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

[pemerton]

Let's say there's a group using flashbacks in their 5e game...and, they're making it work for them. Are they playing it wrong? Is their game "incoherent"? Would they have more fun, objectively, if they didn't try to mix and match mechanics, principles, and influences in that way? I think my approach there would be to say, ok, if the group is having fun and making it work, let's assume they know what they're doing. Let's look at that as a legitimate playstyle, and then go from there, if we wish, to figure out what makes it fun.

I don't know who you think you're disagreeing with here.

But one might ask in what way is the group using flashbacks?

Here's the first post I know of on ENworld that canvassed a flashback-type mechanic in D&D, from about 13 years ago:

When posed with a problem like the door to Moria would you use your Diplomacy to pass it? Would you use your Acrobatics? Would you use Arcana?

The simplest way to use the skills to meet the challenges you face is to use the correct one for the skill check.

Yes. The skill checks have to be using appropriate skills. This is a roleplaying issue.

But which of Diplomacy, Acrobatics or Arcana is the correct skill? You (the player) tell me (another player, or the GM).

Using Diplomacy: "Remember that time we were visiting the Wizards' Guild in Greyhawk? And I was buttering up that Burglomancer specialist? She told me a heap of old magical passwords - I try them all." The player rolls Diplomacy (probably at a hard DC - it's a pretty far-fetched story!) to see if this is true.

Using Acrobatics: "As the Watcher in the Water writhes about with its tentacles, I dodge at the last minute so it smashes into the door and breaks it." That might be a hard DC as well.

Using Arcana: "I speak a spell of opening". Medium DC. Or "I speak a spell of recall, to remember all the passwords and riddles I've learned over the years". That's more interesting and more clever- let's say a Medium DC with a +2 circumstance modifier.

It triggered some sceptical responses, but not from me! Mostly from the "living sandbox" crew. (Some of whom objected to the suggested Acrobatics check too.)

My first thought about adapting this to 5e is that, in the absence of a skill challenge framework, what gives "teeth" to a failed attempt at a flashback? (In a skill challenge, obviously, those teeth arise from the fact that a failed check racks up the overall failure tally.) Deducting a hit die, or imposing a level of exhaustion, would seem a bit odd - why does regret, now, that one didn't pack the needed item back then cause one now to be sore and tired?

The closest thing I can think of to a generic playerside resource to be taxed on failure would be Inspiration. So maybe the rule would be to declare a skill check with a flashback component requires having a point of inspiration available; if the check fails, the inspiration is spent.

 

[pemerton]

Having differences doesn’t exclude having similarities.

True. My BW play resemble D&D "living sandbox" play in having a knight/paladin, a wizard, and Orcs and Elves.

Which is to say both are FRPGs with their basic story elements cut from fairly traditional cloth.

I don't think there are many similarities beyond those.

In BW, the focus of play is always on the PCs' player-authored priorities. The game expressly tells the GM to frame so as to put pressure on those; and expressly says to players if you think the GM has missed the point, take hold of the situation and wrest it to your will! And it provides mechanics to do that - Circles checks, Wises checks (both of which I've given actual play examples of), commencing a Duel of Wits to bring a NPC around to your goals or ways of thinking (which I've given an actual play example of).

To me, the contrast with a game where all the action is located - incipiently - in the GM's prep and curation of the backstory/setting, and the players' job is to learn about this by declaring appropriate actions (mostly about where they go, where they look and who they talk to) and having learned this to then work out how to trigger the scenes thy want by declaring appropriate actions (again, mostly about where they go, where they look and who they talk to) is pretty stark.

And that contrast is driven home by your - in my view accurate - remark that in a "living sandbox" engagement of player priorities is "not instant" and is not the GM's job. And by your suggested example of play, that the actual playtime consequence of a PC's desire to avenge their brother's murder would be carrying out an outpost raid for a faction (ie the player-authored priority basically turns into a hook for the player getting to take up a mission from a NPC, no different in its function from the hook being I'll do it if you pay me).

I have attempted to identify the mechanism of authorship that explains the difference: one is "situation first", with principles that govern the authorship of that situation emphasising the centrality of player-authored PC priorities; the other is "backstory first", with principles emphasising naturalistic extrapolation of the fiction (the "living world") independent of any player-authored PC priorities.

