Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
It's been a hot minute, eh?
Over on another thread, people have started talking about a perennial topic that tends to rear its ugly head here on the EnWorld forum- who sucks more, the BAD DM or the BAD PLAYER? And while the contours of that debate are interesting (for certain low values of "interesting"), I thought it might be interesting to look at the conversation from a slightly different point of view- to discuss what people mean when they talk about "high trust," and, more importantly, why different game designs have different divisions of authority- and why those different designs have inherent advantages and disadvantages. It is only from there that we can fully understand why D&D, traditionally, has put such a strong emphasis on the DM's (GM, referee, etc.) role within the game.
1. What is High Trust, and Why do Some People Keep Yammering On About It?
There are two motives for reading a book; one, that you enjoy it; the other, that you can boast about it.
To understand a term, it's helpful to understand the context in which the term arose. Mostly because people will often throw around terms like frisbees ... or manhole covers. So, why did people start using this term, and what was it supposed to mean?
As far as I can tell, "high trust" first became a term utilized in the OSR movement in the early 2000s. It was likely borrowed from a similar usage in the corporate world at the time, which referred to companies and workplace cultures as either "high trust" or "low trust." At this point, we should all be thankful that (1) they didn't decide to use the terms "synergy" or "leverage your core competencies," and that (2) OSR didn't arise a decade later, in which case we would all be trying to pivot to video. Ahem. Anyway, in the corporate world, these terms refer to how a company relates to its employees; a high-trust organization is one that has employee empowerment, management oversight is not obtrusive, and employees have the opportunity to independently solve problems. Low-trust organizations, on the other hand, monitor employees closely, do not provide employees the agency (oh boy!) to solve problems on their own, and the organization will often have detailed rules that the employee must follow instead of using their best judgment.
And so you can see why borrowing the term has appeal. OSR was not just a movement for a certain style of gaming; it was also a critique of the direction D&D had taken with 3e and 3.5e. As an aside, the reason that a lot of jargon in TTRPGs can be contentious is that the jargon itself usually arises out of a specific movement that is trying to elevate one style of gaming while critiquing others; this is why you will often see endless debates over terms like "player agency" or "high trust." It's because the terms themselves arose not out of a neutral analysis, but from a critique of a mode of play.
Now the thing to remember with 3e (which I am using as a synonym for 3e, 3.5e, PF, etc.) is that while is a "trad" game, it was also a trad game that a subset of trad players did not like. One of the main reasons behind that was that while 3e (in the eyes of someone used to a narrative game) still had a lot of DM authority, it deliberately set out to make a game that was more rules-bound in terms of DM discretion. For fans of the older TSR-style games, this made 3e a "low-trust" game. Moreover, to the OSR movement, the lack of trust extended to players as well- they were no longer trusted to devise any solution that they could think of, instead depending on certain approaches that would be prescribed by the rules (or the abilities demarcated on the character sheet).
More to the point, proponents of high-trust gaming believed that players should be trusted to use their own creativity to choose what to do and how to do it, and that the DM should be trusted to react appropriately to the player's ideas. This concept of bi-directional trust animated the OSR, and the later FKR, movements.
The reason that people keep talking about "high trust," then, is because the concept is what animates a subsection of the gaming population. Moreover, we can see that this concept is at least partly incorporated into 5e in the concept of "rulings, not rules."
2. Dividing Authority at the Gaming Table
I hate writing, I love having written.
One of the primary design decisions in games is a simple one- who has final authority? If you have only played D&D, then the answer might seem obvious- the DM! But it doesn't have to be that way. There are games that can be played with any central authority (Fiasco, for example). There are games that can be played that allow for significant player authority over the fiction (any one of a number of games, such as the PbTA family). Even 5e has an optional rule (in the DMG, that no one has ever read) that allows characters to have "plot points" that would allow them to author the fiction. Roughly 80% of the threads that go on for more than 50 pages on EnWorld (numbers are approximate, yet completely true) end up being about the division of authority, but it also is a lot less of a big deal than most people think it is. Here, for example, is the description I like to quote from the Rules Lite version of Cthulhu Dark-
Who decides when to roll Insanity? Who decides when it’s interesting to know how well you do something? Who decides when something disturbs your PC? Who decides whether you might fail? Decide the answers with your group. Make reasonable assumptions. For example, some groups will let the Keeper decide everything. Others will share the decisions. These rules are designed to play prewritten scenarios, run by a Keeper. If you try improvising scenarios or playing without a Keeper, let me know.
Who decides? Who cares! Do what works for you. And yet ... it does matter. Just not for the typical reasons that usually get argued about.
Every table is different- a different mix of personalities, a different mix of people. When we discuss D&D, one of the topics that often comes up is that of a DM shortage, or of DM burnout. And this points us to both the great advantage and the great disadvantage of those games that vest more authority in the DM. On the plus side, you only need one player to be the DM. You only need one person that really knows the rules. You only need one person to have a higher level of investment and to "bring it" every gaming night. But that strength is also a weakness- that is a lot to have riding on one person. If that person is ... the BAD DM, then that will be a catastrophic failure. And putting that burden on the same person on a regular basis can lead to burnout.
