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

[hawkeyefan]

When I run 5e, I require all players be naked. RULE ZERO, FIGHT ME!

 

[FrogReaver]

When I run 5e, I require all players be naked. RULE ZERO, FIGHT ME!

Interesting. I’ve Never tried nude d&d before…. Though since we’ve moved to Discord some of the players may be without my knowledge

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

If this is the case, and the GM is doing the things in the example (ie, not delivering the game the players expect from the pitch), then why are you complaining that it appears to be blaming the GM? You've just set up an expectation that would absolutely make this the GM's fault.

I am confused as to what you're claiming here other than it's not kosher to say that a difference can happen if it might be the GM's fault?

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

Well, when the question is a mismatch of player expectations compared to what's delivered, pointing out a way that this can happen seems like it's driving straight into the premise rather than looking for a random corner case just to say no, yes?

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.

Yes, this is my point -- if the exception is that the GM has to actually listen to his players and agree to a game everyone's onboard with, I feel there's a decided bit of a problem in the hobby. Even in big cities. Really, it's only with the advent of online gaming with VTTs that the tails are long enough that you could probably find a group that is 100% locked into exactly what a GM wants to run.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah, I don't think any one person's expectations....whether they're the GM or not....should be more important than anyone else's. Chances are that if you have significantly different expectations among participants, then compromises will be needed, and everyone should talk it out.

Placing the GM above others is, to me, a pretty archaic way of looking at it. And I am the GM for my home group like 90% of the time. One of the best lessons I learned was that the game is about everyone.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, this is my point -- if the exception is that the GM has to actually listen to his players and agree to a game everyone's onboard with, I feel there's a decided bit of a problem in the hobby. Even in big cities. Really, it's only with the advent of online gaming with VTTs that the tails are long enough that you could probably find a group that is 100% locked into exactly what a GM wants to run.

While I don't entirely disagree, it still seems like even the expectation that everyone is going to be 100% on board with, well, any game concept is an extremely outlier; it seems more significant to discuss how the expectation clash is handled (which I suspect is part of your point; when the assumption is "The GM gets it all his way", that's a problem).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I don't think any one person's expectations....whether they're the GM or not....should be more important than anyone else's. Chances are that if you have significantly different expectations among participants, then compromises will be needed, and everyone should talk it out.

Placing the GM above others is, to me, a pretty archaic way of looking at it. And I am the GM for my home group like 90% of the time. One of the best lessons I learned was that the game is about everyone.

And while I agree, I have to suggest in a lot of groups the GM is going to end up doing the lion's share of steering the game so it does fit as many people as well as possible, because there are an awful lot of players who still view their job in the game as seeking their own joy and (at best) not actively damaging other people's (at best, because they're going to put their own priorities first).

 

[Campbell]

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).

For my part it's more of a willingness to wander around in the desert for awhile. I would rather spend the time it takes to build a game where we are more simpatico than to spend time playing in a game that's kind of enjoyable, but not really that enjoyable. I would rather take more jiujitsu classes or maybe get more into community theater or power lifting for a bit. Maybe get into board games, a CCG or an MMO for awhile.

 

[FrogReaver]

D&D is a democracy. An even democracies have presidents. The players elect the DM to run the game in a way where they all can have fun. If he’s not doing a good enough job they will either move to another table or elect a different DM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And while I agree, I have to suggest in a lot of groups the GM is going to end up doing the lion's share of steering the game so it does fit as many people as well as possible, because there are an awful lot of players who still view their job in the game as seeking their own joy and (at best) not actively damaging other people's (at best, because they're going to put their own priorities first).

Yeah, this is likely true. But I think it's also part of the problem....if we see giving the GM priority on these matters as a problem (which may or may not be the case). And I think that's a valid critique of the 5E system itself....and most versions of D&D and many, many other RPGs. Their structure requires a significant amount of effort/preparation/investment on the part of the GM to the point where such an imbalance is unavoidable.

Many accept it as necessary, others are so used to it they just accept it as they do the sun.

Perhaps if that burden wasn't so great, then it would be easier to balance priority and input and many other elements of the game, not to mention social elements.

 

[Thomas Shey]

For my part it's more of a willingness to wander around in the desert for awhile. I would rather spend the time it takes to build a game where we are more simpatico than to spend time playing in a game that's kind of enjoyable, but not really that enjoyable. I would rather take more jiujitsu classes or maybe get more into community theater or power lifting for a bit. Maybe get into board games, a CCG or an MMO for awhile.

Honestly, that pretty much adds up to my "Just decide not to play" for many people who lack the time or werewithal to construct a group that will suit their needs, even if it is, in practice, possible. I realize your sensitivity on this is pretty high (you were one of the people I was thinking of when I said that), but the best evidence I have is that most people set that high just end up sliding out of the hobby completely over time (if they ever fully engage with it in the first place).