D&D 5E Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e

[Lyxen]

We have to work with the assumption of good faith for everyone!

Except Brad. Brad plays Bards, and will steal your favorite d20.

Oh F..k, I'm creating a character for a new campaign, she is a chaotic neutral tiefling bard criminal/spy. Does this mean I'm a brad ?

 

[Campbell]

Oh F..k, I'm creating a character for a new campaign, she is a chaotic neutral tiefling bard criminal/spy. Does this mean I'm a brad ?

Works better with gnomes. Brad only plays gnome bards who wield rapiers.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think this completely misses a huge place where players have narrative control in 5e -- spells. Spells are packages of narrative control that players can deploy and the effects happen. The GM is, without blatant and obvious execution of Rule 0 to force their preferred outcome, bound by the effects of the spell. Some spells have grey areas, or require negotiation between player and GM on outcomes, but the effects of the spell are still binding on the GM as far as narrating outcomes go. This seems to get overlooked in discussions of authorities in D&D. I'm not sure why.

I'm not sure spells are all that special of a case, compared to any other character ability.

The player decides what the character's choices are (they choose to cast fireball) - the dm decides what that means in the narrative. If it's an anti-magic zone, it means one thing, in a dry forest it means something else... but the dm has final say. The player can't tell the dm that the anti-magic zone isn't there, and that the description in the PHB is to be followed regardless of the fiction. The player has control over the decision (the dm can't tell you what spell you cast), but the results of the act of casting are technically/ultimately under the dm's authority.

But unless there's a reason otherwise, the character's decision to cast fireball, presuming that's a thing the character knows how to do, should almost always result in a ball of fire, at least. Technically the dm can say no, although most of us would expect that a dm who say no to your spell has a good reason for that.

But it's also true that the original breakdown of the play loop left out an important point in step 3: this decision (by the dm) is assumed to follow the agreed-upon rules for that table, whether that means RAW or something else. It's kind of a big thing to gloss over, methinks.

At least, that's how I've always played DnD.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Oh F..k, I'm creating a character for a new campaign, she is a chaotic neutral tiefling bard criminal/spy. Does this mean I'm a brad ?

Listen, here's the thing. If you can't spot Brad in the first half hour at the table, then YOU are Brad.

 

[Oofta]

Good article!

I've got a question though. I agree that it's kind of expected that players have authority over their characters. But I can't help but think that they don't have authority over some facets of it. For example, what do they character know?

It happens very often in my sessions that a player will ask me "Would I know about that because of [...]?" and I have to adjudicate. This is in relation to their Backgrounds (chosen from the book), their character's background which they wrote themselves and just general common sense related to the worldbuilding.

I'm wondering what others think about this? And is there other areas of a player's character where they don't have full authority?

In my games it may be automatic but in many cases it will be advantage on a specific check. I will also throw in proficiency bonus if the PC is not already proficient.

So yes, Grandpa Josiah talked about it, but were you paying attention?

 

[Lyxen]

Works better with gnomes. Brad only plays gnome bards who wield rapiers.

But I'm wielding a rapier too, does this mean I'm a half-brad ?

 

[payn]

I think within the context of D&D in particular the more interesting question is how much authority do players have to define their aims rather than just their actions. Who sets the agenda for play basically?

What about backstory authority? Who gets to define where characters have been? Who they know? What sort of existing relationships they have?

I like in Traveller that an NPC background system is built into chargen. I'd love to see something like that added to D&D.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But it's also true that the original breakdown of the play loop left out an important point in step 3: this decision (by the dm) is assumed to follow the agreed-upon rules for that table, whether that means RAW or something else. It's kind of a big thing to gloss over, methinks.

For that matter, the idea that the DM authority over the world is probably not that controversial (although I am positive that most people would articulate that the DM must follow published rules, or must be neutral, or transparent, or communicate, etc. in order to run a successful game).

As always, we must assume good-faith, or things start to break down.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But I'm wielding a rapier too, does this mean I'm a half-brad ?

Elven Bard with a Rapier- that's going full Brad.

Never go Full Brad!

This is where I'd put in something from Tropic Thunder ... but, um, yeah. 2008 was a different time, man.

 

[overgeeked]

I don't think that there is a single, correct, answer. For example, if you using 5e to do a "old school" dungeon crawl with a keyed map, and descriptions of the things in each room, you should probably avoid having Players describe new things in the rooms. On the other hand, if the party goes into a bustling metropolis that hasn't been full described, is there any harm in having the Players narrate the name and location of the place they are staying, such that it becomes part of the fiction of the world? Or is this something that your table prefers remains exclusively within the province of the DM?

When I run D&D players seizing narrative control drives me up the wall. I'm perfectly fine with players adding details or assuming details in a space...if it's reasonable. Like a candle merchant in a bazaar. Or tables and chairs in a bar. I don't want to have to describe in perfect detail every bit of detritus in a ruin...just go ahead and assume there are pebbles of various sizes. But that example of adding in family members who know the guard...nope.