The flip side of that is a model with distributed authority. The best thing about distributed authority (especially when you're playing a Story Now / Fiction First game) is that you don't have all of this prep time foisted on one person. Everyone is invested in the game. Everyone is creating fiction. But this isn't all pop rocks & soda- the downside is that you really do need everyone to be invested in the game. You need them to "bring it" on a regular basis, and be ready to create their fiction. And not everyone is prepared to do that. So while providing the GM more authority provides one point of failure (albeit a catastrophic one), providing more narrative authority to everyone can end up allowing for multiple points of failure.
Which brings us back to why D&D continues to use a DM-centric model....
3. Why D&D Will Continue to be DM-Centric
I don’t care what is written about me so long as it isn’t true.
"I don't get why more people don't listen to opera; it's so much better than that hippity-hop music that they're listening to!" D&D is always designing for the mass market. For the maximum number of gamers. For as many people to play as possible. Because they want to continue to be the 800lb gorilla in the room. And, in my opinion, this desire naturally leads to game that will be designed with a DM as the final arbiter of fiction. And I say this not because it's necessarily the best way to do things, and not to excuse the lack of DM support in 5e, but simply because it makes the most sense in terms of designing for the market.
We've all had groups like this-
Amy loves to optimize and get into combat.
Brad loves to roleplay, and is playing a bard again.
Chad is mainly there because he's married to Amy and likes to hit stuff and not read things, so, um, Champion?
Derek likes to drink. MAXIMUM DEREK!
Emma knows all the rules, and believes gaming night is a good excuse to argue those rules.
Fiona likes game night, but she's more into drawing the maps and writing down the treasure. It's your turn Fiona. Fiona? Fiona? Fiona?
We all have friends like this. We all have mixed gaming tables at some time or another. People who are playing for different reasons, and with different expectations- but they want to have fun. Sure, maybe you could get them to play a one shot of Monster of the Week, maybe. But for the most part, they aren't looking to author fiction and "bring it" every night (except DEREK, who thinks "bringing it" means going through your liquor cabinet). And D&D, by placing the final narrative authority in a single person, allows these tables to function. Allows them to have a good time.
It's not a perfect solution for everyone, but it's a good solution for a lot of people. When you move away from the theoretical to the practical, it becomes obvious why D&D continues to use the DM-centric method when it comes to the division of authority. Because there's a lot of very casual players out there, and that's a much bigger market than TTRPG afficonados.
Anyway, it's been a month. Thought I'd post something. Enjoy, and tell me why I'm completely wrong in the comments.
Over on another thread, people have started talking about a perennial topic that tends to rear its ugly head here on the EnWorld forum- who sucks more, the BAD DM or the BAD PLAYER? And while the contours of that debate are interesting (for certain low values of "interesting"), I thought it might be interesting to look at the conversation from a slightly different point of view- to discuss what people mean when they talk about "high trust," and, more importantly, why different game designs have different divisions of authority- and why those different designs have inherent advantages and disadvantages. It is only from there that we can fully understand why D&D, traditionally, has put such a strong emphasis on the DM's (GM, referee, etc.) role within the game.
1. What is High Trust, and Why do Some People Keep Yammering On About It?
There are two motives for reading a book; one, that you enjoy it; the other, that you can boast about it.
To understand a term, it's helpful to understand the context in which the term arose. Mostly because people will often throw around terms like frisbees ... or manhole covers. So, why did people start using this term, and what was it supposed to mean?
As far as I can tell, "high trust" first became a term utilized in the OSR movement in the early 2000s. It was likely borrowed from a similar usage in the corporate world at the time, which referred to companies and workplace cultures as either "high trust" or "low trust." At this point, we should all be thankful that (1) they didn't decide to use the terms "synergy" or "leverage your core competencies," and that (2) OSR didn't arise a decade later, in which case we would all be trying to pivot to video. Ahem. Anyway, in the corporate world, these terms refer to how a company relates to its employees; a high-trust organization is one that has employee empowerment, management oversight is not obtrusive, and employees have the opportunity to independently solve problems. Low-trust organizations, on the other hand, monitor employees closely, do not provide employees the agency (oh boy!) to solve problems on their own, and the organization will often have detailed rules that the employee must follow instead of using their best judgment.
And so you can see why borrowing the term has appeal. OSR was not just a movement for a certain style of gaming; it was also a critique of the direction D&D had taken with 3e and 3.5e. As an aside, the reason that a lot of jargon in TTRPGs can be contentious is that the jargon itself usually arises out of a specific movement that is trying to elevate one style of gaming while critiquing others; this is why you will often see endless debates over terms like "player agency" or "high trust." It's because the terms themselves arose not out of a neutral analysis, but from a critique of a mode of play.
Now the thing to remember with 3e (which I am using as a synonym for 3e, 3.5e, PF, etc.) is that while is a "trad" game, it was also a trad game that a subset of trad players did not like. One of the main reasons behind that was that while 3e (in the eyes of someone used to a narrative game) still had a lot of DM authority, it deliberately set out to make a game that was more rules-bound in terms of DM discretion. For fans of the older TSR-style games, this made 3e a "low-trust" game. Moreover, to the OSR movement, the lack of trust extended to players as well- they were no longer trusted to devise any solution that they could think of, instead depending on certain approaches that would be prescribed by the rules (or the abilities demarcated on the character sheet).
