D&D 5E The Pendulum: Player Entitlement & DM Empowerment

[GameDoc]

So, let me start off by saying my purpose is not to start any sort of edition war, nor bait everyone into a DM vs. Player slugfest. However, I am curious about something I have perceived in both tabletop and online play, as well as online discussions.

I think some would say that 3e/4e was an era of "Player Empowerment". Character building was given more options for customization than ever before and I know players could feel overwhelmed by the sheer amount of choices and DM's could feel overwhelmed by trying to keep up with every possible permutation to ensure each character had a place in the setting and that rules were fairly adjudicated. This led to a good number of DMs setting ground rules about what options were in and out at their tables and feeling forced into conflict with players who did not want to take no for an answer (which I think was actually a small minority of players, but most of us have nonetheless had at least one or two games with "that guy"). I don't blame the DMs or players for this, nor do I attribute any inherent inferiority or superiority to any edition. It was just an outgrowth of the context, be it due to splat bloat, the rise of the interwebs, or generational differences.

5e, by contrast, has gone back to a state of "DM Empowerment" or "rulings not rules". Overall, I think this is a good decision as it cuts back on the need to have fiddly rules codified for everything and opens the space for common sense to prevail so long as DMs are willing to be open-minded and fair with their players. I think (hope) it will encourage a bit more flexibility and creativity on both sides of the screen to make the rules work for everyone. Players don't have as much fuel to rules-lawyer and DMs don't have a million ways to hit players over the head with obscure rules. A bad DM has to own his bad decisions instead of appealing to the rules (which I guess is the DM version of rules-lawyering).

That said, I do worry that some DMs, feeling unburdened and unchained under the new system, might rush into things without thinking it over and in some way seek catharsis at the expense of the player. "You had your time, now it's our turn. We'll show you how to have goodcorrectfun in D&D."

In another thread here (which has gotten fairly contentious) regarding the fairness of a house rule, someone indicated a player who felt their character had been weakened as a result was wanting to play 4e. Someone else pointed out that since the player was taking issue with a house rule, the player was actually wanting to play 5e. That latter point stuck with me. Isn't 5e supposed to be bridge between past editions?

A friend of mine relayed to me that about two sessions into Lost Mines of Phandelver, the DM suddenly decided that rolling a 1 on attack risked weapon breakage because that was "old school". While that's a valid house rule and play style, my thought was that if I were in that game, I'd consider spending starting gold on a backup primary weapon, but I'd need to know that rule was in play up front.

Several times in the past few months I have seen DMs criticize the mindset of players, often with the implication they came up during the 3e/4e era if not stated directly. "Sounds like you should play [3e/PF/4e]". And at times, my thought has been that by the same token one could say: "Sounds like the DM should play 1e or 2e."

I guess my point is, and what I would like to hear from others, is how in the new era of DM Empowerment do we make sure we don't run roughshod over players? How do we make room for having a general tone for the campaign played at ta given table where there is also room for many types of players and DMs - where the "nuclear option" of someone leaving the game in search of another group is the last resort?

 

[Ratskinner]

I guess my point is, and what I would like to hear from others, is how in the new era of DM Empowerment do we make sure we don't run roughshod over players? How do we make room for having a general tone for the campaign played at ta given table where there is also room for many types of players and DMs - where the "nuclear option" of someone leaving the game in search of another group is the last resort?

Wow. That's a tall order. First, I think that part of the problem is that terms like "run roughshod over the players" can be very subjective. (For instance I find your weapon-breakage example rather silly.) Additionally, there are simply widely variable expectations that people bring to the table. I think that, honestly, this isn't a question that is soluble through theorycraft. Rather, the solution lies in two parts: first, you/we as individual DMs and players have to just get over ourselves a bit. If we earnestly make having fun together pur mutual goal, and follow those kindergarten rules of politeness, we can manage quite a bit. Secondly, I think Wizards did the right thing with the massive play test. By letting the development process be informed through actual play, rather than professional theorycraft, they could make allowances for the wide range of behavior and expectations that this game enders. That second part isn't always necessary, e.g. many indie games are tightly focused on providing a particular experience, but D&D doesn't have such a tight focus to guide it (and has usually received the most criticism when it tries to serve/determine one. IMO.)

 

[Thank Dog]

I think some would say that 3e/4e was an era of "Player Empowerment".

I was saying this before anyone else was saying it. I harped on about it over and over again. And each and every time I was hit on the head and told to be quiet because I was being silly. Now everyone seems to be saying it. Sigh, the burden of being ahead of your time

 

[DMZ2112]

I guess my point is, and what I would like to hear from others, is how in the new era of DM Empowerment do we make sure we don't run roughshod over players? How do we make room for having a general tone for the campaign played at ta given table where there is also room for many types of players and DMs - where the "nuclear option" of someone leaving the game in search of another group is the last resort?

Well, I always try to keep a box of tissues on the table.

 

[practicalm]

I am not sure. As someone who has DM and played in lots of different systems both old school and Indie, I don't agree that the impact of the system on the game is as great as some people say. After all if you've ever played or DM'd First edition Paranoia you can be sure that system didn't make it easy to run a light hearted romp in Alpha complex.

