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

[niklinna]

You've never had a DM make a ruling you disagree with? Interpret something different than you understand it? Like, ever?

Of course I have. I'm not talking about lockstep, every-moment-in-concord agreement. A group in the process of forming talks about what they want out of the game—even if that's the DM saying "This is what it's gonna be and you get no say"—and if everybody is cool with it, they start playing. It's a general agreement about how the group is going to function, whether implicit or explicit.

Past that, disagreements and misunderstandings are going to come up in play, just like in life. In my current group, it happens quite a bit, and it even gets a bit heated at times between certain individuals. For my part—in this group, because our GMs are busy full-time professionals and welcome the help—if the GM diverges from what's in the rules as I understand them or as we've been using them, or doesn't remember (or sometimes even asks*), I'll point it out briefly, and the GM goes "thanks for that" or "you're wrong about that" or "I'm gonna do it this way, thanks", and that's that, so play can continue smoothly. In a new group, I would not assume such a liberty. But above all, I try to not impede flow of play—arguing over rules is not playing the game.

Now, there's a difference between disagreeing about a ruling and simply not liking it. In the latter case (which I don't encounter that often), if the GM is chill about such things I might indulge in a snarky comment, but I don't halt play for the whole table to raise a stink about it. I might bring it up afterward, outside of group time, though.

* There is also the factor of players who don't bother learning the rules, and particularly don't bother learning their own character's abilities & equipment, and ask the GM every time they use them how they work, or fish for actions because they don't know what's possible & not possible within the rules. I used to chime in whenever this happened, so the GM didn't have to go digging through multiple documents on their already-crowded screens/tabletops, or try to remember from their own overburdened memory, but I'm getting close to asking the GMs to ask such players to please learn the rules so we can play the game. This is an issue quite orthogonal to who has authority or agrees/disagrees, of course.

 

[el-remmen]

How are you looking? I've put posts here and on the A5E discord, don't know where else to look. (Although I did just recall that roll20 has an LFG feature...I wonder if you can specify A5E there?)

I haven't put any ads up, just browsing various places to see what exists out there. Aside from ENWorld I'd have to re-create my searches to remember exactly. Like I said, casual. .

 

[Oofta]

Of course I have. I'm not talking about lockstep, every-moment-in-concord agreement. A group in the process of forming talks about what they want out of the game—even if that's the DM saying "This is what it's gonna be and you get no say"—and if everybody is cool with it, they start playing. It's a general agreement about how the group is going to function, whether implicit or explicit.

Past that, disagreements and misunderstandings are going to come up in play, just like in life. In my current group, it happens quite a bit, and it even gets a bit heated at times between certain individuals. For my part—in this group, because our GMs are busy full-time professionals and welcome the help—if the GM diverges from what's in the rules as I understand them or as we've been using them, or doesn't remember (or sometimes even asks*), I'll point it out briefly, and the GM goes "thanks for that" or "you're wrong about that" or "I'm gonna do it this way, thanks", and that's that, so play can continue smoothly. In a new group, I would not assume such a liberty. But above all, I try to not impede flow of play—arguing over rules is not playing the game.

Now, there's a difference between disagreeing about a ruling and simply not liking it. In the latter case (which I don't encounter that often), if the GM is chill about such things I might indulge in a snarky comment, but I don't halt play for the whole table to raise a stink about it. I might bring it up afterward, outside of group time, though.

* There is also the factor of players who don't bother learning the rules, and particularly don't bother learning their own character's abilities & equipment, and ask the GM every time they use them how they work, or fish for actions because they don't know what's possible & not possible within the rules. I used to chime in whenever this happened, so the GM didn't have to go digging through multiple documents on their already-crowded screens/tabletops, or try to remember from their own overburdened memory, but I'm getting close to asking the GMs to ask such players to please learn the rules so we can play the game. This is an issue quite orthogonal to who has authority or agrees/disagrees, of course.

All I can say then is that "...wouldn't want to be either a DM or a player at a table lacking agreement between them." Is kinda the opposite of what you said earlier.

