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

[pemerton]

have you encountered a really bad DM ?

Yes.

What did he do ?

In one case, was determined to have the adventure proceed as per the scripted module, and so failed to play NPCs honestly (a captured kobold) in order to avoid giving the players the information they wanted (we, as our PCs, were seeking information from the kobold about how it had entered the city, what the disposition of kobold forces was, etc) so as to prevent the players declaring actions for their PCs that would disrupt the script (we wanted to learn where the kobolds were so we could take the fight to them).

In another case, was determined to have the twist he'd scripted play out, and so had a NPC betray us with no real warning, and in a way that was unavoidable given that the only option for play that had been presented to us by the GM was going on the NPC's mission. So our reward for doing as the GM told us to do was to be made to look like schmucks.

In a third case, had lost control of the fiction due to we, the players, building an elaborate set of relationships among our PCs and between our PCs and various elements of the setting; and so teleported us all 100 years into the future, killing off all the fiction what we'd created and starting with a blank slate where only he had any knowledge or control.

What kind of damage did he cause and why ?

I don't know about damage, but in each case the game ended. In the first we staged a player revolt and started a new game. As a courtesy we invited the GM to join as a player, but he declined. In the second case, the game fizzled out after a handful of sessions. In the third case, I left the campaign not long after and heard that it had come to an end a few sessions after I left.

There's no reason why RPGers should put up with crappy GMing.

 

[Lyxen]

In one case, was determined to have the adventure proceed as per the scripted module, and so failed to play NPCs honestly (a captured kobold) in order to avoid giving the players the information they wanted (we, as our PCs, were seeking information from the kobold about how it had entered the city, what the disposition of kobold forces was, etc) so as to prevent the players declaring actions for their PCs that would disrupt the script (we wanted to learn where the kobolds were so we could take the fight to them).

In another case, was determined to have the twist he'd scripted play out, and so had a NPC betray us with no real warning, and in a way that was unavoidable given that the only option for play that had been presented to us by the GM was going on the NPC's mission. So our reward for doing as the GM told us to do was to be made to look like schmucks.

In a third case, had lost control of the fiction due to we, the players, building an elaborate set of relationships among our PCs and between our PCs and various elements of the setting; and so teleported us all 100 years into the future, killing off all the fiction what we'd created and starting with a blank slate where only he had any knowledge or control.

Oh my god, so he railroaded you a bit and for that he is a "bad" DM ?

I don't know about damage, but in each case the game ended. In the first we staged a player revolt and started a new game. As a courtesy we invited the GM to join as a player, but he declined. In the second case, the game fizzled out after a handful of sessions. In the third case, I left the campaign not long after and heard that it had come to an end a few sessions after I left.

There's no reason why RPGers should put up with crappy GMing.

Yes, just as there is no reason for DMs to have to DM for annoying and entitled players who don't respect his work either.

I'm sorry, but none of these cases seem really that bad to me except possibly the third one, and even there, I would like to hear his side of the story. A DM puts work and effort into preparing for play, whereas players only come to the table expecting to be entertained. Maybe the type of game that he was running was not for you, and you expected some sort of sandbox where you could do whatever you wanted, but most of the game that I've been in don't work that way. If the DM prepares something and the player deliberately ignore what he has been preparing, run their own ideas and just expect him to bend to their ideas and model the world around their wishes, maybe it's not what the DM expects out of it either.

Again, I was not there, so I don't know what happened, whose fault it was or actually whether there was actually a fault or just a lack of mutual respect or different expectations about the game, but I'll leave you with the words of Tasha: "The players will respect you and the effort it takes to create a fun game for everyone. The players will allow you to direct the campaign..."

But in any case, he does not sound like a really bad DM in the sense that maybe he was a bit inexperienced and railroading, but I don't detect any nasty intention in what he was doing, and possibly protecting the plot that he had prepared is not a crime.

 

[pemerton]

At my tables, my players control their voluntary actions.

That seems like the bare minimum for a player to be playing a RPG.

I control everything else

I think this is not a standard way of playing D&D, at least as I have encountered the game. There are a lot of action resolution rules in the D&D rulebooks.

