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

[Ovinomancer]

In what, for whom?

Of course the principles are different for different games and different GMs.

So, then, no principles of play, just idiosyncratic approaches. I mean, this is what I said above. It is that you feel the need to have the term principles be about your play because that sounds better? Is that why they have to exist but cannot be explained?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, then, no principles of play, just idiosyncratic approaches. I mean, this is what I said above. It is that you feel the need to have the term principles be about your play because that sounds better? Is that why they have to exist but cannot be explained?

You're making even less sense than usual, mate. Call it what you want, I'm not the one here obsessing about semantics or pointless categorisations that doesn't actually correspond to the reality.

 

[FrogReaver]

So, then, no principles of play, just idiosyncratic approaches. I mean, this is what I said above. It is that you feel the need to have the term principles be about your play because that sounds better? Is that why they have to exist but cannot be explained?

I think the difference is in descriptive vs prescriptive principles.

I can look at a lot of D&D module play and come away with some typical principles.

I can look at living sandbox play and come away with some typical principles.

But I cannot say these typical principles are universally applicable to all d&d module play or all d&d living sandbox play.

descriptive vs prescriptive seems to be the best way to explain this difference.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No one on the Internet ever admits that their ideas changed on account of others - that's a sign of weakness! - instead, they claim that they have always been a fan of these ideas and have always utilized them in their gaming. The trick is convincing yourself and others that nothing has changed, most especially your own mind.

I have! Discussing games here has definitely resulted in changes to my gaming. I only started posting here regularly with the launch of 5e, and at that point, D&D and a handful of other games were all that I'd played. I hadn't really been engaged with the wider hobby prior to that. Since then I've started playing several new games, and I've read many others. A lot of that is directly attributed to my interactions with people here on these boards.

That's something that I try to keep in mind when it seems like these discussions are just going in circles.

******

On the topic of principles for GMing D&D 5e; I have to say that I agree with those that have said the principles are not clearly defined. But at the same time, I have to say that the lack of clear definition was by design, and has led to a specific approach for the edition, which is to largely leave things up to the individual GM or (hopefully) the group as a whole. So I can see why some folks think that this goal was an obvious one.

The DMG is near at hand in my office, and I've just thumbed through it a bit to see how it presents its advice. The bulk of the advice is very broad and generic. Very often, a few different ways to go about something are offered, with suggestions about how to achieve them. But none of these really amount to what I'd call a principle.

The vast majority of guidance the DMG gives is in how to create a campaign world, how to craft adventures and locations and NPCs, and then how to make changes to the rules. When you get to the section "Running the Game" on page 235, things actually touch on the nature of authority and how to actually run the game. However, a lot of it feels like filler or very basic advice like "Rolling attack dice and damage dice at the same time may speed the game up" and stuff like that.

When you get to actual how to run the game type stuff, the text doesn't commit. In the section "Role of Dice" they offer the idea of rolling for everything except mundane tasks, OR to not roll at all except for combat. Then they offer "The Middle Path" of using both methods as needed, with a reminder that the dice aren't in charge...YOU ARE!! On pages 238 and 239 you get about a half page of guidance on setting DCs for tasks. It amounts to providing the chart for Typical DCs, from Very Easy- 5 up to Nearly Impossible- 30, and then says to keep these in mind when assigning a DC not established by a rule or an adventure. This is rudimentary advice.

There's nothing at all like a principle offered throughout most of the book. Nothing like the very specific lists offered in many other games. This is both a good thing and a bad thing, I'd say. It's good in that it leaves the game flexible; different groups can adapt it to their needs, and can run things how they like. It's bad because it offers very little in the way of actual guidance for anyone new to the game and because it doesn't present a cohesive model of play. Different people will read that book and then proceed with running a game in potentially significantly different ways.

For me personally, and in looking at things subjectively, I'd say that the bad outweighs the good, here. It would have been better to offer more specific guidance in how to actually run the game. But, given the game's popularity, it's hard to say that they should have done that.....the results they've had with not doing it are hard to argue.

