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

[Campbell]

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

You want to fight me naked? Gross.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Right! Players should be happy to get the kind of narrative control where they can propose that a thing happens but have to check with the GM to see what actually happens. I mean, if a player says, "the mighty Bob the Fighter attacks the kobold with his sword, using the techniques his master taught him, and crying his warcry, "Glory to the Master!" but then rolls a 1, and the GM decides what Bob actually does is drop his sword and impale his own foot, that's certainly a good bit of narrative authority.

And yes, regardless of whether or not you use critical fumbles or would personally do this, if your argument that narrative authority is vested in action declaration cannot withstand something like this, which is not uncommon and would actually be called for in some D&D-alikes by their rules, then you've got a problem with your argument.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You want to fight me naked? Gross.

I hear there's Jello.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

The issue is that you either didn't read what Thomas said, or didn't understand it.

Thing is, its not usually that tidy. Most players don't want no input; they just have sharp lines where they want their input to stop (often anything beyond the reach of their character's actions, and almost always beyond the extent that directly bears on their character's backstory) and anything beyond that makes them uncomfortable and requires them to engage with parts of the game existence that, if they put it bluntly, if they wanted to do they'd be a GM.

I don't think its so much "passive" as "sharply bounded."

I.e. players do want input, they just don't want it in areas they consider to be part of the GM role. And this is not the same as being passive. Capisce?

 

[Campbell]

Most Story Now play is just standard play where the players create characters who follow what John Harper calls the 4 Cs of Character and the GM is expected to frame situations/scenes where the 4 Cs apply.

1. Connected: The character has relationships (positive and negative) with other significant characters in the situation.
2. Committed: The character has a stake in the outcome of the situation, and will stay to see it through.
3. Capable: The character has the capacity to affect change in the situation by taking decisive action.
4. Conflicted: The character has beliefs and goals that are in conflict. They must make choices about which are more important, and which must be abandoned or changed.

The standard authority structure does not really change in any meaningful way. There's just a powerful expectation that who the characters are will matter to the situation. Also that fictional positioning will be honored. What resolution will look like will differ from game to game.

Not that anyone has to like the 4 C's by the way. Sometimes I like standard 'do not care about your tragic backstory' sandbox play.

 

[pemerton]

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.

But that sort of thing can easily be shifted from action declaration resolved by a check - eg BW Wises or something similar - to an action declaration resolved by GM narration ("drama" resolution, to use Tweet's and Edwards's terminology). The declaration is I try and recall what I know about wizards' towers around here - in D&D the basis for that declaration might be training in some sort of Arcana or Lore skill, for instance - and then the GM says what it is that the PC remembers.

And this then comes right back to what I posted not far upthread:

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).

In other words, what principles does the GM follow in establishing backstory, and framing scenes, in response to these sorts of action declarations?

As far as I know there's nothing in the D&D rulebooks that encourages, let alone requires, the GM to ignore these sorts of player-sent signals in the exercise of their authority over backstory and situation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

A further thought, following from my post 1495, and treating @hawkeyefan's Folk Hero story as more fodder for analysis

So I actually played in a session for that campaign just last night. And something came up that I think may be worth noting, and for different instances.
***************

First, one point of frustration I experienced as a player. Again, I was playing my ranger character. We were in battle with some hags who had kidnapped some children from the nearby towns. We'd tracked them down and located their coven's meeting place. During the ensuing battle, we managed to kill one of the two hags present. The other fled.

My ranger had cast Hunter's Mark on this hag and also has the Sharpshooter feat. These matter because as the Hag fled by swimming away through the swamp water, my turn came up and I declared that I wanted to shoot her.

The GM told me I could not attack the hag. I asked why. He advised because of the range (the hag had been on the opposite end of the battlefield as my ranger, and took the Dash action on her turn to move double speed). I reminded him that with the Sharpshooter feat, my ranger ignores disadvantage due to range, and my long bow range is 600', more than enough to still put the hag in range.

He then said it was due to not being able to see her in the water. I asked if I was allowed to attempt to track her using the Hunter's Mark spell, which would grant me advantage on either Perception or Survival skills used to track the target. He then said that because she was underwater, even if I could track her, I could not attack her.

I concluded at this point that he simply wanted her to get away. I didn't quite get why, and I haven't yet had a chance to discuss that specific point of play with him, but I plan on it. I found it to be pretty frustrating.

***********

The second instance of play involved another player and his use of his familiar. His familiar counts as a fey creature and he can dismiss it as an action, where it goes to a demiplane until resummoned on a subsequent action, when it appears within 30 feet of the caster. So he sent it out to scout an area that was beyond 100 feet, which means the caster could no longer look through its eyes. He waited a few rounds and then dismissed the familiar, placing it in the demiplane, and then resummoned it the next round.

The GM narrated that a pair of redcaps came along with it! The familiar encountered the fey, and they grabbed it, then when it was dimissed, the GM decided their fey nature allowed them to kind of piggyback along with it, and so they appeared along with it.

One or two players seemed to be a bit bothered by this. I'm curious how others feel. It seems to be totally unsupported by the rules as written, but it seems a kind of suitable outcome based on the fictional elements. I would have liked that consequence to be the result of a roll of some sort, but one was not made.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The issue is that you either didn't read what Thomas said, or didn't understand it.


I.e. players do want input, they just don't want it in areas they consider to be part of the GM role. And this is not the same as being passive. Capisce?

Um, yes. I follow that entirely. What doesn't happen is that this view isn't not accepted in these threads. What @Thomas Shey says is exactly what's meant by the previous term "passive." It's fully understood that these players are engaged to the point of declaring actions for their characters. When you compare this kind of play -- declaring actions only and hesitancy to drive play in other ways -- compared to play that does expect and demand players much more actively drive play, then one way possible to shorthand this is "passive." There's no real difference here other than a swap in terms. Which may, or may not, be more descriptive.

Regardless, the suggestion you're not allowed to want this play is the exact opposite of pretty much every poster that's engaged in this discussion. It's not a thing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But that sort of thing can easily be shifted from action declaration resolved by a check - eg BW Wises or something similar - to an action declaration resolved by GM narration ("drama" resolution, to use Tweet's and Edwards's terminology). The declaration is I try and recall what I know about wizards' towers around here - in D&D the basis for that declaration might be training in some sort of Arcana or Lore skill, for instance - and then the GM says what it is that the PC remembers.

And this then comes right back to what I posted not far upthread:
In other words, what principles does the GM follow in establishing backstory, and framing scenes, in response to these sorts of action declarations?

As far as I know there's nothing in the D&D rulebooks that encourages, let alone requires, the GM to ignore these sorts of player-sent signals in the exercise of their authority over backstory and situation.

Sure, there's nothing that openly encourages them to ignore such, but there's nothing that encourages them to listen to such, either, I'd say. And I think the assumed approach leans more toward the former than the latter.

 

[niklinna]

DANCE FOR ME, GM!!!!

Come now, do you want to fight, or dance?

You can't have both!