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

[Manbearcat]

In my opinion, it does not reflect well on the 5e GMing community nor 5e as a ruleset that @hawkeyefan 's depicted play excerpt is even in the slightest bit controversial.

Would it be controversial if a 5e GM said to a Ranger (Natural Explorer) who is leading his allies on a perilous journey through the wild any of the following:

• The difficult terrain slows your group's travel.
• You're lost because the topography is particularly dizzying.
• But you were tracking...how can you possibly be alert to dangers?!
• Yeah, I know you were tracking the 4 Ogres that came through here 3 days ago, but its actually 6 Hill Giants and it was all an elaborate trap! They're here now and upon you!

The game is littered with examples of "would it be controversial if" where the answer should emphatically be "YES!1111!"

When the final playtest came out, Background Traits were one of 3 things in the ruleset that I cited as the strongest features of the game.

If you're a Folk Hero PC, and assuming the place you're in meets the fictional parameters (if this was a PBtA move, the trigger would be "when you're among the common folk and on the run or exhausted from a journey, they'll take you in to evade pursuit or recover") and you deploy Rustic Hospitality in an evasion conflict, that is the player taking their small foothold in the GM's world and establishing an archetypal reality; "these folks will risk everything for their belief in me, that belief matters in this world, and they know I'll continue to give them reason to believe."

A GM shutting that down is completely subordinating both your thematic decision-making and your tactical decision-making as a player. They're basically saying "nah...none of that is true...not the folk hero mythology facts on the ground...not the willingness to risk themselves...not the evasion of pursuit...have this ice cold bath of go eff yourself and fight these dudes!"

Its an egregious use of Force.

This should not net pages of conversation.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

so far the players aren't really utilizing it.

Absolutely this.

DM: "You can do whatever you want."
Players: "Where is the story?"

 

[prabe]

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.

So, first: I didn't name names, because I am inclined to think people hanging out in GM-centric spaces online (and EN World is GM-centric) are more likely to think things through than people not doing so. Plausibly naive, but whatever.

I think it's possible to understand "responsive to player input" as "sharing authority." It's reasonable to think of reacting to a player's question about the environment (is there a chandelier here, is there a blacksmith in this town, can I find a corrupt official here) with "I hadn't thought about that ... why not?" as in a way sharing the authority to create the world. I do this explicitly when I ask for PC backstories (and I'm doing it differently in a real-world-adjacent game I'm hoping to start soon). A GM can do it explicitly by asking "How do you know this?" or some similar question.

That is of course leaving aside the questions related to Let it Ride and similar mechanics, which can plausibly be imported to D&D without rendering the game not-D&D. Arguably such importation would represent a DM ceding authority to the mechanics, not to the players.

 

[pemerton]

DM: "You can do whatever you want."
Players: "Where is the story?"

Thankfully there are better techniques than this out there. We can look at how a game like Burning Wheel, or Apocalypse World, or DitV, or In A Wicked Age, tackles the need to establish situation.

There are significant differences across these games, but one thing they have in common is that, at the point of PC gen, they distribute authority over backstory. So players are able to build hooks into their PCs which can grab the GM.

 

[prabe]

Would it be controversial if a 5e GM said to a Ranger (Natural Explorer) who is leading his allies on a perilous journey through the wild any of the following:

• The difficult terrain slows your group's travel.

I had to tell a party with two rangers in it that as they were traveling through some particularly nasty/rugged mountains they were moving at a normal pace but weren't able to take a direct path, so weren't making many crow's flight miles in a given time. Does that count? (FWIW, the players were fine with it ...)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Thankfully there are better techniques than this out there. We can look at how a game like Burning Wheel, or Apocalypse World, or DitV, or In A Wicked Age, tackles the need to establish situation.

There are significant differences across these games, but one thing they have in common is that, at the point of PC gen, they distribute authority over backstory. So players are able to build hooks into their PCs which can grab the GM.

I'm not familiar with those games, but there is nothing in D&D that stops the players making backstory, or the DM using it. But in my experience, the reason players are players is because they want someone else to come up with the story.

If players give me something I can use, that's great, but most of the time they don't.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

If a DM rolls in the open, I can't imagine them not being bound by the dice rolls. IMO, if one is not comfortable with one (or more) of the possible outcomes of the roll of the dice, one should reflect upon why they rolled in the first place.

As for being bound by prior fiction, I believe consistency is key. If something happens that is not consistent with prior events then that can potentially be jarring to game play... UNLESS that inconsistency is a clue - a very obvious clue - to an in-world mystery that the players/PCs need to solve.

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 agree.

DMG p 236: "Dice are neutral arbiters. They can determine the outcome of an action without assigning any motivation to the DM and without playing favorites. The extent to which you use them is entirely up to you."

My interpretation of this passage: the DM decides whether to roll or not.
I do not believe this passage is indicating, implicitly or explicitly: the DM can/should roll and then decide to accept the result or not.

I have a suspicion this means I'm going to be drawing fire from both sides. Oh comma well.

"And my AXE!"

 

[prabe]

Absolutely this.

DM: "You can do whatever you want."
Players: "Where is the story?"

This is, in my experience, a pitfall of ... play more toward the extreme sandbox end of the spectrum.

I've found it works better if the DM can say something like, "You've solved the problem you were working on, you've found a couple other problems, and you have some projects/problems pending. What next?" I've found a solution for starting a campaign is to get the players to buy in to the PCs being at the same place and time, and instigating for all I'm worth. Then weaving in other things as they're chasing that down.

 

[pemerton]

there is nothing in D&D that stops the players making backstory, or the DM using it.

Agreed. And in 5e it's a default - via the selection of PC background.

But backgrounds are still a bit thin to provide hooks for situation. Generally it's relationships - with NPCs and/or among PCs - that will help with this.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is, in my experience, a pitfall of ... play more toward the extreme sandbox end of the spectrum.

I've found it works better if the DM can say something like, "You've solved the problem you were working on, you've found a couple other problems, and you have some projects/problems pending. What next?" I've found a solution for starting a campaign is to get the players to buy in to the PCs being at the same place and time, and instigating for all I'm worth. Then weaving in other things as they're chasing that down.

If you present the players some problems they can try and solve (AKA plot hooks) isn't that what you where calling a railroad?

If you don't present the players with plot hooks, my experience is you are met with silence and blank looks. As for instigation, best case scenario: "I make a perception check to see if there are any mysterious hooded figures sitting in the corner of the tavern".