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

[overgeeked]

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.

"3. The DM narrates the results of the characters' actions."

The DM is explicitly in control of outcomes. The DM controls the NPCs...and how they react. That's outcomes. The DM narrates the results of the characters' actions. That's outcomes. The DM can decide that an action is an automatic success or failure. That's outcomes. The only time the DM isn't in direct control of the outcome of an action is when there's a roll needed...that the DM calls for...after the DM sets the DC for that roll. Determining the chances of success or failure for that action, greatly influencing the outcome of that action. The DM also determines what roll is made. What skill, save, attack, etc. The DM can also call for an odd combination of stat and skill for a particular roll. Also greatly influencing the outcome of the action. And after the roll...the DM narrates the results of the characters' actions.

 

[overgeeked]

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.

Weird. You sound like you'd love FKR games.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I think he does have the authority to abuse his power, though. Next week when I arrive to run the game, I can start railroading the players left and right if I want. There won't be any players left at the end of the night, but I can do that.

The DMG goes into advising the DM to create fun situations, talks about session 0, the social contract and more, in order to teach DMs how not to abuse that authority that they are granted by the game. WotC invested quite a bit of page space to advice like that and laced it all through the DMG and other splatbooks.

 

[prabe]

"3. The DM narrates the results of the characters' actions."

The DM is explicitly in control of outcomes. The DM controls the NPCs...and how they react. That's outcomes. The DM narrates the results of the characters' actions. That's outcomes. The DM can decide that an action is an automatic success or failure. That's outcomes. The only time the DM isn't in direct control of the outcome of an action is when there's a roll needed...that the DM calls for...after the DM sets the DC for that roll. Determining the chances of success or failure for that action, greatly influencing the outcome of that action. The DM also determines what roll is made. What skill, save, attack, etc. The DM can also call for an odd combination of stat and skill for a particular roll. Also greatly influencing the outcome of the action. And after the roll...the DM narrates the results of the characters' actions.

You do realize a literal reading of what you've written is that it's OK for the DM to narrate a successful roll as a failure state, yes? And that further literal reading is that it's OK for the DM to pre-determine the outcomes, since they have authority to control them?

I'm a firm believer in social contracts and table expectations and all-a-that, and I think there are implications in the rules that, for instance, a DM should narrate the outcome of a successful roll to be consistent with what the player's idea of "success" was.

 

[niklinna]

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.

I sure as heck don't "just show up to play". I show up to play. I learn the rules. I put time into making a character who—I hope—will be entertaining to myself and to the other people at the table (including the GM), and be a useful member of a party. And I pay attention, and I take notes, and I help the GM look stuff up so they can run the game more efficiently.

Yes, not every player does all that, and some do just show up to play. But to say that's all any player does...well.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think he does have the authority to abuse his power, though. Next week when I arrive to run the game, I can start railroading the players left and right if I want. There won't be any players left at the end of the night, but I can do that.

This is the kind of comment that I don't understand. It's an assertion of an interpretation of the rules that no one actually seems to want. So why assert it? The only possible point I can see is either (a) entirely semantic, or (b) a justification for more GM authority than what should be expected.

Why not instead take those comments in the rules as intended, which you seem to clearly understand based on the second half of your post? That the rules are imperfect and incomplete compared to all possibilities, so the GM may need to make such decisions from time to time. And when he does, probably best to consider how the players will think about it, as well!

The DMG goes into advising the DM to create fun situations, talks about session 0, the social contract and more, in order to teach DMs how not to abuse that authority that they are granted by the game. WotC invested quite a bit of page space to advice like that and laced it all through the DMG and other splatbooks.

 

[Jmarso]

I sure as heck don't "just show up to play". I show up to play. I learn the rules. I put time into making a character who—I hope—will be entertaining to myself and to the other people at the table (including the GM), and be a useful member of a party. And I pay attention, and I take notes, and I help the GM look stuff up so they can run the game more efficiently.

Yes, not every player does all that, and some do just show up to play. But to say that's all any player does...well.

You are an example of a good player, on the face of that post. There are others who you sometimes have to ask yourself why they even showed up- it's almost like someone forced them to the table. Those disengaged players are more rare (thankfully), but they are out there. Along with the regular players who are decent enough but never bother to learn anything rules-wise other than the narrow confines of their own player build.

And for what it's worth, when I'm on the player side of the screen, I do the same things you described above.

 

[Maxperson]

This is the kind of comment that I don't understand. It's an assertion of an interpretation of the rules that no one actually seems to want. So why assert it?

Because it's the only way for the DM to have authority over ALL of the rules like he has. If you give him the authority to change any rule, he automatically has the authority to abuse that power. It's the same with your boss at work. Managers have authority over the workers underneath granted to them by those above. They can abuse that authority, though, which typically results in reprimand or termination by those above. In D&D there is no one above him so he really can't be fired or reprimanded, but the players have the option to leave the game, which is effectively the same thing.

The authority to abuse their power is a byproduct of the authority to change any rule in the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because it's the only way for the DM to have authority over ALL of the rules like he has. If you give him the authority to change any rule, he automatically has the authority to abuse that power. It's the same with your boss at work. Managers have authority over the workers underneath granted to them by those above. They can abuse that authority, though, which typically results in reprimand or termination by those above. In D&D there is no one above him so he really can't be fired or reprimanded, but the players have the option to leave the game, which is effectively the same thing.

The authority to abuse their power is a byproduct of the authority to change any rule in the game.

I find that reading to be very strange. Authority comes from the agreement between players and GM. Abuse would be a violation of that agreement, not a byproduct.

 

[prabe]

I find that reading to be very strange. Authority comes from the agreement between players and GM. Abuse would be a violation of that agreement, not a byproduct.

It seems as though just about everything people describe as "abusive GMing" is a violation of table expectations/social contract, not literally breaking the rules of the game.