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

[FrogReaver]

But if you're used to GMing ToH or similar and want to think about how you'd GM Apocalypse World, then thinking about the contrast between backstory and colour becomes a bit more important I think. For instance, if you've narrated the shed being on fire, and the player declares that their PC rushes into it to try and grab the water canisters that are still inside, that's Acting Under Fire, and the check has to be made. From pp 190-91:

When you do something under fire, or dig in to endure fire, roll+cool. On a 10+, you do it. On a 7–9, you flinch, hesitate, or stall: the MC can offer you a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an ugly choice.​

​

You can read “under fire” to mean any kind of serious pressure at all. Call for this move whenever someone does something requiring unusual discipline, resolve, endurance or care. . . .​

​

On a 7–9, when it comes to the worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice, you’ll need to look at the circumstances and find something fun. It should be easy to find something; if there weren’t things to go wrong, nobody’d be rolling dice. It can include suffering harm or making another move. However, remember that a 7–9 is a hit, not a miss; whatever you offer should be fundamentally a success, not fundamentally a failure.​

If the player whose PC rushes into the burning shed rolls a 7-9 then obviously taking harm is one legitimate option (eg a hard bargain: It's HOT in there - if you really want to go through with it, you'll take 3-harm (ap)) but so would be something else if it seems to make sense (eg an ugly choice: As you rush towards the shed, you see the fire is spreading to your workspace garage - you can grab the water, or try and stop the spread, but not both; or a worse outcome: You grab the canisters, but the plastic has started to melt - that water is going to be a bit tainted if you drink it).

That reads somewhat differently to me.

1. The shed being on fire and the water canisters inside it are backstory elements. (They aren't just color as they drive the players action descriptions and future fictional descriptions about the scene. They also restrict what potential consequences are available - "something that makes sense with a burning shed and water canisters".

2. The player then has his PC interact with those backstory elements by rushing in to save the water canisters

3. The check and subsequent 'bargain' are just mechanics that work out whether the PC was successful and whatever consequences there are.

The only major difference between that and D&D play (of any kind) is the specific mechanics you are using to resolve success/failure/consequences.

That's an example of the contrast between "backstory first" and "situation first". In the AW adjudication, the colour of the situation - that includes the fire - is being used to help establish consequences in accordance with the resolution processes, but it is not backstory that settles the resolution outcome (that the water is tainted, or that the fire inevitably spread, or that the PC inevitably suffers burns).

I'm going to take you at your word that this is situation first play. However, it certainly reads to me that the backstory drove the players actions and the potential consequences of those actions. You say "it is not backstory that settles the resolution outcome" to justify it being situation first, but if all it takes for situation first is for backstory to not be the resolution mechanic then D&D (most any style) places a ton of focus on situation first play - albeit not only situation first play. But that seems to be at odds with the idea that D&D play is mostly backstory first.

*Any skill check in D&D depends on the skill check mechanic and not on backstory to settle the resolution outcome.

 

[pemerton]

Might I suggest that for a game that can map a single action to N resolution methods (or really a single anything to multiple things) that trying to glean any generalization from a single play excerpt is only going to be a bigger hindrance to discussion than no excerpt at all. Such an excerpt isn't going to be sufficient to describe what the game is and how it plays on a meaningful level but it will serve to pigeonhole in others minds what that game style is capable of.

*Then there's also the issue of DM facing mechanics that's going to further limit the ability of players in such campaigns to give you adequate details.

I don't really get this.

I don't see why there can't be a play report along these lines:

The GM described where we (the PCs) were, and filled us in on the gossip that we'd (ie as our PCs, hanging out and resting/recuperating/shopping) picked up since the last session.

One bit of gossip was that <whatever> had happened at the temple of Pholtus. So we decided as a group to go and check it out. The GM mentioned that, en route to the temple, we noticed a crowd gathering to listen to an itinerant Cuthbertian preacher. We thought this was interesting, but didn't stop to listen.

When we got to the temple, we asked to speak to the high priest. One of the PCs has the Acolyte background, and when the player mentioned that to the GM she decided not to call for a CHA check and agreed that the high priest would see us. The discussion with the high priest took half-an-hour or more of play, and a lot of that was just back-and-forth free roleplaying, but at a few key moments the GM called for CHA checks - when we failed one, the high priest clammed up about one particular line of discussion (relations with the Cuthbertians) and when I said I was paying attention for any hints or clues as to what was going on the GM got me to roll on WIS (Insight) but my total was only 9, and so the GM said I couldn't pick up anything in particular.

