Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
This is part 2 on my ruminations regarding D&D and 5e that have been brought up due to some recent conversations, this one dealing with narrative authority. The third, and final, installment will be rules.
Please note that I am going to try and use words in their, um, natural language (it's 5e!) so as to allow a multiplicity of opinions. To the extent that I accidentally employ jargon, it is not intentional, and I will explain any terms I use if they are meant to be "terms."
1. The Traditional Play Loop of 5e
I've only been in love with a beer bottle and a mirror.
When I say, "play loop," what I mean is the method by which play usually happens (I'm simplifying here). For example, if you are playing Monopoly (traditional, not one of the million Hasbro-approved variants), then the play loop is:
A. Active player rolls dice.
B. Active player moves silly-looking token (yeah, we miss you thimble)
C. Active player resolves what happens based upon square landed upon
D. Active player passed dice to player on the left who becomes the active player.
We could expand upon this by adding in subsystems and making sure all the rules are encoded- for example, this doesn't take into account trading (which any player can do) all mortgaging (for the active player) or subsystems (rolling doubles, jail), but it is the basic play loop of monopoly.
D&D, and 5e, also has a traditional play loop. The three-step process is described in the 5e PHB on page 5, under "How To Play":
"The play of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game unfolds according to this basic pattern:
1. The DM describes the environment. ...
2. The players describe what they want to do. ...
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1."
So far, so obvious, right? Notice that this play loop, as described, tends to lend itself to a certain division of authority. The players have the authority over their characters to decide what to do, and the DM has the authority to narrate the results and describe the environment. This ties into another aspect of D&D ....
2. Rule 0, and Rule ... 1?
Sometimes the most positive thing you can be in a boring society is absolutely negative.
The final authority of the DM in D&D is often referred to as the meta-rule, "Rule 0." While I am quite positive we are all familiar with it, it's a short hand way of referring to DM fiat- that the DM has final authority in all rules, and can abolish, supersede, or create new rules as needed. While there is a great deal of argument over it, Rule 0 also follows as an almost implicit corollary of the third step of the play loop. Absent explicit rules that bind the DM (which do exist in other games), the ability of the DM to narrate outcomes would allow for the DM to narrate those outcomes as the DM requires. The DMG (which no one reads) is chock full of different ways to play- from using dice, to ignoring dice, to ad hoc adjudications. In the end, the DM is the "master of the world" and the "master of the rules" (also from the DMG, which no one reads).
But there's another common issue in D&D- let's call it Rule 1. Players describe what they (their PCs) want to do. They have unfettered authority over that. While there are "conditions" and the occasional spell effect, for the most part- players have absolutely unfettered authority to roleplay their characters as they wish. Does one PC (or an NPC) want to intimidate another PC? Well, in 5e, you roleplay that. This respect for player authority (some call it agency, but that's a loaded term and applies to all sorts of other cases) in decision-making and roleplaying is one of the foundational aspects of D&D in general, and 5e in particular.
If Rule 0 is about the DM's authority over the world, then Rule 1 in D&D is about the Players' authority over their characters.
If you only play D&D, this might seem banal to the point of uselessness so far. The idea that a player has full control over their PC is ingrained, at this point, that there are many people who play 5e who argue that even spell effects that negate player authority over the PC's decision making (such as charm, or any controlling spells) should not be used on PCs. For that matter, the idea that the DM authority over the world is probably not that controversial (although I am positive that there most people would articulate that the DM must follow published rules, or must be neutral, or transparent, or communicate, etc. in order to run a successful game).
...but this isn't how all TTRPGs operate. There are models that allow Players to narrate results. There are models that allow Players to override the GM's narration. There are models that bind the Players' roleplaying options- just as, in D&D, you lose a combat, in other games you might have to roleplay certain ways as a result of dice rolls or certain events in the game. Which is to say- pointing out the division of authority in D&D, and 5e, might seem banal, but it is worthwhile because it doesn't have to be that way. Moreover, as I go through in the next section, even assuming this traditional division of authority, there is still a lot of play in the joints, and it's worthwhile for those people playing 5e to examine how they play, and how they want to play.
3. Where are the Limits to Player Authority over Narrative in 5e?
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
Looking back at the history of D&D, one thing does seem clear- despite the success of other games in introducing play concepts and rules that affect roleplaying, the history of D&D has shown that (D&D) Players do not like that, and do not want that in their D&D. Whether it's the various OD&D/1e attempts to lore-ifying classes with roleplaying restrictions (such as the proverbial Lawful Stupid Paladin) or ditching the XP rewards and penalties for roleplaying within your alignment, or even the continued movement to ditch alignment- the arc of D&D history has always bent toward complete Player authority over the roleplaying and decision-making regarding their PC.
