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

[Lanefan]

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.

It's that the specific information has been shared, where that specific information wouldn't yet be known in the fiction.

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.

When you've never seen any of the father, daughter, or Kraken before and thus have no idea what makes any of them tick beyond the obvious (e.g. she's small, the beast has tentacles and can swim), why do you expect to be told exactly what their mechanics are?

The father, for example, could be a common-joe fisher or a 3rd-level Fighter in the army or a 12th-level Wizard who's retired to raise his kid; but until he does something other than row a boat you have no way of telling.

The daughter could be a polymorphed demon that the father has just summoned the Kraken to devour; you can't tell.

And in older editions where illusion spells were actually useful, the whole damn scene could be somebody's afternoon entertainment.

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 don't see these things as an either-or. I generally prefer the mechanics stay out of sight until they're forced to rear their ugly heads, but I also tend to dislike being railroaded and can usually tell if-when it's happening.

It's the same way I view cars. I love driving the things but I've no real clue - and don't much care - what goes on under the hood as long as it runs reliably and gets me where I want to go.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Right. I get why players knowing the tactical information lets player make more informed decisions (though some of them will be meta decisions) and why being transparent about mechanics lessens the opportunities for GM to use GM fiat secretly. This is no different than GM rolling openly vs rolling behind GM screen. But at least in this particular instance this has nothing to do with 4e mechanics in particular. The same would be true for any mechanic.

Now it indeed could be argued that there are a bit more PC rules in 4e that let the players dictate what is happening, but these usually are not significantly different than spells traditionally are in D&D. It's just that in 4e there are quite a bit of non-spell powers that let the player just declare 'this happens,' like spells in D&D often do. But it the mechanic in itself is not anything particularly revolutionary. Furthermore, a lot of the effects, including 4e spell effects, are way tamer than what most powerful spells can achieve in other editions.

Now if people like the sort of game style where players are focused on making tactical decisions based on meta knowledge, then by all means, go for it. I don't care for that.

Furthermore, I don't consider 'making sure the GM doesn't use fiat' to be of any value. I don't care, and frankly I don't quite get why so many people seem to care so much. Get immersed in the situation. 'forget' it is a game. How exactly the GM makes their decisions is immaterial, you don't know, you don't need to know, and your characters doesn't even know there is a GM that they're a character in a game! As long as the situation appears believable and produces engaging fiction when the characters interact with it, it is all good.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right. I get why players knowing the tactical information lets player make more informed decisions (though some of them will be meta decisions) and why being transparent about mechanics lessens the opportunities for GM to use GM fiat secretly. This is no different than GM rolling openly vs rolling behind GM screen. But at least in this particular instance this has nothing to do with 4e mechanics in particular. The same would be true for any mechanic.

If I wanted to impart that the tentacles are very dangerous but have 1 hitpoint in 5e, how would I do that? Is that even a thing that one can do in 5e without engaging fiat?

4e has structures that enable certain kinds of genre logic that are utterly absent in other versions of D&D. It actually has many of these. So, no, it's not just a matter of open mechanics, it's a matter of how those mechanics actually encode fiction and constrain play.

Now it indeed could be argued that there are a bit more PC rules in 4e that let the players dictate what is happening, but these usually are not significantly different than spells traditionally are in D&D. It's just that in 4e there are quite a bit of non-spell powers that let the player just declare 'this happens,' like spells in D&D often do. But it the mechanic in itself is not anything particularly revolutionary. Furthermore, a lot of the effects, including 4e spell effects, are way tamer than what most powerful spells can achieve in other editions.

Now if people like the sort of game style where players are focused on making tactical decisions based on meta knowledge, then by all means, go for it. I don't care for that.

Again, the argument that this is meta knowledge is bupkis. It's concise but it clearly situates the fictional situation for the player, which is the opposite of being meta or being anti-immersive. The argument here is one of form, not function. The exact same information, conveyed in flowery prose, would not be taken amiss. The reason for the concise relation is that it reduces odds of miscommunication by players as the GM gives a long description of things, trying to explain how the father is ready to defend the little girl or how the little girl darts and scrambles around the gunwales.

