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

[FrogReaver]

I think you have reversed causation here.

I don't.

Fiction doesn't just change. It is an inert, abstract bundle of ideas and relationships between them.

I never said it did. Instead I compared 2 abstract processes that can produce the same fiction under the same distributions and then under different distributions and also 2 abstract processes that cannot produce the same fiction.

It changes because either (i) someone directly authors it, or - in the context of shared fiction - (ii) someone suggests a change or new element and the other participants agree.

Sure. But (1) identical processes can yield different fiction by introduction of random variables, different DM's, different players, etc and (2) different fiction can lead to different play experiences, thus (3) identical processes can lead to different play experiences.

*This shouldn't be a particularly surprising result.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because all the things you don't prefer are present in BW and AW, which seems to push against your assertion that play in either of these systems might be very similar to a D&D living sandbox.

...based on your play excerpts of those games. It's interesting though that your analysis of those play excerpts is so much different than mine (*and others) analysis of them. Have you considered that you aren't highlighting the important points to hone in on the differences you want to bring forward in your play excerpts. Maybe that's half the problem (which is probably a very hard thing to do given the numerous playstyles in D&D that they might be contrasted with).

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Let's examine that.

In BW, the focus of play is always on the PCs' player-authored priorities.

D&D by the rules doesn't describe a 'focus of play' and so the GM usually adopts one, though it may be a bit amorphous at times. But one focus of play the GM could adopt is to focus scenes around PC's player-authored principles.

In which case I've got to ask, do you want to compare BW to D&D as a whole or how tables run or can run D&D? Because the target of your comparison there is going to be very important in terms of what conclusions we can draw.

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).

Duel of wits is just a persuasion check. At the core that's all it is. If persuasion checks happened anytime the players desired then they would be essentially the same. But 5e does have one bit of mechanics that's different and that's the mechanic that the GM decides whether to have such a check in the first place. And yes that's an important addition, but it's still very similar and there's nothing stopping a GM in D&D from saying, I'll have my NPC's be potentially persuadable to any 'good faith', 'genre appropriate' and 'preestablished fiction' appropriate attempt. Excludes things like using Persuasion to get the King to give non-noble you his crown.

Which kind of comes back to the question, are we comparing to D&D as a whole or to a specific instance of D&D play and if a specific instance of D&D play then which specific instance?

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.

Sure, I think the backstory first really is a call out to map and key play. At least that's the platonic ideal of it as presented here. Maybe we should start here, do you believe any D&D play isn't map and key play? Because if not that underlying idea is shaping this whole discussion and it needs explicitly talked about if so.

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).

And thus the story unfolds.

Tirga wants to avenge his brothers death. He's been searching for information about the killer all his life. He's turned to adventuring hoping to leverage his associations in that line of work to gain favor with whoever knows or has the power to find out who killed his brother. So far it's all been dead ends, but there might be a chance now. Herkes has approached him talking of a brewing faction war and asking for him to aid his faction in a raid on their adversaries supplies. Tirga sees the opportunity here as an event as world changing as a faction war can loosen the lips of those that hold information in exchange for some services. He tells Herkes he's willing to help but only for the identity of his brothers killer. This time Herkes agrees to part with the information after the job is complete. Tirga goes on the raid has success (probably a whole session goes into planning and executing this raid). He learns the identity of his brothers killer. (*made up excerpt for illustration).

Hooks as you call them only work if players get what they want out of them. Hooks drive play toward the player achieving his goals (or at least can). Whereas you seem to call them hooks as if they are a form of railroading or gentleman's agreement where the goal of your backstory is simply to provide the GM with potential adventuring hooks so that your PC fictionally has a reason to get aboard the railroad (or linear story if we are being nicer to that playstyle).

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;

Saying situation vs backstory first explains the differences when it's still in heavy contention that living sandbox play is a hybrid between backstory first and situation first.

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.

Are there profound differences of play between story now games?
Are there profound differences of play between modules and living sandbox games?

If so why doesn't your explanation care about these profound differences?

 

[Manbearcat]

Are there profound differences of play between story now games?
Are there profound differences of play between modules and living sandbox games?

If so why doesn't your explanation care about these profound differences?

I don’t think this is fair to the extreme amount of care and (borderline deranged!) word count @pemerton has put in discussing the differences in structure and system architecture of various Story Now games (contrast Apocalypse World’s snowballing move resolution with Cortex+ Action Scene + Transition Scene with Burning Wheel’s Intent & Task + Fail Forward resolution with how Vanila Narrativism can be hacked into AD&D OA play by eschewing classic D&D map & key exploration conceits and focusing exclusively on thematic content and player-evinced dramatic need) and the related impact on the experience of play.

I’ve put a huge amount of word count into my own play excerpts and discussing various games. My word count is laughably impotent by comparison to pemerton’s!

