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

[FrogReaver]

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.

IMO. The reason games have DMs is the same reason that Democracies have presidents.

 

[Campbell]

It's absolutely an issue to me that so little is expected from players in most traditional tables. Players seeking out their own fun and not feeling responsible for how play turns out is a big deal to me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

This often isn't much more practical than what I discuss with Campbell above; in practice, the set of available GMs may be small enough that, again, its a case of chose the best of a (in this context) bad lot, or don't play (and no, I don't consider "run something yourself" a useful alternative for many people, as its abundantly clear there are a high percentage of RPG gamers who would rather not game at all than GM and/or have no talent for it to the degree they'd be no useful solution).

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

But of course, the great truth is that there's plenty of people who simply don't want to do any of the lifting required at the GM end. As you say (and I think Campbell is referring to above) this has problems in and of itself along with feeding some of the more malign elements of the power concentration at the GM end, but I doubt seriously its going to change any time soon. There's too many people who don't entirely even like as simple a power-sharing as is embodied in some of the stronger metacurrency systems, let alone anything more extensive.

 

[FrogReaver]

This often isn't much more practical than what I discuss with Campbell above; in practice, the set of available GMs may be small enough that, again, its a case of chose the best of a (in this context) bad lot, or don't play (and no, I don't consider "run something yourself" a useful alternative for many people, as its abundantly clear there are a high percentage of RPG gamers who would rather not game at all than GM and/or have no talent for it to the degree they'd be no useful solution).

While true I think your missing most of the purpose of the analogy.

 

[FrogReaver]

But of course, the great truth is that there's plenty of people who simply don't want to do any of the lifting required at the GM end. As you say (and I think Campbell is referring to above) this has problems in and of itself along with feeding some of the more malign elements of the power concentration at the GM end, but I doubt seriously its going to change any time soon. There's too many people who don't entirely even like as simple a power-sharing as is embodied in some of the stronger metacurrency systems, let alone anything more extensive.

Only thing I’d add is that disliking meta currency isn’t the same as disliking it because it allows power sharing.

 

[Malmuria]

Certainly, one should aim to have more than 20 minutes of fun in a 4 hour session. But fun doesn't have to be one's own playstyle being constantly engaged. And crucially, it can include vicarious fun as other people (e.g. your friends) are having fun.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's absolutely an issue to me that so little is expected from players in most traditional tables. Players seeking out their own fun and not feeling responsible for how play turns out is a big deal to me.

Yeah, I agree. I don't mind that some players are less invested than others, or that some folks engage with certain games differently, as long as the group and game can still function in the face of such differences. But I don't like when folks just passively want the game to entertain them. I don't like the idea that the GM is there to provide the bulk of "the show" and the players have little input.

Again, this is another potential source for imbalance at the table. And it comes from both sides. There are GMs who feel this is the way it should be, and there are players who feel that way, too. If they're all together at one table, good for them, but that's not a game for me.

 

[pemerton]

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.

IMO. The reason games have DMs is the same reason that Democracies have presidents.

I often see this idea posted - that the only permissible player response to poor GMing is to change GMs.

Yet when I post about times I've done just that, it often provokes howls of outrage - including in this thread, I think, or perhaps it was one of the parallel ones.

In any event, I don't see why that is the only possible response. What about talking to the GM about dissatisfaction with their approach? Or the BW idea, of using one's authority as a player to introduce content/situations that are more to one's taste? In D&D - which tends to lack mechanical support for this sort of thing - that might mean making a request to the GM for a particular event to happen in the game.

There's also the further question about what is meant by running the game? If that is supposed to mean establishing the fiction without constraint other than whatever is self-imposed, the claim that this is core to D&D is implausible to me. The game rules set out ways of establishing the fiction, and if I were to join a game of D&D, or offer to run one, I would expect that those rules are going to be used.

 

[Campbell]

Certainly, one should aim to have more than 20 minutes of fun in a 4 hour session. But fun doesn't have to be one's own playstyle being constantly engaged. And crucially, it can include vicarious fun as other people (e.g. your friends) are having fun.

For me it's not about having my special snowflake desires uniquely catered to. It's about having a consistent game run in a consistent way that functions as advertised. We don't have to have the same tastes to be simpatico. We just have to try to do the same fundamental things.