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

[Malmuria]

I can wait for @Lanefan to make their own arguments. Is this also something you think?

ETA: I'm not going to spend time making points towards what someone thinks someone else is thinking, because that's a complete waste of time.

Yes, I agree with the points they've already made in post 977

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I can wait for @Lanefan to make their own arguments. Is this also something you think?

ETA: I'm not going to spend time making points towards what someone thinks someone else is thinking, because that's a complete waste of time.

Well, it is definitely what I think. At least to me the sort of pile of mechanics would be immensely anti-immersive. It primes the players thinking the situation as a mechanical puzzle, instead of imagining being in a dramatic and dangerous situation. It really goes against what I want from tabletop RPGs.

 

[Manbearcat]

Sounds like Dad is sitting me down for a lecture...

And all of this screams out that the players are expected to make their decisions based on player information rather than character information. Unless the PCs have somehow seen the father and daughter in action before, how can they know any of this stuff? Never mind how they can know anyhting at all about the Kraken, who I have to assume none involved have met before.

And this has nothing - nothing! - to do with edition. If in a 1e game I set the scene as:

"You're on a big lake. The little girl and her father are on a flatboat fishing when they're attacked by a big kraken like monster with huge tentacles. The father is a 3rd-level Fighter specialized in longsword, with strength 16, con 15, and 26 h.p.; the daughter is a commoner with 2 h.p. but has dex 16 and carries a potion of diminution which she'll use to get out of a tight spot. The kraken is a 6 HD beast with 37 h.p. and has 6 tentacles which each take 5 h.p. to destroy. If you are able to protect the daughter (and possibly the father) long enough to defeat the monster (ablate the Kraken's HPs while you protect the daughter and maybe father) or get them out of the lake (via non-combat means), then you succeed at saving the daughter and possibly father."

then I've made exactly the same mistake: I've given the players far too much metagame info that their PCs simply wouldn't and couldn't know going in and only might figure out as the encounter progressed.

Why am I letting myself get dragged into this goal-post moving, pea-and-thimble game.

This was about answering a very specific question. What was that question?

How does 4e's mechanics et al hedge against GM fiat?

Was this about Lanefan's or Crimson Longinus' or Malmuria's immersion?

No, it was not. Nothing whatsoever to do with that.

So I answered the question.

Now, moving on to what you've written above:

The PC in question (this was a solo game with a Ranger and her Bear Companion) had just finished a Skill Challenge to navigate a brutal rushing river. She successfully arrived at the lake where she bore witness to a flatboat with said occupants getting attacked by said sea monster.

She spent 1.5 rounds (so roughly 9 seconds of in-game action) getting her vessel in position so she could make a broad jump leap (she was on a tiny raft that she made prior) to get into the flatboat of the father/daughter combo.

For someone who lives and dies on combat, 9 seconds is a trivial amount of time to evaluate the physical capacity of humans (combatants or other) in a life or death situation. I don't believe you're a martial artist. I don't believe you're active or reserve or discharged military. Maybe that concept is foreign to you as a result. But I am a martial artist of 27 years. I've been in dozens and dozens of enormously threatening situations. Being able to evaluate the capability of humans in fights for their life happens instantaneously. Not being able to do that (for someone like this Ranger) would be unbelievably anti-immersive.

But again...entirely beside the point. This is not about immersiveness or not. This is a pea...under a thimble.

As for knowing whether or not a Tentacle is a 1 HP Minion vs a part of the HP pool for the actual Sea Monster?

That is a pretty big deal as well as it establishes genre logic expectations for the table at large. Can I do like what is done in typical high fantasy fic and cleave through the tentacles assailing the little girl and her father...thus making tactical decisions about my suite of abilities and action economy to enable their safety...or will my attacks on the tentacles do pretty much (I've got to chew through the giant monsters entire HP pool to get anything done because there are no rules for cleaving tentacles etc) nothing because of dumb, metagame, anti-immersive (you care about these things right?) D&D HP? constraints.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, I agree with the points they've already made in post 977

Well, it is definitely what I think. At least to me the sort of pile of mechanics would be immensely anti-immersive. It primes the players thinking the situation as a mechanical puzzle, instead of imagining being in a dramatic and dangerous situation. It really goes against what I want from tabletop RPGs.