Etc.​

I mean, I just made that up as I typed it, so it's not an actual play report. But it's pretty much how I would expect a "living sandbox" play report to look. Maybe I'm wrong?

is there any backstory that isn't pre-authored? If so what makes it not pre-authored?

Here's an example, from Burning Wheel play:

I started things in the Hardby market: Jobe was looking at the wares of a peddler of trinkets and souvenirs, to see if there was anything there that might be magical or useful for enchanting for the anticipated confrontation with his brother. Given that the brother is possessed by a demon, he was looking for something angelic. The peddler pointed out an angel feather that he had for sale, brought to him from the Bright Desert. Jobe (who has, as another instinct, to always use Second Sight), used Aura Reading to study the feather for magical traits. The roll was a failure, and so he noticed that it was Resistant to Fire (potentially useful in confronting a Balrog) but also cursed. (Ancient History was involved somehow here too, maybe as a FoRK into Aura Reading (? I can't really remember), establishing something about an ancient battle between angels and demons in the desert.)

My memory of the precise sequence of events is hazy, but in the context the peddler was able to insist on proceeding with the sale, demanding 3 drachmas (Ob 1 resource check). As Jobe started haggling a strange woman (Halika) approached him and offered to help him if he would buy her lunch. Between the two of them, the haggling roll was still a failure, and also the subsequent Resources check: so Jobe got his feather but spent his last 3 drachmas, and was taxed down to Resources 0. They did get some more information about the feather from the peddler, however - he bought it from a wild-eyed man with dishevelled beard and hair, who said that it had come from one of the tombs in the Bright Desert.

Resolution of the situation established (among other things) that there once was a battle between angels and demons in the Bright Desert; that the feather was Resistant to Fire; and that it was cursed, probably because it came from a tomb in the Bright Desert.

And here's an example from 4e D&D play:

The Mausoleum had three areas: an entrance room, with a large statue and modest altar; a set of stairs with slightly elevated ramps on either side leading down to the principal room - very large (about 90' x 50') with a huge statue and two pools of water, corrupted by the Abyss; and then a smaller set of stairs leading down to the burial room, with a large altar and five statues and 4 side rooms (the sarcophagus room, the room with canopic jars, the grave goods room and the treasure room).

The PCs started in the entrance

<snip>

They studied the murals and reliefs in the entrance chamber, which showed the Raven Queen's victories during her life, becoming the most powerful ruler in the world (crushing her enemies, being adulated by her subjects, etc - I told the players to think of Egyptian tomb paintings, Mesopotamian reliefs, and similar).

<snip>

The mural in the principal room - also a magical hazard if they got too close, which they made sure not to - depicted the mortal queen's magical achievements - including defeating a glabrezu on the Feywild, and travelling to the land of the dead (at that time, a land of black poplars ruled by Nerull).

The paladin looked in the cleansed pool to see what he could see, and saw episodes from the past depicting the Raven Queen's accretion of domains (fate from Lolth, in return for helping Corellon against her; winter from Khala, in return for sending her into death at the behest of the other gods); and then also the future, of a perfect world reborn following the destruction of the Dusk War, with her as ruler.

I also decided a further complication was needed: so I explained to the player of the fighter/cleric (who is now the god of imprisonment, and also has a theme that gives him a connection to primordial earth) that he could sense the Elemental Chaos surging up through the earth of the mortal world (because (i) Torog can no longer hold it back, and (ii) the Abyss, having been sealed, is no longer sucking it down the other way); and as a result, an ancient abomination sealed in the earth had been awakened from its slumber and would soon makes it way up to the surface of the world. I then filled them in on my version of the Tarrasque (the MM version with MM3 damage and a few tweaks to help it with action economy). This created suitable consternation, and was taken as another sign of the impending Dusk War.

<snip>

The PCs weren't wanting to start any conflict at this point, and at least three of them (paladin, ranger-cleric and invoker/wizard) were happy with this in any event. So they with the guardian's permission they went down the last set of stairs to the burial room.