When I'm a player, I don't make the final call, though like you I may mention something. If we disagree, we disagree and the game goes on

 

[niklinna]

All I can say then is that "...wouldn't want to be either a DM or a player at a table lacking agreement between them." Is kinda the opposite of what you said earlier.

Not at all. Like I said, general agreement about how the game's gonna go.

When I'm a player, I don't make the final call, though like you I may mention something. If we disagree, we disagree and the game goes on

Perhaps I need to clarify that "a table lacking agreement" speaks to an ongoing condition of unsettled disagreement, but "we disagree and the game goes on" means that the disagreement is incidental, momentary, and resolved when we do agree that the game goes on regardless.

 

[Azzy]

Wait ... Costner was trying to do a British accent? Huh.

Wait ... Costner was trying to act? Huh.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

D&D, and 5e, also has a traditional play loop. The three-step process is described in the 5e PHB on page 5, under "How To Play":
"The play of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game unfolds according to this basic pattern:
1. The DM describes the environment. ...
2. The players describe what they want to do. ...
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1."

Heavy abstraction here--and not entirely accurate either. Players are frequently invited to describe environment (as you yourself note later on). DMs often prompt for actions, or even specifically instruct the players to do something, e.g. "make a Perception check" and "roll Initiative" are both incredibly common. Finally, players don't just get the opportunity, they are often outright expected to narrate the consequences of an action resolved by the dice: "how did you dodge that attack," "what did you say that was so persuasive," "ooh, that's a nat-1, how did you insult the King?" etc. And that very last example shows "forced" roleplay as a result of the rules, which I'll address later on.

2. Rule 0, and Rule ... 1?
Sometimes the most positive thing you can be in a boring society is absolutely negative.

Just want to note that I literally have no idea what this quote is trying to say. I assume it's meant to summarize your point but it's completely opaque to me.

The DMG (which no one reads) is chock full of different ways to play- from using dice, to ignoring dice, to ad hoc adjudications. In the end, the DM is the "master of the world" and the "master of the rules" (also from the DMG, which no one reads).

Uh...except they do. I read the 5e DMG, even though I don't even play 5e very much. Reading the rules, and the advice surrounding the rules, is extremely important for learning how to use a system effectively. Your dogged insistence, here and elsewhere, that absolutely no one reads the DMG does not do your argument any favors.

If Rule 0 is about the DM's authority over the world, then Rule 1 in D&D is about the Players' authority over their characters.

This authority is quite frequently abrogated though, it's far from absolute. I used the example above of, implicitly, a Diplomacy (or maybe Intimidate) check against a king, where the player gets a nat 1--even if not using fumble rules, a nat 1 is usually a failure for most characters, by the rules. The DM gave an adjudication, one that demands a specific roleplayed response. The player loses their absolute freedom to choose how they roleplay; they must roleplay in a certain way.

For that matter, the idea that the DM authority over the world is probably not that controversial (although I am positive that there most people would articulate that the DM must follow published rules, or must be neutral, or transparent, or communicate, etc. in order to run a successful game).

Yeah, that's definitely where I'm at. There are both rules and principles that bind the DM's behavior. Obviously, just as a rude player can attempt to ignore the DM's adjudications, a rude DM can simply ignore these things. Doing so is ultimately detrimental to the game IMO, but that's a subject for a different thread.

...but this isn't how all TTRPGs operate. There are models that allow Players to narrate results. There are models that allow Players to override the GM's narration. There are models that bind the Players' roleplaying options- just as, in D&D, you lose a combat, in other games you might have to roleplay certain ways as a result of dice rolls or certain events in the game. Which is to say- pointing out the division of authority in D&D, and 5e, might seem banal, but it is worthwhile because it doesn't have to be that way. Moreover, as I go through in the next section, even assuming this traditional division of authority, there is still a lot of play in the joints, and it's worthwhile for those people playing 5e to examine how they play, and how they want to play.

