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 coming! 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="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8437700" data-attributes="member: 6785785"><p>Yeah, that's not really how I like my games to work. I'm playing in a 5e game now (rotating GMs so it's kind of interesting to see how everyone takes the 5e rules and applies them differently) and I definitely notice some of this happening. I mean....it's baked in, right? But it can be limited.</p><p></p><p>I don't mind that 5e is very GM focused. But I do expect that the player be given at least some authority, especially those examples that are clearly defined in the book.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's the "alter things as they see fit" part that causes issues, I think. As I mentioned way back earlier in the thread, I think people read certain passages in the books that they interpret to grant much more authority to the GM than I think is actually intended. I don't mind a GM exercising the authority needed for the game to function; I mind when the GM overrides the chance for a player to have some say because there's some gray area or because they feel they can alter things as they see fit.</p><p></p><p>I don't think that it's too much to expect the GM to allow for player input.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's not what I meant. I think in both the examples of that scenario you've described it's basically a railroad. Thing has to happen in order to progress to next scene. It's predetermined.</p><p></p><p>I'd prefer that situation to be set up a bit differently so that if we failed to find the maguffin, then there were other things to do. Either other ways to engage the path we were on with some kind of consequence for not finding the maguffin (perhaps we have to find some other clue or information and as a result we've lost time, and so a threat has increased or timetable has progressed, etc.) or else some other thing to do.</p><p></p><p>Alternatively, in the way you've described it, I'd rather the GM just let us find the maguffin rather than leave it to chance that we find it. If i's necessary in order for the game to not grind to a halt, why risk that happening? Just say we found it after searching for a while. Maybe have a roll determine how much time is needed to find it, and then you can advance related factors accordingly.</p><p></p><p>This is the problem with gating things behind one roll and it's something I've tried to avoid since my earliest days as a GM.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure. I also think that simply discussing things makes them seem more fervent. "I like things to be X way" doesn't mean the same thing as "I never want to se things as Y", although sometimes it's read that way.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is hard to say. I think that trying to bring forth things that the player cares about and has indicated they want to see come up in play is a desirable thing. I think how exactly it's handled would determine if Force was used or not. It really depends.</p><p></p><p>Like, I don't have a problem with a GM narrating what happens when two NPCs interact. I don't need them to roll everything out. In fact, I prefer they don't....although I think now and again something that can be determined by one roll is a good way to randomize things.</p><p></p><p>The reason I don't mind this is that what they're doing is setting up the scenario. So if they just narrate that the sister is in danger and then put it to the player to do something, that's fine. If the player somehow failed, and the sister's life was at stake, and so the GM softballs things and makes her not die.....that's not something I'd be crazy about.</p><p></p><p>I get it....it's a kind of sympathetic thing to do. But as a player I almost always pick up on that, and it's dissatisfying.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I didn't read that as giving all the information up front. I thought it was the NPC allies' info, and the types of creatures that the Kraken and its tentacles counted as. Certainly the types of creatures give us an indication....like as a Solo monster, the Kraken is likely to have a high number of hit points and so on. But I don't think the stat block of the monsters were shared.</p><p></p><p>Now, let's say the little girl is some kind of secret deity or higher being that just looks like a girl; how does sharing a stat block change that? Does it somehow prevent the GM from such a revelation later on if that's what's going on?</p><p></p><p>If that was the case, I'd simply expect some kind of hint that there was something more going on, and perhaps a roll of some kind to pick up on it, etc.</p><p></p><p>I don't think that saying "this girl is a minion and has the ability to avoid danger in this way" means "this is perfectly accurate knowledge and me giving you access to these stats is a contractual obligation on my part that they will never change or otherwise be revealed to be different".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 8437700, member: 6785785"] Yeah, that's not really how I like my games to work. I'm playing in a 5e game now (rotating GMs so it's kind of interesting to see how everyone takes the 5e rules and applies them differently) and I definitely notice some of this happening. I mean....it's baked in, right? But it can be limited. I don't mind that 5e is very GM focused. But I do expect that the player be given at least some authority, especially those examples that are clearly defined in the book. It's the "alter things as they see fit" part that causes issues, I think. As I mentioned way back earlier in the thread, I think people read certain passages in the books that they interpret to grant much more authority to the GM than I think is actually intended. I don't mind a GM exercising the authority needed for the game to function; I mind when the GM overrides the chance for a player to have some say because there's some gray area or because they feel they can alter things as they see fit. I don't think that it's too much to expect the GM to allow for player input. That's not what I meant. I think in both the examples of that scenario you've described it's basically a railroad. Thing has to happen in order to progress to next scene. It's predetermined. I'd prefer that situation to be set up a bit differently so that if we failed to find the maguffin, then there were other things to do. Either other ways to engage the path we were on with some kind of consequence for not finding the maguffin (perhaps we have to find some other clue or information and as a result we've lost time, and so a threat has increased or timetable has progressed, etc.) or else some other thing to do. Alternatively, in the way you've described it, I'd rather the GM just let us find the maguffin rather than leave it to chance that we find it. If i's necessary in order for the game to not grind to a halt, why risk that happening? Just say we found it after searching for a while. Maybe have a roll determine how much time is needed to find it, and then you can advance related factors accordingly. This is the problem with gating things behind one roll and it's something I've tried to avoid since my earliest days as a GM. Sure. I also think that simply discussing things makes them seem more fervent. "I like things to be X way" doesn't mean the same thing as "I never want to se things as Y", although sometimes it's read that way. This is hard to say. I think that trying to bring forth things that the player cares about and has indicated they want to see come up in play is a desirable thing. I think how exactly it's handled would determine if Force was used or not. It really depends. Like, I don't have a problem with a GM narrating what happens when two NPCs interact. I don't need them to roll everything out. In fact, I prefer they don't....although I think now and again something that can be determined by one roll is a good way to randomize things. The reason I don't mind this is that what they're doing is setting up the scenario. So if they just narrate that the sister is in danger and then put it to the player to do something, that's fine. If the player somehow failed, and the sister's life was at stake, and so the GM softballs things and makes her not die.....that's not something I'd be crazy about. I get it....it's a kind of sympathetic thing to do. But as a player I almost always pick up on that, and it's dissatisfying. I didn't read that as giving all the information up front. I thought it was the NPC allies' info, and the types of creatures that the Kraken and its tentacles counted as. Certainly the types of creatures give us an indication....like as a Solo monster, the Kraken is likely to have a high number of hit points and so on. But I don't think the stat block of the monsters were shared. Now, let's say the little girl is some kind of secret deity or higher being that just looks like a girl; how does sharing a stat block change that? Does it somehow prevent the GM from such a revelation later on if that's what's going on? If that was the case, I'd simply expect some kind of hint that there was something more going on, and perhaps a roll of some kind to pick up on it, etc. I don't think that saying "this girl is a minion and has the ability to avoid danger in this way" means "this is perfectly accurate knowledge and me giving you access to these stats is a contractual obligation on my part that they will never change or otherwise be revealed to be different". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e
Top