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

[Swarmkeeper]

Maybe that is what roleplaying is, but is any role allowed at a table ? Certainly not, again, at the very least I refer you to don't be a wangrod. Being able to roleplay does not allow you to do whatever you want with that role.

Of course, but I'm talking about good faith play. Bad actors do not disprove the rule.

And there have been multiple examples of at least influencing how a character even thinks, for example through the use of charms. Not only is it expressly stipulated that, whatever you think your character might be thinking, he now considers a previous enemy a friend, and thinks of him in those terms, but it would be very bad roleplay to play the character otherwise. So obviously the citation that you gave us does not grant unsupervised authority to the player, even unto the thoughts of his character...

Yes, the Charmed condition has a very specific mechanical effect that the player must abide by. Sometimes a spell will have additional mechanics on top of the Charmed condition. Beyond those mechanics, the player is free to roleplay it however they want, provided it is in good faith.

FWIW, as a DM I would not have an NPC cast Dominate Person - which is in an entirely different class than what I'm referring to here - on a PC without the consent of the player.

I'm sorry, but (and it happened to me 2 weeks ago), there were multiple holes through a wall through which a hydra's heads were attacking, I killed the hydra, but she was regenerating, so I said "I crawl through the hole" and the DM just told me "you cannot do that, the hole is too small, you cannot fit." You can say what you want, but I did not have full reins on my actions, and it was normal, and I certainly did not complain.

I stated my preference for how I handle it as a DM. I see nothing wrong with how your DM handled it. Some things are impossible in the game and it is up to the DM to let the player know those things. I don't see any disagreement here.

Again, the player is in full control of how their PC acts. That means they have free rein to attempt to do anything they like. The DM adjudicates whether that attempt results in a successfully completed action, though.

 

[Jmarso]

Players need to make sure they're appropriately deferential to the GM? If the are, the GM should reward them so they feel worthwhile?

Not what I said at all. Recommend a re-read without the chip on the shoulder, or whatever.

 

[Lyxen]

Of course, but I'm talking about good faith play.

Then we agree, it's just that what we are talking about is "bad" DMs, and somehow I don't think that everyone is playing in good faith in that kind of case...

Yes, the Charmed condition has a very specific mechanical effect that the player must abide by. Sometimes a spell will have additional mechanics on top of the Charmed condition. Beyond those mechanics, the player is free to roleplay it however they want, provided it is in good faith.

Then again we agree, it was just an example to show that the ideas that some people have about even the thoughts of their character are not that free in the game. The characters are part of the game world, and must abide by its rules, even unto their very thoughts.

FWIW, as a DM I would not have an NPC cast Dominate Person - which is in an entirely different class than what I'm referring to here - on a PC without the consent of the player.

I agree with you that it's actually about table rules. As a player (and all the players at our table are that way), I actually welcome being dominated, it's a lot of fun, especially because the DM trusts us to have the villain direct us in nasty ways. It even happened in a LARP a few weeks ago, and the people really enjoyed that sequence.

My perspective is that, honestly, some people need to distinguish between themselves and their character. Losing control on one's totally fictitious character is not a grave matter, especially if it's limited in time, and you can roleplay it differently for a while. Of course, if there are nasty undertones from the DM, it's another matter entirely, but again, never seen that or even heard of it.

I stated my preference for how I handle it as a DM. I see nothing wrong with how your DM handled it. Some things are impossible in the game and it is up to the DM to let the player know those things. I don't see any disagreement here.

Again, the player is in full control of how their PC acts. That means they have free rein to attempt to do anything they like. The DM adjudicates whether that attempt results in a successfully completed action, though.

I'm fine with this, it just goes to show that the player does not have free reins, he has free reins within the limits set by the DM, because the world that the character lives in is managed by the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

The spell itself says

What are the parameters of being "friendly," or an "acquaintance"? Dm decides. They have to make a judgement call. I think a good dm would want to have things work in the players interests as much as possible, but also must be true to their world and understanding of those words. Would you tell a "friendly acquaintance" whether you had a secret plan to kill the king?

