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

[Jmarso]

I'm not even a little bit understanding about the difficulty of a DM's job. Like, it's easy. Anyone who can play a role-playing game can run a role-playing game.

Pretending that runnin games is some kind of complex or difficult endeavour that only a few irreplaceable people can do is, uhm, delusion of grandeur, I'd say.

You've never played in a game with new / first time players who didn't know the rules? I'd argue that they couldn't effectively run the game. (At that point, anyway.)

Not throwing rocks, as everyone is entitled to their opinions- I'm genuinely curious: Have you ever game mastered before? Run a campaign from start to finish (say, at least 10th level or so?)

I wouldn't even disagree with your third sentence, except to say that "Anyone who can play a role-playing game can learn to run a role-playing game."

And often, it's not about the difficulty of running the game, but the amount of time and effort invested away from the gaming table in order to make a fun, enjoyable game happen for everyone else... who just shows up to play.

 

[Lyxen]

You have yet to show how abuse of power(railroading) is not the mark of a bad DM. The 5e DMG mentions railroading once, and in a bad context. Nothing in any of your quotes says that railroading is acceptable.

First, railroading does not equate to abuse of power. Second, I'm not saying railroading is a good thing in general, it should certainly not be the aim of the DM. However, once more, will you crucify on the spot a DM for doing it if he is doing it because for him there is no other choice ? Because he is a beginner, a DM who is not confident in itself enough to find another way, a DM that just follows the module as written (or thinks he is), a DM who just sees no other way to prevent uncontrollable players to wreck what he has prepared for them ?

Because these are real cases, that I've personally seen. So while you may think that railroading is unacceptable, I find it much more unacceptable to have players with zero tolerance for it whatever the situation. And yes, I'd much rather encourage DMs to do a bit of railroading if they don't see any other way than encourage entitled players to have zero tolerance for it. These are far worse players than the poor DM is a "bad DM".

 

[Campbell]

The core part of an open table policy is the freedom to walk without judgement. That means for everyone involved. There should not be social repercussions or accusations of entitlement thrown around because we are looking for different sorts of experiences.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not even a little bit understanding about the difficulty of a DM's job. Like, it's easy. Anyone who can play a role-playing game can run a role-playing game.

Pretending that runnin games is some kind of complex or difficult endeavour that only a few irreplaceable people can do is, uhm, delusion of grandeur, I'd say.

It's harder as in it takes a lot more work, but not difficult. There's a lot more to track and you are responsible in traditional(most tables) styles of play for providing an enjoyable game for the players. In my experience, not very many want the hassle and responsibility and would rather just play their one PC. The DM shortage is a result of that.

 

[prabe]

You've never played in a game with new / first time players who didn't know the rules? I'd argue that they couldn't effectively run the game. (At that point, anyway.)

I know at least one person who was recruited to GM by friends who wanted to play, before he ever played. He was, when I knew him, a very good GM, albeit one with some strong tendencies.

Not throwing rocks, as everyone is entitled to their opinions, but genuinely curious: Have you ever game mastered before? Run a campaign from start to finish (say, at least 10th level or so?)

What I said earlier about not presuming things about posters here? @loverdrive writes gaming stuff, in a language that is not their first (IIRC). I've heard good things about their stuff, but I haven't played it myself. I'm pretty sure they've run a few games.

 

[Jmarso]

What I said earlier about not presuming things about posters here? @loverdrive writes gaming stuff, in a language that is not their first (IIRC). I've heard good things about their stuff, but I haven't played it myself. I'm pretty sure they've run a few games.

That's why I asked the question- I wasn't assuming anything. Strange position to take, though, given someone with that much experience. Which, of course, may be why it seems so effortless to them.

 

[Maxperson]

First, railroading does not equate to abuse of power. Second, I'm not saying railroading is a good thing in general, it should certainly not be the aim of the DM. However, once more, will you crucify on the spot a DM for doing it if he is doing it because for him there is no other choice ?

There is always another choice. You never have to railroad the players.

Because he is a beginner, a DM who is not confident in itself enough to find another way, a DM that just follows the module as written (or thinks he is), a DM who just sees no other way to prevent uncontrollable players to wreck what he has prepared for them ?

Remember a few pages back when I said that when one of my players was beginning he asked if we would stick to the rails during session 0? It's okay for beginning DMs to do that if they get permission from the players.

 

[Lyxen]

I'd say, these things generally correlate. Like, if the game master sees themselves as some kind of auteur or god or entertaining singing man, then they probably would take someone leaving personally.

Oh yes, and have you met many of these creatures ? Because people are always talking about these as if they encounter those every day. Personally, I've never met one, except maybe in this forum, actually, where some people have such high expectations of DMs that they must be DM Gods themselves...

I'm not even a little bit understanding about the difficulty of a DM's job. Like, it's easy. Anyone who can play a role-playing game can run a role-playing game.

Yeah, right. Just because it's easy for you (see above), means that it's easy for everyone and that everyone can do it... Sure...

Pretending that runnin games is some kind of complex or difficult endeavour that only a few irreplaceable people can do is, uhm, delusion of grandeur, I'd say.

I don't think anyone said this, but pretending that it's that easy as pie is ridiculous, especially when obviously some players have absolutely zero tolerance for even small mistakes...

