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

[Umbran]

No, please start feeling embarrassed

Mod Note:
I remind you that I've already cautioned folks that they need to be constructive in their approach to this thread.

The direct appeal to incite shame abjectly fails in that regard.

Just answer this please, without spouting pages of nonsense about your theories..

And again, with the utter lack of respect for your fellow posters. If their points are nonsense, why bother engaging?

This is railroading, you are a bad DM.

And now just personal insults?

No need to worry - you won't be engaging from this point on. You are done in the thread.

Anyone else here who can't be bothered to treat people well, or who feel taking personal digs at others is a way to do well in a discussion, can feel free to join Lyxen.

 

[Mannahnin]

There was. I’m fully aware of everything that went into it at this point. I didn’t want to include all that information because I didn’t want to present the scenario with any strong bias.

I’m afraid that I probably presented a less complete scenario than I’d like.



Maybe! I was more curious how this would play out in other people’s games than in challenging folks to try and figure out what the GM in my game did.

You’ve offered some ideas, as did @Campbell and @prabe and @Maxperson and some others, so thanks for that!



Yes! We did vet some of our options. The rogue was able to gather some information that gave us the lead on the farmer and his wife; they were known to dislike the duke and his men. An Insight check was also used in our dealing with them, and the result was strong (this GM didn’t share the DC with us, but the result was well into the 20s).

I should have included that in the initial description.

With the additional detail, yes, it seems even more like the DM was forcing the confrontation.

The PCs took multiple steps which involved rolls, potential risks, and the use of at least one character ability. The dangerous river crossing to escape undetected, scouting the inn and confirming that the Duke's men were there for another reason, investigating possible sympathetic people to hide with, and the invocation of the Folk Hero background. High rolls and seemingly smart play all seemingly disregarded to wind up in the fight regardless of your choices.

Is it possible that there was some sort of magical sensor or invisible spy that had already been established by the DM in the background that you were unaware of? Yeah, sure. But if so it does make all that careful play and rolling seem a bit like a pointless waste of time. Certainly a feel-bad either way.

 

[prabe]

The PCs took multiple steps which involved rolls, potential risks, and the use of at least one character ability. The dangerous river crossing to escape undetected, scouting the inn and confirming that the Duke's men were there for another reason, investigating possible sympathetic people to hide with, and the invocation of the Folk Hero background. High rolls and seemingly smart play all seemingly disregarded to wind up in the fight regardless of your choices.

About the only thing I've been able to think of that makes the DM's behavior ... comprehensible, if not exactly OK, is the thought that the player/s may not have been explicit about using that Folk Hero ability and/or the DM may not have understood it the same ways the players did. I tell the players in the campaigns I run that at least after the first few sessions (once I've had a chance to forget) they'll need to remind me about those sorts of things. I can and will keep track of non (or less) mechanical things like goals and backstory elements, but build stuff is on them.

That said, it doesn't sound as though @hawkeyefan was unclear about using the Folk Hero ability, so ... this probably isn't what happened.

 

[pemerton]

And in particular "I don't have a plot that has to be roughly followed", this in response to a number of us telling them that having a plot is a very usual (and probably the most usual) way of conducting D&D games, but because he is so self-righteous about his positions on railroading that he of course had to jump on the bandwagon of "if you are not doing a total sandbox, you are railroading your PCs to some extent and therefore are not as good a DM as those who do".

This is just wrong. I've not run a fully "sandbox" game ever that I can think of, and the closest to one was in 1991.

I'm pretty sure that I posted this already upthread: A sandbox game is based on GM authority over backstory, plus a form of player authority over situation, which is achieved by the players declaring actions to move their PCs from A to B in the sandbox, and thereby triggering the situation that is latent in the GM-authored backstory about B.

The simplest version is something like We go over the hills to where we've heard there's a dragon's cave.

Most of the GMing I've done over the past 35 years has been based around GM authority over situation as the default, with shared authority over backstory (particularly at the point of PC build) and a readiness to accept player suggestions. And then faithful adherence to the action resolution rules - including Let it Ride - to work out what happens.

the preconceived story stays online, and in particular:

• The captain is murdered (whatever the PCs did for the two previous days in various events)
• The undead attack (again, whatever happened before that).