Furthermore, I don't consider 'making sure the GM doesn't use fiat' to be of any value. I don't care, and frankly I don't quite get why so many people seem to care so much. Get immersed in the situation. 'forget' it is a game. How exactly the GM makes their decisions is immaterial, you don't know, you don't need to know, and your characters doesn't even know there is a GM that they're a character in a game! As long as the situation appears believable and produces engaging fiction when the characters interact with it, it is all good.

It's perfectly fine if you prefer that the GM just decide how things work according to how the GM wants them to work so long as the result is entertaining for you. You should recognize, though, that others can disagree. And, when the question is how does that latter thing work, responding to the answers by dismissing them because you don't want that thing is, well, it's not a great look because it shows you were never interested in engaging the answer.

 

[Campbell]

We're mostly GMs here. So let's talk based on that assumption.

From my perspective transparent player facing mechanics are more important to me when I GM rather than when I play a character.

• They let me sit back and watch the unfolding narrative from time to time. I get to see what's going to happen and just like experience it.
• They remove the temptation to take too much of an active hand in play process.
• They help me to just focus on playing out the world with integrity instead of constantly being responsible for how things turn out.
• They cut off social pressure from players to fudge the dice or railroad. Players understand I have no ability to intervene so they know not to expect me to.
• The tension feels real and pulpable to both me and the people I am playing with because it is real.

Most of the commentary here seems to presuppose that transparent player facing mechanics are something being imposed on GMs rather than something GMs value themselves. Some of us like the constraints more transparent systems put in place.

For my part what I value when I am a player rather than a GM is more the sort of GM mentality that tends to come alongside more transparent systems. I value GMs who come at play from a perspective of curiosity rather than wanting to impose their vision. I value GMs who are fans of the player characters and deeply interested them rather than those who have a strong connection to the setting material they create. It just usually happens that GMs who run their games in more transparent ways also share my values on a number of other fronts.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If I wanted to impart that the tentacles are very dangerous but have 1 hitpoint in 5e, how would I do that? Is that even a thing that one can do in 5e without engaging fiat?

I mean considering that the GM can assign any enemies any stats they want, that's not very hard. Not that having easily killable but hard hitting enemies is in any way related to player agency. It is just mechanical thing the game may or may not have.

4e has structures that enable certain kinds of genre logic that are utterly absent in other versions of D&D. It actually has many of these. So, no, it's not just a matter of open mechanics, it's a matter of how those mechanics actually encode fiction and constrain play.

You need to actually show what the difference is rather than claim that it magically is there. And yes, the mechanics of the different editions support somewhat different sort of genre logic. But again, this has nothing to do with agency. You can be open about any sort of mechanics.

Again, the argument that this is meta knowledge is bupkis. It's concise but it clearly situates the fictional situation for the player, which is the opposite of being meta or being anti-immersive. The argument here is one of form, not function. The exact same information, conveyed in flowery prose, would not be taken amiss. The reason for the concise relation is that it reduces odds of miscommunication by players as the GM gives a long description of things, trying to explain how the father is ready to defend the little girl or how the little girl darts and scrambles around the gunwales.

I think @Lanefan has already explained his very effectively. The example given assumes characters having rather bizarre level of perfect knowledge of situation. It also prevents them learning the situation organically like a real person would.

It's perfectly fine if you prefer that the GM just decide how things work according to how the GM wants them to work so long as the result is entertaining for you. You should recognize, though, that others can disagree. And, when the question is how does that latter thing work, responding to the answers by dismissing them because you don't want that thing is, well, it's not a great look because it shows you were never interested in engaging the answer.

The last bit was more about the the whole topic of the whole thread, more than about this specific example. And yeah, I don't get the obsession about thought policing the GM. Think less about what the GM thinks and more about what your character would think.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

We're mostly GMs here. So let's talk based on that assumption.

From my perspective transparent player facing mechanics are more important to me when I GM rather than when I play a character.

