Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8428576" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p><em>Heavy</em> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Uh...except they do. <em>I</em> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <em>usually</em> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <em>at the very least</em> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's a rather big leap there. Players don't tend to like <em>restrictions on what they're permitted to play</em>, but they quite frequently request mechanics that <em>support</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>disliked</em> it).</p><p></p><p></p><p>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, <em>really</em> good tools for DMs. Old hands like you don't need them, and hence can <em>get away with</em> totally ignoring the DMG, but newbies can easily get stuck.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>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...</p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <em>do</em> 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."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8428576, member: 6790260"] [I]Heavy[/I] 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. 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. [I][/I] Uh...except they do. [I]I[/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. 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 [I]usually[/I] 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. 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. 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 [I]at the very least[/I] 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. That's a rather big leap there. Players don't tend to like [I]restrictions on what they're permitted to play[/I], but they quite frequently request mechanics that [I]support[/I] 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 [I]disliked[/I] it). 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, [I]really[/I] good tools for DMs. Old hands like you don't need them, and hence can [I]get away with[/I] totally ignoring the DMG, but newbies can easily get stuck.) 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... [B][I][/I][/B] 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 [I]do[/I] 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." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e
Top