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

[Vaalingrade]

Typically, I will growl and bare my teeth.

That's what the spray bottle is for.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That being said, it's still not a free pass to be a wangrod...

I just realized that the Wangrod Defense is the exact same argument as the Thermian Argument, but is the player-version, instead of the usual/standard DM/story-builder version.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Good example.

To me, it shows the difference in focus people have. Is it a ROLEPLAYING game or a roleplaying GAME. The people who want to run through their character searching this cupboard or that tend to focus on the roleplaying aspect, whereas the people who want to throw dice and have the document appear where they happen to be looking tend to focus on the game aspect. Neither is wrong, of course, but it is a divide that explains a lot of things gamers butt heads about.

My table does neither of those, and both. We focus on it being a ROLEPLAYING game and roleplaying GAME equally (or as equally as humanly possible). We don't ignore the roleplaying aspects of the game, and don't ignore the game aspects of it. And, IMO, that's kinda the intent of D&D 5e. The Three Pillars of the Game focus on Roleplaying (primarily Social Interaction, and a bit the other two of the pillars), as well as the game-aspects of the game (primarily from the Combat pillar of the game, but also a bit from the other two pillars).

Balanced (as all things should be) approaches to the Three Pillars of D&D is probably the approach that the designers were intending when designing the system. And any other manner of playing the game is absolutely fine and a valid interpretation of the game and its mechanics, too.

 

[loverdrive]

Those things are literally opposites so we must be defining these things entirely differently. Flesh this out and try to explain more of what you mean.

Roleplaying is about:

• Portraying the character with integrity
• Exploring the character and who they really are, deep inside
• Developing the character and showing how the events of the game changed them

Whether we pixelhunt and describe every damn thing the character touches in greqt details, or we gloss over irrelevant and unimportant stuff ,— it's completely tangential to any of these goals.

I, both as a game master and a player, give exactly zero ####s what drawer does the character check and in what order. This doesn't give me any new info.

 

[Charlaquin]

Those things are literally opposites so we must be defining these things entirely differently. Flesh this out and try to explain more of what you mean.

From this comment and your choice of what to bold for emphasis, I think you may have parsed @loverdrive ‘s comment differently than they intended. It seems like you interpreted them as posing two options: “pixel hunting”, and “glossing over unimportant details when it comes to portraying, exploring and developing a character,” and asking if there’s a difference between them. But I believe their intent was instead to present the two options: “pixel hunting” and “glossing over unimportant details,” and asking if there’s difference a between them when it comes to portraying, exploring, and developing a character.

 

[Lyxen]

I'm assuming the default. As the intro to the DMG says "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game. "

And also from the SAC (which I'm sure everyone reads ): "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules
questions."

 

[Lyxen]

When I see this kind of thread, I am always surprised that some people seem to have been really traumatized by people who they describe as horrible DMs, and who they assume had really nefarious intents at some level. Once more, in more than 40 years of playing all over the globe, I have never met a really bad DM (in that sense, I had beginning DMs or people who were simply not as good as DMing as others, but no "bad" DM) - whereas I have met plenty of bad players (in the wangrod sense, if nothing else, and I know I've been one to some DMs - something that I really regret in retrospect, and that I have vowed a long time ago never to do again whatever the DM).

For me, it comes from the fact that being a DM requires preparing things for the pleasure of others, whereas a player can basically come to a table and expect to be personally entertained without any requirement on him whatsoever. It is by definition more selfless, as it is almost never about one's character (which, as a side note, is why DMPCs are usually a very bad idea).

Now, a DM's style might not be the right one for you, because he is directive, railroading, etc. But that does not make him a "bad" DM, just one that does not match your expectations. Just tell him "this game is not for me" and don't participate anymore, but calling him a bad DM behind is back is really not acceptable. Of course, the real adult thing would be to discuss playstyle with him, maybe he is simply a beginner who is unsure about his game, who has boisterous players much more experienced than himself and whom he does not know how to manage so that what he has prepared (however much incompetently, I'm sorry but we have all been beginners at some point in time) is not blown out of the window. And maybe something will come out of the discussion, maybe not (some people are full of themselves and their conviction), but at least the room will have been aired.

