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

[Lyxen]

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.

And yet, it's a proof that at least, all the people running published adventures (except in the very rare instances like STK, which, by the way, pisses off many players and DMs alike and surprises even really experienced players) means no total sandboxing. I don't know the ratio, on the planet, of D&D players running published campaigns or modules vs. those running completely open sandboxes, but all the debates here on forum, coupled with my personal experience over 40+ years, on 4 continents and in clubs tells me that completely open sandbox is a very, minority of games. Moreover, if you look at 5e in general, this excellent post by @overgeeked clearly shows that the DM is expected to create adventures in which the characters navigate the hazards and decide which path to explore, that he creates and runs adventures that drive the story, and he is generally in charge of the game.

It does not way whether there are many paths or only one, it does not say how wide they are or not, but it's clearly the spirit in which the game is designed. Nowhere does it say "The DM creates a world and lets the adventurers roam where they want and do absolutely what they want, and are right to be pissed off when a minor NPC does not tell them all they thought they should be entitled to know."

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.

You are being inconsistent here. If the DM wants to direct the campaign so that it follows an overarching plot, you are saying he has the ability to do so, but if the players go in another direction and destroy everything he has created, it's not disrespectful ?

And I disagree.

Yes, as usual, without any justification of any kind. It's fine, you can play whatever game you want. But please, don't start throwing around names of "bad DMs" as soon as a DM does a bit of railroading. Because I have stronger justification, both from the game itself but also from simple respect for work being done, to call players just not caring about play being prepared for them "bad players".

By the way, although the game is run by the DM, session 0 is not. So if the player want a total sandbox, they'd better say it right up front before the DM goes off to prepare anything for them. It's their right to ask for it if it's what they are looking for in the game, it's even their duty if that is what they expect, but, just so that we're clear, the DM is under no obligation to accept. It does not make him a bad DM not to want to run such a game, it makes him a DM with different tastes, that's all.

 

[pemerton]

Re the dumb-as-post Kobold:

<snip>

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.

Leaving aside that 2d6 does not correspond to Average (low) which is 8-10(5-7), which depending how you cut it is an average of greater than 7 and has a floor above animals (which are INT 1-2); this is not what our GM did. His goal was not to "realistically" model kobold intelligence. His goal was to block the player's action declarations. As I've posted, it was transparent.

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 don't play RPGs to make my PC higher level mechanically. I could do that by writing a different PC sheet. It's a side-effect of what I actually play for, which is to affect the fiction.

And if those things are the main point of play, then we could do them in a decent situation/scenario, rather than a stupid railroad.

As I posted, it was terrible RPGing.

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

Why would you assume that, given that the game fizzled?

 

[Stoutstien]

Probably better off having better definitions and examples of authority and agency.

DM authority gives them creative control over a large portion of the game. Nothing about it is absolute in the sense that they alone are the sole voice in any decision making and the weight of each person is something each table reaches outside the boundaries of the game.

example: DM doesn't want gnomes in his setting. Player (a) wants to play a gnome.

there are many different ways this issue can be resolved but all of them end with the DM decision. That's the basic of DM authority. Any time a decision needs to made for the game to move forward in the meta.

player agency is a greyer point to define but it's generally the given point where the DMs authority just doesn't apply. Any decision, action, thought, or belief held by the PC/player relationship within the agreed parameters of the game are strictly the player's. It does matter what motivations are in play or what the DM expected or wants the players to do they don't have any direct input here.

players don't hate railroad style games because they are linear as much as the violation of this boundary.

example: DM describes the scene for an encounter utilizing some form of NPC that is narratively scary. They want the PCs to react in fear but instead they remain calm and address the challenge.

They can describe the NPC how ever they wish but they cannot decide the PCs reactions or emotional state.

dm authority/ player agency isn't like a check and balance system of deciding who gets to have final say. It's the division point of two entirely different parts of the game.

 

[loverdrive]

 

[Lanefan]

Leaving aside that 2d6 does not correspond to Average (low) which is 8-10(5-7), which depending how you cut it is an average of greater than 7 and has a floor above animals (which are INT 1-2); this is not what our GM did. His goal was not to "realistically" model kobold intelligence. His goal was to block the player's action declarations. As I've posted, it was transparent.

Got it.

I don't play RPGs to make my PC higher level mechanically. I could do that by writing a different PC sheet. It's a side-effect of what I actually play for, which is to affect the fiction.

Same here, except I'm not quite so concerned about affecting the fiction as you are. But that's just one of five things I listed; meaning the other four are correct?

And if those things are the main point of play, then we could do them in a decent situation/scenario, rather than a stupid railroad.

If those things - mechanical and fictional character development, in-party team-building, and acquisition of in-character rewards - are the main point(s) of play (along with, in my case, the enjoyment of roleplaying my character's persona) then how much does it really matter whether the situation is a railroad or not, or for that matter what the situation is at all?

