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

[Malmuria]

Story before is not about notes. Apocalypse World uses notes - fronts, threats, associated clocks, etc - but is a "story now" game. (The acknowledgements page even says that the whole follows from Edwards's "Story Now" essay. Perhaps that's an overstatement but it tells us something about how Baker views his game.)


Story before is about pre-authorship of plot, of resolution. @FrogReaver's example of the PC striking a deal with the faction looks to me like story before, because it seems to me that the options for that interaction are already foreclosed - either the PC walks away, or the PC agrees to raid the outpost - and then the GM pulls out the outpost maps and notes they just happened to have ready-to-hand! Of course I can't say this for sure, because @FrogReaver's example didn't describe how any of the fiction was actually established, so I'm conjecturing based on a general sense of how D&D is often played.

That's what I thought...I got confused because you seemed to be using the example of a gm checking notes to index a particular kind of game, but maybe that was just a correlation. Should your usage of the term backstory be taken to be a synonym, or at least congruent, with plot and resolution? This is confusing to me with regards to a sandbox, because as a dm I've set up the "backstory" without thinking about how that might be engaged with by the players. For example, I might set up 4 factions, with different goals, wants, and relationships, and the PCs can engage with them or not as they want. The temporal dimension is also important: hex 23 might contain the lizardfolk lair, but that faction isn't just waiting around, static, until the PCs get to them; ideally, they are operating in the background that I can track using a faction turn. All of this can be subject to randomness via dice. I agree that "backstory" is central insofar as the world exists independently from the characters; they can have hooks into it from their backstories, but it doesn't revolve around them. They can choose to sit in the tavern all day, and the world would still change without their intervention.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Doesn't matter if the rolls are hidden or open if you're honest about the results; and sheer convenience has me rolling behind the screen as it's easier to reach. That said, if the players decided their PCs were going to do nothing but stand off and watch I could always get them to roll for the Kraken and-or the boat occupants.

I feel you've missed the point almost entirely.

Here's the thing. If the rolls are hidden, then you are much more able to manipulate the results one way or the other. Would you agree with this basic fact?

If the rolls are made in the open, then it becomes significantly more difficult to manipulate the results. The die is right there for all to see.

Now, take this very basic idea of transparency....where things are openly shared and not hidden from players....and apply it to the game in other ways.

The result is less chance for the GM to steer things in some way.

Or guess.

Is there a stricture saying this shared information has to be accurate?

Only if you want the players to be operating under similar conditions to their characters....that they can trust what they know of the world and what their senses tell them.

What's to be gained by keeping them in the dark about it?

I mean....do you want to see some PCs fight the kraken and try to save the father and daughter, or do you want the players to have to perpetually tease information out of you?

Unless he's in uniform, what visually differentiates a soldier from anyone else who either knows how to swing a sword or knows how to make it look good?

I'd have to ask @Manbearcat to be sure, but I think the way he used "Soldier" was more about the type of NPC rather than about specifically being a soldier in the fiction, although certainly the NPC could be both.

The fact that the NPC was a trained combatant was likely clear from his gear and use of a weapon, and the fact that he'd so far managed to keep him and his daughter safe from the kraken's tentacles. Why would you assume he's some bumpkin under those circumstances?

Such extreme hypotheticals have happened, and in not too different a situation.

Played situation: party reaches a lake. The far shore of the lake is crawling with demons (this is why the party are here, to assess their strength and numbers and report back). On the lake is a harmless-looking slightly-older guy in a rowboat with a fishing pole and a line in the water; seemingly safe where he is. Party think they should check and make sure he's OK, but get distracted by something or other (attention span was not their strong suit!) and then forget about him; when they remember later and look, he's gone.

The PCs carry on, and on later finding the rowboat abandoned on the shore they just assume the demons got the guy.

I don't see what light this sheds on anything.

If you're meaning that sometimes situations may not be what they appear to be, that's fine, and you can still portray that. There's nothing that stops you from doing so if that would make for an interesting situation or challenge.

In the case of the example being discussed, it would seem that possibility wasn't really a concern. The GM wanted to present the PCs with a potential call to action, and so he described the situation and the stakes.

