D&D 5E How do you define “mother may I” in relation to D&D 5E?

[Iosue]

FWIW, the 5e DMG doesn't particularly address power dynamics, probably because it doesn't see exactly see itself as a GM-resolution based game (thought of course it can certainly be argued that it is). The assumption is that when a player states what they want to do, it will be either a) covered by the rules, and the DM will accordingly apply them, or b) not covered by the rules, and DM will apply the ability check system (with Advantage or Disadvantage) to determine a chance to succeed OR simply declares that the action succeeds. Examples of unilaterally saying that an action does not succeed are almost always essentially cases where an action would be against the rules (e.g., "the character doesn't have enough movement to reach the orc") or evidently impossible (e.g., "hitting the moon with an arrow").

Thus, the section that deals with making such decisions is called "The Role of Dice." It describes the benefits and drawbacks of rolling for almost everything, and the benefits and drawbacks of using the dice as rarely as possible. Then it advocates for "the Middle Path", saying that "Many DMs find that using a combination of the two approaches works best." The rest of the section, then, is advice for ability checks, setting DCs, applying Advantage/Disadvantage, and giving Inspiration. It ends with a section called "Resolution and Consequences", suggesting "flourishes and approaches you can take when adjudicating success and failure to make things a little less black and white." But this is essentially interpreting the die roll as a degree of success or failure. E.g., just missing a roll could result in a success with complications.

My impression is that, in as much as Crawford, Perkins, and Wyatt were concerned with power dynamics, they were most worried about adversarial DMing, and so all the advice is couched in terms of tailoring the game to the players and using the system to give them chances to succeed.

 

[tetrasodium]

Just to be clear, are you saying the heart of the problem people have is 5E is about rulings not rules? Personally I think D&D thrives when it leans into rulings over rules. I would say, if this is the case with 5E, it is a good thing. How well they were able to describe it, that I am sure could be another story. One thing I noticed about portions of the DMG that were shown to me was some of the descriptions of things seemed wonky. Not talking about GM advice for running the game, I was mostly looking at a section dealing with setting, but I could see how that might also be a problem elsewhere in the book. Out of curiosity do you feel the 5E DMG does a good job of conveying how the game ought to be run?

Going backwards because one question is easy & succinct while the other stems from it & is less so I feel that the 5e DMG is pretty god awful with extreme reliance on unstated "since you the GM learned all of the skilled/experienced GM skills from running past editions it's your problem to make $thing work". While there are many many great examples of the 5e dmg failing miserably compared to old dmg's there is usually some relevant system differences to complicate simple spotlighting for example... Experience has served the same purpose in every edition of d&d as it does in d&d5e even if numbers varied yet if you compare the 3.5 dmg 39/40/41 section on experience you will find that it better equips the reader to handle those purely crunch topics than 5e dmg 82/83 260/261 & that's a pretty inexcusable example. Worse still there are a bunch of optional & variant rules that are unfinished or incomplete in ways that will require GM calls that a new GM is poorly equipped to make while an experienced GM will find the system is built to fight anything but one problematic option.

On the first part of your question, my point was only that the memeworthy RuLiNgS NoT RuLeS is where the 5e dmg wraps the justification for the GM supposedly being empowered to run more sandboxy games heavy on player agency, it it just can't say it & explain how or the reader would quickly become aware that the 5e rules themselves needlessly lack stable foundations in some areas while others areas are simply stripped of rule frameworks that allowed a GM to lean on & extend to cover supporting the fruits of player agency. Not only that the conveyance of information & understanding would have an obvious & problematic void in the form of things like magic item churn & required magic items & so on were once mechanics that allowed an experienced gm to influence player agency with a light touch simply by giving the players reasons to avoid ThatGuy & other toxic behaviors.

 

[Aldarc]

Again we are talking about games. Not political systems. So I think invoking autocratic populists isn't helpful (and we can't get political but on that front I will just say I've never voted for one and never will: again I don't believe in benevolent dictators). Let's not assume peoples political viewpoints based on RPG preferences or associate RPG preferences with political views.