The end result is that you have a game where things are always fuzzy. There's no hard delineations or sharp edges. Everything's a bit mushy and morphic. Which seems to work for a lot of groups, but it doesn't exactly make for easy discussion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That this has even been a contentious point astounds me.

after 4e the d&d fan base was largely fractured - having vastly different playstyles, DMing styles, settings, and priorities of play. While some broad trends can be analyzed, each individual table tended to have its own individual style.

Enter 5e and the big tent approach and the game didn’t attempt to push toward any particular style or play priorities or DMing techniques.

How something like this can be compared to something more specifically defined with less differences between tables I have no idea.

Ah, yes, the "individual implementation defies all attempts are analysis" ploy. My table is immune to analysis -- we cannot analyze this play -- because it's just an individual implementation. And, since the hobby is made of such, no such analysis is valid. It's handwaving, though. There's nothing special about your play that resists analysis, and the latter is attempting to deny that games enable and disable play by their very nature.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think the difference is in descriptive vs prescriptive principles.

I can look at a lot of D&D module play and come away with some typical principles.

I can look at living sandbox play and come away with some typical principles.

But I cannot say these typical principles are universally applicable to all d&d module play or all d&d living sandbox play.

descriptive vs prescriptive seems to be the best way to explain this difference.

And yet, these are not able to be presented, apparently. I mean, I've presented play examples from 5e, something claimed to not be useful. @Manbearcat presented what I think are a decent set of principles for 5e gleaned from the rules as presented and noted how they're not entirely coherent or useful. So, it can be done. You just do not do it and claim that it can be done.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ah, yes, the "individual implementation defies all attempts are analysis" ploy. My table is immune to analysis -- we cannot analyze this play -- because it's just an individual implementation. And, since the hobby is made of such, no such analysis is valid. It's handwaving, though. There's nothing special about your play that resists analysis, and the latter is attempting to deny that games enable and disable play by their very nature.

If that extreme caricature is your perception of my position I see no point in continuing this discussion with you.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

@FrogReaver, if the game doesn't list principles but instead relies on the GM to come up with those principles, there aren't really any principles at all. @hawkeyefan (edit: misattributed to @Aldarc, my apologies--has explained this in quite a bit of depth while I was writing out my own post, but I'll chime in nonetheless.

D&D has never explicitly called out principles the way PbtA games do. Snagging from the Dungeon World SRD, there are two main concepts that D&D lacks: Agenda and Principles. The Agenda is the GM's goal. In Dungeon World, the GM's "job" is to:

• Make the world fantastic
• Fill the characters' lives with adventure
• Play to find out what happens

The text explicitly says the following:

Everything you say, create, and do at the table and away from the table is to accomplish these three goals and no others. Things that aren't on this list aren't your goals. You're not trying to beat the players or test their ability to solve complex traps. You're not here to give the players a chance to explore your finely crafted setting. You're most certainly not here to tell everyone a planned story.

In D&D 5e, I'd say that the GM's principles are similar, save for the last bit. I believe "create enjoyable combat encounters" and "challenge the characters and the players" would replace the final bullet point, but your perspective may differ.

In Dungeon World, the GM's principles are thus:

• Draw maps, leave blanks
• Address the characters, not the players
• Embrace the fantastic
• Make a move that follows
• Never speak the name of your move
• Give every monster life
• Name every person
• Ask questions and use the answers
• Be a fan of the characters
• Think Dangerous
• Begin and end with the fiction
• Think offscreen, too

The purpose of principles is to establish how the GM runs the game. Actions that are aligned with those principles are greenlit; those contrary to them are not. These principles are all largely compatible with 5e, but I'd alter a few slightly ("ask questions and use the answers" is inappropriate), and I'd add "consult the dice when uncertain" and "balance risk and reward." At least, that's how I view the designers' intent.

