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

[Ovinomancer]

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


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.

Not liking it is a completely separate issue from analyzing how play functions.

 

[Malmuria]

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.

I'm speculating, but I would think these are the principles that are influential for some 5e tables, and come across in Mike Shea's (also influential) advice:

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

With regards to fronts specifically, "think offscreen" might be the most applicable (he also has a take on hard moves).

But beyond that one example: the point of such influence, I don't think, is replicating Dungeon World using 5e rules. Rather, people might be influenced by the game overall and seek to bring certain elements in (example-CW, Mearls). And if you took that influence with you to your 5e game, wouldn't it result in a 5e play experience that was notably different than one merely guided by the principles/advice in the dmg?

 

[Numidius]

Essentially, I used some situation-framed tech like skill challenges to generate prompts for me to prep more Classic/Trad adventures. Ultimately, though, outside of the skill challenges, I was still very much in backstory-first framing and using backstory as the primary means of adjudication -- it either answered questions or directed what system tool was needed to resolve the situation. Since I was using the skill challenges to handle player prompts for content, this worked out okay as a hybrid system.

I'd like to hear how you do that, even with some examples, if you want.

As an aside, I'm also curious about players' self-authored quests, how did they work in 4e.

 

[niklinna]

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.

I don't think @Malmuria is necessarily claiming the principles were used, just that they are having an influence. Even if the Lazy DM took the idea of Fronts and stripped out everything that actually makes them what they are, there's been an influence from one game system to another.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm speculating, but I would think these are the principles that are influential for some 5e tables, and come across in Mike Shea's (also influential) advice:


With regards to fronts specifically, "think offscreen" might be the most applicable (he also has a take on hard moves).

But beyond that one example: the point of such influence, I don't think, is replicating Dungeon World using 5e rules. Rather, people might be influenced by the game overall and seek to bring certain elements in (example-CW, Mearls). And if you took that influence with you to your 5e game, wouldn't it result in a 5e play experience that was notably different than one merely guided by the principles/advice in the dmg?

The 5e DMG is pretty light on that kind of advice and so it wouldn't surprise me if most principles/advice from Dungeon World could be incorporated into 5e play without doing anything against the DMG advice.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think @Malmuria is necessarily claiming the principles were used, just that they are having an influence. Even if the Lazy DM took the idea of Fronts and stripped out everything that actually makes them what they are, there's been an influence from one game system to another.

That's the kind of "influence" I was talking about with soccer and basketball -- it doesn't really amount to much at all.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The 5e DMG is pretty light on that kind of advice and so it wouldn't surprise me if most principles/advice from Dungeon World could be incorporated into 5e play without doing anything against the DMG advice.

And you'd be incorrect in some rather surprising ways.

• Draw maps, leave blanks

This works, but the idea here is that play creates the filler for the blanks, not the GM thinking what goes there. You have no real way using 5e to fill in these blanks -- this is entirely a GM side thing for 5e, so the GM would be doing this by fiat. This actually perverts the intent of this principle -- that blanks are open for the play procedures, ie player actions, to fill in the spots, not the GM using fiat.

• Address the characters, not the players

This one works, and can be generally good advice.

• Embrace the fantastic

Again, this one works.

• Make a move that follows

This one is nonsense in the framework of 5e. The GM isn't making moves like they do in DW, and certainly not as DW prompts them, so there really isn't a move that follows to be made. The fact that NPCs and monsters can act independently and have their own agendas they can push into play makes this not work. And this one is a really crucial point for play in DW. It just doesn't translate.

• Never speak the name of your move

This is about presenting clear fiction and not just tossing mechanics. So, there's something there, but this then runs into being not clear in communication because 5e is such a mechanically dense system with so many rules tags and details that are completely missing in DW. Even in DW, things like actual rules tags, like Messy, are supposed to be presented. Rather, this is specific to just presenting what is rather than naming a move. It doesn't translate into 5e very well (the way it would would be to describe the enemy caster casting a spell and then name the spell because that's what you'd be doing here in 5e. Doesn't make much sense.

• Give every monster life

This works as well, but there's some difference in that in 5e monsters come often by the bucketload and are quickly dispatched. Monsters in DW are big moments of play, so they stand out individually more in play to a great degree compared to 5e. Therefore, this makes sense in DW, but could be a slog to given goblin number 12 in wave 3 a distinct personality and set of quirks.

• Name every person

Same thing as above, but much more manageable in 5e due to the lesser number of NPCs engaged with.

• Ask questions and use the answers

And this one doesn't really work very well in 5e, because you're asking the players for backstory with this and/or asking what situation needs to be framed. 5e doesn't play well like this, again because it lacks the non-combat resolution mechanics that can decisively resolve things without the GM building a backstory web and then directing the play towards a specific question.

Unless you're comfortable with having play go, "a crazed man leaps from the shadows clutching a dagger! Why does he want to kill you?" And then, whatever the answer, that's what's going on, and then doing this often and repeatedly.

• Be a fan of the characters

This one is often misunderstood. Think of this like being a fan of John McClain in Die Hard. As a fan of John, I want to see him get beat up and barely make it, I want to see him run across broken glass, I want to see him barely escape the explosion, etc. I want John McClain's life to be very hard because I want to see how he gets through it. I don't want to see John getting into LA, having an uncomfortable night with his ex-wife at the office party, and then sleeping on the couch for a few days while he awkwardly talks to his kids.

