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
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: 8437962" data-attributes="member: 6785785"><p>Okay, getting the game moving again is part of the GM's job, I'd say. I mean, it's the players' job too, but if they've stalled out, the GM needs to do something to get things going again. </p><p></p><p>I don't think that constitutes Force. Or at least, it certainly doesn't require it. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, I think this depends on the game and/or expectations. Like in early editions of D&D, that would be against expectations. But in a game that uses the Gumshoe system, it's likely not. </p><p></p><p>I personally don't like that kind of approach, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it. In 5e D&D, it seems a bit against expectations, but well within the realm of possibility.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If painted into a corner in some way, sure, do what you have to in order to get the game going again. Again, I don't know if Force is needed, but if you find yourself in a situation where it's a bit of Force to correct the matter, or let the game flounder, then sure, Force away.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's hard to say. If the GM is working to bring about something of interest to the player then I'm generally of the opinion that's a good thing. Again, I don't know how Force is necessary in this case, so it's hard to say. Possibly? I mean, the benefit seems to outweigh the drawback, again depending on expectations.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've been using it to mean the GM overriding or otherwise negating the outcome of player decisions in favor of some other outcome. </p><p></p><p>I'm not using it as a description of the GM authoring content for the game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I play plenty of games that don't rely on prep to the level of detail that this would be a problem as presented. So in that sense, I'm okay with the idea of having the fireballed cultists not include the sister. But in those games, there are other processes by which this could play out. The GM might place the sister there as a move in a PbtA game, or as a consequence in Blades in the Dark.</p><p></p><p>In a case where it hasn't been established in some way that she's there, I'd be more okay with a change. In this case, you're not really subverting the choice of the players since no one made the choice to fireball the sister. Having typed it, I'm not crazy about it, though.</p><p></p><p>I'd likely set things up quite differently. I'm not really interested in keeping that kind of information from the players. My D&D games likely feature far fewer Perception checks than many others. I tend to just tell players things. Why not? I want to see what they do with the info, I don't want to watch them slowly piece it together by asking me questions and then rolling a dice and asking me more questions. So I'd tend to avoid such a scenario in most cases. The sister would either be there or not, and they would proceed accordingly.</p><p></p><p>I'd prefer to let it play out as is, unless I really expected things to somehow go wrong with the game as a result.</p><p></p><p>If one of the PCs has seen her, or there's some other strong reason to expect that she's there, and the sorcerer still shot the fireball off.....I wouldn't go back on that. I'd roll her save for all to see, and let things play out as they may. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, I'm not claiming I always know it. Just that sometimes when consequence X is on the table, and then things go poorly, and then consequence Y is what happens.....that's obvious and that kind of softballing is what I don't appreciate. It's like when I let my kid get a basket instead of stuffing him.....I feel like the GM is turning things down a bit.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not convinced that it's the secrecy that really matters. If Force is wrong for a given game, or in a given situation, then it's wrong. Keeping the players from knowing it is just making things easy on yourself. </p><p></p><p>As for the scenario of the little girl and the stat block, it's an imperfect example to be sure because it was an example of one thing and then got adapted for another. When a game I'm GMing includes someone who's magically changed shape in some way, I give the players some way to pick up on that. I present it in another way or through a different scene. So it'd go differently. </p><p></p><p>But, I'm not nearly as concerned as many about the players knowing something's up when the characters might not.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, I get that. And I prefer to actually surprise people. But again, if that's my intent, I'm going to go about it in a different way that will actually have the potential to surprise someone. </p><p></p><p>More importantly, the limit that this places on my ability to surprise players with some secret reveal is minimal compared to what I see as the benefit of sharing information with them. Like it's a price totally worth paying. </p><p></p><p>That little moment of surprise "Oh my gosh the little girl is actually St. Cuthbert?!?!? WHA?!?" is a moment of play. The GM sharing information with players so that they can act clearly and comfortably is a near constant part of the game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 8437962, member: 6785785"] Okay, getting the game moving again is part of the GM's job, I'd say. I mean, it's the players' job too, but if they've stalled out, the GM needs to do something to get things going again. I don't think that constitutes Force. Or at least, it certainly doesn't require it. Again, I think this depends on the game and/or expectations. Like in early editions of D&D, that would be against expectations. But in a game that uses the Gumshoe system, it's likely not. I personally don't like that kind of approach, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it. In 5e D&D, it seems a bit against expectations, but well within the realm of possibility. If painted into a corner in some way, sure, do what you have to in order to get the game going again. Again, I don't know if Force is needed, but if you find yourself in a situation where it's a bit of Force to correct the matter, or let the game flounder, then sure, Force away. It's hard to say. If the GM is working to bring about something of interest to the player then I'm generally of the opinion that's a good thing. Again, I don't know how Force is necessary in this case, so it's hard to say. Possibly? I mean, the benefit seems to outweigh the drawback, again depending on expectations. I've been using it to mean the GM overriding or otherwise negating the outcome of player decisions in favor of some other outcome. I'm not using it as a description of the GM authoring content for the game. I play plenty of games that don't rely on prep to the level of detail that this would be a problem as presented. So in that sense, I'm okay with the idea of having the fireballed cultists not include the sister. But in those games, there are other processes by which this could play out. The GM might place the sister there as a move in a PbtA game, or as a consequence in Blades in the Dark. In a case where it hasn't been established in some way that she's there, I'd be more okay with a change. In this case, you're not really subverting the choice of the players since no one made the choice to fireball the sister. Having typed it, I'm not crazy about it, though. I'd likely set things up quite differently. I'm not really interested in keeping that kind of information from the players. My D&D games likely feature far fewer Perception checks than many others. I tend to just tell players things. Why not? I want to see what they do with the info, I don't want to watch them slowly piece it together by asking me questions and then rolling a dice and asking me more questions. So I'd tend to avoid such a scenario in most cases. The sister would either be there or not, and they would proceed accordingly. I'd prefer to let it play out as is, unless I really expected things to somehow go wrong with the game as a result. If one of the PCs has seen her, or there's some other strong reason to expect that she's there, and the sorcerer still shot the fireball off.....I wouldn't go back on that. I'd roll her save for all to see, and let things play out as they may. Oh, I'm not claiming I always know it. Just that sometimes when consequence X is on the table, and then things go poorly, and then consequence Y is what happens.....that's obvious and that kind of softballing is what I don't appreciate. It's like when I let my kid get a basket instead of stuffing him.....I feel like the GM is turning things down a bit. I'm not convinced that it's the secrecy that really matters. If Force is wrong for a given game, or in a given situation, then it's wrong. Keeping the players from knowing it is just making things easy on yourself. As for the scenario of the little girl and the stat block, it's an imperfect example to be sure because it was an example of one thing and then got adapted for another. When a game I'm GMing includes someone who's magically changed shape in some way, I give the players some way to pick up on that. I present it in another way or through a different scene. So it'd go differently. But, I'm not nearly as concerned as many about the players knowing something's up when the characters might not. Yeah, I get that. And I prefer to actually surprise people. But again, if that's my intent, I'm going to go about it in a different way that will actually have the potential to surprise someone. More importantly, the limit that this places on my ability to surprise players with some secret reveal is minimal compared to what I see as the benefit of sharing information with them. Like it's a price totally worth paying. That little moment of surprise "Oh my gosh the little girl is actually St. Cuthbert?!?!? WHA?!?" is a moment of play. The GM sharing information with players so that they can act clearly and comfortably is a near constant part of the game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e
Top