While the game rules can affect the player and DM empowerment variables I don't see game rules deciding that much.

Edit: Fixed error some how Indie got changed to DM previously.

 

[BigVanVader]

Being bigger than the DM, and gaming the same way LBJ politicked usually helps.

 

[MortalPlague]

This is a great topic to raise for discussion. I don't really have a set of guidelines; I've always had an ear open to my PCs for suggestions through every edition, so it hasn't been something that's crossed my table. Mostly. There have been a few things that have been contentious, but what table doesn't have the occasional rules dispute?

Recently, one of my players has stepped up to run a game. We played a lot of 4th Edition, and I've noticed that he's looking for the rules to be ironclad, rather than making his own rulings on certain things. Or where the rules are ambiguous, he will just say that a thing isn't possible. I wonder if that brand of DM'ing is going to become more common as people are confronted with gaps in the rules that are meant for rulings?

 

[Li Shenron]

I am not sure. As someone who has DM and played in lots of different systems both old school and DM, I don't agree that the impact of the system on the game is as great as some people say. After all if you've ever played or DM'd First edition Paranoia you can be sure that system didn't make it easy to run a light hearted romp in Alpha complex.

While the game rules can affect the player and DM empowerment variables I don't see game rules deciding that much.

You may be right. Perhaps rather than rules, what has the biggest effect is the edition's approach to material availability.

For instance, 3e had strongly standardized magic items, each coming with an official price tag. This IMXP meant that a lot of players just assumed they were entitled to buying anything as long as they paid the written price. There were guidelines about magic items availability, including for example an actual rule IIRC about buying equipment for a character created at higher level, that said you couldn't buy a single item worth more than half your budget. This was a double-edge rule, because while it said you CAN'T buy such item, it implied you CAN buy anything costing below that limit, and most people just equated "CAN" with being entitled.

IIRC, 4e even put magic items in the PHB, which made magic items perceived as being part of the PC itself, rather than part of the story. Choosing to add a Cloak of Resistance to your character was not different than choosing Fireball as your next spell or choosing Strength for your next ability score increase.

Then 3e had an enormous amount of splatbooks published, and it kind of feeled like those books were meant to often "fill the gaps" of the core books. Thus a feat to cast spells while in wildshape, metamagic rods to bypass preparation, and prestige classes that combined two base caster classes, were seen as "fixes" to flaws of the core books and thus necessarily allowed.

OTOH, I think 4e even went as far as saying "everything is core". With that as a starting claim of the whole edition, how can a DM feel more entitled than the players in choosing what is allowed?

---------

I have been both a player and a DM, and I have to admit that when I am the DM, I really want to feel entitled about storytelling, and that includes being entitled to choose what exists in the fantasy world.

I feel like a cook, who is the one who chooses what's on the menu. Sometimes I want a story or campaign that focuses on classic foes like orcs, sometimes I want a world that's dark and sinister, sometimes I want more horror and gore, sometimes I want holy/unholy themes, sometimes I want an oriental setting...... I really don't want to leave these elements up to the players, because then it almost certainly means that each player will go into a different direction (one chooses a middle-aged inspired paladin, another a kung-fu monk, another a warforged, another an evil modern-horror werewolves...). I love almost everything fantasy, but NOT on the same dish!!! That's to me like putting icecream, pickles and popcorns on a pizza :/

This is why as a DM I demand to be in control of character material, even tho I still often just go with "everything core is fine" for simplicity, particularly because often I already have the feeling that it's going to be a short campaign anyway.

As a player, I am really fine with going with whatever the DM has chosen. I believe nearly every character is worth playing, so I never feel like "oh, I really want to play a warforged werewolf paladin/monk, you MUST let me do it!". Instead I want the cook to set the theme, then take a look at the menu, and choose from there. I am confident that I will always find more than one exciting option, and I will still have the chance to play that warforged werewolf paladin/monk another time.

 

[BigVanVader]

I now want to play a Warforged Werewolf. I'd be a Wereforged Warwolf.

 

[Kai Wren]

The only way to solve these problems (if you take them as problems) is to discuss them with your group and get everyone on the same page.

That said, I have literally never had to have that conversation in such an obvious way. Normally, as DM, I just discuss what my expectations for the campaign are going to be and my players understand that if I say 'no' to something, I'll explain the reason why.

If they don't like it, they are free to make their case, and we'll have a discussion about it! I've done the same from the other end - I'm currently playing a Shadowrun game where we used the weak/inexperienced character gen options and I was concerned that this would make us too incompetent for me to have much fun with it. The GM said he'd ramp up the growth rate at the start of the game to help us grow organically...

... now that hasn't actually happened, but I'm still having fun because I decided to trust that he knew what he was doing and could still run a fun game.

I can see this being more of an issue with entirely new group and DMs rather than those of us who have been playing together for years... but from experience, that's not unique to D&D at all. Group dynamics are always based around personalities, and those more than the particular game or rules they encourage are where people have problems. Especially given the fact that people very rarely seem comfortable with discussing problems and concerns calmly until they've known each other for a very long time (and sometimes not even then!)