This room had a statue in each of four corners - the Raven Queen mortal, ruling death, ruling fate and ruling winter. The fifth statute faced a large altar, and showed her in her future state, as universal ruler. The murals and reliefs here showed the future (continuing the theme of the rooms: the entry room showed her mortal life; the principal room her magical life, including her passage into death; this room her future as a god). I made up some salient images, based on important events of the campaign: an image of the Wolf-Spider; an image of the a great staff or rod with six dividing lines on it (ie the completed Rod of 7 Parts, which is to be the trigger for the Dusk War); an image of an earthmote eclipsing the sun (the players don't know what this one is yet, though in principle they should, so I'll leave it unexplained for now); an image of a bridge with an armoured knight on it, or perhaps astride it - this was not clear given the "flat-ness" of the perspective, and the presence of horns on the knight was also hard to discern (the players immediately recognised this as the paladin taking charge of The Bridge That Can Be Traversed But Once); and an image of the tarrasque wreaking havoc.

More discussion and debate ensued. Closer inspection showed that where it was possible the queen's name had once been written on the walls, this had been erased. The invoker/wizard decided to test whether this could be undone, by using a Make Whole ritual: he made a DC 52 Arcana check, and was able to do so (though losing a third of his (less than max) hp in the process, from forcing through the wards of the Mausoleum). Which resulted in him learning the name of the Raven Queen. And becoming more concerned than ever that it is vulnerable to others learning it to.

Asking the guardians confirmed that they also know her name, though will not speak it, as that would be an insult to the dead.

<snip>

the discussion then shifted to defeating Osterneth. The player of the sorcerer had been very keen on the possibility of a magical chariot among the grave goods, and so I decided that there was a gilt-and-bronze Chariot of Sustarre (fly speed 8, 1x/enc cl burst 3 fire attack). They persuaded the guardians to let them borrow it, as the necessary cost of preventing Osterneth coming in and defiling the body.

Framing the situation, in the back-and-forth between players and GM as the PCs explore the mausoleum, establishes backstory: among other things, this includes the role of the tarrasque as a harbinger of the Dusk War; the Raven Queen's aspiration to rule the cosmos (something that had been conjectured in prior sessions, but not before confirmed by her own testimony as demonstrated in her mausoleum); the presence of her name (before it was erased) on the walls of her Mausoleum; a magical Chariot of Sustarre being among her grave goods.

Assuming you are referring to using backstory to feed back into situation as an input. That doesn't seem to jive very well with the DM ethos of story now games that have something like 'honor success' as one of their fundamental DMing criteria. Honoring success requires that backstory gets fed into situation else there is no way to honor success.

Honouring success is normally about a constraint on the manipulation or generation of secret backstory to negate the outcome of a successful action.

It can also be relevant to establishing fictional positioning: eg if a success establishes that (say) the PC is at the top of the wall; or recalls that Evard's tower is around here; then that can form the basis for a further declaration (eg I look around from my new vantage point; I head to Evard's tower). Depending on context and system, that further declaration might require a new check, or might be resolved by the GM "saying 'yes'".

let's imagine for a moment an infinite gameworld where the players get to choose a) where their character goes in that world, b) what they do in that world, c) can choose what their character 'cares' about within that world and d) a GM that isn't pushing for any particular story/quest. That gives the players the tools to push the game to almost any kind of situation they want to explore (though probably not as directly as they could do in story now).

To me, it seems to have at least three constraints which I have been trying to talk about for many pages now, but it seems very hard to do so:

(1) How is it determined what is in the world, and where it is?

(2) How do the players learn anything about this world?

(3) How are action declarations like I got from A to B resolved?

I mean, my Burning Wheel game and Prince Valiant game both satisfy your (a) to (d):

Burning Wheel: (a) I chose to have Thurgon and Aramina return to Auxol; (b) I chose what they did when they returned - remonstrate with Rufus, and unburden Xanthippe; (c) I chose what they cared about, including - in Aramina's case - how that changed; (d) the GM wasn't pushing for any particular story/quest - he just played his NPCs (Rufus and Xanthippe) honestly.

Prince Valiant: (a) the PC knights chose to travel to Constantinople; (b) they chose to do so to engage in crusading; (c) they chose what their PCs care about (crusading; proselytising more generally; in Sir Morgath's case, remaining faithful to his wife Elizabeth even though he longs for Lorette of Lothian); (d) as GM, I am not pushing for any particular story or quest.​

But I don't think these games would count as living sandboxes.

 

[pemerton]

That reads somewhat differently to me.

1. The shed being on fire and the water canisters inside it are backstory elements. (They aren't just color as they drive the players action descriptions and future fictional descriptions about the scene. They also restrict what potential consequences are available - "something that makes sense with a burning shed and water canisters".

