This video is a great introduction to ttrpgs in general, but at this timestamp (23:08) has some particularly good GM advice on some of the points raised in this thread
edit: also, just to elaborate a bit, basically the advice is when a player asks "can I do X," the GM should avoid simply saying "no." Notably, the examples given (strong implied context of dnd) are either not things covered in the rules (e.g. drinking a sip of a potion), or are places where the rules are punitive to the point of discouraging the action (not to mention buried in long rulebooks).
It is heartening to hear him say this, because this is exactly what I have dedicated myself to doing as a DM: going the extra mile to try to make what my players envision actually work. There are rare times where I simply have to say no. But I do my best to find SOME way to say yes...or at least "qualified yes." (As in adding a cost, giving an alternative intending to go in the same direction, or proposing something that I hope will be even more in the players' interests.) I prefer to think of it as supporting player enthusiasm rather than equipping the player with the ability to shape the story, but the result is the same.
And to be clear I am not knocking rules as anti-agency. I am just pointing out it is more complicated than "more rules, less GM authority, equals greater agency" and "fewer rules, more GM authority, equals less agency" . I am cool with games that have robust rules systems and one of the advantages is exactly what you point out. But over time, I tend to find the rules system itself more constricting than having fewer rules with more GM authority because it is the ability to go beyond any pre-laid down rules that really gives me the sense of freedom (and that's just my taste, I don't think this is a very black and white thing).
Having good rules does not preclude going beyond them. In fact, acting like the rules are the limit rather than the beginning is pretty much exactly the same kind of thing as acting like GM authority inherently means arbitrary, dictatorial q results. You are substituting the degenerate bad case for the overall structure, something that upsets you about "MMI." What justifies using it when the criticism happens to align with your preferences, when it was unjustified if used against them?
If player agency is gated by, granted by, and must have the approval of the GM, it's not the players' agency, it's the GM's. You're advocating for what I've termed the benevolent dictator mode of play
I agree, this is the best case play in games with strong MMI authority structures, but it's a mistake to say that the dictatorship affords more agency to the subjects. Structurally, 5e doesn't afford much agency at all outside of combat and spells unless there's a social construct that acts to constrain the GM's fiat.
Yep. Completely agreed. "Gated by, granted by, and requiring the approval of the GM" is exactly what "MMI" (or "RL/GL") is pointing at. It's not agency if someone else has a stranglehold on it that they just
happen to not use.
I wouldn't call this "benevolent dictator" mode of play any more than MMI. Again, you can't just insist on these labels as objective descriptors. Also note, the two descriptors you are choosing are highly negative. Again if they are critiques of a style of game you don't like, fair enough. i.e. I don't like systems that give the GM too much power because at best it feels like a benevolent dictatorship: that's just an honest reaction. Its this move into thinking these are objective descriptors where I am really taking issue here.
How else should one criticize "there are no rules except what I as DM tell you, the book is just a set of suggestions"? Because I could in fact actually name users on this forum who have said that or agreed to it. At least one who has adamantly insisted that there are ZERO limits on their authority as DM, that they have genuinely
absolute power.
I'm not there to rule over the players in a game like this at all. I am there to help facilitate a game, and I have powers over certain aspect of the game in order to do that, which we have all bought into because it is a very workable process. But I can't say to a player "You are going to that dungeon now, and then you are going to open the left door, and then attack what you find behind it". Again, my approach here is all about taking what the players are trying to do and seeing where that takes us (using things like rulings, etc). I don't think benevolent dictatorship describes the best case scenario with a typical D&D GM power structure at all. Not even a little.
Then what does? Because a benevolent dictatorship is one where the law has no real meaning, but the leadership is trying (without the law, just with their dictates and policies) to do what it thinks best for the people. How is that not what is going on here? The rules don't constrain you in the slightest, or you wouldn't be able to override all of the at your leisure.
Except every table has a social contract. Every GM's fiats are constrained by the players in some way. If I make egregious fiats, my players, even ones who like me a lot, are going to walk. That is part of the social nature of gaming. I think with 5E, like most other roleplaying games, this social contract is assumed. When you present a rulebook with traditional GM powers, you do so with the assumption that one thing that will likely help that work is the social contract at the table.
There's more to it than that though. A game's rules and advice can make it easier or harder to understand, share, and implement a social contract. They set a tone. As
@pemerton noted above, the DM advice in 5e is...not particularly favorable to open-ended resolution. The DM advice in 4e, on the other hand, is intensely so, very forward about encouraging creative and explorative uses of your skills and powers. Indeed, they actively encouraged DMs to change power keywords if doing so would help a character be more flavorful (rather than more powerful), with the example of a character asking to change a power from fire to cold because their Wizard is a specialist in ice magic.
Games don't get off scot free just because they include a notion of social contract. The game itself affects whether, and how well, that social contract functions. One aspect of criticizing a system, as opposed to an individual game, of "Red Light/Green Light" situations, is that it may challenge whether the system is actually helping its users build and maintain a social contract that helps them.
It's all relative and next to totally useless IMO. At some point stripping away the positives that a style/approach imparts and taking the negatives to infinity always leaves you with a horrible sounding RPG compared to the style of RPG you are comparing/contrasting it to. IMO, the best approach is take each game on it's own terms with what it is trying to do instead of deconstructing them to extremes.
My problem is, I don't find this to be an extreme. I have had literal actual users on this forum insist on it. The absoluteness of GM authority and the total irrelevance of the rules, the lack of need to justify or even discuss a ruling, etc. And specifically expressing joy that 5e embraced such absolute authority and "empowerment." By that light, it doesn't seem useless at all.
If you cast a spell, no matter how much authority the GM has, the GM is expected to honor what the spell says, and this is the important part: there is a good reason to nullify the outcome.
Multiple users on this very forum have specifically told me that this is not true of their 5e games, and that 5e gives them the right to do so. They can nullify, rewrite, or reinterpret any part of the rules, at any time, for any reason or even no reason at all, without any requirement to notify, explain, or even discuss. Players who do not care for this can find other tables to play at. This was absolutely explicit and specific, no implications or interpretation involved.
I think we are getting lost in analogies here, but I disagree. I am not saying you can't examine a rule system if it isn't working for some reason. If there is a problem with a particular part of a game engine, by all means that can adjusted. My argument isn't for only playing dysfunctional rules systems or something. But my point with the analogy of mother may I is its like seeing one car's gas tank explode in a fiery wreck and concluding all gas powered cars always explode in wrecks. Yes, exploding is a danger when you drive a gas powered car, but it isn't he intention of the design. And sure some cars, like the pinto, might be defective and have way too much risk for exploding. I don't think standard D&D is defective when it comes to its power dynamics though. Again though we are probably getting lost int he analogy at this point.
Then you are incorrect on both assumptions here.
First, you are turning "this is a criticism of this system or this specific campaign" into "this is a criticism of all possible games ever." Don't make that leap. I'm not. Nor are most others here.
3e was absolutely defective. Its original designers admitted as much. Their successors at Paolo eventually had to do the same. The system simply from the ground up has fundamental errors that cannot be fixed without gutting the game to its foundations and starting over. Which is what 4e and PF2e did.
I think 5e is nowhere near as badly-designed as 3e was. But I do think its design and advice encourage inflexibility, capriciousness, and a general attitude of utterly absolute, "my way or the highway" authority.
I just don't think the dynamics of mother may I and of D&D are close enough for that comparison to hold.
The actual testimony of real DMs, from this very forum, begs to differ.
