what details to include. As such, the DM has the right to say that Wish, Miracle, and Resurrection spells do not exist in the gameworld and such that players do not have access to them.

The DM may also decide that such spells are restricted, and that players do not have access to them unless they can locate a copy and make use of it - although such ruling shouldn't be used as an excuse to only give NPCs such powers. The DM would also want to provide a logical explanation, in this case how a Cleric would be able to add Resurrection to their spell list after finding it. (Perhaps it is a lost holy book that needs to be returned to the church to allow the spell?)

[Anonymouswizard]

I have 'the DM is god' on my GM screen to remind the players that I make on-the-fly rulings to keep the game running. This is the primary role of the GM, to make the rules work to increase the fun of everybody.

Most of these rulings of these rulings should be the product of requests or quires by players, while the rest should be made to improve the fun of the game.

(The current rough group rate (with both primary GMs) stands at 80% because the players came up with a plan and I had to wing it, 15% because a player wanted to know something [like 'how many objects can I make in a turn], 4% because the encounter was meant to be scary instead of deadly and turned out to be easy, and 1 time because I thought it made more sense)

However, there is a cravat that I haven't informed my players yet (as I have only had a single disagreement, and most of my players are fairly relaxed), and that is that if 2/3rds of them oppose a ruling it will not be imposed.

In addition, we run with the following rules regarding material:

1)If you want something intrisic to your character (a spell known or power or the like) you should check with the GM first.
2)Once the character has appeared in the game the ruling is final.
3)Even if it has been allowed for one character it might not be allowed for another, in order to keep the party balanced.

Currently our ban list includes:
-Material in books the GM doesn't own.
-Spontaneous casters (world-building decision, all players were informed of it before they made their characters).
-Any combination of options that makes you more powerful than the rest of the group.
-Characters with powers too close to superman or spiderman.
-Gods from published settings.

Currently this has only caused one disagreement (over the gods, even though I don't care if you worship Edward Elric instead of the Packmaster a god from a published setting was suggested to a single player), and one character concept banned.

EDIT: added cravat.

[Big Fau]

This is one thing I've never liked. Why should a DM's interpretation be followed if every player at the table reads a rule differently? I don't think one voice should rule an entire group; if there's a disagreement on rules, then discussion and a vote are the way to solve it. It should take more than "I'm the DM and I say so" to make an argument.

The DM isn't just a dictator, the players "voted him into power" by participating in his campaign. If they don't like a decision they have every right to voice their opinions and try to get a ruling changed, but they effectively chose to play by his rules.

DMs are supposed to act as arbiters when it comes to rule interpretations. If you don't like a ruling, ask the DM if you can debate it after the session (if there's time). If the DM's rulings are actively detracting from the fun, leave. That's your "veto".

[Alabenson]

One on hand, the DM is the one running the game and therefore has the final say on what is and isn't allowed in said game.
That being said;
1) The players should be informed of any houserules before they begin playing, especially if they have a significant impact on the game. Furthermore, the DM should be expected to abide by his own rules.
2) If the entire party objects to a given houserule, then the DM should seriously consider scrapping that particular rule.

The DM may be the one running the game, but he should always keep in mind that he isn't the only one playing the game.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

The DM isn't just a dictator, the players "voted him into power" by participating in his campaign. If they don't like a decision they have every right to voice their opinions and try to get a ruling changed, but they effectively chose to play by his rules.

DMs are supposed to act as arbiters when it comes to rule interpretations. If you don't like a ruling, ask the DM if you can debate it after the session (if there's time). If the DM's rulings are actively detracting from the fun, leave. That's your "veto".

As has been mentioned, this is a problematic line of thought when you consider that "just leave the group" is a massive social pressure. Players have a sort of dependency on the GM; they're the one who's ambitious enough to put something together to run players through, which tends to create a sort of entitlement on the part of the GM. This entitlement can sometimes lead to power abuse.

The reason why the power abuse goes unchecked isn't because the players are okay with it. It's because leaving the group is too grievous a step for them to take; they'd much rather put up with a mediocre or irksome GM than not have a GM at all. Leaving a group is a big step, especially because it also speaks on a personal level--it's an implied rejection of the GM.

Which means that the #1 thing a GM must be is sensitive; a GM needs to listen to their players and adapt. The authority of a GM is derived from the respect of the players, and they need to earn and to deserve that respect.

[navar100]

What the DM says goes. If he says enough stupid stuff the Players go too.

[NichG]

One thing that I think players don't appreciate is that DMs do not always have the skill to run what they want to play in a way that will be fun for everyone.

When the DM says 'Wish is OP, I'm banning it', I think the players should stop to think 'is he banning it because he wants to make us suffer, or is he banning it because he is incapable of running a fun game that includes Wish?'.

Not every ban is a DM aesthetics thing - some of them are simply the DM trying to get the game into a regime of play that he's comfortable with running. If players push too hard to get the DM to go outside of his boundaries, they risk putting the DM in a place where he won't be able to provide a good gaming experience anymore.

If you're a brand new DM, you probably shouldn't run a Lv20 campaign. But keeping the PCs low level and happy with it is actually quite a challenging task in manipulating player psychology. If you just run a Lv3 game for 20 sessions and keep everyone at Lv3, they will likely start to get bored with being that level. So the inclination is to allow levels to advance, but then you get into higher powered games where it takes quite a lot of DM experience to keep the game together. Banning the stuff that proves problematic is a reasonable way to keep the game within the DM's comfort zone while still allowing that advancement to occur.

So even if the players all want something, that doesn't mean that they'll actually have fun when they get it if the DM doesn't have the skill or experience to deal with it.

[dehro]

I find it funny that the social awkwardness of actually doing that is baked right into the fundamentals of the hobby.

that's because too many people seem to forget that it's just that.. a hobby, a catalyst of interests and likeminded individuals, at most...not the defining factor of a friendship or relationship.
and I say so as somebody who has only recently started playing again on account of never finding people to play with and who would be screwed if he had to leave the current party over a gaming issue.

[Tengu_temp]

1: The DM has final authority
2: Every time the DM needs to invoke that authority both respect for the DM and the fun everyone has at the table decreases
3: The purpose of the rules is to get everyone on the same page - non-simple house rules do the opposite
4: If you don't want high powered casters you shouldn't be playing or DMing high level 3.X

This (although you can probably get away with 4 with enough house rules). The DM has the final say on everything, but that doesn't mean he should be waving his authority around and going "this is what goes because I say so" instead of listening to what the players have to say.