D&D 5E Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e

[pemerton]

As it has been described to me by those who play that style of game, the DM cannot override that. The blacksmith being there is pure player authorship.

I was replying to @prabe's question, which - given the use of the term "DM" - was about D&D play.

Because I don't know what game you are referring to, I can't say anything beyond what I posted not far upthread (post 505).

 

[Maxperson]

Sure. In that instance--if that's how the table is playing--the player is authoring stuff. That is, best I can tell, an unusual way for a TRPG to operate, for reasons @pemerton has summarized just upthread.

That was my point. Authorship by players does not typically happen in a standard D&D game.

In the example I gave it's plausibly more joint--the DM is saying "yes" to the player's suggestion. This seems to be more within the way things are likely to work. Certainly, D&D 5E can be played this way.

In my opinion, if the DM is saying yes, he's the one doing authoring. It doesn't happen at all without his approval, and happens 100% with it.

 

[Maxperson]

I was replying to @prabe's question, which - given the use of the term "DM" - was about D&D play.

Because I don't know what game you are referring to, I can't say anything beyond what I posted not far upthread (post 505).

Meh. I hate the term Game Master/GM, so I use DM when talking about any RPG.

 

[Maxperson]

I was replying to @prabe's question, which - given the use of the term "DM" - was about D&D play.

Because I don't know what game you are referring to, I can't say anything beyond what I posted not far upthread (post 505).

Unfortunately, the best I can offer is the recollection of what was described to me. I'm not sure if it was even about a specific game and not just general player authorship.

 

[Campbell]

Pretty much every experience I have had of players just declaring things like that has been in a permissively run traditional game. Even then it was subjected to veto by the GM. This kind of thing is fairly common in some freeform circles, but not in any indie games I'm personally aware of.

It is somewhat common when playing games like Vampire or Exalted where characters are somewhat socially entrenched to be able to define minor setting details, but it's like not in the rules. It's also usually subject to a lot of GM scrutiny.

 

[overgeeked]

Second or third time I've seen this reference round here recently, so I'd better ask: what's "FKR"?

Free Kriegsspiel Renaissance. An immersion-first, fiction-first rules ultralight style of play. This thread was spawned from a thread on system and free kriegsspiel wherein Campbell seems to really hate the idea despite most things he’s saying here lining up almost perfectly with that style.

 

[pemerton]

Sure. In that instance--if that's how the table is playing--the player is authoring stuff. That is, best I can tell, an unusual way for a TRPG to operate, for reasons @pemerton has summarized just upthread.

Here's an example of a "player backstory authorship" mechanic: Classic Traveller's rules for Streetwise checks.

These rules rest on an express setting premise and an implicit premise about play.

The setting premise is this, stated in the skill rules (like many RPGs, especially more "traditional" ones, Traveller mixes its PC build rules with its action resolution rules; I'm quoting the 1977 version of Book 1, p 15):

The individual [with expertise in Streetwise] is acquainted with the ways of local subcultures (which tend to be the same everywhere in human society), and thus is capable of dealing with strangers without alienating them. . . . Close-knit subcultures (such as some portions of the lower classes, and trade groups such as workers, the underworld, etc) generally reject contact with strangers or unknown elements. Streetwise expertise allows contact for the purpose of obtaining information, hiring persons, purchasing contraband or stolen goods, etc.​

The premise about play is that it's not feasible for the referee to detail everything in a sci-fi setting. Therefore we use Streetwise checks instead. The passage I was just quoting continues:

The referee should set the throw required to obtain any item specified by the payers (for example, the name of an official willing to issue licences without hassle . . . [or] the location of high quality guns at a low price . . .).​

Because Classic Traveller was written over 40 years ago, it is not as clear about its procedures as a modern game (eg Burning Wheel, which has similar mechanics via its Wises and Circles checks). So it doesn't expressly say what the consequence of a failed Streetwise check might be. But reading the rulebooks we can work this out. Eg Book 3, p (again, the 1977 version) says:

The referee is always free to impose encounters to further the cause of the adventure being played; in many cases, he actually has a responsibility to do so.​

I think a failed Streetwise check would often be an occasion for the referee to impose an encounter. I'm thinking, eg, of the attempt to buy guns in the film Ronin.