• They let me sit back and watch the unfolding narrative from time to time. I get to see what's going to happen and just like experience it.
• They remove the temptation to take too much of an active hand in play process.
• They help me to just focus on playing out the world with integrity instead of constantly being responsible for how things turn out.
• They cut off social pressure from players to fudge the dice or railroad. Players understand I have no ability to intervene so they know not to expect me to.
• The tension feels real and pulpable to both me and the people I am playing with because it is real.

Most of the commentary here seems to presuppose that transparent player facing mechanics are something being imposed on GMs rather than something GMs value themselves. Some of us like the constraints more transparent systems put in place.

For my part what I value when I am a player rather than a GM is more the sort of GM mentality that tends to come alongside more transparent systems. I value GMs who come at play from a perspective of curiosity rather than wanting to impose their vision. I value GMs who are fans of the player characters and deeply interested them rather than those who have a strong connection to the setting material they create. It just usually happens that GMs who run their games in more transparent ways also share my values on a number of other fronts.

You know what? Good post and I actually mostly agree. Whilst GMing a mutable illusionised world can be one sort of challenge and fun, more fiat the GM uses less surprising the emergent narrative will be for them. I definitely recognise this. In my current campaign I have actually been pretty strict about letting the dice fall where they may and sticking to my prep. And it means in many ways I am not in charge of how the situation unfolds and thus it can be surprising to me as well. As GM I love the moments when things go into totally unexpected directions.

But at the same time I recognise that this mostly matters just for me. The players mostly don't know or care how the things run behind the curtains. So from player perspective I am really not that fussed how things are done. Different GMs think differently and have their own methods of getting the best results.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I mean considering that the GM can assign any enemies any stats they want, that's not very hard. Not that having easily killable but hard hitting enemies is in any way related to player agency. It is just mechanical thing the game may or may not have.

Yes, this leans to the "ignore system directions and just do whatever you want" argument I clearly indicated. Good to know I was on target.

The moment we're just tossing system in favor of making up whatever to do whatever, we're no longer talking about how a given system supports anything, but rather how we, as people, can just make things up. 5e has clear guidelines for creation of monsters, and you've clearly indicated that you will ignore them. Having a discussion about how different systems do different things when you're just going to ignore your preferred system and substitute in whatever you want doesn't make for an actual discussion -- it's just you asserting fiat.

You need to actually show what the difference is rather than claim that it magically is there. And yes, the mechanics of the different editions support somewhat different sort of genre logic. But again, this has nothing to do with agency. You can be open about any sort of mechanics.

You mean, like, minion rules, or paragon paths, or power sources, or powers that directly invoke genre concepts? These have been all over the thread -- did I need to reiterate them every single time for you when discussing the example that leverages them or the ensuing discussion that includes them?

I think @Lanefan has already explained his very effectively. The example given assumes characters having rather bizarre level of perfect knowledge of situation. It also prevents them learning the situation organically like a real person would.

Really? Let's examine that knowledge --
Tentacles are minions -- the dangerous tentacles whip around, clearly capable of inflicting serious damage or grabbing things, but no thick or rubbery enough that a single sharp blow will cripple/sever one. Huh, yeah, that's certainly perfect knowledge that you can't get elsewise.

The girl is a minion -- a little girl, clearly in danger, scrambles around the boat dodging tentacles. She looks frail enough to be in mortal peril if one hits her. Oh noes! More perfect information about the situation that you can't get elsewise!

The dad's statblock -- the dad is clearly capable of defending themselves, and it very committed to putting themselves in between the grasping tentacles and his daughter. Man, this perfect knowledge is just unavoidable stuff!

So, yeah, there's no perfect knowledge or things the PCs just cannot know here. It's a matter of form, not function, but you keep trying to argue there's a functional problem here. It's bupkis.

The last bit was more about the the whole topic of the whole thread, more than about this specific example. And yeah, I don't get the obsession about thought policing the GM. Think less about what the GM thinks and more about what your character would think.

That's certainly a take. I guess, then, a pure railroad is fine so long as the GM only dribbles out information such that the character is kept in the dark enough, yes? Just sit there and listen to the GM's storytime! That's the reductio of this argument. So, no, there's clearly more here that you're eliding in favor of this trite argument.

