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

[Crimson Longinus]

Is disagreeing about how to classify what is happening semantics? Because I view that as a meaningful difference of opinion.

Carry on then! I am not going to be dragged into semantic debate about whether classification is part of semantics!

 

[FrogReaver]

.

 

[billd91]

So does this tiresome semantic debate about the word 'win' actually serve some purpose?

We’ve got elongated semantic debates all over the hobby because of what terms connote. Why would “winning” be any different?

 

[Maxperson]

Carry on then! I am not going to be dragged into semantic debate about whether classification is part of semantics!

Sam antics? Yosemite Sam?

 

[pemerton]

I'm going to address all of this at once, because it's interconnected. You seem to lump "make it up on the spot" with "already has detailed prep" with "has to stop the game to go create detailed prep" together. These are either the same thing or aren't the same thing, and it's going to depend entirely on how you define how and what the GM's allowed prep/improv space is.

<snip>

Now, I'm sure you don't intend this, but this is the issue with the vagueness of your metrics -- they don't actually define anything very well and encompass quite a lot of play space (before we even get to alternative fiction creation, we're still in GM-sole-creator-at-GM's-desire territory).

Again, we have similar sorts of reasons for doubting the existence and/or utility of the spectrum that @Xetheral has posited.

I just want to focus on the "no notes, so wing it" aspect if the players say "We cross the hills to the north".

In this case, the GM ceases to exercise situational authority thus: draw on pre-authored background, with latent situation, to frame the concrete scene.

Instead, the GM exercises situational authority thus: draw on pre-authored background, and resulting sense of situation/verisimilitude, plus details of player action declaration, to frame the concrete scene.

These are quite different ways of resolving the action declaration "We cross the hills to the north". I don't see the analytic utility of putting them on the same spectrum. If the spectrum is measuring likelihood the game will grind to a halt if the players declare "We cross the hills to the north" then I can see it might be measuring something, but I'm not sure that's a thing that it is useful to measure. It doesn't capture the difference between (eg) sandboxing and railroading, because a railroading GM can also just make stuff up when the players have their PCs cross the hills to the north, and tell them that story spontaneously. Lewis Pulsipher complained about this aspect of playing D&D as a "living novel" over 40 years ago.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So does this tiresome semantic debate about the word 'win' actually serve some purpose?

Well, my hope was to illustrate why two different people might say things that sound utterly contradictory, while still both being rational. That is, they're using the same word in different senses, which is a perfectly valid thing and not (as others are suggesting in this thread) a foolish misapplication or whatever.

I mean, "good" has two clearly distinct uses, wrestled with frequently in philosophy: "good" as the opposite of "bad," and "good" as the opposite of "evil." It is very easy to fall into a trap of conflating the two, but we use both freely in that capacity. I mean, we can validly describe someone as a "good liar" or a "good murderer," as in someone good at lying or good at murder, but that does not therefore mean we are saying that lying or murdering is itself morally good.

Then it becomes a matter of asking, "Okay, which things are relevant to talk about?" And that is, of course, a difficult question to answer. But this distinction at least gets us past shouting at each other that we must be insane (or foolish, or "overusing"/"misusing" terms) and toward being on the same page.

So. Is it more relevant to speak of winning-as-concluding, or of winning-as-experiencing-success?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think "winning-as-not-losing" is the controversial meaning here.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think "winning-as-not-losing" is the controversial meaning here.

Would you be willing to expand on that? It sounds like "winning-as-experiencing-success," e.g. since dying in combat would mean "losing," not-losing would require experiencing success in combat. I'll grant that there's a thin shaft of light between them, given that "not-losing" plausibly entails fewer good things than "experiencing-success" does (e.g. one could still fail at any roll that wouldn't cause one to lose), but the two seem close enough to synonymous to my eyes. Was there something more specific you meant by that?

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, my hope was to illustrate why two different people might say things that sound utterly contradictory, while still both being rational. That is, they're using the same word in different senses, which is a perfectly valid thing and not (as others are suggesting in this thread) a foolish misapplication or whatever.

I mean, "good" has two clearly distinct uses, wrestled with frequently in philosophy: "good" as the opposite of "bad," and "good" as the opposite of "evil." It is very easy to fall into a trap of conflating the two, but we use both freely in that capacity. I mean, we can validly describe someone as a "good liar" or a "good murderer," as in someone good at lying or good at murder, but that does not therefore mean we are saying that lying or murdering is itself morally good.

Then it becomes a matter of asking, "Okay, which things are relevant to talk about?" And that is, of course, a difficult question to answer. But this distinction at least gets us past shouting at each other that we must be insane (or foolish, or "overusing"/"misusing" terms) and toward being on the same page.

So. Is it more relevant to speak of winning-as-concluding, or of winning-as-experiencing-success?

Of course words can legitimately mean more than 1 thing. Words can also legitimately be used as a metaphor. The example you gave of the word meaning more than 1 thing was actually an example of it being used as a metaphor. Those are different things. Do you have any actual examples of 'winning' being used differently other than by metaphor?

 

[FrogReaver]

Again, we have similar sorts of reasons for doubting the existence and/or utility of the spectrum that @Xetheral has posited.

I just want to focus on the "no notes, so wing it" aspect if the players say "We cross the hills to the north".

In this case, the GM ceases to exercise situational authority thus: draw on pre-authored background, with latent situation, to frame the concrete scene.

Instead, the GM exercises situational authority thus: draw on pre-authored background, and resulting sense of situation/verisimilitude, plus details of player action declaration, to frame the concrete scene.

These are quite different ways of resolving the action declaration "We cross the hills to the north". I don't see the analytic utility of putting them on the same spectrum. If the spectrum is measuring likelihood the game will grind to a halt if the players declare "We cross the hills to the north" then I can see it might be measuring something, but I'm not sure that's a thing that it is useful to measure. It doesn't capture the difference between (eg) sandboxing and railroading, because a railroading GM can also just make stuff up when the players have their PCs cross the hills to the north, and tell them that story spontaneously. Lewis Pulsipher complained about this aspect of playing D&D as a "living novel" over 40 years ago.

One cannot DM D&D without doing what you are describing to some degree. Whether that be sandbox or linear games, that 'technique' is always present as an essential part of D&D games. But, while it's an essential technique that can be used in varying degrees, a D&D campaign doesn't seem workable using this technique alone without having it layered on top of linear or sandbox styles. Thus, when this 'no notes, so wing it' technique is actually analyzed, it actually seems to further support the linear/sandbox spectrum of D&D play rather than create a counterpoint against it.