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

[Lanefan]

Now, I know that there are completely different games and types of scenario, I've explored my faire share over the years. But pretending that having any sort of plot is akin to some level of railroading is a bit too much for me to digest.

This.

It only becomes railroading if-when the plot overly interferes to the point where the PCs actions are in effect declared for them. And even then it's not always bad (though it certainly can be!); look at the transition from the 1e modules A3 to A4 for example, where A4 cannot be run unless the party get captured at the end of A3 and so at the end of A3 they're going to get captured pretty much no matter what they do other than fall on their own swords.

That said, back-plot can very much still be overdone or done in a too-heavy-handed way, as per my The Gauntlet experience just above. It's a fine line to walk sometimes, never mind that the perfect line at one table might be a disaster for another.

 

[Oofta]

So you talk to the player and negotiate. Remind them about the nature of planar travel and the dubious existence of the gods. Ask them for something that better fits the world as you've previously defined it.



If it doesn't work with that player, it doesn't.

I'm okay with negotiation but I have some hard lines that can't be crossed. I mean if someone has a backstory for their first level PC that they have been lauded as the greatest warrior in the land and single-handedly killed Tiamat before breakfast this morning I suspect most DMs would not allow it or ignore it.

I've just decided over the years that sometimes it's best to just say "no" in order to maintain a world that makes sense to me. Because if I don't believe in my campaign world I don't know how I can make it come to life for others.

 

[Campbell]

One thing I've been thinking about is that 5e is tolerant in terms of a diversity of players because of the assumed division of authority.

For example, you can have a table with an "all about the combat" player, a "beer & pretzels" player, a "hardcore RP" player, a "I'm just here because my girlfriend dragged me here" player, a "I like to map and write drown treasure" player, and so on.

There is no requirement that the players all bring a level of enthusiasm to the game at all times. It makes it better, but it still works. It's also easy to integrate new players, who don't even have to know anything in particular about the world (create fiction). You can always up the player authority over narrative, but it's never required.

Other games can be attractive and fun for tables that enjoy a cooperative and engaged playstyle, but I wonder if there is some inherent advantage to a game that allows for that specific type of diversity.

Maybe, maybe not.

My experience of Robin Laws' Player Types is that they describe what I regard as fairly minor variations of preference within a pretty consistent playstyle. Most players that are happy to play D&D enjoy most of the process of play, but have different parts they enjoy more. They also usually are not looking for a radically different play experience from the rest of people at the table. I think it's fairly rare that your Storyteller would rather play Sorcerer, your method actor would rather be taking part in a Nordic LARP, and your butt kicker would rather be playing World of Warcraft.

Maybe that last one might be true.

 

[prabe]

I'm okay with negotiation but I have some hard lines that can't be crossed. I mean if someone has a backstory for their first level PC that they have been lauded as the greatest warrior in the land and single-handedly killed Tiamat before breakfast this morning I suspect most DMs would not allow it or ignore it.

I've just decided over the years that sometimes it's best to just say "no" in order to maintain a world that makes sense to me. Because if I don't believe in my campaign world I don't know how I can make it come to life for others.

To be clear, that's a perfectly reasonable place to be. It's really not all that far from where I am, running 5E. I need the world to make sense to me, or I'll start having suspension-of-disbelief problems, which will interfere with my enjoyment of the game.

I'm willing to negotiate, and I'm willing to just say no.

 

[Lanefan]

In my opinion, it does not reflect well on the 5e GMing community nor 5e as a ruleset that @hawkeyefan 's depicted play excerpt is even in the slightest bit controversial.

Would it be controversial if a 5e GM said to a Ranger (Natural Explorer) who is leading his allies on a perilous journey through the wild any of the following:

• The difficult terrain slows your group's travel.
• You're lost because the topography is particularly dizzying.
• But you were tracking...how can you possibly be alert to dangers?!
• Yeah, I know you were tracking the 4 Ogres that came through here 3 days ago, but its actually 6 Hill Giants and it was all an elaborate trap! They're here now and upon you!

The game is littered with examples of "would it be controversial if" where the answer should emphatically be "YES!1111!"

