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

[Incenjucar]

The only differences between editions in this regard are that a portion of the gaming population allows the presence or lack of good rules to determine whether or not they make their own. It's a psychological response to certain conditions, but not actually an enforced part of the game. While I want to make it clear that such behaviors are entirely normal things and not something I'm trying to shame, it's quite literally all in one's head. Regardless of the rules, the deal of a game is that the GM will run it so long as certain conditions are met, and the players will run it until certain conditions are met, and this is a matter of individual decision which, while influence by the rules and their presentation, are equally influenced by factors completely unrelated to gaming, and are not inherent to the specific rules set.

It is certainly true that different editions have different environments for creating rules. 2E (and I assume previous editions) had lots lots of barely-related rules, which led to people being more varied in how they approached house rules. 3E tightened it up to focused on the d20, moving people toward using it as the basis more often, but also moving people toward increased complexity. 4E tightened up the math and method, bringing the delicacy of balance and exact wording, which made making new rules that fit the current rules more precise, but more difficult since there was a balance to break. 5E narrows the range of possibilities with bound accuracy, while bringing back the vagueness and increasing the complexity of design again. These are all real factors in how people will react to the game.

But they don't actually determine the nature of the balance between player and GM. They just encourage people to think of certain behaviors more often, which is enough to change the actual behavior of many people.

Hopefully the DMG will do its very best to take this in mind, and will present all varieties of player/GM balance in an even way, so that people can rise above the influence of suggestion and can make determined choices as to which sort of balance they want to negotiate for their table, so that everyone gets the most out of the experience.

Remember, the designers aren't in charge!

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I find myself puzzled by the hyperbole about DMs and players being adversaries. And I'm not talking about the obvious bit. Everyone knows that while a DM may be pretending to be out to murder the PCs, he's really just trying to make the game a fun challenge of the players. If he wanted them dead, "rocks fall, everyone dies." I'm talking about arguments about the power balance between players and DM. I recall a quote from another thread, something along the lines of "I don't know why some DMs think their house rules are more important than the enjoyment of the players." I don't think that's ever the case. DMs make house rules because they think it will make the game more fun for everyone. That quote was just a nasty rhetorical trick to get the reader to accept the posters point sans logic. I think we could have better discussions and possibly better games if we could agree that a) it's not about entitled players or viking hat DMs, it's about preferences for balance of DM/player control of the game, which is just that, a preference, b) we all want to make the game fun, and c) if you're in a game where the consensus on DM/player power is not to your liking, it doesn't mean you or they are bad gamers, it just means that you're not a good fit for the group.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

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?

You're citing out of context here. "Everything is core" meant elements published for different campaign settings. Early on the Players' Guide to the Forgotten Realms contained the Swordmage as an additional class. With "everything is core" you were officially allowed (with a big smiley) to play a Swordmage in different settings as well.

Everything is core essentially tells you to select for your campaign, although that was addmittedly handled in an extremely bad, uncomfortable way. I really thought there would be something like a campaign profile for the online tools, restricting access to elements. The DM just would work out the profile, give it to her players, and presto! problem solved. Alas, the tools show(ed) that there had been no useful requirements elicitation/engineering.

 

[Lindeloef]

[...] I really thought there would be something like a campaign profile for the online tools, restricting access to elements. The DM just would work out the profile, give it to her players, and presto! problem solved. Alas, the tools show(ed) that there had been no useful requirements elicitation/engineering.

I am pretty sure there was such a thing in the offline character builder. Somewhere in the options you could set what sources are allowed. And save that for profile for further use.

 

[Li Shenron]

You're citing out of context here. "Everything is core" meant elements published for different campaign settings. Early on the Players' Guide to the Forgotten Realms contained the Swordmage as an additional class. With "everything is core" you were officially allowed (with a big smiley) to play a Swordmage in different settings as well.

Really? So the tag "everything is core" was directed towards DMs but not players? That's not the message I received back then, but rather "don't worry if there is no druid or barbarian or bard or gnome in the first PHB, because all books are equal".

 

[Li Shenron]

I find myself puzzled by the hyperbole about DMs and players being adversaries. And I'm not talking about the obvious bit. Everyone knows that while a DM may be pretending to be out to murder the PCs, he's really just trying to make the game a fun challenge of the players.