As for me, when I sit at a table, it's always with respect for the preparation that the DM has made, and trusting the DM that what he will do, he will do to entertain the players at his table, and he will do his best. And if necessary, I will help him (both as a player and as a character) along the way, because being disruptive is never going to help anyone have fun around the table. I will lower my expectations if need be, as a player or a character, I will make metagame decisions to steer my roleplay in the right decision if need be (the character is who I decide him to be, not something that exists in its own right). What I will not do is act like an entitled roleplayer and/or ruleslawyer who believes that he has any right to complain about what is happening in a game that I'm participating with (of course, there should be human behaviour limits and some behaviours should not be tolerated in games any more than in society, like harassment of any kind, but again I've never, EVER seen that).

And who knows, maybe it's through this attitude that I never had bad DMs, and that I've decided only once (I think, maybe another time) to stop participating in a game.

And honestly, the worse type of DM that has been described on forums is a railroading one (so what, there is almost always a bit of railroading in games, some published modules are actually worse than everything I've ever played through, and some players are happy with it) or one that does not recognise a pretend player's right to impose his own (view of the) rules or his build or his roleplay on the table - and for these, sorry, but the very rules of the game show that the player is wrong to do this, whatever the level - see "entitled player" above.

And when I DM, it's in full cooperative mode because there is trust all around, so I never have that kind of issue, and I am absolutely happy to give full reins to the players in terms of actions and description, because I know that they will not abuse that trust. And the other way around, they are absolutely happy to let me direct them where needed, even railroad if need be (although I play a very sandbox game in general), because they know that the intent is their own fun.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Once more, in more than 40 years of playing all over the globe, I have never met a really bad DM (in that sense, I had beginning DMs or people who were simply not as good as DMing as others, but no "bad" DM) - whereas I have met plenty of bad players (in the wangrod sense, if nothing else, and I know I've been one to some DMs - something that I really regret in retrospect, and that I have vowed a long time ago never to do again whatever the DM).

While shocking, there is a reason behind this that you ignored; the amount of players in the hobby far outnumber the number of DMs. If you've met more bad players than bad DMs, to me, that almost definitely came from that fact. There are simply a greater number of players than DMs, so there being more bad players than bad DMs is likely because of that. I personally believe that a player and a DM have roughly the same natural inclination towards crappy behavior at the table, so if there were more players than DMs, you'd naturally see more bad players than bad DMs. However, bad DMs can often cause more harm than a bad player can, simply because DMs have more control over you and your characters than a fellow player does.

 

[Aldarc]

Roleplaying is about:

• Portraying the character with integrity
• Exploring the character and who they really are, deep inside
• Developing the character and showing how the events of the game changed them

Whether we pixelhunt and describe every damn thing the character touches in greqt details, or we gloss over irrelevant and unimportant stuff ,— it's completely tangential to any of these goals.

I, both as a game master and a player, give exactly zero ####s what drawer does the character check and in what order. This doesn't give me any new info.

Of course a rollplayer would say that. But everyone knows that a true roleplayer touches all the desk drawers in elaborate detail, performs annoying fake British accents* in first person, and wastes their spells and/or actions against the troll to prove that their not a dirty metagamer!

* Which British accent or dialect? Doesn't matter. It's all the same country isn't it? A true roleplayer just creates a new one like Dick Van Dyke did in Mary Poppins, Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker's Dracula, or Kevin Costner in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

 

[Lyxen]

While shocking, there is a reason behind this that you ignored; the amount of players in the hobby far outnumber the number of DMs. If you've met more bad players than bad DMs, to me, that almost definitely came from that fact. There are simply a greater number of players than DMs, so there being more bad players than bad DMs is likely because of that.

It's a potential explanation, but it can only be one of the factors, because it's more than just a ratio. I have NEVER met a "bad" DM, whereas I have met plenty of bad players, I would say at least 20 people who were really bad, plus various obnoxious types. It's much more than the ratio of players to DMs...

I personally believe that a player and a DM have roughly the same natural inclination towards crappy behavior at the table

And I know for a fact that it's not mandatorily the case. There might be cases like this, but first quite a number of obnoxious players would never ever consider DMing, and second I have the perfect counter-example of PF, who was a great DM of ours, his campaigns were extremely imaginative and well organised and we had tons of fun, but who was one of the worst powergaming players ever, even in the munchkin zone of cheating, bullying other players to use his tactics, etc.

so if there were more players than DMs, you'd naturally see more bad players than bad DMs. However, bad DMs can often cause more harm than a bad player can, simply because DMs have more control over you and your characters than a fellow player does.

And then, again, have you encountered a really bad DM ? What did he do ? What kind of damage did he cause and why ? Because for me, they are more urban legends, or things dating from long ago with "Killer DMs of AD&D"...