Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LCD2YOU 02-04-07, 10:00 AM	is it? I will be asking the same question from the DMs' POV on the DM board. But II'm interested in the players' perspectives here. As a player and a DM I honestly believe it's the DM's game. The players are allowed to make suggestions on books, settings, milleu and more but when it comes down to it, the DM has the final say. Too many tmes I read where the DM forcing an issue is wrong as it's called railroading. Then I read where if the DM doesn't acquiesce to the will of the players (actually I think it is the loud and most boorish player's wishes) then they are a bad DM. Why do these players think that they can change the DM's game? Now, I am not saying that a DM doesn't have a responsibility to make the game enjoyable. However, the DM doesn't need to have Psionics, Epic, use some little known Splat Book to be a good DM. The world is the DM's and the players are guests, like guests in their house. Just because you don't like the drapes means nothing. You don't have to play in their game and you're more than free to start up your own game. Players' thoughts?
bonethug0108 02-04-07, 10:04 AM	It is up to the dm to set the parameters of the game and run the world, but it is the players' story you are telling. So it's the players' story in the dm's world, which makes it everybody's game. It is a cooperative effort to tell the story of the heroes in a set world. Oh, I'm also a player and dm.
LCD2YOU 02-04-07, 10:06 AM	It is up to the dm to set the parameters of the game and run the world, but it is the players' story you are telling. So it's the players' story in the dm's world, which makes it everybodies game. It is a cooperative effort to tell the story of the heroes in a set world. Oh, I'm also a player and dm.Great. But player A wants Epic. The DM says, "No". Both are dead set to get what they want or don't want. What happens next?
bonethug0108 02-04-07, 10:08 AM	Great. But player A wants Epic. The DM says, "No". Both are dead set to get what they want or don't want. What happens next? Ah, I see. It is the dm's final say on what goes into the world, though he should be sympathetic to the players. So in this case, the player would have to let the dm make the decision, though he may lose that player.
Thevail 02-04-07, 01:08 PM	DM's world finito! I am mostly a player only occasionally a DM. The DM is responsible for all the "crunchies" and has to feel able to work with them. If a DM is uncomfortable dealing with Epic or Psionic, or whatever, it's usually because they feel they'd have difficulty working it seamlessly into the setting or the action. As a player ryou might really want to play a certain type of character or have a certain class, but the DM is the only one who can see the story arc across time and make the call as to whether that would work out.
VrecknidjX 02-04-07, 01:34 PM	The world belongs to the DM; the experience, the fun, the characters, etc. belong to both. I've had this come up, actually, in a different context. A player wanted to write some fiction about his character and include details from that character's life and experiences. Obviously, the character, per se, belongs to the player. But, the character is molded and shaped by his/her experiences, which includes NPCs, monsters, cities, etc., etc. that belong to the DM. In other words, it's impossible to tease them apart. So, the question was, could the player publish a story on the character if the DM didn't agree to allow certain elements to be used? The problem never got resolved and the player never published the work. The DM argued that even the character belonged to the DM since the character is part of the DM's world, and the DM owns the copyright to the world (provided he created it himself). This is a wonderful issue. And, honestly, in all my campaigns (as player and DM), I'm comfortable enough with all my players and DMs such that I know I could get permission from any of them if I wanted to publish something, and they could get permission from me. (The DM in question is someone with whom I no longer play.) Dave
Alex_ 02-04-07, 02:21 PM	is it? I will be asking the same question from the DMs' POV on the DM board. But II'm interested in the players' perspectives here. As a player and a DM I honestly believe it's the DM's game. The players are allowed to make suggestions on books, settings, milleu and more but when it comes down to it, the DM has the final say. Too many tmes I read where the DM forcing an issue is wrong as it's called railroading. Then I read where if the DM doesn't acquiesce to the will of the players (actually I think it is the loud and most boorish player's wishes) then they are a bad DM. Why do these players think that they can change the DM's game? Now, I am not saying that a DM doesn't have a responsibility to make the game enjoyable. However, the DM doesn't need to have Psionics, Epic, use some little known Splat Book to be a good DM. The world is the DM's and the players are guests, like guests in their house. Just because you don't like the drapes means nothing. You don't have to play in their game and you're more than free to start up your own game. The game belongs to both. Both have decided to play D&D together and to have fun. Both should be expected to make some compromises. Both sides should try to make the other's easier. DMs should recognize that the players are looking to make their own characters, that make their own decisions, and play in ways that appeal to the player. Players should realize that the DM is looking to create a world, stories, and themes that appeal to them. They should also recognize that it's the DM who is doing more of the grunt work and less glamorous things that makes the game possible at all. If the player and DM can't agree or compromise in a way that keeps the game enjoyable for both, they shouldn't be playing with each other. If they would rather suffer through playing with each other than not playing at all ("but he's the only DM I know" or "there are no other players"), they should make their decision and suck it up. When it comes to what classes/mechanics/rules are allowed, I usually go with the DM. The player doesn't have to mess with the amount of material the Dm does. The DM has to follow every character's abilities and information, plus those of NPCs, and the rest of the world. To imply that it's your right to increase the DM's usually already hefty workload because you need a single feat, class, race or ability out of a book, IMO is somewhat inconsiderate. However, when it comes to things like DMs suddenly dropping rules on players without warning, picking on particular players, or "teaching them lessons", or doing other things in an attempt to gain some kind of pleasure or satisfaction from the suffering/failure/death of the player's characters, I'm generally on the side of Players. Great. But player A wants Epic. The DM says, "No". Both are dead set to get what they want or don't want. What happens next? Then they don't play with each other in that campaign.
