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

[Swarmkeeper]

...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"...

Maybe this would help:

PHB p 185: Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it's you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks.

So, yes, by the rules of the game the player is given autonomy - or full rein - over how their character thinks, acts, and talks. Of course, the results of those actions are left up to the DM to adjudicate.

Rather than "your character cannot do that" - which, to me, is far too close to "your character wouldn't do that" - I'd say "that action is not possible because... reasons" and probably see if they wanted to take a new approach since it is very likely that their capable adventurer would know if something was truly impossible.

 

[Lyxen]

Bad GMs abuse their authority. Good GMs do not.

And then, for me, it's hard to understand how such games exist, because if a DM is really abusing his authority, the simplest, easiest and quickest way to deal with it is to leave the game. This is not school, work or family, which you cannot leave because it would severely impact your life, if you even could, which makes abuse unfortunately horrible because it cannot be avoided. This is only a game, for fun, and you can leave at any time.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

The 'credentialed' part might have something to do with that. Less 'owns a third book and volunteered for the job'.

Leadership requires authority, and the GM is leader of the D&D game.

Nope.

You can't nominate someone GM and then whine that wields more power than the other players at the table.

Who nominates DMs? You might ask them to run, but do people actually get installed as DM?

Also, they shouldn't have 'more power'. They just have a more expansive character in the entire rest of the world.

Bad GMs abuse their authority. Good GMs do not.

Bad DMs are the ones concerned about maintaining and imposing their authority.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

And then, for me, it's hard to understand how such games exist, because if a DM is really abusing his authority, the simplest, easiest and quickest way to deal with it is to leave the game. This is not school, work or family, which you cannot leave because it would severely impact your life, if you even could, which makes abuse unfortunately horrible because it cannot be avoided. This is only a game, for fun, and you can leave at any time.

Sometimes it can be tricky if that GM is your friend, or if the game is three-quarters good and one-quarter not-so-good. Some players would rather endure bad gaming than no gaming. I'm not one of them. I was in a weekly game where I realized that I was having fun for about one hour out of every three, and the rest was mild annoyance or boredom. I politely ducked out and henceforth have declined to play with that GM again.

It's that easy.

 

[jmartkdr2]

And then, for me, it's hard to understand how such games exist, because if a DM is really abusing his authority, the simplest, easiest and quickest way to deal with it is to leave the game. This is not school, work or family, which you cannot leave because it would severely impact your life, if you even could, which makes abuse unfortunately horrible because it cannot be avoided. This is only a game, for fun, and you can leave at any time.

Unless, of course, you're playing with co-workers, classmates, or family members.

 

[Maxperson]

Me personally, my blood freaking boils every time I encounter a player who doesn't think outside their character, doesn't add details and doesn't seize narrative control. Like, dude, wtf are you doing here, you're taking place of someone who could actually contribute to the game!

Different strokes for different folks. You don't play the one true way, so someone playing(and contributing) in a different manner isn't wrong or bad. In fact, since your game is so different than D&D standard, the fault there really lies with you for not explaining how different your game is and what is required of the players before that person started playing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

'Me personally' was not enough to imply it was their experience and opinion.

 

[Lyxen]

PHB p 185: Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it's you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks.

So, yes, by the rules of the game the player is given autonomy - or full rein - over how their character thinks, acts, and talks. Of course, the results of those actions are left up to the DM to adjudicate.

Maybe that is what roleplaying is, but is any role allowed at a table ? Certainly not, again, at the very least I refer you to don't be a wangrod. Being able to roleplay does not allow you to do whatever you want with that role. And there have been multiple examples of at least influencing how a character even thinks, for example through the use of charms. Not only is it expressly stipulated that, whatever you think your character might be thinking, he now considers a previous enemy a friend, and thinks of him in those terms, but it would be very bad roleplay to play the character otherwise. So obviously the citation that you gave us does not grant unsupervised authority to the player, even unto the thoughts of his character...

Rather than "your character cannot do that" - which, to me, is far too close to "your character wouldn't do that" - I'd say "that action is not possible because... reasons" and probably see if they wanted to take a new approach since it is very likely that their capable adventurer would know if something was truly impossible.

I'm sorry, but (and it happened to me 2 weeks ago), there were multiple holes through a wall through which a hydra's heads were attacking, I killed the hydra, but she was regenerating, so I said "I crawl through the hole" and the DM just told me "you cannot do that, the hole is too small, you cannot fit." You can say what you want, but I did not have full reins on my actions, and it was normal, and I certainly did not complain.

Also, they shouldn't have 'more power'. They just have a more expansive character in the entire rest of the world.

At the very least, they have a power that the players do not: "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." So, obviously, officially and technically, they have more power. And after that, having in control an entire world is obviously more powerful than controlling a single individual.

After that, it's OK, because with more power comes more responsibility, namely the fact that they are running the game for the players' entertainment. But, absolutely factually, they have more power.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And I'm saying the 'official' rule is crap. The table has the final say, not one player with delusions of grandeur.

 

[Lyxen]

Sometimes it can be tricky if that GM is your friend, or if the game is three-quarters good and one-quarter not-so-good. Some players would rather endure bad gaming than no gaming. I'm not one of them. I was in a weekly game where I realized that I was having fun for about one hour out of every three, and the rest was mild annoyance or boredom. I politely ducked out and henceforth have declined to play with that GM again.

It's that easy.

No D&D is better than bad D&D. It's only a hobby, and I fully agree with you.

Unless, of course, you're playing with co-workers, classmates, or family members.

First, the above still applies, see the example from Thom above, and if you are forced to play in such a circle, the problem comes from the circle, not from the "Bad" DM...