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

[overgeeked]

I don't make random changes at a whim, or even not on a whim...

It’s still a strawman no matter how many times you and hawk repeat it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You probably shouldn't, since nobody said that.

You literally just said the rules have authority but only if you allow it.

 

[Fenris-77]

It’s still a strawman no matter how many times you and hawk repeat it.

I didn't say you were doing that, it's just the other end of the sliding scale. I was asking you where you fell on that scale though...

 

[Maxperson]

You literally just said the rules have authority but only if you allow it.

Okay. I didn't say, "total authority is a red herring."

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'll clarify my stance and then get off this merry go round of lunacy. I feel like someone put something in my drink.

An approach toward D&D which places too much authority with the GM, whether backed by the text in the rulebooks or not, is a bad approach. I think that there are certain passages in the text that, when interpreted a certain way, seek to grant far more authority to the GM than intended, and that such interpretations are usually more hypothetical than actual.

The rules are fundamental. Even more fundamental is consensus. The understanding and honoring of the expectations and desires of others. A GM is far better served, in my opinion, to involve the players as much as possible in making decisions about play and about the fictional world, than he is by thinking of himself as the sole “creative source of a D&D game”.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

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?

Not asking me specifically, but here's my 2cp.

If I don't know the DM and this is a "pick up game for funzzies at my FLGS"...sure. I'm cool with it. I mean, I'm still "hoping for the best but preparing for the worst", but yeah. I might be blown away by how amazingly cool and fun the house rules are....or the exact opposite. Either way...it's an experience I didn't have before. Maybe it was 4 hours of glorious heroic fun and excitement...or maybe it was 4 hours of mental and emotional torture. Either way...yeah. I'm cool with that.

If I do know the DM, then yes, I'm totally cool with that. Mostly for the same reasons but with the bonus of being able to honestly look him/her in the face and say "That was GREAT!" or "That was HORRIBLE!. Then have a reasonable conversation and then we adjust. You know, compromise...where we all walk away accepting the result but nobody being perfectly happy (well, unless that rare unicorn shows up where everyone agrees with every change/adjustment).

Anyway. Figured I'd toss out my (likely?) "unusual acceptance of the unknown".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Lanefan]

And this is why I don't run (or by preference play) published adventures. They are roughly never about the PCs, IME: They're about all these things that happen regardless of who the PCs are.

Which is exactly as it should be if one wants a believable setting: things are what they are and the PCs have to deal with them.

Put another way: the setting doesn't care who the PCs are or what makes them tick, but it does care what they do.

 

[pemerton]

I'll clarify my stance and then get off this merry go round of lunacy. I feel like someone put something in my drink.

Welcome to my (EN)world!

An approach toward D&D which places too much authority with the GM, whether backed by the text in the rulebooks or not, is a bad approach. I think that there are certain passages in the text that, when interpreted a certain way, seek to grant far more authority to the GM than intended, and that such interpretations are usually more hypothetical than actual.

Agreed. The action resolution rules perform a function.

It's one thing for the GM to impose disadvantage on an attack, because (in the fiction) its pouring rain and the ground is muddy. It's a completely different thing for the GM to just declare that the PCs' attack all miss and the Orcs' attacks all hit because that's how the GM thinks things should go, or because in the GM's notes is written these Orcs can't be beaten in combat.

Those latter things are - in my view - non-standard approaches to D&D adjudication. I've never seen anyone actually come out and embrace such an approach in real life or in posts. And I don't think it's an approach that can claim serious textual support.

The rules are fundamental. Even more fundamental is consensus. The understanding and honoring of the expectations and desires of others. A GM is far better served, in my opinion, to involve the players as much as possible in making decisions about play and about the fictional world, than he is by thinking of himself as the sole “creative source of a D&D game”.

The first sentence I agree with. The second too, which underpins the first. The rest I regard as more contentious, if the goal is to get an account of standard D&D play: I think there is a lot of very typical D&D play where the GM exercises a great deal if not all backstory and situational authority (in 5e perhaps reduced by PC backgrounds; but I suspect in play those are often more marginal than central in their impact).

If we move from description to advice, or what we like, then as you know I'm in full agreement. The first time I appreciated the benefits of player contributions to backstory came when GMing AD&D OA in the second half of the 80s. The PC build rules there require players to participate with the GM in creating backgrounds (family, martial arts masters, etc). It improved my RPGing a lot!

 

[Lanefan]

Re the dumb-as-post Kobold:

See my posts not too far upthread.

Saw them.

I've seen (as player) and done (as DM) similar things many a time when it comes to Kobolds and Goblins and Orcs and the like, mostly due to bad luck on a quick random determination of what degree of intellect the party's dealing with if they take a prisoner or charm something and try to talk to it. Sometimes they get a genius among its people. Other times they get something only slightly smarter than my shoe. Most of the time it's somewhere in between.

That said, I should probably point out that I've always seen the bell curve for Kobold intelligence as being about 2-12 - 1e assigns them "Average (low)" in the MM but I'm not that nice to them. They're smart in combat or hunting situations but not much else; literacy, for example, is beyond them.

Which means that while getting stuck with an idiot Kobold is unfortunate, it's not a game-ender.

Now if over time you capture a bunch of Kobolds and every one of them turns out to be an idiot then - unless the DM's setting specifically calls out Kobolds as being stupid - you've got a very valid point. But a sample size of one just isn't enough to draw any conclusions from.

Disclaimer: obviously, I wasn't there and as such don't know the table dynamics, body language, expressions used, etc. at the time. All I can go by is the words on my screen.

Re: the quest-that-wasn't:

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?

You did the quest (because that's the only option you had), came back, and the quest turned out to be a trick. Will that do as a sum-up?

If yes, consider this: sure your PCs got hosed by the quest-giver but it's still nearly inevitable that in process of doing said quest those PCs would have become:
--- more experienced (and-or higher level) mechanically
--- more experienced in-character through learning how to function as field adventurers
--- more developed in personality (and on a meta-level, more familiar to their players)
--- a better team through learning who could and couldn't do what, both in and out of combat
--- wealthier
How are any of these things bad? How do any of these things not lead to a continuation of the party, and thus the game?

I'm also assuming the actual moments of play during the quest adventure were enjoyable enough to keep you coming back for more.

Given all this, it's perhaps not a good look if you're canning the game just because your PC got duped. Role-playing isn't all sweetness and light, after all.

 

[Lanefan]

An approach toward D&D which places too much authority with the GM, whether backed by the text in the rulebooks or not, is a bad approach.

So "The DM is God: abide or die." doesn't work, then?

Funny - it's worked for me for a very long time, and for the DM who taught me it's worked for even longer.

I think that there are certain passages in the text that, when interpreted a certain way, seek to grant far more authority to the GM than intended, and that such interpretations are usually more hypothetical than actual.

That's just it: there's a difference between having the authority and using it; never mind the corollary difference between using that authority well and using it badly.

The rules are fundamental.

Yes, and in most (all?) editions of D&D the DM is set up as both the arbiter and co-architect of said rules. Ergo, the ball's in the DM's court yet again.

Even more fundamental is consensus. The understanding and honoring of the expectations and desires of others. A GM is far better served, in my opinion, to involve the players as much as possible in making decisions about play and about the fictional world, than he is by thinking of himself as the sole “creative source of a D&D game”.

That comes back to the use of authority, not to the having of it.