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

[Kynn]

"Empowerment" and "entitlement" are such loaded and vague terms to be throwing around that it's no wonder discussions predicated on such terminology invariably results in more heat than light.

I think in a cooperative game like D&D, we need to recast the issues away from these big-E terms and speak more clearly and specifically about what we're talking about.

 

[Mark CMG]

"Empowerment" and "entitlement" are such loaded and vague terms to be throwing around that it's no wonder discussions predicated on such terminology invariably results in more heat than light.

I think in a cooperative game like D&D, we need to recast the issues away from these big-E terms and speak more clearly and specifically about what we're talking about.

Don't let those of us already discussing it stop you. I do agree the terms might seem charged but those were the terms used by the OP in the thread to which I linked. That OP seems to agree with all (or most) of us that the terms are not ideal and, despite being a longtime DM, leans toward less DM "empowerment" as he sees it. But you bring another term to the table yourself which seems a bit suspect in your usage when you call D&D a cooperative game, as if that has a single meaning. Obviously, if we set aside player vs player gameplay, that term would traditionally be used to describe how the players cooperate to overcome obstacles and challenges set forth by the DM, yet I get the sense you are using it to suggest the it denotes DM and players cooperating to bring about the game as a whole. I find that adjustment on your part interesting.

 

[Hassassin]

How would you define them?

I would rename the two ends of the scale: "DM as machine" and "players as puppets". The former is where the DM's job is just to follow rules and react to player input. The latter is when nothing the players do matters because the DM will just rule it so.

That way it is clear that what is really needed is a mid point somewhere along the line.

 

[Mark CMG]

I would rename the two ends of the scale: "DM as machine" and "players as puppets". The former is where the DM's job is just to follow rules and react to player input. The latter is when nothing the players do matters because the DM will just rule it so.

That way it is clear that what is really needed is a mid point somewhere along the line.

Framing the conversation in that way would certainly be a deterrent to anyone wanting to be too far to either end of the scale.

 

[Kynn]

But you bring another term to the table yourself which seems a bit suspect in your usage when you call D&D a cooperative game, as if that has a single meaning. Obviously, if we set aside player vs player gameplay, that term would traditionally be used to describe how the players cooperate to overcome obstacles and challenges set forth by the DM, yet I get the sense you are using it to suggest the it denotes DM and players cooperating to bring about the game as a whole. I find that adjustment on your part interesting.

Are you saying that D&D isn't about "the DM and the players cooperating to bring about the game as a whole"?

Cuz, like, it pretty clearly works that way and always has.

 

[Ranganathan]

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.

In this specific example, in 4E at least, the game is designed around the presumption that the PCs will get items of a certain power level at particular levels. If they don't, the math breaks down and the game becomes increasingly difficult. Without the inherent bonuses from the DMG2 of course.

 

[Mark CMG]

Are you saying that D&D isn't about "the DM and the players cooperating to bring about the game as a whole"?

Cuz, like, it pretty clearly works that way and always has.

I'm saying the idea of cooperative play is traditionally used to describe what the players with player characters do.

 

[NewJeffCT]

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?"

I always try to come up with a reason for a bad guy/monster to have a certain power/spell/magic item and a reason for being where he/she/it is. I don't always tell the players about it at the table, but I'll often let them know afterwards. I think my players have been happy that I run a fair game and don't fudge my results or my dice rolls (most of the time because my dice rolling sucks...)

I don't think players need to have full knowledge of the campaign/setting, but that can also be a trust issue as well. If it's an experienced group that's been together for a while, they will likely trust the DM and his or her interpretation of the world.

I think it's actually easier if the players don't have full knowledge - some gamers have the time to put in extra reading on a setting and all its details. Other gamers do not. So, if half your group knows the setting details intimately, while the other half is going on just what the DM tells them, the second group is at a disadvantage. I'd rather have everybody more or less on the same page when it comes to setting knowledge.

 

[Kynn]

I'm saying the idea of cooperative play is traditionally used to describe what the players with player characters do.

It also describes the relationship between all the players at the table, including the DM.

 

[Mark CMG]

It also describes the relationship between all the players at the table, including the DM.

*edit* Clearly. But the traditional meaning remains. Anyway, I think we're done.