D&D General Respeckt Mah Authoritah: Understanding High Trust and the Division of Authority

[CleverNickName]

If my players expect all of my rulings to be perfect and unchanging every time, they deserve their inevitable disappointment.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Really? You've seen nothing but statements that the DM has and should use the absolute authority? Despite my saying to you more than once that the DM shouldn't abuse his authority?

Players SHOULD trust the DM, or they have no business playing in that game. If you can't or don't trust the DM, you aren't going to have any fun. Just like the DM should trust his players, or the DM isn't going to have any fun.

Trust is essential for the game to run smoothly and be enjoyable.

You have not once--not ever--said that GMs should have the same kind of trust, that players will use tools and powers given to them wisely. That DMs should trust that players will contribute to the game positively. That GMs have a responsibility to, "Ensure that Players know the risks they are taking with their actions," to "present the Players with an interesting choice" in "each situation."

I haven't once heard you talk about this kind of reciprocity.

 

[Maxperson]

You have not once--not ever--said that GMs should have the same kind of trust, that players will use tools and powers given to them wisely. That DMs should trust that players will contribute to the game positively. That GMs have a responsibility to, "Ensure that Players know the risks they are taking with their actions," to "present the Players with an interesting choice" in "each situation."

I haven't once heard you talk about this kind of reciprocity.

Er, it was in the post you just quoted.

And I've said it before. You may not have seen it, but I've said it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would argue that their help to the DMs fell not just under the DMG. Every adventure path written, all 15 or 20 of them, are there to provide good instruction on how to DM.

So now you need to buy 15-20 different books in order to be taught how to DM?

That's not just worse, that's objectively terrible.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Er, it was in the post you just quoted.

And I've said it before. You may not have seen it, but I've said it.

You literally didn't even say it there! You said "don't abuse your authority." That's a far cry from the very specific, clear instructions shown. Almost nothing like it, in fact.

I have pushed so hard against this stuff for that exact reason. I have talked, at great length, about how there need to be limits. You have, at every turn, told me that there cannot be such limits. Repeatedly. Now suddenly there are? Now all that repeated, pointed rejection of ANY POSSIBLE restriction is somehow not real?

I'm done with this.

 

[Maxperson]

You literally didn't even say it there! You said "don't abuse your authority." That's a far cry from the very specific, clear instructions shown. Almost nothing like it, in fact.

How is, "Just like the DM should trust his players..." not saying that the DM should trust his players?

I have pushed so hard against this stuff for that exact reason. I have talked, at great length, about how there need to be limits. You have, at every turn, told me that there cannot be such limits. Repeatedly. Now suddenly there are? Now all that repeated, pointed rejection of ANY POSSIBLE restriction is somehow not real?

I have said in every discussion about the topic that the DM shouldn't and doesn't abuse his authority. Only the rare bad DM does that.

I'm done with this.

Sure, but I would like an answer on how Trust your players =/= Trust your players before you completely quit.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

How is, "Just like the DM should trust his players..." not saying that the DM should trust his players?

I have said in every discussion about the topic that the DM shouldn't and doesn't abuse his authority. Only the rare bad DM does that.

Sure, but I would like an answer on how Trust your players =/= Trust your players before you completely quit.

For exactly the same reason that, above, I was told that "trust your players" means "trust that your players will abide by your rulings." Meaning, trust in your players' absolute obedience.

I have nothing further to say on the matter.

 

[Maxperson]

For exactly the same reason that, above, I was told that "trust your players" means "trust that your players will abide by your rulings." Meaning, trust in your players' absolute obedience.

I have nothing further to say on the matter.

So don't take someone else's words as mine. I'm not someone else and that was NOT what I meant. If someone else used it differently and you're unsure what I mean, ask for clarity. I'll give it.

I trust my players not to cheat, abuse the game, etc. until I'm shown that someone can't be trusted. I trust DMs not to abuse their power until I'm shown that the DM can't be trusted. Trust works both ways. We're all there to have fun and trust is the only way that happens.

 

[payn]

So now you need to buy 15-20 different books in order to be taught how to DM?

That's not just worse, that's objectively terrible.

While I do think the idea expecting 20+ books on GMing is too much, I do think APs can serve as helpful examples of play for GMs. I ran PF1 APs for over a decade and I believe they made me a better GM. There is opportunity to expand the knowledge and practice in these products without leaving everything up to a single DMG.

 

[Oligopsony]

Running games of any kind will teach you to be a better GM, but the form of the large hardback adventure has a tendency to emphasize a very linear narrative. Official adventures since 2e have tended to have this format, which is quite different from the location-based adventures of OD&D, B/X, and 1e (though those have never disappeared completely, even from first party stuff.)