I find the argument about immersion to be bupkis. And this is because this argument is about revealing mechanical details of non-PCs in the game and labels it as anti-immersive because this game stuff the PCs wouldn't know. But, this never stops to consider what this information is modelling -- it's not divorces from the fiction, it is the fiction. The girl's ability to scurry and dodge is the fiction, whether or not I describe this in flowery prose or if I just provide a statblock -- it's the same thing at the end of the day. The information I'm conveying isn't to the characters, it's to the player, so that they are situated in the same place as the characters with regard to the fiction. This is just information transfer, and I have options.

That makes the immersion argument one of approach, and even there I don't find it persuasive. This is because the approach that makes these claims isn't actually interested in situating the player into the fiction, but rather treating them like mushrooms -- kept in the dark and fed a diet of crap. Here, the only way for the players to actually situate is to either act blindly or to ask the GM to please give them some more detail, and that usually comes at a cost. If you ask a question, the GM may force a check and a wasted action to determine this detail. Bah, that's not immersion, it's just control.

So, unless the argument for immersion is that you'd prefer to pass all of the same information just in flowery prose, it's not really about immersion, but information control.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't really see how 4e mechanics help or hinder with any of that. You could do the same in 5e if you wanted.

I would greatly appreciate if you did that. Like an actual example of play that explains what the GM was doing and their decision making and what mechanics were involved, and actual analysis.

Something more than “5E can do that” without showing anything to support that claim. Especially in response to a post where such examples and analysis were provided.

What that has to do with 'story now' or railroading I have no idea.

That would seem to me to be because your mind’s already made up, and so you’re not actually reading what’s being said, or how it’s working. I’d think…given your admitted ignorance on the matter….you’d maybe have some questions or request clarifications instead of just making assertions.

Squinted at only slightly, this seems to be concluding that instead of the DM railroading the players, here it's the game and-or players largely railroading the DM. I'm not sure how this is any improvement.

Yes, this is about GM constraint. These things are put out for the table to see and therefore the GM has committed to them. The players are aware and cannot be deceived on those items.

And your list of 1E equivalents and how that’s “disclosing too much meta” misses the point entirely. It’s about the specific information that has been shared.

And all of this screams out that the players are expected to make their decisions based on player information rather than character information. Unless the PCs have somehow seen the father and daughter in action before, how can they know any of this stuff? Never mind how they can know anyhting at all about the Kraken, who I have to assume none involved have met before.

The mechanics of the game are the translation of character info to player info. If you don't expect adventuring PCs to have some sense of what the father is capable of, or what benefits the daughter may be able to use, or what manner of threat the monster may be, then I’d classify that as totally immersion breaking.

But what’s immersive is subjective.

And for me, and I expect many others, being railroaded is the most immersion breaking thing that can happen. This is why I prefer player facing mechanics and practices.

I would go further and say that it's not that hard to tell, in any edition, when a dm has pre-scripted the ending to an encounter or is fudging things.

How so? What processes or rules are there in other editions that create a state of play where GM force becomes obvious?

Can you present them in the same way @Manbearcat did for 4e? Or are you instead relaying on player ability to pick up on things? In which case, I don’t think we’d be talking about game mechanics anymore.

 

[Malmuria]

For the record, I’ve run multiple 4e games 100 % No Myth Story Now (2 x 1-30, 1 x 1-10, 1 x 1-8).

No prep beyond communication between games to clarify player-authored Quests and clarify our accreting setting conceits.

Play just progressing as an outgrowth of situation framing > action declarations > mechanics > consequence > rinse/repeat.

4e is extremely amenable to this type of play.

I think where I get confused is how "situation framing" doesn't take on the character of high DM authority in a dnd context. I can sort of see how this works in other games. For example, when we play BitD, mechanics like flashbacks and loads, plus the engagement roll, take some of the pressure off that initial framing, allowing aspects to emerge at the later point due to player choices. Even so, the players want to spend a lot of time in freeplay, thinking and planning and what not, and as GM I often insist we "cut to the action," but even then, everyone has to agree that that's an ok thing to do in general, per the advice of the game.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I'm not sure what you meean by doing what I (pemerton) am describing as I described two different things.

But anyway, it is possible to play D&D without using prepared backtory/notes, that is to say, without using the technique of draw on pre-authored background, with latent situation, to frame the concrete scene. I know, because I've done without this technique, GMing both AD&D and 4e D&D.

It is also possible to play D&D without "winging it", ie without using the technique of draw on pre-authored background, and resulting sense of situation/verisimilitude, plus details of player action declaration, to frame the concrete scene. I know this, because I've read accounts of how to avoid this from Lewis Pulsipher and Roger Musson.

