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

[Enrahim2]

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

View attachment 276601
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


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.

I have not heard about GM agency either before this. I find this quite intriguing. My first hunch was that this might be more about cultural streams tending toward thinking of leaders as servants and facilitators in a democratic fashion as opposed to the more autocratic view more prevalent in early D&D. But it strike me that the rules actually might be relevant as well.

A there are a lot of rules explicitely allowing certain actions for players. On the other hand the GM has hardly any concretized permissions beyond absence of restrictions. Hence a player might "get away with" certain behavior a DM might not under the argument that the rules allow it. Cheesing some combination of rules that were never designed to interact might for instance be lauded as "well played" if a player pulls it off, while it might be considered abusive if the DM employed the same trick.

What this points toward is that a well-working game appear to at least require some sort of "self-censorship" on the DM. There are obviously boundaries to what is OK for a DM to do and still get a good game - but the rules do not provide such boundaries at all. Hence the DM bear the full responsibility for not overstepping. And the irony is that as everyone is aware of this, the DM can become de-facto a lot more restrained than the players.

For instance if it come to decide what type of content to pursue. If the players want a dungeon crawl, the rules clearly indicate that they are free to direct their characters to start searching for stories of caves filled with monster and treasure. A DM not obliging by providing such information is sabotaging the game, as it is clearly within their power to make such content. Had there for instance been a rule that said that "The DM choose one of the following kind of scenarios at the start of a new arc" along with descriptions of story classes like "Dungeon Crawl", "Political drama", "Mystery" and "Heist" fleshed out with details of what they can include to a similar extend as character classes - that would definitely have done something with that dynamic. There would of course still be a social component to it that a DM would be wise to take into account. But in this case the social pressure could be easier counterweighted by cold hard rules if the DM really didn't feel the dungeon crawl vibe right now. Importantly this would provide rules based pressure on the players to play along (or be sabotaging the game the same way the DM would have been sabotaging the game by not providing the dungeon crawl when there are no such rules).

Add in the Mat Mercer effect, and the expectation of the DM tailoring the experience around backgrounds written by players, and the DM suddenly sit with almost no agency at all when it come to a lot of the more high level concepts of the game. This appear to be a trend several analyzers have pointed to in the context of trying to understand the DM-shortage. The DM is effectively treated as a game facilitator and entertainer expected to flesh out a story mainly determined by the players. A sort of writer for hire (for free). Definitely food for thoughts!

 

[Clint_L]

I think it would be cool if the updated DMG offered different ideas about DM/player relationships. For example, as posted above I just hosted a game where everyone at the table had co-equal DM power, taking turns, and it was fun. I have also offered to let any of the players run games in the campaign whenever they they like, though so far it has only happened once.

Even when I am running sessions I routinely let the players do world-building when it is pertinent to character development or flavour and doesn't interfere with the plot of the conflict the I am building.

Example of the former: Player: "As I wander through the crowd I notice a person who reminds me of my missing sibling, and I feel overcome with emotion." Me: "Cool - what happens next?"

Example of the latter: Player: "Suddenly I notice that the guard absentmindedly left the key to the vault sitting on the table when he left." Me: "Nah."

 

[nevin]

I know some on this board feel that the DM's power has lessened in the 5e era. I don't see how this is quantifiable, but it doesn't make the matter moot. So, the question begs - what can One D&D do to bring back the role of a stronger DM?

I was having a discussion with a friend, and we came up with this. In D&D Beyond (or whatever program they will use), ask a few basic questions before the player builds the character.

1. Question One: Where is your DM holding the current campaign? (This might limit species and classes. The top answer could be homebrew which includes everything. That could be spelled out in the drop down menu.)
2. Question Two: Is your DM using feats?

That was all we thought were needed. He liked the idea of settings dictating species and classes. (I too, think it is smart to have a setting be the driver of such things for RPGs. I just think in D&D it doesn't matter.) More importantly for me, I like the fact that it formally transfers the reigns over to the DM. I think that is important, especially for new players.

Ideas? Thoughts? Love it? Ditch it?

I don't know how many tables outside of internet arguments end up with players fighting DM's over the rules. I suspect a very few number.

I'd also guess that if it is as big a problem as some say that it's a significant portion of the DM shortage. I don't keep players at my table that get regularly confrontational on the rules. I'm willing to discuss them as needed but I can't fun a good game if I'm being second guessed and contradicted everytime some rules lawyer decides to stop the game and explain what WOTC decided. Those players can play somewhere else or not at all.

 

[Scott Christian]

I don't know how many tables outside of internet arguments end up with players fighting DM's over the rules. I suspect a very few number.

I'd also guess that if it is as big a problem as some say that it's a significant portion of the DM shortage. I don't keep players at my table that get regularly confrontational on the rules. I'm willing to discuss them as needed but I can't fun a good game if I'm being second guessed and contradicted everytime some rules lawyer decides to stop the game and explain what WOTC decided. Those players can play somewhere else or not at all.

I know that for the past twenty years I have been lucky. I have never seen an argument, and this is across dozens of different tables. But I have seen it at others.

My friend and I thought it was a good idea to embed it in the character builder - not a book. Because I have news for you , very very few players actually read the PHB, and a smaller fraction of them read the DMG. Most new players I know just use the character builder.

So with it embedded in the character builder, it helps start, at a minimum, a discussion of what is allowed and what isn't. That, to me, seems to be where arguments occur. Not over the jumping rule.

 

[R_J_K75]

I think it would be cool if the updated DMG offered different ideas about DM/player relationships.

It was in 3e. It was stated multiple times in the DMG for 3.0 (and I have been told for 3.5) which is why many players were not aware of it.

