DM Empowerment vs. Player Entitlement - Is this really that prevalent?

[Mark CMG]

I was directed recently to a post on the WotC community forums where a gamer with a solid pedigree of GMing for 30+ years takes issue with the idea of GM Empowerment. He gets plenty of the usual +1s from those who agree and some interesting rebuttals from those who think the problem isn't as clear cut as he outlines, shunting most of the blame toward bad DMing rather than the issue being as plain as a struggle between DM Empowerment vs. Player Entitlement. So, where do the chips really fall on this issue? Is it really an issue or are some bad DMs and some bad players making both sides of this seem more prevalent than really needs to be addresed through the 5E ruleset?

(Here's the link for those who wish to check out the postings elsewhere.)

 

[Savage Wombat]

Well, I'd say that bad DMing is the worst offender. But the more story-focussed style of gaming requires a little more DM control, as opposed to a more group-storytelling style.

I personally like slightly more concrete rules, both as player and DM, than "whatever the DM says this week is how it works".

 

[Sunseeker]

Honestly, the books should by default establish the "DM" as the "leader" of the group. While more cooperative gaming does exist this style of gaming is often practiced by much more experienced players. In my not so humble and highly anecdotal opinion, I believe that generally speaking the DM should lead the group.

Using the political analogy of "consent of the governed" is a much more wishy-washy phrase than people would like to believe. It can mean that players will give the DM UNLIMITED POWER!!!!! over the game. It could mean that the DM is little more than perhaps a slightly more experienced or savvy player who can help people out while they all play a very group-constructed game.

The DM should lead by consent, however they should still "lead" in some fashion, from as simple as providing advice and guidance, perhaps answers to rules questions, to a forced march through the desert. It really depends on the campaign, the DM, and the players. I don't believe that a 100% cooperative game should be the default design, but I don't feel a dictatorship is the solution either.

I do feel that in the past Wizards has done a good job in establishing the DM as the "guide" to the game, while acknowledging that the level of power the DM possesses is highly dependent upon the group.


In short: Some groups work well in a highly cooperativly created game, some players don't. Some DMs like to see the amazing things their players can create on their own while providing only a little support. Some DMs like to run very narrative-focused story-style adventures. Both are perfectly fine ways to play D&D. However, I feel that the more cooperative games come about from experience and learning on the subject. The more you play, the more likely you are to come up with creative ideas on your own, the more you want to see those ideas come to fruition. When you are new to the game, you require much more direction and assistance in simply playing the game, creating your own content is unlikely to even be on your mind.

I do not agree with the mentality that the DM is "just another player", be they helpful reference desk, general guide to the game, or narrativist, the DM holds a privileged position in any game where the players are not all equally experienced and educated.


However, I feel that what Wizards is saying by "empowering the DM" and what this poster is saying are different things. When I hear Wizards talk about "empowering the DM", I get the general feeling that what Wizards is trying to do is give the DM the ability to more easily break away from the pre-programmed systems and structures that are printed in the books. They are not attempting to establish the DM as the table dictator, they are attempting to establish a more clearly defined way for DMs to be creative without worrying about breaking the game or relying on highly rail-roady printed content.

 

[Nagol]

As a DM, I dislike Rule Zero. I approach the rules as a shared understanding of how the game works. The players can only be expected to make sensible choices if their assumptions around how the game works are grounded. The best grounding is the shared ruleset; everything else is open to personal bias and amateur assumptions and extrapolation.

I've had "Because I said so" GMs. Usually, they were trying to develop a better story, but it wasn't the story the player group was trying to generate. Better variously meant more dramatic, more realistic, more inclusive, more awesome, easier, or harder than the rules presented would provide. A mercifully few times the GM seemed to be on a power trip and had more personal goals to his decisions. The difference between expectation and actual play typically generated frustration and warped tactics.

I do reserve one area where the DM has complete control: pre-play -- the rules choice, starting environment, and initial situation. Once play begins then the game becomes shared and the expectations of how the game will play should only be violated if the group agrees.

 

[dkyle]

"DM Empowerment" really means "DM fiat". And to me, "DM fiat" can easily become an immersion breaker if it blatantly violates the mechanics (the physics of the world), or if it produces outcomes that trivialize the actual mechanics.

If a game has well-structured combat, but loose, "DM Empowerment" non-combat, I'm going to expect the important story elements to be generated by combat. Otherwise, the whims of the DM (and meta-game arguments with the DM) become more important than the in-character decision making of the players (and that includes builds and tactics vis-a-vis the combat system).

If a rules system says "DM decides" on something, then that something should be relatively minor, and something that can usually be glossed over. That's how I take those sorts of rules as a DM, and as a player, I get frustrated when DMs see them as a license to exert undue narrative control.

 

[Guest 85555]

I am not big on giving powers traditionally assumed by the GM to players or on building a rules system as a defense against bad GMs. I think the problem is generally overblown. If you are looking for it I suppose you will find it, or if your standards are too high you are bound to be dissapointed.

 

[Yora]

I can be quite vocal in getting things the way I want them done. However, this never has become a problem because I have yet to see any player to voice even a preference. And I am so introverted that I can't imagine being naturally so intimidating that none of my friends would dare to reply anything but "Whatever you want is great for us".

 

[Hassassin]

DM Empowerment vs. Player Entitlement

People with strong opinions on either side often disagree on the definitions, so maybe you should define what you mean by these.

 

[Mark CMG]

As related questions -

Does the DM often have secret/unrevealed campaign/setting knowledge that requires a DM to be trusted to make decisions based on being the only one with this knowledge, thus seeming as if the DM might sometimes being doing things by "fiat?"

Also, do player need to have a full knowledge of all the campaign/setting details that go into making a DMing decision so the players can always be assured that the game is being run "fairly?"

 

[Sunseeker]

I can be quite vocal in getting things the way I want them done. However, this never has become a problem because I have yet to see any player to voice even a preference. And I am so introverted that I can't imagine being naturally so intimidating that none of my friends would dare to reply anything but "Whatever you want is great for us".

If a DM can provide me with interesting and engaging content, then I'm the kind of person who will very much be content with "doing what the DM says". The game is about having fun, and as long as everyone(DM included) is having fun, isn't that the point?