D&D (2024) The Role of the DM in One D&D

[Windrunner]

Sorry, old guy here, and I am trying to not sound grumpy, but I have been DM'ing since 1978 -- every edition except 4. I love 5E. And I love what I have learned and wish I had learned it earlier. Times when I had trouble with campaigns, both as a DM and as a player, was when the players lacked agency. The first couple of Dragonlance adventures were VERY railroading and my players hated them. Dark Sun had major changes to magic and players hated. A DM homeworld was set in a major city where the entire capital was under the effects of a Globe of Invulnerability and no spell casting. I and the other players hated it and quit.

I currently try to let the players play what they want to play and then adjust the adventure. That doesn't mean there aren't some places a drow could not walk openly, but it also doesn't mean I ban drow PC's. I simply talk with the player about some of the challenges they might face, but the choice is their's. And we do have a long session zero. Usually, a month or two before the current campaign ends, we start talking about the next one. I get player input on what they want to see included and I give information that would help them tailor their choices to the tone and setting. Now this is possible because I have a group that has played together weekly for five+ years, but it can be condensed for new players.

As for rules, I also think 5E is best. It's more consistently clear by using terms that help for consistent rulings. And not everything is RAW. There are interactions between effects that are not covered in the rules. I make my best ruling, we discuss it, and then we stick with it. The last question I ask: Are we ok with that? OR is there something I am missing? At the time, someone may not like the ruling, but everyone can input on the thinking, AND the ruling is applied consistently, both against the players and against the monsters. Players can trust that and adapt. I like how it works.

Now, this is just my opinion and I rarely have time to respond, so I will apologize in advance that I probably don't have time to respond to someone that wants to pick this apart point by point. This is not to argue how you should play, this is just to give a sense of what I found works well and feel free to steal anything that might help you. Good luck and Good Gaming.

 

[R_J_K75]

Why would you let a player push back relentlessly? That's a DM problem, not a player problem.

No I dont think its a DM problem, if a player refuses to acknowledge and respect DM agency, thats a player issue IMO, but lets agree to disagree. Why would I play with a player if they push back? Because I believe that D&D is a two-way street and the players should have some say in the game, and be happy with the game we're playing as much as the DM. If that means a few disagreements here and there, so be it. I dont run my games, nor would I play in, a game where the DMs word is absolute law.

 

[Clint_L]

No I dont think its a DM problem, if a player refuses to acknowledge and respect DM agency, thats a player issue IMO, but let’s agree to disagree. Why would I play with a player if they push back? Because I believe that D&D is a two-way street and the players should have some say in the game, and be happy with the game we're playing as much as the DM. If that means a few disagreements here and there, so be it. I dont run my games, nor would I play in, a game where the DMs word is absolute law.

The DMs word is absolute law, though. What you are discussing is the amount of argument you’ll accept before you make a ruling in game. But I presume that if a disagreement persists, at some point you make the ruling and move on, no?

As I described above, we’ll have a brief discussion in game, but if a disagreement persists I rule and move on, inviting the player to talk about it later if an issue persists.

If a player won’t move on and just keeps arguing in game, then you have to handle it. If you are letting players derail, that’s a DM problem, just like it would be a teacher problem if the students are running the show. I just make it clear at session 0 what expectations are when disagreements occur and how I will handle them, as described above. Then, I follow the agreement. Arguing back and forth in the middle of a game is toxic, so I don’t do it.

If I’ve made a mistake I cheerfully acknowledge and fix it. If I don’t think I have, I acknowledge that we have a disagreement but are moving on. If the player later makes a convincing case then I’ll change my mind for future rulings and explain at start of next session. But if it’s my campaign, the final responsibility is mine.

 

[R_J_K75]

I've always preferred the term judge or referee of dungeon/game master.

After reading your post this got me thinking that perhaps in 1D&D the term Dungeon Master could be replaced something else. Further maybe this person's role in the game could be revaluated and slightly redefined to promote a more collaborative play experience for everyone. I havent given it any more thought than this so no clue how this would work but just an idea at this point

 

[Mercurius]

As I think others have implied, this is mostly a cultural matter and less about the actual rules. So it really depends upon the specific table and group: what the agreements are.

I tend to take the view that the DM is "first among equals" at a gaming table. They take on more responsibility and, most importantly, far more time and effort, and have the right to say how certain things are going to be. This is good to spell out in the first meeting or start of a new campaign -- just as broad strokes.

