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

[Malmuria]

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.

I enjoy some amount of mechanical opacity here as a player. Figuring out something like a damage resistance, or how a special ability works can be part of the tactical puzzle of combat.

Separately, in general I'm not against prose when engaging with fiction, flowery or no. It's certainly more engaging for me than simply saying "I hit, 6 damage," and moving on.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I am most definitely not going to do that.

Of course not.

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?

Overshare? I think perhaps you’ve missed the point of what was shared and why. And how certain game mechanics and processes may determine how shared information matters.

For instance, @Lanefan basically listed a 1e statblock for the father, including his level and his specialized weapon and the like. But this just shows how he’s failed to account for the nature of the information and how the two games functioning differently would matter.

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

Just trusting you at your word.

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

If you don’t know, then mayne a good starting point would be “What does this have to do with story now or railroading” instead of saying “You can do the same thing in 5E.”

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.

And here I’d say that you display your admitted ignorance.

“What is it about 4E among editions of D&D that helps promote this mode of play?” would maybe be a good route here. Ask for clarification instead of trying to counterpunch a perceived attack.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Overshare? I think perhaps you’ve missed the point of what was shared and why. And how certain game mechanics and processes may determine how shared information matters.

If I did, no one has been able to explain how. Like how is being transparent about 4e mechanics different than being transparent of 5e or even AD&D mechanics? What is the magical pixie dust 4e mechanics have that mechanics of other editions do not?

Just trusting you at your word.

What word? I have not said that I am unfamiliar with 4e, I have played crap ton of it, far more than 5e.

If you don’t know, then mayne a good starting point would be “What does this have to do with story now or railroading” instead of saying “You can do the same thing in 5E.”


And here I’d say that you display your admitted ignorance.

“What is it about 4E among editions of D&D that helps promote this mode of play?” would maybe be a good route here. Ask for clarification instead of trying to counterpunch a perceived attack.

And if you think providing answer to that question would show error of my ways, why did you not do that instead of tone policing?

 

[Malmuria]

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.

My range of experience pales in comparison to yours and probably other posters here. I have most experience playing all editions of dnd except 4th, a wide variety of OSR games, WOD games, and Call of Cthulhu. Oh and Cypher system. Currently running Blades in the Dark and trying to get a FKR game going, and hopefully also Wuthering Heights, as you've recommended (it's all contingent on people replying to my scheduling emails...). I've played in one shots or shorter campaigns in a number of other systems, like monster of the week and ten candles. Lots of other games I've read but not yet run or played (including Agon). Is that range disqualifying?

I think I've been pretty transparent about what I've played or not played? For example, in the FKR thread I mentioned a number of times that I've not yet played an FKR game but was just curious. That said, I can see how my more facetious posts can come across as aggressive, I'll try to tone that back.

 

[pemerton]

I understand @Lanefan 's point to be that this transparency a) comes at the expense of immersion and b) is possible in any edition of dnd.

Immersion is a psychological state. It is an empirical question whether, in any given moment of play, it is or is not being experienced.

In my GMing of 4e, I frequently conveyed mechanical information about antagonists to the players, because one of the PCs was a very learned scholar, and the player of that PC would frequently declare, and succeed, at monster knowledge checks, which - per the rules of the game - obliged me to convey certain mechanical information. (Roughly, powers and special abilities, but not defences or hit points.)

My experience of this is that it did not hinder immersion. It enhanced it, by putting the players into a cognitive and emotional space comparable to that of their PCs - eg confidence, or trepidation, depending on the information that I conveyed.

@Ovinomancer has explained, quite nicely, why this is the case:

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.

I am going to elaborate by first mentioning three easy examples, and then one of the most evocative 4e creatures I GM'ed.