If it's subtle enough that I don't notice it and the game is otherwise a good time, I've no reason to care.

This has come up a few times now, from a few different people.

Why is subtle force okay but unsubtle force is not? It implies that the important matter is how deftly the GM applies it.

If you have two players and one blatantly alters his dice roll....like, he just reaches across the table and turns the die from a 3 to a 20 and yells "I CRIT!" that's bad. But the second player rolls his die on a book and then pokes the book to get the die to roll to another number, that's okay because it was sneakier?

No....they're both cheating.

And there's times when even an obvious railroad can make for a better game. It just needs to be done sparingly.

Okay. When? Do you have a specific example from play where railroading the players improved things?

 

[Lanefan]

I don’t know what to say about this. I can’t make you care that something billed as one thing was secretly another all along. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to do something like play a game and know how the game works, for that to not be a mystery to the participants.

This is the only (!) regret I have about having become a DM: it forced me to look under the hood. Before that the game was a wonderful mystery - I'd tell the DM what my character was trying to do, some dice would fly behind the screen for no reason I knew of, and I'd be told what happened.

And I loved it that way!

As a player I hate knowing what goes on behind the DM screen; but as I can't un-learn my DM experience every Saturday night when I play, I'm kinda stuck with it. Making it all player-facing would be ten times worse!

 

[Lanefan]

I feel you've missed the point almost entirely.

Here's the thing. If the rolls are hidden, then you are much more able to manipulate the results one way or the other. Would you agree with this basic fact?

If the rolls are made in the open, then it becomes significantly more difficult to manipulate the results. The die is right there for all to see.

Now, take this very basic idea of transparency....where things are openly shared and not hidden from players....and apply it to the game in other ways.

The result is less chance for the GM to steer things in some way.

If the DM is honest enough not to fudge the rolls it doesn't matter. Beyond that, the DM is allowed to have ideas as to what happens next just as much as the players are - she's not a robot or a CPU - and as she knows more about the unexplored setting it's juuuust possible her ideas might be worth a bit more?

Only if you want the players to be operating under similar conditions to their characters....that they can trust what they know of the world and what their senses tell them.

What's to be gained by keeping them in the dark about it?

I mean....do you want to see some PCs fight the kraken and try to save the father and daughter, or do you want the players to have to perpetually tease information out of you?

I don't care what the PCs do about the Kraken or the boat occupants. My job is to throw the scene at them and stop there. Their job is to decide what to do with that scene, whereupon my job is to react accordingly to what they do and run (or adjudicate) whatever happens next.

I'd have to ask @Manbearcat to be sure, but I think the way he used "Soldier" was more about the type of NPC rather than about specifically being a soldier in the fiction, although certainly the NPC could be both.

The fact that the NPC was a trained combatant was likely clear from his gear and use of a weapon, and the fact that he'd so far managed to keep him and his daughter safe from the kraken's tentacles. Why would you assume he's some bumpkin under those circumstances?

If the combat's already in progress and the father is holding his own then yes, it's clear he's either hella lucky or he knows what he's doing. But until the combat starts and-or the PCs can see any of this, they know nothing.

I don't see what light this sheds on anything.

If you're meaning that sometimes situations may not be what they appear to be, that's fine, and you can still portray that. There's nothing that stops you from doing so if that would make for an interesting situation or challenge.

How, though, if I'm expected to give out the mechanical info at scene-set?

I deliberately left off the punch line in my rowboat-and-demons example: the harmless-looking guy in the rowboat was a divine minion (equivalent of an angel) summoned by someone's prayer to - just like the PCs - size up the demons and assess their threat; and at the time would have been the single most powerful being any of those PCs had ever met. His presence was also the reason the demons were only on the far shore of the lake and hadn't advanced further.

But from the players' (and PCs') point of view he was just some random local, and an encounter that they (unintentionally) avoided.

This has come up a few times now, from a few different people.

Why is subtle force okay but unsubtle force is not? It implies that the important matter is how deftly the GM applies it.

