D&D 5E The Pendulum: Player Entitlement & DM Empowerment

[the Jester]

I guess my point is, and what I would like to hear from others, is how in the new era of DM Empowerment do we make sure we don't run roughshod over players? How do we make room for having a general tone for the campaign played at ta given table where there is also room for many types of players and DMs - where the "nuclear option" of someone leaving the game in search of another group is the last resort?

Communication. Communicate expectations from the start. Be open to feedback (everyone, players and DMs alike).

And I'm sorry, but often your 'nuclear option' is the best choice. If a player expects plot immunity and to be the central hero of a constrained, pre-imagined story told by the DM, my game isn't for him or her. There's nothing wrong with choosing to sit out a game that isn't to your tastes.

 

[overgeeked]

.Several times in the past few months I have seen DMs criticize the mindset of players, often with the implication they came up during the 3e/4e era if not stated directly. "Sounds like you should play [3e/PF/4e]". And at times, my thought has been that by the same token one could say: "Sounds like the DM should play 1e or 2e."

I guess my point is, and what I would like to hear from others, is how in the new era of DM Empowerment do we make sure we don't run roughshod over players? How do we make room for having a general tone for the campaign played at ta given table where there is also room for many types of players and DMs - where the "nuclear option" of someone leaving the game in search of another group is the last resort?

Kill with fire the DM mindset of "it's my game, I do what I want".

I think the phrases are backasswards. It's DM Entitlement and Player Empowerment. The more rigid rules empowered the players to generally have an idea of what to expect as a baseline from play. By removing those codified rules, you're basically removing the tightrope walker's net, or lowering it so close to the ground to not matter. DMs that came up before 3/4E are generally more entitled and antagonistic towards their players, with a much higher chance to have the attitude of "it's my game, if you don't like it, leave". Note the self-serving and self-centered attitude that conveys. "My game, my table, my rules". This is not the attitude of a DM who's interested in being part of a group experience. These types also have a habit of being frustrated novelists rather than collaborative storytellers.

My favorite example of this is when a DM introduced a botch/fumble mechanic. On a 1, something bad happens. The entire table groaned. He steepled his fingers and said if we want to have crits, we have to have fumbles. At least having more rigid rules empowers the players to fall back on the "it's not in the rules" line, weak though it may be. Without rigid rules the players have to rely on the DM to consistently make good calls. And I think the bell curve discussion is helpful there. Then there's the ever popular Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Mallus]

DMs that came up before 3/4E are generally more entitled and antagonistic towards their players, with a much higher chance to have the attitude of "it's my game, if you don't like it, leave".

Bit of a generalization, eh? "Antagonism" is system-independent quality. It's not even inherently bad. For example, a group could want a more challenging and competitive campaign.

Nothing in, say, 3e prevents a DM from taking an antagonistic approach, and the CR system offers a rat-bastard DM plenty of ways to craft rules-legal, yet completely out-of-scale encounters (start by using a lot of Incorporeal enemies, or better still, make custom-designed ones with the Incorporeal template).

These types also have a habit of being frustrated novelists rather than collaborative storytellers.

Bit more generalization, I see.

Without rigid rules the players have to rely on the DM to consistently make good calls. And I think the bell curve discussion is helpful there.

Rigid rules can't fix social & interpersonal problems. The only "rules" that can fix an individual being a prat exist in the aforementioned prat's head.

 

[overgeeked]

Bit of a generalization, eh? "Antagonism" is system-independent quality. It's not even inherently bad. For example, a group could want a more challenging and competitive campaign.

Nothing in, say, 3e prevents a DM from taking an antagonistic approach, and the CR system offers a rat-bastard DM plenty of ways to craft rules-legal, yet completely out-of-scale encounters (start by using a lot of Incorporeal enemies, or better still, make custom-designed ones with the Incorporeal template).

Bit more generalization, I see.

Rigid rules can't fix social & interpersonal problems. The only "rules" that can fix an individual being a prat exist in the aforementioned prat's head.

What gave it away? My use of the words "generally" and "habit"? Of course they're generalizations. How is that bad?

No, but those rigid rules generally help prevent the prats from doing things explicitly against the rules when they run the game, due to the social interaction with the players. It's easier to sell a group on a house rule when there is no rule explicitly covering that thing. For example, it's generally easier for a DM to sell a group on adding flanking rules into a game when they don't already exist as opposed to say... rewriting the attack rules.