Easy examples:

Goblins and kobolds are tricky underfoot, and hard to pin down. In mechanical terms, kobolds are shifty: they can shift 1 square as a minor action. They are able to manoeuvre and position themselves to advantage, proactively. Goblins have their tactics: as an immediate reaction, when missed by a melee attach, they can shift 1 square. They are able to manoeuvre and position reactively.

As a GM, I don't need to narrate that these guys are scurrying about underfoot and hard to pin down. It is manifest in play - both the scurrying (because they are moving) and the hardness to pin down (because shift means that regular consequences of moving, including opportunity attacks, are not enlivened).

Hobgoblins fight shoulder-to-shoulder in phalanxes. This is reflected in the AC bonus they receive when fighting with another hobgoblin ally adjacent.

Evocative example:

The 4e MM3 has a creature called a Chained Cambion. Here is some of its flavour text (p 25):

Wrapped in chains, . . . a chained cambion radiates pain, rage and frustration. . . . The chains act as a conduit to a cambion's tortured psyche . . . A chained cambion screams its despair within the minds of nearby foes.​

And here is one of its abilities:

Mind shackles (psychic; recharge when first bloodied) Effect: Two enemies adjacent to each other in a close burst 5 are psychically shackled (save ends; each enemy makes a separate saving throw against this effect). While psychically shackled, an enemy takes 10 psychic damage at the start and end of its turn if it isn't adjacent to the other creature that was affected by this power. Aftereffect: The effect persists, and the damage decreases to 5 (save ends).​

The effect of this ability is that the players of the two shackled characters (and thus their PCs) become frustrated, as they must manoeuvre together or else suffer a non-trivial amount of damage. And when one saves but the other hasn't yet, the frustration only grows and becomes asymmetric, tempting one of the players to have their PC abandon the other.

I have seen this ability in play. It is extremely immersive, far more than the narration of the flavour text.

This is how 4e works: it uses the mechanical features of the game to establish and convey a shared fiction. Not every published attempt at this is as strong as the best examples. Some are interesting but in the end a bit too abstract and disconnected (eg the Pact Hag, also in MM3). On the whole, though, it's a distinctive and in my view pretty successful approach to FRPG design.

 

[pemerton]

My range of experience pales in comparison to yours and probably other posters here.

<snip>

Is that range disqualifying?

I don't see it as a matter of being qualified or disqualified. It's more about warranted confidence of judgement, and appropriate curiosity.

If someone who has a fair bit of experience with well-known systems like DitV, DW and AW posts that 4e is - like them - an effective "story now" vehicle (and to remove any doubt, the "someone" I have in mind is @Manbearcat) then what is your basis for asserting or implying that they are wrong?

If it is based on your own experience of 4e play, then perhaps share that. (Although you've just posted that you've not played 4e.) If it's a doubt not based on experience but some a priori intuition, then perhaps explain your doubt.

But I don't see what basis you can have for confidently asserting that the "someone" must be wrong.

That said, I can see how my more facetious posts can come across as aggressive, I'll try to tone that back.

I don't find them aggressive. I just don't understand why you think you can so confidently dismiss others' claims about their own play experiences, on the basis of pure a priori conjecture on your part.

 

[Malmuria]

I don't see it as a matter of being qualified or disqualified. It's more about warranted confidence of judgement, and appropriate curiosity.

It's true! I cannot speak to anyone else's experiences. I can only speak to the way they articulate those experiences. I can see how doing so in a facetious way can come across as judgmental; point taken. My more accurate reaction can be found in post 986, in which I express (earnest) confusion in regards to one particular part of their post, and in 989, in which I pose (non rhetorical) questions about the differences between 4e and 5e in regards to the specific example provided (and provide a separate example).

As to curiosity, it's why I started this thread:

4e design in 5.5e ?