The fact that the intermediate scenes have some variability, and that this variability affects the final outcome is good, but it does not change the fact that the scenario is built upon the lines of (2)

Are you familiar with Threat Clocks from Apocalypse World? Here is the explanation (page 143):

A countdown clock is a reminder to you as MC that your threats have impulse, direction, plans, intentions, the will to sustain action and to respond coherently to others’.​

​

When you create a threat, if you have a vision of its future, give it a countdown clock. You can also add countdown clocks to threats you’ve already created.​

​

Around the clock, note some things that’ll happen:​

• Before 9:00, that thing’s coming, but preventable. What are the clues? What are the triggers? What are the steps?​

• Between 9:00 and 12:00, that thing is inevitable, but there’s still time to brace for impact. What signifies it?​

• At 12:00, the threat gets its full, active expression. What is it?​

​

As you play, advance the clocks, each at their own pace, by marking their segments.​

​

Countdown clocks are both descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptive: when something you’ve listed happens, advance​

the clock to that point. Prescriptive: when you advance the clock otherwise, it causes the things you’ve listed. Furthermore, countdown clocks can be derailed: when something happens that changes circumstances so that the countdown no longer makes sense, just scribble it out.​

​

For the most part, list things that are beyond the players’ characters’ control: NPCs’ decisions and actions, conditions in a population or a landscape, off-screen relations between rival compounds, the instability of a window into the world’s psychic maelstrom. When you list something within the players’ characters’ control, always list it with an “if,” implied or explicit: “if Bish goes out into the ruins,” not “Bish goes out into the ruins.” Prep circumstances, pressures, developing NPC actions, not (and again, I’m not [m]ucking around here) NOT future scenes you intend to lead the PCs to.​

So before 9 pm, the captain dies, signalling the curse; and if the PCs are on the Albers, they meet the Sea Maiden. If they don't destroy it or cleanse it (neither happened in my game - the only attempt made to cleanse was via an Elven Lament that only helps Elves) then at 9 pm the Albers encounters the Sea Maiden in ghost form. If nothing is done at that point to save the Albers, then at 12 o'clock it gets dragged down to Hell with the Sea Maiden.

(The module does not have this structure. It has two encounters with the Sea Maiden. As I've mentioned a couple of times now in this thread, and as I mentioned in the old thread, I deliberately departed from the module at this point because that structure was not satisfactory - it sacrificed situation for plot, I suspect as a concession to certain demands of 3E D&D game play.)

The module has a clear plot, I have posted the table of content. It has a number of events, happening in sequence, in which the PCs can interact. It is not "a situation" which gives a free field to the PCs with no interference. The events have to happen in rough order, in particular day after day, otherwise the story does not make sense and it does not give the PCs the clues that they need to solve the mystery and to react properly. There's a meeting with the captain, then an eclipse, then a game in the evening, etc.

The eclipse is colour, nothing more. (For very high level D&D PCs that might not be the case - they might have the ability to enter and even change the heavens. But for low-level D&D, and for Burning Wheel, it is colour.) Likewise the fight with Ox - in my campaign, this was an opportunity for the Elven PC to evince his Belief that he will prove himself as an Elf among the humans.

The key framing events - as I already posted upthread - are the captain's death and the encounter with the Sea Maiden. These are situation - they call the players to action. Those actions shape how things unfold: in our game that included the inadvertent summoning of Orlando, the ghostly captain of the Sea Maiden, which meant that one PC could not board the Sea Maiden; the interrogation of Selene; the murder by one of the PCs of the evil wizard Vincenzo and the summoning of his spirit; the collapse of the crew's morale over a series of unsuccessful attempts to engage with them (driven mostly though not completely by the PC wizard); and in the end, the Albers being dragged down to Hell with most hands still aboard.

It's actually, much more of a plot than a number of sequences in other published modules where the PC can choose what they do. In this case, they can't even go where they want because they are "trapped" aboard that ship.

<snip>

especially for the Maiden Voyage, if the characters decide that they don't care about the events and want to become pirates in the south instead, the only alternative is to die at sea

<snip>

Maiden Voyage is actually fairly constraining on the PCs, who are trapped aboard a haunted ship with no means of escape other than solving the mystery.

This is all just stuff you're making up.

(1) The players chose what their PCs did: they engaged with various NPCs, they took various actions aboard the Albers and Sea Maiden, they summoned dead spirits, they murdered people, they lied to people, they told the truth to some other people, they rescued some and failed to rescue others.

(2) The PCs were not "trapped" aboard that ship. Here is the salient quote from the actual play report:

The second half of the session began with the princess's player making a Circles check - this is the Burning Wheel mechanic for meeting NPCs. She has good bonuses for Circles, and got a good roll, and so the characters were saved from the ocean by a sea-going elf lord who had heard that the princess has not yet arrived at her intended destination.

That could have been attempted at any time. One of the PCs could turn into a bird and fly away if he wished to.