 

[pemerton]

An addendum to my above post about Streetwise checks in Classic Traveller: I think the game takes it to be obvious that the player can't declare a Streetwise check unless the fictional positioning of their PC is appropriate (eg not in jumpspace; not in the wilderness; able to talk to people; etc). The rules expressly state that the referee should impose DMs (= die modifiers) to throws as appropriate - so if the player of a character laid up in hospital declares I'm talking to the doctors, nurses and other patients to try and learn of a local official who'll issue licences without hassle then I think it's fair for the referee to make the throw a bit harder than it would normally be (because the PC can't hit the footpaths, hang out in bars, etc) - unless, perhaps, the licences in question pertain to the sale or possession of drugs . . .

But the rules don't contemplate that the referee might just say No, sorry, there are no corrupt officials around here.

And just to emphasise: this is a completely mainstream game published in 1977.

 

[prabe]

But the rules don't contemplate that the referee might just say No, sorry, there are no corrupt officials around here.

So, I'm asking these because I've never played Traveler in any form in my life: Would it be possible (rules-legal) for the GM to modify the difficulty to the point of impossibility? Would it be ... tenable (socially) at a table?

 

[Oofta]

Typically, authority is in respect of something-or-other.

What does the D&D referee have authority over?

Not what time the game starts. That's an issue of social consensus.

Not over who joins the group. That's an issue of social consensus.

Not over which rules the group uses. That's an issue of social consensus - eg if the GM tries to apply a rule and others reject it, the dispute has to be resolved just like any other dispute among people playing a game together.

The GM does have authority over what is written in their notes. But until that somehow comes into play at the table, it is just solitary authorship of fiction.

The relevant authority, as best as I can tell, is authority over some parts of the shared fiction? Which parts of that fiction, in particular, is the key question. And that it be shared fictionis a key requirement: if the GM specifies something about the fiction, and the game breaks up over it, then I think it's fair to say that the contentious fact never became part of the shared fiction!

GM authority over most of the backstory is the norm for D&D. But that is completely different from authority over outcomes!



Who has authority over setting and backstory? Who has authority over situation? (ie where are the PCs and what is going on that calls the players to declare action)

And who has authority over the outcomes of declared actions, and how do those outcomes feed into new situations?

A sandbox answers only the first of these questions. But most of the action in this thread is about the latter two - ie situations, and outcomes.

Fully agreed. The D&D rulebooks are chockfull of action resolution mechanics.

There are RPGs in which the way of working out what happens next is that someone - perhaps the GM, perhaps the player sitting to the left of the one who made the declaration - decides what that is. But those RPGs don't need hundreds of pages of class build rules, spell descriptions, rules for setting DCs, etc!

I think it's helpful to read @hawkeyefan's post closely: I see that quote as limited to times when the rules are somehow unclear. You have nominated a variety of situations in which the rules are unclear or incomplete.

I think it's also helpful to think about principles. The GM is free, in a formal sense, to create a NPC who, like a variation on the Manchurian Candidate, will stonewall every attempt to interact or gain information unless the players declare that their PCs do some very specific thing. But is that really a good exercise of authority over backstory and situation? To me it looks like an attempt to control outcomes of action declaration, by declaring in advance that all but one of the salient declarations will fail.

Whether or not that falls within the bounds of the 5e rules in some literal sense, is it good GMing? Who would say so?

Not sure why this is so contentious. The DM is responsible for everything but what the PC thinks and what their declared actions are.

I have editorial and veto authority over backstory because I want to ensure that they fit into the campaign world because it's my campaign world. Hopefully the PCs will have lasting impact on that world going forward, but that impact is largely limited to what the PCs accomplish.

An addendum to my above post about Streetwise checks in Classic Traveller: I think the game takes it to be obvious that the player can't declare a Streetwise check unless the fictional positioning of their PC is appropriate (eg not in jumpspace; not in the wilderness; able to talk to people; etc). The rules expressly state that the referee should impose DMs (= die modifiers) to throws as appropriate - so if the player of a character laid up in hospital declares I'm talking to the doctors, nurses and other patients to try and learn of a local official who'll issue licences without hassle then I think it's fair for the referee to make the throw a bit harder than it would normally be (because the PC can't hit the footpaths, hang out in bars, etc) - unless, perhaps, the licences in question pertain to the sale or possession of drugs . . .

But the rules don't contemplate that the referee might just say No, sorry, there are no corrupt officials around here.

And just to emphasise: this is a completely mainstream game published in 1977.

Has anyone stated that other games do not handle things differently? I think people understand the concept, I just don't see how it's particularly relevant to D&D.