D&D 5E At Your 5E Table, How Is It Agreed upon That the PCs Do Stuff Other than Attack?

[SkidAce]

... As a result, having the players drive the narrative is rather out of fashion today. The pendulum will swing back the other way sooner or later...but I fear it will be quite a bit "later" at this point.

This is not my experience.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is not my experience.

Okay. I see a rising tide of viking hat DMs and people insisting on DMing tools which inherently take agency away from players. What else am I supposed to think?

 

[Oofta]

Okay. I see a rising tide of viking hat DMs and people insisting on DMing tools which inherently take agency away from players. What else am I supposed to think?

That you are experiencing observation bias because several people are telling you it's not a concern? There have always been DMs that take away the agency of players and there likely always will be.

I don't see any rising tide.

 

[SkidAce]

Okay. I see a rising tide of viking hat DMs and people insisting on DMing tools which inherently take agency away from players. What else am I supposed to think?

Well, you could be right.

Or misinterpreting signs. I'm not here to judge.


I just feel that it may not be as widespread as you think.

From our discussions with people, in person, while playing, on forums, etc. it seems more middle of the road.

It could be that the folks my group encounters tolerate or are indifferent to (or don't use) some of the things/tools that your groups/people feel reduce agency.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay. I see a rising tide of viking hat DMs and people insisting on DMing tools which inherently take agency away from players. What else am I supposed to think?

What's a "viking hat DM"?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What's a "viking hat DM"?

You can read about it here, but the TL;DR (as said in that post) is "It describes a DMing style where basically what the DM says, goes, end of story." The original post from RPG.net had someone describing it in...colorful language that isn't acceptable here on ENWorld. Suffice it to say, the person who coined the term felt that players should promptly and unquestioningly obey/relent/etc. The "Viking Hat" is...openly imperious, I guess is the best way to put it.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

You can read about it here, but the TL;DR (as said in that post) is "It describes a DMing style where basically what the DM says, goes, end of story." The original post from RPG.net had someone describing it in...colorful language that isn't acceptable here on ENWorld. Suffice it to say, the person who coined the term felt that players should promptly and unquestioningly obey/relent/etc. The "Viking Hat" is...openly imperious, I guess is the best way to put it.

Do you feel any of the poll answer options indicate a "viking hat" DM?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Do you feel any of the poll answer options indicate a "viking hat" DM?

I feel none of them say anything explicit about it either way, because the core of "viking hat" is about arbitrary (in both senses of the term) authority.

That said, "the DM just decides," with varying degrees of player input, is obviously dramatically more common than any other selection here, that is, options 2, 4, and 6. Coupled with other received wisdom of the current gaming culture, that's extremely fertile ground for "viking hat."

 

[Pedantic]

I have found a great deal of value in minimizing the amount of information truly hidden from the players. That is, I'm not saying you should be absolutely and instantly forthright about all possible facts. Just that never, ever telling a lie or ending an investigation with "you find nothing" etc. has been really positive. Because, by avoiding such actions, you cut out a great deal of problematic metagaming. Players no longer need to fight their own distrust. Instead, use those failed rolls as a way to reveal something they wish wasn't true (as DW puts it, "Reveal an unwelcome truth") or bring a problem to a head such that the players now have to do something about it instead of just passively investigating, or other such things that drive action rather than merely terminating stuff with (narratively) unproductive failure.

That has gameplay implications though, because now you're disincentivizing making checks in the first place. I don't necessarily mind more extreme results than "the status quo prevails" for player actions, but to the extent possible in a given situation, that's precisely the sort of thing I'd want to be knowable to players ahead of time. If every failed check is supposed to affect something I care about roughly equally negatively, what is the reason to pursue any particular course of action outside of "whatever I'm most likely to succeed at?"

If anything, the best play would be to find some way to lie about your goals, while taking actions that push them obliquely.

 

[Yaarel]

I have found a great deal of value in minimizing the amount of information truly hidden from the players. That is, I'm not saying you should be absolutely and instantly forthright about all possible facts. Just that never, ever telling a lie or ending an investigation with "you find nothing" etc. has been really positive. Because, by avoiding such actions, you cut out a great deal of problematic metagaming. Players no longer need to fight their own distrust. Instead, use those failed rolls as a way to reveal something they wish wasn't true (as DW puts it, "Reveal an unwelcome truth") or bring a problem to a head such that the players now have to do something about it instead of just passively investigating, or other such things that drive action rather than merely terminating stuff with (narratively) unproductive failure.

If the DM is playing ball, sure. I find a lot of them aren't willing to do that. The whole "DM empowerment" movement has been rather successful at teaching DMs that giving your players a micrometer is Extremely Bad for any of various reasons (most of which I consider alarmist at absolute best). As a result, having the players drive the narrative is rather out of fashion today. The pendulum will swing back the other way sooner or later...but I fear it will be quite a bit "later" at this point.

I am of the if-they-ask-tell-them philosophy.

But still, often enough the players are narratively interacting with a scene that they dont fully understand yet. It might be things that certain creatures are remembering or planning in a social encounter, or stuff nearby or out of view in an exploration encounter, or both of these in a combat encounter. So the DM who knows all of the factors needs to referee success-or-failure.