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

[Kynn]

So, what's the solution to make a core game that keeps both DM and other players happy with 5E as a system that maintains the mystery and doesn't result in DMs making changes that players might find unfair?

I sure hope "maintaining the mystery" is not going to be a priority for the new system. (I don't think it will be, since that would be a big, big step backwards, post 3e.)

 

[Incenjucar]

I run my games under a system of earned trust. I've made it clear to my players that my overall goal is for everyone at the table to be entertained, by keeping the balance between player power and the resistance from the game world so that they can reap the joys of overcoming a challenge and have a fun, relaxing, and memorable time. I play by the rules as straight as possible, so that they don't have to guess about how things work, but I'll always bend things or make something up if it'll lead to a more interesting experience. In exchange, the players agree to certain basic rules, such as making characters that can actually work as part of the group.

Because we have this established - and mutual - trust, my players feel free to try random things that aren't covered by the rules, and I am free to add a twist to a scene or to bend things without warning. This has allowed me to play the game very loose, and we've had evenings where 50% of what was going on was made up on the spot.

However, this kind of trust has to be established, proven, and deserved. You can't just assume it on day one, but instead you have to build up to it like in any other relationship.

--

Edit: That said, I don't like hiding or obfuscating game rules. Visible design makes things so much easier to design and communicate. It just slows me down and gets in my way. I can add mystery to the game by using my storytelling skills, and it doesn't help me at all for a designer to try and do it for me.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Agreed.

the more story-focussed style of gaming requires a little more DM control, as opposed to a more group-storytelling style.

I don't think this has to be true, although it may depend on what you mean by "DM control".

It is possible to run a highly story-focused game in which the GM has a lot of authority over framing the situations/setting up the encounters, but does not have authority over how those situations are resolved - because this is determined by the action resolution mechanics as deployed by the players in playing their PCs.

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 haven't introduced that many new players to RPGs, but when I have I haven't found what you say to be the case. After all, one thing that can attract new players is the idea of playing a game in which they can write their own fantasy story, with control over the protagonist (their PC). Making good on this promise requires the player, new or otherwise, to be given some significant degree of authority over how the story of the game unfolds.

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?"

Interesting question. I'm coming to like RPG designs that faciliate player trust independently of GM authority over backstory.

One example I have in mind of this sort of mechanic is metagame determined DCs (4e, HeroQuest revised, etc). The players can be confident that, whatever the backstory, the DCs will be roughly achievable. So the way the story unfolds is shaped, in part, by things they don't know, but their PCs can't get mechanically hosed by that backstory.

A different sort of example is Burning Wheel, which uses non-metagame setting of DCs (like 3E, it's based entirely on "objective" ingame difficulty) but which has mechanics whereby players can benefit from having their PCs be mechancially hosed (because taking on impossible challenges is central to PC advancement). And the game also has excellent advice on how to GM failed checks (much better than anything I've ever seen in a D&D book).

A situation in which the GM has secret backstory knowledge, and there is no sort of mechanical approach to insulate the players and their PCs from being hosed by making the wrong choices in relation to this, can produce an impression of unfairness, I would say. The ToH is probably one well-known example of this, but I think it can apply equally in non-dungeon-crawling, more social/world exploration-oriented games.

 

[Blackwarder]

I have a good group of players who are somewhere on the middle curve between story and combat, they all played earlier editions, some 2e some 3e, but even with the best intentions, when the rules are written as they are in 4e (and to some extant in 3.5e) there is a bad case of player intitelment.

And it's not a case of bad DMs or bad players, but over the last couple of iterations of the game there was a move from DM fiat to every one is the same philosophy, I guess it was meant to try and combat bad DMing but what it did was encourage bad playing.

IMO, the rules should be written in a way to express the fact that the DM got a say in everything, instead of "you choose two new spells to add to your spellbook every time you level" it should read "you and your DM choose two new spells to add to your spellbook every time you level".

I'm sick of players arguing with me that "no, the rule explicitly state that I can do so and so" which lead to some very rediculuse builds...

Warder

 

[Gryph]

Nitpick: We knew our THAC0s in 2e.

Also I really think the idea that only DMs would have access to the DM information is kind of silly. That's one 3e innovation that I hope sticks around: don't assume an artificial separation of knowledge between players and DMs, especially when it's something as vital as BAB.

I don't care if my player's know their THAC0 or BAB (or whatever 5e calls it) I just don't want them to know the target number or have some expectation of a target number fostered by an overly rigid npc design framework that says AC is Level +5.

Actually, I like 3e/4e exposing all of the mechanics to arrive at a hit number. It's a lot easier for me to keep things moving when the player can say, "Ok, I hit AC 21". What I have come to dislike is my players rolling the dice and saying "I hit". Which is happening with more frequency because 4e has worked the numbers to the point that the players think they already know the NPC defenses.

 

[pemerton]

What I have come to dislike is my players rolling the dice and saying "I hit". Which is happening with more frequency because 4e has worked the numbers to the point that the players think they already know the NPC defenses.

But how do you players know what level NPC/monster they are facing?

 

[dkyle]

What I have come to dislike is my players rolling the dice and saying "I hit". Which is happening with more frequency because 4e has worked the numbers to the point that the players think they already know the NPC defenses.

I view that as a feature, not a bug.

If the players can make reasonable predictions about the world and the challenges they're facing, it means it's a coherent world that they understand.

 

[Gryph]

But how do you players know what level NPC/monster they are facing?

DDI subs. The monster information is all readily available to the players who have subs for access to the character builder. I can no longer rely on the inherent cheapness of gamers to limit their access to monster manuals.

I think there is a point where too much player knowledge of the wireframe is a detriment to the exploration pillar of D&D, as I see it.

I would like to have the easy answer of monster customization that was "this orc is wearing +2 studded leather so his AC is 3 instead of 5". Currently, I can tweak level or AC if I want to, but the reason for the tweak isn't meaningful in the context of the character's world on in the context of the player's.

Like I said in an earlier post upthread, it's not a dealbreaker for me; I like 4e, overall. I just prefer the style of a more open mechanical system than 3e/4e have trended toward.

 

[Gryph]

I view that as a feature, not a bug.

If the players can make reasonable predictions about the world and the challenges they're facing, it means it's a coherent world that they understand.

Cool, more power to you.

I will posit that it is a lot easier for you to tell them up front, "The goblin warchief is AC 17" than it is for me to keep that fact hidden if the game designers make it easily available to players.

 

[Sunseeker]

DDI subs. The monster information is all readily available to the players who have subs for access to the character builder. I can no longer rely on the inherent cheapness of gamers to limit their access to monster manuals.

I think there is a point where too much player knowledge of the wireframe is a detriment to the exploration pillar of D&D, as I see it.

I would like to have the easy answer of monster customization that was "this orc is wearing +2 studded leather so his AC is 3 instead of 5". Currently, I can tweak level or AC if I want to, but the reason for the tweak isn't meaningful in the context of the character's world on in the context of the player's.

Like I said in an earlier post upthread, it's not a dealbreaker for me; I like 4e, overall. I just prefer the style of a more open mechanical system than 3e/4e have trended toward.

I honestly haven't found many players who do this.

That said, I always toss around +1 to +3 modifiers to various stats of my NPCs to keep said orc raiding party from being too generic. Keeps people on their toes when every bandit has a different AC.