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

[Malmuria]

D&D, and 5e, also has a traditional play loop. The three-step process is described in the 5e PHB on page 5, under "How To Play":
"The play of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game unfolds according to this basic pattern:
1. The DM describes the environment. ...
2. The players describe what they want to do. ...
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1."

So far, so obvious, right? Notice that this play loop, as described, tends to lend itself to a certain division of authority. The players have the authority over their characters to decide what to do, and the DM has the authority to narrate the results and describe the environment. This ties into another aspect of D&D ....

If Rule 0 is about the DM's authority over the world, then Rule 1 in D&D is about the Players' authority over their characters.

If you only play D&D, this might seem banal to the point of uselessness so far. The idea that a player has full control over their PC is ingrained, at this point, that there are many people who play 5e who argue that even spell effects that negate player authority over the PC's decision making (such as charm, or any controlling spells) should not be used on PCs.

I'll start by admitting that I have not read every exchange in this thread.

To get back to the OP, what's at stake here is the 5e play loop as described by the book. Specifically what happens between step 2 ("player describes") and step 3 ("DM narrates"), and how much agency does step 2 give to the players (and I think agency is a useful word here). That is, does the players having agency rely on the 300 pages of rules that follow this described play loop from the 5e introduction, or is it already contained within the basic play loop?

Two extreme examples: a player says that their character would like a new mountain range to appear, without reference to any specific rules, and the dm says, "no, that's not possible." Is that indicative of a denial of player agency? Or, a player says their character would like to go talk to the blacksmith, and the dm says, "rocks fall, you die" for seemingly no reason. Is that outside the purview of the dm, who is in control of the world?

My opinion is that the 5e play loop accords plenty of the agency to the players--they have control over their characters--but also depends on everyone being reasonable and acting in good faith. The DM, in step 1, should have communicated a particular type of world, usually in dnd one that resembles the real world for most ordinary actions but with some exceptions for the fantastical. The rules are there to provide a further framework for what's reasonable for a player to attempt in step 2, and a guide for adjudication for a dm in step 3. So there is nothing in the play loop formally to prevent the dm from declaring "rocks fall, you die," but informally there is an expectation of reasonableness and a framework for adjudication that imply that dm ought to not be so capricious with step 3.

I would further say that the play expectations and social contract are more important than the rules in 5e. If you have a good, trusting dynamic with your group, you can forget or get plenty of rules wrong and still have a good game. But if you don't have a group with trust, then the rules will just give you another thing to argue about (in fact, I would speculative that you could keep the basic play loop and get rid of all the rules and things would still work out, but that's for another thread...). This is why 5e communicates to the dm that the goal of being a dm is to ensure the players have fun. This is mostly a positive direction for the game, as it mitigates against adversarial dming. It's less good in that it can turn the dm into a kind of entertainer, ignoring rules not to say "rocks fall you die" but instead "you are successful in standing underneath the falling rocks, but you don't die, because you are important to the story."

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

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 ?

These are indicators of poor GMing. You can excuse them as you like (beginner's mistakes, poorly-written modules) but that doesn't change the cold, hard reality that it's poor GMing. Your protestations indicate you view accusations of poor GMing as a reflection of a poor character. They're not. I'm a poor artist and poor singer. If I desired, I could improve those things with practice, study, and tutelage in the same way that poor GMs can improve their GMing.

It's not a character flaw to be a poor singer, and it's not a character flaw to be a poor GM. An example of poor GMing likewise does not indicate that the GM is an overall poor GM. There are things that I have done as GM that I reflect upon and see as poor GMing. I make a note of it and move on.

It's a character flaw to be an abusive GM, but that's more about being a jerk than anything else.

 

[Oofta]

From my perspective the expectation of collaboration is one thing. Insisting on the form that needs to take is another thing altogether.

I agree. Why do people insist that people are doing it wrong if the DM asserts authority everything but what the PC's think and the actions they attempt?

 

[Campbell]

Sure. It isn't easy running a game for players who just show up to play, expect to be passively entertained, and have no interest in learning the rules of the game. That's why I prefer to not run games for those kinds of players (and prefer not to play with them). Running games for engaged players who bring it every night is pretty easy in my experience. Also running games with the right rules depth for the people you are playing with is critical.

I'm all kinds of patient with new GMs. We have two fairly new GMs in our group who we are helping to skill up right now. We do so by providing targeted feedback, giving them room to grow, and walking through our prep process. If they end up wanting to run games that are outside our usual wheelhouse we'll help them connect with players who want that kind of experience and can be guiding hands.

The idea that linear storytelling is some form of required training wheels for new GMs is just not right. I tried going down that route myself and had horrible experiences. If you don't prep something that can be wrecked or put pressure on yourself to tell some epic story it's hard to have the experience wrecked. It was far easier for me when I started to lean on the people I was playing with more instead of putting everything on my own shoulders.

 

[loverdrive]

I think it's easier for some people than it is for others. I think some people are better at it than others.

But: I agree talking up how hard it is isn't helpful.

And also @Maxperson, @Lyxen and @Jmarso.