Disputing my explanation - although I still don't really get what the disagreement consists in - and trying to argue that BW is also "backstory first" - although I don't really get what that argument is - won't change the fact that this profound contrast is there.

Which is also why I dispute the claim that my explanation is an "axiomatic" one. It's grounded in an actual awareness of an actual difference in play experience. A profound difference.

 

[pemerton]

On the discussion about DW fronts in 5e D&D:

I read the blog: Looking Back on Dungeon World Fronts

What it takes from DW is a pithy way of expressing antagonism in a RPG: an antagonist with a motivation and a resulting goal.

Where it seems to me to depart from DW is that it suggests a different process of play: The blog says However the PCs move, these villains move forward as well. The grim portents for these villains are all outlined in the adventure, so we won't to over them here.

In other words, it doesn't adopt the key Apocalypse World idea that fronts are a source of adversity for informing GM moves, and GM moves are not independent of however the PCs move. For instance, the activation of Isle's family in the example of play in the AW rulebook ("Moves Snowball") is a direct consequence of something a PC does.

 

[Campbell]

So when it comes to mixing and matching play techniques and principles you absolutely can do it. I have shown how I do it on a regular basis. I just think it's a mistake to mix and match haphazardly. You should have a disciplined approach to running the game so players know what they can expect.

For example one way to drift almost any traditional game towards more Story Now play would be to implement intent and task from Burning Wheel outside of when specific subsystems like combat and in some games social stuff is being deployed. Basically players state what their characters are doing as normal but they also state what the player hopes to achieve. The GM sets the DC as normal. Success means they realize their intent. Failure means they do not and their lives become complicated in some fashion. You can pretty much do this in any game with open ended skill checks. What you don't want to do is only sometimes take their intent into consideration because that leads to confusion about what play is about. There should at least be a solid indication when technique and play priorities are shifting.

I will admit that I have a very strong consistency bias (in games and real life). I think games work better when we are all on the same page and playing in the same key. I also think that having a consistent play process is the key to analyzing your own play and GMing to improve upon it over time. Even if the games we play do not have a coherent approach to play I think we should develop one for our own play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So when it comes to mixing and matching play techniques and principles you absolutely can do it. I have shown how I do it on a regular basis. I just think it's a mistake to mix and match haphazardly. You should have a disciplined approach to running the game so players know what they can expect.

For example one way to drift almost any traditional game towards more Story Now play would be to implement intent and task from Burning Wheel outside of when specific subsystems like combat and in some games social stuff is being deployed. Basically players state what their characters are doing as normal but they also state what the player hopes to achieve. The GM sets the DC as normal. Success means they realize their intent. Failure means they do not and their lives become complicated in some fashion. You can pretty much do this in any game with open ended skill checks. What you don't want to do is only sometimes take their intent into consideration because that leads to confusion about what play is about. There should at least be a solid indication when technique and play priorities are shifting.

I will admit that I have a very strong consistency bias (in games and real life). I think games work better when we are all on the same page and playing in the same key. I also think that having a consistent play process is the key to analyzing your own play and GMing to improve upon it over time. Even if the games we play do not have a coherent approach to play I think we should develop one for our own play.

I'm not sure this drifts toward Story Now because there's still a strong constraint of backstory on permissible intents and tasks.

ETA: much more work needs to be done. I actually use the intent and task approach with 5e, but it's definitely not Story Now. It's a great way to make stakes clear, though.

 

[pemerton]

So when it comes to mixing and matching play techniques and principles you absolutely can do it. I have shown how I do it on a regular basis. I just think it's a mistake to mix and match haphazardly. You should have a disciplined approach to running the game so players know what they can expect.

For example one way to drift almost any traditional game towards more Story Now play would be to implement intent and task from Burning Wheel

<snip>

You can pretty much do this in any game with open ended skill checks.

Yep. I've done this in Cthulhu Dark. I think the most significant consequence of adopting intent-and-task is that player purposes/goals loom larger in play: if checks succeed, then play follows those purposes/goals; if checks fail, then complications ensue which are complications relative to those purposes/goals. So even if checks fail, player purposes/goals are still front-and-centre.

