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

[Ovinomancer]

Which was not my complaint. My complaint was that people equate "passive" and "sharply" bounded, like you just did.

Oh. Your complaint was that the stance that's not acceptable in these threads is that "passive" and "sharply bounded" are not equated? That's very weird, because that just came up for the first time a few posts ago. I completely misunderstood that your post was rebuking @Thomas Shey for introducing "sharply bounded" as a better descriptor for players that do not want to provide fiction outside of a limited scope consisting only of their PC as a better, but equivalent term for the previously used "passive." I'm on board now. I think it's kinda playing semantics as well.

 

[pemerton]

If you want to play a game where the players don't have narrative level tools/authority (you know what I mean) you get told that as a player you want just to be passively entertained and as GM you just want to tell stories to the passive players.

Who is telling you this? Not me. And no one else that I've read.

As I posted just upthread, "narrative level tools/authority" are - in my view - at the boutique end. Framing and action resolution are the core issues.

I've known players and have chatted with folks online who vehemently hate when any decisions they make as a player are made beyond the character level, "as" the character. I think that's an impossible thing to achieve, but I get it as a goal of play if that's what folks are into.

I'm close to being such a person. I want to engage the game by playing my character, which is to say by declaring actions for my character.

But that doesn't mean that I don't want to exert any influence over the fiction! Actions, and even moreso their consequences, are parts of the fiction - among the most important parts!

 

[pemerton]

I also want to exert indirect influence over the fiction, in the following sense: having sent signals about my priorities for my PC (via various aspects of the PC-build process), I want the GM to take those seriously when exercising their authority over the shared fiction (eg framing, authoring setting, narrating consequences).

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm close to being such a person. I want to engage the game by playing my character, which is to say by declaring actions for my character.

But that doesn't mean that I don't want to exert any influence over the fiction! Actions, and even moreso their consequences, are parts of the fiction - among the most important parts!

I can't say for certain, but I expect your take on action declaration would conflict with the folks I'm thinking of; their take does not seem to allow for the same breadth of possibilities that your take on action declaration would allow.

For example, your declaration that your character recalls that Evard's tower is in the area would likely result in some aneurysms by these folk. Their perception of what constitutes "meta" knowledge is pretty rigid. They'd determine such facts as being the sole purview of the GM, and any intrusion on that to be breaking character.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh. Your complaint was that the stance that's not acceptable in these threads is that "passive" and "sharply bounded" are not equated?

Yep. You've got it.

That's very weird, because that just came up for the first time a few posts ago. I completely misunderstood that your post was rebuking @Thomas Shey for introducing "sharply bounded" as a better descriptor for players that do not want to provide fiction outside of a limited scope consisting only of their PC as a better, but equivalent term for the previously used "passive." I'm on board now. I think it's kinda playing semantics as well.

The specific term was just introduced, the issue certainly was not.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Who is telling you this? Not me. And no one else that I've read.

As I posted just upthread, "narrative level tools/authority" are - in my view - at the boutique end. Framing and action resolution are the core issues.

I'm close to being such a person. I want to engage the game by playing my character, which is to say by declaring actions for my character.

But that doesn't mean that I don't want to exert any influence over the fiction! Actions, and even moreso their consequences, are parts of the fiction - among the most important parts!

I can't say for certain, but I expect your take on action declaration would conflict with the folks I'm thinking of; their take does not seem to allow for the same breadth of possibilities that your take on action declaration would allow.

For example, your declaration that your character recalls that Evard's tower is in the area would likely result in some aneurysms by these folk. Their perception of what constitutes "meta" knowledge is pretty rigid. They'd determine such facts as being the sole purview of the GM, and any intrusion on that to be breaking character.

Definitely! Pemerton's action resolution often contains things that I (and I am sure many others) would classify as player narrative authority.

 

[FrogReaver]

Definitely! Pemerton's action resolution often contains things that I (and I am sure many others) would classify as player narrative authority.

Is there a difference in player narrative authority and player authority over their character's attempted actions?

I think the relationship there is that player authority over their character's attempted actions is 1 type of narrative authority. The type of narrative authority being objected to is player authority over 'much' more than their characters attempted actions. To me any difference there would probably have the single biggest impact on my play experience. Given others strong preferences for story now (which allows player narrative authority over more than their characters attempted actions) I'd say I'm not alone in finding this to have one of the largest impacts on play experience.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yep. You've got it.


The specific term was just introduced, the issue certainly was not.

Oh... huh. I guess I'm confused. You loved the post where @Thomas Shey did this and now agree that your response to that post was a rebuke for doing it.

I mean, I think it's pretty valid for me to be confused by your intent, here.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Definitely! Pemerton's action resolution often contains things that I (and I am sure many others) would classify as player narrative authority.

And... the players should just wait for the GM to explain to them about the world and not, you know, have an active role here.

 

[niklinna]

When I run 5e, I require all players be naked. RULE ZERO, FIGHT ME!

Careful what you ask for!