2. The player then has his PC interact with those backstory elements by rushing in to save the water canisters

3. The check and subsequent 'bargain' are just mechanics that work out whether the PC was successful and whatever consequences there are.

The only major difference between that and D&D play (of any kind) is the specific mechanics you are using to resolve success/failure/consequences.

Who established that the shed is on fire? How? Who established that there are canisters of water in the shed? How? When?

Here's one way the dash-into-the-burning-shed-to-save-the-canisters action declaration might happen:

* Through prior play that I won't try and conjecture, it is established (among many other things) that (i) the PC has a shed next to their workspace garage, (ii) that Dozer and his brother live at the other end of the compound from the PC's shed; and (iii) that Dozer is a firebug.

* A tense confrontation occurs between the PC and Dozer's brother,. They are debating what to do about Dozer. The PC tries to "read" the brother:

When you read a person in a charged interaction, roll+sharp. On a 10+, hold 3. On a 7–9, hold 1. While you’re interacting with them, spend your hold to ask their player questions, 1 for 1:
• is your character telling the truth?
• what’s your character really feeling?
• what does your character intend to do?
• what does your character wish I’d do?
• how could I get your character to __?​

The player fails the throw (ie ends up 6 down). And the GM decides to announce offscreen badness - Dozer's brother laughs - "You don't even know what Dozer's up to, do you!

* The player decides that their PC opens their mind to the pschic maelstrom:

When you open your brain to the world’s psychic maelstrom, roll+weird. On a hit, the MC will tell you something new and interesting about the current situation, and might ask you a question or two; answer them. On a 10+, the MC will give you good detail. On a 7–9, the MC will give you an impression. If you already know all there is to know, the MC will tell you that.​

That fails too, and so the GM decides to double down on the offscreen badness, telling the player All you can see is smoke and fire in your mind, and an acrid smell lingering in your nostrils. And then asks, By the way, what do you keep in your shed?

The player replies - making it up - My water! and declares that their PC runs across the compound. That's not a move, and so the GM just keeps narrating: You can see your shed on fire. Dozer's standing next to it, grinning.​

Now we can see that the shed being ablaze isn't backstory that inputted into the scene - it's something that is established in the course of the resolution of the situation. And we can see that the player is the one who establishes the backstory that there is water in the shed.

So I don't think it's true to say that the only major difference between that and D&D play (of any kind) is the specific mechanics you are using to resolve success/failure/consequences. There are kinds of D&D play, quite typical kinds, in which backstory like Dozer being out of the house burning down the PC's shed, and like the shed having water in it, are not established in this sort of fashion.

And you also speak as if differences in the resolution of success/failure/consequences are a small thing, whereas that's where huge amounts of differences in RPGing happen. For instance, that's all that distinguishes a sandbox from a railroad, as best I can tell. (They use very similar processes for establishing backstory and situation.)

Any skill check in D&D depends on the skill check mechanic and not on backstory to settle the resolution outcome.

In 5e D&D the GM can refer to backstory - including backstory that is secret from the players - in order to decide whether or not to call for a stat/skill check. That's a "difference in the resolution of success/failure/consequences" from AW - I think a pretty significant one.

You say "it is not backstory that settles the resolution outcome" to justify it being situation first, but if all it takes for situation first is for backstory to not be the resolution mechanic then D&D (most any style) places a ton of focus on situation first play

Backstory and techniques for extrapolating from it don't establish whether or not the water gets tainted (eg there is no use of an item saving throw table) - that's a consequence read off the resolution attempt. The established backstory of the intensity of the fire doesn't establish whether or not the PC suffers burns (contrast the standard D&D approach: make a Dex/Reflex save to avoid DX damage or to take half of DX damage). The established backstory, and extrapolation from it, doesn't establish whether the fire spreads (eg there is no % roll made to determine spread of the fire, or no saving throw made for the adjacent workspace garage to see if it catches fire).

I've never seen an account of D&D play that used the player's success on an action declaration that is causally unrelated to extinguishing or spreading the fire to be used to determine whether a fire spreads - other than 4e skill challenges, which of course (i) are a type of closed scene resolution, and (ii) were hugely controversial among many D&D players because of this.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I see. Well, if you aren't willing to take me at my word regarding my intentions, then I'm not sure more words are likely to help. I'll go ahead anyway and try to provide a specific response to your objections, but if you're convinced I'm being disingenuous then I can't be sure how my answer will come across to you. I'll just lay it out as straightforwardly as I can and hope you read my explanation the way it's intended.


