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

[Greg K]

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.

I was about to type the same for myself. In addition, I provide players with a document of my house rules prior to character generation (while reserving the right to make additional changes if need be)

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Why would I be okay with that? And has anyone actually argued that? That question seems to me to be a bit of a Red Herring.

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.

I never claimed that the players would like every implementation of DM authority. If a DM said the above to me, I'd leave the game. He has the authority to do that. I have the right not to play in a game like that.

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

Not really. Like any authority, it can be abused and abuses are not liked. Not liking abuses doesn't mean that we're close together in how we view DM authority.

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.

And that's wrong in D&D. The rules expressly give the authority to the DM and the rules have no force to change that, and neither do the players. Whether the DM abuses that authority is a different matter.

 

[Fenris-77]

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

Well, I seem to remember you saying something very much like that, but my memory is poor, so perhaps I am misremembering. However, not to put too fine a point in it, when I said some people, I I did mean you. I don't want to cross streams with the FKR thread here, so if you can manage it don't take that in a terribly bad way.

 

[overgeeked]

Well, I seem to remember you saying something very much like that, but my memory is poor, so perhaps I am misremembering. However, not to put too fine a point in it, when I said some people, I I did mean you. I don't want to cross streams with the FKR thread here, so if you can manage it don't take that in a terribly bad way.

Hawkeyefan objected to the Referee in FKR games having authority. I pointed out the the DM has authority in D&D games just like the Referee does in FKR games. Hawkeyefan lost the plot as a result and he’s been tilting at this particular windmill ever since.

 

[Fenris-77]

Why would I be okay with that? And has anyone actually argued that? That question seems to me to be a bit of a Red Herring.

I never claimed that the players would like every implementation of DM authority. If a DM said the above to me, I'd leave the game. He has the authority to do that. I have the right not to play in a game like that.

Not really. Like any authority, it can be abused and abuses are not liked. Not liking abuses doesn't mean that we're close together in how we view DM authority.

And that's wrong in D&D. The rules expressly give the authority to the DM and the rules have no force to change that, and neither do the players. Whether the DM abuses that authority is a different matter.

Not a red herring, but you didn't say it.

I might argue with you take on DM authority. What is possible there really isn't what's the same as usual, or normal, or taken as the cost of doing business. DO you see the distinction I'm trying to make? I'm not talking about run of the mill call-making.

Once you start talking about the rules not having force you've dropped the ball. Of course the rules don't have force. What does have force is the social contract at the table, and that, my friend, normally doesn't include random and rampant rule changing.

 

[Fenris-77]

Hawkeyefan objected to the Referee in FKR games having authority. I pointed out the the DM has authority in D&D games just like the Referee does in FKR games. Hawkeyefan lost the plot as a result and he’s been tilting at this particular windmill ever since.

And it was pointed out to you that the level and nature of that authority is drastically different. And it is, despite your protestations to the contrary.

 

[overgeeked]

What does have force is the social contract at the table, and that, my friend, normally doesn't include random and rampant rule changing.

Good thing literally no one is arguing for that.

 

[Fenris-77]

Good thing literally no one is arguing for that.

OK, fair, but perhaps you might consider why I think that's exactly what you've argued for? Grant me some ability to parse English, and perhaps even assume I'm don't have nefarious ends in mind. I'm not baiting a hook here...

 

[overgeeked]

And it was pointed out to you that the level and nature of that authority is drastically different. And it is, despite your protestations to the contrary.

I’ve read the DMG. Hawkeyefan apparently hasn’t. That’s not my problem. The books are clear. It’s in black and white. If people choose to not read it, that’s on them. If people can’t abide what the book says, that’s on them. They can twist the words to meaninglessness all they want in their home games. Doesn’t change what’s printed in the book.

 

[Fenris-77]

I’ve read the DMG. Hawkeyefan apparently hasn’t. That’s not my problem. The books is clear. It’s in black and white. If people choose to not read it, that’s on them. If people can’t abide what the book says, that’s on them. They can twist the words to meaninglessness all they want in their home games. Doesn’t change what’s printed in the book.

Ahh, you're still talking about that one quote are you? Let me know if you aren't...