D&D General When (or can) the fiction overrides the DM?

[DND_Reborn]

I'm not sure what the answer is; what do you all think???

The DM cannot be overridden under any circumstance other than when the players make choices for their characters they control. That is it.

Now, that is assuming the DM isn't being a butthead and writing the fiction to counter the players' choices.

 

[MichaelSomething]

EDIT: This reminds me of a moment in my 3.5 game when a high level cleric faced off with, I don't remember, some mighty fiend or other. The fiend talked smack, the cleric talked smack, they rolled for initiative, and the cleric killed the fiend on round 1 with a destruction spell. Afterward, several of my players expressed how much they liked it that I didn't arbitrarily decide to do what you've described and either throw in more bad guys to make the fight more exciting or fudge that he made his save. The fact that a fight can end suddenly and abruptly, with a total victory for one side, and I'll let the dice stand seems to be a strength in our playstyle.

480 Change of Address Needed - Giant in the Playground Games

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The idea is essentially, having established a fiction, can the DM change his mind and invent a new fiction on the fly.

And my answer is, and always will be, "no." Despite essentially only being a DM myself at present.

The DM can build new fiction on the fly--which means justification must exist, or be discoverable (even if the players happen to not actually discover it.) But the DM cannot just have new fiction on the fly no matter what.

Now, that is assuming the DM isn't being a butthead and writing the fiction to counter the players' choices.

Man, it'd be real nice if there were some way to help avoid that happening in the first place, like...I dunno, maybe giving the players some influence on things. But that's crazy talk.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Man, it'd be real nice if there were some way to help avoid that happening in the first place, like...I dunno, maybe giving the players some influence on things. But that's crazy talk.

There is a way... Players can leave. If a DM has a game and no players left, that makes a statement.

Players have influence, it just sucks the DM has the power to counter those choices if they want to.

But seriously, asking for that is like asking for the ability to have our choices IRL not come back to bite us, and we all know that just doesn't happen.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There is a way... Players can leave. If a DM has a game and no players left, that makes a statement.

Players have influence, it just sucks the DM has the power to counter those choices if they want to.

But seriously, asking for that is like asking for the ability to have our choices IRL not come back to bite us, and we all know that just doesn't happen.

Howso? I genuinely don't get the analogy you're making.

Why does one person having absolute and unilateral power mean that choices actually have consequences? Isn't the whole point here that the problem is the DM doesn't have consequences for their actions?

 

[Guest 7034872]

I think perhaps a simple distinction can help to answer MichaelSomething's question while at the same time precluding unnecessary disputes. Let us distinguish between "can" vs. "should." I can rob a 7-11 convenience store with a loaded 9mm Springfield, but I certainly shouldn't. Right? And if I do it, there'll be some legal consequences I won't enjoy.

Okay, so per the rules as written for 5e, the DM is basically God and can do virtually anything he or she wants, even including blatantly overriding players' decisions and actions. Yep, the latitude for doing that is indeed in there.

But what a stupid idea. I mean, wow.

Mercurius pointed out that any good DM, like any good author, will not want to override big, unexpected narrative twists when they come up. Much of the beauty and excitement of the game comes from such twists: canceling them spoils the game. I think that's exactly right. I've had such major twists come up in my game three times now and I eagerly look forward to #4. I consider them the best parts of our Story So Far.

Can the DM prevent or "correct" these things when they occur? Absolutely, and it's very easy. Should the DM do it? Different people have different priorities and play styles, certainly, but I'll still venture to say, "No." If you do it, you and your players are really going to miss out.

​

 

[DND_Reborn]

Howso? I genuinely don't get the analogy you're making.

Why does one person having absolute and unilateral power mean that choices actually have consequences? Isn't the whole point here that the problem is the DM doesn't have consequences for their actions?

1. Player agency allows them to make choices about the actions their PCs take.
2. DM decides to be a butthead and uses a narrative which makes the player's choice obsolete (it is like the player never really had a choice).
3. Player, seeing DM is a butthead, leaves.
4. Repeat until DM has no players left.

That is the consequence for the DM's action--no game.

So, the DM has to allow the players' choices to have impact and go with it. Now, once in a while countering players' choices is okay IMO, but should be done very rarely and with care.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

1. Player agency allows them to make choices about the actions their PCs take.
2. DM decides to be a butthead and uses a narrative which makes the player's choice obsolete (it is like the player never really had a choice).
3. Player, seeing DM is a butthead, leaves.
4. Repeat until DM has no players left.

That is the consequence for the DM's action--no game.

So, the DM has to allow the players' choices to have impact and go with it. Now, once in a while countering players' choices is okay IMO, but should be done very rarely and with care.

I find there are a lot of ways for a "butthead" DM to short-circuit this process and make it take substantially longer than you're implying.

As in, to drag this process out for months, even years.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I find there are a lot of ways for a "butthead" DM to short-circuit this process and make it take substantially longer than you're implying.

As in, to drag this process out for months, even years.

That's unfortunate. During session 0 I ask new players and remind old players that if a time comes and I am doing something butthead-ish to call me out immediately. I try not to, obviously, but sometimes my choices as DM overshadow players' choices unintentionally.

 

[Reynard]

I think "override" is too strong a word, but in general the GM has the power to make changes to the fiction but a responsibility to maintain the fiction to whatever degree the group has agreed upon.

For example, in a dangerous, player skill based, dice fall where they may dungeon crawl that everyone has agreed to play, the GM is "not allowed" to alter the fiction (i.e. the pre-determined challenges or the results of die rolls) because the rules of play established by the group says those things are paramount to the fun. On the other hand, in a game about big damn heroes do big damn things, the GM actually has a responsibility to alter the fiction to make sure that theme and mood remains at the forefront.

For my part, I try not to "alter the fiction" after it has been established, but I also only establish as much fiction as is necessary to play whatever the scenario or campaign happens to be. I have no problem filling in the gaps on the fly.