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

[FrogReaver]

On occasion, we bring up the topic of the "fiction" of the game. On how it should be what drives the game. If the fiction is the greatest driver of the game, does that mean it should overrides the DM. Have you ever wanted to do something as the DM but stopped yourself because of the fiction? But wouldn't you consider that the DM is the highest level source of fiction? I'm not sure what the answer is; what do you all think???

IMO. The fiction is the DM's greatest constraint. The DM is constantly creating new fiction, always (or nearly so) informed and constrained by previous/current fiction, including the PC's actions. The better question in my mind is, 'how should a DM pick what fiction to create within those constraints?' Also, 'when if ever should he ignore those constraints?'

*Note for me fiction means genre/setting/backstory/story/current circumstances/etc.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

Players control the player characters, and their character development should be the main story that is being told. So, players have a lot to say about the fiction that is being told.

But players do NOT control the lore and the world, and if they have some ideas about that they can at best make a proposal to the DM, who has no obligation to listen. Smart DMs however will discuss the setting in a session zero.

 

[Oofta]

So some of the examples of the players changing the fiction has been "My players did something I didn't expect and an encounter or campaign arc didn't go as I thought it would."

That's not changing the fiction IMHO. Changing the fiction would be the players deciding that the BBEG is not really a homicidal maniac who just wants to see the world burn is instead just misunderstood and with the right approach is actually a nice guy. It's the players deciding that they find a secret passage not created by the DM that lets them escape or bypass a significant threat. It's a player that says, without DM approval or input, that they have a map showing the layout of the castle.

Players overriding the fiction, to me, is players changing the world and external circumstances because the player says so and not by the actions of the PCs. If the PCs can take out your BBEG in 1 round or cleverly trap your monster, good on them! They got lucky or were clever and the PCs actions changed what the DM had expected is not overriding the fiction, it's helping to build a narrative.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I guess I don't much understand the point of a power that you can use, but never should use.

Consider my example with the Springfield: I absolutely can do such a thing just in terms of the powers and resources I have as a 21st-century sorta guy, but I am also always a better man for choosing not to. And the DM is always a better DM for choosing not to override player-initiated plot twists. Are there limits to this? Sure. But I still say it's a strong rule of thumb.

Why is it such a big deal to zealously protect a power you would never willingly use?

Pretend for a moment that something as silly as God exists. Also pretend for the moment that He has and has always had the power, when waking up in a grumpy mood on some Tuesday, to hit the big, red <SMITE> button. It's a pretty good thing He doesn't.

Also, I'm not concerned about protecting the DM's power to go to wild extremes in enforcing a specific narrative: I'm only concerned with getting our heads clear on, when we make our arguments about this question, whether we mean, "The rules allow it," or, "It's good DMing." Those two are very different propositions, and confusing them confuses a lot.

 

[bloodtide]

So some of the examples of the players changing the fiction has been "My players did something I didn't expect and an encounter or campaign arc didn't go as I thought it would."

That's not changing the fiction IMHO. Changing the fiction would be the players deciding that the BBEG is not really a homicidal maniac who just wants to see the world burn is instead just misunderstood and with the right approach is actually a nice guy. It's the players deciding that they find a secret passage not created by the DM that lets them escape or bypass a significant threat. It's a player that says, without DM approval or input, that they have a map showing the layout of the castle.

Players overriding the fiction, to me, is players changing the world and external circumstances because the player says so and not by the actions of the PCs. If the PCs can take out your BBEG in 1 round or cleverly trap your monster, good on them! They got lucky or were clever and the PCs actions changed what the DM had expected is not overriding the fiction, it's helping to build a narrative.

I agree. A DM that gets surprised and has something wacky happen because of that, does not fit changing fiction. That is just a DM problem.

Though the PCs digging a new tunnel has nothing to do with "the fiction". And a player randomly creating things is just cheating.

The fiction overrode me as DM. I wanted to have that (hopefully) awesome fight. The fiction said that didn't make sense, so it didn't happen. My players were actually very happy, not disappointed, because they appreciated that I had enough respect for their actions to not force things to happen simply because I thought it would be cool.

