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

[Maxperson]

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'm living proof that this statement is wrong, because I run published adventures and if the players want to walk away from one at any reasonable point in one, I'm good with that.

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.

The bolded portions are also sandbox. The characters decide which paths to explore, which means that if I have created five paths, none of which include one of the PCs going north to try and become king of the barbarians, the PCs can decide to take the path north if they want to. I will then need to work on that path and flesh it out with their new adventure that then drives the story.

and are right to be pissed off when a minor NPC does not tell them all they thought they should be entitled to know."

Where is that even coming from? Are you dragging @pemerton's bad DM into this?

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 ?

If the DM wants to railroad the players, he needs to get their okay during session 0. Otherwise he's the one being disrespectful to them, not the other way around. If they players agree to hop on those rails and then try to go a different direction, the disrespect is on them.

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".

The game itself doesn't support railroading in any sense of the word. It does support linear, though. It speaks of it in a bad context.

"an adventure needs to allow for more than one outcome. Otherwise, players can feel as if they've been railroaded-set onto a course that has only one destination, no matter how hard they try to change it."

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.

Everyone should bring up their expectations in session 0.

 

[Aldarc]

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

According to the Alexandrian, it first shows up on RPG.net in 2003. It gets picked up a bit by the Forge in 2005 and 2006. It gets formalized as a thing, though not necessarily with this terminology, in Fate's Spirit of the Century (2006) and Luke Crane's Burning Empires (2006). But Session Zero really doesn't enter the common lexicon until later, like 2012+ later.

 

[prabe]

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

I sometimes know that someone has a long-term plan. I have kept track of NPC movements over time, offstage. It's just not my first choice.

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.

It seems, again, as though you're saying the only way the PCs can be "part of an epic story" is if the GM has an uber-arc set up. I don't agree with that, or even that it's the easiest or most-likely or best way. (If you're not saying that, then I'm not disagreeing with you, per se, here.)

 

[Maxperson]

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

In my experience it's both, or can be. The DM's story can totally be about the PCs and make them shine like the sun and smell like rainbows, but if the player's have no ability to get off those rails, it's still a bad thing. Unless of course the players agreed to the rails before they happened.

 

[reelo]

And yet (...) every time we focussed on one player's story, it was at the detriment of all the other players stories.

That's why I very much prefer it when characters are "blank pages" , either with unspectacular, mundane backgrounds, or "strangers in a strange land" with no strings attached. The only thing that should dictate the story are the dice themselves.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I don't think it was a person. We discussed campaigns before they began long before I ever heard of anything called session 0. The first time it came up online for me, I was like, "Hey! I already do that!"

 

[loverdrive]

Can I get a quick recap, what's going on? I can't find my trench here.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Welcome to my (EN)world!


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.

Yes, exactly. To take the the description of the play loop and the GM's role as described in the book, and then apply it as broadly as to say they can do anything, is just odd. I suppose it's technically true based on phrasing, but I think most of us expect for the rules to be observed.

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!

Yes, my comments were meant more as advice or my take on how to approach GMing.

I've GMed more along those lines in the past, when I was younger and was learning, or when running pre-published adventures, and I've played in plenty of games that leaned more heavily on the GM, and pushed very far into railroad territory....and I don't like it. I wouldn't advocate for that as a playstyle when offering any advice to new GMs or players. For me, the more we start to lean on the GM as " the creative source" of the game rather than "a creative source" the more problematic the game becomes, and the more we lose of the things I think make RPGs great.

 

[Maxperson]

Can I get a quick recap, what's going on? I can't find my trench here.

We have people arguing that railroads can be okay, even without any agreement by the players and others arguing against it.

People discussing linear vs. sandbox and what the game expects.

There's a big discussion about bad DMs.

And some discussion about session 0.

 

[Jmarso]

This is by far my favourite type of game, but I also like it when the various stakeholders have their own plots that will advance (and I suppose this is what you did).

Yeah, that was part of the reason it took so long to prep. The 'main' story arc was a whodunnit, but with all sorts of side-alleys and other distractions that would have made following the central plot irrelevant- its major purpose was just to get them TO the city to start with. They did well with it, though. The party consisted of a rogue, a wizard, a ranger, and a barbarian. There were plot threads aimed directly at each of them, but built so that the whole party could participate (even be needed) for their individual resolutions. (The sorts of problems you need your friends to help you navigate...)