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

[Helpful NPC Thom]

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.

Although I wasn't present for this particular discussion, I will freely admit that had I been presented with such a scenario when seized by the follies and firebrands of youthfulness, I surely would have objected. Vigorously. In the same way I would have objected most vehemently to fixed difficulty of PbtA mechanics. I'll smugly pat myself on the back and say it's a mark of a thoughtful, wise, and humble individual who recognizes his errors and corrects them. Hold the applause, please.

Thus since, I have softened upon the perspective, and while I fully advocate "fail forward" mechanics, I have a dislike for anything that feels too disconnected from the fiction and the action itself. A gorge creatio ex nihilo as a consequence for failure on a lockpicking roll would displease me; however, the potential for the path followed to lead the party astray--to a gorge, a geographic feature likely to exist within the widlerness--I would not object overmuch.

The tolerance for such things varies from individual to individual. As long as it doesn't feel like too great a stretch of an imagination, I have few objections. Establishing the stakes prior to a roll aids in this process, imo.

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

Whoops. Fixed it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What is this gorge incident, and could someone kindly provide a link or a summary or even both?

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Oh, sorry, I thought you just said you had principles of play. My mistake?

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

Then feel free to correct it. You're arguing that there isn't merit in broad categorization (although I strongly disagree with you, elsewise how do you explain the difference between PbtA games and 5e?), and then also claiming that any given table is going to be so idiosyncratic that any analysis will be inapplicable for wider use. It's decrying the entire endeavor so that it can be dismissed. But, not doing that based on a deconstruction that actually shows these issues, but rather a gut feeling that it must be this way.

I mean, there's a lot of great RPG design out there that begs to differ with your claims.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

That's not at all about the principles of play for DW, but rather how to take the concept of Fronts from DW, strip them down, repurpose bits of them, and then integrate them into how 5e plays. It's not about the overall framework for defining and running the game one little tiny bit.

 

[FrogReaver]

@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.

So I'm not sure I agree not calling it principles - but that's rather sematic. We both agree that 5e doesn't have the kind of principles these other games do.

I don't see where Aldarc has posted.

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.

Sounds really similar to what I've been trying to say.

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.

Agreed, but it's not just the rules in the rule book that make the game.

 

[niklinna]

ISSUE 2

* Resolving the intersection of principle 6 and 2 (Skilled Play Priority vs Storytelling Priority). Like the Find the Fun above, I think more work going into this (something to structure conversation around this) would have been hugely helpful.

Not an issue for me: I expect both to be in force at all times!

 

[Malmuria]

That's not at all about the principles of play for DW, but rather how to take the concept of Fronts from DW, strip them down, repurpose bits of them, and then integrate them into how 5e plays. It's not about the overall framework for defining and running the game one little tiny bit.

...yes...that's what I said. I'll say it again: 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?

It would seem like you would have something of a mix? 5e at its core, but leaning toward DW-style play in a few ways?

 

[FrogReaver]

Thus since, I have softened upon the perspective, and while I fully advocate "fail forward" mechanics, I have a dislike for anything that feels too disconnected from the fiction and the action itself. A gorge creatio ex nihilo as a consequence for failure on a lockpicking roll would displease me; however, the potential for the path followed to lead the party astray--to a gorge, a geographic feature likely to exist within the widlerness--I would not object overmuch.

This is a good description of the area I struggle most with in reading examples of story now play.

The tolerance for such things varies from individual to individual. As long as it doesn't feel like too great a stretch of an imagination, I have few objections. Establishing the stakes prior to a roll aids in this process, imo.

I think I'm okay with 'creation ex nihilo' when something is being created in the immediate context for color.
I think I'm okay with 'creation ex nihilo' when it's related to NPC temperment/agendas/etc.
I'm not really okay with 'creation ex nihilo' when its related to timing, as in because of this failed check the guards show up right now.
I'm not really okay with 'creation ex nihilo' when it's related to physical objects intended to impact play in this scene.

I suppose that might can be summarized as I'm only okay with 'creation ex nihilo' when it doesn't involve temporal/spatial positioning for anything intended to impact this particular scene.

 

[Ovinomancer]

...yes...that's what I said. I'll say it again: 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?

It would seem like you would have something of a mix? 5e at its core, but leaning toward DW-style play in a few ways?

No principles were used. A mechanic was adapted. What you're saying would be akin to claiming the influence of the principles and play of soccer on basketball because you could use a soccer ball to play basketball.