If you have two players and one blatantly alters his dice roll....like, he just reaches across the table and turns the die from a 3 to a 20 and yells "I CRIT!" that's bad. But the second player rolls his die on a book and then pokes the book to get the die to roll to another number, that's okay because it was sneakier?

No....they're both cheating.

Agreed.

Which brings us to the next obvious question: is use of force cheating?

And I'll stop there; I saw the can-DMs-cheat debate once already this year and can do without a repeat.

Okay. When? Do you have a specific example from play where railroading the players improved things?

Game I played in, years ago. Party was in a dungeon looking for the second of a series of items needed for [reasons]; this the second adventure in a 5-adventure arc embedded within a bigger campaign. At one point our lightning-happy MU put a bolt into a creature guarding a treasure room; the bolt extended into the room and shattered the item - a crystal - we were there for!

After that adventure we were fairly-obviously railroaded to the site of the next one (I suspect in part because our drunken bunch of fools had taken so damn long to find the last one!); and doing anything else was not really an option. Further, there "just happened" to be someone there who could magically repair the shattered crystal, without which we couldn't complete the overall quest.

Result: some wonderful fun adventuring followed, none of which happens without that ride on the railroad.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is the only (!) regret I have about having become a DM: it forced me to look under the hood. Before that the game was a wonderful mystery - I'd tell the DM what my character was trying to do, some dice would fly behind the screen for no reason I knew of, and I'd be told what happened.

And I loved it that way!

As a player I hate knowing what goes on behind the DM screen; but as I can't un-learn my DM experience every Saturday night when I play, I'm kinda stuck with it. Making it all player-facing would be ten times worse!

I admit that I'm a bit stumped on how to address someone so proudly taking the blue pill.

I mean, ultimately, I would say to try a new game. But for some reason I expect that idea would get shot down right quick.

If the DM is honest enough not to fudge the rolls it doesn't matter.

It does matter. The players are more secure in the fact that the rolls are not being altered. And more importantly, as I mentioned in my last post, take this basic idea of transparency and then apply it to other areas of the game.

Beyond that, the DM is allowed to have ideas as to what happens next just as much as the players are - she's not a robot or a CPU - and as she knows more about the unexplored setting it's juuuust possible her ideas might be worth a bit more?

I don't see how anything I said would remove the GM's ability to have ideas about what happens next. Their ideas need to be constrained by what's been established, though, that's something I think must be the case.

As for a GM's ideas being worth more...I'd say no, not at all. I'd place them of equal value to any other participant's. It's a group activity and everyone's enjoyment and contributions matter equally.

I don't care what the PCs do about the Kraken or the boat occupants. My job is to throw the scene at them and stop there. Their job is to decide what to do with that scene, whereupon my job is to react accordingly to what they do and run (or adjudicate) whatever happens next.

So they can fight the kraken or they can leave, sure. That's true of either approach, right?

What you're advocating for, from my perspective, is not really either. It's some middle ground where the players have to waste time on learning enough in order to make the interesting decision. So just skip all that nonsense and get to the fun stuff, or else move on. Give them the information that they need to decide how to proceed, and then proceed.

If the combat's already in progress and the father is holding his own then yes, it's clear he's either hella lucky or he knows what he's doing. But until the combat starts and-or the PCs can see any of this, they know nothing.

They came upon the scene described. I expect there was a bit more description than was in the post that was made, but either way....the action was already under way.

Let me ask you this; would you have any problem if the GM said the below?

"You can tell this guy knows what he's doing. He's protecting the girl very well, and managing to fend off the tentacles. He's clearly a competent swordsman. But it's only a matter of time until he's done."

My guess is you would not. So then I don't see the problem with sharing some mechanical bits that clearly define that description into the language of the game.

How, though, if I'm expected to give out the mechanical info at scene-set?

I deliberately left off the punch line in my rowboat-and-demons example: the harmless-looking guy in the rowboat was a divine minion (equivalent of an angel) summoned by someone's prayer to - just like the PCs - size up the demons and assess their threat; and at the time would have been the single most powerful being any of those PCs had ever met. His presence was also the reason the demons were only on the far shore of the lake and hadn't advanced further.

But from the players' (and PCs') point of view he was just some random local, and an encounter that they (unintentionally) avoided.