(Now, I will again say that the DMG does offer some optional rules regarding roleplaying, such as Honor Points, and narrative control, such as Plot Points .... but ... wait for it ....NO ONE READS THE DMG!)
The more interesting question is- what about narrative control? What amount of control does the Player have over the narrative and the environment of the world? I will start by recounting an example I saw where this issue caused a table conflict, and then delve into why this might be important-
Briefly, an individual was trying to DM for the first time, and was running a "canned" adventure. One of the Players ("Player A") used a very heavy "narrative" approach to the game. At a certain point, there was an encounter with a guard. Player A engaged the DM in dialogue, and seized narrative control by creating fiction that had not previously exists (that Player A's character had a relative that the guard knew, that the relative was sick, etc.). Again, this was not a bluff, nor part of the prior knowledge of the world- just extemporaneously created fiction. Which caused the DM to freeze up, because the DM didn't know how to deal with it. And led some of the other Players to question Player A - as they felt Player A was trying to "game" the system.
Personally, I don't think anyone did anything wrong there. A more experienced DM who did not want to cede narrative control could easily have parried Player A ("Oh, you must have mistaken me for the other Guard. No, I don't know you.") until the table could discuss it. But it illuminates the issue of mismatched expectations regarding the amount of control Players have over narrative, and why it's important to have that division of authority ironed out. Importantly, it also illustrated the usual point of conflict that might occur-
Because D&D has so many rules, and such a concept of the "party" and the "spotlight" and "balance" and "fairness," there can be concerns that unchecked Player Authority over the narrative (the environment) can be unfair or unbalancing.
One thing I have seen repeatedly is a conflict in that interstitial area- the Player declaration prior to the DM narration. And this is where I think that it is worth exploring, at your own table, what level of narrative control and authorial responsibility should Players have? What is acceptable?
I don't think that there is a single, correct, answer. For example, if you using 5e to do a "old school" dungeon crawl with a keyed map, and descriptions of the things in each room, you should probably avoid having Players describe new things in the rooms. On the other hand, if the party goes into a bustling metropolis that hasn't been full described, is there any harm in having the Players narrate the name and location of the place they are staying, such that it becomes part of the fiction of the world? Or is this something that your table prefers remains exclusively within the province of the DM?
I put this out not because I have an answer, but simply to outline the issues and to see what other people say. So, have at it!
Please note that I am going to try and use words in their, um, natural language (it's 5e!) so as to allow a multiplicity of opinions. To the extent that I accidentally employ jargon, it is not intentional, and I will explain any terms I use if they are meant to be "terms."
1. The Traditional Play Loop of 5e
I've only been in love with a beer bottle and a mirror.
When I say, "play loop," what I mean is the method by which play usually happens (I'm simplifying here). For example, if you are playing Monopoly (traditional, not one of the million Hasbro-approved variants), then the play loop is:
A. Active player rolls dice.
B. Active player moves silly-looking token (yeah, we miss you thimble)
C. Active player resolves what happens based upon square landed upon
D. Active player passed dice to player on the left who becomes the active player.
We could expand upon this by adding in subsystems and making sure all the rules are encoded- for example, this doesn't take into account trading (which any player can do) all mortgaging (for the active player) or subsystems (rolling doubles, jail), but it is the basic play loop of monopoly.
D&D, and 5e, also has a traditional play loop. The three-step process is described in the 5e PHB on page 5, under "How To Play":
"The play of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game unfolds according to this basic pattern:
1. The DM describes the environment. ...
2. The players describe what they want to do. ...
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1."
So far, so obvious, right? Notice that this play loop, as described, tends to lend itself to a certain division of authority. The players have the authority over their characters to decide what to do, and the DM has the authority to narrate the results and describe the environment. This ties into another aspect of D&D ....
2. Rule 0, and Rule ... 1?
Sometimes the most positive thing you can be in a boring society is absolutely negative.
The final authority of the DM in D&D is often referred to as the meta-rule, "Rule 0." While I am quite positive we are all familiar with it, it's a short hand way of referring to DM fiat- that the DM has final authority in all rules, and can abolish, supersede, or create new rules as needed. While there is a great deal of argument over it, Rule 0 also follows as an almost implicit corollary of the third step of the play loop. Absent explicit rules that bind the DM (which do exist in other games), the ability of the DM to narrate outcomes would allow for the DM to narrate those outcomes as the DM requires. The DMG (which no one reads) is chock full of different ways to play- from using dice, to ignoring dice, to ad hoc adjudications. In the end, the DM is the "master of the world" and the "master of the rules" (also from the DMG, which no one reads).
