Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 7977562" data-attributes="member: 6993955">I would agree with [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] here. In D&D 5E as written, the players have no input over consequences, that's entirely on the GM. There is no room in the D&D rules for a player to declare the widget is in the maguffin, they can only search the maguffin and hope for the best.As for allocating authority for the unfolding of play, I might broaden the discussion a little. It is incontrovertibly true that the authority for consequences lies entirely with the GM. However, the range of those consequences is set by player actions, or at least suggested by player actions. In the guards example from above the range of reasonable guard reactions, or consequences, is to some extent determined by how the players handle the initial interaction, and their subsequent reactions. I might describe this as the players having a limited authority to narrow the field of consequences based on their action choices. An objection could be raised that 'suggesting' a range of consequences doesn't really confer any authority at all, but I would disagree. The extent to which the GM works within that range will have a significant impact on player engagement. If the GM is constantly ignoring, for example, player attempts to interact non-violently with the guard, the players are going get frustrated and/or angry. The reason for that anger is precisely that the GM is ignoring their input into the fiction in favor of his own narrative choices. I think the resulting motivation to work within the range of consequences suggested by the players' actions is strong enough to warrant use of the term authority, even if  it's not so cut and dry as the GM authority over consequences.In the case of the widget things get a little bit sticky, because now we're talking about physical reality, not social interaction. The GM still has similar choices to make though. In the face of a long string of well-reasoned player choices that all index narrowing the field of consequences around we need to find the widget the GM has to decide how often of for how long he wants to frustrate the PCs if they simply aren't looking where he put it. Part of this can be solved by changing the narrative a little. If the players were looking for evidence of the Duke's malfeasance rather than the Duke's diary then is no need to even consider changing the location of the letter, or other behind the screen decisions that sometimes get people up in arms and shouting about illusionism, railroading and the negation of player agency. Evidence, unspecified, could be found in many places, but the diary only one.</blockquote>

Verification