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="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5987156" data-attributes="member: 32536">I can't really agree with how you characterize the DM/Player relationship in my examples. I think you're adding things that really are not there.Keep in mind that my examples describe an extremely small slice of the general D&D action. In fact, my examples refer directly to the phase in which a player is determining what their character does and how their character acts. In my opinion, this is a place where it is perfectly fine for the DM to take a step back. The DM has already created the setting and situation, has had opposing forces make their moves, and has set the tone for the entire event. The DM has done plenty, and at that point pretty much anything the player does will cause interaction between the two and significant DM involvement.We are not talking about taking away the DM's power to do the most important elements of what the DM must do; we are discussing the ability of the DM to intervene and control a PC's actions. Basically, we are talking about how much the DM should have the ability to control what the players can do and how the players can react to a situation. From the opposite perspective from the DM's, this is about the player's freedom to determine how their own character works and what their own character can do. This is about the DM being able to trust the player's opinions and perspective and accept that, even if there are differences, the player knows best on what actions are appropriate or not. This is about whether the DM should be the players' coach in addition to being the other team and the referee.Overall, I think the players should be the final authority for their own characters, rather than the DM.Anyways, there really at least three different ways I can think of that this situation could be approached.1) The DM arbitrates player actions. The DM controls all aspects of the situation, and any action by a PC requires either information from the DM or explicit permission by the DM. This need is generally implicit in the rules rather than explicit, but it is still there. This is what I would call the old-school approach that is often derided as "Mother May I?".2) The rules arbitrate player actions. The situation is formally controlled by the rules whenever possible, with only unusual situations falling under DM control. This kind of game tends to use things like a battle grid, strong and complete rules, and strongly codified player abilities. This is the 4E-style approach that is often derided as "boardgamey" or "videogamey".3) The players arbitrate player actions. The situation is equally controlled by everyone at the table, and everyone has a clear ability to create elements of the setting and situation to suit their needs. Players don't need to ask the DM if a chandelier exists because they are free to write the chandelier into the setting themselves. This is more the indie RPG approach that is derided as a "storygame, not a real RPG".I suppose all three are equally valid, but they feature incredibly different and often incompatible playstyles that require very different rules. Personally, I'm fine with 2 and would be interested in 3, but would prefer to avoid 1. This really is a matter of taste, not absolute superiority, so I'm not sure I could be convinced to like 1.</blockquote>

Verification