But there's another common issue in D&D- let's call it Rule 1. Players describe what they (their PCs) want to do. They have unfettered authority over that. While there are "conditions" and the occasional spell effect, for the most part- players have absolutely unfettered authority to roleplay their characters as they wish. Does one PC (or an NPC) want to intimidate another PC? Well, in 5e, you roleplay that. This respect for player authority (some call it agency, but that's a loaded term and applies to all sorts of other cases) in decision-making and roleplaying is one of the foundational aspects of D&D in general, and 5e in particular.
If Rule 0 is about the DM's authority over the world, then Rule 1 in D&D is about the Players' authority over their characters.
If you only play D&D, this might seem banal to the point of uselessness so far. The idea that a player has full control over their PC is ingrained, at this point, that there are many people who play 5e who argue that even spell effects that negate player authority over the PC's decision making (such as charm, or any controlling spells) should not be used on PCs. For that matter, the idea that the DM authority over the world is probably not that controversial (although I am positive that there most people would articulate that the DM must follow published rules, or must be neutral, or transparent, or communicate, etc. in order to run a successful game).
...but this isn't how all TTRPGs operate. There are models that allow Players to narrate results. There are models that allow Players to override the GM's narration. There are models that bind the Players' roleplaying options- just as, in D&D, you lose a combat, in other games you might have to roleplay certain ways as a result of dice rolls or certain events in the game. Which is to say- pointing out the division of authority in D&D, and 5e, might seem banal, but it is worthwhile because it doesn't have to be that way. Moreover, as I go through in the next section, even assuming this traditional division of authority, there is still a lot of play in the joints, and it's worthwhile for those people playing 5e to examine how they play, and how they want to play.
3. Where are the Limits to Player Authority over Narrative in 5e?
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
Looking back at the history of D&D, one thing does seem clear- despite the success of other games in introducing play concepts and rules that affect roleplaying, the history of D&D has shown that (D&D) Players do not like that, and do not want that in their D&D. Whether it's the various OD&D/1e attempts to lore-ifying classes with roleplaying restrictions (such as the proverbial Lawful Stupid Paladin) or ditching the XP rewards and penalties for roleplaying within your alignment, or even the continued movement to ditch alignment- the arc of D&D history has always bent toward complete Player authority over the roleplaying and decision-making regarding their PC.
(Now, I will again say that the DMG does offer some optional rules regarding roleplaying, such as Honor Points, and narrative control, such as Plot Points .... but ... wait for it ....NO ONE READS THE DMG!)
The more interesting question is- what about narrative control? What amount of control does the Player have over the narrative and the environment of the world? I will start by recounting an example I saw where this issue caused a table conflict, and then delve into why this might be important-
Briefly, an individual was trying to DM for the first time, and was running a "canned" adventure. One of the Players ("Player A") used a very heavy "narrative" approach to the game. At a certain point, there was an encounter with a guard. Player A engaged the DM in dialogue, and seized narrative control by creating fiction that had not previously exists (that Player A's character had a relative that the guard knew, that the relative was sick, etc.). Again, this was not a bluff, nor part of the prior knowledge of the world- just extemporaneously created fiction. Which caused the DM to freeze up, because the DM didn't know how to deal with it. And led some of the other Players to question Player A - as they felt Player A was trying to "game" the system.
Personally, I don't think anyone did anything wrong there. A more experienced DM who did not want to cede narrative control could easily have parried Player A ("Oh, you must have mistaken me for the other Guard. No, I don't know you.") until the table could discuss it. But it illuminates the issue of mismatched expectations regarding the amount of control Players have over narrative, and why it's important to have that division of authority ironed out. Importantly, it also illustrated the usual point of conflict that might occur-
Because D&D has so many rules, and such a concept of the "party" and the "spotlight" and "balance" and "fairness," there can be concerns that unchecked Player Authority over the narrative (the environment) can be unfair or unbalancing.
One thing I have seen repeatedly is a conflict in that interstitial area- the Player declaration prior to the DM narration. And this is where I think that it is worth exploring, at your own table, what level of narrative control and authorial responsibility should Players have? What is acceptable?
I don't think that there is a single, correct, answer. For example, if you using 5e to do a "old school" dungeon crawl with a keyed map, and descriptions of the things in each room, you should probably avoid having Players describe new things in the rooms. On the other hand, if the party goes into a bustling metropolis that hasn't been full described, is there any harm in having the Players narrate the name and location of the place they are staying, such that it becomes part of the fiction of the world? Or is this something that your table prefers remains exclusively within the province of the DM?
I put this out not because I have an answer, but simply to outline the issues and to see what other people say. So, have at it!