Why would you assume that, given that the game fizzled?

Because up to now your posts have all strongly indicated that the main (or only?) reason the game fizzled was that your PCs got fooled by the quest-giver; thus far you've listed no complaints or issues with the game before that occurrence, leading me to naturally assume that up until that point the game was good enough to keep playing.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If those things - mechanical and fictional character development, in-party team-building, and acquisition of in-character rewards - are the main point(s) of play (along with, in my case, the enjoyment of roleplaying my character's persona) then how much does it really matter whether the situation is a railroad or not, or for that matter what the situation is at all?

In my experience, players are motivated by a desire to be the heroes of their own story.

But I DMed a campaign where the PCs eventually discovered (after about 12 months play real time) they had been tricked into working for the villain all along. What I did do is made sure I planted clues all along, that the players could have sussed. Now, if they had it would have given me a huge about of work to deal with the consequences. But if that happens it happens. The players missed the clues until the big twist reveal, which left them shocked and thrilled.

I could really do that again though - my players are much more mistrustful of NPC quest givers now.

Players always have a choice, but given that choice, I can be pretty confident my players with choose to follow the signs that say "this way to the epic fantasy story".

 

[Lyxen]

I'll say again: speak for yourself.

This is a bizarre answer to my "It's not black and white like this, sorry, never was in a RPG." Are you meaning that for you, it is black and white ?

Because I have played games in which there was a very strong story from the DM (including almost all published modules and campaigns that I have played in) and others in which the story was very light (but admittedly much fewer of these), and I've been entertained by both, in all shades of grey.

I've told you why I do and don't play RPGs. I don't think you are in any position to tell me that I'm wrong about that.

That's fine, speak for yourself.

Which DM are you talking about? You? The bad ones I mentioned? I can tell you that I have done a lot of GMing of RPGs in my life - thousands of hours - and I don't have a plot that has to be roughly followed.

That's fine, I only said "usually".

And then, the internet is a funny place, you know, because people leave traces there. You say " I don't have a plot that has to be roughly followed.", and at the same time, didn't you say here that you were actually running a module (What ? Horror !), namely "Maiden Voyage" which, as you say yourself in that post "This is definitely one of the better modules I've run in 30-odd years of GMing", and if I'm not mistaken, that module has a plot which was roughly followed (although there is some flexibility there, that you even applaud yourself "The module's default assumption is that he will remain alive through the climax, although - to it's author's credit - it doesn't in any way try to enforce this outcome. ").

So what is the truth, I wonder...

That's not what happened. As I posted, the GM failed to play the kobold honestly. The kobold was portrayed as having the intellectual abilities of a small child - an inability to understand such concepts as number and direction.

Well, it was only a kobold. I'll give you the example of probably the most famous NPC kobold of all times, the darling Meepo, who was beloved by almost all groups playing the Sunless Citadel, including all groups that I ran the adventure for (because it's not a bad introductory adventure and I like to introduce people to the game, I've probably done it for hundreds of people). As defined in the adventure, Meepo is generally weepy and obviously frightened of the PCs, and generally willing to answer questions. However, as designed, he can only answer simple questions about the cage and the missing dragon, and he gets weepy, otherwise, all he says is "Meepo don't know, but the leader does, Meepo take you to meet the leader Yusdrayl". This is written plainly that way in the module.

Now, this is the part where the "elite" never playing a published adventure sneer down on people playing them. But I dare you to badwrongfun any DM running an adventure exactly as published. You might be expecting a certain type of play, and a certain quality of DMing, if it's your preference, that's fine, but don't you dare despise people playing the game differently than you. And don't you dare calling "bad DMs" beginning DMs, or DMs who are unsure of themselves and their capacity to improvise, or to deviate from a module. I dare you, I double dare you !

I don't have enough information about your case, but until I hear more about the DM, I could totally assume that he was not that an experienced a DM, trying his best to run a published adventure for you and the others, not knowing that well how to improvise. And if it was that way, and you slammed the door on his face for not being "at the level of DMing that you expect" but also maybe for wanting to try a different sort of game, and then called him a "Bad DM", and the continue to slander his efforts over the internet to make a point then honestly,... Honestly I will refrain to tell you what I think of this because it makes me extremely angry.

The reason why the GM did this was transparent - in order to avoid giving us, the players, the information which would permit us to declare actions that would take the fight to the kobolds and their encampment or secret base or whatever. Hence, as I mentioned, the players (there were four or five of us) ended the game and started a new one.

Ok, total disrespect for the DM's work. Without any further information, just as you called him a "Bad DM", I will call these "Bad Players".

