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

[Lanefan]

* If the players are expecting skilled play to govern whether they can woo an NPC (eg the Social Interaction mechanics of 5e is basically a game of Charades + Wheel of Fortune) and the GM's unrevealed backstory makes it impossible for the PCs + the GM hasn't made a sufficiently telegraphed soft move as to why this NPC is not wooable...

...Houston...we have a problem.

* If the players are expecting Genre Logic + Intent and Task resolution + Fail Forward to govern action resolution and the GM is all..."nah, process simulation where failure is (a) task-driven and (b) hard failure..."

...Houston...we have a problem.

* If the player is expecting Story Now priorities to govern the deployment of a Background Trait (they're the player deploying their dramatic need driven fiat that is embedded into their character build and now the gamestate says <whatever is inherent to the trait> and the GM has to honor that and evolve the fiction accordingly...except the GM is all "nah, unrevealed backstory says this Trait doesn't work now" or "nah, I don't like how this perturbs my metaplot or the AP's metaplot..."

...Houston...we have a problem.

* If the players are expecting that skilled play governs if a Long Rest has been earned and thusly the gamestate going into the BBEG showdown should be <group is fully recharged> and the GM is all "nah, I don't like the way that screws up the drama of the BBEG fight" or "nah, unrevealed backstory (that wasn't sufficiently telegraphed with a soft move where players could draw the inference says this BBEG has a contingency plan that says x bad thing happens that offsets the players new fully-charged status..."

...Houston...we have a problem.

Your bias is showing.

In all four of those examples the GM is painted as being the problem.

There are dozens and dozens of varying instantiations of the above lurking in any given 5e game if the metachannel isn't open. You can't just drift from Vanilla Story Now to GM Force to Skilled Play to Process Simulation over Genre Logic to arbitrary Hard Fail vs Fail Forward to GM/AP Story Hour etc.

I agree a GM has to be somewhat consistent in how the game is run*, but (to draw on one of your examples above) if the GM sets a tone up front where process-sim and hard-fail is how things are done and stays consistent with that, there's no problem unless the players fail to accept that that's how this game is run.

But again, once having set this tone it's on the GM to be consistent with it and-or to be clear if-when there's any major exceptions. (for example, such a GM might change the pace by throwing the PCs into a one-off dreamworld adventure where whatever the PCs/players think happens, happens; which puts it completely on to the players to in effect write their own setting - the GM just has to make it clear somehow that this is the case [possibly via a bit of trial-and-error by the players] and that it's not a permanent change to the normal way of play)

* - the exception, of course, is if-when a GM knows she's got a group of players whose playstyle tastes don't align but as they're all she has she's got to work with them somehow. Here, some drift might be necessary just to keep everyone at least somewhat engaged.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Your bias is showing.

In all four of those examples the GM is painted as being the problem.

That's what you got from that? I see it as a mismatch of play agendas. The problem is the players are expecting A and the GM is delivering B. Why that is or who is to blame isn't being stated there, just the difference.

I agree a GM has to be somewhat consistent in how the game is run*, but (to draw on one of your examples above) if the GM sets a tone up front where process-sim and hard-fail is how things are done and stays consistent with that, there's no problem unless the players fail to accept that that's how this game is run.

But again, once having set this tone it's on the GM to be consistent with it and-or to be clear if-when there's any major exceptions. (for example, such a GM might change the pace by throwing the PCs into a one-off dreamworld adventure where whatever the PCs/players think happens, happens; which puts it completely on to the players to in effect write their own setting - the GM just has to make it clear somehow that this is the case [possibly via a bit of trial-and-error by the players] and that it's not a permanent change to the normal way of play)

I think the one-off toss into a different thing could very easily be problematic -- and there have been a couple of posts here on ENW about very similar things that show that it is.

Regardless, you're framing this as the players need to get onboard with the GM, which is the exact kind of bias thing you leveled at @Manbearcat.

* - the exception, of course, is if-when a GM knows she's got a group of players whose playstyle tastes don't align but as they're all she has she's got to work with them somehow. Here, some drift might be necessary just to keep everyone at least somewhat engaged.

Good grief, that this is framed as an exception is quite telling. I would have thought this would be the starting point to see if a game should form to begin with.

 

[Campbell]

The problem we have in Houston is a misalignment of expectations. The solution is often for all players (including the GM) to either seek their bliss elsewhere or to find a game they can play together with aligned expectations. It's not about who is right or wrong.

 

[Malmuria]

Good grief, that this is framed as an exception is quite telling. I would have thought this would be the starting point to see if a game should form to begin with.

should a game not start if players have slightly different preferences of what they like best?

 

[Lanefan]

should a game not start if players have slightly different preferences of what they like best?

Sightly different is probably OK to go. Wildly divergent is another thing entirely.

 

[niklinna]

should a game not start if players have slightly different preferences of what they like best?

If they communicate those preferences clearly and come to an understanding about what this game will be, they can have extermely different preferences and still start a game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

should a game not start if players have slightly different preferences of what they like best?

No, of course not. Slight differences are absolutely not able to be bridged by reasonable people nor can a compromise be reached or agreed to prior to play. This is an impossibility, and the obvious and immediate conclusion that should be jumped to. Odds of being in error when doing this I calculate to be a solidly low percentage that I didn't just make up so you can trust it.

Hopefully, the above is detectably sarcastic. If not, then let me be clear: the above is sarcasm, and I find this question to be ridiculous.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sightly different is probably OK to go. Wildly divergent is another thing entirely.

Even then the players agreed to play in the game.

d&d melds beer and pretzel types with invested roleplay types with extreme min maxer types. Those all can be wildly divergent and sometimes there’s a problem but many times they All get enough of what they like out of the game that it’s successful.

 

[Lanefan]

That's what you got from that? I see it as a mismatch of play agendas. The problem is the players are expecting A and the GM is delivering B. Why that is or who is to blame isn't being stated there, just the difference.

Yet in most cases the GM has pitched the game up front and the players have agreed to join based on that; so unless the GM has really been off-base with how the game was pitched (i.e. a bait-and-switch, which I think we can all agree is bad form) then it's on the players to play in the style they agreed to.

I think the one-off toss into a different thing could very easily be problematic -- and there have been a couple of posts here on ENW about very similar things that show that it is.

I'm sure there's posts in here somewhere that could be used to show absolutely any possible aspect of RPGing is somehow problematic.

Good grief, that this is framed as an exception is quite telling. I would have thought this would be the starting point to see if a game should form to begin with.

Not all GMs get to pick and choose their player base. Some (many?) are simply stuck with what they have, be it through being in a small town, or through out-of-game friendship concerns, or whatever.

 

[Thomas Shey]

should a game not start if players have slightly different preferences of what they like best?

Its one of those things that tends to turn on how sensitive people on what they expect a game to focus on on one end, and how much people are wanting to play even with obstacles at the other. I've seen people's responses here in the past that seemed to show that they've been fortunate enough in finding what they want that they don't understand what I suspect is the majority of the gaming populace, which is composed of people who have to work it out with other players who don't really want the same things and try to find something at least satisfactory in preference to not playing at all (which is what they're other meaningful option would often be).