D&D 5E (2014) Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e

[Aldarc]

It's also worth pointing out that tournament play of D&D was a fairly common mode of play for the game, and it did often involve "winning" the module, often with characters that players would bring to the game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

A car, traditionally has been primarily designed for transportation. That's it. Utility vehicles (pickups, SUVs) had a different niche as vehicles you bought for work. The majority of people who bought pickups or SUVs generally bought them because they needed to go into fields or haul things. It was a clear distinction. That's gone now.

Don't care if you agree with me or not, as with virtually all categories (i.e. people's race) it's pretty arbitrary and subjective.

I was just trying to understand how the distinctions you were pointing out were indicative of any kind of car spectrum at all. Your response about SUVs, trucks, and cars and again absent of a spectrum isn't helping me understand what you were talking about.

 

[chaochou]

It's also worth noting that 'football' can be used as an abstract, and as such it is not possible to 'win at football' because football is also infinite, a never-ending cycle of matches and seasons with no final and ultimate winner.

But to use that construct to then claim that football, in any actual instance of play, has no win condition is ridiculous. It clearly does, even a kick-around in the park. Sport relies on 'winning' as its inherent currency.

D&D is the same - it's only the hokum of conflating an abstract usage (D&D) with a concrete one (this session / game / campaign of D&D) which creates the illusion of no win conditions.

 

[Lanefan]

I just don't think there is a spectrum. When we say a game is "less sandboxy" do we mean that (i) the players have less authority over situation or (ii) the players have more authority over backstory or (iii) something else?

It's like saying that cars are on a spectrum of more-or-less car-like: if we say a vehicle is moving away from the car end of the spectrum are we saying that it is more like a truck (ie not really a passenger vehicle), or more like a pedal car (ie not fully reliant on an engine for its motive power), or more like a motorcycle (ie fewer wheels, frame rather than a chassis - I hope that's the right terminology - etc).], or something else.

Cars are in the middle of a spectrum of sorts, which starts with the Terex Titan at one end and moves through road trains, semi-trailers, garbage trucks, 2-tons, 1-tons, vans/pickups, SUVs, large cars, mid-size cars, small cars, mini-cars, closed-cabin 3-wheelers, open-air ATVs, open-air three-wheelers, large motorcycles, small motorcycles, motor scooters, mopeds, electric bicycles, pedal bicycles, one-wheelers, and which probably ends at roller skates. (and I'll freely admit I probably missed a few stops along that line)

I wonder if you're conflating players making authorial setting decisions with players making campaign-direction decisions within a pre-established or pre-authored setting. It's the latter where the sandbox-to-linear-to-railroad spectrum lies - how much large-scale decision-making the players able (or allowed) to do within a pre-authored setting, be it published or homebrew.

In an absolute sandbox the DM just lays out the setting, sits back, and turns the players loose on it to find/create their own adventures if they can.

In an absolute railroad the players (and PCs) do exactly what the DM tells them to do, no variance allowed and with most if not all outcomes pre-ordained.

There's a clearly-visible spectrum between these two extremes; and that's (I think) what's being talked about here, with it being taken as a given that the whole spectrum assumes DM authorship of setting.

There's also a tangential spectrum, that might or might not cross this one at some point, that looks at how much authorship the players have over the setting with little to no regard for where that campaign sits on the sandbox/railroad line. That seems to be what you're talking about, and it ain't the same thing.

 

[prabe]

Cars are in the middle of a spectrum of sorts, which starts with the Terex Titan at one end and moves through road trains, semi-trailers, garbage trucks, 2-tons, 1-tons, vans/pickups, SUVs, large cars, mid-size cars, small cars, mini-cars, closed-cabin 3-wheelers, open-air ATVs, open-air three-wheelers, large motorcycles, small motorcycles, motor scooters, mopeds, electric bicycles, pedal bicycles, one-wheelers, and which probably ends at roller skates.

The rest of your post aside, this is nicely done. (I'm otherwise going to leave you and pemerton to have it out.)

 

[overgeeked]

It's also worth noting that 'football' can be used as an abstract, and as such it is not possible to 'win at football' because football is also infinite, a never-ending cycle of matches and seasons with no final and ultimate winner.

But to use that construct to then claim that football, in any actual instance of play, has no win condition is ridiculous. It clearly does, even a kick-around in the park. Sport relies on 'winning' as its inherent currency.

D&D is the same - it's only the hokum of conflating an abstract usage (D&D) with a concrete one (this session / game / campaign of D&D) which creates the illusion of no win conditions.

Only if you mangle how game theory defines infinite vs finite games.

Finite games have defined limits including win conditions. I can look up the win conditions for football or hockey, for example. It's clearly stated in the rules for those games. Time limits are also defined. So while there's no way to "win" football in the abstract, there are clearly defined limits for what a game of football entails, including its time limits and win conditions.

Infinite games have no defined limits and don't have win conditions. I cannot look up the win conditions for D&D, for example. Despite everyone who's claiming D&D has win conditions protestations, none of them can actually point to anything in the books that defines what it means to "win" at D&D. But, conversely, we can point to text in every edition of D&D that specifically says there's no way to win D&D and that the point is simply to play the game.

 

[Lanefan]

Is that expectation shared with and accepted by the players before play? Invalidating parts of their character features because you never have any intention of letting them work as written (e.g. "perfect") seems like something they should know before choosing those classes or features.

It's pretty easy to just say up front that nothing's guaranteed; and that even if your chance of doing something shows as 100% strange things can still happen if you (or I, in secret) roll 00. This is noted in my player-side "blue book" pretty much anywhere it might occur, some thieving skills being the quickest example to come to mind.

 

[chaochou]

I cannot look up the win conditions for D&D, for example. Despite everyone who's claiming D&D has win conditions protestations, none of them can actually point to anything in the books that defines what it means to "win" at D&D.

This is exactly the con I highlighted. You're hiding behind the abstract while claiming its the concrete.

 

[Mannahnin]

I cannot look up the win conditions for D&D, for example. Despite everyone who's claiming D&D has win conditions protestations, none of them can actually point to anything in the books that defines what it means to "win" at D&D. But, conversely, we can point to text in every edition of D&D that specifically says there's no way to win D&D and that the point is simply to play the game.

Are you sure about that? I suspect that if we crack open a DMG we might see both text about D&D having no set defined end and about winning by having fun and/or by achieving character-defined or campaign-established goals. I'm not remembering a specific passage, but I have a sneaking suspicion.

 

[chaochou]

Of course the moment we look at specific instances of play, the idea of 'no win conditions' is revealed as patently untrue.

Here, just as a simple example, is the Curse of Strahd.

Spoiler: Curse of Strahd

The adventurer's best hope of defeating Strahd is to learn his secrets. Guided by Mada Eva's card reading they must scour his domain for magic items that might weaken or slay him.

The adventure ends when either Strahd von Zarovich or the characters are defeated.

No win conditions, remember?