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

[Maxperson]

All this talk about "GM framing" got me thinking that what we ought to talk about instead is "GM farming", in which we plant seeds in the ground in the spring and then, come fall, harvest a whole crop of fresh new GMs...

...did I get that right?

I thought GM framing was setting them up to be arrested and convicted of a crime.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Is the goal to present things as naturalistically as possible? To engage the players' hooks? Is the GM's prep a set of "tools" and other stuff to support improv? Or is it binding?

The thing is that usually there isn't just one governing principle, there are several and GM is balancing them. For example present things as naturalistically as possible but in the case where several things would be equalishly naturalistic (which is often the case) choose the one which engages with players' hooks... except if it is late choose the one which lets us bring this session to a satisfactory conclusion soon.

 

[Manbearcat]

I also imagine that @Manbearcat must be reminded about now of his notorious gorge (ie the narration of a gorge as an obstacle in response to a failed Nature check in an escape-through-the-wilderness skill challenge). Discussion of the gorge - which is a perfectly fine proxy for any number of similar narrations in "situation first" RPGing - caused vast quantities of apoplexy back in the day from mainstream non-4e D&D/PF players. Hence why I'm surprised that @FrogReaver would suggest that the shed example is not very different from any sort of D&D play.

Universal apoplexy. There wasn’t a single 4e detractor that didn’t cry foul and call it a clear example of (a) why Fail Forward is crap and (b) why conflict resolution mechanics are crap and (c) why genre logic is crap and (d) why 4e is crap.

The needle has clearly moved since then however. Like the apoplexy of the gorge conversation was completely memory holed because Fail Forward and conflict resolution mechanics and genre logic are now vastly more accepted amongst the D&D community. Feels very Eternal Sunshine and the Spotless Mind - ey.

Do you remember my post perhaps 6 months ago ruminating about this very thing; when this needle moving occurred in the last 7-9 years (because it certainly wasn’t present in the DC 30…35 thread)? I think it would be very interesting to re-litigate the gorge example and see how much the universality of harumph and disdain has been throttled back.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The thing is that usually there isn't just one governing principle, there are several and GM is balancing them. For example present things as naturalistically as possible but in the case where several things would be equalishly naturalistic (which is often the case) choose the one which engages with players' hooks... except if it is late choose the one which lets us bring this session to a satisfactory conclusion soon.

This actually appears to be one primary principle, with a secondary statement that if the primary is satisfied, you can select how you want to support player-side hooks. We can examine this to see if we're dealing with multiple governing principles here rather than primary governing principles with secondary considerations once the primary is satisfied by swapping them and seeing if play is the same. I think that it's fairly easy to say that play would look pretty different if we prioritized player-side hooks, and if multiple options exist that do this, we pick the one that is most naturalistic.

And, because of this, the actual governing principle of play here is the GM should extrapolate naturalistically for resolutions. Once this is satisfied, other things can be considered. Contrast this to other games that do have multiple governing principles such that one is not subordinate to the others.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This actually appears to be one primary principle, with a secondary statement that if the primary is satisfied, you can select how you want to support player-side hooks. We can examine this to see if we're dealing with multiple governing principles here rather than primary governing principles with secondary considerations once the primary is satisfied by swapping them and seeing if play is the same. I think that it's fairly easy to say that play would look pretty different if we prioritized player-side hooks, and if multiple options exist that do this, we pick the one that is most naturalistic.

And, because of this, the actual governing principle of play here is the GM should extrapolate naturalistically for resolutions. Once this is satisfied, other things can be considered. Contrast this to other games that do have multiple governing principles such that one is not subordinate to the others.

You perhaps can try to categorise it thusly on paper, but it just doesn't work that way in reality. What is 'naturalistic' let alone 'most naturalistic' is hella subjective and vague. We could easily say that GM prioritises players' hooks as long as it can be done in a way that seems naturalistic enough, and it effectively describes the same thing. And ultimately people (or at least me) do not work like computers via some 'if X then Y' decision trees, instead decisions are made intuitively and holistically.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ok, so multiple posters - including you - have hauled me over the coals because "backstory first" has more than one instantiation, depending on the principles used to move from backstory to (i) situation and (ii) consequence of declared actions.

But now you seem completely relaxed about having described "living sandbox" using criteria that are also satisfied by Burning Wheel and Prince Valiant played in the standard way.

I'm not suggesting hypocrisy - that's not really apposite in this sort of discussion - more just saying that I'm a bit uncertain as to what your standards of adequacy are for an analysis of RPG play.

My goal was to illustrate how living sandbox is a mix of both backstory first and situation first.

what you are getting raked over the coals for is using a categorization structure that pigeonholes living sandbox into a backstory first description when there’s so much more to living sandbox play than backstory first.

I don't really say how it can't be important how the fiction of a RPG is created, especially in a thread about authority in respect of the fiction.

Then you aren’t listening to my explanation for why. When everything is in the fictional world it doesn’t matter how it got there, it matters what the players focus on, what they put in front of themselves, as that's what drives the game. That’s what comes closest to impacting play in such an environment. That's why from the players perspective in a living sandbox they don't need to see the GM machinery that creates the world - it's just not important for how the game plays or feels.

Imagine for a moment if I started a categorization framework intent differentiating all the things important to living sandbox play. Does anyone think that such a categorization framework would adequately describe the things important to story now play? I certainly don't. And yet we are here trying to shove living sandbox into categorizations that were solely created to be able to differentiate story now play from other play.

And in play it's likely to be pretty significant.

For living sandbox play how the fiction is generated doesn't have a great deal of significance on the play experience.

