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

[loverdrive]

Of course a rollplayer would say that. But everyone knows that a true roleplayer touches all the desk drawers in elaborate detail, performs annoying fake British accents* in first person, and wastes their spells and/or actions against the troll to prove that their not a dirty metagamer!

* Which British accent or dialect? Doesn't matter. It's all the same country isn't it? A true roleplayer just creates a new one like Dick Van Dyke did in Mary Poppins, Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker's Dracula, or Kevin Costner in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

I guess I'm a rollplayer, all westerners sound exactly the same to me

 

[Oofta]

And also from the SAC (which I'm sure everyone reads ): "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules
questions."

Bah. Don't you know the official rules tell you how to play the game wrong?

 

[Lyxen]

Bah. Don't you know the official rules tell you how to play the game wrong?

You're right, silly of me, I should have learned that by now...

 

[Oofta]

When I see this kind of thread, I am always surprised that some people seem to have been really traumatized by people who they describe as horrible DMs, and who they assume had really nefarious intents at some level. Once more, in more than 40 years of playing all over the globe, I have never met a really bad DM (in that sense, I had beginning DMs or people who were simply not as good as DMing as others, but no "bad" DM) - whereas I have met plenty of bad players (in the wangrod sense, if nothing else, and I know I've been one to some DMs - something that I really regret in retrospect, and that I have vowed a long time ago never to do again whatever the DM).

For me, it comes from the fact that being a DM requires preparing things for the pleasure of others, whereas a player can basically come to a table and expect to be personally entertained without any requirement on him whatsoever. It is by definition more selfless, as it is almost never about one's character (which, as a side note, is why DMPCs are usually a very bad idea).

Now, a DM's style might not be the right one for you, because he is directive, railroading, etc. But that does not make him a "bad" DM, just one that does not match your expectations. Just tell him "this game is not for me" and don't participate anymore, but calling him a bad DM behind is back is really not acceptable. Of course, the real adult thing would be to discuss playstyle with him, maybe he is simply a beginner who is unsure about his game, who has boisterous players much more experienced than himself and whom he does not know how to manage so that what he has prepared (however much incompetently, I'm sorry but we have all been beginners at some point in time) is not blown out of the window. And maybe something will come out of the discussion, maybe not (some people are full of themselves and their conviction), but at least the room will have been aired.

As for me, when I sit at a table, it's always with respect for the preparation that the DM has made, and trusting the DM that what he will do, he will do to entertain the players at his table, and he will do his best. And if necessary, I will help him (both as a player and as a character) along the way, because being disruptive is never going to help anyone have fun around the table. I will lower my expectations if need be, as a player or a character, I will make metagame decisions to steer my roleplay in the right decision if need be (the character is who I decide him to be, not something that exists in its own right). What I will not do is act like an entitled roleplayer and/or ruleslawyer who believes that he has any right to complain about what is happening in a game that I'm participating with (of course, there should be human behaviour limits and some behaviours should not be tolerated in games any more than in society, like harassment of any kind, but again I've never, EVER seen that).

And who knows, maybe it's through this attitude that I never had bad DMs, and that I've decided only once (I think, maybe another time) to stop participating in a game.

And honestly, the worse type of DM that has been described on forums is a railroading one (so what, there is almost always a bit of railroading in games, some published modules are actually worse than everything I've ever played through, and some players are happy with it) or one that does not recognise a pretend player's right to impose his own (view of the) rules or his build or his roleplay on the table - and for these, sorry, but the very rules of the game show that the player is wrong to do this, whatever the level - see "entitled player" above.

And when I DM, it's in full cooperative mode because there is trust all around, so I never have that kind of issue, and I am absolutely happy to give full reins to the players in terms of actions and description, because I know that they will not abuse that trust. And the other way around, they are absolutely happy to let me direct them where needed, even railroad if need be (although I play a very sandbox game in general), because they know that the intent is their own fun.

I've had some DMs that ran games I simply didn't care for, but I wouldn't say they were bad. I have had exactly 2 bad DMs and one had been a decent DM for quite a while, I just think he really didn't want to DM any more but wasn't mature enough to just come out and say it. The other one? Well he had us write up 2 PCs each and then the very first scene was rolling a die to decide which PC would be smashed by the giant hand before continuing on to "creatively" kill off all the PCs. He only ran one game.