Games can be political in all sorts of ways. I can respect that you may not feel comfortable talking about them in such terms, so I can drop that thread.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with your preference. But I don't see how this discussion has to be a zero sum game. D&D is going to go the way it goes on this point, maybe they change GM authority, maybe they don't. I'm not especially invested in that. There are lots of other games and other variations of D&D out there. I'm content to mostly play RPGs where the GM has the standard power allotted to him (am assuming to don't object to that, just as I don't object to you preferring games where the GM has less power and the players have more).

I do not object to you having a preferred level of power allotted to the GM, whether as the GM or the player. I do not object that others may have different preferred power levels allotted to the GM in D&D either. I do enjoy playing and running traditional games like D&D.

However, I think that the bold is doing a LOT of heavy lifting here and what constitutes the "standard power" can and will vary even between editions of D&D.

But I also want to be clear because I think it's not necessarily about how much total power the GM has relative to the players on the whole, but, instead, it's about how the exercise of that power affects players in their ability to effectively play and roleplay their characters in a world of shared fiction. (Here I would like to emphasize my belief that the shared fiction in roleplaying is shared between participants rather than simply being the GM's fiction.)

Does D&D for example need to restructure GM authority because some people prefer giving authority to the players? I don't think it needs to do that, or is bad if it chooses not to. They are going to do what they think people will like and what they think is good for the game overall.

If you really think D&D would benefit more from players having greater authority, and if you feel that is a need not being met, my feeling is I think that suggests there is an opening for a new retroclone (I am guessing there is one out there that does this already, but if there isn't sounds very doable to me and based on this discussion like it could have a great deal of popularity). I certainly would be in favor of someone taking that critique and turning it into a new version of D&D under the open license.

My point is not necessarily that D&D should be restructured to give more power to the players. Instead, it's to challenge the idea that the greatest good comes from giving the GM even more power.

 

[Bedrockgames]

On the first part of your question, my point was only that the memeworthy RuLiNgS NoT RuLeS is where the 5e dmg wraps the justification for the GM supposedly being empowered to run more sandboxy games heavy on player agency, it it just can't say it & explain how or the reader would quickly become aware that the 5e rules themselves needlessly lack stable foundations in some areas while others areas are simply stripped of rule frameworks that allowed a GM to lean on & extend to cover supporting the fruits of player agency. Not only that the conveyance of information & understanding would have an obvious & problematic void in the form of things like magic item churn & required magic items & so on were once mechanics that allowed an experienced gm to influence player agency with a light touch simply by giving the players reasons to avoid ThatGuy & other toxic behaviors.

Again I don't play 5E, but personally I like games that position rulings over rules in this way. There could be something specific about 5E where I might not like it, not sure. I've only played a little of it, and what I played I enjoyed (most of my complaints would be focused on character creation: as I've not GM'd 5E).

Can I ask what specifically in 5E you find makes rulings difficult mechanically? When I think of rulings my go to is clever use of Ability checks, or skill checks (or a combination if that makes sense). Most editions of D&D at least have ability checks (personally I found them weakest in 3E because they were so skewed towards failure unless you had lots of ranks: versus say the attribute and NWP checks which were a roll under mechanic, something I really like a lot). Is there something in 5E that breaks down more for you, or is this something you feel breaks down across editions?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Games can be political in all sorts of ways. I can respect that you may not feel comfortable talking about them in such terms, so I can drop that thread.

It isn't about discomfort it is that I reject the suggestion that how one feels about GM authority, in any way reflects or can act as a cypher for one's politics. And I resent it being used in way where there is implication that I might agree with a populist autocrat because of the positioning I am taking regarding a game. If someone wants to know my political views, they can PM me and ask. Trying to read into a person's politics based on what games they like, what movies they like, what style of RPG system they prefer, is very very dicey. I don't like feeling as if I have to come out and clearly state my politics because someone makes a post that seems to suggest I have a certain political leaning that I don't hold.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My point is not necessarily that D&D should be restructured to give more power to the players. Instead, it's to challenge the idea that the greatest good comes from giving the GM even more power.

Can you be more specific. Is it the rulings over rules approach you dislike? I'm just trying to understand because it seems like you don't objet to the standard arrangement between players and GMs, but you are finding something in certain versions of the game that give the GM even more power than they otherwise would have. Is this correct?