DarkNick 02-04-07, 02:46 PM	I was not sure what you were asking, I think you are asking who has the say about how the game is played in their group? I think it is a balancing act between player vs player and player vs DM needs. I think the DM is the arbitrator though, so they have to create a game that balances all these opposing needs. I guess I would have to say it is the DMs game, but they should take into account what the individual players want vs what the DM wants in a game and what will work in practise (considering the players and DMs limitations). Players want lots of things but they don't always have an eye for how things will work in practise. DMs often take in the big picture. I think there is an underlying compatibility issue here too. If what the DM wants does not at least overlap some of what each player wants then there will be dissatisfaction. End of the day it is the DMs game. They have more responsibility in making it work, they require a different skill set to the players that can take a lot of time to develop, they have to do a lot more in-between game 'work', there are less of them. A DM needs to some authority as the arbitrator of a game. A game will still work if a player goes, the game ends if the DM goes. I think it is better for everyone if the DM is kept happy. For this reason they should have more say (and they do).
Fatalis_902 02-04-07, 02:54 PM	I don't care what anyone says, the fact is, it is NOT the DM's game. It's not the players' game, either. It is the DM's WORLD, sure, but the characters belong to the players, their story is made by the players, and if the DM has to have the players follow a set path, there is an issue. By the same token, if the DM decides to place numerous plot hooks in front of the players, they should consider taking one. But they don't have to. If they would rather find their own thing to do than follow the DM's plot hooks, fine. The game exists for the enjoyment of both the players and the DM, and therefore belongs to both. If player A needs psionics, or Epic, to enjoy the game, and DM Z doesn't like psionics or epic, so be it, and player A should find another game that makes use of those elements. Equally, if DM Z doesn't like psionics for a silly reason, like he doesn't like the flavor, then it would not be asking much if player A asked if DM Z could just change the flavor to something that suits him better. In that sense, the world and its NPC inhabitants, as well as what is allowed or disallowed belong to the DM, but the characters, their actions, and the effect those characters and actions have on the world all falls under the jurisdiction of the players. In short, THE GAME BELONGS JOINTLY TO THE PLAYERS AND THE DM, AND FOR A TRULY ENJOYABLE EXPERIENCE EACH MUST BE WILLING TO SLIGHTLY CONCEDE TO THE OTHER.
DarkNick 02-04-07, 03:16 PM	Well Fatalis, depends on your definition of what is meant by "the DM's game". As a game yes, it is a shared experience. But when it comes to making 'game changing/style/rule/book' decisions who has the say, who's game is it? I think that is the question being asked. This is not an issue of "it's DM's game so they can railroad players all they like vs it's a players game so they can dictate what they want to have".
