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

[overgeeked]

I don’t think that the game is meant to be played with the GM as the absolute authority.

The text of the game you’re talking about explicitly disagrees with you. There’s no interpretation to be had. The DM is the authority of the D&D game. Period. If they want to have a more collaborative game, that’s absolutely a decision they get to make. But the default is DM as the authority.

Let me ask you….all the passages that you quoted…do any of them say “you as DM must exclude any and all player input to the fiction of the game”? Do they say “you can and should disregard the rules as presented for any reason whatsoever”?

Not this strawman again. No one’s arguing that’s what they say but you.

They don’t appear to do so from what I can see. Largely because that would suck.

Good thing no one’s arguing they do.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The text of the game you’re talking about explicitly disagrees with you. There’s no interpretation to be had. The DM is the authority of the D&D game. Period. If they want to have a more collaborative game, that’s absolutely a decision they get to make. But the default is DM as the authority.

Not this strawman again. No one’s arguing that’s what they say but you.

Good thing no one’s arguing they do.

Clearly I don’t interpret those passages the same as you do. I disagree, and I think the game that’s implied with a DM as total authority is a bad one.

I’m not going to convince you. But that’s okay…I’m not trying to.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Just a little tid-bit that stood out to me....when this was said...

It's a game. Not everyone wants a truly open sandbox, many if not most people want some sort of over-arcing story in my experience. They want to feel like they're changing the campaign world for the better and having an impact outside of just going against more and more deadly opponents because they can because that can feel like a treadmill.

(not singling you out here, Oofta, just found it an interesting statement I wanted to comment on )

Thing is, imnsho, every campaign is a "truly open sandbox" unless the DM has a habit of saying "No, John, your Fighter doesn't decide to attack the thug. In stead, you let him go with a warning to never come back"...in which case, yeah, not a "sandbox". But every other campaign where the DM isn't doing stuff like that (re: deciding things the PC's do or don't do, regardless of Player desire)...is a "sandbox".

The part about wanting an over-arcing story is probably true...at least it is in my experience as well. But here's the thing... a "story arc" is from the Players and their PC's point of view.

To equate to real life, think about something that happened to you recently. Maybe you almost got in a car accident a few days ago, or maybe you overheard a loud argument between two people as you walked to work/school, or maybe that odd girl who kept to herself just got fired. See those things? Those are "story arcs" that you didn't (or chose to not) get involved in. Same thing a fantasy world. Your PC made his Dex Save to avoid getting hit by a run-away horse cart? Story arc averted. Ignoring that loud argument you heard? Story arc ignored. Choosing to not pay much attention to that odd girls firing? Story arc dodged.

That doesn't mean that these "story arcs" aren't going on. They still are...from the perspective of the horse-cart owner, the two people arguing, and that poor odd girl who just got fired. That your PC isn't currently involved in them and you, the Player, are sitting there thinking "This is kinda boring...there's no over-arcing story going on, simply means that you didn't pay attention or get involved.

Anyway, I thought it interesting to point out that, for me at least, there are TONS of "story arcs", or at least potential story arcs, going on in my campaign constantly. These stories are just "untold" is all. But every "sandbox" game has them simply by default of how D&D and RPG's "work". Well, unless your DM tells you what and how your character does something...but then you're not really playing an RPG I guess.

This idea of "sandbox v story-arc" is related to a DM being able to decide what he wants, when he wants. The DM is in control of everything in the game...except the PC's. The DM can choose to ignore rules, use rules, or make them up...or anything in between. The DM can not choose what a Players PC does (baring obvious in-game things like a Mind Control spell or something). Because of this, imnsho, every game played is a "sandbox"...and every game has a story-arc (often many). And this duality hinges on the DM being in control of EVERYTHING...except the PC's....and it hinges on the Players being in control of EVERYTHING their PC does...except when 'mind-controlled'. That's how RPG's work and how we end up with a story that starts of going down the path of ABCDE and somehow, at the end, we end up with X-14-Purple-Cow. To me, that's a glorious thing!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Maxperson]

It's extremely easy. Every single published adventure has a plot. If the PCs turn their back on the plot to go overseas and become pirates instead, they are not playing the published adventure at all. However, these adventures are widely popular, and there are many more examples of campaigns being done along these than other campaigns.