 

[pemerton]

Kind of tangential, but "I search the room" does not really give the DM anything to adjudicate. How are you searching the room? Touching everything? Moving into the NW corner? Just looking around? Poking around the floor with a spear? Looking up to see the cloaker? Throw the DM a bone with some level of specificity in your action declaration so the DM can do their job. When the DM starts making assumptions about HOW and WHY the PC is going about their actions, we potentially run into issues. Player: "I search the room. I got a 27!" DM: "AHA the Desk is a MIMIC - you are stuck to it!" Player: "I never said I touched the desk". Indeed, sad trombone for that session...

Here I agree -- that's a statement I'm usually going to need more from the players to adjudicate (for the reasons you list!)-- but it doesn't really get to roleplaying at all.

I see this as very much about "genre", or related notions of culture/tradition. D&D - at least in its default play - is hyper-obsessed with architecture, geography and furniture to an extent I think unparalleled in any other medium of fiction. And that feeds into the peculiar concerns/disputes that arise in relation to searching rules, hiding rules, etc.

In games where those expectations are absent, I search the room needn't be any harder to adjudicate then I walk up to the top of the hill to see what I can see.

 

[pemerton]

Oh my god, so he railroaded you a bit and for that he is a "bad" DM ?

Yes.

I don't detect any nasty intention in what he was doing, and possibly protecting the plot that he had prepared is not a crime.

I didn't say anyone was nasty, nor accuse anyone of a crime. I described these three individuals as bad GMs, and explained why.

A DM puts work and effort into preparing for play, whereas players only come to the table expecting to be entertained.

Speak for yourself. I play RPGs to play RPGs. If I want to be entertained by someone's story I'll read a book or watch a film.

EDIT: You seem to have thought I was talking about one person. I was talking about three different persons. Each was a bad GM - the first did not adjudicate action declarations fairly, the second wrote a plot where the players had no choice to do anything except end up as patsy-schmucks to the GM's NPC, and the third torpedoed the game when he had ceased to have dominance of the shared fiction.

 

[Campbell]

I do not consider it a given that a GM is there to entertain me. When I GM I certainly do not consider it my responsibility to provide passive entertainment. From my perspective the GM is there to design the scenario, adjudicate the rules, and play a game with the players. Exactly what that should look like depends on the experience we are all after.

 

[Lyxen]

I think this is not a standard way of playing D&D, at least as I have encountered the game. There are a lot of action resolution rules in the D&D rulebooks.

It is absolutely in agreement with the standard way of playing 5e (which this threat is about), which states that all the rules are within the scope of the DM anyway: "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."

 

[Lyxen]

I didn't say anyone was nasty, nor accuse anyone of a crime. I described these three individuals as bad GMs, and explained why.

And these are for me really bad reasons to call someone a "bad DM", I'm pretty sure that if we go that way, he could also call you a "bad player".

Speak for yourself. I play RPGs to play RPGs. If I want to be entertained by someone's story I'll read a book or watch a film.

It's not black and white like this, sorry, never was in a RPG. The DM usually has a plot that has to be roughly followed. After that, there are many levels of sandboxing and/or railroading, but most games expect some mix of that.

EDIT: You seem to have thought I was talking about one person. I was talking about three different persons. Each was a bad GM - the first did not adjudicate action declarations fairly, the second wrote a plot where the players had no choice to do anything except end up as patsy-schmucks to the GM's NPC, and the third torpedoed the game when he had ceased to have dominance of the shared fiction.

So it was not even the same DM ? And the first one's only crime was that a captured kobold did not want to spill all the beans for you ? What a crime indeed... And the second one dared to have an NPC betray you ? My god, you should read Waterdeep Dragon Heist but never ever play it... That way you would have an idea about what is published, played and liked by quite a few people on this site...

 

[Minigiant]

I've always been of a mindset that the Players have near ultimate authority of their PCs and the DMs have near ultimate authority of nearly everything else. However that comes with an open agreement of the styles, openness and genre of the game.

So when it comes to surprises, twists, railroding, and "that's what my PC would do"; if you don't make the argeement verbally or written ahead oftime, there is some limitation. That's where the near comes from.

 

[Lyxen]

So when it comes to surprises, twists, railroding, and "that's what my PC would do"; if you don't make the argeement verbally or written ahead oftime, there is some limitation. That's where the near comes from.

I agree, this is where, as a starting basis I really like the suggestions of Tasha, because there cover the respect players => DM, DM => player, and player => other players. It's important for me to remember that the character does not have any real existence and "what the character would do" is certainly limited to what is proper towards the DM and the other players in particular.