Cool, thanks for sharing a deliberately incomplete example. Now that I have the missing information, I still don't think this sheds any light on the matter.

I don't think that one must always share such information. However, I think the reasons to not do so have to be far more compelling than your old man in the boat.

Agreed.

Which brings us to the next obvious question: is use of force cheating?

And I'll stop there; I saw the can-DMs-cheat debate once already this year and can do without a repeat.

If you agree, then I don't see why you're okay with subtle Force but not unsubtle Force.

Game I played in, years ago. Party was in a dungeon looking for the second of a series of items needed for [reasons]; this the second adventure in a 5-adventure arc embedded within a bigger campaign. At one point our lightning-happy MU put a bolt into a creature guarding a treasure room; the bolt extended into the room and shattered the item - a crystal - we were there for!

After that adventure we were fairly-obviously railroaded to the site of the next one (I suspect in part because our drunken bunch of fools had taken so damn long to find the last one!); and doing anything else was not really an option. Further, there "just happened" to be someone there who could magically repair the shattered crystal, without which we couldn't complete the overall quest.

Result: some wonderful fun adventuring followed, none of which happens without that ride on the railroad.

But you might have had something as fun or even better if the GM had honored the events of the game and the destruction of the maguffin led to something entirely different and unexpected instead of "well there's three more stops after this one.....so everybody back on the train!!!!"

It's impossible to say, of course.

I'll just close with this; it's perfectly fine to say "I don't mind being railroaded by the GM as long as we're having fun".

 

[Lanefan]

I don't see how anything I said would remove the GM's ability to have ideas about what happens next. Their ideas need to be constrained by what's been established, though, that's something I think must be the case.

I take the bolded as a given.

So they can fight the kraken or they can leave, sure. That's true of either approach, right?

What you're advocating for, from my perspective, is not really either. It's some middle ground where the players have to waste time on learning enough in order to make the interesting decision.

Not quite. My "middle ground" is where they have to make the interesting decision with the info they have available, in full knowledge that said info might not tell the whole story.

So just skip all that nonsense and get to the fun stuff, or else move on. Give them the information that they need to decide how to proceed, and then proceed.

Lake. Kraken. Man and small girl in a rowboat. Late morning. Kraken 50' from boat and closing on it fast, tentacles first. Kraken and boat each 200' from you. Calm wind and water, clear skies, temperature well above freezing, good visibility*.

How much more info do you need than that before hitting the "What do you do?" phase?

* - the weather conditions were likely established and narrated earlier in the session when the PCs started their day, and are included here for completeness only.

Let me ask you this; would you have any problem if the GM said the below?

"You can tell this guy knows what he's doing. He's protecting the girl very well, and managing to fend off the tentacles. He's clearly a competent swordsman. But [***] it's only a matter of time until he's done."

My guess is you would not.

Correct, I would not; as this is enough to paint a pretty good picture of what's happening. As player I neither need nor care about the mechanical specifics under the hood of that scene; those are for the DM to worry about, and her telling me those details is unnecessary.

The one change I'd make would be to add the words "chances are" where I inserted the "[***]", as nothing is ever certain in combat.

But you might have had something as fun or even better if the GM had honored the events of the game and the destruction of the maguffin led to something entirely different and unexpected instead of "well there's three more stops after this one.....so everybody back on the train!!!!"

It's impossible to say, of course.

We were all pretty keen on that story arc by then, thus nobody complained about us being put back on track.

I'll just close with this; it's perfectly fine to say "I don't mind being railroaded by the GM as long as we're having fun".

Yep.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But what happens when the GM thinks it’s invisible, but a player noticed?

I said earlier that sometimes Force can be subtle and go unnoticed. Other times, it’s blatant. Sometimes, the attempt to make it hidden is made, but one or more players still see it.

More player facing games or techniques make it much more obvious when Force is being used. And I think this is maybe more important, and why I think sometimes these conversations are a challenge.

Players noticing the use force is failure in a similar way than magician fumbling a magic trick so that audience realises how it is doen. But mistakes happen, it is understandable, not a big deal.