 

[chaochou]

Duel of wits is just a persuasion check. At the core that's all it is.

When you write garbage like this you simply highlight your ignorance of the thing you pretend you're equipped to discuss.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don’t think this is fair to the extreme amount of care and (borderline deranged!) word count @pemerton has put in discussing the differences in structure and system architecture of various Story Now games (contrast Apocalypse World’s snowballing move resolution with Cortex+ Action Scene + Transition Scene with Burning Wheel’s Intent & Task + Fail Forward resolution with how Vanila Narrativism can be hacked into AD&D OA play by eschewing classic D&D map & key exploration conceits and focusing exclusively on thematic content and player-evinced dramatic need) and the related impact on the experience of play.

I’ve put a huge amount of word count into my own play excerpts and discussing various games. My word count is laughably impotent by comparison to pemerton’s!

And what of my extreme care and huge word count. Does it count for nothing?

Actually scratch that, I hope my positions stand or fall on their own merit and not my word count.

 

[Morrus]

When you write garbage like this you simply highlight your ignorance of the thing you pretend you're equipped to discuss.

This is your third warning for insulting other members. Leave the thread.

 

[loverdrive]

In which case I've got to ask, do you want to compare BW to D&D as a whole or how tables run or can run D&D? Because the target of your comparison there is going to be very important in terms of what conclusions we can draw.

If we go this way, well... Modern D&D doesn't really take a stance on anything, so theoretically, yeah, you can do anything. You can treat a series of skillchecks as Duel of Wits, you can write down a list of principles to adhere or whatever, nothing can really stop you.

But this makes any kind of discussion just utterly pointless.

 

[Manbearcat]

And what of my extreme care and huge word count. Does it count for nothing?

Actually scratch that, I hope my positions stand or fall on their own merit and not my word count.

On which subject?

Your claim was that @pemerton 's explanations don't care for the differences between Story Now games. I mean, pemerton's knowledge of/word count toward/care in analyzing the mating habits of three-horned lilywompouses is pretty terrible (and I think he'd admit that!). However, by the strength of the enormous amount of word count and care he's put forth in discussing his own experience with various games (and discussing his analysis and extrapolations of the AW text, which, as someone who has played a lot of AW, its spot on despite the fact that he hasn't run it yet), this claim isn't fair to him.

I was discussing that particular claim (not a general claim about word count and care about any/all other subjects).

I've read your (I think its yours from recollection!) analysis of various 5e class stuff and its quite good! If someone were to make the claim that your analysis there isn't thoughtful or effortful, I would dispute that claim similarly! LET IT BE KNOWN TO ANY AND ALL WHO MIGHT DARE TO BESMIRCH FROGREAVER'S 5E CLASS ANALYSIS FOR LACK OF CARE/EFFORT/THOUGHTFULNESS, YOU MAY INCUR THAT WRATH OF A DISTURBINGLY PITHY RIPOSTE FROM ONE MANBEARCAT.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And what of my extreme care and huge word count. Does it count for nothing?

Actually scratch that, I hope my positions stand or fall on their own merit and not my word count.

Wordcount aside, I see little merit in most of your positions in this thread. They are badly premised on mostly a series of false equivalences.

Take your claim that the Duel of Wits is the same as a persuasion check. This is a false equivalency on the order of saying that fuzzy catepillars and bears both have hairs and so are the same. It is, on one hand, not entirely untrue. In both the DoW and in some CHA(persuasion) checks, the goal is to get another to agree with your want. Rasputin and Davy Crocket both had facial hair as well. They are still not the same.

So, let's look at the differences:

CHA (persuasion) check:
Who frames the scene: GM
Who frames the conflict: GM
Who frames the action: player
Who asks for the check: GM (any player attempt to initiate a check is gated by the GM)
Who determines the success of a check: GM first, then, if allowed, system
Who determines the outcomes: GM, based on their understanding of the fiction and their notes



Duel of Wits:
Who frames the scene: GM
Who frames the conflict: GM or player (the GM may have a conflict framed in the scene or the player may introduce a new conflict into the scene)
Who frames the action: player
Who asks for the check: GM or player (either the player or the GM can call for a Duel of Wits)
Who determines the success of a check: system always
Who determines the outcomes: on success, the player. On failure, the GM, based on their understanding of player intent

Let's apply this to a topic you're sure to remember: The Burgomaster of Vallaki from Curse of Strahd. In the backstory of the module, the Baron is listed as 100% resistant to attempts to convince him his approach is wrong. Here are relevant passages:

The baron believes that everyone else is beneath him, and those who question his word or challenge his authority must be humbled. He won’t pick a fight with well-armed strangers, however. If he can’t make the characters yield to his authority, he swallows his pride until he can circle around with Izek Strazni and assemble his guards to run them out of town.

and

The burgomaster, Baron Vargas Vallakovich (NE male human), is a ruthless heel who prides himself on his good breeding and finely honed leadership skills. He stages repeated celebrations to foster happiness, and his “All will be well!” catchphrase has become a sad and tiresome punchline. Baron Vallakovich has convinced himself that if he can make everyone in Vallaki happy, the town will slip free of Strahd’s dark grasp.