A flip side of this is that intent-and-task is probably not helpful if the plan is to run a pre-scripted adventure.

Another example of cross-pollination: I don't know if it quite counts as "mixing and matching", but I've found looking at Classic Traveller through the lens of AW player moves - if you do it, you do it - very helpful. It's given me a sense of what the mechanics and all the little subsystems are for, and has helped me think about what sorts of situations to frame (ie ones where the subsystems will be enlivened and help carry play forward).

EDIT:

I'm not sure this drifts toward Story Now because there's still a strong constraint of backstory on permissible intents and tasks.

Cthulhu Dark is a nice example here. The default assumption for play is that the GM is working through a module, and so there is a strong backstory present, and hence intent-and-task probably wouldn't be apposite.

But when I've run Cthulhu Dark it's been "no myth" (other than generic setting stuff: between-the-wars Boston; Victorian London) and so intent-and task has helped provide the "structure" to drive play forward in the absence of backstory.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yep. I've done this in Cthulhu Dark. I think the most significant consequence of adopting intent-and-task is that player purposes/goals loom larger in play: if checks succeed, then play follows those purposes/goals; if checks fail, then complications ensue which are complications relative to those purposes/goals. So even if checks fail, player purposes/goals are still front-and-centre.

A flip side of this is that intent-and-task is probably not helpful if the plan is to run a pre-scripted adventure.

Another example of cross-pollination: I don't know if it quite counts as "mixing and matching", but I've found looking at Classic Traveller through the lens of AW player moves - if you do it, you do it - very helpful. It's given me a sense of what the mechanics and all the little subsystems are for, and has helped me think about what sorts of situations to frame (ie ones where the subsystems will be enlivened and help carry play forward).

EDIT:
Cthulhu Dark is a nice example here. The default assumption for play is that the GM is working through a module, and so there is a strong backstory present, and hence intent-and-task probably wouldn't be apposite.

But when I've run Cthulhu Dark it's been "no myth" (other than generic setting stuff: between-the-wars Boston; Victorian London) and so intent-and task has helped provide the "structure" to drive play forward in the absence of backstory.

When I first read CD, I immediately discarded running through a module and oriented the game to No Myth/Story Now play. It's very well situated for this, in my opinion. Honestly, I don't see how well it works for module play -- it would appear that Force would be necessary to operate the module with the nature of resolutions in CD. Maybe I missed something.

 

[pemerton]

When I first read CD, I immediately discarded running through a module and oriented the game to No Myth/Story Now play. It's very well situated for this, in my opinion. Honestly, I don't see how well it works for module play -- it would appear that Force would be necessary to operate the module with the nature of resolutions in CD. Maybe I missed something.

I've never tried. There is a rule that no one can invoke the possibility of failure if success is necessary for the investigation to progress. If we assume that the Keeper/GM is the one who manages that rule, then at key moments the system becomes "say 'yes' and roll the dice" where the effect of the die roll is to determine how big a complication the GM can introduce in response. Presumably if running a module, those complications will be taken from the module backstory rather than via an intent-and-task-ish approach.

The worry might be that players declare a lot of actions that circumvent or go "off track" vis-a-vis the module. But the GM can probably use complications - and, again, not ones based on intent-and-task - to steer things back on track.

I don't know if the above would work. In the abstract I think it looks feasible. A similar approach might be able to be generalised to other pre-scripted play - eg a DL-type adventure. Basically drop the illusionism in favour of the say 'yes' and roll and complications from the module approach. Eg there's no need to fudge to keep PCs alive - in crucial combats where they have to survive it's say yes and roll to see how badly hurt they are on the other side. And there's no need for an "obscure death" rule for NPCs - even though they seemed defeated, it turns out they were just temporarily out of action and now they recur as new complications.

Instead if an Insanity die it might be a Passion die - when it gets to 6, your passion overwhelms you and you die of grief or in a mad charge of the Dragon Army or whatever seems appropriat; when it gets to 5 you can take steps to cool your passion, such as cynically distancing yourself from the object of your passion.

I'm just making this up as I type, but my gut feel is that it would work as well for DL as the AD&D mechanics do!