D&D, as you said, permits every one of these things. Players get to narrate their character's backstory, which (at least in most games) usually becomes relevant somewhere along the line, and in the vast majority of cases, if the DM's narration were wildly at odds with what the player wrote or intended, it would be generally expected that the player would at the very least be given an equal platform for negotiating the final result, if not outright control of the "no, that's not what my backstory said, and you agreed to that backstory" variety.

Looking back at the history of D&D, one thing does seem clear- despite the success of other games in introducing play concepts and rules that affect roleplaying, the history of D&D has shown that (D&D) Players do not like that, and do not want that in their D&D. Whether it's the various OD&D/1e attempts to lore-ifying classes with roleplaying restrictions (such as the proverbial Lawful Stupid Paladin) or ditching the XP rewards and penalties for roleplaying within your alignment, or even the continued movement to ditch alignment- the arc of D&D history has always bent toward complete Player authority over the roleplaying and decision-making regarding their PC.

(Now, I will again say that the DMG does offer some optional rules regarding roleplaying, such as Honor Points, and narrative control, such as Plot Points .... but ... wait for it ....NO ONE READS THE DMG!)

That's a rather big leap there. Players don't tend to like restrictions on what they're permitted to play, but they quite frequently request mechanics that support their ability to play specific things. There's also a very common trend of wishing to eliminate, or at least ban/disallow, specific classes that a player perceives as not "fitting" into the "traditional" D&D fiction of pseudo-medieval pseudo-European fantasy. Artificer and Monk are commonly put on the chopping block for this reason. If it were truly universally true that players opposed all restrictions on roleplay, they wouldn't give such roleplaying-centric reasons for opposing the inclusion of these classes.

And, as above, I reject the argument that no one reads the DMG. Plenty read the 5e DMG, and the 4e DMG1 was often celebrated as a hallmark of good principles in running games, even by people who didn't actually like 4e (or even outright disliked it).

The more interesting question is- what about narrative control? What amount of control does the Player have over the narrative and the environment of the world? I will start by recounting an example I saw where this issue caused a table conflict, and then delve into why this might be important-

Sounds like the problem wasn't "doing something wrong," but rather the neophyte DM and the narrative-heavy player failing to communicate their positions correctly to one another. Newbie-DM expected mostly narratively-passive players, narrative-player expected an active back-and-forth. In the ideal case, these things are ironed out during Session 0, but fresh DMs are unlikely to know that they need to do this. (This is one among several reasons why I so strongly advocate for really, really good tools for DMs. Old hands like you don't need them, and hence can get away with totally ignoring the DMG, but newbies can easily get stuck.)

Because D&D has so many rules, and such a concept of the "party" and the "spotlight" and "balance" and "fairness," there can be concerns that unchecked Player Authority over the narrative (the environment) can be unfair or unbalancing.

Now if only we had a parallel concern that the DM, with the incredible power they have to mislead or coerce the party, could create unfair or unbalancing situations through unchecked DM Authority...

One thing I have seen repeatedly is a conflict in that interstitial area- the Player declaration prior to the DM narration. And this is where I think that it is worth exploring, at your own table, what level of narrative control and authorial responsibility should Players have? What is acceptable?

I don't think that there is a single, correct, answer.

In general, there shouldn't be, though I do find that many DMs kinda want to have their cake and eat it too on this front. They want players who are dynamic and engaged and "doing what they want to do," but they also don't actually grant the players much (if any) authority to do that. IOW, it's less a matter of "there is one right answer" and more "a number of DMs have an answer that contradicts itself."

 

[Aldarc]

Wait ... Costner was trying to act? Huh.

Being Kevin Costner and acting like Kevin Costner in all your roles is much more difficult than it sounds.

 

[Oofta]

Wait ... Costner was trying to act? Huh.

That is the rumor, even though it's never been verified.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Uh...except they do. I read the 5e DMG, even though I don't even play 5e very much.