What is a player allowed to stipulate about his/her PC's personal history? Relationship? Shed content? And what principles does a GM use to decide things like who the factions target or even where the factions are active? I've used Pholtus vs St Cuthbert a couple of times now in my examples. But that will play out very differently if one of the players is playing a cleric of one or the other of those gods.

Whatever the GM allows (typically what fits in with the backstory he has made - for example he might limit racial choice to dwarves. And yes, the fictional backstories of the players should affect play.

It's not a sufficient description of my 4e game to mention that opponents included Orcus cultists, without also mentioning that 3 PCs were Raven Queen devotees.

The general point is that RPG fiction isn't significant just on its own terms, but in terms of its relationship to the PCs (as central components of the fiction). An "infinite" world can be incredibly varied in this respect, which has pretty profound ramifications for the experience of play. I mean, in your example of the faction and the brother, what if - in a world that's not infinite but only as big as our earth, the PC lives in Kuala Lumpur and the only people who know what happened to the brother live on the tip of Tierra del Fuego?

..running out of time

Now maybe that's bad design for a living sandbox - but I can't work that out from descriptions of an "infinite" world in which players are free to set their own priorities for their PCs and choose what actions to declare. At a minimum we need a principle like once the players set their priorities, the GM should ensure that there are reasonably feasible actions the players can declare for their PCs which will meaningfully engage those priorities. But if you apply that principle frequently and with rigour, I believe - based on my own experience - that you will drift towards "situation first" play because the utility of pre-authored backstory will start to fade away.

No world is truly infinite. The most we can do is approximate infinite with a large world or procedural generation of content. I'd say that for a typical living sandbox it's up to the players and not the GM to place themselves into situations where they can meaningfully engage their priorities. And note, getting themselves into those sitautions isn't instant like story now (pacing is a big difference).

Conversely, sticking to pre-authored backstory speaks against trying to implement a principle like the one I just described. But in that case, the idea that players are free to set their own priorities for their PCs starts to lose its purchase - as @Ovinomancer posted way upthread, that part of the GM's backstory which is feasibly available to the players given where their PCs are in the "sandbox" generates something like a list of options/setting elements for the players to engage with.

@Campbell upthread sketched a way of trying to split the difference - story now in the streets, right to dream in the sheets - which is to say, apply the relevance principle in prep between sessions, but stick rigorously to prep during actual run-time and adjudication. But I'm not sure that still counts as a "living" sandbox, because the "life" isn't based on naturalistic extrapolation from prep plus the events of play.

...out of time

 

[pemerton]

Universal apoplexy.

<snip>

The needle has clearly moved since then however.

<snip>

Do you remember my post perhaps 6 months ago ruminating about this very thing; when this needle moving occurred in the last 7-9 years (because it certainly wasn’t present in the DC 30…35 thread)? I think it would be very interesting to re-litigate the gorge example and see how much the universality of harumph and disdain has been throttled back.

I do remember your post.

I'm not quite as persuaded that the needle has moved - at least, I'm not sure that it's moved all that much. My reason for thinking this is that a discussion of "fail forward" is more likely to bring up something like the "3 clue rule" - which I think is a railroad technique, consistent with what was said in the Story Hour blog linked upthread - than actual situation-first, fail forward adjudication a la Burning Wheel.

So I still don't think there is much genuine departure from causally-driven adjudication and extrapolation.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You perhaps can try to categorise it thusly on paper, but it just doesn't work that way in reality. What is 'naturalistic' let alone 'most naturalistic' is hella subjective and vague. We could easily say that GM prioritises players' hooks as long as it can be done in a way that seems naturalistic enough, and it effectively describes the same thing. And ultimately people (or at least me) do not work like computers via some 'if X then Y' decision trees, instead decisions are made intuitively and holistically.

Then there's, at best, weak governing principles and play is just going to be what the GM thinks should happen right now, yes? Totally fine, by the way, lots of play does this and works out fun, but you're the one that claimed a governing principle. The moment that was challenged you've retreated into basically disclaiming the principle.

 

[Manbearcat]

I do remember your post.

I'm not quite as persuaded that the needle has moved - at least, I'm not sure that it's moved all that much. My reason for thinking this is that a discussion of "fail forward" is more likely to bring up something like the "3 clue rule" - which I think is a railroad technique, consistent with what was said in the Story Hour blog linked upthread - than actual situation-first, fail forward adjudication a la Burning Wheel.

So I still don't think there is much genuine departure from causally-driven adjudication and extrapolation.

So your thoughts are that the creeping embrace of Fail Forward and conflict resolution mechanics and genre logic are in service to a different master than Story Now play.

Kind of a stealth co-opting of them in the service of ensuring prepped Story Before stays online?

I think there is an interesting conversation to be had there because, if true (and I have no reason to disagree), what that tells you is how important (a) encoded/transparent principles and procedures + (b) table-facing procedures/mechanics are in (c) binding/constraining the GM so they can't make that stealth co-opt move of taking Story Now vessels and repurposing them for prepped Story Before. In effect, (a) + (b) does the significant bulk of the heavy-lifting.

That hypothesis intersects right back into the FKR thread and "high trust system" (here meaning trust that the GM won't co-opt thing x and repurpose it into the service of thing y "cuz you ain't makin' the sausage - deploying established rules and procedures - and you ain't seein' how the sausage is made son - determining when/why/what in terms of resolution means!"). If the pervasiveness of this repurposing is as you sense that it is, that isn't a line of evidence in favor of high trust across the distribution of ENWorld 5e GMs who might try their hand at running FKR games!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Then there's, at best, weak governing principles and play is just going to be what the GM thinks should happen right now, yes? Totally fine, by the way, lots of play does this and works out fun, but you're the one that claimed a governing principle. The moment that was challenged you've retreated into basically disclaiming the principle.

No. I said that there are several principles and the GM balances between them using their personal judgement.