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

[Oofta]

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”.

I guess I've been playing, and continue to play D&D wrong then. As has pretty much every DM I've played with. As had every streamed game that I've watched as far as I can tell. Too bad that we're following the rules of a fundamentally broken game.

The rules are clear. The DM has ultimate authority

Spoiler: PHB intro

One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee. The DM creates adventures for the characters, who navigate its hazards and decide which paths to explore. The DM might describe the entrance to Castle Ravenloft, and the players decide what they want their adventurers to do. Will they walk across the dangerously weathered drawbridge? Tie themselves together with rope to minimize the chance that someone will fall if the drawbridge gives way? Or cast a spell to carry them over the chasm?

Then the DM determines the results of the adventurers’ actions and narrates what they experience. Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible, and each adventure can be exciting and unexpected.
...
Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world.
...
The Dungeons & Dragons game consists of a group of characters embarking on an adventure that the Dungeon Master presents to them.
...
Exploration includes both the adventurers’ movement through the world and their interaction with objects and situations that require their attention. Exploration is the give-and-take of the players describing what they want their characters to do, and the Dungeon Master telling the players what happens as a result. On a large scale, that might involve the characters spending a day crossing a rolling plain or an hour making their way through caverns underground. On the smallest scale, it could mean one character pulling a lever in a dungeon room to see what happens.

Spoiler: DMG Intro

The DM creates a world for the other players to explore, and also creates and runs adventures that drive the story.
...
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
...
Every DM is the creator of his or her own campaign world.
...
Dungeons & Dragons isn’t a head-to-head competition, but it needs someone who is impartial yet involved in the game to guarantee that everyone at the table plays by the rules. As the player who creates the game world and the adventures that take place within it, the DM is a natural fit to take on the referee role.

As a referee, the DM acts as a mediator between the rules and the players. A player tells the DM what he or she wants to do, and the DM determines whether it is successful or not, in some cases asking the player to make a die roll to determine success.

The only thing I found that talks about giving other players authority is in the DMG: "You [as DM] can also lean on the other players to help you with rules mastery and world-building." So it clearly states that it's up to the DM how much the other players help out. Which, cool. If you want to build a collaborative world, I can see how it could be interesting. I get input from my players as well, I just have editorial and veto power.

Lots of places where the DM is given authority. Can you quote one single sentence in the PHB, DMG or any published book that contradicts it? Because I've made house rules that some of the players disagree with. I ask people to describe their background and then either fill in the blanks or say "that makes no sense in my world how about [fill in the blank]". Even then the background is from the perspective of the PC; I had a game where the PC's aunt was really their mother (it was awesome). I have never asked a player to tell me who someone is or explain who they are talking to at the game table, although I will collaborate with them off line.

Obviously there are bad DMs out there. The hypothetical DM that just arbitrarily changes the rules on the fly? Never met one, but I can't imagine them retaining a group for long. Seems like a problem that's going to resolve itself soon enough.

I guess following the advice and direction of the game makes me a terrible DM. I'll have to tell all the people who enjoy my games that they're wrong.

 

[reelo]

Ideally, I prefer the following:

The DM presents a "situation" (sandbox).
The players decide how they engage with the situation.
The dice decide the outcome of their actions.

The DM alone has authority over the setting.
The players alone have authority over the PCs' actions.
The dice alone have authority over the outcomes of those actions.

If an outcome is not clear, the DM, in his function as an arbiter and referee, decides what the result means.

 

[prabe]

And this really depends on your players and their expectations.

Yeah, and lots of people in TRPGs have come to expect there to be a plot train they need to catch, as your examples make clear.

I don't think I've ever seen a group create in and of themselves an epic adventure.

I was talking mostly about my experiences, and a little about my preferences; I don't expect (or even really want) for the latter to be universal.

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.

Huh. Both of the campaigns I'm running have and have had meaningful antagonists at least derived from PCs' backstories (if not created entirely therein). I don't take sole credit for that, which it seems you think I should.

EDIT: @Fenris-77 pretty much has the right of my positions, here. I was talking about the sense that the PCs matter to the game (not necessarily the world ...) and that to a large extent they, and their choices and actions, are what the game is about. My experience is that in published adventures, the game is about the events of the published adventure, not the PCs. IMO, if you set up an "uber-arc" before Session One, and the campaign follows that arc, the game is about that arc, not about the PCs.

