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

[Mark CMG]

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

They are mentioned in the linked thread and I wouldn't necassarily want to box someone in regarding how to respond here. Still, if anyone wishes to define them in regard to how they are responding, that certainly would go some way to gaining further responses to their reponse, I suppose. I did, in a more recent post here in this thread, present some counter discussion to each side of the issue by posting additional questions. Does that help at all? How would you define them?

 

[Sunseeker]

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?"

Again, highly campaign dependent, I would say that on the whole, unless the world and everything in it is being created from scratch as the players play, by the players, then yes the DM will have some sort of "inside knowledge" regarding what's going on. The perception of how this plays out is contingent on the players though.

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?"

No. Players only need to feel like they're opinions are being taken into consideration. They don't actually have to be(thank you retail!). I think a player can intuitively understand if a game is being played "fairly", however their opinion on what constitutes a "fair" game is really up to them.

While a player IMO is entitled to ask "why" to any decision, there is a limit, and the DM is not obligated to give an answer.

 

[Ranganathan]

When the DM makes a call, it's always DM Fiat. When the players like the call, it's good DMing. When the dislike the call, it's bad DMing.

Player entitlement vs DM fiat is simply a question of who at the table is the ultimate authority for the game, the DM or the players. Player entitlement is simply spreading the power around, with no one person as ultimate authority. Some games work well with this, certainly, but that's not always the case. Those arguing for player empowerment are missing the obvious, if DM fiat is "mother may I" then player empowerment is "group may I."

I don't see how one is inherently better than the other, save that with the group deciding you get decisions that potentially increase the entertainment value for the group as a whole, but story-wise you end up with too many cooks spoiling the broth.

This, like most things, isn't a binary. It's not either or, but a spectrum of options. In the most draconian session of D&D under the most tyrannical DM, the players are still empowered to make decisions for their characters.

As the authority for how the characters interact with the world the DM has created, certainly the DM has / should have more input than players.

Rule Zero shouldn't be: "These are guideline, throw them out if you want," or "Have fun." Rule Zero should be: "Don't be a dick." Some people entertain themselves by being dicks to others. Sometimes they DM. Walk away, don't post about player empowerment, players have all the power they need in the form of a character sheet and their feet.

 

[dkyle]

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?"

Players do not require proof that the world is being run fairly. Secret DM information is part and parcel of most (almost all?) campaigns. Without secret information the "exploration" part of roleplaying does not exist.

It is sufficient that their window into the world presents them a picture of a fairly-run world. Once they observe something, it should behave and react, in the ways that matter, according to the game's mechanics. And elements of the world that act outside the defined game mechanics, shouldn't enter the window and end up mattering more than the things that are resolved using game mechanics.

 

[delericho]

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?

My guess is that it's a fairly rare problem that is made more prevalent due to some bad DMs and bad players... but also one that can really destroy a game when it rears its head.

Whether it should, or even can, be addressed effectively by the 5e rules is another matter entirely. My guess is "no" - short of coming down emphatically on the player's side, stating THE RULES, and banning house ruling, I don't think the rules can really solve this. And even if they did, pretty much ever DM ever would just ignore them.

"DM Empowerment" really means "DM fiat".

It can mean DM fiat, but doesn't always. Another side to the issue comes up when a player wants to play a race/class/whatever that the DM doesn't feel fits the world (for whatever reason). The player has some justification in thinking that, having bought the supplement in question, he should be allowed to use it; the DM, on the other hand, has probably spent hours preparing his game, and so is likewise justified in putting some limits in place.

So, it's not quite as simple as all that.

 

[Scribble]

I think DM Empowerment is a bad name for it.

It makes it kind of sound like the DM is supposed to lord it over the players, when that's not it at all.

I like games that put more stock in the DM arbitrating things rather then a rule for everything, because I feel that they flow better/faster at the table. This is a personal feeling, so I can see that others might disagree. As a DM I don't feel like I should have the power to tell the players how everything will go, and if they don't like it they can take a hike. I just feel like if a game relies on me to arbitrate more often, then I will run a better game.

 

[BobTheNob]

I just think we has presented one side of a two sided argument. I like that players do more to contribute to the end result, but at the end of the day, decisions have to stop somewhere and be made by someone.

I empathize with certain aspects of his arguments, but to refer to DM control as "tyranical" in a general sense? Thats just taking it too far. Is it tyranny if my Kid screams for ice-cream and I so No? No it isnt, Im just exercising my power as part of my appointed position of responsibility for the better of all.

Sometimes the DM has to make decisions outside of rules and against players wishes. Doesnt make them a tyrant...it makes them a DM.

 

[tlantl]

As I see it Dm empowerment to me means giving me, as a DM, the feeling of being in control of the stuff I have to do while setting up and running the materials I have to use so that the guys at the table have an enjoyable, if not memorable time while playing.

Things like what monsters to use, what volume of goods to have available and to be able to control the stuff that if left unchecked could cause problems later. (spells, magic items, etc.) I like a certain feel to my games. If the rules simply tell me what I aught to be doing instead of what is available to be used then I'm not happy. Not being happy makes me not want to play. If I don't play then the guys who count on me to provide a game are not happy.


As to player entitlement, well I feel the word itself has negative connotations that relate to selfishness and wrong thinking about what they aught to deserve rather than living with what the world lets them have.

I believe the players have the right to expect their referee to be fair, reasonably honest, consistent, and approachable. As a player I want to think that if a questionable decision is made that we could at least, as a group, find a solution.

 

[Rogue Agent]

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?

The issue is complicated by bad GMs, bad players, and also bad rules.

Good rules facilitate GM rulings by giving them the tools to make effective and consistent rulings.

For example, let's pose an issue like: "Should traffic laws be created and enforced to safeguard against bad drivers; or should all drivers be empowered on lawless roads?"

In RPG design today, a lot of the "traffic laws" look less like "let's put up a speed limit so that everybody drives at roughly the same speed which is safe for the actual topology of this road" and more like "let's have police officers fire rocket launchers at cars that drop below 50 mph".

 

[Gryph]

An interesting question, Mark. Back in the late 70s/early 80s I had a few experiences with bad DMs in a high school gaming club. It was one of the things that lead me to start DMing myself. I've also experienced that out of control monty haul style of play that used to lead to uncontrollably munchkin like characters (at 15/16 I was reaching for my share with both hands).

I get why the WoTC D&D designers included so many rules aimed at controlling those extremes of behavior. I have also come to the opinion that it was a mistake to do so.

As a player, it was always fairly easy to deal with a DM who had a god complex. I stopped playing with him. As a DM, I do like some hints at what kind of treasures are appropriate for what levels (such as +3 weapons probably shouldn't be given to players below 8th level) but I think treasure by level rules do lead to a sense of entitlement on the part of the players.

Most tellingly for me though, is the nature of ruling discussions at the table in the 3X/4X versions. With looser rules, the discussions tend to be focused on the game context. With detailed rules, the discussions tend to be focused on the rule books. As a DM I prefer the former.

I like the give and take at the table when a player wants to do something not detailed by the rules. He describes the situation as he understands, I add some detail or describe circumstances that he didn't consider and we arrive at an approximate difficulty level, together. Then the player makes a reasonably informed choice to make the attempt.

Honestly, DMing is a skill that requires practice. Throwing too many rules constraints at a DM slows down the learning curve. I'd like to see more good, solid advice on DMing techniques in the 5e DMG and less effort on highly detailed rules for the DM to adhere to.