@EzekielRaiden suggested I post this in its own thread, so blame them if this goes off the rails! As 5.5 is announced, it is also clear that 4e is having a moment, due in no small part by Matt Colville's recent advocacy and streaming. I never played 4e, but it seems there are a lot of fans of...

www.enworld.org

(As an aside: There have been a few threads on related topics (GM authority, player agency, etc). I would say it is similarly harsh when others deploy particular (and not agreed-upon) theoretical frame to declare that a game, play style, or practice is, for example, zero agency, or all about GM fiat and control, or even speaks to dictatorial tendencies)

 

[hawkeyefan]

If I did, no one has been able to explain how. Like how is being transparent about 4e mechanics different than being transparent of 5e or even AD&D mechanics? What is the magical pixie dust 4e mechanics have that mechanics of other editions do not?

The transparency is part of it, yes. But it’s also what was shared. How the father and daughter interact mechanically and how that will inform success or failure in trying to save them. The kinds of creatures the kraken and its tentacles count as, and what that implies. Not everything was shared, just things that inform the players about the situation so that they, as players, are similarly informed as their characters.

It’s also about the mechanics themselves. The daughter is a Minion. So are the tentacles. That means they will function in very specific ways, and in the case of the daughter, clearly conveys the danger she is in. The players now have that, and the NPC abilities of the father and the daughter to help inform them of the danger in clear terms that need no interpretation or clarification.

Also, and alternate solution to the problem is presented. The players know that trying to get the pair out of the lake is a skill challenge. So they can weigh their options and determine the best way forward.

Then there’s also the bit where the scenario and sharing the mechanics was only one of the four points included that, when combined, lessen the chance for railroading and make it incredibly obvious when it happens. All of these things working in conjunction is the actual point.

What word? I have not said that I am unfamiliar with 4e, I have played crap ton of it, far more than 5e.

Here. You literally said you don’t know what this has to do with story now or railroading.

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

So if you don’t even get what it has to do with story now or railroading, then how can you comfortably say another system will perform equally?

And if you think providing answer to that question would show error of my ways, why did you not do that instead of tone policing?

Are you actually open to discussion? To the possibility that someone who took the time to post examples that actually display the ideas he’s talking about might actually have a point?

Your posts didn’t seem to indicate that was the case, so I responded in kind. If I’m mistaken, then let me know and I’ll gladly discuss. Though I have a hard time imagining that I’ll be able to say more than has already been said.

 

[pemerton]

I think where I get confused is how "situation framing" doesn't take on the character of high DM authority in a dnd context.

Authority over what part of the fiction?

The framing? Well, yes - 4e D&D is oriented towards GM authority over framing. In this way it resembles (say) Burning Wheel or DitV and does not resemble (say) classic D&D used to play Tomb of Horrors or Keep on the Borderlands.

@Manbearcat has explained the principles that govern the GM's exercise of scene-framing authority: locating that with system-and-player established themes; and within the context of player-authored quests. It's no surprise that these are similar constraints, operating in similar ways, to those that are used in systems like BW or DitV.

What mechanism in 4e keeps that playstyle from completely being DM fiat?

What differentiates that playstyle and a sandbox style?

What I am attempting to point out is that with no prep and no mechanism to rely on for determining how your improv should go, that ultimately you have nothing to base your in play GM decisions on - they are completely fiat. I question whether a gamestyle that is based on complete GM fiat can appropriately be called Story Now.

<snip>

If skill challenges are an answer to my criticism your not doing a good job of explaining how.

A sandbox, as I understand it and as I believe @Manbearcat understands it, depends upon the GM establishing a relatively large amount of setting/backstory in advance. The players, in play, declare actions - especially actions of the form We go to such-and-such a place and We look at such-and-such a thing - and in response to these declarations the GM (i) provides the players with information that the GM takes from their notes, and/or (ii) frames the PCs into scenes/situations that were latent in those notes, but become "activated" in virtue of the PCs turning up at, and/or looking into, that place.

The best-known model/example of this sort of thing is a classic map-and-key dungeon, and the quintessential example of an action declaration that triggers the "activation" of a situation hitherto latent in the GM's notes is We open the door - what do we see?