I personally don't see any real tangible difference between what a player and what a game master does. Even in "traditional" games where players don't have any control over things outside their characters.

Like, what does a player do? They adapt to the situation, exploit their prep (backstory, notes, whatever) to improvise and give response to the situation. The game master does exactly the same things, and requirements for the NPCs are way less stringent than they are for the PCs. Even the most important and fleshed-out NPC is going to be onscreen for 50% of the game tops, while PCs are going to be there for the majority of runtime.

Now, many game masters do a lot of extra stuff, like writing histories of imaginary worlds, building terrain, drawing maps or making real-life versions of cocktails that are served in "Acute Chrome Poisoning" bar in foreign quarter of Neo-Vivec, but that stuff is... Well, extra. Optional. You aren't forced to do that, you do that because you want to. And if you are forced to draw maps and build terrain, why the hell are you posting on enworld instead of contacting the authorities?

Saying that running games is hard because of all this optional stuff is like saying that playing games is hard because some people sew costumes, take acting classes and draw comics about the events of the game.

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've met more "god" gms than I would want to, and I encounter people who see themselves as entertaining singing men who are pleasing and, well, entertaining the players almost on a daily basis.

 

[prabe]

I agree. Why do people insist that people are doing it wrong if the DM asserts authority everything but what the PC's think and the actions they attempt?

I think what people are objecting to is that if the DM asserts their authority that broadly, they're asserting authority over outcomes. And if the DM asserts authority over outcomes, that's ... well on the road to being a railroad. To be clear, I don't think you or @Maxperson or @overgeeked are running railroads, but if you're not disclaiming authority over outcomes, it's easy to read you as saying railroads are OK.

 

[Maxperson]

And also @Maxperson, @Lyxen and @Jmarso.

I personally don't see any real tangible difference between what a player and what a game master does. Even in "traditional" games where players don't have any control over things outside their characters.

I rarely see players in a traditional game author content, probably because they can't do that in a traditional game. I rarely see players in a traditional game control 8 different characters and 30 monsters, but that's probably because they very rarely do. I rarely see players engage in making rulings during gameplay in traditional games, because they don't. And so on.

There are lots of things DMs do that players don't. Those are real tangible differences.

Like, what does a player do? They adapt to the situation, exploit their prep (backstory, notes, whatever) to improvise and give response to the situation. The game master does exactly the same things, and requirements for the NPCs are way less stringent than they are for the PCs. Even the most important and fleshed-out NPC is going to be onscreen for 50% of the game tops, while PCs are going to be there for the majority of runtime.

Now, many game masters do a lot of extra stuff, like writing histories of imaginary worlds, building terrain, drawing maps or making real-life versions of cocktails that are served in "Acute Chrome Poisoning" bar in foreign quarter of Neo-Vivec, but that stuff is... Well, extra. Optional. You aren't forced to do that, you do that because you want to. And if you are forced to draw maps and build terrain, why the hell are you posting on enworld instead of contacting the authorities?

Saying that running games is hard because of all this optional stuff is like saying that playing games is hard because some people sew costumes, take acting classes and draw comics about the events of the game.

Those aren't the reasons, though. DMs do far, FAR more prep work to run a game than the vast majority of players do with their PCs.

 

[Maxperson]

I think what people are objecting to is that if the DM asserts their authority that broadly, they're asserting authority over outcomes. And if the DM asserts authority over outcomes, that's ... well on the road to being a railroad. To be clear, I don't think you or @Maxperson or @overgeeked are running railroads, but if you're not disclaiming authority over outcomes, it's easy to read you as saying railroads are OK.

We've both said repeatedly that abuses of DM authority are a bad thing. The DM has the authority to do anything. There are many ways, including railroading, for that "anything" to be abuse of power.

 

[Campbell]

I agree. Why do people insist that people are doing it wrong if the DM asserts authority everything but what the PC's think and the actions they attempt?

I think we are probably talking past each other here somewhat. The sort of constraints I expect on how GM Authority is utilized are things I consider pretty reasonable.

• Prep situations. Not plots.
• Play the world and NPCs with integrity. Respect fictional positioning.
• Consistent application of the rules of the game.
  • When rulings are necessary to account for stuff happening in the fiction adjudicate the rules without regard to outcomes.
• Collaborate with players on character backstory so they have a place in the world and do not feel disconnected from it.
  • Integrate that context into play from time to time. I want to feel like the fact that I am playing this character instead of some other matters.
• Try to avoid gotchas in scenario design.
  

Basically I just want stable ground, a sense that my character belongs in the setting, and the ability to choose how I respond to the scenarios presented. I know this set of expectations will not fit every game, but it's definitely not unusual or unreasonable in my opinion. This is the sort of thing I will always bring up in Session Zero of any game I play.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think the phrase "The DM has the authority to abuse his power" is problematic on a lot of fronts (yes, I know that's not a direct quote, and I'm not ascribing this position to you particularly @Maxperson). I don't think it reflects what's in the rules accurately at all. Mostly because you're granting that authority based on a particular reading of the rules, which would then imply (at least imply) that the DM has permission from the rules to abuse his power (or agency, or insert synonym here), which is obviously nonsense.