Fatalis_902 02-04-07, 03:33 PM	I never implied anything like that. I simply stated that D&D is not the DM's game, anymore than World of Warcraft is a single player's game. D&D is not the players' game either. It is, by its very definition, both parties' game. The DM controls the world, the NPCs/monsters/whatever the players do not directly control, and the rules, including what is allowed. But that hardly makes D&D the DM's game. The players control their characters within the rules, and what their characters do, but that doesn't mean that it is the players' game either. After all, it has been said that the game ends when the DM leaves. I'd like to see a DM run 'his game' with no players to play it with. D&D was meant for both players and the DM, not one or the other. If you seriously belive that D&D is the DM's game, and the players are just guests, like they are guests at a house, then you go play D&D all by yourself, or with your imaginary friends, and you can be the DM and the party, and you can control every aspect of the game from the DM's PoV, and make D&D the DM's game. Meanwhile, I am going to go enjoy D&D as it was meant to be played, with my friends, as a joint game between the players and the DM.
ornitholestes 02-04-07, 03:38 PM	Well, I think saying the game "belongs" to either group is a bit of over simplification. In general, I say that it is the DMs job to make balance decisions and run the world. However, when you are playing D&D you should agree to a play style that everyone involved enjoys. On the situation where the players and DM are dead set on opposite styles (and neither finds the other's fun or acceptable) the you may have a rift during which the two can simply not play together. The DM may be in charge of the world, but the players have every right not to play.
Fatalis_902 02-04-07, 03:44 PM	You people do realize that if LCD's question was phrased a wee bit differently, my statements would be different. If the question were, "Who's WORLD is it?" I would simply say that it is the DM's world, based on the fact that the DM controls the world and its inhabitants, sans the PCs, and the very laws that bind the world together. To say that the GAME belongs to one group is inaccurate, as the game is meant for the enjoyment of both groups, and if only one group is enjoying themselves, the game belongs entirely to them, no matter which side of the screen they are on, or how much control over the fundamental rules of that particular world they have. The game is shared. The world and whatever is in it belongs to the DM, and the PCs belong to the players. End of story.
Pandaemoni 02-04-07, 03:52 PM	If a player wants Epic material, or psionics or whatever, and the DM refuses, the player has the right to vote with his feet. He can find a new DM, or he can start DMing himself. The player can't impose his desire on the DM, but then again the DM can't really force his will on the player either. Of course the DM has the final say over what goes on in the game he runs, but is that a kind of intellectual "ownership?" I suppose there are two models one can look at: On the one hand, say I go into the mall, I find some store owner preparing his wares for the day and I tell him I want to buy a new pair of jeans. He refuses to sell me jeans, on the grounds that he runs an Orange Julius in the food court. There it's clear that it is "his store" and so he gets the final say on what products to sell. (Though that ignores the terms of "his franchise agreement" and his lease with the mall owner which may well limit his freedom to sell other items). On the other hand, the Supreme Court has the "final say" on what the Constitution means in most cases, but I don't think anyone thinks of it as "the Supreme Court's Constitution." I think that, while owners tend to have the last word in respect of their property, you can't reverse that to say, "those who have the last word tend to be owners." While the DM does have the last word with respect to how the game he runs will work, I think that the answer to the question "Whose game is it?" is: "It's our game."
tuffn00gies 02-04-07, 04:27 PM	Great. But player A wants Epic. The DM says, "No". Both are dead set to get what they want or don't want. What happens next? Whether a DM allows Epic is very different than whether he allows psi or the complete books. Epic is really a totally different style of play. That said, if some one refuses to play anything but X and the DM refuses to run X, I'd say they should probably not be playing D&D together.
Kintara 02-04-07, 04:43 PM	Great. But player A wants Epic. The DM says, "No". Both are dead set to get what they want or don't want. What happens next?Either it's a failed game from the start, or someone's not as dead-set as they seem. The DM's ability to have "final say" doesn't change what is or isn't a deal breaker. A DM can't do much with no players, and the game will suck if the players are playing something they don't like just because they decided to accept the unacceptable. I think people overstate the necessity of the absolute power of the DM to override disagreements. In the real world, consensus is reached a lot more fluidly than that. Even an especially authoritative DM is operating the way he does with the tacit consent of the other players. This isn't to say that I don't think the DM has a lot of authority, but it's not absolute, and it's dependent on the specifics of the group. I prefer to think that each game is "owned" by each of the players, and the DM is one of those players. The DM has a role and certain kinds of authority, and the players have another role and kind of authority. The specifics vary from group to group. I don't think it's necessary or really that helpful to make one person "more important." Also, I don't even think saying that the "world" is the DM's is accurate. Even that statement is frought with pitfalls, and is not ever really as simple as, "The players control the PCs and the DM controls everything else." It's just not true, nor is it really possible. Those two zones of control are unavoidably connected and overlapping.