 

[Aldarc]

It isn't about discomfort it is that I reject the suggestion that how one feels about GM authority, in any way reflects or can act as a cypher for one's politics. And I resent it being used in way where there is implication that I might agree with a populist autocrat because of the positioning I am taking regarding a game. If someone wants to know my political views, they can PM me and ask. Trying to read into a person's politics based on what games they like, what movies they like, what style of RPG system they prefer, is very very dicey. I don't like feeling as if I have to come out and clearly state my politics because someone makes a post that seems to suggest I have a certain political leaning that I don't hold.

I was only speaking to my own feelings on the matter by means of analogy and not anyone else's politics nor was I using it as a cypher for yours.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But I also want to be clear because I think it's not necessarily about how much total power the GM has relative to the players on the whole, but, instead, it's about how the exercise of that power affects players in their ability to effectively play and roleplay their characters in a world of shared fiction. (Here I would like to emphasize my belief that the shared fiction in roleplaying is shared between participants rather than simply being the GM's fiction.)

This might just come down to preferences. In previous discussions there does seem to be a difference in our styles when it comes to what the players need in order to play their characters effectively and how that relates to GM power. But I am not sure, because it might be we don't disagree and are just talking past one another. For example I am not too hung up on speaking out of character, trying to establish what characters know and being flexible with players in that respect. I do want a sense of a world, of a story, of an adventure that exists outside the player, but I also want the player to feel like they have a hand in shaping it through their character. This is getting into deeper play style issues though, as I think mainstream D&D play styles are much bigger in range than the one I am describing.

In terms of shared fiction, I am not a big fan of the term. Not just because it naturally tends to prioritize the storytelling side of RPGs, but because it creates a sense of the players and GM collaborating on a story and that being the point. Or its opposite, the GM telling a story and the players being an audience or mildly passive participants. For me, the best I can do is say my foundational experience of RPGs that I am always shooting for is feeling like you are in the shoes of a person who is there, whether there is the adventure, the world, the story, etc. For me, a GM who can fiat and make rulings is very useful for this end.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I was only speaking to my own feelings on the matter by means of analogy and not anyone else's politics nor was I using it as a cypher for yours.

It just happens a lot in these discussions and it bothers me. If you meant nothing by it, I apologize for assuming you did. But too frequently people have pinned political positions to me that I don't hold because I have a different view than them on orcs, on GM power, etc. The reason it bothers me is that stuff sits there online and it can create confusions about what you believe in the public sphere.

 

[Iosue]

Again I don't play 5E, but personally I like games that position rulings over rules in this way. There could be something specific about 5E where I might not like it, not sure. I've only played a little of it, and what I played I enjoyed (most of my complaints would be focused on character creation: as I've not GM'd 5E).

Can I ask what specifically in 5E you find makes rulings difficult mechanically? When I think of rulings my go to is clever use of Ability checks, or skill checks (or a combination if that makes sense). Most editions of D&D at least have ability checks (personally I found them weakest in 3E because they were so skewed towards failure unless you had lots of ranks: versus say the attribute and NWP checks which were a roll under mechanic, something I really like a lot). Is there something in 5E that breaks down more for you, or is this something you feel breaks down across editions?

FWIW, I disagree with tetrasodium's take on the DMG. As I indicated above, 5e is not really "rulings not rules", except in as much as it eschews hard coded rules (like 3.x) in favor of a more generalized resolution system (ability checks). It does note that the rules (particularly the dice) are tools the DM can choose not to use to better fit the situation/preferred play of the table, but I would say the standard 5e experience for most players is that the DM can be expected to ask for an ability check to resolve most things. It never actually says "rulings, not rules", nor does it provide any advice on how to make rulings, other than through the ability check/attack roll/saving throw system. Which is the majority of the section on being an arbiter. It trusts that its generalized system will be robust enough for most situations at most tables.

And far from being reliant on previous experience, to me it reads as being pretty much targeted to first time DMs. BUT! It doesn't deal with the many things we tend to argue about on forums such as these, or with the various playstyles and the pitfalls therein. Its focus is primarily on 1) creating adventures (location-based or event-based; no discussions of railroads vs sandbox), 2) creating a world, and 3) dials, modules, and optional rules to customize your game. IMO, the biggest problem with the 5e DMG is that is sacrifices depth and breadth (covers a lot of things, but nothing especially deeply). And an argument could be made that too much space is taken up with random-roll tables, space that could have been used for some other purpose. But I love random-roll tables, so you won't hear that argument from me!