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

[niklinna]

It's one thing to ask for clarification or mention something if I think the DM just forgot something, but in the middle of a game the DM making a call is just common courtesy. We can always discuss after the game. Even then the DM makes the final call, even if I disagree with it.

But you and the DM have an agreement beforehand that you will both abide by that. I have been in games where it's openly agreed that players may challenge the DM. That can be fun—usually with an additional agreement that folks will resolve disputes quickly—and it can be agonizing—when that agreement is implicit or absent.

 

[overgeeked]

That is absolutely roleplaying. It's just at a different level of detail.

None isn't really a level of detail it's an absence of...just like bald isn't really a hair color.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

I'm honestly going to walk is anyone at the table starts trying to assert dominance.

Typically, I will growl and bare my teeth.

First, why are you assuming the worst of every DM? Good grief.

He's not. He's describing how spells and their associated mechanics limit GM authority and grant players limited narrative control. A Persuasion check can only exist if the GM allows it--and he sets the conditions for that along with the DC. In contrast, the charm spell (and other spells) are under player control. The wizard presses the spellcasting button and the NPC rolls a saving throw. On a failed saving throw--the DC of which is set by the rules rather than GM fiat--the NPC is subject to the effects of the spell. In the case of charm, the character is buddies with the spellcaster, for a time.

The inverse of this is also true, by the way. The charm spell in the hands of an enemy spellcaster grants a mechanic by which the GM can assert authority over a player character's agency without violating the unspoken rule that he cannot do so.

 

[Oofta]

I've already posted to ask you to stop putting words in my mouth. I was half-joking about harassment there. Continue to do this, though, and it is harassment. Either engage my words as they are or don't engage at all. Stop inventing strawmen. Your characterization of what I said about Charm Person is 100% false.

Then explain what you are saying because it is not clear. I don't know what you're trying to say with your example. All I'm saying is that Charm Person only makes you a casual acquaintance, how much it changes the situation will be up to the DM.

As always, if you feel I'm violating policy don't shake the "I'm gonna report you" stick just because I disagree with you.

 

[Malmuria]

Yes, it appears we have a different idea of what narrative control is. Let me try to reframe this.

When I take an opportunity attack, this is part of the normal play loop -- I have the authority to declare this action for my PC, the GM has the authority to determine it's likelihood of success, and the GM has the authority to narrate the outcome. I, as a player, do not get to say that my attack is successful or what the result is -- this is outside my authority. I will normally have more agency here, in 5e, because of how the combat rules codify how the GM is expected to determine success, but the resolution of the action -- does my attack kill or dissuade the enemy? -- is still the GM's purview.

Now look at Wall of Stone. Here the spell says what it does. The only way the GM can gainsay this is to break the expectation of the game and introduce some arbitrary reason the spell doesn't function. So, the spell functions and the result is what I, the player, say it is with the scope of the spell. The GM is pretty hamstrung in determining this.

A better example would be something similar -- let's look at a declared action to befriend an NPC vs Charm Person. The former is entirely up to the GM in all ways -- I have no ability to control the outcome here as a player, I have zero authority. But, if I cast Charm Person, suddenly the GM is faced with having to come up with a reason that it can't work if they want to stop it (assuming we haven't hit any of the issues described in the spell (or other spells)). They have to go to the saving throw, and abide by this. On a success, I have the authority to say that that NPC is now friendly with my PC. There is no GM authority to narrate a different outcome.

The spell itself says

The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance.

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 charmed condition, meanwhile, states that

• A charmed creature can’t Attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful Abilities or magical Effects.
• The charmer has advantage on any ability check to interact socially with the creature.

That's a lot more specific, especially the first bullet point, probably because it is to do with combat.

Overall, I'd say the charm person spell operates similarly to an opportunity attack. If you see that enemy is moving out of your threatened reach, you can make an opportunity attack, and the gm cannot just decide that you are not attempting an attack. Both the opportunity attack and charm person have a likelihood of success (vs AC and WIS, respectively) that probably should be pre-determined even if it strictly speaking doesn't need to be. If either the opportunity attack or the charm person are successful, the dm must abide by the results--damage, in the first case, or the charmed condition, in the second. As you write:

I have the authority to declare this action for my PC, the GM has the authority to determine it's likelihood of success, and the GM has the authority to narrate the outcome.