 

[Quickleaf]

The aim of the game should be (and I think in 5e it is) empowerment of both players and DMs.

The OP seems to make out people as the problem, when I tend to think of them as the solution. I mean, if you want a game with perfect rules, what you want is a computer game. Part of the fun of playing a tabletop game with friends is that rulings are possible - you can go beyond, exceed, and change the rules when the group desires.

Personally I find the natural language and ambiguity of 5e's rules welcome. When I played 4e, even with the exacting rules language there were tons of rules questions that emerged (as evidenced by the copious errata)... I'd go so far as to say that exacting rules language tends not to eliminate rules questions altogether, but instead NARROWS the scope of those questions to a very specific tactical scenario. It's getting bogged down in tactical minutiae - e.g. Opportunity attacks - where I've seen most DM/player disagreements.

OTOH, rulings of broader scope - e.g. What happens when a paladin falls? Do they lose all powers, some powers, no powers? - tend to be less contentious because they usually involve discussing the game fiction & wants of the player/DM. Rulings of broader scope are less about legalistic interpretation and more about negotiation. "Hey, DM, how do you think my paladin falling would work mechanically?" "Well, here's what I think... Not every paladin falls in the same way, so lets talk about your paladin's story. What do you think, player?"

If anything, I suspect "rulings, not rules" might make things harder for new DMs in some ways (easier in others), but I would not be surprised if we see more "my DM is a tyrant" complaints as inexperienced DMs enroll in this school of hard knocks.

All that said, I am still a fan of 5e. I'm just not sure if it will be as forgiving to new DMs.

I agree. One thing I hope the DMG does is provide sidebar examples of DM rulings, particularly geared toward new DMs to help give them a sense of the impact of their rulings. For example, the fallen paladin - the sidebar could list how a couple different DMs might handle that scenario, ranging from preventing further advancement in the paladin class to stripping all magic powers until atonement, and how each impacts the game.

I think the trick is to do everything to turn a poor to average DM into a good one, and the best way to do that is to encourage them with good suggestions in the rules themselves, and most importantly in any adventures they might be running.

I agree wholeheartedly.

There's a good example from Hoard of the Dragon Queen: Cyanowrath, the half-dragon who challenges someone to face him in a deadly one-on-one fight or else he kills the hostages. While some people dislike the scenario as a matter of taste, the best criticism I've seen is what the adventure doesn't say. IOW it sorely needs DM advice about how to handle this scenario... about how to weave PC backgrounds into the confrontation with Cyanowrath to give it greater gravitas, how to clearly let the players know in advance that fighting Cyanowrath one-on-one is a death wish, what the intent of the encounter is for future adventures (to emotionally hook and galvanize players against the Cult of the Dragon - something Steve Winter explained in an interview but bears explicit mentioning in the adventure), and so on.

 

[the Jester]

Kill with fire the DM mindset of "it's my game, I do what I want".

Except that, you know, it is. Without the DM there is no game- or at least, not that game. There is another DM's game, and that's fine.

But you know, the DM is the one who spends probably 90% or more of the time, effort and money that a group spends on the game. If he or she isn't having fun, there simply won't be a game. And frankly, when I spend that much time and effort and money on something, damn right I'm going to be having fun. And if that means that my game isn't for some types of players, who prefer other playstyles, that's perfectly okay. Sure, every group adjusts its overall style to some extent based on the players and DM in it, but there are definitely limits on how far a DM should go.

I, for instance, don't much care for a game with advancement from 1st to 20th in an in-game month. I don't like games where the pcs have plot immunity or are effectively the center of the world, as opposed to being a group of people in the world. I don't like games with predetermined outcomes, where there's a story in advance of the game instead of the story being what you tell people happened afterward. I'm not going to run any of that stuff.

Now, there are a fair number of players who feel like they invest so much time and effort into their pc that they should have a veto on dying. It's a valid playstyle. But that guy isn't going to like my game, so he should sit out.

There is no reason a group- or even a DM- has to accept anyone who wants into their, or his or her, game.

