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

[Lyxen]

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.

How do you know this ?

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) ???

For me, unless it's really bizarre and breaking suspension of disbelief, it will be C) Cool, what happens then ?

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

I would to.

I'm just not okay with chest-thumping over how special one is because they volunteered for the best role.

 

[Jmarso]

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?

Sounds like you have a pretty good handle on it. And it makes a difference how a player phrases it: "Would I know that because of...?" comes off as a whole lot different than the more brazen: "Well, my player would know about that because...!" The first is a player asking a reasonable question, knowing that the DM knows about the situation, milieu, etc. The second is a player trying to railroad the DM, and will probably be met with a less...generous response. The flip side is that the DM needs to be fair about it. If the player's background, location, and circumstances dictate that they might actually know something useful, then play to that. That doesn't mean the DM has to give away the farm- that's where the common sense and adjudication come in. Give them something, make them feel like their idea / contribution was worthwhile (thereby encouraging similar play going forward), but don't spoil your own scenario in the process. It's a thinking man's game for players and DMs alike. Never stop thinking!

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I came to my opinions about how to GM and what authorities mean and how they should be handled while I was the full-time GM for my group. I do not fit in the box you've imagined.

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.

The players already have these authorities, so what are you sharing?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm just not okay with chest-thumping over how special one is because they volunteered for the best role.

This is truly orthogonal to the issues in the post, but I have trouble understanding this statement in the context of D&D in general, and 5e in particular.

There are definitely other TTRPGs that put less of a burden on being the GM/referee. But (and to paraphrase the good knight, Sir Mix-A-Lot), and this is a BIG BUT, D&D isn't one of them.

In general, there is a massive disparity between the number of people that want to PLAY D&D, and the number of people that want to DM. This disparity is so wide that there are people that are even paid to DM. If you look at this in terms of basic supply & demand, it would seem that if DMing was "the best role," then this wouldn't be the case, right? There would be an oversupply of DMs, and an undersupply of players.

None of this excuses bad DMs, or those that abuse their authority, or chest thumping.

Wait, there is ONE valid time to chest thump.

Okay, two. If you're Matthew McConaughey, or if you've just killed a Bard. OTHER THAN THAT, no chest thumping.

 

[Lyxen]

I came to my opinions about how to GM and what authorities mean and how they should be handled while I was the full-time GM for my group. I do not fit in the box you've imagined.

I'm not exactly sure what box I've imagined, so I'm not even sure where you think I imagined you fitting...

The players already have these authorities, so what are you sharing?

I am not even speaking about player authorities, so I'm not even sure what the question is about.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sounds like you have a pretty good handle on it. And it makes a difference how a player phrases it: "Would I know that because of...?" comes off as a whole lot different than the more brazen: "Well, my player would know about that because...!" The first is a player asking a reasonable question, knowing that the DM knows about the situation, milieu, etc. The second is a player trying to railroad the DM, and will probably be met with a less...generous response. The flip side is that the DM needs to be fair about it. If the player's background, location, and circumstances dictate that they might actually know something useful, then play to that. That doesn't mean the DM has to give away the farm- that's where the common sense and adjudication come in. Give them something, make them feel like their idea / contribution was worthwhile (thereby encouraging similar play going forward), but don't spoil your own scenario in the process. It's a thinking man's game for players and DMs alike. Never stop thinking!

Players need to make sure they're appropriately deferential to the GM? If the are, the GM should reward them so they feel worthwhile?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not exactly sure what box I've imagined, so I'm not even sure where you think I imagined you fitting...



I am not even speaking about player authorities, so I'm not even sure what the question is about.

Sure. You weren't surprised at how many players were traumatized by bad GMs, building a convenient box for opinions that they must be reactions to bad GMs, not considered opinions. And you don't speak about player authorities when you say you grant them full reins over actions, a thing that they already have authority over. My bad, must have misread.

 

[Lyxen]

Sure. You weren't surprised at how many players were traumatized by bad GMs, building a convenient box for opinions that they must be reactions to bad GMs, not considered opinions.

Ah, OK, then I don't understand how you came to conclusions about bad GMs "while I was the full-time GM for my group". How did you come to conclusions about other bad DMs (I suppose it's about others, not about you) while being a DM yourself ?

And you don't speak about player authorities when you say you grant them full reins over actions, a thing that they already have authority over. My bad, must have misread.

Yes, you did, because I said "to give full reins to the players in terms of actions and description", for once, and second, nowhere in the rules of the game does it say that the players have full rein about anything, including actions. If they ask to do something that is physically impossible in the game world (for example fitting through a hole that is too small for them), they have zero authority if the DM tells them "your character cannot do that".

At our tables, in general, the players and the DM are sufficiently in line so that there is no disagreement about what a character can do, but in case of discrepancy, it's solved through simple clarification as well as mutual respect and trust, that's all. There is no need to assert any authority, the players know that the DM is in charge of the world anyway, but that if he decides that something in the world is a certain way (the hole is too small), then it's certainly for the best in terms of story, and no one argues.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

The concept of authority gets a bad rap unless we're deferring it to credentialed "experts."

EXPERTS SAY THAT...
EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON...
BAD THING TO HAPPEN, WARN EXPERTS, UNLESS...

I'm Helpful NPC Thom, PhD. While you were out partying, I studied the DMG.

Leadership requires authority, and the GM is leader of the D&D game. You can't nominate someone GM and then whine that wields more power than the other players at the table. The GM has to hold more power than the players, otherwise he's not the GM. He's just another player character. There are roleplaying games in which the GM role doesn't exist. D&D is not one of them.

Bad GMs abuse their authority. Good GMs do not. The authority granted to a GM makes abusing that authority more than some other games. One particular example is Burning Wheel, a game designed in an attempt to "solve" abusive GMing while still remaining a GM-led game. It has safeguards in place that D&D does not.

Regardless, GMing is a skill just like any other, and honing that skill requires effort, patience, practice, and many, many mistakes made along the way. There are GMs I've played with who I won't play with again because they are poor GMs and have never improved their skills. There are GMs I've played with who are excellent and would jump at the chance to play in their games. And there are GMs like myself, who are halfway decent, who slowly improve over time.

In the same way that the GM has to trust the players not to cheat, the players have to trust the GM not to abuse his authority.