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

[prabe]

These are two extremities on a scale, But note that I've always been saying that it's very rare that games are at one extremity, for me it's always shades of gray along the axis.

What I absolutely refuse is people badwrongfunning people playing towards one end of the scale, namely the more railroading part of it.

I don't intend to be implying that anyone is Doing It Wrong. I'm endeavoring to be clear that I'm talking about my preferences and my experiences. If the people at the table are enjoying the game, they're enjoying the game; I'm inclined to say that's the most important thing, even if I myself wouldn't enjoy that game.

And yet, in at least two major campaigns that I ran (I'm saying campaigns running for scores of sessions over more than one year), the backgrounds and the resulting intrigues became preponderent, which in a sense is good as it gave player "centricity" but every time we focussed on one player's story, it was at the detriment of all the other players stories. And these were nice people, playing fair, and wanting to share the fun. But in the end, our common agreement was that it was in general better to run a central DM-led story with large contributions from players with side stories.

In the campaigns I've been running--87 sessions in the one, 54 in the other--the focus has moved around on different timescales, mostly as driven/chosen by the players. That I know of, none of the players have felt that was to their detriment.

I should be clear: I start campaigns by instigating, hard. If the PCs are dithering, or if there's a lull, I do so again. But those instigations are starting points. I have little-to-no idea where the PCs will take things from there.

Note that is a somewhat different matter, a perfect railroad can totally be completely about the PCs...

In my experience, railroads are about the DM's story, not about the PCs. A perfect railroad is a novel the players sit through.

So you do have scenarios. So if they follow such a scenario, are they being railroaded ?

You seem to be using "scenario" differently than I do. A "scenario" (as I prep) is ... This is what is. These are the people, these are their goals, these are things going on. While I might figure out what may happen if the PCs don't act, I never plan anything based on their taking any given action, and I never negate any action they take. Does it sound to you as though they're being railroaded?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

It depends on the play style of the group.

Also, the article makes me think I should read the DMG....

 

[Oofta]

You're throwing this at me after I told you that the quoted snipped came from the introduction of the DMG?

Obviously a DM should listen to and take into consideration the players.

It never says that the players have control of anything other than what their PC thinks or attempts to do. It does say the opposite multiple times.

 

[Lyxen]

I don't intend to be implying that anyone is Doing It Wrong.

I'm sorry, my apologies, I was not responding to you with that sentence, it was my righteous wrath being levelled at some other attitudes that I've seen along this thread.

I should be clear: I start campaigns by instigating, hard. If the PCs are dithering, or if there's a lull, I do so again. But those instigations are starting points. I have little-to-no idea where the PCs will take things from there.

Just for curiosity, when you are instigating, I still suppose that it's not just "instantaneous actions", whatever happens from the NPCs is part of their plans, sometimes long term, so there will be things happening that are planned for, that the PC might or might not interfere with ?

In my experience, railroads are about the DM's story, not about the PCs. A perfect railroad is a novel the players sit through.

And yes, it's completely about the heroes of the novel, a.k.a. the PCs.

You seem to be using "scenario" differently than I do. A "scenario" (as I prep) is ... This is what is. These are the people, these are their goals, these are things going on. While I might figure out what may happen if the PCs don't act, I never plan anything based on their taking any given action, and I never negate any action they take. Does it sound to you as though they're being railroaded?

For me, certainly not, but I'm pretty sure that the advocates of heavy player centricity would find it so.

 

[Jmarso]

It depends on the play style of the group.

Also, the article makes me think I should read the DMG....

Absolutely you should read the DMG! I wish ALL players would read it. It doesn't spoiler anything in any given setting or adventure, but it DOES give great insight as to what makes for great games, and would aid those who only play in understanding the actions and motivations of the person running the game. (Maybe skip the sections on magic items and such if someone is a new player and wants to avoid meta-knowledge of those things...)

 

[Lyxen]

And read the section about session 0 in Tasha's...

