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

[Fenris-77]

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.

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”?

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

Are we talking to @overgeeked about absolute GM authority again, just in a different thread? Good lord. It's a losing argument (and I don't mean you). Anyway...

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

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.

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.

An exception is not the rule. The whole “the DM can override anything anytime” isn’t the standard mode of play as it actually takes place.

Is it semantically true based on a certain reading of the book? I don’t care.

Most of the time, GMs actually use the rules as they’re presented. Even incredibly tyrannical “I’ll take my ball and go home types” actually use the rules as presented very often.

They didn’t write hundreds of pages of rules to be ignored. They added some bits about “hey if something written here doesn’t make sense for some reason for your group, you should change it”.

That’s such a far cry from “do whatever you want whenever you want, the game is yours muhu haha HAHAHA”.

Is this honestly what you expect when you sit down to a game? Or do you generally approach the game with the expectation that things will work as written in the rules, and if they don’t, it’s an exception?

 

[Maxperson]

An exception is not the rule. The whole “the DM can override anything anytime” isn’t the standard mode of play as it actually takes place.

I've never played in a game where it hasn't happened. DMs create house rules and changes, but more importantly, they make changes on the spot when the rules would wind up not making sense in obscure situations if implemented as written.

If you're talking about making constant changes, then no that's not what takes place, but then nobody is arguing that it is.

Most of the time, GMs actually use the rules as they’re presented. Even incredibly tyrannical “I’ll take my ball and go home types” actually use the rules as presented very often.

Those types are very rare.

Is this honestly what you expect when you sit down to a game? Or do you generally approach the game with the expectation that things will work as written in the rules, and if they don’t, it’s an exception?

I approach each edition as if it's broken and in need of fixing. Because they are(to me). Not one edition, starting with 1st, has been what I wanted it to be as written.

 

[Fenris-77]

OK, seriously, DM don't just change the darn rules on the fly all the time. That simply isn't how the game gets deployed at the table. Yes, sure, you need to make calls on the fly, but that isn't that same as contravening the rules in the book. You might even stretch or even bend a rule in service of your particular game, but DM do not just kind of do whatever regardless of the rules just because of that one silly quote in the book. That's nonsense.

 

[Maxperson]

OK, seriously, DM don't just change the darn rules on the fly all the time. That simply isn't how the game gets deployed at the table. Yes, sure, you need to make calls on the fly, but that isn't that same as contravening the rules in the book. You might even stretch or even bend a rule in service of your particular game, but DM do not just kind of do whatever regardless of the rules just because of that one silly quote in the book. That's nonsense.

Right. Nobody that I've seen is arguing that they change rules on the fly all the time. That's a misrepresentation put forth by the other side.

 

[Fenris-77]

Right. Nobody that I've seen is arguing that they change rules on the fly all the time. That's a misrepresentation put forth by the other side.

Well, to be fair, at least some people have claimed exactly that - that that one quote about making the rules your own means that no one follows them at all and does what they like whenever they like. Those are the people I'm indexing here.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've never played in a game where it hasn't happened. DMs create house rules and changes, but more importantly, they make changes on the spot when the rules would wind up not making sense in obscure situations if implemented as written.

If you're talking about making constant changes, then no that's not what takes place, but then nobody is arguing that it is.

Those types are very rare.

I approach each edition as if it's broken and in need of fixing. Because they are(to me). Not one edition, starting with 1st, has been what I wanted it to be as written.

I said that I think an approach toward D&D that places the GM as the absolute authority is a bad approach.

That’s what I said.

Do you actually disagree with that?

Does the possibility that it may be deemed technically true per a passage or two in the book really matter?

If you were to start in a game with a new GM, would you be more surprised when a rule worked as it has been described in the book, or when you learned that the GM had changed it?

 

[Maxperson]

I said that I think an approach toward D&D that places the GM as the absolute authority is a bad approach.

That’s what I said.

Do you actually disagree with that?

Does the possibility that it may be deemed technically true per a passage or two in the book really matter?

I do disagree with it. Even though I don't change rules on a whim and generally take what the players say into consideration the vast majority before I make a decision, there have been times when I have invoked my authority and made a change that the players didn't want. Why? Because I felt that the rule really needed to be changed.

If you were to start in a game with a new GM, would you be more surprised when a rule worked as it has been described in the book, or when you learned that the GM had changed it?

Since I ask about house rules before I start playing, it would be more surprising to encounter a changed rule that I didn't know about. I would assume that he told me all of the changes and that the rest were working as advertised.

 

[overgeeked]

Well, to be fair, at least some people have claimed exactly that - that that one quote about making the rules your own means that no one follows them at all and does what they like whenever they like. Those are the people I'm indexing here.

No one is arguing that. It’s hawkeyefan’s strawman. Not an actual argument anyone has made.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I do disagree with it. Even though I don't change rules on a whim and generally take what the players say into consideration the vast majority before I make a decision, there have been times when I have invoked my authority and made a change that the players didn't want. Why? Because I felt that the rule really needed to be changed.

Since I ask about house rules before I start playing, it would be more surprising to encounter a changed rule that I didn't know about. I would assume that he told me all of the changes and that the rest were working as advertised.

So if the GM said “Don’t worry about what house rules I have; you’ll find out when they come up” you’d be cool with that?

I would imagine not. Which would give me the impression that, even though it may be technically true that the GM has total authority, there are things about that which you wouldn’t like.

Which then says to me that you maybe don’t disagree with me as much as you think?

My point has been that authority doesn’t come solely from the GM in actual practice. The rules have authority, and that also extends to the players.