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

[Lyxen]

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.

And then what do you do ? Are you still trying to run the published adventure ?

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.

No, sorry, it's not the way it's written, once more: "The DM creates adventures for the characters, who navigate its hazards and decide which paths to explore..." The players are definitively navigating the paths created by the DM. Again, it does not say whether there are few or many, how wide they are, etc. but it's the basic premise. If they start carving their own paths, some DMs might be happy throwing their preparations out of the window and start improvising, but some others might not.

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.

Again, not necessarily. I'm really tired of people putting all the weight that they can on that poor DM. Some people insist that he should state right upfront all his house rules and future rulings. Now you insist that he must get what, written permission from the players for every single bit of railroading, however minork, that he might be doing in the future? Once more, the basic premise of the game is clearly defined in the multiple quotes of @overgeeked's post. The default setting is that he is in charge, is the architect of the campaign, creates and runs adventures, etc.

If some entitled player thinks that any authority is too much for him and can't abide even a bit of steering because it offends his what, "god given player agency (?), I'm sorry but the onus is on him to mention it. The DM already has a difficult enough job to do...

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."

Yes, more than one outcome is better (but I can tell you that, although there might be two outcomes in Waterdeep Dragon Heist, the linearity and railroading an ignoring players actions even got strongly to me), but it does not mean "any outcome" or "the players can just go and do whatever they want and ignore everything the DM has prepared".

 

[Aldarc]

My D&D stories are/were the best.

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

Bollywood.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Right.....so we're in agreement. I for one am uninterested in the debate about the letter of the law and what it means, instead of what I actually think will benefit GMing and playing at the table.

 

[overgeeked]

Bollywood.

If you want low-magic Indian D&D, go watch Bahubali. It’s bonkers and utterly fantastic.

 

[Campbell]

I'm 37. I have been playing roleplaying since I was 13. I have been running them consistently since I was 18. When I run traditional games I utilize what some of my friends have called an obscene amount of prep. I just disagree that the prep work I do entitles me to anything. The prep is for me. Not the people I play with.

My labor does not entitle me to anything. It does not entitle the player to keep playing with me. It does not entitle me to any of their labor. That's not how relationships should work. I work with the people I play with to set boundaries, but those aren't obligations. They are just feedback and negotiating how we want things to move forward (if we even do).

I have expectations about the games I agree to play in. I also have expectations for the other people I play with when I run games. That often includes stuff like playing your character with integrity, not expecting to be passively entertained, and not holding on too closely to your character concept. The idea that these sorts of expectations make you entitled, rather than discerning seems bizarre to me. I would never expect people to run or play in any sort of game they weren't comfortable with. I don't see what's wrong with seeking out the sort of play experience I want to have on either side of the screen.

I am a big believer in Open Door games. Basically everyone should feel comfortable to express their concerns and can leave at anytime without judgement.

 

[overgeeked]

Again, not necessarily. I'm really tired of people putting all the weight that they can on that poor DM. Some people insist that he should state right upfront all his house rules and future rulings. Now you insist that he must get what, written permission from the players for every single bit of railroading, however minork, that he might be doing in the future? Once more, the basic premise of the game is clearly defined in the multiple quotes of @overgeeked's post. The default setting is that he is in charge, is the architect of the campaign, creates and runs adventures, etc.

If some entitled player thinks that any authority is too much for him and can't abide even a bit of steering because it offends his what, "god given player agency (?), I'm sorry but the onus is on him to mention it. The DM already has a difficult enough job to do...

Sorry, but no. And you can stop tagging me, thanks.

The DM controls literally everything in the game except the PCs. If the DM can’t manage to run a good game without also taking away the one thing the players get to do in the game (i.e. control their characters), then that’s a bad DM. If you need to control the PCs in addition to everything else in the game, then go write a novel and stop running games.

 

[Manbearcat]

If I were going to extract 5e GMing Principles and Player Best Practices from this thread, it would probably look like this:

GMING PRINCIPLES

* You're the best.

* You do so much work. You're so underappreciated.

* Let those entitled players know whose game this is if you must. Its in their best interests.