 

[Jmarso]

And read the section about session 0 in Tasha's...

Whoever came up with the idea of Session 0 was a frakkin' genius. We use it even in family games.

 

[prabe]

I'm sorry, my apologies, I was not responding to you with that sentence, it was my righteous wrath being levelled at some other attitudes that I've seen along this thread.

Oh, no worries. If I'm offending you, I just want it to be about things I'm really saying. ;-)

Just for curiosity, when you are instigating, I still suppose that it's not just "instantaneous actions", whatever happens from the NPCs is part of their plans, sometimes long term, so there will be things happening that are planned for, that the PC might or might not interfere with ?

Well, I never really prep beyond the next session, so while those plans may emerge, they're going to be consistent with previous events--I'm not shaping events to fit some planned future. And it's not uncommon for me to figure out the "why" after I figure out the "what" and sometimes after some sessions. Not always, though.

And yes, it's completely about the heroes of the novel, a.k.a. the PCs.

But ... It's not about the players, or their conceptions of the characters, or their decisions on behalf of the characters, is it? That ... doesn't sound like fun to me. It sounds like at least one example of Bad D&D that I've seen on this forum (not naming names).

For me, certainly not, but I'm pretty sure that the advocates of heavy player centricity would find it so.

That's reasonable, though I suspect there's at least one poster here who'd think it was too PC-centric.

 

[prabe]

Whoever came up with the idea of Session 0 was a frakkin' genius. We use it even in family games.

It's a great way to nail down expectations, even if there's not a specific campaign being pitched.

 

[Lyxen]

Oh, no worries. If I'm offending you, I just want it to be about things I'm really saying. ;-)

No, you're right, it was bad form of me, again my apologies.

Well, I never really prep beyond the next session, so while those plans may emerge, they're going to be consistent with previous events--I'm not shaping events to fit some planned future. And it's not uncommon for me to figure out the "why" after I figure out the "what" and sometimes after some sessions. Not always, though.

OK, clear. Jsut for contrast, I like at least some of my NPCs to have long term plans, adjustable, of course.

But ... It's not about the players, or their conceptions of the characters, or their decisions on behalf of the characters, is it? That ... doesn't sound like fun to me. It sounds like at least one example of Bad D&D that I've seen on this forum (not naming names).

I know, and I think it's one of the difficulty in this discussion. Because some players actually like that their PCs are part of an epic story.

Just for example, I once ran a campaign of Wheel of Time in the UK, something like 20 years ago. The novels were not that popular at the time and I was lucky to have great players who had not yet read any of the novels. So I decided to run a game completely in parallel to the events of the novel, with the PCs more or less always missing the heroes of the book by inches in their travels, which allowed the PCs to be the heroes of their own story. The players were in on this, and of course, for them, the fun was sort of knowing this and discovering the world through their own characters, even though they understood that they had to make some allowance for railroading them more or less along the path taken by the characters of the book.

Overall, it went great, and the players loved it, especially when, after the campaign ended, they read the book and discovered the original perspective on it. There was just one player, however, who was a bit disgruntled once, when an NPC pulled off an escaping trick that he thought was unfair. But the funny thing was that this escape was not even close to railroading, it was a totally minor NPC who, in the series, is actually not important that all until books that were not even published at that point in time, so it was not important for me that she escaped. And the escape was actually totally justified as, exactly as in the book, the adversaries really have some powers that the heroes know nothing about.

But still, the player took it for railroading because, after we discussed it, he did not really like that sort of constraint, and he had been looking for an excuse to point it out. We sorted it out, and it went absolutely fine after that, but it needed clearing. And I'm not commenting on his tastes, these are totally personal, but on the fact that perception and expectation are what matters most in these cases, not the actual event.

That's reasonable, though I suspect there's at least one poster here who'd think it was too PC-centric.

Yes, YCMV but this definitively one of those areas where it's really dependent on players expectations.