What this means is 1) pour adversity at the PCs and 2) when they earn wins, let them win, and 3) when they lose, hurt them. Being a fan is not a nice thing for the PCs. it's not about going easy.

And, because of this, because 5e play that looks like this gets labeled as antagonistic play by the GM (and rightly so given how play works in 5e)

• Think Dangerous

This one is good.

• Begin and end with the fiction

This one can be

• Think offscreen, too

This one doesn't make much sense because it's the default mode for 5e. Mostly this one is to remind you to think about things that could impact play that aren't currently onstage. Given how, in 5e, such things are usually prepped, it doesn't make much sense in that regard.

 

[Malmuria]

That's the kind of "influence" I was talking about with soccer and basketball -- it doesn't really amount to much at all.

Huh. Well, you have a framework for analysis that works for you. From my perspective, this framework is overly rigid, the problem being that it becomes self-referential, where sure, you can analyze play reports all day, but the result of any analysis is only to shore up the framework (the basket A, basket B problem). Consequently, something like actual 5e players (as well as the designers) being influenced by dungeon world doesn't register as meaningful.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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

Some of this seems contradictory.

You say that the players put things in front of themselves. You also say that the GM uses machinery to create the world. I'm not sure how both these things can be true.

And some of it just seems false. Mightn't it affect the play experience quite a bit if I as a player decide that my PC has a murdered brother whom I hope to avenge or if the GM decides that my PC has a murdered brother?

And even if I just focus on GM-authored fiction: if the GM decides the outcomes of action declarations based on what they think makes sense, won't that change the play experience compared to leaning heavily into stat/skill checks?

And if the GM decides outcomes based on working from their notes, won't that change the play experience compared to them departing from their notes and making things up in order to manage pacing and avoid stalling and dullness. (This is something @Crimson Longinus advocated upthread. The reason for the advocacy appeared to be the effect it would have on the play experience.)

the fictional backstories of the players should affect play.

Do you mean the GM should have regard to them in framing scenes? In authoring the GM's setting material? Eg when designing a faction where we can anticipate that the players might have their PCs interact with its members and leaderships, is it good practice to write links between the PC backstories and the faction backstory - eg perhaps the faction enforcer is the one who killed the brother (this sets up a nice potential triangle between PC - enforcer - faction leader)?

Also: it seems to me that these sorts of considerations show that how the fiction is generated - ie what principles the GM follows in authoring it - might have a big effect on the play experience.

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).

How do players do that? I assume they can't just frame themselves into scenes - OK, we're at the Dragon Highlord's tower, ready to sneak in through the postern. And I assume the GM doesn't just frame that scene - I take it that's what you mean by it isn't instant.

I assume that what you have in mind is that the players declare actions that (i) prompt the GM to narrate that their PCs are moving through the "sandbox", and (ii) prompt the GM to reveal more of the hitherto-secret backstory/setting material. The upshot of the (ii) actions informs more of the (i) actions until eventually the PCs find themselves in a scene that lets them meaningfully engage their priorities.

Now what I've just described is how I have GMed living world sandboxes, and how I've always understood others to do so too. The only thing that makes me hesitate is that it is so obviously different from what I've described in my BW play, and yet upthread you asserted that BW play and living sandbox play were very similar.

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.

Well, do you have such a categorisation ready to hand? The only one that I have much of a sense of - and it's a bit of a rudimentary sense - is Kevin Crawford's in Stars without Number, and it's obviously of relevance to thinking about how fiction is established in other sorts of RPGing. (I'd be surprised if Crawford has not thought about some of Vincent Baker's stuff on setting design in DitV and AW; and I think @Campbell mentioned upthread that John Harper draws on some of Crawford's ideas in the design of BitD.)

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.

This is not accurate. Talking about different ways in which different components of the fiction are established is not solely to differentiate story now play from other sorts of play. The first work I ever put it to was trying to sort out issues in Rolemaster PC build and action resolution mechanics, which are paradigms of purist-for-system simulation.

 

[pemerton]

How easily would a principled Doom Pool (both in how/when it gathers and how/when it can be deployed) solve the 5e Storytelling Priority vs Skilled Play Priority, particularly when it comes to Long Rests?

<snip>

But that is a very different ball of wax from letting GMs decide between Storytelling Priority and Skilled Play Priority at their discretion. And it also loops the players in because their decision-points (through the entire unit of play as the growth of the Doom Pool is mechanized and table-facing) intersect with all of this!

But can you assure me that no immersion was harmed in the administration of your Doom Pool?

EDIT: This is part of why I think the needle hasn't moved very much. I think what you propose would be treated as outrageous by the vast bulk of D&D fandom. And responding to your earlier reply, I don't even think it's "stealth" coopting. It's keeping some labels but overtly changing th technique.

Eg "fail forward" was coined to describe BW-style resolution of failure: the action is declared by the player with both intent and task, the check fails, and the GM narrates a consequence which may or may not involve the task succeeding, but which - crucially - both (i) runs contrary to the intent, and (ii) generates new pressure for the player in terms of the broader goal/motivation from which the action's intent flowed. In other words, BW "fail forward" is shaped by player-established intention and motivaiton.

Whereas when I see "fail forward" mentioned in relation to 5e D&D, it is mostly in a 3-clue rule style: the player declares a task, and if the check fails, the GM has regard to the GM's intentions for how things should unfold in narrating the consequence of failure, which may or may not include the task succeeding at least in part, but includes non-naturalistically extrapolated content whose function is to ensure the GM's goals for the broader scene and scenario are not undone.

That's not stealth!