It is also possible to play D&D without using either of the two techniques I've described - ie without using pre-authored background with latent situation, and without drawing on pre-authored background and resulting sense of situation/verisimilitude together with the details of action declaration - to frame the concrete scene. One can instead frame the concrete scene by drawing on the resolution of the previous scene (which is fiction established in play rather than notes/pre-authored background) plus player-authored goals/intent. I know because I've done this GMing AD&D and 4e.

For the record, I’ve run multiple 4e games 100 % No Myth Story Now (2 x 1-30, 1 x 1-10, 1 x 1-8).

No prep beyond communication between games to clarify player-authored Quests and clarify our accreting setting conceits.

Play just progressing as an outgrowth of situation framing > action declarations > mechanics > consequence > rinse/repeat.

4e is extremely amenable to this type of play.

I agree with the last sentence. I've not run completely No Myth because on a few occasions, mostly in Heroic Tier, I used dungeon maps - with movement and some exploration resolved via map-and-key rather than skill checks/skill challenge.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would greatly appreciate if you did that. Like an actual example of play that explains what the GM was doing and their decision making and what mechanics were involved, and actual analysis.

I am most definitely not going to do that. But what part you have hard time imagining? Why GM cannot overshare mechanical information in similar tedious detail in any game? Like what you actually imagine the difference here to be?

That would seem to me to he because your mind already made up, and so you’re not actually reading what’s being said, or how it’s working. I’d think…given your admitted ignorance on the matter….you’d maybe have some questions or request clarifications instead of just making assertions.

Admitted ignorance of what? What you think I am ignorant of?

Yes, this is about GM constraint. These things are put out for the table to see and therefore the GM has committed to them. The players are aware and cannot be deceived on those items.

And similar openness can be done in any game. It just usually isn't done, as it is jarring and atmosphere breaking and it is only beneficial if the payers are more interested in policing the though processes of the GM rather than immersing in the fictional situation.

 

[Malmuria]

How so? What processes or rules are there in other editions that create a state of play where GM force becomes obvious?

Can you present them in the same way @Manbearcat did for 4e? Or are you instead relaying on player ability to pick up on things? In which case, I don’t think we’d be talking about game mechanics anymore.

Well the obviousness of the example seemed to come with how transparent and explicit the dm was being? Let's say you had the same set up in 5e and passed the players the juvenile kraken stat block. Wouldn't they similarly be able to plan their tactics accordingly and understand when the DM was deviating from the monster's abilities?

But you are correct, I am generally referring to a player's ability to pick up on things, though reliant on their knowledge of the basic mechanics. For example in a recent 5e game, our party was surprised by a group of soldiers who suddenly appeared 10' away from us. Given that we had been actively scouting the area, some of us had high passive perceptions, and the dm didn't roll anything before presenting us with this surprise, I inferred she just wanted the (social) encounter to happen, this being based on my understanding of the mechanics of 5e. Mechanics aside, the context is that she is a brand new GM, and is very evidently still figuring things out. The latter (the context) to me is more important--it's why I wasn't too annoyed at things being forced, and why, if I was, I would just talk to her about it, rather than rely on system.

 

[pemerton]

"As you cross the woods, there is a fork in your path. For the sake of transparency, I'll let you know that if you go to the left, you will encounter an Ogre Mage who you must defeat in combat. The mage has 37 hp and can cast magic missle 3x/day. To the right is something that that I haven't prepared, but I'll figure something out frame the scene with respect to the players' choices (to go left or right). Probably combat, if you want. In either case, if you successfully complete the encounter, tbd, you will face another fork in the road. In fact you will keep facing forks in the road until you successfully complete 3 encounters, after which you will reach the town, which you will recall was your player-authored goal."

Problem solved!

I kid, I kid...in reality I think some degree of these things are good dm practices in any edition. Situations and conflicts are more meaningful when the stakes are at least somewhat known. The world should react to the PCs actions, which then help determine the "plot" rather than pre-imposing it. And I think transparency about what you have not prepared + randomness (via dice and encounter tables, for example) is more fun for everyone than heavy prep + illusionism.

Malmuria, you post a lot, in rather speculative tones, about various sorts of play - FKR, for instance, and Apoclaypse World, and just above no-myth-style D&D.

Have you ever played any of these games, or GMed them? When I first encountered your posts on these topics I assumed that you had. But increasingly, reinforced by posts like the one quoted here, I am beginning to think that you actually have very little experience with RPGing that is not based either on extrapolation-from-GM-pre-authored-backstory or else GM-fiat resolution.