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

[BobTheNob]

Im beggining to think the guy who had his original rant must have had some bad DM's in his time.

I have never, in all the 30 yrs I have been playing rpg's, NEVER heard a dm say "cause I said so". Theres been fights and disagreements, rage quits, you name it, but NEVER "cause I said so".

Its like (to me) this is all a HUGE storm in a tea-cup, cause if you get a DM who is good at their job, why does it even matter is player entitlement is stripped back a little. Its like he want the system to protect him against DM's that are so appalling I never even assumed they existed.

 

[Hussar]

Im beggining to think the guy who had his original rant must have had some bad DM's in his time.

I have never, in all the 30 yrs I have been playing rpg's, NEVER heard a dm say "cause I said so". Theres been fights and disagreements, rage quits, you name it, but NEVER "cause I said so".

Its like (to me) this is all a HUGE storm in a tea-cup, cause if you get a DM who is good at their job, why does it even matter is player entitlement is stripped back a little. Its like he want the system to protect him against DM's that are so appalling I never even assumed they existed.

Oh god, really? I've heard this one far more than once. Unfortunately, to my shame, I've probably said it once or twice too. (I got better - honest )

When I polled En World a while back (and I'm too lazy to look up the poll), about 25% said that the majority of their DM's were poor. So, while hardly scientific, it wouldn't surprise me if that were a pretty decent ballpark number. Note, that someone's poor DM today might be a great DM tomorrow.

The problem I have with the idea of "DM is Boss" is the presumption that the DM is always right. After all, if the DM always has final say, then, no matter what, he or she gets to define what is right. Having a tighter ruleset, like 3e for example or 4e for that matter, means that the players can at least come back with actual rules to mitigate some of the more egregious errors.

Granted, the DM might still over rule the rules and you're back to square one, but, at least the players have some degree of safety net to fall back on. And, it becomes pretty glaringly obvious when it's not just my opinion vs your opinion that maybe I should step back a bit on the hardline DM stance and the rules are agreeing with you and not me.

Solid, well designed rules make the game easier to run. That's a given. The easier the game is to run, the smoother it goes. The smoother it goes, the happier everyone is. Thus, all other things being equal, a system with solid well designed rules will result in a more fun game than one without.

At least, IMO.

 

[Lanefan]

Solid, well designed rules make the game easier to run. That's a given.

Is it?

For a new DM, perhaps this is true; though the more rules there are the more times the game will get interrupted while the DM looks something up. For an experienced DM, having too many rules - no matter how well designed they are - often just gets in the way.

Put a few more qualifiers in there and you're on to something:

Solid, well-designed, and simple rules kept to a minimum make the game easier to run.

Lanefan

 

[Ratskinner]

The problem I have with the idea of "DM is Boss" is the presumption that the DM is always right. After all, if the DM always has final say, then, no matter what, he or she gets to define what is right. Having a tighter ruleset, like 3e for example or 4e for that matter, means that the players can at least come back with actual rules to mitigate some of the more egregious errors.

Granted, the DM might still over rule the rules and you're back to square one, but, at least the players have some degree of safety net to fall back on. And, it becomes pretty glaringly obvious when it's not just my opinion vs your opinion that maybe I should step back a bit on the hardline DM stance and the rules are agreeing with you and not me.

Solid, well designed rules make the game easier to run. That's a given. The easier the game is to run, the smoother it goes. The smoother it goes, the happier everyone is. Thus, all other things being equal, a system with solid well designed rules will result in a more fun game than one without.

At least, IMO.

Personally, I think it all stems from the earliest editions and the prevalence of the attitude that D&D was supposed to be hard/cruel/capricious and teach you lesson young man. The idea that somehow the DM and players really were opponents was ludricrous on its face, yet seemed promoted by the adventures and humor of the day.

The best thing 5e could do (for both sides) would be to change the way it addresses (particularly new) DMs. Instead of starting from the premise of "you play the monsters and NPCs" start from the premise of "You are responsible for making the game fun and entertaining for everyone." Everything should flow from there. Yes, that means some perhaps sophisticated advice about what players want, but I'd prefer that to having this argument again in 5 years.

 

[Hussar]

Is it?

For a new DM, perhaps this is true; though the more rules there are the more times the game will get interrupted while the DM looks something up. For an experienced DM, having too many rules - no matter how well designed they are - often just gets in the way.

Put a few more qualifiers in there and you're on to something:

Solid, well-designed, and simple rules kept to a minimum make the game easier to run.

Lanefan

Well, I would think that "well-designed" generally covers that. If you have to look up the rules, then they probably weren't that well designed in the first place. Or, you're doing something that very rarely comes up (aerial combat forex) and brushing up on the mechanics is unavoidable.

But, if you have to repeatedly look up a given mechanic because it comes up regularly but it so counter intuitive that it's almost baroque (2e grapple rules) then that is not a well designed mechanic.

 

[Lanefan]

But, if you have to repeatedly look up a given mechanic because it comes up regularly but it so counter intuitive that it's almost baroque (2e grapple rules) then that is not a well designed mechanic.

I've been DMing for a frighteningly long time and I still have to look stuff up on a regular basis.

Lan-"of course, if my memory was a little less sieve-like..."-efan

 

[tlantl]

There was a time when I had all of the rules memorized, then they changed the rules, then they changed the rules again, then they... I got tired of memorizing new rules. D&D next might better be really good or it's going to be the second set of rules I don't learn.

