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

[Maxperson]

Which the rules do not give you permission to do. That's without even getting into the social contract at the table, which also doesn't (usually) give you permission to abuse your power as GM. The fact that authority can be abused is entirely different than saying the rules allow you or permit you to do so. They don't.

The game itself does not limit my permissions at all. It gives advice, but no active limiters. The social contract is the only thing that limits permission, and the social contract is not part of the game. The game gives me permission to change any rule at any time for any reason.

 

[Fenris-77]

The game itself does not limit my permissions at all. It gives advice, but no active limiters. The social contract is the only thing that limits permission, and the social contract is not part of the game. The game gives me permission to change any rule at any time for any reason.

So you're saying the rules give you permission to abuse your authority as GM?

 

[Mannahnin]

The game itself does not limit my permissions at all. It gives advice, but no active limiters. The social contract is the only thing that limits permission, and the social contract is not part of the game. The game gives me permission to change any rule at any time for any reason.

I agree that that's a misinterpretation.

The game tells you that you have the right to change the rules, but in support of a good game. It does not give you permission to change them for any reason or no reason at all. While the exact wording has shifted here and there, this core concept has been pretty darn consistent since 1974.

 

[overgeeked]

You do realize a literal reading of what you've written is that it's OK for the DM to narrate a successful roll as a failure state, yes? And that further literal reading is that it's OK for the DM to pre-determine the outcomes, since they have authority to control them?

The mere potential for something to be abused is not a guarantee that it will be, unless you choose to make the most uncharitable reading possible.

I'm a firm believer in social contracts and table expectations and all-a-that, and I think there are implications in the rules that, for instance, a DM should narrate the outcome of a successful roll to be consistent with what the player's idea of "success" was.

Along with all that authority the DM also has a remit to make the game fun for the players at the table. And yes, the social contract is quite important.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree that that's a misinterpretation.

The game tells you that you have the right to change the rules, but in support of a good game. It does not give you permission to change them for any reason or no reason at all. While the exact wording has shifted here and there, this core concept has been pretty darn consistent since 1974.

It doesn't say, "but in support of a good game." It gives no such limitations on the authority. It does give advice to the DM recommending that he do it in support of a good game, but does not go as far as to limit him in any way.

Edit: Authority without limitation = permission.

 

[overgeeked]

I agree that that's a misinterpretation.

It's not a misinterpretation. It's an explicit statement by the game books. I've quoted it several times. If people choose not to read the DMG and pontificate on what the DMG says, there's no help to be had.

The game tells you that you have the right to change the rules, but in support of a good game.

Exactly.

It does not give you permission to change them for any reason or no reason at all.

It does, but no one is arguing the DM should do that.

While the exact wording has shifted here and there, this core concept has been pretty darn consistent since 1974.

Exactly.

 

[Oofta]

I think what people are objecting to is that if the DM asserts their authority that broadly, they're asserting authority over outcomes. And if the DM asserts authority over outcomes, that's ... well on the road to being a railroad. To be clear, I don't think you or @Maxperson or @overgeeked are running railroads, but if you're not disclaiming authority over outcomes, it's easy to read you as saying railroads are OK.

People keep conflating DMs who assert authority with jerk DMs. Nobody disagrees that there are bad DMs. Railroad DMs are a separate issue: as I've stated repeatedly the players are always in control of their PCs.

I suppose in theory it exists, so it's not totally a strawman, but it's certainly strawman adjacent.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

"Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils... The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win." PHB pg 5

Saying, or otherwise implying, that these goals of play are harmonious with the idea that the DM has implicit or explicit permission from the DMG to abuse their authority is... pure and utter nonsense.

 

[Maxperson]

"Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils... The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win." PHB pg 5

Saying, or otherwise implying, that these goals of play are harmonious with the idea that the DM has implicit or explicit permission from the DMG to abuse their authority is... pure and utter nonsense.

They have permission to change any rule for any reason. Whether that constitutes an abuse or not depends entirely on the social contract.

 

[Umbran]

Mod note:

A couple of you now sound like you are arguing to win semantic technical points, rather than to come to understandings about the game.

This suggests to me that the thread has outlived its usefulness, or a couple of you have pretty much played out what you have to say, and have nothing more constructive to add, but are unwilling to let anyone who disagrees with you have the last word.

That's not a healthy approach to the discussion. Please find a better way.