 

[Oofta]

It is and it isn't, in practice. This is the problem with trying to argue that the GM authority requires that players must trust the GM. It doesn't, in practice, require any such thing. There's no real "GM as final authority" thing in practice. The table is the final authority. I wish more people would acknowledge this rather than continue with the arguments that treat the GM as if they are specially gifted and should be deferred to because of a game rule that doesn't require any such thing.
...

All I can say is that I disagree. The DM is the final authority. It's not a democracy, although of course the DM should always listen to feedback in order to facilitate fun game play. If a DM is running the game in a manner that does not suit you, find a different DM or run the game yourself.

 

[niklinna]

None isn't really a level of detail it's an absence of...just like bald isn't really a hair color.

"I search the room" (as opposed to any other room in the presumed building) is not none. If the player had said, "I do nothing in particular to find clues, I rolled a 27", that would have been none.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I disagree. Heck, even if they are being adversarial a-holes it's their right. The DM puts in a lot more work than any player snip

Yeah no.

The DM volunteers for the job and they don't have the 'right' to domineer others just because they chose 'the rest of the world' as their character in the game.

I DM more than I do anything else and I would never demand my 'right' to push people around because I don't have that right. No one has that right.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Here's how I'm seeing it: (assuming I'm a wizard with the spell prepped yadda yadda) When I cast Wall of Stone, I have the authority to to declare this action for my pc, the GM has the authority to determine it's likelihood of success (although the rules generally dictate how this should be handled via pre-established saving throw mods and DCs, whereas with an attack it would be through pre-established attack mods and ACs), and the GM has the authority to narrate the outcome.

There is no likelihood of success to determine -- if I meet the prerequisites for casting the spell, the spell happens. There's no saving throw for Wall of Stone -- it makes a wall of stone. This happens. Further, the GM can narrate whatever the GM wants, so long as it's a wall of stone appears where I say it does. With regards to authority, that's my authority, not the GM's, even if we pretend the GM has to speak it for it to be so.

I don't see that as true - the gm has just as much authority to ignore the rules for the spell as they do to ignore the rules for attacks - ie technically rule 0 says whatever they want, in practice it means they should only do so for a good reason. It's no more or less possible for a dm to decide that an attack shouldn't use the attack roll mechanism than it is for them to declare a spell just doesn't work - they can, although very few dm's wouldn't use this authority sparingly.

And that would be the blatant deployment of Rule 0 Force that I mentioned in my first post. Either spells work, and the player is wielding narrative authority, or the GM is forced to be obvious about GM Force.

There are guidelines on how to handle persuasion beyond "lol make something up." You have a pre-defined bonus to the ability check, and the DC are set by fiat with some guidance. Charm person just gives me a way to spend a resource for advantage - as does the Help action, for what it's worth. (and the rolls are based on a pre-defined save dc and a bonus either form a stat block or set by DM fiat based on guidance)

Well, no, because the player is not guaranteed a roll. I'm a very indulgent GM when it comes to these things -- I generally will call for a roll and abide by it -- but, even with that, there are some things that just succeed or just fail. "You learn the NPC is afraid of spiders." "Cool, I befriend the NPC by casting an illusion of a giant spider and saying 'want to meet my hungry friend?" That just fails, even in my games. But I could do that, terrify the NPC, and then cast Charm Person and, provided a failed save, they're still going to be friendly to me for the duration. And still scared of spiders, so any future asks might get disadvantaged if you keep the illusion around.

The point is, that Charm Person requires the GM to narrate the the NPC is now friendly. Just trying to make friends doesn't require the GM to do anything at all. Hence the nature of authority.

There is such authority, with the same caveats about not ignoring the rules without cause.

I fail to see a distinction between "using the rules to adjudicate spells" and "using the rules to adjudicate non-spells."

The difference is that spells require the GM to narrate specific outcomes. Non-spells do not.

 

[overgeeked]

"I search the room" (as opposed to any other room in the presumed building) is not none. If the player had said, "I do nothing in particular to find clues, I rolled a 27", that would have been none.

There's a difference between taking an action and roleplaying. "I search the room" is declaring an action, not roleplaying.