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

[Manbearcat]

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.

My first experience in a formalized session 0 (though Tweet didn't call it that) was Everway.

The page 18 Creating Heroes section is basically nailing down the architecture of play; protagonism, dramatic needs, growth/trajectory. This basically invests play with premise/focus and a set of questions to verify or falsify through play. So far as I know (could be wrong), this is the first Story Now (ish) game on the market.

EVERWAY P 18

While you’re creating your hero, you can imagine the realm they are from as well. What kind of place it was, what the people were like, and any special connections your hero has with their realm. Nearly any kind of place is possible, but check with your gamemaster for appropriateness and group fit.

Keep in mind these three rules:

1. The mind is sacred. You cannot control others’ minds.

2. Interact. Lean towards a hero that will interact more. You’ll have more fun.

3. Everything changes. Develop a hero who has room to grow and change.

At this point you should introduce your hero to the other players. They will ask you various questions about your hero to understand your vision better and to help you get a clearer idea of who your hero is. This will help your group get closer to each other as you develop your heroes. Look for shared connections.

The rest just formalizes and fortifies the process.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

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.

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.

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

This is largely what I'm saying. Let's set aside the semantic matter of the letter of what the books say.

A GM's authority comes from the rules and from the social agreement. If the GM doesn't play by the rules but instead makes them up, then he's going to find himself without players, and then he has absolute authority over bupkis.

So in actual practice, as an approach to GMing a game, I think application of said authority is more about plugging holes in the rules than it is about being able to overrule or supersede the rules. It's about using one's judgment within the confines of the rules, or when things are questionable, to make a ruling absent a clear rule.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Well, yeah. The DMG seems to take "rulings not rules" as the idea that the DM doesn't have to memorize the rules of the game, but they should be familiar with contents of the books so that they can consult the rules to make an informed ruling. The idea that the GM can change the rules of the game is basically a truism. But whether or not they have carte blanche to change the rules on their whims is another matter entirely.

My first experience in a formalized session 0 (though Tweet didn't call it that) was Everway.

The page 18 Creating Heroes section is basically nailing down the architecture of play; protagonism, dramatic needs, growth/trajectory. This basically invests play with premise/focus and a set of questions to verify or falsify through play. So far as I know (could be wrong), this is the first Story Now (ish) game on the market.

The rest just formalizes and fortifies the process.

Amber Diceless (1991) also seems to have something along these lines as well.

 

[Jmarso]

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.

When starting a campaign with new, squishy 1st level characters, I like to keep the backstories basic (outlines) to start with. One, it makes little sense to pour tons of effort into something that may not survive the first session (hey, stuff happens!). Second, it leaves some wriggle-room story wise. As I've written elsewhere, I know how all of my campaigns begin, but not how they are going to end. If some of that 'vague' backstory can be fleshed out later and turned into part of the campaign, or even just a cool adventure hook or side-quest, so much the better, and when done in cooperation with the player(s) in question, can make for some really fun, engaged gaming.

 

[Lyxen]

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.

I think there's a balance there as well. It's true that in general, I like my characters to be defined more by the events happening in the shared game than what I imagined before, still a bit of it doesn't hurt.

The only thing that should dictate the story are the dice themselves.

Hmmm, that is another part where YCMV, as for out groups, we are decidedly in the "Ignoring the Dice" section of the DMG (because randomness shouldn't go in the way of a good story), again both approaches are valid.

 

[Maxperson]

This is largely what I'm saying. Let's set aside the semantic matter of the letter of what the books say.

A GM's authority comes from the rules and from the social agreement. If the GM doesn't play by the rules but instead makes them up, then he's going to find himself without players, and then he has absolute authority over bupkis.

So in actual practice, as an approach to GMing a game, I think application of said authority is more about plugging holes in the rules than it is about being able to overrule or supersede the rules. It's about using one's judgment within the confines of the rules, or when things are questionable, to make a ruling absent a clear rule.

I agree with everything you say here except the bolded part. Yes, the authority is used more to plug up holes in the rules than it is to overrule or supersede rules. However, you cannot overrule or supersede a rule if you are confined within them. You must be outside of the rules and have the authority to add, subtract or alter any rule to have the ability, however infrequently used, to overrule or supersede the rules.

 

[loverdrive]

Snap, I've sold my threeline, so I guess no trenches for me.

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.

And an epic story doesn't require railroading or even heavy curation from the game master. Unless your last name is Gilligan or you can read minds, my bet is, the players know a lot more about what kind of epic story they want.

Now, I concede, I had exactly zero D&D games where the resulting story could be called even just mediocre on its own and wouldn't require rewriting every part of it to show it on a silverscreen without shame, but I honestly doubt anyone ever did.

 

[Jmarso]

Well, yeah. The DMG seems to take "rulings not rules" as the idea that the DM doesn't have to memorize the rules of the game, but they should be familiar with contents of the books so that they can consult the rules to make an informed ruling. The idea that the GM can change the rules of the game is basically a truism. But whether or not they have carte blanche to change the rules on their whims is another matter entirely.

This is one of my beefs with 5E. A lot of the ruleset seems to point towards "The DM decides." But when there are no hard rules provided for everyone to look on as a foundation (I'm looking at 1E / 2E here), then there is the potential to put the group in a bad position. For 5E games in particular, a solid Session 0 in which the entire group agrees to fundamental rules and house rules becomes more important than ever. House rules, in particular, are something I think everyone should agree on (or at least a supermajority) before being adopted. Playing older editions, disagreements are more easily resolved by cracking the rulebook and letting the written word be the arbiter- because the rules are far more clear-cut in the older editions.

That said, in a good group that enjoys playing together (and has been playing together for a while), such 'rules lawyering' and disagreements would hopefully be few and far between. If they aren't, something is fundamentally wrong at that table.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I've snipped your post down to this bit, because I think I've said enough about the other points you make in response to others. But this bit I've quoted here is maybe one that can shed some light on the discussion.

There are so many examples of the players having authority throughout the book. Every spell and skill and feat and description of action declaration is the book giving the players power. They can do those things and expect them to work. I have a 3rd level spell slot remaining and fireball is one of my known spells, therefore I can cast fireball when it's my turn.

Can the DM veto that? Can he say "no you cannot cast that spell now"? Generally speaking, no, he can't. Could there be an example of a reason? Sure; a previously established "anti-magic zone" or some such would be a sound reason. Can he simply introduce said anti-magic zone at the moment I declare that my character casts the spell?

According to the letter of the rules, it seems so. But I literally don't care what the letter of the rules may say.

I'm arguing that's a bad idea on his part to do so. Those passages in the books are not telling people to do that; they're not suggesting to anyone "this is the way to GM". That is, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of the point of those comments. One that no one should actually follow.

A GM should follow the rules of play just like the players should. Honor the players' choices and what limited authority the game gives them. Can you override it? Yes, of course. Should you? No, not without very good reason.

The GM and the game is better served by allowing the players to have the authority granted to them by the rules, at the bare minimum. I would also argue to go even further and give them even more authority.

 

[Manbearcat]

Snap, I've sold my threeline, so I guess no trenches for me.


And an epic story doesn't require railroading or even heavy curation from the game master. Unless your last name is Gilligan or you can read minds, my bet is, the players know a lot more about what kind of epic story they want.

Now, I concede, I had exactly zero D&D games where the resulting story could be called even just mediocre on its own and wouldn't require rewriting every part of it to show it on a silverscreen without shame, but I honestly doubt anyone ever did.

My D&D stories are/were the best.

Hollywood offered me 40 million for the rights but I'm holding out for something better.