 

[prabe]

That's why I asked the question- I wasn't assuming anything. Strange position to take, though, given someone with that much experience. Which, of course, may be why it seems so effortless to them.

That's fair, and I should not be taking offense on their behalf. The phrasing of the question, without your reasoning, just seemed to be jumping to conclusions. Apparently I was doing a little of that, myself--apologies.

 

[pemerton]

Instead of being elitist jerks who expect to be entertained exactly as they want, they might be supportive and friendly and help DMs overcome their fears and doubt about DMing.

Well, as I posted I don't play RPGs to be entertained.

I don't have enough information about your case, but until I hear more about the DM, I could totally assume that he was not that an experienced a DM, trying his best to run a published adventure for you and the others, not knowing that well how to improvise. And if it was that way, and you slammed the door on his face for not being "at the level of DMing that you expect" but also maybe for wanting to try a different sort of game, and then called him a "Bad DM", and the continue to slander his efforts over the internet to make a point then honestly,... Honestly I will refrain to tell you what I think of this because it makes me extremely angry.

Ok, total disrespect for the DM's work. Without any further information, just as you called him a "Bad DM", I will call these "Bad Players".

Great, you have different standards, fine for you. But, as you say, it's a popular adventure trope, seen time and time over in books/movies/shows of the genre. Did you make it clear, during session 0, that you expected "elite DMing according to your exacting standards ?" Because if you did not, and did not express very clearly your preferences for a certain type of game, and ascertained that the DM had been certified to the highest level of roleplaying that you expect, and still let him prepare and run the game anyway, you are the one to blame here.

And again, it was probably a beginner, or a DM unsure of himself and you are making me more and more angry.

For someone who doesn't have enough information you make some very confident assertions. And get strangely angry.

And then, the internet is a funny place, you know, because people leave traces there. You say " I don't have a plot that has to be roughly followed.", and at the same time, didn't you say here that you were actually running a module (What ? Horror !), namely "Maiden Voyage" which, as you say yourself in that post "This is definitely one of the better modules I've run in 30-odd years of GMing", and if I'm not mistaken, that module has a plot which was roughly followed (although there is some flexibility there, that you even applaud yourself "The module's default assumption is that he will remain alive through the climax, although - to it's author's credit - it doesn't in any way try to enforce this outcome. ").

Are you familiar with the module? It does not mandate a plot. It is a situation. As the post you're referring to comments on:

Conclusion
This is definitely one of the better modules I've run in 30-odd years of GMing, with a good cast of NPCs whose motivations intersect in ways that are likely to bring them into fairly over connection with, and (at least in some cases) conflict with, the PCs. The mix of murder-mystery and horror is also a good combination - it gives a focus both for roguish/investigator-type PCs and for magical/mystical-type PCs. (A pure warrior would have the least to do, I think.)

The system we were using definitely helped drive the action - Burning Wheel has quite a few bells and whistles that help the players establish a focus and stick to it, which means you tend not to get lulls or "what do we do now" moments - but I think the module could play pretty similarly in its original system (3E/d20) provided the table is willing to treat social mechanics with the same degree of seriousness as combat and exploration mechanics, and provided that the GM doesn't try and railroad the players down any single pathway but rather rolls with their choices. These two things are related: if the GM doesn't let social mechanics bind the NPCs (and, ideally, the players as well) then the players can't make effective alliances with NPCs (or vice versa) which lock in outcomes; and if the GM tries to rairload down a pre-determined path then the players have no real reason to engage with the NPCs in a meaningful way.

The biggest instance of this in our case was the PC wizard/assassin's decision to kill the NPC prisoner. The module's default assumption is that he will remain alive through the climax, although - to it's author's credit - it doesn't in any way try to enforce this outcome. A GM who tried to block the players trying this sort of thing (whether directly, or by setting impossible DCs) could really spoil this module.

But for a GM and players happy to approach this module with a willingness to engage the situation and see what happens, I would highly recommend it to anyone who has or can get a copy. And, as always, I am very interested to hear what sorts of experiences others might have had with it.

I would compare it to a threat countdown in Apocalypse World.

I'll give you the example of probably the most famous NPC kobold of all times, the darling Meepo, who was beloved by almost all groups playing the Sunless Citadel, including all groups that I ran the adventure for (because it's not a bad introductory adventure and I like to introduce people to the game, I've probably done it for hundreds of people). As defined in the adventure, Meepo is generally weepy and obviously frightened of the PCs, and generally willing to answer questions. However, as designed, he can only answer simple questions about the cage and the missing dragon, and he gets weepy, otherwise, all he says is "Meepo don't know, but the leader does, Meepo take you to meet the leader Yusdrayl". This is written plainly that way in the module.

Now, this is the part where the "elite" never playing a published adventure sneer down on people playing them. But I dare you to badwrongfun any DM running an adventure exactly as published. You might be expecting a certain type of play, and a certain quality of DMing, if it's your preference, that's fine, but don't you dare despise people playing the game differently than you. And don't you dare calling "bad DMs" beginning DMs, or DMs who are unsure of themselves and their capacity to improvise, or to deviate from a module. I dare you, I double dare you !

You seem to be very angry and defensive about . . . something? . . . Kobolds? . . . Meepo? . . . , at least judging from this post.