I haven't engaged the play analysis/reports because they don't appear to answer my question regarding the broader utility of the "Backstory first" categorization.

The analysis/reports instead seem to be focusing on emphasizing the distinction between Situation-first play and Backstory-first play. I agree with that distinction and appreciate the effort that went into conveying such detail. Even though I'm generally less willing to draw conclusions from anecdotal data than I suspect those posters are, I agree that the play analysis/reports establish that Situation-first play exists, and is a broadly useful category because it appears to identify a range of playstyles that lead to similar play experiences. (I think it could have been more-intuitively named, but that's strictly a question of terminology.)

What I don't necessarily agree with is that Situation-first being a broadly useful category necessarily makes Backstory-first similarly useful. As @pemerton noted here (after your post that I am replying to), they don't do much Backstory-first play, and as they are the most prolific poster of actual play reports there's a comparative dearth of such reports for Backstory-first play. Indeed, if there were any reports or analysis in this thread intending to show that Backstory-first play identifies a range of playstyles that lead to similar play experiences, I missed it. To the contrary, there have been claims that Backstory-first does not necessarily lead to similar play experiences, and I am not aware of anyone who has asserted otherwise. So, because I agree that Backstory-first has been effectively contrasted with Situation-first, but has not been otherwise claimed to have descriptive power on its own with regards to expected play experiences, it appears to me that Backstory-first is effectively defined as a residual category.

Residual categories are useful! They're particularly useful as a label when discussing the category or categories they are a residual of. But a residual category of playstyles whose members' primary commonality is that they don't fit into any of the other categories--and don't otherwise lead to common play experiences or have some other descriptive trait in common--is necessarily an axiomatic category.

That's the explanation for why I don't think the existence of the analysis/reports of Situation-first play makes it in any way unreasonable to observe that Backstory-first may be defined axiomatically. Next I'll address your perception that I'm implicty casting aspersions.


First off, I do not in any way intended my observation that Backstory-first may be defined axiomatically to imply bad faith or untruthfulness on anyone else's part. As I see it, it's a natural consequence of focused interest in any category A (of anything) that the residual category B takes on salience as a point of comparison. Pointing out that the residual category B is apparently defined axiomatically merely helps explain why others whose interests lie within B may quite reasonably not consider B to be analytically useful. In other words, from their standpoint, if B is axiomatically defined broadly enough to encompass the entire range of their disperate interests, B necessarily lacks useful descriptive descriptive power for them. That doesn't mean that those instead focused on category A are in any way wrong or acting in bad faith when they quite naturally describe A in terms of its differences with B.

Sure, my observation that Backstory-first appears axiomatically defined implicitly suggests that it's not as broadly useful a category as it could have been if it instead had more descriptive power. But I see a large gulf between questioning the descriptive power of the residual category and accusing its proponents of bad faith.

(And for the record, I only brought up the broader controversy when you strongly implied that I lacked the necessary historical context to make my opinion valid. I was trying only to rebut your implication, not use the reference to the broader context to attack anyone else.)

Does any of that help you understand where I'm coming from, or help you to believe me when I describe my intentions?

This is better, but your approach is still very flawed. It still asserts that since you think there's a possibility that one of the two categories of play is arbitrarily defined as all things NOT A that it cannot be disentangled from A and therefore the entire categorization is of limited value since it's just bins for A and NOT A according to some arbitrary distinction.

The problem here, I see, is not that backstory-first is actually arbitrary - it has valid descriptive power for how games work - but that there are a number of sub-approaches that create different results. This is not indicative of an arbitrary distinction, though, but rather that there are other distinctions that apply within the scope of backstory-first. There is not an argument being made that says all play is clearly separated and delimited by the analysis of situation/backstory first, so the complaint that this distinction doesn't clearly delimit is logically flawed -- it hasn't been suggested that it does. In fact, there's been quite a good bit of talk about how various backstory-first approaches can be separated further with other analyses.

The sum total of your argument here seems to be that since situation-first vice backstory-first doesn't do all possible categorizations of play, it's therefore at least partially arbitrarily defined as A and NOT A. You're totally ignoring that backstory-first does do work in explaining how play occurs, it just doesn't do all of the possible work.

Again, there are a number of backstory-first approaches, and if you'd like to discuss them (I offered this earlier) we absolutely can talk to differences in Trad, Classical, NeoTrad and OSR play. There are distinctions here that are rather important as to how the game uses backstory-first.

