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

[prabe]

It definitely does feel alien to me.

Yeah.

Also, I was way, way terser than your post deserved, and probably bordered on flippant. You didn't deserve that--apologies. I could (should) have put that post together differently.

So a couple things...and I hate to do this...but...

1) The dictionary definition of "win" is "be successful in a conflict, contest, or endeavor." There is no clause appended to the end of that stipulating "terminating any future conflicts, contests, or endeavors."

Yeah. I think that in games, win/loss is closely tied to end states--either the game ends when you win (solve three Mysteries in Eldritch Horror, cure all the diseases in Pandemic, checkmate your opponent in chess), or you win when it ends (you have the fewest points in Hearts when someone else gets to 100). I think talking about winning/losing TRPGs gets tangled up in that, because ... I think those of us who don't think winning and losing apply don't plan or play, thinking about the games ending. @Lanefan with is fifteen-year campaign is an outlier (no offense) but my own thinking tends toward 4 or 5 year campaigns.

2) I come from a deeply athletic background and a hard childhood. The merger of those two things created a cognitive space that is deeply focused on RIGHT NOW. I set small goals and I work intensely to complete them, desperately trying to not let "the long view" arrest my focus on, and satisfaction from "right now." "Stacking" is a term you see often these days. That has been used in athletics and martial arts forever. You have a conflict, contest, or endeavor before you. You defeat it. You stack the next victory on top of that one and you keep stacking.

One rep at a time, one play at a time, one contest at a time, etc etc. Each of these are enormously consequential. A break in the chain (physically like an actual injury setback or mentally/emotionally like a reorienting of my self-belief in a bad way) is a terrible thing. Don't let it happen. Win > Stack > Rinse/Repeat. Don't look into the future. Don't focus on things you can't control.

I have to wonder how much deeply different environmental inputs meeting different nature is what we're haggling over here.

Definitely different viewpoints. As I just said to @Ovinomancer I'm seeing this more as a writer/reader than a player--and that's very much mostly how I tend to approach TRPGs. Think about the fact that my feeling about the Alien RPG (I think I said this to or around you at some point) is that it's plausibly an interesting-ish character-oriented/sandboxy game ... right up until the Xenomorphs show up and start slaughtering people; and that dichotomy seems ... dissonant to me, like from a design perspective (leaving the game mechanics and my problems with those aside).

3) There is an enormous amount of advanced metrics right now about "micro-wins." For American Football (for instance), "play wins" (4 or more yards in a non-3rd-and-long situation or achieving the line to gain for a 1st down or achieving the goal-line for a TD) are taking over the field of analytics because they're showing themselves to be an extremely predictable and stable metric for evaluating offense and defense production.

The same thing happens in baseball. ERA is a terrible metric (particularly for Relievers) precisely because it takes this giant view of a season long campaign and it tries to extrapolate actually pitching production. Meanwhile, you might have a Reliever who has had 50 Appearances, 47 of them were immaculate (Holds or Saves; eg "Wins"), while 2 of them were train-wrecks and 1 was a net loss. Their ERA is massively inflated (lets say its 3.75...awful for a Reliever)...but their actual Hold/Save Ratio? Elite. That latter metric is "who they are." You put them on the mound and they are reliably going to produce.

Yeah. Analytics is changing sports. Well, in the sense that teams are able to see better how to optimize. In baseball (the sport I know best) the old stats--ERA, batting average, pitcher wins, RBI--are being rapidly deprecated. This is why stats like K/9, WHIP, OBP, and WOBA are more in vogue. It's arguable that front offices--like some TRPG players--have optimized the fun (or at least the beauty) out of the game. But you know both the math and the athletics involved better than I do, and plausibly see beauty in seeing those applied.

I'm writing this to you specifically because we're friends and I want you to understand how my brain plugs into all of this. I figure it may also be conducive to others (the conversation at large) to know my wiring as it relates to this.

Thoughts?

The difference between an unathletic writer/musician and an athletic science/math/engineering person, applied to TRPGs?

In other words, I think your guess at the top that it was nature (the current output derived from past inputs) was ... pretty good.

 

[FrogReaver]

EDIT - Answering "Win What?"

