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

[Oofta]

Exactly. Unless you describe the thing, it doesn’t happen. I will always ask for a description so don’t skip it.

And for the love: don’t declare your unasked for rolls a success or failure.

You mean my bard can't seduce the dragon even if I just rolled a 20?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Like @Oofta indicated, if more detail is required, the DM can call for it. But if it isn't, the DM could let things slide with a simple skill check. (At some point, of course, you wonder why bother if it's just gonna be a low-level-of-detail die roll.)

Player: "I search the room. <rolls die> I got a 27."
DM: "Hold up there sparky. You can't just go rolling ability checks with no context, so that roll doesn't count for anything. How do you go about searching the room? There's a desk, two bookcases, and a wardrobe, among other things."

The player could take that request for detail as a hint that searching the room might be risky, which is metagaming, but all RPGs hit that snare in their own ways.

And of course, the DM could interpret "I search the room" at face value as being pretty exhaustive, meaning the PC did touch the mimic. If they player then complains (after declaring such a sweeping general action and rolling their die without acknolwedgment), the DM is somewhat justified in saying "You should have specified."

I don't really agree, here. Let's say that there's something in my prep that's in the room to be found. That seems to be the assumption, but let's be explicit. I have in my notes that the item can be found on the bookshelf, so looking at the bookshelf finds the item -- no roll needed. Heck, that's so easy that any attempt to investigate the room will probably look at the bookshelf, so no roll needed. The player does what you say, but rolls a 1, not a 27. Now I have to deal with this. Sure, I can just toss the roll and go with my plan, but that's a bit jarring -- we have a roll that says one thing happened, but I'm going to ignore that and Force an outcome. Fine, but inelegant.

Rather, let's say that I've agreed with my players to only roll when prompted. That way they can say "I search the room" just fine, and I then relate information, smooth as silk!

To look at it a different way, let's say that my notes have nothing in the room, and the player declares and rolls, "Natural 20! I got a 27! What do I find?!" "Nothing." That's, anticlimactic and disappointing. And avoided if they don't just roll because we have that agreement. They can say, "I search the room," and I can say, "Sure, you don't find anything." And now we're good to go.

OR, let's say there's nothing in the room by my prep, but the player declares and rolls and gets a 1. I say, "you don't find anything." Now we're facing that moment where they player knows they rolled a 1, and maybe they didn't find anything because of that but there's something here. Now we're in a weird metagamey place (if you care about it) or a reroll to confirm case (if you don't). Or I have to against explicitly discount the roll and say, "doesn't matter what you roll, there's nothing here."

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Like @Oofta indicated, if more detail is required, the DM can call for it. But if it isn't, the DM could let things slide with a simple skill check. (At some point, of course, you wonder why bother if it's just gonna be a low-level-of-detail die roll.)

Indeed, don't call for a roll if it is some "low-level-of-detail" with no meaningful consequence of failure. Just tell them what they find.

Player: "I search the room. <rolls die> I got a 27."
DM: "Hold up there sparky. You can't just go rolling ability checks with no context, so that roll doesn't count for anything. How do you go about searching the room? There's a desk, two bookcases, and a wardrobe, among other things."

Hey, I never said the PC was a fire genasi.

The player could take that request for detail as a hint that searching the room might be risky, which is metagaming, but all RPGs hit that snare in their own ways.

Adventuring is a risky business. Also, I don't care about metagaming. PCs interacting with the world, that I care about.

And of course, the DM could interpret "I search the room" at face value as being pretty exhaustive, meaning the PC did touch the mimic. If they player then complains (after declaring such a sweeping general action and rolling their die without acknolwedgment), the DM is somewhat justified in saying "You should have specified."

As DM, I would prefer the specification come up front - otherwise we drift into adversarial "gotcha" territory.

 

[abirdcall]

I told the players at the start of my current campaign to feel free to make up their background as they went along to feel more a part of the setting.

For example, when meeting an NPC they could ask if they already knew the NPC and that they were the one involved in whatever part of their back story fits.

So far, 5 or 6 sessions in, no one has done it.

I just don't think it's how D&D players think.

 

[niklinna]

I don't really agree, here. Let's say that there's something in my prep that's in the room to be found. That seems to be the assumption, but let's be explicit. I have in my notes that the item can be found on the bookshelf, so looking at the bookshelf finds the item -- no roll needed. Heck, that's so easy that any attempt to investigate the room will probably look at the bookshelf, so no roll needed. The player does what you say, but rolls a 1, not a 27. Now I have to deal with this. Sure, I can just toss the roll and go with my plan, but that's a bit jarring -- we have a roll that says one thing happened, but I'm going to ignore that and Force an outcome. Fine, but inelegant.

Rather, let's say that I've agreed with my players to only roll when prompted. That way they can say "I search the room" just fine, and I then relate information, smooth as silk!

To look at it a different way, let's say that my notes have nothing in the room, and the player declares and rolls, "Natural 20! I got a 27! What do I find?!" "Nothing." That's, anticlimactic and disappointing. And avoided if they don't just roll because we have that agreement. They can say, "I search the room," and I can say, "Sure, you don't find anything." And now we're good to go.

OR, let's say there's nothing in the room by my prep, but the player declares and rolls and gets a 1. I say, "you don't find anything." Now we're facing that moment where they player knows they rolled a 1, and maybe they didn't find anything because of that but there's something here. Now we're in a weird metagamey place (if you care about it) or a reroll to confirm case (if you don't). Or I have to against explicitly discount the roll and say, "doesn't matter what you roll, there's nothing here."

