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

[Boarstorm]

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.

Well, to be fair... if one of my players walked away, I could recruit from about 12 replacements within minutes.

Sure, it's all about communally having fun. But if I'm going to run a game based on a certain vision, then hey -- I'm going to grab up the players most likely to want to share in that particular vision. (In other words, I know who in the area's community enjoys gritty games. I know who likes heroic over-the-top games. Who I invite to a particular campaign depends a lot on their preferences.) I don't think that's necessarily wrong-headed.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

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.



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.

I'm afraid your analysis is faulty. If you want to understand power dynamics in a group of people, "everyone wants to make the best game for everyone" just doesn't give you enough to work with. There's no "best for everyone," and in the end, everyone acts in their own interest. The attitudes you see come from people's intuitive understanding of how these things work. They might not be able to explain exactly why things are so, but our intuition about social situations generally works really well.

The right way to figure out what happens is to look at the options, choices, and the enjoyment derived by each party from the various possible outcomes. This gets into topics like utility, game theory, and negotiation theory. I'll give an example with some made up numbers to illustrate my personal situation, apologies in advance for the stilted presentation, but I don't really have a better way to say it. I get my fun out of presenting my artistic vision of a world in the game to the players. This gives me 100 fun points. Each of four players gets 80 fun points in this situation. Al wants a change to the world. If I make the change Al and Bob get 85 fun points from the game while Chad and Darren still get 80. I get +20 fun points from the players additional enjoyment, but -40 from compromising my vision and end up with 80 fun points. My next best alternative is to turn the DM's seat over to someone else. I get 90 fun points from playing so Ill choose that rather than DM with the changes. Bob will DM, but he'd rather play and only gets 60 fun points from DMing. Al prefers my DMing, even without the change, and gets 70 fun points in the new situation. Net result, everyone's fun is diminished. Since everyone in the group gets this intuitively, I can say no to the change and the group will accept it just because they know that if they don't accept it, each of their personal fun will diminish.

Any real situation is a lot more complicated than this, but the end result is that DMs really do have more social power than an individual player and sometimes more than all of the other players together. What people term "DM entitlement" or "player entitlement" is nothing immoral, it's not a power trip, it's not psychopathy or sociopathy; it's just the end result of everyone acting to maximize their own fun.

Where people do have problems is when they fail to act to maximize their own fun. Skyscraper has a great post above about listening to your players. Of course you should listen to your players; maybe you can find a change that will improve both your fun and theirs. Not listening is counter to maximizing your fun. And there are plenty of posts by people who are in a game they don't enjoy. If you'll have more fun not playing than playing and you don't have the ability to change the game, it's time to bail. As is frequently said, "No gaming is better than bad gaming"

 

[GameDoc]

To be clear, I don't think that the DM vs. player dynamic is the norm and did not intend to overstate it's frequency. But it does occur and will continue to do so from time to time. My hope is that 5e has learned form history and can help keep that to a minimum, knowing full well it's not going to end it completely. When it does happen I agree it's probably a play style thing for the most part.

I think what 5e has presented so far is a rebalancing on both sides of the screen so that players have lots of options and DMs have lots of ways to let players enjoy their characters while also being able to set a particular style or tone for their game. I've always encouraged players who don't DM to view the setting the DM has put forth as "the DM's character". It's bad form to be overly critical of your fellow player's stylistic choices for their character and to a certain extent it's bad form to belittle the DMs concept for the setting, even if it's not how you'd have done it. The DM has a right to run a setting he or she enjoys as much as the player has a right to play a character he or she enjoys.

At any rate, my concern was about DMs who've felt overly bogged down by rules, player expectations, and such using their newfound latitude in 5e to "fix" what's been wrong with D&D in their minds without thought to how it effects players. Again, those may be rare cases and not typical of what's going on in D&D right now, because but I thought it warranted discussion.

When I referred to the "nuclear option" I did not mean that it isn't sometimes the correct solution of that it's necessarily an indication of failure. But as the game is as much about a social activity for making and spending time with friends, a little flexibility on everyone's part seems necessary, whether its a player accepting house rules or a DM tweaking the setting or plot to make space for somethng a player is interested in.

 

[BryonD]

A DM can't run roughshod over players who don't play at their table.
While I won't speak for 4E, during the "player empowerment" 3E/PF era, the reality has always been DM empowerment at my table.
And my absolute #1 duty has been making players beg me to run a game.