Another feature of this sort of approach is that the pre-authored backstory provides answers to action resolution beyond the activation of hitherto latent situations. Eg if the GM has described a table, and the players say We look under the table to see if anything is hidden there, the GM generally responds to that action declaration by reading of their notes. (Because notes often run out, especially for minor details, many GMs have a range of techniques used for off-the-cuff extrapolation eg random charts to see what is in a kitchen drawer, or making something up with the goal that it be colourful and entertaining - eg Under the table you see some crudely scratched graffiti - "Shagrat sucks goat b___s" - but not be misleading or confusing vis-a-vis the rest of the fiction the GM has prepared in their notes.

Some of the most classic D&D modules are written to be approached in this style: S1 (ToH), S2 (WPM), C1 (Hidden Shrine), C2 (Ghost Tower), B2 (KotB), T1 (Hommlet and the Moathouse), etc.

Now @Manbearcat has said that he is running 4e No Myth. No Myth is normally used to describe an approach to RPGing that puts situation and characters first, and relies on extrapolation from these, as they combine in framing and in resolution, to establish backstory and setting. And I'm guessing that's how Manbearcat is using the phrase in this thread. And this is clearly quite different from a sandbox approach.

As I stated earlier in this post, Manbearcat has made it pretty clear what principles are governing his approach to framing scenes. 4e has super-robust mechanics for resolving the actions that players declare for their PCs once a scene is framed, whether via combat or non-combat (skill challenges in this latter case). My view is that 4e is at its mechanically weakest (which is not to say that it is any weaker than any other version of D&D, and I think clearly stronger than AD&D or 3E in this respect) when combat and non-combat intersect, because the maths does not integrate perfectly. But I know from experience - having read Manbearcat's extensive posts about his 4e play, and having played 4e with him as GM - that he has developed various ways of coping with this weak point of the system.

I think the way in which 4e's combat resolution produces outcomes without GM fiat is fairly clear. Skill challenges seem to be more opaque to many people - in my experience, mostly those who have not encountered the idea of "closed scene resolution" in other RPGs like HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, Burning Wheel, Marvel Heroic RP, DitV, etc.

A skill challenge puts two constraints on a GM. (1) Until the requisite number of successes or failures has been achieved, the GM is obliged to narrate consequences that keep the challenge alive. (2) The GM's narration of consequences must respect the fact that any given check is a success or a failure. It is through the operation of these two constraints, as actions are declared and resolved and the situation unfolds, that new fiction is established and complications and revelations unfold. They are outputs of the resolution process, not inputs as they are in resolution that draws upon pre-authored setting/backstory.

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.

My view, which I stated upthread to at best modest acclaim, is this:

I've run AD&D quite successfully using shared backstory authority (especially in PC build, but also the GM taking suggestions from players on the way through) and GM authority over situation/scene-framing.

I don't see why 5e D&D couldn't be run the same way if a group wanted to do so.

4e defaults to significant player authority over backstory - eg via player-authored quests. This sort of thing could, in my view, be fairly easily introduced into 5e D&D. But as I understand it, 5e does not have an analogue to skill challenge resolution; and as far as combat resolution is concerned, I think it is widely recognised that it's default is not as intricate as 4e D&D, which means it provides less support for the generation of fiction via the process of resolution. In both these respects, it's much closer to AD&D.

Therefore, I would expect No Myth 5e based on shared backstory authority and placing situation and character first to play fairly similarly to AD&D played in the same fashion. It will be a bit more rickety than 4e is, and probably at some points a bit more recourse to consensus rather than resolution mechanics to deal with that. And combat will be less of a source of compelling fiction than it can be in 4e.