That is a nice story, but it does not fit the question. Everything still happened the way you wanted it too. You chose to toss the monster away and chose to give it some super water weakness.

Of course, your long post is a lot of set up, but then has no details of that final fight. From what you typed it sounds like the players came up with the wacky idea, and you just said "it works". Though they had to roll to destroy the monster? Why did the "fiction" say the monster would just auto walk into the trap?

It's a lot more like you had a "Linear Plot Idea"(aka the "R" thing that shall not be mentioned), then when your players had a wacky idea, you suddenly changed it.

----------------------------------------------------

If we count "The Fiction" as everything except the game rules and mechanics, that is a good start. And that everything is all on the DM (with yes a two copper input from some players sometimes). So the DM can make, break, change, or do whatever they want to the Everything Fiction.

A DM can say "no elves are allowed to join the Dark Dreamers group", and then have an elf member of that group show up (with some unique history of how she joined).

The DM can say "all members of the Order of Holy Light must destroy all undead on sight", and then have members let a good undead PC go.

There really can't be any time where the DM has set some fiction, then later decides to change something, that it's not ALL the DMs doing. Sure, the DM can say they changed things because they "thought it fit the story better" or "liked their new idea better", but that is still just the DM changing things.

The DM can't change things "against their will" : they have to agree to change things for them to happen. And if, somehow, a DM was backed in a corner.......tht DM can STILL do whatever they want.

 

[FrogReaver]

The DM can't change things "against their will" : they have to agree to change things for them to happen. And if, somehow, a DM was backed in a corner.......tht DM can STILL do whatever they want.

I think the above comment about can vs should really should be iterated here?

 

[bloodtide]

I think the above comment about can vs should really should be iterated here?

Well, guess this depends. "Should" the DM do anything is case by case.

Uber Classic Example:

In the Fiction of 1/2E D&D Drow were killed on sight on the surface. People would point, scream and attack! You can see this in the early Drizzt books. So if a player made a "cool" drow character they could expect to be attacked as soon as they entered town. But many a DM just ignored that fiction and sad "everyone is welcome".

"Should " that have been done.

For Refrence, in my game, most good and neutral places will let a lone drow in, though often with a guard, chains, anti magic shackles, or such. Some places will still kill on sight. And most evil places don't care much.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Consider my example with the Springfield: I absolutely can do such a thing just in terms of the powers and resources I have as a 21st century sorta guy, but I am also always a better man for choosing not to. And the DM is always a better DM for choosing not to override player-initiated plot twists. Are there limits to this? Sure. But I still say it's a strong rule of thumb.

Pretend for a moment that something as silly as God exists. Also pretend for the moment that He has and has always had the power, when waking up in a grumpy mood on some Tuesday, to hit the big, red <SMITE> button. It's a pretty good thing He doesn't.

Also, I'm not concerned about protecting the DM's power to go to wild extremes in enforcing a specific narrative: I'm only concerned with getting our heads clear on, when we make our arguments about this question, whether we mean, "The rules allow it," or, "It's good DMing." Those two are very different propositions, and confusing them confuses a lot.

Not.....exactly the best example to use with someone who is a Christian.

Nor someone who has been rather open about his criticism of the whole "DMs power tripping" thing.

 

[Guest 7034872]

Not.....exactly the best example to use with someone who is a Christian.

Well--I am, too. I put it that way just to ease the minds of the habitually skeptical.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That is a nice story, but it does not fit the question. Everything still happened the way you wanted it too. You chose to toss the monster away and chose to give it some super water weakness.

Of course, your long post is a lot of set up, but then has no details of that final fight. From what you typed it sounds like the players came up with the wacky idea, and you just said "it works". Though they had to roll to destroy the monster? Why did the "fiction" say the monster would just auto walk into the trap?

It's a lot more like you had a "Linear Plot Idea"(aka the "R" thing that shall not be mentioned), then when your players had a wacky idea, you suddenly changed it.

Really? That's the lesson you took from this?

The fact that I prepared one encounter suddenly makes it railroading. Really.

Did you truly expect this would get anything even remotely like a positive response?