D&D 5E Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e

[Malmuria]

There is no likelihood of success to determine -- if I meet the prerequisites for casting the spell, the spell happens. There's no saving throw for Wall of Stone -- it makes a wall of stone. This happens. Further, the GM can narrate whatever the GM wants, so long as it's a wall of stone appears where I say it does. With regards to authority, that's my authority, not the GM's, even if we pretend the GM has to speak it for it to be so.

And that would be the blatant deployment of Rule 0 Force that I mentioned in my first post. Either spells work, and the player is wielding narrative authority, or the GM is forced to be obvious about GM Force.

Well, no, because the player is not guaranteed a roll. I'm a very indulgent GM when it comes to these things -- I generally will call for a roll and abide by it -- but, even with that, there are some things that just succeed or just fail. "You learn the NPC is afraid of spiders." "Cool, I befriend the NPC by casting an illusion of a giant spider and saying 'want to meet my hungry friend?" That just fails, even in my games. But I could do that, terrify the NPC, and then cast Charm Person and, provided a failed save, they're still going to be friendly to me for the duration. And still scared of spiders, so any future asks might get disadvantaged if you keep the illusion around.

The point is, that Charm Person requires the GM to narrate the the NPC is now friendly. Just trying to make friends doesn't require the GM to do anything at all. Hence the nature of authority.

The difference is that spells require the GM to narrate specific outcomes. Non-spells do not.

So maybe we can say that spells that do not require attack rolls or saving throws are the height of player authority in 5e. I still don't think Wall of Force or any other spell I can think of is outside of the core loop, but you're right it tightly constrains the "DM narrates" part of that loop.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This all feels like distinctions without difference, to me. The spellcasting feature is not unique in letting players do things. If I use the Indomitable feature, I get a reroll. I don't ask the dm if he will allow me a reroll. If the enemy moves away, I get an opportunity attack, I don't ask the dm if they're allowing opportunity attacks today. The dm can narrate the attack however they want, but they don't get to decide in the moment which class features work except for spellcasting, which they must always allow. If it's a thing the character can do, the character can do it.

Why is spellcasting different in how much authority a dm has form any other character feature?

Specifically because it dictates outcomes, not inputs. Indomitable gives you a reroll, but doesn't dictate an outcome. Opportunity Attacks are gives you an action, but it doesn't dictate an outcome. Spells give you the ability to say what happens. If I cast Wall of Stone, then result the GM has to narrate is a wall of stone.

There's some grey area, especially in the combat rules, because 5e combat rules are the place where the players have the most agency -- ability to make meaningful decisions -- in the game. I say this because the combat engine gives the players the most ability to control outcomes outside of spells, but here it's really just a chance and in small increments. I can cast Wall of Stone, though, and the GM has to narrate that wall of stone and then deal with it going forward as a constraint on their ability to narrate.

(Aside from Blatant Deployments of Force, as you say. As others and I have noted, these are assume to be allowed if exepcted to be used sparingly.)

Why is this? It's an odd thing to say.

The only time a player isn't guaranteed a roll is with ability checks - those are the standout, if anything.

Oh, I'd argue this, but it's really wandering off the path at this point.

But if I attack the guard, can the dm decide the guard is unattackable? What if I use a superiority die to feint first? Does the dm decide in the moment that Superiority Dice don't apply? What about Rage? Is the bonus damage form rage simply up to dm fiat?

What does this have to do with Charm Person and the GM being required to narrate that the NPC (who I assume is now the guard?) is friendly? I mean, this is like saying that you have a glass vase, but then you smash it, so what does that say about you having had a glass vase? Nothing. Later events will be resolved how they are resolved, but that doesn't change the fact that I cast Charm Person, the save was failed, and now the GM is required to say the NPC is friendly towards me. If I then punch them in the fact, that doesn't change what happened, it generates new things to be resolved.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

"I seach the top-left drawer of the writing desk." — declaring an action
"I poke and prod in the bottom-left drawer of the desk." — declaring an action
"I look in the top-right drawer." — declaring an action
"I look in the bottom-right drawer." — declaring an action
"I toss books off the shelves." — declaring an action
"I look between pages 127 and 128 of Agawyn's Lost History of the Titans" — declaring an action

But together, as a lengthy description of poking and prodding at places in a space, they are roleplaying, and "I search the room" is not? Each of those could have an associated die roll (hey, that slip of paper could fall from between pages 127 and 128 without you noticing).

Level of detail.

Kind of tangential, but "I search the room" does not really give the DM anything to adjudicate. How are you searching the room? Touching everything? Moving into the NW corner? Just looking around? Poking around the floor with a spear? Looking up to see the cloaker? Throw the DM a bone with some level of specificity in your action declaration so the DM can do their job. When the DM starts making assumptions about HOW and WHY the PC is going about their actions, we potentially run into issues. Player: "I search the room. I got a 27!" DM: "AHA the Desk is a MIMIC - you are stuck to it!" Player: "I never said I touched the desk". Indeed, sad trombone for that session...

And, for the love, 5e players: please don't just self-declare an ability check and roll.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So maybe we can say that spells that do not require attack rolls or saving throws are the height of player authority in 5e. I still don't think Wall of Force or any other spell I can think of is outside of the core loop, but you're right it tightly constrains the "DM narrates" part of that loop.