Pajaul 02-04-07, 07:17 PM	Whose Game? the Players. No, not the PC's. No, not the DM's. The Players. Can't have a game without players. Because Players Play the game. What makes it a game is the DM and the PCs. Thus. The DM plays and the PCs play. Whose game? Players Game.
EyeontheMountain 02-04-07, 09:21 PM	I am mostly a DM, but I also play a lot. As for who makes thefinal decision, whih is how I see the question, it depends on the question. If it is a major campaign decision, be it Epic, Underdark, Underwater, Planer, Evil characters, etc, it is the DM's decision, and for the record I would nix all of the four above. This is becasue if hte DM doesn't wnatto run that kind of game, they will most likely not do a good job and hte whole gmae could fold. In this case a player who wnats that type of game should step forward and DM if the players all want to play that type of game, not try to force the DM into doing it. But if it is allowed races, clases and such the DM should give way as much as possible. Let them play the Half-Celestial, or something else weird. Even with iffy prestige clases the DM should try as hard as possible to allow it, but has final say. If it isin-game character actions the DM has no say as long as the players are playing characters the DM has approved under the general world parameters.. If a CG becomes CE on the first round of the game, then the DM should do something. If the wizard caast plane shift onteh firs round of combat to travel to anotehr plane with no intention of ever returning, the DM should say something. But otehrwise in-game shoices, including ignoring the DM's carefully prepare adventure, the DM should let it go. This is the part of the gmae that is the players.
Ramses III 02-05-07, 02:46 AM	The DM has, and should have, final authority over all rules content for the game. The DM decides what classes are allowed, what splatbook materials are allowed, and what supplemental or alternate rules systems (such as unearthed arcana or epic) are used. These things are the DM's decision, because the DM is responsible to balance the game. It's the responsibility of players to come up with a character concept that fits into the DM's vision of the game world, and it's the DM's responsibility to help them do so. However, the DM is never obligated to allow material into the game based on a player's whim. If you define ownership of the game as stewardship of the rules, the DM owns the game. That's not how I look at it though. The way I see it, the DM and players take ownership of the game in different ways. The players take ownership by putting background work into their characters, connecting their PCs into the world through roleplaying, and driving the story by virtue of controlling the actions of its protagonists. The DM takes ownership by making the world feel real to the players, and by crafting a story outline for the PCs to get involved in and bring to life. Each party is essential to the game for different reasons, and each gains from a sense of ownership of the game.
willpower 02-06-07, 04:43 PM	I think its both, but the short answer is its the DMs game. He creates it and runs everything. Although the reason it is both is that if the DM is too much, "Its mine, I'll do what I want and to heck with you" then he'll lose a lot of players.
Sereno 02-07-07, 12:20 PM	To be consistent, I'll post the same thing here that I did on the WADMTD board -- my opinion doesn't change regardless of which side of the "screen" I'm on: Personally, I think the game belongs to the DM ... especially in the sense that it's the DM's job to manage everything that happens. However, any DM worth his salt is going to run a game that suits everyone seated around the table as well as possible. A DM who won't compromise, IMO, isn't a very good DM. The game play belong to everyone ... the world to the DM. I'll add that the DM should be telling the PCs "story" ... not railroading them through his own. I think a good DM should be on the player's side, wanting them to win, but taking very seriously the responsibility to create challenges that are *real* challenges -- challenges that the players might fail at. Nothing makes me happier, as a DM, then watching my players unraveling the plot, finding the bad guy and succeeding ... and, them having *fun*, doing it.
wonlee76 02-07-07, 12:38 PM	Its a DM's game. The DM defines the characteristics of the world, people, places, history, etc. that the PCs are interacting with. This includes the authority to allow/disallow supplemental rules or modifying existing rules or to add their own custom rules/classes/feats/spells/prestige classes or whatever. As a player, it is my choice not to play in a game I don't like. Its a DM's responsibiility to try to make an enjoyable game within the confines of his/her campaign world. This includes, no arbitrary rulings, favoritism, bias against certain players, railroading, etc. But a DM that shows any of these bad characteristics is still the DM and final authority when it comes to how the world "works" so once again a player has the right to walk away. Of course, if all the players walk, then there's no game to worry about...
pres_man 02-07-07, 02:02 PM	I thought someone brought up an interesting issue (I can't remember if it was here or in the DM's thread). If a DM wanted to write a book based on the campaign they were running, would the players have a right to expect some of the royalities from it as it is based on the characters they created or would it be the property of the DM only as he created the world? What if some aspects of the world were created due to player input?