I don’t know what to say about this. I can’t make you care that something billed as one thing was secretly another all along. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to do something like play a game and know how the game works, for that to not be a mystery to the participants.

But you know how it works. The GM makes naughty word up and can alter things as they see fit. At least that's how D&D works. So if you agreed to play D&D, why would you expect anything else?

Okay but then this begs the question…why should the game be an illusion?

I mean, I get that it’s shared imagination and so the descriptor “illusion” seems apt. But how we craft that imagined space…why does that need to be illusory? Why can't that just be open for all to understand?

I really don't know how to answer this. Seems again to be fundamentally different way to see things. As a player I want to 'believe' in the illusion of objective reality of the game world, and as GM I try to maintain illusion of it. So I don't want the GM to say "Ok guys, the game is going nowhere, you need the macguffing and have spent hours trying to find it to no avail. It's behind the painting, go and take it so the game can progress" when they could just surreptitiously move the magguffing in the next place the PCs happen to look, the players would feel like they succeeded, and the game world would continue feel organic and real.

I think it depends. I don’t know if you saw my example earlier in the thread about my use of the Folk Hero background and how the GM kind of botched it. I didn’t flip the table and storm out, shouting “you railroadin’ SOB!”

I did see it. I definitely wouldn't have handled it that way. It seemed to go against the spirit of the ability, especially as you took steps to ensure that the farmers were trustworthy. I agree wit the opinions that some sort soft move where the farmers warn you that the Duke's soldiers are coming would have been appropriate. Though that you got the long rest out of it makes it less bad; at least your actions were not completely negated amounting to nothing.

I don’t think that because I state a preference means I’m some irrational obsessive.

Sure, sure. And I'm sure people express their opinions on message boards more fervently than they might in the real life.

Okay. I’m not sure how Force would be used to get to the good stuff. But I’m interested in hearing about it. It sounds like your describing goals for a player’s character, but I’m not sure how a GM might use Force to help those goals. Do you have any examples?

Player has authored a goal finding her sister that has been taken by a fiendish cult. Or did she join them? Whilst infiltrating the cults hideout, several things go awry, and would, if game rules were strictly followed lead to the sister perishing before he had a chance to talk to her. But GM uses subtle force to prevent this from happening. The sister survives, the character confronts her, dramatic reveals and some hard decisions follow.

This is not to say that the sister dying would have necessarily ruined things, it would have been a different sort of story. But if players are hyped about certain things coming to pass, I think it is fine for GM to use their tricks to help that to happen.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If you're meaning that sometimes situations may not be what they appear to be, that's fine, and you can still portray that. There's nothing that stops you from doing so if that would make for an interesting situation or challenge.

In the case of the example being discussed, it would seem that possibility wasn't really a concern. The GM wanted to present the PCs with a potential call to action, and so he described the situation and the stakes.

The issue is that if your normal practice is to give all that info upfront... and then you suddenly don't because things are not what they seem, you have already spoiled the surprise. The players now know that things are amiss.

Like I said earlier, looking the fictional description of the situation only, the reality of the kraken scene could be that the girl is a powerful chosen of the Elder Gods, mind controlling a hapless random man, in order to lure the PCs in to sacrifice them to the kraken. I think this clearly shows that divulging the mechanics gives the players information that their characters do not have, and removes possibility of any interesting surprises.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'd have to ask @Manbearcat to be sure, but I think the way he used "Soldier" was more about the type of NPC rather than about specifically being a soldier in the fiction, although certainly the NPC could be both.

The fact that the NPC was a trained combatant was likely clear from his gear and use of a weapon, and the fact that he'd so far managed to keep him and his daughter safe from the kraken's tentacles. Why would you assume he's some bumpkin under those circumstances?

Soldier is a Tag which thematically conveys exactly what you would (hopefully infer); this NPC is a willing and capable protector of those in his/her charge. Then you'll have a suite of abilities that are integrated to express that in play so there is gamestate: fiction synthesis. Skirmishers are mobile, getting into and out of trouble/places.