As I said, the GM presented us with one option for play: take the quest from the questgiver. Then when we performed the quest and returned to the questgiver, had the questgiver betray us - thus retrospectively making all our actions and efforts somewhere between pointless and silly. I realise that this is a very popular adventure trope - I regard it as a sign of a GM who has extremely limited dramatic imagination and who doesn't know how to use a system of action resolution that differentiates between successful outcomes and consequences for failure.

Great, you have different standards, fine for you. But, as you say, it's a popular adventure trope, seen time and time over in books/movies/shows of the genre. Did you make it clear, during session 0, that you expected "elite DMing according to your exacting standards ?" Because if you did not, and did not express very clearly your preferences for a certain type of game, and ascertained that the DM had been certified to the highest level of roleplaying that you expect, and still let him prepare and run the game anyway, you are the one to blame here.

And again, it was probably a beginner, or a DM unsure of himself and you are making me more and more angry.

If it is the GM's job to decide all setting, all backstory, all situations, and all outcomes - without regard to any of the rules for PC build (like background) or any of the action resolution rules - then what is the job of the players? What are they there for?

He is there to be a friend playing with the DM in a spirit of collaboration. As Tasha says "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, arbitrate the rules, and settle arguments." Instead of being elitist jerks who expect to be entertained exactly as they want, they might be supportive and friendly and help DMs overcome their fears and doubt about DMing.

Because being a DM is way harder job than just being a player. The number of DMs, even fairly experienced ones coming to forums with having the impression to be lost, to fail their players, not knowing how to handle a situation is certainly not negligible. Maybe some people are born with it in their blood, I know that I started with it from scratch having just read the books and found my style on my own as a 15 years old teenaged with no guidance, but it does not prevent me from making mistakes now and then, or wondering whether I'm doing the right thing.

And there are certainly not enough DMs to go around, so if elitist ***** go around the web calling people making small mistakes "bad DMs", quitting their games, slamming the door in their face and slandering them all over the internet, is that really the way to go ?

On the contrary, I'm always supportive of DMs. Always. I might not like the game. I might take it upon me to try to enjoy it despite its flaws. I might even completely reduce my expectations of personal fun to zero to support the DM and the other players having fun. I might have a long talk with the DM after the game. I might even - it happened to me only once that I can clearly remember - tell the DM that the game is not for me, and that we have different tastes.

But I do believe that it makes me a better player than being able to perfectly roleplay my character or to know all the rules by heart and be able to invent incredible tactics. And I was not always that way, and I deeply regret it, fortunately for me, there were DMs who were strong and confident enough to tell me that I was being a jerk.

What is the point of action declarations by the players for their PCs? Are these like prompts to the GM, as if it was a creative writing class with the GM as author and the players as brains trust?

Yeah, right, do please go on with the strawmanning, I'm sure it will help make your case. None of the cases that you cited were like this.

 

[prabe]

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.

Perhaps a clearer metaphor: In my experience of published adventures, the PCs are passengers; I strongly prefer for them to be drivers. I don't feel as though this is incompatible with your ideas about believable settings, though our games are different enough that I'm plausibly missing something.

 

[Lyxen]

Perhaps a clearer metaphor: In my experience of published adventures, the PCs are passengers; I strongly prefer for them to be drivers. I don't feel as though this is incompatible with your ideas about believable settings, though our games are different enough that I'm plausibly missing something.

And this really depends on your players and their expectations. Once more, out of more 5000 usually experienced LARP players in our games (you usually don't get into a LARP with no roleplaying experience), 90% opt for an at least partially guided adventure, with only 10% opting for the "I'll try and make my own adventure". The same at our tables of very experienced gamers, we have run very few completely open sandboxes, and when one of our DMs ran STK (again to a fairly experienced group), they were really lost about what to do next when they arrived in the Sandbox area of the module. I'm running Avernus as a sandbox, and my (again extremely experienced group) has taken a long time to decide on a strategy and choose their own path, with many hesitations, turning around, unfinished business, etc.

I don't think I've ever seen a group create in and of themselves an epic adventure. Marauding (sometimes murderhoboeing) and general mayhem, yes, I've seen that, but I've never seen a group spontaneously generate an epic story. Local intrigue, yes, and in general our games are open enough so that this fits nicely within the scope of the campaigns, so the players really are the drivers, at least locally. But if you want an epic uber-arc to the campaign, if you want meaningful antagonists with plans and global intrigue, I've never seen anything else than the ones created by the DM.

Which, again, does not preclude lots of player additions and changes initiated and led by them. For me, it's not black and white here...

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't think that @prabe necessarily meant full authorship, although I'll let him confirm that. I suspect when he says 'driver' he means something more in the way of active decision making plus the subsequent adjudication and in-fiction consequences, perhaps somewhat more like you might describe PbtA play. In D&D terms perhaps simply referencing sandbox play might be enough o get us where we need to be definitionally. Either way, I'm almost positive he doesn't mean quite what you're suggesting above.