The thing with Charm Person, though, is that because it only makes someone a friendly acquaintance(someone met at a party a few times), it has a lot of built in limitations. You might get advantage on social checks, but you have to get a check in the first place in order to even have a roll. Trying to get a merchant to give you a bunch of free stuff is simply going to be a no, without a roll. A friendly acquaintance isn't going to harm their business that way.

While the DM shouldn't just invalidate the Charm Spell without good reason, which the players may not know about, he does have great latitude in what there will even be rolls for.

 

[el-remmen]

I need to get a crowdsourced project going post-pandemic where I travel to the home games of all the various disagreeing folks in this (and other) thread(s) and sit in for a session or two - and see how their posted opinions and actual play jibe (or not). It could be a documentary series for when ENWorld moves into the streaming media realm - @Morrus call me when the time comes

 

[Maxperson]

I see it working where one player at the table doesn't get carte blanche because he put a burger king crown on his head and thinks he's the lord of the castle now?

Great. The DM has the authority because the game gives it to him, not because of some burger king crown.

Like, the DM runs the world fairly without trying to be in charge or screwing around to get their jollies over the other people at the table just like the players don't declare they're giants made of gold and slap the dragon out of the sky

That's typically how it happens, yes. Just because the DM has the authority, doesn't mean that it's appropriate to abuse it, and the vast majority of DMs don't abuse it. I have the absolute authority given to me by the game to change, add or subtract rules at any time I feel like. That doesn't mean that I do so or that I don't take the players into consideration when and if I do make some sort of change.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I can be about those things, yes. It can also be as simple as, "I'm Munchkin the Fighter and I want to kill stuff and take its loot." That is also roleplaying. It may not be the roleplaying you and I prefer, but it's wrong to just dismiss it and declare that your style of RP is what RP is about.

 

[Maxperson]

Explain it doesn't work that way and ask if there's an explanation.

If the explanation is 'I'm the DM', we're done.

If I'm the DM and I tell the players that the NPC casts levitate and the horse goes up into the air, the horse is going up into the air. If a player says, "But levitate has a 200 pound max," I'm going to respond in one of two ways. 1) Oops, my bad. The horse doesn't move, or 2) I know, but the horse rises anyway.

If I go with number 2, I'm under no obligation to provide the explanation that the NPC has a magical stone in his pocket that magnifies the max weight for levitate by 10x. If that means that you walk, so be it. I don't need a player with that much lack of trust in the DM in my game.

 

[niklinna]

If I go with number 2, I'm under no obligation to provide the explanation that the NPC has a magical stone in his pocket that magnifies the max weight for levitate by 10x. If that means that you walk, so be it. I don't need a player with that much lack of trust in the DM in my game.

AKA "just another excuse to kill the NPC".

 

[Helldritch]

DM:" You see a gnome like being that begins levitating a horse."
Players:" Impossible! Levitate has a max of 200 pounds!!!"
DM:" So what?".
Player 1, the MU:" I go and speak to the gnome. Good sir, how can you levitate that horse?"
DM:" Yoda, my name is..."

Good enough an explanation?

But seriously, if bending the rule over a spell is such a deviation that it warrant a player from leaving, that player is more than welcome to leave. Maybe it is third level spell unknown to the players that can lift a lot more, especially with upcast... Maybe it is not levitation but a telekinesis spell cast at very high level. The possibilities are endless and in a world with magic, a player should, must and have to expect some out of the norm events once in a while.

A DM does not have to justify on the spot every decisions made in the game.

What I do
I keep a close track, a very close track of every rule defying events. At the end of a campaign, when we do a recap (yes, we do these) if a question arise for such and such event, I usually have (almost always) the explanation and I give them the full details of what was going on, reasons and motivations. This must be very satisfying because my players still with me. Some for almost 40 years nows.