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

[Manbearcat]

It’s nice to come to ENWorld and reliably be able to say “I’ve learned a lot from this thread.”

Thanks for that ENWorld.

 

[niklinna]

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?

Yes, this is what I had in mind. Just recently I had my Hound in a Blades game track down a sinister dude to his home, and I snooped around in there and rolled a success, and the GM said to me, "So, what's this guy up to?" He left it totally up to me to come up with why the guy had shown up at our score.

 

[Lanefan]

In one case, was determined to have the adventure proceed as per the scripted module, and so failed to play NPCs honestly (a captured kobold) in order to avoid giving the players the information they wanted (we, as our PCs, were seeking information from the kobold about how it had entered the city, what the disposition of kobold forces was, etc) so as to prevent the players declaring actions for their PCs that would disrupt the script (we wanted to learn where the kobolds were so we could take the fight to them).

What were you doing to extract said info from your captive? If you'd, say, charmed it and it still didn't tell you, that's bad on the DM. If, however, you were using intimidation or torture on it then it's quite possible the Kobold clammed up out of sheer terror.

In another case, was determined to have the twist he'd scripted play out, and so had a NPC betray us with no real warning, and in a way that was unavoidable given that the only option for play that had been presented to us by the GM was going on the NPC's mission. So our reward for doing as the GM told us to do was to be made to look like schmucks.

IMO there is nothing wrong with this whatsoever. It's perfectly realistic: your party got bamboozled this time and you ended up looking like fools. So what? Deal with it; and more importantly deal with it in character: track down that NPC and let your PCs vent their frustrations on it, or make sure everyone in the kingdom knows that NPC is not to be trusted, or whatever. (a bad DM would find some way of blocking this, a good one wouldn't and would let the story play out however it might)

In a third case, had lost control of the fiction due to we, the players, building an elaborate set of relationships among our PCs and between our PCs and various elements of the setting; and so teleported us all 100 years into the future, killing off all the fiction what we'd created and starting with a blank slate where only he had any knowledge or control.

Yeah, this one's just flat-out bad DMing.

I don't know about damage, but in each case the game ended. In the first we staged a player revolt and started a new game.

From here, and admittedly not knowing the table dynamics otherwise, that seems like a major over-reaction.

There's no reason why RPGers should put up with crappy GMing.

Agreed; but in one of these examples you're setting the bar far too high by, in effect, demanding that the settng contain only trustworthy NPCs.

 

[Lanefan]

I fail to see a profound difference there. If the adventure is linear and the PCs purposefully derive from the linearity, some railroading is in order otherwise the game simply crashes. The best/worst example of the kind in modern D&D history is Waterdeep Dragon Heist which just does not work if the PCs don't follow the unique string of ten encounters in order, and it needs railroading if they start going in the wrong direction.

I agree with most of what you've been saying but not this: my take is that if the players deviate from the linearity, be it on purpose or by accident, it's on the DM to react accordingly, hit the curveball that the players have thrown, and keep the game going in that new direction.

In other words, as a DM always have in the back of your mind enough broad-brush prep to be able to answer the question "What if they deviate at [point x]?" where point-x could be anywhere in the adventure (or AP); and then be ready to wing it from there if-when they do.

 

[overgeeked]

I know this comes up a lit, but looking at that quote now, I think it gets used to promote a far broader idea of DM authority than intended.

I see that quote as limited to times when the rules are somehow unclear, not about all rules all the time.

It's easier to assume that the professional writers meant what they wrote and that it's simply counter to your preferences, hence your objection.

Is the DM free to tell me that the fireball I just cast doesn’t work per the range and area of effect rules? Or that I can’t increase the damage by using a higher level slot? Are there really any questions about how fireball works?

Yes. There are dozens of ways within the rules of the game that permit the DM to do that. How does a fireball interact with a cone of cold? That's up to the DM. How about a counterspell? Pretty clear. How about heavy wind and rain or a control weather spell? Contorl Water? Tsunami? Gust of wind? Up to the DM. How does the fireball interact with the terrain? Up to the DM. The DM is also free to create monsters and NPCs and spells. Those monsters and NPCs and spells are not bound by the same rules as the PCs. So if a DM wants to drop an Avatar/Korra style firebender into the game, that's their prerogative.

I don’t think that proceeding with play under the impression that the DM has total authority is all that productive an approach.

It's worked for decades. I don't see why it would be a sudden problem. Unless it's your preference that things work otherwise. Then it's clearly a clash of preference vs the rules of this particular game.

 

[prabe]

The typical way we figure out a campaign is that I have everyone players all put in 4 campaign ideas. So now we have 16 possible campaigns. Then all 5 of us get to eliminate 1 idea that we really don't like, which drops us down to 11. Then everyone rates the remainder from 1-11 and the 3 highest point totals get voted on rated from 1-3. The winner is what I prepare. That way everyone has a lot of buy-in on whatever the campaign is going to be. Very rarely one of the top 3 will be a campaign idea that I don't think I can do justice to and will let them know that. If that happens we remove it and the 4th spot moves up.

Am I understanding this correctly that you don't put any campaign ideas into the proverbial hat? That's ... kinda cool.

 

[niklinna]

Am I understanding this correctly that you don't put any campaign ideas into the proverbial hat? That's ... kinda cool.

If you like that, you should check out Diaspora (a Fate-based sci-fi game). The group collaboratively designs the star system they'll playing in. Might give you some ideas!

 

[prabe]

If you like that, you should check out Diaspora (a Fate-based sci-fi game). The group collaboratively designs the star system they'll playing in. Might give you some ideas!

Indeed. I remember that as a decent way to build that cluster (forget what they're called in the game). There's some interesting stuff in Diaspora--and in Fate in general, though at this point I know enough to know Fate is ... not a system I need to play or run.

 

[overgeeked]

If you like that, you should check out Diaspora (a Fate-based sci-fi game). The group collaboratively designs the star system they'll playing in. Might give you some ideas!

Indeed. I remember that as a decent way to build that cluster (forget what they're called in the game). There's some interesting stuff in Diaspora--and in Fate in general, though at this point I know enough to know Fate is ... not a system I need to play or run.

There's also Microscope from Lame Mage. It's a game about collaboratively designing the history of a world. You can easily change the scale from "entire universe" to "entire sector" to "entire solar system" to "entire planet" to "entire kingdom" or whatever scale you want.

 

[prabe]

There's also Microscope from Lame Mage. It's a game about collaboratively designing the history of a world. You can easily change the scale from "entire universe" to "entire sector" to "entire solar system" to "entire planet" to "entire kingdom" or whatever scale you want.

I have Microscope, but haven't yet had a chance to do anything with it yet (past read it).