Some groups might prefer a more collaborative approach in which the players help build the world during game-play, or if they rotate DMs. It really depends upon what the individual group wants to do.

But in general, the problem is not DM authority - it is DM abuse or its corollary, player entitlement, and these usually either have to do with lack of clarity or personalities, not the rules themselves. You can solve lack of clarity, but personality issues are harder to address.

 

[Enrahim2]

I think D&D as an entry game to the hobby should have strong adherence to written rules, and rules that covers a lot of cases. This increases the chances of a consistently not bad experience, and the wide range of options make it likely you can find something you find fun.

I am convinced much loser defined games like fate and ars magica can provide vastly superior play experiences than D&D due to its reduced rigidity. However it is also easy for me to see how these can fail awfully in ways the structure of D&D seem to provide good protections against.

So I think one d&d should at least with a new group not encourage large scale tweaks/restrictions. But more established groups might want to look into if they want to drop some of the support wheels and cruft making the ride awkward for their DMs (and players!), or consider other games that are more tailored to that groups overall collective tastes and needs.

 

[R_J_K75]

But I presume that if a disagreement persists, at some point you make the ruling and move on, no?

Yes we sometimes have discussions in game regarding a rule, etc, These last no more than a few minutes after which I either make a ruling or we decide as a group the best solution. Not everything can be addressed at session zero. Let me clarify my initial statement regarding player push back as I probably wasnt clear and should add to it. Player push back usually occurs during session zero if I try and impose restrictions on PC creation or propose a rule change. Players are usually just as passionate about the character they want to play just as much as the DM is with their campaign.

As far as keeping the game moving, out of game discussions and problematic players, etc, that's DMing 101 IMO, and we do all that.

 

[renbot]

Never mind.

 

[tetrasodium]

After reading your post this got me thinking that perhaps in 1D&D the term Dungeon Master could be replaced something else. Further maybe this person's role in the game could be revaluated and slightly redefined to promote a more collaborative play experience for everyone. I havent given it any more thought than this so no clue how this would work but just an idea at this point

There's truth to this but it exposes a deeper problem. We've all seen the word "player agency" but reading it made me realize that this may have been the first time I've ever seen the phrase "GM agency". A quick google search suggests that I'm probably not alone

Spoiler

the google search.

I didn't click that reddit thread until after typing everything above & ironically it starts out very close to being a direct quote of the post itself

he term 'player agency' is prevalent in RPG design contexts, but I don't think I saw the phrase 'GM agency' in many years of reading RPG forums. Until recently. Someone was saying that D&D 5E marked a reversal of the trend in 3E and 4E toward reduced GM agency. They were saying that a 'rules, not rulings' game had low GM agency. This seemed to be a strange analogy. Since I thought player agency was satisfied by the ability to make decisions and do things within the rules, I can't see how the ability to alter or recontextualize said rules is the equivalent thing for a GM.

Does anyone here use this term? Have any of you even seen it? What could it mean? Is it an important underexplored part of RPG theory?

That absence from the discussion is a big part of the problem. In past editions PCs faced a high level of risk & those PCs required a lot of things from the GM to meet the system's expectations. Those risks & needs allowed GM's a wide latitude to excise "GM agency" in a way that felt cooperative & friendly in ways that encouraged both sides to engage in mutual give & take. That shifted in 5e where PCs face practically no risk after the first few levels & enjoy a system where their PC needs absolutely nothing from the GM before factotring in the fact that the math has PCs starting out overtuned against everything in the GM toolbox due to a baseline expectation of no feats no magic items with weirdly negative levels of charop. The shift results in a situation where the GM has nothing to incentivize players to interact in a mutually cooperative style until they nerf something or present a situation like an overCR'd encounterthat makes them look bad or something.

 

[R_J_K75]

That shifted in 5e where PCs face practically no risk after the first few levels & enjoy a system where their PC needs absolutely nothing from the GM before factotring in the fact that the math has PCs starting out overtuned against everything in the GM toolbox due to a baseline expectation of no feats no magic items with weirdly negative levels of charop. The shift results in a situation where the GM has nothing to incentivize players to interact in a mutually cooperative style until they nerf something or present a situation like an overCR'd encounterthat makes them look bad or something.

Personally as a DM I have found it very difficult to challenge players/PCs, and as a player I find it pretty boring. Everything you need is there but across the PHB and DMG the information is so spread out and hard to find making it difficult for me to put it all together to create challenging encounters, but IME with the people Ive played with Im not the only one