 

[Aldarc]

I honestly don't think that the play loop written in the introduction of the PHB, which was obviously written to introduce the basic concept of D&D to new players (ranging from ages 12 and up), was meant to be understood as dogmatically as some adults take it to be. I think that the play loop ignores - likely to intentionally avoid added complexity - the various points in the process where the fiction and game rules are negotiated by all the participants at the table.

Moreover, I will add that while 5e is big on DM-empowerment language, it also repeatedly notes that the GM should run the game in a manner that engages and addresses the play preferences of their players, which may include greater player input in the fiction.

 

[Lyxen]

Yeah, and lots of people in TRPGs have come to expect there to be a plot train they need to catch, as your examples make clear.

Exactly, it's part of the expectations, which is why I think that if some players expect a pure sandbox, they should make it extremely clear in session 0, because it's certainly not the standard of the game as it is being played.

I was talking mostly about my experiences, and a little about my preferences; I don't expect (or even really want) for the latter to be universal.

It's fine, to each his own and various experiences brought together make for a better picture and discussions of perspective.

Huh. Both of the campaigns I'm running have and have had meaningful antagonists at least derived from PCs' backstories (if not created entirely therein). I don't take sole credit for that, which it seems you think I should.

That is slightly different to what I wrote, I wrote "meaningful antagonists with plans and global intrigue". Having protagonists coming from the PC is absolutely fine, with still one problem, which is by the way why we stopped, at our tables, having too detailed background stories with influence on the game.

What happened when we tried was that - and even with players being nice about it - once you get into that PC storyline, there is usually no reason to stop. And what about the other PCs and their own storyline ? It becomes really hard to arbitrate, and each storyline imposes constraints (usually of time and relationships) to the others, resulting in a game in which everyone is frustrated because their story could not be fully explored.

This is why, in our current games, although we have nice backgrounds, we are very careful to make sure that the overall storyline belongs to the DM, who is in charge to integrate each PC's in there in the best way, ensure that everyone has a turn in the spotlight, resolves and arbitrates the differences.

This does not happen, of course, if the PCs just want to be marauders, but if you go by PC backstory, we have had entire campaigns getting lost until some order was brought into them, just to sort out priorities.

And don't believe that even nice players cannot be as railroading as some DMs with their own storylines. I've had even friends becoming very directive with things like "aunt Frieda would not do that" and such...

That is the power of good stories, they are very compelling, but we have a limited time to play the game, and in the end it's not that unnatural or bad to relinquish the main storyline to one person to direct it all. It does not make for a lesser game, actually it can be quite the reverse, because if the DM is doing his job right, he is the one who is trying to make the story please all the players, rather than each player trying to please mostly himself.

And this is also what makes a DM's job so hard, and why telling them off and labelling them "bad DMs" for minor mistakes should not be tolerated.

 

[Oofta]

I honestly don't think that the play loop written in the introduction of the PHB, which was obviously written to introduce the basic concept of D&D to new players (ranging from ages 12 and up), was meant to be understood as dogmatically as some adults take it to be. I think that the play loop ignores - likely to intentionally avoid added complexity - the various points in the process where the fiction and game rules are negotiated by all the participants at the table.

Moreover, I will add that while 5e is big on DM-empowerment language, it also repeatedly notes that the GM should run the game in a manner that engages and addresses the play preferences of their players, which may include greater player input in the fiction.

If that's the way you want to run your games, that's fine. It's not the way the game is presented by the rules.

Good DMs will, of course, pay attention to what the players enjoy. That has little or nothing with players deciding how rules are implemented or having authorial control over the fiction.

 

[prabe]

Exactly, it's part of the expectations, which is why I think that if some players expect a pure sandbox, they should make it extremely clear in session 0, because it's certainly not the standard of the game as it is being played.

You seem to be saying the alternatives are "sandbox" and "get on the plot train." I disagree with that. There seems to me to be more middle ground than I get from what you say.