DMs that came up before 3/4E are generally more entitled and antagonistic towards their players, with a much higher chance to have the attitude of "it's my game, if you don't like it, leave". Note the self-serving and self-centered attitude that conveys. "My game, my table, my rules". This is not the attitude of a DM who's interested in being part of a group experience. These types also have a habit of being frustrated novelists rather than collaborative storytellers.

Dude, really? You're broad brushing entire generations of gamers as crappy, antagonistic DMs?

Speaking as one of those "pre-3e" DMs you're hating on, that's more than a little bit insulting.

Let's break this down a bit. First, I think the notion that older DMs are more likely to be 'entitled and antagonistic toward their players, with a much higher chance to have the attitude of "it's my game, if you don't like it, leave"' conflates... well, it conflates a whole bunch of things.

DM-Player antagonism is, first of all, a very good thing for some playstyles. For others, it isn't. But that's okay. There are other games out there, right? Other DMs? If you don't like DM A because of this, go find another one. Easy peasy. Your statement is clearly casting judgment on this- it's very one-true-way. Keep in mind that there is no one true way to play D&D right- different groups enjoy different things.

Moreover, I suspect that you're conflating "I run a sandbox with logical consequences as an impartial judge" dming with antagonistic dming.

That said, I do agree that older DMs are probably more willing to say, "Take it or leave it." That's probably because of decades of experience learning what they like in a game, what works for them and what doesn't. You make it sound like this is a terrible thing. Again, just find a different DM instead of asking Old-Skool-DM-Guy to run a game he's not going to enjoy. Why is this such a harsh stance? What's wrong with both you and that guy playing a game you're going to enjoy, even if they're different games?

If the issue is "He's the only DM in town", then I suggest sitting behind the screen yourself. Practice what you preach. Run a game that he and his group will enjoy

As for the "frustrated novelist" crack, sounds like you're talking about the classic railroad issue. You know, in my experience, older-generation DMs are far more likely to run a sandbox than a railroad, while started-in-3e and later DMs are just the opposite ("story story story"). Obviously, YMMV, but I think you're stabbing at a ghost here. Or maybe just being insulting, I don't know.

My favorite example of this is when a DM introduced a botch/fumble mechanic. On a 1, something bad happens. The entire table groaned. He steepled his fingers and said if we want to have crits, we have to have fumbles.

While I love fumbles, I completely understand the groans here! This is a good example of a house rule that should be in place and discussed before character generation even starts. But then again, I feel like most house rules fall into this category.

And again, if fumbles are a dealbreaker for you and they're in a game, sit that game out.

At least having more rigid rules empowers the players to fall back on the "it's not in the rules" line, weak though it may be. Without rigid rules the players have to rely on the DM to consistently make good calls. And I think the bell curve discussion is helpful there. Then there's the ever popular Dunning-Kruger effect.

There's definitely a broad spectrum of DMing skills and playstyles. Some DMs do just kind of suck. Some are excellent. But again, the real solution is to find a group that you're compatible with, not insist on having the DM bow to your style.

I'm going to point this out again- the DM is the one who spends probably 90% or more of the time, effort and money that a group spends on the game. Essentially, the DM does all the work. So while, yes, every game's style shifts with new members and over time, I think the notion that the DM's wishes should come second to those of the group- which is usually what this kind of discussion ends up boiling down to- is fallacious. They should all come together, sure, but in the end, the DM is the one that the game depends on. Don't like his style, run a game closer to what you want.

 

[aramis erak]

If one is in an area where there are plenty of groups, then the obvious answer to a GM rampant is to walk. Sooner or later, they get the idea.

In an area where groups are rare, that's not a viable option if one wants to continue to play, but it's still an option. Often, one that winds up with a 1 person smaller group under one of the other players as DM.

 

[TerraDave]

You could argue that starting with 2E there was a consistent trend of more and more for players--first splats in 2E, then removal of various restrictions in 3E, magic items in the PHB in 4E--and various things to nudge the DM into letting players do what they want and not be "arbitrary" in their rulings. There seem to be three motivations: to get more players by giving them more, to avoid the much feared "bad" DM, and, to be honest, to sell supplements to players.

5E does break this trend. I hope that is a recognition that D&D needs players, but it also needs DMs, who tend to be scarcer, put more work into the game, and generally drive the game by recruiting players and getting them to the table.