The issue goes away completely.

If a DM is new, everyone needs to work together, learn from experience and focus on having fun. Not everyone has to agree on every ruling last week, so long as everyone agrees that they all want next week to be even better.

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

Going to have to reply to this in parts...

DMs that came up before 3/4E

I started with 3.0.

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".

However, this is exactly the way I run my game. If you don't like what I'm running, then leave. I'm open to communication, but it's my setting, it's my rules, and I make the decision on running what is fun for me. You do not get veto power. You do not get to change or add something to the rules or the setting without my permission. I get to do those things. Because it's my game.

Note the self-serving and self-centered attitude that conveys. "My game, my table, my rules".

Indeed. I am quite set on having fun when running my game. Actually, that extends to all areas of my life, personal and professional. I won't do something unless I want to or I like it. That doesn't mean I'm not generous, or nice, or helpful, but more on that next.

This is not the attitude of a DM who's interested in being part of a group experience.

I have a very close group of friends that I've been a part of for the past fifteen years. For the past eleven years or so, we've gamed together, too. I also have a good number of other very close friends ("you're having hard times? Stay here for as long as you need" type friends) that I don't game with. However, I've also worked various acquaintances in and out of my games over the years, and I have no problems with new blood, provided that gaming with them is fun for everyone involved.

I'm a social person. I'm not as domineering as I once was, but I do like being in social situations. It's fun. I have no problem being in or working with groups at work, at the gym, with leisure activities (basketball, RPGs, etc), at parties, or wherever. I don't mind leading and I don't mind going with the flow.

But because I've decided that -in the game that I'm hosting- I'm going to have fun, I'm suddenly a frustrated novelist (more on that below) who doesn't work in groups and is self-centered and self-serving?

HA HA. Good one.

I'm not a bad person because I'm interested in things that are fun for me. I'm not a bad person for communicating to others that my style may not match theirs, and that we may not work out together. I'm still generous, helpful, and friendly to people. I run a sandbox game where the story emerges from play (contrary to the "frustrated novelist" shot you took). I still laugh with my players, take their feedback ("you're the best GM we've played with"), go off on tangents, help with food, and the like.

But, yes, if I'm going to run a game, it'll be on my terms. And prospective players will be informed of those terms before they play, and they can opt-in or drop out (the latter hasn't ever happened, though I've parted ways with a few players over the years).

Because I won't spend time and mental energy (playing or running a game) on something that isn't fun or inspiring for me. I'm going to build a setting that I find fun, that inspires me creatively, that I find interesting. And then I'm going to let go, let the world progress naturally, and watch the players act. It's fun. And that's why I do it, and why I'm not willing to compromise. I'm open to suggestions, and I'm open to dialogue, but it's me making the decisions when it comes to rules and setting. You get your character within those limits; everything else is mine.

But hey, don't let that stop you from insulting others for having badwrongfun. I mean, that's what they get for doing it wrong, I guess. Fun is objective, after all...

Ha. Thanks, poster. Good times. Oh, quick side note:

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.

I agree with this bit completely. It's why I like very rules-defined systems (if not downright crunchy systems). I like things defined so that everyone is on the same page, everyone can look at the rules and make informed decisions as to how they want to orient their characters.

This just has nothing to do with "my game, my way." Two completely separate issues.

 

[Umbran]

But, yes, if I'm going to run a game, it'll be on my terms. And prospective players will be informed of those terms before they play, and they can opt-in or drop out (the latter hasn't ever happened, though I've parted ways with a few players over the years).

Because I won't spend time and mental energy (playing or running a game) on something that isn't fun or inspiring for me. I'm going to build a setting that I find fun, that inspires me creatively, that I find interesting. And then I'm going to let go, let the world progress naturally, and watch the players act. It's fun. And that's why I do it, and why I'm not willing to compromise. I'm open to suggestions, and I'm open to dialogue, but it's me making the decisions when it comes to rules and setting. You get your character within those limits; everything else is mine.

But hey, don't let that stop you from insulting others for having badwrongfun.

I'm going to suggest that you two may be talking past each other somewhat.

There is a difference between, "Hey, let us talk a bit, I'll take your thoughts to heart, and make some decisions about the game," and, "I don't give a crap what you say or think, this is what is happening, and if that screws you over, I don't care."

I'm going to guess, Jameson, that you're open to discussion. You say the final choice is yours, but you're probably still open to suggestions, complaints, and so on.