Yeah, this is the point I'm making, that 5e contains elements of very strong player authority over outcomes in spells, but this often gets elided. I'm not sure why. I will say I'm always a touch surprised at the pushback you get from pointing this out. It seems there's a lot of interest in defending the GM as having total authority of everything outside of PC action declaration and conception. I'm not sure why pointing out spells give player authority in places that are usually GM only is so hot a debate.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Kind of tangential, but "I search the room" does not really give the DM anything to adjudicate. How are you searching the room? Touching everything? Moving into the NW corner? Just looking around? Poking around the floor with a spear? Looking up to see the cloaker? Throw the DM a bone with some level of specificity in your action declaration so the DM can do their job. When the DM starts making assumptions about HOW and WHY the PC is going about their actions, we potentially run into issues. Player: "I search the room. I got a 27!" DM: "AHA the Desk is a MIMIC - you are stuck to it!" Player: "I never said I touched the desk". Indeed, sad trombone for that session...

And, for the love, 5e players: please don't just self-declare an ability check and roll.

Here I agree -- that's a statement I'm usually going to need more from the players to adjudicate (for the reasons you list!)-- but it doesn't really get to roleplaying at all.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is why no one reads the DMG. So much terrible advice.

Well, if you finish the section, in context it's not so bad. It's a terrible sound bite, though.

 

[niklinna]

Kind of tangential, but "I search the room" does not really give the DM anything to adjudicate. How are you searching the room? Touching everything? Moving into the NW corner? Just looking around? Poking around the floor with a spear? Looking up to see the cloaker? Throw the DM a bone with some level of specificity in your action declaration so the DM can do their job. When the DM starts making assumptions about HOW and WHY the PC is going about their actions, we potentially run into issues. Player: "I search the room. I got a 27!" DM: "AHA the Desk is a MIMIC - you are stuck to it!" Player: "I never said I touched the desk". Indeed, sad trombone for that session...

And, for the love, 5e players: please don't just self-declare an ability check and roll.

Like @Oofta indicated, if more detail is required, the DM can call for it. But if it isn't, the DM could let things slide with a simple skill check. (At some point, of course, you wonder why bother if it's just gonna be a low-level-of-detail die roll.)

Player: "I search the room. <rolls die> I got a 27."
DM: "Hold up there sparky. You can't just go rolling ability checks with no context, so that roll doesn't count for anything. How do you go about searching the room? There's a desk, two bookcases, and a wardrobe, among other things."

The player could take that request for detail as a hint that searching the room might be risky, which is metagaming, but all RPGs hit that snare in their own ways.

And of course, the DM could interpret "I search the room" at face value as being pretty exhaustive, meaning the PC did touch the mimic. If the player then complains (after declaring such a sweeping general action and rolling their die without acknolwedgment), the DM is somewhat justified in saying "You should have specified."

 

[Vaalingrade]

Who's "domineering"? The players decide what the PC attempts to do (which may or may not succeed), what they think, what they say. About the only control I have over the authority of the PC is that I explain that I don't want evil PCs and that evil PCs will become NPCs. I don't tell the players their PCs can't start murdering innocents for giggles, just what the consequences will be.

In the same way I do my best to run the game as close to the rules as I can and have NPCs respond appropriately. How do we go from "the player is only in control of their PC" to "pushing people around"?

That part where you literally said being an adversarial a-hole was their right as DM.

 

[overgeeked]

Kind of tangential, but "I search the room" does not really give the DM anything to adjudicate. How are you searching the room? Touching everything? Moving into the NW corner? Just looking around? Poking around the floor with a spear? Looking up to see the cloaker? Throw the DM a bone with some level of specificity in your action declaration so the DM can do their job. When the DM starts making assumptions about HOW and WHY the PC is going about their actions, we potentially run into issues. Player: "I search the room. I got a 27!" DM: "AHA the Desk is a MIMIC - you are stuck to it!" Player: "I never said I touched the desk". Indeed, sad trombone for that session...

Exactly. Unless you describe the thing, it doesn’t happen. I will always ask for a description so don’t skip it.

And, for the love, 5e players: please don't just self-declare an ability check and roll.

And for the love: don’t declare your unasked for rolls a success or failure.

 

[Oofta]

That part where you literally said being an adversarial a-hole was their right as DM.

If anyone at the table, DM or player, is being an adversarial a-hole I probably don't want to play with them. Life is too short.

But all I said was that the DM makes the final call on rulings, NPCs and how the world works. They have no authorial control over the PC outside of establishing campaign parameters (i.e. allowed races).

A made up example because I can't think of a real one off the top of my head. The DM casts levitate on the horse my PC is riding on. The horse fails the save and, according to the DM, starts floating in the air.

I know that's not shouldn't work, so how do you respond as a player? I might say something along the lines of "Umm, levitate doesn't work on anything more than 500 pounds."

At that point, the DM may agree, disagree, say "the horse is now 20 feet in the air and continues to rise" and so on. If I'm playing, no matter what the DM says they make the call and we move on.

How else do you see the game working?