Finally, the middle bit where you question if @pemerton is qualified to examine backstory-first play is an appeal to authority. You're not evaluating the argument, but suggesting that the person lacks sufficient experience for their analysis to be useful. This may be true (it's why it's an informal fallacy), but you didn't do any work to show that the analysis was, in fact, incorrect or wrong. I've often told others that they lack the experience to inform their assertions, but I do so after showing that the assertions are badly flawed and without foundation. Go for the argument first -- show why @pemerton has failed to show what he claims -- then you can suggest reasons why. Here, though, you're totally wrong -- @pemerton has clearly stated that they have extensive experience with backstory-first. The claim that they don't do much of that play is a now thing -- he doesn't do it now. Hence why he defers on system-specific arguments regarding 5e or other games he does not play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That reads somewhat differently to me.

1. The shed being on fire and the water canisters inside it are backstory elements. (They aren't just color as they drive the players action descriptions and future fictional descriptions about the scene. They also restrict what potential consequences are available - "something that makes sense with a burning shed and water canisters".

2. The player then has his PC interact with those backstory elements by rushing in to save the water canisters

3. The check and subsequent 'bargain' are just mechanics that work out whether the PC was successful and whatever consequences there are.

The only major difference between that and D&D play (of any kind) is the specific mechanics you are using to resolve success/failure/consequences.


I'm going to take you at your word that this is situation first play. However, it certainly reads to me that the backstory drove the players actions and the potential consequences of those actions. You say "it is not backstory that settles the resolution outcome" to justify it being situation first, but if all it takes for situation first is for backstory to not be the resolution mechanic then D&D (most any style) places a ton of focus on situation first play - albeit not only situation first play. But that seems to be at odds with the idea that D&D play is mostly backstory first.

*Any skill check in D&D depends on the skill check mechanic and not on backstory to settle the resolution outcome.

Again, quite simply, you're starting from the end point of a bit of play, noting the features, and then imagining how you could have scripted this to happen the same way, and declaring there's no or little difference. The difference is in the how. If you have your scene in your head, like you've proposed here, filled with backstory, and run it multiple times, you'll end up with a cluster of similar results. If you run the AW game multiple times, it will go all over the place, and not clump.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, quite simply, you're starting from the end point of a bit of play, noting the features, and then imagining how you could have scripted this to happen the same way, and declaring there's no or little difference. The difference is in the how. If you have your scene in your head, like you've proposed here, filled with backstory, and run it multiple times, you'll end up with a cluster of similar results. If you run the AW game multiple times, it will go all over the place, and not clump.

I feel that a lot of the examples are way more opaque than they need to be. If the intent is to show who has authority and agency, then the examples need to specify far more clearly who decides what, when, how and why.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I feel that a lot of the examples are way more opaque than they need to be. If the intent is to show who has authority and agency, then the examples need to specify far more clearly who decides what, when, how and why.

Okay! You'll be starting with an example of your own play where you do this? Or is this a "I feel like you people need to do things to my exact, but vague, standards?"

Because there's a lot of exactly what you're asking for -- peruse @pemerton's extensive play reports.

 

[pemerton]

Does any of that help you understand where I'm coming from, or help you to believe me when I describe my intentions?

It does. But I disagree with your claim about a "residual category". As I already posted:

I'm not posting in this thread to explain why a "living sandbox" is different from ToH - both involve exactly the same degree of GM authority over backstory, and both use backstory as an input into scene framing and action resolution in the same way. The difference is the principles that govern the GM's authorship of backstory.

Using the same degree of authority over backstory, and using that backstory as an input into scene framing and action resolution, is not an uninteresting point of resemblance - especially in the context of a thread about GM authority.

 

[pemerton]

I feel that a lot of the examples are way more opaque than they need to be. If the intent is to show who has authority and agency, then the examples need to specify far more clearly who decides what, when, how and why.

See my post 1303 where I sketch a further imagined example of AW play, as a precursor to the earlier example.

But I think it's strange to describe AW as opaque. It has what must be the most transparent, literal rulebook of any RPG!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Okay! You'll be starting with an example of your own play where you do this? Or is this a "I feel like you people need to do things to my exact, but vague, standards?"

I hopefully would be clear were I to post an example to demonstrate a point. (Then again, it is perfectly possible I'd fail at it. Communication is sometimes hard.) I have no need to do so at the moment.

But this was just an observation made after @FrogReaver was chastised for not taking account stuff that literally was not in the example.