So Hussar, How long did it take you to relearn all of the rules you don't look up any more?

How long did it take you to get good at DMing when you first started?

Simpler is better as far as I can tell. I still can't remember all of the maneuvers available to a 3e or pathfinder character during combat. There was a time when all I needed to know was how many attacks a round a creature got and what it's special attacks and defenses were.

In 1e my grappling rules looked very similar to pathfinders cmb and cmd rules. Of course it took a couple of years to work out the kinks

 

[Endur]

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 as someone who has GMed as many games and just as long... I disagree with him. I think 5e needs GM empowerment after 4e nerfed GMs.

I will agree that the answer should not be "because the GM said so." But sometimes someone has to interpret the rules. An example would be the AD&D wish spell... someone has to interpret what happens.... the AD&D wish spell is far more powerful than the 4e wish spell, and it requires interpretation.

I suppose you could come up with some negotiation between the players at the table as to what the interpretation should be ... or perhaps a die roll could settle it (1-3 GM interpretation, 4-6 player interpretation). So there are alternatives to the "GM said so."

As a gm, I'll try to follow the rules. If for some reason I get a rule wrong, I'll try to change what I did in order to follow the correct rule. Although I'll admit I might not correct it if I think the rules are ambiguous and I think my interpretation is the better one, even if a player thinks his interpretation is better. I seem to recall 3e occassions when the errata and the sage advice were contradictory.

 

[SensoryThought]

I think there are two separate aspects to the DM vs player conflict. The first is story and the second is rules calls and both can suffer if imbalanced.

Players should feel entitled to influence the story. A lot of bad DMs railroad and prevent players from having a meaningful impact on the narrative, and this keeps it from being a collaborative and fun experience.

In contrast, the DM should not feel bound by the rules, particularly as all contingencies and factors cannot be ruled against. Also, DMs often have an imperfect knowledge of complex rules systems and need to feel like they can make rules calls on the fly without a rules lawyer arguing the point.

Both come down to experience, and are often more contingent on the group than the system (unless you are talking about Paranoia, the ultimate in DM empowerment).

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I've posted this story before in other threads, but I can never find it when I need it.

I joined a D&D group in another country while I was staying there for a year. I met some people at the game store and asked them for something to do on weekends. They invited me to their group.

The DM was running a game based on Harn. So, magic users of all kinds were shunned and sometimes hunted. I'd never played Harn so I wasn't sure of the extent of this. But I decided to play a Sorcerer who used a polearm and crossbow and used magic only when absolutely necessary. It was one of the first 3.5e games the DM had run(he had run 3.0 before).

So, we get into a fight in a 5 foot wide corridor with me at the back, I decide to fire my crossbow at the enemies knowing that the 3.5e rules don't have provisions for hitting my allies so the worst that can happen is that I miss.

DM: "Alright, you are firing down a corridor with 5 allies between you and your target, so you are going to hit one of them."

Me: "Well, they provide cover, I know it's going to be really hard to hit, but I'm stuck way back here, and I can't use magic because they might kill me."

DM: "What? They don't just provide cover, there is an equal chance you hit each of them as there is the enemy. They are all in the way of the bolt."

Me: "No, it means I have to hit an AC 4 points higher in order to hit the enemy. There used to be a chance to hit the cover in 3.0e, but we're playing 3.5e now, so it's gone. Unless you are using the optional rule from the book."

DM: "What? I'm sure you're wrong. You are telling me there's no chance to hit any of your allies in 3.5e? That's the stupidest rule I've ever heard of."

Me: "Well, that's the rule. I can look it up and show you if you want."

DM: "I don't care if that's the rule. I'm the DM and all the rules in the book are guidelines. I'm in charge of the game and I'd prefer if you don't argue with me in the middle of the game. I make the rules, not the book."

Me: "I'm not arguing, I just don't want to hit my allies and didn't realize I would do so when I chose my action."

DM: "Well, that's your problem. Your character doesn't have the rulebook in front of him. He doesn't know how the rules work, so neither should you. You make your decisions based on what makes sense IN CHARACTER. Your character should know that firing a crossbow down a corridor filled with 5 of your allies is a bad idea and there should be a huge chance of hitting your friends. Your character made the decision to fire knowing that was the case, so roll to hit and there will be a 1 in 6 chance of hitting all the targets in the hallway."

Me: "*sigh* Ok. I rolled a 1, perfect, I miss everyone with that roll."

DM: "Actually, you fail so badly that you automatically miss who you are aiming at and instead automatically hit one of your friends...and it is considered a crit."

Me: "What? But I don't want to crit my friends!?! I never would have fired if I knew there was any chance to hit them!"

DM: "What did I say about arguing with my decisions at the table? I'm the DM. We'll discuss this after the game."

Followed by about an hour of roleplaying as the rest of the PCs discuss what to do with the assassin who tried to kill them from behind with a crossbow, with most of the group in favor of killing me on the spot.

I try to argue out of character that I didn't mean to do that, everyone at the table knew that, so maybe their characters should forgive me and we should move on. They told me that although THEY knew that, their characters didn't and needed to be roleplayed correctly.

It ruined the night so badly for me, I didn't feel like playing with that DM again. Even though a number of the players apologized to me after the session for it.

In summary, I think DM Fiat needs to be limited in order to make sure that all the players have a common ground. Or at least the books should heavily stress to the DM that although they are ABLE to change the rules, they shouldn't do so without talking to their players in advance so that there is at least a baseline of rules for all the players to base their expectations on.