NineInchNall 02-07-07, 02:38 PM	Not to derail or anything, but being a pedantic twit I can't help myself: who's is a contraction of who is, who was, or who has; whose is the possessive form of who. :teach: Now back to your regularly scheduled thread. :P
Sereno 02-07-07, 02:44 PM	I thought someone brought up an interesting issue (I can't remember if it was here or in the DM's thread). If a DM wanted to write a book based on the campaign they were running, would the players have a right to expect some of the royalities from it as it is based on the characters they created or would it be the property of the DM only as he created the world? What if some aspects of the world were created due to player input? Legally, unless the players copyrighted their PCs (names and all) the royalties for the book go to the writer ... even if the entire book was just a retelling of the adventure the PCs went through. Ethically, if you made money off your player's accomplishments in your game, I think you should split the earnings. Personally, I think at least 50% to the DM and 50% divided amongst all of the players would be pretty fair; after all, the DM DOES do most of the work.... There's nothing legally wrong about using someone else's idea if they haven't protected it in any way. I'm sure there are tons of great inventions out there that were actually someone else's idea that a person took and ran with.
FntsyWlkr 02-07-07, 02:50 PM	This is very allegorical to theater. Does the artist perform for him/herself? I understand what you're saying, but ultimately the game belongs to everyone. And it truly does. The DM makes rules, and decisions to increase the sense of reward for the players. If a DM designs a campaign with only his reward in mind, he is not a Dungeon Master, in so far as he is exerting metagame control over people. What is a dungeon master without his players? Ultimately the dungeon master has a responsibility to his players. He designs things in order to interact with those players. Whether he designs things well or with specifics in mind ... the ultimate goal is for those players to interact with said product. That being said, the players don't have control ... and recognize that the "players" is a group of people. So, any ONE person should not have control over this game. Aside from the theatrical metaphor we can also pull in a sports metaphor. Basketball. The referree is there to enforce rules that ultimately provide obsticles for the players. But the game is nothing without the players. Nobody goes to watch the referee. ... I have too much time on my hands.
pres_man 02-07-07, 02:55 PM	Legally, unless the players copyrighted their PCs (names and all) the royalties for the book go to the writer ... even if the entire book was just a retelling of the adventure the PCs went through. Sort of: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html When is my work protected? Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. So if a DM were to use a tape recorder while gaming (or anyone really), then it would seem they could argue that their part of the creation was copyrighted. It may be a stretch but I've seen longer ones.
Sereno 02-07-07, 03:31 PM	Sort of: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html So if a DM were to use a tape recorder while gaming (or anyone really), then it would seem they could argue that their part of the creation was copyrighted. It may be a stretch but I've seen longer ones. Actually, I think the bigger legal obstacle is this: "...for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression." I think you'd have a hard time claiming role-playing as a "work of authorship" ... that phrase implies to me that you are specifically working to set something down in a tangible medium ... that is, the act of "making a movie" rather than "filming an activity". I don't think you could claim a copyright as a father filming his son's high-school football game. The actual character sheet probably counts as a work of authorship, as would players or DM's notes, but you could come up with a pretty exciting description of a game without ever knowing ANY of the game stats, just by describing what "actually" happened at the table. Of course, I'm a computer programmer, not a lawyer! :)
Tyler Do'Urden 02-07-07, 03:39 PM	This is stupid. It's a game, people. I can't have fun while I'm tied up debating the ownership of a collective effort. Can you? If the DM wants A and the player wants B, then you have four options: The DM concedes. The player conceeds. The player and DM strike a compromise. The game is cancelled.If somehow none of these options are acceptable, I guess you'll just have to sit across the table from eachother looking angry. This sounds like another one of those things that never ever comes up if you're gaming with real friends.
pres_man 02-07-07, 03:53 PM	If the DM wants A and the player wants B, then you have four options: The DM concedes. The player conceeds. The player and DM strike a compromise. The game is cancelled.If somehow none of these options are acceptable, I guess you'll just have to sit across the table from eachother looking angry. 5. The game continues without the player. 6. The game continues without the DM. 7. The game continues with the DM now a player and the player (or another) being the DM.