It just so happens that I have both the father and the daughter. Here they are:

Father

Spoiler

Medium natural humanoid, human
Level 7 Soldier, Leader
HP 83; Bloodied 41 Initiative +8
AC 23, Fortitude 20, Reflex 19, Will 18 Perception+4 Speed 6

Standard Actions

Awkward Oar (weapon) At-Will
Attack: Melee 2 (one creature); +12 vs. AC
Hit: 1d12 + 6 damage and the target is marked until the end of the father's next turn.
Miss: The target is marked until the end of the father's next turn.

A Father's Courage (weapon) Encounter
Attack: Close burst 2 (enemies in the burst); +12 vs. AC
Hit: 2d8 + 4 damage.
Effect: The daughter gains 10 temporary hit points.

Triggered Actions

My Life For Hers At-Will
Trigger: An enemy hits the father's daughter with a melee attack while she is adjacent to him.
Effect (Immediate Interrupt): The attack hits the father instead. After the attack is resolved, the father uses Awkward Oar against the triggering enemy as a free action.

+ 11 Escape vs Grab

3) The daughter is a Minion, yes. She is a tiny thing, but she is quick and squirrely. She darts away from tentacles and clings to her father's side in terror-filled desperation, all of which makes her a difficult target.

Daughter

Spoiler

Medium natural humanoid, human
Level 7 Minion Skirmisher
HP 1; a missed attack never damages a minion. Initiative Fathers
AC 20, Fortitude 19, Reflex 20, Will 18 Perception+5 Speed 6

Traits

Father's Side
The daughter gains a +2 bonus to all defenses while adjacent to her father.

Standard Actions

Get Tiny At-Will
Attack: Ranged 5 (one creature); +10 vs. Will
Effect: The daughter shifts 1 square and the target cannot attack the daughter until the end of her next turn.

Move Actions

Wee Lass (Encounter)
Effect: The daughter shifts 3 squares and can shift through difficult terrain until the end of her next turn.

+ 5 Escape vs Grab

And I also have the initial framing of the situation (this was right after the Skill Challenge to navigate the rushing river hazard so this framing is the bridge between this conflict to that immediately preceding conflict). This was a PBP solo game by me and my partner while we were both away for several months so I have the entire text of the game.

Finally, out on the water you see a singular vessel. As you pole yourself near the mouth of the river and into the bay, you can hear the sounds of voices. A father is teaching his daughter to fish and her innocent laughter is hushed by her father. It is clear by his tone that his fear isn't that her laughter will spoil their opportunity at a catch. He runs her through a few dry-runs at casting until finally she gets one far out. Her celebratory squeal is cut short by a tentacle exploding out of the water near their small flatboat. She falls back on her rump and screams as several tentacles erupt from the water around the vessel, groping for the both of them...

Let me know what you plan to do with the above. You are on your raft, entering from the mouth of the river into the bay, roughly 200 ft (just within your long range with your bow; - 2 to hit at this range) from this vessel being attacked by the tentacles in the bay.

She spent the next rounds using her action economy to Twin Strike with from her bow to protect the girl from tentacles from afar > stow it > get her raft to distance where she can leap to their vessel and physically aid them (this game was 7 years ago so the memory was foggy).

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is the only (!) regret I have about having become a DM: it forced me to look under the hood. Before that the game was a wonderful mystery - I'd tell the DM what my character was trying to do, some dice would fly behind the screen for no reason I knew of, and I'd be told what happened.

And I loved it that way!

As a player I hate knowing what goes on behind the DM screen; but as I can't un-learn my DM experience every Saturday night when I play, I'm kinda stuck with it. Making it all player-facing would be ten times worse!

I suppose it takes all sorts. Having to tell the DM what I am doing without a clear indication of how it is likely to impact the game world is, for me, something very far from a "wonderful mystery". Instead it feels like I'm having to wear mittens and am unable to truly touch the world except through the layer of thick padding provided by the DM almost literally gatekeeping my connection to the world. It to me destroys the idea that there's a shared reality and makes it fundamentally impossible for me to reach flow or immersion.

If, rather than acting on the shared world through what I do I have to act on the shared world through how I can interact with the DM I would find it far more rewarding to play a video game. At least that way I get near instant feedback, and have a much better prepared world.