That is slightly different to what I wrote, I wrote "meaningful antagonists with plans and global intrigue". Having protagonists coming from the PC is absolutely fine, with still one problem, which is by the way why we stopped, at our tables, having too detailed background stories with influence on the game.

What happened when we tried was that - and even with players being nice about it - once you get into that PC storyline, there is usually no reason to stop. And what about the other PCs and their own storyline ? It becomes really hard to arbitrate, and each storyline imposes constraints (usually of time and relationships) to the others, resulting in a game in which everyone is frustrated because their story could not be fully explored.

This is why, in our current games, although we have nice backgrounds, we are very careful to make sure that the overall storyline belongs to the DM, who is in charge to integrate each PC's in there in the best way, ensure that everyone has a turn in the spotlight, resolves and arbitrates the differences.

[record scratch]

The story belongs to the PCs. Maybe you present them with several possible things to do, and maybe some of those are from one backstory or another. They'll still choose what appeals to the party overall, and that's fine. I haven't found "This is (for example) Taman's nemesis" to skew intra-party balance in any meaningful way, so long as it wasn't for the whole campaign. Experiences and tastes vary, of course.

While too much is too much, I want the players to put stuff in their characters' backstories I can pull from, to tie them to the setting and the campaign--to make the latter ahout the PCs.

And don't believe that even nice players cannot be as railroading as some DMs with their own storylines. I've had even friends becoming very directive with things like "aunt Frieda would not do that" and such...

I have never seen a player railroad a D&D (or D&D-alike) campaign. Not one time. Every published adventure I have taken part in has been (or felt like) a railroad. Every GM-authored "uber-arc" in any game I've been in has been (or felt like) a railroad.

That is the power of good stories, they are very compelling, but we have a limited time to play the game, and in the end it's not that unnatural or bad to relinquish the main storyline to one person to direct it all. It does not make for a lesser game, actually it can be quite the reverse, because if the DM is doing his job right, he is the one who is trying to make the story please all the players, rather than each player trying to please mostly himself.

Collaborative experience. Shared responsibility. My gig is to bring a world and scenarios. The players' gig is to bring characters and have those characters react to the scenarios, thereby changing the world. They are as much responsible for the end-result as I am, maybe more.

 

[Campbell]

Once again as far as I can tell no one is really disputing the basic authority model of traditional games. We're not talking about the GM's authority, but expectations on how that authority will be used. Just like I have expectations on how players at the traditional games I run and play will use their authority to declare actions for their characters in ways that enhance rather than detract from the play experience.

There's a lot of practice of 5e that expects both GMs and players to exercise the authority the game provides them in specific ways bounded by the social contract at the table. Not saying anyone should be expected to accommodate any given set of play expectations. We all get to set our own boundaries.

I am not sure when it became contentious to evaluate your play experiences, have expectations for play, or set boundaries. I value my time and also the time of the people I am playing with. If it's not a good fit I want to know so we can all move on. If someone is not happy with the play experience I want to know so I can either accommodate them or let them know it's probably not a good fit. The way I look at it is no one is entitled to anyone else's time or labor regardless of the work they have put in.

Aside : When it comes to effort I expect a lot from the people I play with regardless of the side of the screen they sit on. I expect them to learn and utilize the rules of the game. I expect them to bring something meaningful to the narrative. I expect that they are not here to be passively entertained. When I am playing a PC I want to actively contribute and collaborate. I put just as much effort in during play regardless of where I'm sitting.

 

[Jmarso]

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.

That's a good thought, right there. It speaks to a 'realistic' campaign. In everyday life, people can change the world, but in doing so they have to deal the cards they're dealt.

 

[Campbell]

Players can absolutely railroad by leveraging the GM or expecting everyone else to get on board with their explicit vision of how things should turn out. I'm not sure why anyone thinks people that are not overly fond of GM railroads would be fond of player led versions of the same. I am certainly not a fan of either. That does not mean I'm looking for pure sandbox play either (although I do enjoy it). There are all sorts of play techniques that are neither railroads nor sandboxes. In most of the games I run for instance players are expected to engage the scenarios presented, but I'm never going to decide how they should engage with them. The Infinity game (a thoroughly traditional game) I'm a player in is similar.