I am not going to go through this point by point. Just going to state what I hope is now obvious to you; for whatever reason, your way of engaging in discussion on the internet (in terms of engaging with me) doesn't work for me. I could explain why this is a truly strange response to me, point by point here, but why bother? I've tried before.

Look, just take the one thing I'm responding to. Try and think about this for a second. Do you think I am actually saying that no one in the history of ever has never read the DMG? I mean, that wouldn't make much sense, would it? Obviously, someone has- I did, because I'm quoting it!

So maybe there's something else going on? Maybe it's not really a great retort to say, in effect, "You're wrong! I read the DMG!" Perhaps it is, in fact, a joking refrain because it's a "thing" on ENWorld that people can have long conversations and not be aware of provisions in the DMG?

You could search for it, but here's a post from over a year ago, from me-

Pathfinder 2E - Is this a fair review of PF2?

2e brought a lot of fixes, though some may argue whether they fixed the right things, 1e definitely needs some work.. It just suffers from the same problem 1e already does. They want every single possible thing that could happen to already be adjudicated because of Pathfinder Society. I...

www.enworld.org

Ha!

No one reads the DMG.

This is such a well-known fact that I regularly make up stuff, and no one calls me on it, because no one reads it.

That was already covered on p. 234 of the DMG in the section called "Improvised Snot Projectiles." The specific text refers to "the ability to hit the opponent with a gooey projectile where they are; conversely, if they aren't there, there s'not the ability to hit the opponent."

Game.
Set.
Match.

Illiteracy, as always, triumphs.

But there's a ton of references to it- and not just by me. So yeah, in a desire to argue with the post, you're not trying to understand it. Not even seeing what amounts to joking refrains (or the point of them). Look- I get it. You're not responsible for understanding every single reference or joke or allusion that I include.... but even a soupçon of common sense (as opposed to an augmentative stance) would have informed your reading of what I am writing.

Anyway, to the extent you want to engage in productive conversations in the future with me, I welcome it, even when you disagree. Or just want to argue with other people in these threads I start. That's cool- I hope people get productive discussions out of these posts, because that's why I write them. I don't pretend to have "the answers," only to provoke some conversations about the topic. That's why I usually don't participate that much in the threads I start. But ... this, what you're doing, isn't working for me. Clear disconnect.

Different styles, and all that.

 

[pemerton]

I see a couple different things that fall under "authority".

• Control of character (and object) behavior in the game world
• Determination of character knowledge about the game world
• Determination of facts about one's character or the game world

All fall under a division of labor that varies from game to game

Agreed. I would frame it this way: there is authority over backstory (histories, maps, cosmology, relationships, etc); over situation (what is happening here and now); over action declaration (which characters are doing what - this follows pretty naturally from situation); and over what happens as a consequence of the declared actions.

All these are parts of the shared fiction - the "narrative", if you like,

I think @Ovinomancer and @Campbell are correct to say that it is not true, in conventional D&D, that the GM has authority over all these things. An analysis of D&D that begins from the premise the players do not have liberty to introduce any old backstory for free (eg the guards example in the OP) to try and conclude the GM has authority over all of the fiction, including all backstory, all situation, and all outcomes, is in my view mistaken.

In 5e D&D, the players exercise some control over backstory via their PC backgrounds. These also influence situation - eg when a Folk Hero meets some peasants then the situation should typically be one of a friendly reception, unless the GM is just running roughshod over this aspect of PC build. How the declared actions are resolved in this sort of case seems like it is not under unilateral GM control either - given the player's contribution to backstory and situation, I would expect some reasonable degree of negotiation and/or consensus in action resolution (eg if the Folk Hero asks the peasants to hide the Macguffin in their haystack) or at least a relatively generous CHA-type check.