That doesn't prove what you said. All it proves is that when putting out an adventure that has to appeal broadly, you need to make it generic and to the point.

Actually there is, you should read it again: "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."

Which doesn't say that they are not allowed to deviate and go off in a different direction. That's not disrespectful. Nor does it remove from the DM the ability to direct the campaign.

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of DMs will pack up and leave the players to find another DM if they have announced "I will be running [published adventure]/[my Homebrewed Campaign] and the players were to say "screw this, we don't care what you did and we are scared of demons, so we will go and have some pirate adventure overseas instead".

And I disagree.

 

[Maxperson]

Am I understanding this correctly that you don't put any campaign ideas into the proverbial hat? That's ... kinda cool.

Occasionally I have an inspiration and talk it over with them. The vast majority of the time it's their ideas.

 

[Maxperson]

"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."

and reading that as “The DM is allowed to do whatever they want” is probably not a good way to approach play. If you happen to play that way and it works for you, that’s awesome, go ahead and have fun. But for anyone new to the hobby, or as a general discussion of how to approach play, I wouldn’t recommend that approach.

That's not the phrase used, though. This is.

"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

That gives the DM the authority to override rules whenever he wants. He doesn't need to wait for a rules question.

 

[Maxperson]

Nothing you’ve posted changes what I said. I don’t think that the game is meant to be played with the GM as the absolute authority.

to believe that, you have to deliberately ignore many passages that flat out contradict your belief.

Let me ask you….all the passages that you quoted…do any of them say “you as DM must exclude any and all player input to the fiction of the game”?

Nope. But they don't include it, either. In fact, the only thing in writing of that nature in the DMG is the optional rule involving plot points. Including it as an optional rule strongly implies that it isn't involved in the quotes that give the DM total authority.

Do they say “you can and should disregard the rules as presented for any reason whatsoever”?

Pretty much, yes. That's pretty much what those quotes say due to the absence of any limits. However, there are other quotes that say that the goal is player enjoyment, so if you're going to ignore the rules, it should be with fun in mind.

 

[pemerton]

What were you doing to extract said info from your captive? If you'd, say, charmed it and it still didn't tell you, that's bad on the DM. If, however, you were using intimidation or torture on it then it's quite possible the Kobold clammed up out of sheer terror.

See my posts not too far upthread.

It's perfectly realistic: your party got bamboozled this time and you ended up looking like fools. So what?

<snip>

in one of these examples you're setting the bar far too high by, in effect, demanding that the settng contain only trustworthy NPCs.

My objection is not that it's unrealistic. My objection is that it's bad RPGing.

As I've posted already, the GM had presented a single way for us to approach the game: by taking the "quest" from his NPC questgiver. And then he had decided - unilaterally, in advance - that by doing this thing that we were obliged (as players) to do to play the game at all, we would be subverting our own goals and making ourselves into idiots. What were we, as players, there for? To be "actors" in the GM's script?

It's terrible RPGing.

 

[MGibster]

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of DMs will pack up and leave the players to find another DM if they have announced "I will be running [published adventure]/[my Homebrewed Campaign] and the players were to say "screw this, we don't care what you did and we are scared of demons, so we will go and have some pirate adventure overseas instead".

As a frequent DM, if my group had no desire to engage in the campaign I had created I would simply suggest we start a new game. I tend to pitch ideas to my group and let them decide which one they prefer. So if they told me they wanted one type of game and all decided to go do something different I'd be both hurt and angry. (I have had at least two campaigns where we all decided it wasn't fun so we decided to do something else.)

 

[pemerton]

I’m not cherrypicking anything. Someone posted that quote, and I gave my thoughts on it.

Nothing you’ve posted changes what I said. I don’t think that the game is meant to be played with the GM as the absolute authority.