The PCs stayed on the vessel because the players chose to have them do so, because I was presenting situations that engaged the player-authored PC Beliefs - for the wizard and wizard/assassin, the relationship between Vincenzo and another wizard to whom they both had an intense relationship stemming from their troubled pasts (that was why they boarded the vessel in the first place); for the Elves and the Princess's retainer, various more "ephemeral" Beliefs concerning how they wish to live their lives and relate to those around them.

The mystery in Maiden Voyage is ultimately colour. The point of the module, as I see it and certainly as we played it, isn't to solve the mystery. It's to see what happens to the PCs and their relationships with the NPCs. It's a drama, not a procedural. That's what made me compare it to The Crimson Bull. And is why I said it is one of the best modules I've used.

 

[Oofta]

Oofta, no one is trying to employ a strawman. They're trying to understand where people draw the lines. From what I can read in your post above and what Pemerton has written in this thread so far, you both seem to be on pretty much the same page about action resolution here, so I'm a little confused why you're being hostile.

Players have the authority to declare the actions of their characters, using the rules. They have the reasonable expectation that in resolving those actions, the DM will follow the rules and his narration will therefore be in keeping with the rules, unless there's a specific and good reason.

The DM has the ability to change rules, but the game does not expect or endorse him to do so willy-nilly, nor is the intent that he has the authority to do so. Maxperson has explicitly opined that the game tells the DM that he can do whatever he wants, and that he would be perfectly within his rights to abuse the rules, but that he should reasonably expect his players to leave if he does so. Someone responded that this makes no sense; the game is fundamentally governed by the social contract and expectations of good faith. The GM is not granted permission to change the rules for no reason or abusive reasons.

This bit may be fundamentally a semantic disagreement, of course.

The DM runs the game. A DM can abuse that authority in ways that makes for a game that is not fun, it's one of the ways you can be a bad run a bad game. Where I draw the line though, may be different for different DMs. Some DMs will ignore the result of dice (aka "fudge" dice rolls) others will not. Every once in a great while I'll conveniently "forget" to roll for the recharge of an ability because the encounter is going down the toilet and the group is looking at a TPK which won't be fun for my current group. Is that crossing a line? Is telling a person that they hit when they shouldn't have because it makes for an epic moment?

What I won't do is tell a person that "no you don't do that" except perhaps in that once-in-my-DM-lifetime event that involved a magically suppressed memory. If I wanted the BBEG to get away but the party can stop them? The party stops them.

On the other hand, I am not a slave to the rules. That's all I'm trying to say. Ignoring the rules should be done with care. I don't think anyone would think a good DM will ever take it to this extreme

So does that mean that the action resolution rules - everything from class features like Cunning Action and Second Wind, to spells, to the combat mechanics, to the system of ability checks - are all just suggestions to 5e D&D GMs as to how they might choose to exercise their authority?

Personally I would find that strange, indeed strained, reading.

Could a DM do that? I suppose. A lot of people talk about their dozens of house rules, I don't really see a difference. If I have the authority to ignore some rules, I have the authority to ignore all rules.

I think the post was strawman because nobody says a DM should do that but this is what what always happens. We go from "occasionally I ignore the rules to make the game more fun" to "DM Calvinball".

 

[Umbran]

... even if it isn't intentional or permanent, it's still being a bad DM.

So, language matters. And apparently, the only language we have for when a GM works in what we, back in our armchairs with a scant description, think of as a sub-optimal manner is that they are, "being a Bad GM."

But, folks, everyone makes mistakes! Even masters in a craft occasionally make poor choices or judgements. That does not make them bad at their craft.

We could really use some language to cover the spectrum between, "I wouldn't have handled that particular moment in game that way," and "That GM just sucks in general".

 

[Maxperson]

I think what people are saying is that if the rules say the DM isn't bound by dice rolls, or prior fiction, or anything--which seems to be what some people mean by "absolute DM authority"--then much of what most people here would consider good DMing is ... if not against the rules, outside the rules.

Personally, I think the rules are written with the understanding that the DM will be bound by dice rolls and prior fiction, at a minimum; but this expectation is ... not, that I know of, explicitly stated in the rules. I have a suspicion this means I'm going to be drawing fire from both sides. Oh comma well.

You're lucky I'm not very good at drawing things. A poor stick figure is my speed. Fire is completely out of the question.