Oh my elaboration was just one way somebody might handle a player jumping on a die roll; any of these other ways to handle it are...well, other ways to handle it! (And, hopefully, only rolling when prompted was something agreed to, that the DM just had to remind the player of, rather than something left open that the DM jumps on when convenient.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh my elaboration was just one way somebody might handle a player jumping on a die roll; any of these other ways to handle it are...well, other ways to handle it! (And, hopefully, only rolling when prompted was something agreed to, that the DM just had to remind the player of, rather than something left open that the DM jumps on when convenient.)

Yeah, there should be a table understanding. At my table, the problems with just rolling, or with 'shortcut' phrasing where I'm expected to untangle it, just don't work. Of course, the way I run 5e makes those things quickly become irrelevant -- I don't produce tons of rooms that may or may not have things hidden in them, for one, I have focused things and foreshadow intent and try to avoid challenges that are "do you roll high enough to find something". If there's a room you need to search to find something, I'm going to make that complicated, so "I search the room" isn't actually something you're likely to say because it would be ignoring that complication. If there's no complication, I assume PCs are diligent and competent, and just narrate what they find.

 

[jmartkdr2]

What does this have to do with Charm Person and the GM being required to narrate that the NPC (who I assume is now the guard?) is friendly? I mean, this is like saying that you have a glass vase, but then you smash it, so what does that say about you having had a glass vase? Nothing. Later events will be resolved how they are resolved, but that doesn't change the fact that I cast Charm Person, the save was failed, and now the GM is required to say the NPC is friendly towards me. If I then punch them in the fact, that doesn't change what happened, it generates new things to be resolved.

I think I'm getting hung up on the spell/nonspell line, which doesn't make sense to me.

Some spells do what you say and just happen, (not charm person), and some let you try to do something you might not have been otherwise able to do - but that statement is not exclusive to spells. Wanderer (the Outlander feature) and Natural Explorer just work, and unless the dm shuts the feature down the dm is forced to accept them and narrate them as working. Other features change how you roll. Charm person creates a specific result (a defined mental state in the target) if the saving throw is failed, and Menacing Attack creates a specific result (likewise a defined mental state in the target) is the saving throw is failed - but you seem to be insisting that these two things are fundamentally different in terms of how the player is interacting with the fiction, because one is granted by the spellcasting feature and the other is granted by the Maneuvers feature.

I will accept the idea that ability checks, by their nature, have less power than class/race/background features, because they are not explicitly actions you can take. There's no persuade action - there's you talking to a guard and the dm deciding how that goes, possibly calling for a roll.

Now, if your real point is: "some features and abilities grant players greater power over the fiction than others" - I don't disagree (although I still fail to see the point of the distinction, since they all fit in OP's framework the same way). If you're point is still "features called spells interact with the rules differently, even when they have the same rules," I flatly disagree.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Some spells do what you say and just happen, (not charm person), and some let you try to do something you might not have been otherwise able to do - but that statement is not exclusive to spells. Wanderer (the Outlander feature) and Natural Explorer just work, and unless the dm shuts the feature down the dm is forced to accept them and narrate them as working. Other features change how you roll.

I tend to avoid these kinds of threads, but...

I'm generally on board with the notion that spells are unusual in the scope of control which they afford players, and the ability of spells to direct the narrative only increases as the characters' levels increase. Charm person is in some sense a kind of soft entry for the DM, which demonstrates that - as the characters level - they will need to become increasingly comfortable ceding control of many elements to the players if the game is to be a successful enterprise (teleport, geas, scrying, planar binding, commune with nature etc. etc.). Some spells don't just have a limited situational effect; they actually change the way the game is played.

I feel that the DM's main challenge becomes to find ways for non-spellcasting classes to meaningfully impact the game world in similar ways. High-level D&D only really works as a collaborative exercise. I think this is true of any edition of the game.

 

[Campbell]

I don't think anyone in this thread is really looking for a different division of authority. We just have different expectations for how the GM should approach their responsibilities. In traditional RPG the GM is responsible for scenario and setting design, playing the role of NPCs, and adjudicating the rules. They are given the authority they are given to perform those functions, not because they know better, but because they need that authority in order to fulfill their responsibilities. I am no more special or deserving depending on which side of the screen I sit. That authority I am granted is a sacred trust between me and the other people I play with.

I personally favor a more collaborative approach to most play regardless of where I sit. I expect a high degree of collaboration and consensus seeking with the people I play with. That doesn't require a different authority structure. Just treating the relationship between player and GM or player and player like any other adult relationship where we set boundaries, try to honor each others' boundaries, and if someone is not getting what they are looking for try to work it out. If you cannot work it out move on.

The playstyle of Critical Role isn't my thing, but I think Matt Mercer sits as a pretty good example of what the player and GM relationship should look like.

 

[Vaalingrade]

A made up example because I can't think of a real one off the top of my head. The DM casts levitate on the horse my PC is riding on. The horse fails the save and, according to the DM, starts floating in the air.

I know that's not shouldn't work, so how do you respond as a player? I might say something along the lines of "Umm, levitate doesn't work on anything more than 500 pounds."

At that point, the DM may agree, disagree, say "the horse is now 20 feet in the air and continues to rise" and so on. If I'm playing, no matter what the DM says they make the call and we move on.

How else do you see the game working?

I see it working where one player at the table doesn't get carte blanche because he put a burger king crown on his head and thinks he's the lord of the castle now?

Like, the DM runs the world fairly without trying to be in charge or screwing around to get their jollies over the other people at the table just like the players don't declare they're giants made of gold and slap the dragon out of the sky?

The problem is the idea of the DM as some kind of authority figure at all. They're just the player that volunteered to play the biggest role.