Adding to that: the phrase the GM determines the outcomes of actions declared by players for their PCs does not entail that the GM is not obliged to follow any rules or abide by any principles in making that determination.

I mean, as an examiner I'm the one who determines my students' results, but that doesn't mean I just make them up!

It's completely left up to the DM and the group though.

<snip>

It's also just personal preference. I know a lot of my players would feel put on the spot if asked to describe a scene, some people just aren't good with that kind of spontaneity.

Yes. I didn't assert otherwise. In the post you quoted and replied to, I said I think this sort of approach is far more viable in D&D than threads like this current one seem to allow. The fact that you, or some others, prefer an approach of GM pre-authorship doesn't contradict or even speak against that claim.

The baseline assumption is that the only thing the player has control of is their PC and what they attempt to do. In my campaign I have people run things past me before they become "real" for their background because I run a consistent campaign world. If I just let them make stuff up it could conflict with established lore they aren't aware of.

I'm all for open sandbox style campaign if everyone including the DM have agreed to it.

<snip>

As @overgeeked points out the default assumption is that the DM is in control of the world, the campaign, the story arcs. If the DM wants to have a more collaborative game, that's fine too. But there is no one true way, there are many ways to play the game.

To equate to real life, think about something that happened to you recently. Maybe you almost got in a car accident a few days ago, or maybe you overheard a loud argument between two people as you walked to work/school, or maybe that odd girl who kept to herself just got fired. See those things? Those are "story arcs" that you didn't (or chose to not) get involved in. Same thing a fantasy world. Your PC made his Dex Save to avoid getting hit by a run-away horse cart? Story arc averted. Ignoring that loud argument you heard? Story arc ignored. Choosing to not pay much attention to that odd girls firing? Story arc dodged.

That doesn't mean that these "story arcs" aren't going on. They still are...from the perspective of the horse-cart owner, the two people arguing, and that poor odd girl who just got fired. That your PC isn't currently involved in them and you, the Player, are sitting there thinking "This is kinda boring...there's no over-arcing story going on, simply means that you didn't pay attention or get involved.

Anyway, I thought it interesting to point out that, for me at least, there are TONS of "story arcs", or at least potential story arcs, going on in my campaign constantly.

My understanding of a typical "sandbox" is that the GM authors a reasonably large amount of backstory; and that much of that backstory consists, at least implicitly, of potential situations: ie notes to the effect that, if the players declare actions that result in their PCs arriving at place X, then event Y will occur (where event Y might be anything from finding a dragon cave to seeing a battle in progress, if the sandbox includes "freeze frame" areas). For the sandbox to work at all, it has to be fairly easy for the players to succeed on their action declarations about moving from A to B. And for the sandbox to be fun, the potential events have to be interesting ones.

Nothing about a sandbox involves giving the players authority over backstory. It does involve giving them authority over situation, because they can be expected to make action declarations about where their PCs go that reflect the sorts of events they want to occur (eg if they want events like fighting pirates) they will declare actions to move their PCs towards the sea rather than the mountains.

I don't think it is at all essential to a sandbox that the GM, in their mind, be imagining all sorts of "story arcs" going on that involve NPCs. That's essentially the GM writing their own fan fiction. It may be fun for them, but is largely orthogonal to RPGing.

The method of asking questions and building on the answers, which is used in Apocalypse World and which I said can be used in D&D more than is typically allowed in discussions like this, has nothing really to do with sandboxing. It's a technique for sharing authority over both backstory and situation. Of course those who use the ask questions approach are also playing in consistent campaign worlds. The way they avoid the inconsistency that @Oofta alludes to is to not have all the pre-authored backstory with implicit situation that is typical of a sandbox. Ask questions and build on the answers fits better with "no myth" or "no myth"-ish approaches than approaches that lean heavily into pre-authored backstory. (With Apocalypse World and its offshoots - eg most people have heard the Dungeon World phrase "Draw maps, leave blanks" - probably being the best known examples of "no myth"-ish systems at the moment.)