The internet tends to drive description to poles that don't quite match reality, which is why I mention this....

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm going to suggest that you two may be talking past each other somewhat.

Possible. In some ways, that'd be preferable.

There is a difference between, "Hey, let us talk a bit, I'll take your thoughts to heart, and make some decisions about the game," and, "I don't give a crap what you say or think, this is what is happening, and if that screws you over, I don't care."

I'm going to guess, Jameson, that you're open to discussion. You say the final choice is yours, but you're probably still open to suggestions, complaints, and so on.

Yeah, that was this part of my reply: "I'm open to communication, but it's my setting, it's my rules, and I make the decision on running what is fun for me. You do not get veto power. You do not get to change or add something to the rules or the setting without my permission. I get to do those things. Because it's my game."

I'm open to hearing player interests, wants, and the like. I'll work with it if I don't have to jeopardize my vision for things. But I won't change what I'm running to something I like less for them. That's what I was trying to say, though I'm not sure how well I got that across.

The internet tends to drive description to poles that don't quite match reality, which is why I mention this....

Thank you for this. I'm all about people playing the game the way they like (see my sig, posting history, etc), but I got a very bad vibe from the post that I replied to ("frustrated novelist who doesn't work in groups and is self-centered and self-serving?"). Hopefully we are just talking passed one another. As I said, that would be preferable.

 

[Mallus]

What gave it away? My use of the words "generally" and "habit"?

Well, yes, they helped!

Of course they're generalizations. How is that bad?

The one you used is inaccurate and leads the discussion down a well-worn, unhelpful, and inevitably partisan path. You could just as easily say old-school DM's allowed for a greater amount of PC freedom *because* more of the game existed outside of the purview of the codified rules. That's *also* true of many people's experiences, and it's certainly the lesson I learned by DM'ing AD&D 1 and 2. "The rules don't cover this -- just roll something (often under a stat on a d20) was very common -- also, a really fast way of resolving an action.

But the biggest problem with generalizations like yours -- offered without even a personal anecdote -- is that they bury the fact that old-school D&D was *many different, varied, and frequently contradictory* experiences.

Thus the truest generalization you can make is "people played a lot a different ways with the same base rules".

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.

I've found "explicitly against the rules" isn't a helpful concept here. Rules-illegal rulings could be made for the player's benefit or against it, they could be beloved by group, or a constant irritation. Or anything in-between. So not seeing the inherent benefit of following "the rules" re: dealing with prat DMs.

The only way to deal with prat DM --who isn't willing to listen to their players -- is to find another group.

It's easier to sell a group on a house rule when there is no rule explicitly covering that thing.

I'd say it's easy to sell a group on something when they trust the DM. Without that trust -- which is always personal, IMHO, and not systems-derived -- it's going to be a hard sell.

 

[BryonD]

I'm going to suggest that you two may be talking past each other somewhat.

There is a difference between, "Hey, let us talk a bit, I'll take your thoughts to heart, and make some decisions about the game," and, "I don't give a crap what you say or think, this is what is happening, and if that screws you over, I don't care."

I'm going to guess, Jameson, that you're open to discussion. You say the final choice is yours, but you're probably still open to suggestions, complaints, and so on.

The internet tends to drive description to poles that don't quite match reality, which is why I mention this....

In fairness though "I don't give a crap what you say or think, this is what is happening, and if that screws you over, I don't care." seems to be a typical method of unfairly framing "DM empowerment".

I've know a lot of DMs who are very much on the "empowerment side". And while I've certainly seen some quite bad DMs. I've seen great DMs with devoted players who will still have one player come along and start complaining when the game doesn't rebuild itself to suit that player. Both the bad DMs and the bad players who do this are the distinct minority. But it is still easy to jump in and make this unreasonable complaint and then expect to at least find some middle ground. If the DM has a group having fun, then there is no middle ground and no need for middle ground. The complainer should either get over it or go find a group that suits their personal needs.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There's no reason to overthink or overanalyze this. It's really quite simple.

1. Everyone (DM and players) want to have fun. It's not the DM's "job" to give up his or her fun for the players, and vice versa.

2. don't be jerk, and act like an adult and have adult discussions.

3. If you don't like the DM's world, there's nothing to stop you from DMing a game yourself. Everyone can be a DM; you don't need a license or anything.

4. Don't game with people you don't like. This is really the only rule if you want to get down to it. Don't expect rules to fix a person problem. Nor should they.