More to the point, proponents of high-trust gaming believed that players should be trusted to use their own creativity to choose what to do and how to do it, and that the DM should be trusted to react appropriately to the player's ideas. This concept of bi-directional trust animated the OSR, and the later FKR, movements.
The reason that people keep talking about "high trust," then, is because the concept is what animates a subsection of the gaming population. Moreover, we can see that this concept is at least partly incorporated into 5e in the concept of "rulings, not rules."
2. Dividing Authority at the Gaming Table
I hate writing, I love having written.
One of the primary design decisions in games is a simple one- who has final authority? If you have only played D&D, then the answer might seem obvious- the DM! But it doesn't have to be that way. There are games that can be played with any central authority (Fiasco, for example). There are games that can be played that allow for significant player authority over the fiction (any one of a number of games, such as the PbTA family). Even 5e has an optional rule (in the DMG, that no one has ever read) that allows characters to have "plot points" that would allow them to author the fiction. Roughly 80% of the threads that go on for more than 50 pages on EnWorld (numbers are approximate, yet completely true) end up being about the division of authority, but it also is a lot less of a big deal than most people think it is. Here, for example, is the description I like to quote from the Rules Lite version of Cthulhu Dark-
Who decides when to roll Insanity? Who decides when it’s interesting to know how well you do something? Who decides when something disturbs your PC? Who decides whether you might fail? Decide the answers with your group. Make reasonable assumptions. For example, some groups will let the Keeper decide everything. Others will share the decisions. These rules are designed to play prewritten scenarios, run by a Keeper. If you try improvising scenarios or playing without a Keeper, let me know.
Who decides? Who cares! Do what works for you. And yet ... it does matter. Just not for the typical reasons that usually get argued about.
Every table is different- a different mix of personalities, a different mix of people. When we discuss D&D, one of the topics that often comes up is that of a DM shortage, or of DM burnout. And this points us to both the great advantage and the great disadvantage of those games that vest more authority in the DM. On the plus side, you only need one player to be the DM. You only need one person that really knows the rules. You only need one person to have a higher level of investment and to "bring it" every gaming night. But that strength is also a weakness- that is a lot to have riding on one person. If that person is ... the BAD DM, then that will be a catastrophic failure. And putting that burden on the same person on a regular basis can lead to burnout.
The flip side of that is a model with distributed authority. The best thing about distributed authority (especially when you're playing a Story Now / Fiction First game) is that you don't have all of this prep time foisted on one person. Everyone is invested in the game. Everyone is creating fiction. But this isn't all pop rocks & soda- the downside is that you really do need everyone to be invested in the game. You need them to "bring it" on a regular basis, and be ready to create their fiction. And not everyone is prepared to do that. So while providing the GM more authority provides one point of failure (albeit a catastrophic one), providing more narrative authority to everyone can end up allowing for multiple points of failure.
Which brings us back to why D&D continues to use a DM-centric model....
3. Why D&D Will Continue to be DM-Centric
I don’t care what is written about me so long as it isn’t true.
"I don't get why more people don't listen to opera; it's so much better than that hippity-hop music that they're listening to!" D&D is always designing for the mass market. For the maximum number of gamers. For as many people to play as possible. Because they want to continue to be the 800lb gorilla in the room. And, in my opinion, this desire naturally leads to game that will be designed with a DM as the final arbiter of fiction. And I say this not because it's necessarily the best way to do things, and not to excuse the lack of DM support in 5e, but simply because it makes the most sense in terms of designing for the market.
We've all had groups like this-
Amy loves to optimize and get into combat.
Brad loves to roleplay, and is playing a bard again.
Chad is mainly there because he's married to Amy and likes to hit stuff and not read things, so, um, Champion?
Derek likes to drink. MAXIMUM DEREK!
Emma knows all the rules, and believes gaming night is a good excuse to argue those rules.
Fiona likes game night, but she's more into drawing the maps and writing down the treasure. It's your turn Fiona. Fiona? Fiona? Fiona?
We all have friends like this. We all have mixed gaming tables at some time or another. People who are playing for different reasons, and with different expectations- but they want to have fun. Sure, maybe you could get them to play a one shot of Monster of the Week, maybe. But for the most part, they aren't looking to author fiction and "bring it" every night (except DEREK, who thinks "bringing it" means going through your liquor cabinet). And D&D, by placing the final narrative authority in a single person, allows these tables to function. Allows them to have a good time.
It's not a perfect solution for everyone, but it's a good solution for a lot of people. When you move away from the theoretical to the practical, it becomes obvious why D&D continues to use the DM-centric method when it comes to the division of authority. Because there's a lot of very casual players out there, and that's a much bigger market than TTRPG afficonados.
Anyway, it's been a month. Thought I'd post something. Enjoy, and tell me why I'm completely wrong in the comments.