 

[billd91]

Yes, this leans to the "ignore system directions and just do whatever you want" argument I clearly indicated. Good to know I was on target.

Page 274 of the 5e DMG pretty much says you're wrong.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, this leans to the "ignore system directions and just do whatever you want" argument I clearly indicated. Good to know I was on target.

The moment we're just tossing system in favor of making up whatever to do whatever, we're no longer talking about how a given system supports anything, but rather how we, as people, can just make things up. 5e has clear guidelines for creation of monsters, and you've clearly indicated that you will ignore them. Having a discussion about how different systems do different things when you're just going to ignore your preferred system and substitute in whatever you want doesn't make for an actual discussion -- it's just you asserting fiat.

I don't think there are readymade statblocks in 4e for tentacles either. I might be wrong. But in 5e the creature resilience/offence ratio is not fixed. There are some creatures that are more glass cannony, some that are more tanky. So having hard hitting but not so resilient enemy is definitely a thing that is perfectly within the spirit of 5e monster design. Though again, having or not having such enemies has absolutely nothing to do with player agency, so I have no clue why you're even talking about it.

You mean, like, minion rules, or paragon paths, or power sources, or powers that directly invoke genre concepts? These have been all over the thread -- did I need to reiterate them every single time for you when discussing the example that leverages them or the ensuing discussion that includes them?

Yes, these are things in 4. What they have to do with player agency? Anyone can list random things from a game.

Really? Let's examine that knowledge --
Tentacles are minions -- the dangerous tentacles whip around, clearly capable of inflicting serious damage or grabbing things, but no thick or rubbery enough that a single sharp blow will cripple/sever one. Huh, yeah, that's certainly perfect knowledge that you can't get elsewise.

The girl is a minion -- a little girl, clearly in danger, scrambles around the boat dodging tentacles. She looks frail enough to be in mortal peril if one hits her. Oh noes! More perfect information about the situation that you can't get elsewise!

And that se has some dodge power? Why would you know that? And whilst it is indeed reasonable to assume that little girls are not resilient, technically the characters would just know that she looks like one.

The dad's statblock -- the dad is clearly capable of defending themselves, and it very committed to putting themselves in between the grasping tentacles and his daughter. Man, this perfect knowledge is just unavoidable stuff!

Why would you know his capabilities? Why would you know his disposition? Why would you even know he's the girl's dad? Maybe he's a priest of Cthulhu, who has lured the girl there on false pretences to sacrifice her to the tentacle monster? You don't know!

So, yeah, there's no perfect knowledge or things the PCs just cannot know here. It's a matter of form, not function, but you keep trying to argue there's a functional problem here. It's bupkis.

Let's assume for a moment that the GM would want to create situation like this, except that there actually is some surprise. The girl actually is a powerful chosen of the Elder Gods, controlling the tentacle monster, and 'father' likewise is her mind controlled puppet. This is actually a trap to lure the characters in. How would you present that then, if the usual practice is to list everything openly, whether the charters could actually know it or not? In fiction everything looks the same, yet now you cannot provide the same mechanical information (or if you do, it is a lie.) This clearly demonstrates that there is massive disconnect between the mechanical information and what the characters would actually know.

That's certainly a take. I guess, then, a pure railroad is fine so long as the GM only dribbles out information such that the character is kept in the dark enough, yes? Just sit there and listen to the GM's storytime! That's the reductio of this argument. So, no, there's clearly more here that you're eliding in favor of this trite argument.

I mean if the GM was actually so skilled illusionist and railroader that I didn't at any moment feel railroaded then it indeed would be perfectly fine. Now in practice it is extremely unlikely that a GM could do this, and the easiest way to not have the players feel that they're railroaded is to not railroad them! But yeah, how it appears is what matters, not how it was actually done.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Page 274 of the 5e DMG pretty much says you're wrong.

Sure, elaborate, then. How does that work? Let's get into the process and you show how p274 (the monster creation rules which does have an entry for 0 CR defensive level with 1 hitpoint) effectively creates 4e minions.