And if someone were to aske me, what are the pressure points in 5e that are absent from both 4e and AD&D, I would have two answers: the first is that character abilities that do not just enhance stat/skill resolution, but seemingly rely on engaging with established background material - eg Ranger's Favoured Terrain; Folk Hero's Rustic Hospitality - become a bit trickier in no myth play without a skill-challenge like structure to feed them into; second, whereas AD&D and 4e both default to fixed DCs out of combat (either stat numbers or thief skill numbers or the like in AD&D; level-by-DC chart in 4), 5e requires the GM to set the DC.

Those pressure points needn't be fatal. But I think someone GMing No Myth 5 D&D would want to keep an eye on them.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

Situation framing and consequence handling is one of the primary responsibilities of GMing across all games. The only areas where situation framing is offloaded onto system or player is in a scenario like Dogs' Initiation Conflict (where the player authors the situation framing - "a kicker" - and the GM merely plays the antagonism) or an "ask questions and use the answers" scenario in PBtA games or in a high level D&D spellcaster's repertoire ("I'm using this divination spell for recon and now I'm using this teleportation spell; boom - we're in the Baron's chambers and he's totally not ready for us") or something like an Adjuration Ritual in 4e (we're exorcising this demon-possessed Paladin so integrate the SC mechanics with the combat mechanics) etc.

In Blades, players have lots of input on situation framing when it comes to Scores via what transpires in Information Gathering and the approach to the Score. What transpires in Info Gathering (both the fiction and how that fiction turns into an Engagement Roll and the attendant result) + Score type + Detail + Engagement Roll constrain the GM significantly in their situation framing (see my post above that depicts that winnowing of decision-tree).

Across all Story Now games, whether they're Sorcerer or My Life With Master or whatever, they have the following in common when it comes to situation framing:

* You're playing to find out. What is happening right now is not something that was scripted. There is no plot. So this conflict and this obstacle isn't Story Before. Its an emergent consequences, spun out of following the breadcrumbs of all prior play + fidelity to the game's principles.

* Everything that is onscreen is about the premise of play, which is about one dramatic need or another of a PC or the PCs at large. There is no table time devoted to conflict/theme/premise-neutral content. Something is always at stake and that something orbits one or more PCs.

* These games are pretty much exclusively table-facing from premise to procedures to system architecture that facilitates the flow from situation framing > player orientation > player action declaration > resolution > consequence.

---

So where/how does GM authority over situation get constrained in D&D?

* When the conflict resolution mechanics generate finality (see the conversation of "win cons" which you appear to disagree with) such that the honored output of the conflict must feed directly into subsequent framing. You've killed the dude? The dude's dead. You've opened the portal and entered it to get into the Feywild? You're there. You've saved the daughter and the father? They're grateful and now you can parley with mechanical advantage (and remember above...they're going to be relevant to some PC dramatic need). Etc etc.

The dudes' not dead. You're not there. The father and daughter hate you and/or they're aren't relevant to PC dramatic need.

All of those are badwronguttercrap Story Now GMing. They're against the rules, principles, agenda, ethos of play.

* When the conflict resolution mechanics and action resolution mechanics are table-facing so when they generate finality, everyone at the table knows for sure that the GM is honoring the output of the conflict (which then must feed directly into subsequent framing).

* When play is formalized such that PC dramatic need is what play orbits around (eg Quests + Theme in Heroic Tier of 4e).

* When players actually have resources to call upon that outright dictate to the GM (rather than just influence) what the framing will be. "I have this Ranger ability that lets me bypass this perilous journey...so we're not trekking, we're at the town/tower/cabin/portal (whathaveyou)." "I'm adjuring the possessed Paladin...we aren't killing him." "I'm reconning and then porting us into the sanctum of bad guy x." "I'm whipping out Tiny Hut so we've got an LOLExtended Rest please and thank you." "When I'm in trouble from the law and on the run, the salt-of-the-earth folks hereabouts will take us in...we head straight for that big barn where the farmer is milking the cows..."

Etc.


Each of those things individually constrain or circumvent GM authority over situation framing. Together, they work in concert, to winnow a GM's decision-space further.