* Win the right to stack wins.

* Win feeling good about yourself.

* Win momentum (see stacking wins and feeling good about yourself).

* Win controlling the trajectory of play (see all of the above).

* Win arresting a spiral (see all of the above) or bouncing back when things are getting away from you.

* Win a step change (sometimes things are dramatic in their impact on our lives and our play and our outlooks).

* Win companions.

* Win overcoming your worse nature.

* Win getting ready (mentally and physically) for the next contest/conflict/endeavor.

Look at my post directly above describing my wiring on this (which, obnoxiously!, includes the definition of "win"). That should have explanatory power here.

I don't agree with the framework of "winning is exclusively a macro-classification (it definitely is a macro-classification...but not exclusively) meaning all contests, conflicts, and endeavor results along the way are not relevant for qualitative evaluating play (how the macro-win occurred and how we felt in the course of things)." And I don't agree that "to win there must be a loser."

I don't think either of those hold up to scrutiny.

An American Football game is won at the preparation level (practice and gameplanning) prior to even playing. You can ABSOLUTELY win or lose in that phase. Then you win or lose at the play level (stack 2 play losses in a row and you're looking at 3rd and long or a Turnover...that is a HUGE thing in the game of football). Then you win or lose at the drive level. Then you win or lose in the situational play (did you make more and more meaningful situational plays than the other team and how was your Red Zone Efficiency). In days of yore, time of possession, penalties, and 3rd down conversion rate were primary metrics (for evaluating winning and losing), but they've faded dramatically due to the nature of the changes in the game's ruleset.

That a lack of prep caused you to lose doesn’t imply that you lost the game at that point. You lost the game due to the results on the field. Full stop. You are conflating analysis about why you lost or won with actually winning or losing the game.

 

[FrogReaver]

EDIT - Answering "Win What?"

* Win the right to stack wins.

* Win feeling good about yourself.

* Win momentum (see stacking wins and feeling good about yourself).

* Win controlling the trajectory of play (see all of the above).

* Win arresting a spiral (see all of the above) or bouncing back when things are getting away from you.

* Win a step change (sometimes things are dramatic in their impact on our lives and our play and our outlooks).

* Win companions.

* Win overcoming your worse nature.

* Win getting ready (mentally and physically) for the next contest/conflict/endeavor.

do you acknowledge that none of those things are winning the game?

 

[Campbell]

What's actually being argued against here? That roleplaying games have player objectives that do not neatly correspond to naturalistic play? If we want to have that argument let's have that one instead of a semantic one. Is it under dispute that D&D expects players to strive to complete adventures or Call of Cthulhu expects players to strive to solve mysteries? That Burning Wheel does not expect players to fight for their character's beliefs?

I'm speaking to player goals here. Not character ones.

 

[FrogReaver]

So I’m going to make it simple. When someone says you can’t win D&D, saying you can win an encounter in d&d doesn’t disprove that claim.

In general, saying you can win at X in d&d doesn’t prove you can win d&d.

 

[Maxperson]

TO EVERYONE DISAGREEING WITH THE PREMISE THAT WIN CONS EXIST IN TTRPGS

I want to throw several things at you so we can collectively evaluate your/our thinking on this. Ready? Go:

1) My Life With Master - At the final conflict with the Master, your Minion has attained Love (a currency that accrues, or doesn't, in the course of play; through the series of conflicts that make up the game, you've established relationships with the Townsfolk that have effectively awakened your character and allowed them to surmount their worse inclinations/disposition) greater than your combined Fear + Weariness (same). Maybe other PCs haven't maybe they all have? Maybe you're the only Minion that has done this?

Now the Endgame conflict with the Master is enabled and we cut right to the action to find out if you depose/kill the Master/Mistress or not. Anyone whose Love > Fear + Weariness is in the conflict. This_is_not_easy.

Is getting to this endgame conflict a Win Con?

Is getting to it and then defeating the Master/Mistress a Win Con?

