D&D General Poll: Do DMs/GMs need to trust their players?

[EzekielRaiden]

People like to say, rather frequently, that players just need to trust their DM/GM. That it is strange, foolish, or self-sabotaging to play in a game where you "don't trust the DM," usually without clarifying whether that means "trust in all possible situations no matter what" or a more general "overall trusting DM/GM judgment" sense.

What about the other way around? I'm curious about whether folks around here think that there is a burden of trust in the other direction, or if this trust is absolutely one-sided. So: Do DMs/GMs need to trust their players?

Note that this does not imply strictly distrusting. "Never" simply means the DM has no need to trust any player's intentions or motivations, for whatever reason--that might be because trust is irrelevant, or it might be because DMs should distrust players.

 

[Maxperson]

People like to say, rather frequently, that players just need to trust their DM/GM. That it is strange, foolish, or self-sabotaging to play in a game where you "don't trust the DM," usually without clarifying whether that means "trust in all possible situations no matter what" or a more general "overall trusting DM/GM judgment" sense.

What about the other way around? I'm curious about whether folks around here think that there is a burden of trust in the other direction, or if this trust is absolutely one-sided. So: Do DMs/GMs need to trust their players?

Note that this does not imply strictly distrusting. "Never" simply means the DM has no need to trust any player's intentions or motivations, for whatever reason--that might be because trust is irrelevant, or it might be because DMs should distrust players.

I trust my players completely until someone shows me that they can't be trusted somehow. It has been a very long time since someone I've played with couldn't be trusted.

 

[Stormonu]

I've lived through a period where, as DM, I felt I couldn't trust my players (cheating occuring, one was caught red-handed). I'll not go through it again; if I feel if I can't trust the players, I don't need to game with them. The only non-trusting thing I still tend to do is read ALL spell descriptions. For whatever reason, players leave out or misremember limitations on a spell. At the same time, I've probably pointed out times/things when a certain spell would actually work when the player thought it wouldn't.

 

[delericho]

Trust isn't a binary thing. Over the years I've known some people that I would trust with anything except my wallet, for example.

These days I'll only play with people I trust to play the game fairly and in good conscience (and so won't, for example, suicide a 'bad' character). To the extent, in fact, that we carried right on playing during lockdown over Teams, and they went right on rolling their physical dice and declaring the results, without any visual confirmation on my part. That wouldn't have been the case with my players of 20 years ago.

That is certainly a major boon - but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was necessary.

 

[tetrasodium]

People like to say, rather frequently, that players just need to trust their DM/GM. That it is strange, foolish, or self-sabotaging to play in a game where you "don't trust the DM," usually without clarifying whether that means "trust in all possible situations no matter what" or a more general "overall trusting DM/GM judgment" sense.

What about the other way around? I'm curious about whether folks around here think that there is a burden of trust in the other direction, or if this trust is absolutely one-sided. So: Do DMs/GMs need to trust their players?

Note that this does not imply strictly distrusting. "Never" simply means the DM has no need to trust any player's intentions or motivations, for whatever reason--that might be because trust is irrelevant, or it might be because DMs should distrust players.

Yes 100%. Players get salty when the gm obviously has reason to mistrust them and starts questioning things. The asymmetric & inverted balance of power in d&d5e makes things worse when the gm starts realizing that they need to do things about the mechanical reasons that the player is not trusted.

 

[CleverNickName]

Never!

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

I only play with friends that I of course trust. But I can't even imagine a situation where I have reason to mistrust a player and still be a good, fun and creative DM. So always!

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

I have 100% trust that the players will immediately take an unexpected turn in the story and will certainly not follow the storyline I had in mind.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have 100% trust that the players will immediately take an unexpected turn in the story and will certainly not follow the storyline I had in mind.

While that's fair, I think my OP makes it pretty clear that "confidence that the players will do something unexpected" is not the meaning of "trust" in play here. This is "trust" in the sense of "confidence that the players mean well and are playing in good faith."

 

[beancounter]

You should trust players until (if) they prove otherwise.