This is not a zero sum game. All editions try to do things for both sides. So, for example, 4E could be easier to DM for relative to 3E, but 3E did give lots of tools to DMs, and older D&D, for all its DM empowerment, had all sorts of magic items and spells to benefit players.

The 5E PHB gives players a lot, more then any single book I can think of. And by facilitating faster play and making DMs happier, it can also make players happier.

But I welcome the break in the trend.

 

[Skyscraper]

"my game, my table, my rules" reminds me of something that is a guide to me. Being the owner of my company, I believe that leadership should never exist because I say "I'm the boss" (or as a DM, I never need to state: "my game, my table, my rules"). Leadership should exist because people accept my decisions as being the good ones to take and consequently recognize me as being the best person to take those decisions; and in most circumstances (but not all), those decisions should be the result of having consulted with some or all employees. I think the same goes when I DM: I often consult with my players to let them first state how they think a rule shoudl be interpreted; and after having heard their point of view, I'll genuinely consider their opinion before ruling. And I'll accept that they counter-argue, but that honestly happens very rarely, and often then I'll cut short on the back and forth by saying, "look, we disagree, but if only for the sake of making this game go forward, we'll use my ruling and perhaps discuss this later if we feel like it".

*****

Although I would not quite put it the way overgeeked put it, I agree with him that I dislike the "my game, my table, my rules" mindset. I think that the DM, most of all, needs to be open to listening to what his players are hoping for in a game. Not only when initially preparing the campaign or adventure, but while running it also.

The "my game, my table, my rules" mindset that I've heard quite a few times (being an old-timer myself), is often accompanied by a decisive approach by the DM that he can simply decide what he wants based on him having prepared the campaign. No matter if the entire table is not having fun. To me, this is in opposition with the purpose of a bunch of friends getting together to have said fun.

Listening to player hopes and preferences does not mean bending to every request by players. It means, that if all players are against a fumble rule, why not consider removing it? If players are looking for a particular playstyle, gritty, heroic, post-apocalyptic, funny, laid-back, serious, role-play oriented, or any other, why not consider it? If players find the DM to be too verbose, why not consider it? The DM might learn a lot by considering something different that would stray away from his predetermined mindset.

 

[overgeeked]

Except that, you know, it is. Without the DM there is no game- or at least, not that game. There is another DM's game, and that's fine.

This attitude stems from two related things. First, as you mention, the disparity in time commitment involved. Second, the wrongheaded belief that the admonition "They can't play without me" only cuts one way, namely, from DM to players. Shocking surprise, the DM can't game without the players either.

The DM chooses to put in the work, they want to -- for whatever reason -- run a game session for other people. An area may not have a DM so that person decides to run something so the group can have fun. Note that's not so the DM can have fun, rather so the group can have fun. To then turn around and say, "The players can sit out if they don't like what I'm doing," is to betray the entire purpose of the game in the first place, namely, telling a good story that's entertaining for everyone involved, not just one person at the table.

The gaming session isn't only about the DM having fun, likewise, it isn't only about the players having fun. But, due to the power discrepancy between DMs and players, DMs have no shame when they proclaim their power over players, whereas if a player made the same proclamation, most would simply shake their heads and laugh. Why? Because it's accepted in gamer culture for the DM to simple brush off the players as secondary to their game, rather than the entire point the game is happening. Unless of course the players are irrelevant to the game, in which case it's fairly clear the DM just wants to tell their story and players, and player decisions, be damned.

There's definitely a broad spectrum of DMing skills and playstyles. Some DMs do just kind of suck. Some are excellent. But again, the real solution is to find a group that you're compatible with, not insist on having the DM bow to your style.

Dunning-Kruger effect. "In order to know how good you are at something requires exactly the same skills as it does to be good at that thing in the first place... if you are absolutely no good at something, at all, then you lack exactly the skills that you need to know that you're absolutely no good at it."

I think the real solution is to not keep up the antagonistic stance of DMs and for everyone to accept that it's a symbiotic relationship between the DMs and players that lets the game happen. The players are not just there to entertain the DM any more than the DM is just there to entertain the players. It's mutually assured destruction... erm, entertainment. So anyone digging in their heels and saying, "My way or the highway," is, by definition, not only antagonistic but also anathema to the entire purpose of tabletop gaming.