But more to the point, I think there are many things that make for DMs that I will not play with. Railroading is a big one. Not having a consistent vision of the world or running a "joke" campaign where they think the height of humor is Bobtown where everyone is named Bob and so on. But most of those? Like you said, just a difference between what I want out of a game and the style of game the DM is willing to provide.

A DM interpreting the rules differently than I do? Telling me that the NPC doesn't believe the illusion or that the alley I just ran down is a dead end? Those are not, in and of themselves, a sign of a DM I won't play with, much less a "bad" DM.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I gave a specific example for a reason, to clarify what I'm saying a DM's authority means to me. They make the calls on rulings, they're responsible for what happens for everything but what my PC thinks, feels, and attempts to do. Outside of that, they're right even if I know they're wrong.

So how do you handle it? The DM says an NPC's levitate spell can lift a horse that weighs more than 500 pounds. You know that's wrong. Do you
A) ignore it
B) briefly and politely remind them of the rule an let it go if even if they don't change the declared outcome
C) ???

I would probably go with B most of the time unless it's just narrative description that doesn't have an impact on the overall scene. Even in that case, I'd probably mention it after the game. Maybe they just missed that in the spell description.

If they ignore the rule, I'll take it into consideration with all other aspects of the game. How they make decisions is just one small part of whether I enjoy them as a DM.

So, can you tell me specifically how you would respond to the levitation issue? Do you A? B? Something else? Can you give concrete examples in order to explain where you're coming from and what you mean?

 

[Oofta]

Of course a rollplayer would say that. But everyone knows that a true roleplayer touches all the desk drawers in elaborate detail, performs annoying fake British accents* in first person, and wastes their spells and/or actions against the troll to prove that their not a dirty metagamer!

* Which British accent or dialect? Doesn't matter. It's all the same country isn't it? A true roleplayer just creates a new one like Dick Van Dyke did in Mary Poppins, Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker's Dracula, or Kevin Costner in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

Wait ... Costner was trying to do a British accent? Huh.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I gave a specific example for a reason, to clarify what I'm saying a DM's authority means to me. They make the calls on rulings, they're responsible for what happens for everything but what my PC thinks, feels, and attempts to do. Outside of that, they're right even if I know they're wrong.

So how do you handle it? The DM says an NPC's levitate spell can lift a horse that weighs more than 500 pounds. You know that's wrong. Do you
A) ignore it
B) briefly and politely remind them of the rule an let it go if even if they don't change the declared outcome
C) ???

I would probably go with B most of the time unless it's just narrative description that doesn't have an impact on the overall scene. Even in that case, I'd probably mention it after the game. Maybe they just missed that in the spell description.

If they ignore the rule, I'll take it into consideration with all other aspects of the game. How they make decisions is just one small part of whether I enjoy them as a DM.

So, can you tell me specifically how you would respond to the levitation issue? Do you A? B? Something else? Can you give concrete examples in order to explain where you're coming from and what you mean?

Explain it doesn't work that way and ask if there's an explanation.

If the explanation is 'I'm the DM', we're done.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Explain it doesn't work that way and ask if there's an explanation.

If the explanation is 'I'm the DM', we're done.

Oddly enough, while I agree "I'm the dm" is a bad answer, I would happily accept either "um... this guy's special" (implying that he's decided to make a houseruled power just now) or "trust me." As long as it's not negating a pc core feature, I'm cool with occasional on-the-fly houserules.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Oddly enough, while I agree "I'm the dm" is a bad answer, I would happily accept either "um... this guy's special" (implying that he's decided to make a houseruled power just now) or "trust me." As long as it's not negating a pc core feature, I'm cool with occasional on-the-fly houserules.

Also, in 5e, NPCs/monsters often have powers the PCs do not. So... there's that.

 

[Lyxen]

Also, in 5e, NPCs/monsters often have powers the PCs do not. So... there's that.

Yes, and that is a very important principle to remember, as it solves tons of problems, from metagaming, to ruleslawyering, as well as spending hours creating one NPC because it has to abide by some rules...