I think the rules are written with the assumption that a DM whose goal is for the players to have fun will choose to honor die rolls and prior fiction, but as you note, the rules don't say that and as written give the DM the authority to ignore those things.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Yeah, that's a good summary of why it seemed problematic in play. There was no indication that anything we did resulted in any real risk. Quite the opposite, actually. Each action we took seemed to go well. We managed to cross the river, limiting the chance of being followed. The rogue went into town on his own and his rolls to gather info went well. The duke's men that were in the Inn were there for something unrelated to the PCs. No rolls were called for at any point to avoid detection. No threat of anyone monitoring the rogue's actions or somehow noticing the party hanging on the outskirts of town.

Nothing was established by the GM that there was a risk of an ambush occurring. So when it did occur, yeah, it felt forced.



I think absolutely there could have been elements that had existed either before hand in the GM's notes on the town, or as part of narration and establishing the scenario. I think they likely would have revealed themselves in some way before the ambush. That there would have been some sense of risk, or at the very least that rolls had been made poorly, indicating that perhaps we missed something important or relevant along the way.




That's an interesting question. I think the fact that this is a specific ability does make it seem worse. I mean, this is the rules saying "you can do THIS THING" and it's something I picked as part of character generation, meaning that I want THIS THING to be part of the game.

Would I feel the same as if this had just been action declaration without evoking a specific ability? Maybe not, but in considering it, I probably should.



I agree for the most part. The distinction I would make is that the rules actually do grant player agency. They also give the ability for the GM to undermine that agency, which to me should only happen when there is a truly compelling reason to do so.



Yeah, people have different takes on it, for sure. My preference in the scenario I described is that the GM allow the use of the Folk Hero ability because everything about the fiction and the group and the rolls indicated it should work.

Absent some mitigating factors such as those that have been suggested here in this thread (but which didn't come up in play), I don't know why a GM would not honor it other than to assert their will on the game.

Interesting scenario. I believe the GM forced their way here, too, rather than letting the story emerge. I can imagine how it likely happened: prep work involved the big conflict with the duke's men and the aftermath. Silly DM - your plans never survive first contact with the players! (And I say that having been there many times over).

Easy to play Monday morning quarterback here but I think a more palatable solution, rewarding the players for their creativity but still pushing the element of danger and possibly ending up in the conflict the DM had prepped, might have been a variation on the following:

1. Some of the duke's men come to the farmhouse early the next morning to warn the couple that some vagabonds (description matching the party) are about and ask that they report any sighting to the garrison at the Inn at once for a reward
2. Either the party overhears -or- the couple relays the message when the duke's men move on
3. The party is now faced with the challenge of getting away from this town, too, or risk being discovered by a more thorough search and likely putting the couple in danger for harboring fugitives
4. If there is some kind of magical tracking by the duke, the party should be given some (more) clue(s) so they can take action


TL;DR: plan scenes not plot; telegraph dangers; root for the players

 

[Maxperson]

I have to think, as well, that at least some of the people saying "DM Authority is absolute" and "The DM has a duty to make the game [enjoyable] for the players by being responsive" are, in practice, sharing authority more than they expect, intend, or realize.

I'm curious how you think the authority is being shared. From my view, I'm not exercising the authority in an abusive way in order that everyone have fun. That doesn't seem like sharing authority to me. That said, I've actually begun experimenting in a few campaigns with sharing the authority a little bit, but so far the players aren't really utilizing it.

 

[pemerton]

The module has a plot. You modified that plot, but there was still a plot (the proof is right there in the fact that there were two attacks planned and decided to have only one).

This is weird.

All RPGing involves the occurrence of events. Someone has to decide how to frame those events ("situation"). I decided, as you note, that two attacks was not a good way to frame things and so made a different decision about framing. If that is enough to show there is a "plot", then all RPGing has a plot as a matter of tautology.

Given that this is not true - the most famous contemporary counterexample is Apocalypse World and many of its offshoots - it follows that something has gone wrong in your reasoning. And it's clear what that is: namely, your equation of deciding on some framing with choosing a plot.

Another way to see it is this: whatever decision I made as GM about what event to frame the PCs on the boat into, that would be a plot by your definition. But there can't be RPGing without someone making some decision about what event to frame the PCs on the boat into. So by your definition there is no RPGing without pre-authored plot. Which as I've said, is a reductio on your definition.

your summaries of games are actually vast fights where you ignore most of the rules for the rule of cool.

Huh? What is the "vast fight" in Maiden Voyage? In four sessions of play there is a bare-knuckle boxing match in session 1 (resolve via Bloody Versus - ie as an opposed check), a fight with some zombies in session 3, and a fight with an imp in session 4.

There have been about a dozen fights in twenty sessions of our Classic Traveller game - including both interpersonal and space combat, and escapes from enemy fire.

I have dozens of actual play posts on these boards for over half-a-dozen systems. You and anyone else can read them for themselves.