There might be an adversarial side to it, possibly at subliminal level, due to the fact that every player is concerned with the survival of their PC and therefore naturally inclined to use the rules to improve survival chances as much as possible. Think of it this way: no player wants to make a rule mistake that results in a penalty. The problem is that in a RPG there aren't simply blatant rule mistakes, where DM and players really misunderstand a rule and apply it incorrectly; instead, there is a regular stream of occurrences where rules are not enough and have to be adjudicated. At that time, probably something inside each player puts them on the defensive for fear of some unfair result that might happen. The DM generally doesn't want to be unfair at all, but might feel a player is going overboard with this defensive reaction, which may cause unfairness to the other players (in case the player is capitalizing on some combination of PC abilities for examples). The DM may also worry that an element of the game which perhaps was supposed to be challenging and exciting, would become trivial and boring.

This is strictly about rules vs rulings, but then as I said, I am generally more concerned with the DM vs players issue related to character material availability. That is where it really irks me being adversaries... there is always someone showing up in a game set in a middle-age inspired setting who really wants to play a shaolin monk, or then if you switch to an oriental setting they suddenly really want to play a charlemagne paladin. To me it really feels like you're cooking pizza and someone wants you to put chocolate on top of it because chocolate is yuuummy...

 

[77IM]

I think we could have better discussions and possibly better games if we could agree that a) it's not about entitled players or viking hat DMs, it's about preferences for balance of DM/player control of the game, which is just that, a preference, b) we all want to make the game fun, and c) if you're in a game where the consensus on DM/player power is not to your liking, it doesn't mean you or they are bad gamers, it just means that you're not a good fit for the group.

This. We all play to have fun. The best approach, for both players and DMs, is:
1) Put the other people's fun ahead of your own. If everyone else is doing this too, you will all have a great game.
2) If something is not fun for you, speak up. If someone speaks up, listen. Work out a compromise.

"Entitlement" means inability to compromise, or insisting on getting what you want. This is a problem in DMs and players, and rules systems should not encourage it either way. Instead encourage cooperation and communication.

 

[was]

..In most established games, you will find an equal balance of power between the DM's and players. Regardless of edition or RPG being played, a successfull game will rely on a relatively free-flowing give-and-take between the two.

..Creating houserules does not empower the DM. The DM's role is to keep the game moving and enjoyable for the players. As the DM, he/she will put far more effort into the campaign than anybody else at the table. This fact does not give them power, it simply gives them the bigger picture on what will work within it. Putting limitations/houserules into effect are simply a way of keeping the campaign roughly on track/manageable.

..IME, as long as the DM is up front about all of the houserules and why they exist, most players are good with it. Making these rules for the benefit of the players' long-term enjoyment of the campaign does not empower the DM. Nor does a DM changing the houserules, or a ruling, when a good counter-argument is raised empower the players.

...IMO, the idea that the gaming community is plagued by this power struggle between DM's and players is a simply a myth. One side or the other controlling all the power is not a sustainable model in gaming. DMs who are overly controlling, quickly find themselves without a group. Players who are are overly self-centered quickly find themselves rejected by the group.

 

[The_Gneech]

Every player (including the GM) has the same power of veto: Not enjoying the game? Walk away from the table.

The GM has one additional "advantage": if he/she walks away from the table, everyone else will be stranded with nothing to do. On the other hand, with great power comes great responsibility (as they say), so the GM therefore also is tasked with game prep and table management.

Rule sets will certainly impact playstyle, but this fundamental "balance of power" is at the core of the traditional tabletop RPG experience and really can't be altered without changing to "some other kind of game." Any "empowerment" of players vs. GMs or vice-versa comes from members of the group buying into external assumptions– which they may not even realizing they're doing.

That's the problem with social contracts... they're so rarely done in writing.

-The Gneech

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Really? So the tag "everything is core" was directed towards DMs but not players? That's not the message I received back then, but rather "don't worry if there is no druid or barbarian or bard or gnome in the first PHB, because all books are equal".

Please forgive me because I'm going from memory here, but there has been an interview where exactly this point has been made clear. But as far as I know, no other statement, article, or whatever elaborated on the concept. Well, we all know how abysmal WotC's PR is or at least was.