When the final playtest came out, Background Traits were one of 3 things in the ruleset that I cited as the strongest features of the game.

Strong features, sure, but they should merely make you gradationally better at those things rather than be "I win" buttons. Problem is, they're often kind of described as, and too often interpreted as, making a character perfect at what it does rather than better-but-still-not-perfect.

If you're a Folk Hero PC, and assuming the place you're in meets the fictional parameters (if this was a PBtA move, the trigger would be "when you're among the common folk and on the run or exhausted from a journey, they'll take you in to evade pursuit or recover") and you deploy Rustic Hospitality in an evasion conflict, that is the player taking their small foothold in the GM's world and establishing an archetypal reality; "these folks will risk everything for their belief in me, that belief matters in this world, and they know I'll continue to give them reason to believe."

And here's a perfect example. "They [will] take you in..." "These folks will risk everything..." Etc.

"Will" is an absolute, and therein lies the problem. Far better to replace it with "are more likely to" or even "are very likely to", to get away from the absolutes and thus from the win-button interpretations.

That's the conversation that I think needs to happen here.

 

[Lanefan]

With respect, for D&D, preparation is a thing. Not everyone has the ability to present entertaining situations (and, say, challenging and interesting, but not overpowering, combat scenarios) extempore.

It's doable out of the gate, but only if one* is willing to accept a possibly-lengthy period of trial and error as part of the process.

* - and one's players, who will doubtless come out on the short end of some of the "error" outcomes.

 

[prabe]

It's doable out of the gate, but only if one* is willing to accept a possibly-lengthy period of trial and error as part of the process.

* - and one's players, who will doubtless come out on the short end of some of the "error" outcomes.

To the extent that it works at the table, it is possible for the brand-new DM to get some help from more-experienced folks. It might at least shorten the trial-and-error phase. It might also help if the brand-new DM were a long-time player.

 

[overgeeked]

In my experience, there are plenty of players who want an on-rails experience. Some players simply lack the initiative to be proactive protagonists. Some players prefer a "cinematic experience" at the game table. Many are looking to socialize and relax after work, and they aren't that invested in player agency or making decisions. Some people just want to show up and roll some dice during combat encounters. Some new players want a session of Critical Role that they're participating in.

It's a diverse hobby with a variety of playstyles. I'm not going to denigrate someone else's good time--though, again, railroading is definitely not a good time for me, so I expect others to respect my good time.

It's a chicken or the egg argument. (Don't at me evolutionary biologists, I know.) Do they "want" it because it's all they've ever known or do they "want" it because they're simply passive players? In my experience, players are only really passive when they think they have no meaningful choices to make. I've played RPGs with a lot of kids. Their inexperience with the style is really engaging and energizing. They don't know that they're expected to sit down and be quite while the DM spins a yarn, so they jump on tables and swing from chandeliers and look for jousting tournaments and try to redeem villains and befriend animals and raise armies. I haven't encountered any naturally passive players that are kids. There have been a few who were timid and didn't want to risk embarrassment by making a "mistake". But once they realized that no, really, you can try anything...just tell the DM what you want to try and we'll figure it out...it's a literal eye-opening experience. Conversely I've seen a lot of older players who've been conditioned from years of playing with railroading DMs that they should just shrug and listen because they don't get to do anything more meaningful than swinging a sword and throwing some dice occasionally.

 

[Lanefan]

I think my biggest problem with published adventures is that they make an effort to have, effectively, the last session planned in about the same detail as the first. As someone who (mostly) doesn't prep more than a session ahead, this seems somewhere in the vicinity of alien, impossible, implausible, and not to my taste. lol

I think that's more a bug (feature, for some?) of story-based adventures, starting with DragonLance and continuing through every AP published since. The PF paths are particularly egregious.

Far better are the modules that, with a minimum of fuss and backstory, simply lay out the map and challenges and say "Here, run this"; leaving it up to you-as-DM to fit it in with your own campaign's ongoing story/plot/whatever.

 

[Campbell]

For the most part I think new GMs should try to run the sort of game they eventually want to run. Learning to run a linear game well isn't really going to teach you how to run other sorts of games well.