In AD&D, there were reaction and loyalty rules to resolve how a NPC responds if asked to do something by a PC. 5e doesn't have exactly those rules, but it does have rules for CHA checks. If a PC asks a NPC to do something, the default GM response in 5e D&D should be to frame an appropriate check. If the request is absurd - eg an out-of-the blue demand that the king relinquish his throne to the PC - then maybe no check is required. But how common are such absurd request? And of course if the request is not out-of-the-blue, or if the PC has leverage (ie is staging a coup or a revolution) then we're back in the terrain where a check seems warranted. (In the real world leaders forfeit their thrones from time-to-time in the fact of coups and revolutions.) GM authority over backstory and situation in these sorts of cases doesn't, as such, licence GM control over what happens next.

In 5e D&D, it is almost always the GM who frames encounters with potentially hostile NPCs/creatures. And who draws the map etc in which these encounters take place. That is authority over backstory and situation. But once the swords are drawn and the spells start flying, the GM is not at liberty just to dictate outcomes. What happens next, in 5e D&D combat, is governed by a host of rules (spread over the character build chapters, the equipment chapters, the spell chapters, the basic resolution/stat check chapter, as well as the stuff under the "Combat" heading). The GM is not at liberty just to ignore all that stuff.

@Ovinomancer has mentioned "secret notes" a few times. (I won't ask him where he picked up that analytical framework!) GM's secret notes work well, in typical D&D play, when they form parts of the backstory that the players, via their action declarations for their PCs, have to work out - secret doors that conceal secret passages, for instance; or the fact that the scullery maid is really the deposed former queen in disguise. Secret backstory might even include unhappy surprises that reveal themselves in the moment of action declaration - there's an anti-magic zone here; the ambassador is wearing a ring of mind-shielding; this sort of aberration is immune to Domination; there's another, invisible, foe who's about to attack your mage from behind for a boatload of damage; etc. But using secret backstory as a device for controlling outcomes seems weak to me, and a sign of poor GMing: examples like this person will never give in to threats, no matter what they are; this person will only provide the information if the PCs take steps A, B, C; or the notorious if the PCs kill the BBEG, then NPC X, the second-in-command, fills the shoes of the deceased and keeps the pre-scripted events moving along.

One way of having fun is for one person to be principal author, and the other players to discover the cool things that principal author has come up with through exploration, inquiry, and of course fighting. If that's fun for everybody, then great! Narrow player authority, broad GM authority, let's roll.

This is the play mode that is typical of D&D modules from around the second half of the 1980s. There's no doubt a lot of people enjoy it. To the extent that it requires giving the GM control over all outcomes of action declarations, it does make something of a mockery of all those pages and pages of rules! - it did in the AD&D days, and still does in my view.

Apocalypse World and its many, many offspring take another tack entirely, with a sketched-out world, rules for action resolution that bind both players and GM in quite particular ways, and encouragement to play to find out what happens. Players still generally control one character (and notably do not have complete control over their minions), but are pressed by the resolution mechanics nearly as often as the GM to assert facts about the world, including NPCs.

I can't speak for all the offspring, but in the case of Apocalypse World and Dungeon World this doesn't seem accurate to me. There are very few AW player-side moves that require the player to assert facts about the world or NPCs (the Battlebabe's Visions of Death is one, likewise the Operator's Reputation; and the Savvyhead's Bonefeel gives the player a degree of authority over situation). Seduce/Manipulate, on a 10+, permits a player to oblige the GM to have a NPC go along with the PC's request. The difference from a D&D CHA check is that the odds are clearl spelled out, and the restrictions on what the GM has the NPC say and do if the check succeeds are much clearer. But this is mostly about principles that govern the GM's narration - the GM has more constrained authority over the outcome than in the D&D case, but I don't think there is a fundamental cleavage here: the D&D GM's authority is just as constrained if a player's to hit and damage rolls oblige the GM to drop a NPC's hit points to zero.

AW does have the notion of asking questions and building on the answers, so the GM can initiate or invite player contributions to backstory and situation. I'm not sure if that's what you have in mind?

I almost—almost—want to go back to The Forge and revisit how these topics were discussed back then.

That's where the clearest discussions are to be found of the different components of the fiction in a RPG, and how authority over them might be allocated in different ways.