2) D&D 4e - You've authored a Major Quest for your character in the Heroic Tier of play; "Open the Gates of Man and Watch the Horde Pass Freely Through." It turns out that, in the course of the Heroic Tier of play, we all discover that this isn't a tangible thing. Its intangible. At the end of the Heroic Tier, you've won enough conflicts to have many allies in the Points of Light setting at your back when you confront "The Keeper." This is an upleveled (Level +3) Social Skill Challenge and you have to stake all the hearts and minds that you've won in order to convince The Keeper. Your Skill Challenge is a success. You open the heart of The Keeper who in turn opens the Gates of Man. The last scene of the Heroic Tier is watching the Horde pass freely through the gates.

Quest completed. If the group plays Paragon Tier (they may not...this may be a wrap), it starts from here.

If that's a wrap, Win Con?

If that's not a wrap and this Major Quest profoundly shapes Paragon Tier play (while of course establishing a significant amount about the setting and your character), Win Con?

Win Con either way?

3) Aliens RPG - You're a Scientist for Weyland-Yutani. Below is your Agenda.f

PERSONAL AGENDA: That Weyland-Yutani inspection team won’t be so snooty if you can leapfrog them and get an alien to the Company first. You just need to get a live specimen and get off LV-426 alive. Who will be laughing then?

You successfully commander the evac and get a live specimen and yourself off LV-426. The final scene is you entering cryostasis as The Mother plots the course for your destination.

Win Con?

4) Dogs in the Vineyard - Your backstory initiation scene (the situation is player-authored and the GM plays the antagonism/obstacle) involved you getting picked on (again) and your goal for the scene is "I won't let my temper get the best of me so that I end up beating yet another initiate into an inch of their life." You fail and therefore gain the 1d6 Trait "I can't lick this awful temper." When you deploy it in conflicts its apt to help you when you can use it, but its certainly a much better chance to earn you Fallout than a d8 or d10.

In the course of play, you lose some conflicts and therefore take Fallout. You throttle back that d6 Trait to a d4 which makes it a significantly complicating feature of your life. When you deploy it, it will help you because you've got an increased dice pool, but you're more apt to get Fallout (negative affects to your character that affect them thematically and their attendant PC build structure). Now your Temper is really causing you problems.

In a conflict in a Town, you're able to use that Trait in a social conflict, not escalate to violence, and win the social conflict (you get what you want without having to go to fists/knives/guns). Between Towns is Reflection. That Trait goes back to d6 because it helped you.

Rince, repeat in another Town. Now its a d8 (a major asset).

Win Con? No? Ok...

Rince, repeat another Town. Now its a d10.

You've mastered your temper and its an asset to your life as a Dog.

Win Con now?

5) Dungeon World - Its the End of Session move, you've got the following Alignment; Save an innocent from the cruelties of man. You've got a Bond with your Wizard companion; I'll show Mork that kindness pays off. You rescue a fox cub who was down a well project that was abandoned by prospectors. The cub is near death due to exposure and dehydration, etc. You win the conflict to get it out of the well and then you win the conflict to restore its vitality. You now have a Fox cub Cohort (with some kind of move/Skill that helps you due to love). You also learn something new and interesting about the world; There is a prospecting group that is ravaging the countryside and throwing salt-of-the-earth folk off their land for a pittance of a return (and this triggers a new Bond or Alignment statement).

You mark xp for Alignment and Bond and Learn Something New About the World at End of Session. Mork's player changes their alignment from Neutral to Good.

Win Con?

Maybe you level up from those 3 exactly. Win Con?

6) Blades in the Dark - You're possessed by your friend's Demon Rival due to a Consequence of the Score prior. This only manifests intermittently (a Fortune Roll based on the Magnitude of the Demon; 3d6 so if a 6 shows up when you make an Action Roll, the GM is taking over and afflicting a Desperate Consequence on the Crew).

The Demon manifests horrifically in the subsequent Occult Score; a ritual to adjure the Demon. Its likely to kill your friend (its Rival). You determine that the only way to save your friend is to throw yourself into the Spirit Well that is being used as the nexus for the ritual (thereby destroying both you, your spirit, and the Demon). You succeed at the Action Roll.

You cast your character into the spirit well after you momentarily regain your normal visage from the Demon in order to glance at your friends with a smile of "its ok...I've got this." You're over the lip and gone...the Demon with you.