* Write an awesome story (I mean what other kind of story would someone like you write?) and run that bitch.

* Did I mention you're the best?


PLAYER'S BEST PRACTICES

* You're a replaceable, lazy, roustabout.

* And you're the kind of jerk that inevitably games honorable systems.

* Oh, and you've got entitlement issues.

* Submit. Follow.

* It'll be fun!

 

[prabe]

If I were going to extract 5e GMing Principles and Player Best Practices from this thread, it would probably look like this:

GMING PRINCIPLES

* You're the best.

* You do so much work. You're so underappreciated.

* Let those entitled players know whose game this is if you must. Its in their best interests.

* Write an awesome story (I mean what other kind of story would someone like you write?) and run that bitch.

* Did I mention you're the best?


PLAYER'S BEST PRACTICES

* You're a replaceable, lazy, roustabout.

* And you're the kind of jerk that inevitably games honorable systems.

* Oh, and you've got entitlement issues.

* Submit. Follow.

* It'll be fun!

I know it's a joke/exaggeration, but ... sigh.

Sigh.

 

[Maxperson]

And then what do you do ? Are you still trying to run the published adventure ?

No. They've left it. I'd prep stuff dealing with what the PCs are heading towards.

No, sorry, it's not the way it's written, once more: "The DM creates adventures for the characters, who navigate its hazards and decide which paths to explore..." The players are definitively navigating the paths created by the DM.

You're reading into that statement that which is not there. Nothing in that sentence says the only paths are those which the DM has already created. If my character decides to forge down a new path, it is also a path that the DM creates as an adventure for the character to explore. You're trying to treat it as only having one possible interpretation and it has multiples, including mine.

If they start carving their own paths, some DMs might be happy throwing their preparations out of the window and start improvising, but some others might not.

And again, this is a session 0 discussion.

Again, not necessarily. I'm really tired of people putting all the weight that they can on that poor DM. Some people insist that he should state right upfront all his house rules and future rulings. Now you insist that he must get what, written permission from the players for every single bit of railroading, however minork, that he might be doing in the future? Once more, the basic premise of the game is clearly defined in the multiple quotes of @overgeeked's post. The default setting is that he is in charge, is the architect of the campaign, creates and runs adventures, etc.

Yes necessarily. An unapproved railroad is always a bad thing, regardless of the DM's intent. The DM does not have the right to take away from or invalidate my decisions regarding my character. Authority sure, but not the right. A DM that does that is abusing his power.

 

[Oofta]

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.

So ... you don't care what the letter of the rules say but the DM should always follow the letter of the rules?

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.

The players declare their actions, the DM determines the result is how the rules work. Full stop. Obviously a DM shouldn't be an ass, I have the same expectations of my players.

There have been cases where the player declares actions that do not succeed for a wide variety of reasons. It's a null or wild magic area. They've been cursed. They cast the fireball but it hits the wall of force they didn't see. Maybe the cleric tries to reach out to their god but for some reason there's no answer. I don't think any of these things need to be justified by another spell or ability, it's perfectly within my right to do these things as a DM. Call them on-the-spot house rules if you want.

If I do it there will be reasons, some of which may or may not be immediately clear to the players. It's all part of telling interesting stories, setting up unique scenarios, making the game fun and entertaining. I don't have to justify it because the rules tell me that it's up to me as the DM to decide what happens. I also decide what races are available, I ban or modify a handful of spells., along with a handful of house rules. I don't particularly care if you want to play an evil PC. I don't want to run a campaign with evil PCs in it so if you start to do things that are evil I'll warn you and if you insist your PC becomes an NPC.

So in my opinion these DMs that are lording their power over the players who are clutching their pearls bowing down the magnificence of their DM are effectively nonexistent. That's not why I change rules, limit options, tell people that part of their backstory doesn't make sense in my world, or even tell them that the fireball they cast does nothing (not that I can imagine why I would). It's not a competition. I do it because as a DM I'm trying my best to set up an interesting world and interesting scenarios. Sometimes that means altering the rules to fit the scenario.

You have a preference. That's fine. It's just not the default.