The baron has a brittle ego, and he lashes out at anyone who pokes fun at his festivals or treats him disrespectfully. He has two pet mastiffs that follow him everywhere, as well as a murderous and deformed henchman named Izek Strazni. In addition to his weapons, Izek carries an iron ring of keys that unlock the stocks in the town square (Chapter 5, area N8).

If the characters get on his bad side, the baron accuses them of being “spies of the devil Strahd” and sends twelve guards to arrest them, seize their weapons, and run them out of town. If the guards fail in their duty, the baron sends Izek to rally a mob of thirty commoners to lynch the party. If the commoners also fail, the baron summons the twelve remaining guards to defend his mansion, giving characters the run of the town.

From these, the notes clearly indicate an attempt to get the Baron to abandon their festivals will result in the Baron becoming upset and trying to run the players out of town.

SO, in the CHA(Persuasion) format for a scene framed between a character trying to convince the Baron to abandon their approach for a different one:

Who frames the scene: This will be framed by the GM. Let's go with the GM has decided the scene will play out in the Burgomaster's office.
Who frames the conflict: The GM will present the conflict, probably via playacting the Burgomaster for a bit and then waiting for the player to respond. No direct conflict will be presented, only latent conflicts to be discovered via action declarations. Perhaps the Burgomaster will offer for the PC to join the Burgomater in trying to get everyone happy.
Who frames the action: The player will present the action to try to convince the Burgomaster of a different course.
Who asks for the check: The GM will evaluate this action and determine if a check is allowed. The GM may decide that, given the backstory, there's no hope of success. Alternatively, the GM may allow a check.
Who determines the success of a check: The GM does. They may rule that it's a failure no matter what because of the backstory. The may allow a roll and set an impossible DC to represent this. They may decide to let the dice determine how back the result is. Entirely up to the GM what counts as success here.
Who determines the outcomes: Again the GM entirely. If they allow the roll and grant a success, that can look like anything they want -- the Burgomaster may decide that this is a funny joke and explain how wrong the player is but not move a bit on the intent of the action. Or, they may decide, regardless of the check (if allowed) that the Burgomaster calls for guards. Or plays along until he can set up some overwhelming force against the PCs. Regardless, the outcome space here is entirely up to the GM and the GM's appreciation of the situation, backstory, and extrapolation from both.

Now, for Duel of Wits:
Who frames the scene: The GM frames the scene with an eye towards the PC's goals -- in this case, we have to assume that the Burgomaster is being created and framed to challenge a PC Belief or other dramatic need. Let's say that the PC has the Belief "I will stand up against oppression wherever I find it." Hence, the Burgomaster being oppressive in the way they are oppressive is created in order to challenge this. It is not a scene that is stumbled upon. So, most of the backstory here about the Burgomaster's brittleness or reactions to events cannot exist. You cannot prewrite this at all.
Who frames the conflict: The conflict here will be initially framed by the GM. Since the Burgomaster is a test to the player Belief, there must be an immediate conflict -- here let's say that the Burgomaster has presented the player an ultimatum to join his tyranny or be exiled. This will trigger conflict, of which a DoW is readily apparent.
Who frames the action: The player will declare an action in response. If they challenge the Burgomaster with an attempt to convince him his approach is wrong, we have established opposing wants and a non-violent approach, so a Duel of Wits is very appropriate.
Who asks for the check: Either the GM can determine this action fits a DoW and call for it or the player can call for it directly as part of their action declaration. Either is binding on the game -- if the player calls for this, the GM cannot refuse. Play is now about this.
Who determines the success of a check: The system 100% does this work. You follow the format of the DoW, the system provides the necessary format, and checks are made until resolved according to the system.
Who determines the outcomes: If the player succeeds, they determine the outcome -- the Burgomaster will have a change of heart and abandon their attempts at tyranny. On a failure, the GM must act against the player's intent with the DoW. This can be that the PC is instead convinced of the Burgomaster's approach (if this is on the table, it's established as the stakes of the DoW early on and agreed to by the player) and joins the Burgomaster, thus resolving their Belief and finding out that, no, their character will not oppose tyranny wherever they find it. Or, perhaps, the stakes set that the Burgomaster calls for guards to take the PC out of town, exiled.

Hopefully, this clearly demonstrates that saying a Duel of Wits is the same as a CHA (persuasion) check is the kind of false equivalency that pairs nicely with saying that F-35 Strikefighters and tampons are the same because they both (can) have wings.