The problem within 5e is that everything is wishy-washy in terms of the non-combat or spell mechanics. There's no procedure or rules of play to guide the GM's hand. Without an Agenda or Principles, the GM is left to determine his own. Flexibility is a strength and weakness of 5e because D&D is in many ways formless; the rules have a structure, but because the game isn't designed for one particular use, it takes on the shape of the vessel into which it is poured...sort of.

Dungeon World is designed for high-action fantasy adventure. It tells the GM how to accomplish this with its Agenda and Principles. D&D has always lacked these elements, and it has never provided cohesive guidelines on how to run the game to accomplish the purpose of the game. What is the point of 5e? The point of 3e was a streamlined version of AD&D 2e that implemented character customization and tactical options. The point of 4e was to balance 3e around the tactical combat elements. The point of 5e is to...well, I suspect it was to appeal to the fanbase that had originally left for Pathfinder while remaining accessible to a wide audience.

The rules don't tell the GM how to do any of that, though.

 

[Aldarc]

@Helpful NPC Thom, I didn’t say that but I will gladly take the credit.

 

[Malmuria]

@FrogReaver, if the game doesn't list principles but instead relies on the GM to come up with those principles, there aren't really any principles at all. @Aldarc has explained this in quite a bit of depth while I was writing out my own post, but I'll chime in nonetheless.

D&D has never explicitly called out principles the way PbtA games do. Snagging from the Dungeon World SRD, there are two main concepts that D&D lacks: Agenda and Principles. The Agenda is the GM's goal. In Dungeon World, the GM's "job" is to:

• Make the world fantastic
• Fill the characters' lives with adventure
• Play to find out what happens

The text explicitly says the following:


In D&D 5e, I'd say that the GM's principles are similar, save for the last bit. I believe "create enjoyable combat encounters" and "challenge the characters and the players" would replace the final bullet point, but your perspective may differ.

In Dungeon World, the GM's principles are thus:

• Draw maps, leave blanks
• Address the characters, not the players
• Embrace the fantastic
• Make a move that follows
• Never speak the name of your move
• Give every monster life
• Name every person
• Ask questions and use the answers
• Be a fan of the characters
• Think Dangerous
• Begin and end with the fiction
• Think offscreen, too

The purpose of principles is to establish how the GM runs the game. Actions that are aligned with those principles are greenlit; those contrary to them are not. These principles are all largely compatible with 5e, but I'd alter a few slightly ("ask questions and use the answers" is inappropriate), and I'd add "consult the dice when uncertain" and "balance risk and reward." At least, that's how I view the designers' intent.

The problem within 5e is that everything is wishy-washy in terms of the non-combat or spell mechanics. There's no procedure or rules of play to guide the GM's hand. Without an Agenda or Principles, the GM is left to determine his own. Flexibility is a strength and weakness of 5e because D&D is in many ways formless; the rules have a structure, but because the game isn't designed for one particular use, it takes on the shape of the vessel into which it is poured...sort of.

Dungeon World is designed for high-action fantasy adventure. It tells the GM how to accomplish this with its Agenda and Principles. D&D has always lacked these elements, and it has never provided cohesive guidelines on how to run the game to accomplish the purpose of the game. What is the point of 5e? The point of 3e was a streamlined version of AD&D 2e that implemented character customization and tactical options. The point of 4e was to balance 3e around the tactical combat elements. The point of 5e is to...well, I suspect it was to appeal to the fanbase that had originally left for Pathfinder while remaining accessible to a wide audience.

The rules don't tell the GM how to do any of that, though.

I feel like dungeon world, especially its principles, has been particularly influential for the way at at least some people approach playing 5e. What happens when you keep some of those principles and techniques in mind, but use the 5e system instead? For example:

Looking Back on Dungeon World Fronts

We here in the Sly Flourish laboratories continually look at where GMs can get the most from their effort and time. This all led to the book The Lazy Dungeon Master where we propose that limiting the ...

slyflourish.com