I would like to see the PHB and DMG rolled into one. Itd give the players an idea of what the game expects of the DM, and vice versa. I think it should be organized chapter wise similar to way its always been but with the player portion and DM portion of a rule combined in the same entry. Just makes sense.

Example of the former: Player: "As I wander through the crowd I notice a person who reminds me of my missing sibling, and I feel overcome with emotion." Me: "Cool - what happens next?"

Example of the latter: Player: "Suddenly I notice that the guard absentmindedly left the key to the vault sitting on the table when he left." Me: "Nah."

I agree with Example Former, I like when my players add to the game by adding a piece of history, an item, location or suggest a new rule. This gives me and other players inspiration.. When a player does it for an advantage, it wont fly unless I can find a way to teach the player something about the game with their suggestion

I was DMing a game, it was a hangover Sunday pickup game. I had nothing prepped so...we pick up where we left off so everytime we came to a decision point I asked each player what they thought was next in situation X. I mixed their answers in my mind blender and was a great game.

 

[tetrasodium]

I have not heard about GM agency either before this. I find this quite intriguing. My first hunch was that this might be more about cultural streams tending toward thinking of leaders as servants and facilitators in a democratic fashion as opposed to the more autocratic view more prevalent in early D&D. But it strike me that the rules actually might be relevant as well.

A there are a lot of rules explicitely allowing certain actions for players. On the other hand the GM has hardly any concretized permissions beyond absence of restrictions. Hence a player might "get away with" certain behavior a DM might not under the argument that the rules allow it. Cheesing some combination of rules that were never designed to interact might for instance be lauded as "well played" if a player pulls it off, while it might be considered abusive if the DM employed the same trick.

What this points toward is that a well-working game appear to at least require some sort of "self-censorship" on the DM. There are obviously boundaries to what is OK for a DM to do and still get a good game - but the rules do not provide such boundaries at all. Hence the DM bear the full responsibility for not overstepping. And the irony is that as everyone is aware of this, the DM can become de-facto a lot more restrained than the players.

For instance if it come to decide what type of content to pursue. If the players want a dungeon crawl, the rules clearly indicate that they are free to direct their characters to start searching for stories of caves filled with monster and treasure. A DM not obliging by providing such information is sabotaging the game, as it is clearly within their power to make such content. Had there for instance been a rule that said that "The DM choose one of the following kind of scenarios at the start of a new arc" along with descriptions of story classes like "Dungeon Crawl", "Political drama", "Mystery" and "Heist" fleshed out with details of what they can include to a similar extend as character classes - that would definitely have done something with that dynamic. There would of course still be a social component to it that a DM would be wise to take into account. But in this case the social pressure could be easier counterweighted by cold hard rules if the DM really didn't feel the dungeon crawl vibe right now. Importantly this would provide rules based pressure on the players to play along (or be sabotaging the game the same way the DM would have been sabotaging the game by not providing the dungeon crawl when there are no such rules).

Add in the Mat Mercer effect, and the expectation of the DM tailoring the experience around backgrounds written by players, and the DM suddenly sit with almost no agency at all when it come to a lot of the more high level concepts of the game. This appear to be a trend several analyzers have pointed to in the context of trying to understand the DM-shortage. The DM is effectively treated as a game facilitator and entertainer expected to flesh out a story mainly determined by the players. A sort of writer for hire (for free). Definitely food for thoughts!

The GM's role is to build & run the world the PCs exist in like you kind of get to, that's what a GM is & there's nothing wrong with it. By extension "GM agency" should logically to some degree involve the ability to have their players express interest in & show a desire in interacting with that world their PCs exist in. It doesn't matter how many dragons the GM can throw out if the players just say "lets go somewhere else" or "skip" any kind of lore worldbuilding or plot until the GM becomes adversarial & presents it like so.

It's telling that with both of those videos a player would not be out of line having their PC act in a way embodying either actor's role while mantling no responsibility yet the same is not true for the GM who is expected to shoulder the responsibility for any possible reaction or interpretation.

 

[Scribe]

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.

Yes yes yes.

 

[Iosue]

“DM/GM agency” is a rather new way to express it, but if you do a search (here or elsewhere) for the term “DM empowerment” you’ll find plenty of discussions during the 5e playtest about to what degree 5e should put things in the hands of the DM. At the time, it was a reaction against the very strict math and mechanics of 4e, so I find it somewhat bemusing to see it asserted in the OP that “DM power has lessened in the 5e era.”

 

[tetrasodium]

“DM/GM agency” is a rather new way to express it, but if you do a search (here or elsewhere) for the term “DM empowerment” you’ll find plenty of discussions during the 5e playtest about to what degree 5e should put things in the hands of the DM. At the time, it was a reaction against the very strict math and mechanics of 4e, so I find it somewhat bemusing to see it asserted in the OP that “DM power has lessened in the 5e era.”

That's part of the problem that got us here. It's the wrong term because it sets up an adversarial tone stacking empowerment against agency. The discussion flies off the rails into how much power the GM should have over the players & what kinds of protections players should have from an overly empowered GM.

If player agency is the freedom to make choices & do things in the game world but the GM equivalent is "GM empowerment" it's already forced a loaded question where one side needs to justify having power over the other without considering the roles each of those two sides takes on at the table. Anything presented as a problem for "GM agency" is immediately met with some horror story about newbie GMs & killer GMs
yet treated as if it's a realistic concern for the average table while on the player side it's "How exciting or cool" & "how cool is this" & "is this fun for the players [as long as an overempowered GM doesn't squash that]". That's how we got to "magic items are optional" in a game players are given every reason to expect them & so many other things.

 

[Olrox17]

First thing I’d do if a player decided to question my authority as a GM, would be reminding everyone that if they want me to cater to their whims perfectly, they must pay me
Never came up though.