Basically like The Exorcist.

You're making a new character or you're changing one of the Crew's Cohorts to become a full fledged PC.

Win Con?

The issue is not whether the PCs can win in the game. They can. It's that there is no traditional win condition for the players and DM. They only have the non-traditional, "Hey, we all win if we have fun!" which is true. We all do win if we have fun, but we haven't won D&D.

 

[prabe]

Is it under dispute that D&D expects players to strive to complete adventures or Call of Cthulhu expects players to strive to solve mysteries? That Burning Wheel does not expect players to fight for their character's beliefs?

Does it seem self-contradictory that I agree with you that the games expect players to do those things, but think of them as more like story things than game (winning/losing) things?

 

[FrogReaver]

What's actually being argued against here? That roleplaying games have player objectives that do not neatly correspond to naturalistic play? If we want to have that argument let's have that one instead of a semantic one. Is it under dispute that D&D expects players to strive to complete adventures or Call of Cthulhu expects players to strive to solve mysteries? That Burning Wheel does not expect players to fight for their character's beliefs?

I'm speaking to player goals here. Not character ones.

Ahem, I think it’s be more accurately stated that d&d expects players to adventure. I’m not sure what ‘completing an adventure’ really means. Nor does it seem apparent that players need to complete an adventure in any sense. They can typically stop mid adventure, go to town and start up a different adventure. Thus, the expectation of d&d is better stated as going adventuring rather than completing adventures.

 

[Manbearcat]

do you acknowledge that none of those things are winning the game?

I think "winning the game" isn't a functional framing for the conversation because (i) it asserts that there is no sufficiently meaningful (in that evaluation of it as a unit of play isn't warranted) objective, contest, conflict along the way, (ii) someone's focus on those things as a unit of play/measurement/takeaway isn't sufficiently relevant, and (iii) the accretion of that (i) and (ii) isn't what drives the actual play

For instance, something like an Adventure Path or My Life With Master has a line of demarcation for "this game is now officially over" that another game (like Dogs in the Vineyard) might not.

And I think games that have a clearly defined premise of play, that lets you formally stipulate your goals, drive play through those conflicts, and then achieve (or not) those goals are very different from games that (a) don't have a clearly defined premise and either (b) do this informally or (c) don't do this at all and let the GM (or some other participant...perhaps the author) do it entirely.

But "Winning the Game" can also mean "the time has ticked out and we're ahead by 1 (or more)."

---

Honestly...the more I think about this I see an interesting correlation. I'm DEEPLY FOCUSED on recapitulating and analyzing micro-play-excerpts. I post my own often (with my own analysis and asking for others' analysis). I ask for similar play excerpts often yet its a virtual impossibility to get almost anyone on ENWorld to_actually_post and anaylyze a digestible excerpt of their play. Its impossible to get it! Even when they try to post it, it in no way resembles something concrete that is analyzable!

That is fascinating!

My guess is there is a correlation there!

 

[Ovinomancer]

So I’m going to make it simple. When someone says you can’t win D&D, saying you can win an encounter in d&d doesn’t disprove that claim.

In general, saying you can win at X in d&d doesn’t prove you can win d&d.

If I play a D&D game of Curse of Strahd, and we defeat Strahd and the game ends, is this beating a game of D&D?

Because, as I've pointed out soooo many times now, there's this rhetorical sleight of hand that occurs where people say you can't beat D&D. But that's replacing an actual, realized, instanced game of D&D with the abstract concept of D&D. You can't win football, either, because football is an abstract concept. You can win a game of football. You can also win, as in overall, macro-level win, a game of D&D.

The argument usually then goes, "but you can just add an new goal to the instanced game of D&D." And this is trying to introduce some concept of perpetuity or infinite series to show that something can always be added so that not everything is won. But all games end, all games are finite, so, at some point, this series stops, and has to. So, this argument fails eventually because a stopping point is reached. And then you can evaluate all of the points along the way.

And this is all dealing at the macro-level. It's intentionally ignoring that the actual game of D&D (or any RPG) is entirely built from stacked win/loss situations.