 

[Manbearcat]

When a player rolls 10+ three times in a row, then 6- four times in a row, there aren't a lot of opportunities for soft moves, other than by making a soft move "as hard a move as you please." (I think that's the wording)

My experience of the game was that it was more reflective of the dice rolls than 5e, not less, but--as I said--my dice luck is notoriously peculiar.

I'm not going to quibble with your ability to generate wild dice throws. But I would still expect there to be soft moves in those moments when everyone looks to the MC/GM to say something about what happens next. (And sometimes the move that is as hard as you please might also be towards the softer end - Baker gives an example of this in his discussion of adjudicating Opening One's Brain to the Psychic Maelstrom.)

Just so everyone (quietly reading the exchanges) is clear, all scene framing is the deployment of a soft move. So the opener to a scene that presents a conflict (a harrowing climb, a looming hanging in the distance, a volatile disagreement between NPCs or factions, a pyroclastic cloud bearing down on your position, an ill omen from a divination, a spectral figure pulling its hooded arm upright and pointing at you, the red eyes of a possessed creature, etc etc etc) is a soft move.

This is something all Story Now games (from PBtA games to Dogs to Sorcerer to Mouse Guard etc) share with any GM who runs a game that (a) ceaselessly cuts to the action and (b) "the action" is always a provocative conflict that demands intervention/action. So if you're running a 5e game like this, that is something that you share with Story Now games (and DW/AW).

One of the areas where DW will differ from a 5e is the binary action resolution; eg the lack of 7-9 result (where the bulk of soft moves manifest during play). Even if you're using the Success at a Cost module in the book, (i) the math doesn't work out to be anywhere near the bell curve of DW and (ii) the game doesn't support the multiple, diverse pressure point that DW can threaten you in very punishing/meaningful ways.

If you want to run a 5e game that pushes toward DW play, I would do the following:

* Increase the boundary of Success With a Cost to a very significant number (so that 67 %-ish of results across the distribution of a session will fall there).

* Hack in and integrate (so that they're not too punishing and not too forgiving) a lot more pressure points than presently exists in the system. The Fatigue rules + Short Rest Refresh abilities + finding a way to make actual gear loss consistently meaningful/punishing (Tool Proficiencies) are a good place to start.


You've got plenty of work left to do (and you'll never get there because there are just too many different foundational elements), but those two things are a good place to start in your DW drift effort (obviously hewing 100 % to the agenda and principles, sorting out incentive structures/xp triggers, and make the entire edifice of play table-facing).


If you're a player in one of these 5e-would-be-DW games, what you need to do is hold on lightly to your conception of your PC; a Best Practice. Leave plenty of things unfixed or at least up for play to decide. You need to be as curious about "who is this PC" as everyone else at the table. Just like people in life are trying to find themselves and are insecure and unsure, so to should your orientation to your conception of self as your PC be.

Be aggressive and bold. Advocate for your hero. But hold on lightly to your conception of self and be curious about who this person is.

 

[FrogReaver]

You said that, in living sandbox play,In BW, the GM is expected to frame every scene having regard to the player-authored PC priorities. These should be put under pressure by the framing - the action declarations and resolution determine how that pressure resolves. (In AW language, this is a version of soft move/hard move sequence.)

In my BW play, you can see that (i) either the GM does this, or (ii) where I feel that the GM is drifting away (eg like with the Elves) I use the mechanisms the game gives me to pull things back into a focus on my priorities for my PC. This is something the game tells me to do (Revised edition, p 269):

Use the mechanics! Players are expected to call for a Duel of Wits or a Circles test . . . Don't wait for the GM to invoke a rule - invoke the damn thing yourself and get the story moving! . . . If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself.​

With the Elves, I invoked a Duel of Wits to try and persuade them to come with me (Thurgon) to Auxol. I used Circles checks to meet Rufus. The GM used the appearance of Rufus in the situation to put pressure on my PC - which in the end resulted in failure for Thurgon, but began the process of Aramina's change of disposition.

I don't really see how this seems "very similar" to play where it's not up to the GM to frame having regard to player priorities for their PCs and there is no guarantee of such scenes at all (ie it "isn't instant").

To me it seems radically different.

I described your excerpts as producing something very similar to living sandbox play. You seem to now be shifting to talking about the game as a whole and not just the play excerpts. Those are 2 different things to discuss, yes?