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

[pemerton]

I'm just in disbelief that 1 person let along 3 are arguing this.

Well I'm in disbelief that you can't see that hit points are a form of metagame mechanic. And, given that they are a resource that gets spent and then replenished by various sorts of in-fiction and meta- moves, it seems reasonable enough to call them a currency.

 

[prabe]

Well in this instance the hags weren’t involved…these were two separate situations with only some minor connections.

Well. I misread, then. It could make sense, if there were hags--but that's kinda counterfactual, innit?

I don’t think the rules support this happening, but I don’t think they specifically block it, either. Certainly the Find Familiar spell is worded in such a way that this kind of thing isn’t addressed at all. I think this is one of the reasons that it bothered me less. The situation with the fleeing hag undermined a few rules to some extent.

I think the rules are pretty clear that when you cast find familiar you get your familiar--there's no rules anywhere indicating that getting anything else is possible. I think it'd bother me at least as much as not being able to shoot the fleeing hag, to be honest with you.

 

[pemerton]

There's been a good amount of discussion about a player looking for their brother only to get tasked by a faction to do a non-backstory thing to get a backstory clue, and that the GM may have already determined that the brother was dead without checking with the player. This was presented without irony as a totally normal thing to do. The player, in all of this, is entirely passive. They don't even declare actions. But this is held out as normal play!

Right. This really struck me, particularly when it was presented as a supposed point of convergence between a "living sandbox" and my BW experience.

I look at what's happening in play -- and what's often relayed (when you can get anything) is a very passive -- as in not much is actually demanded of the player by the game -- experience. The players receive the fiction from the GM who has sole authority to create this (and the expectation). The players marshal resources and manipulate this fiction to find a why to get the GM to narrate the next bit of fiction. And the GM responds by narrating the next bit, or narrating a failure of the manipulation and the cycle starts again. I mean, the basic 5e play loop has been repeatedly cited and banged hard upon in this very thread.

<snip>

I'm not playing 5e to put my stamp on the fiction and forge forwards on a personally defining quest, to learn about my characters and be surprised by that learning, to learn about the setting and surprise the GM with that learning along with myself. It's not the point. The whole combat minigame exists to add some bits of control and engagement, but it's extremely shallow on the fiction front while very heavy on the manipulation of the fiction pieces the GM provides front.

Let me extrapolate as to why I find this fun. I'm absolutely on the receiving end of the fiction. I can and am expected to not contribute to the overall fiction very much at all, and in many cases not at all. I am to declare actions for my character and find out, from the GM, what fiction results. The fun here is that I am 100% in manipulation of that fiction mode. I am trying to marshal my resources against the puzzle to find a solution that results in the GM advancing the fiction. I find the combat minigame fun and engaging for the most part. My job as a player is to receive fiction from the GM, figure out how to manipulate it (often by marshalling my resources), and then declaring the appropriate actions to get the GM to narrate the next bit of fiction. Along the way (hopefully) the GM is doing a skillful job of presenting an entertaining story, but even they aren't, so long as the puzzles are intriguing, I'm good to go. It's very low effort for me -- not much is expected from me and it's relaxing play.

Am I right to think that the bolded "it" refers to 5e D&D as a whole, rather than just the combat minigame?

Anyway, I think that what you describe here can become a frustrating play experience if the GM does not hold the fiction relatively constant. What counts as "relatively" constant is of course highly contextual. But the less constant the fiction, the less predictable the results of declaring actions that manipulate it, and the less that the players are solving puzzles as opposed to making implicit suggestions to the GM as to what they should say happens next.

In Gygax's DMG, I think this sort of issue arises in his discussion of "living"/"reactive" dungeons (pp 104-5). If a GM really takes that advice to heart, then the player advice in the PHB (about scouting and planning an objective for the dungeon mission: pp 107. 109) becomes less useful and even unhelpful, because the knowledge obtained in today's mission will be rendered outdated and perhaps even irrelevant by the changes the GM makes between incursions. My own experience of GMing in a "living sandbox" style suggests that this is a significant risk for that approach. The game can be in danger of drifting into "living novel" territory.

I think this is a reason why the puzzle-solving/fiction-manipulation approach is associated with rather simple or even corny/inane backstory setups. It's not that the author couldn't think of anything cleverer or more realistic: it's that they wanted to keep the fiction relatively constant so as to preserve the integrity of play.

The last time I played in this sort of game, the puzzles were a series of interlocking prophecies connected to one (maybe multiple?) PCs (it's been a while, and it may be that we never got clear on that as players). Over time the impression grew that we were in a "living novel" game that was masquerading as something else. That didn't improve the play experience!

 

[FrogReaver]

Even putting TORG to one side, I don't think this is right.

I believe that @FrogReaver and probably @Crimson Longinus regard a Circles or Wise check in Burning Wheel as a form of "metagame" "narrative control (although it is based on a check rather than a currency). I believe that they would see a player's use of a Special Effect (via a Storyteller Certificate) in Prince Valiant as a form of "metacurrency".

That seems accurate.

But in all these cases the process at the table - of making the check, or cashing in the certificate - represents an in-fiction process. A Circles check corresponds to looking around for and/or hoping to meet a person. A Wises check corresponds to trying to remember the details of something. And I quoted the relevant rules about Special Effects in Prince Valiant upthread (from p 44 of the rulebook): "The Storyteller must create a reasonable explanation for the way in which the Effect takes place, in terms of the current situation."

This seems fundamentally off in that virtually all metagame currencies or metagame narrative controls can be viewed in some sense as corresponding to the fiction of which they allow or attempt to allow the player to 'alter'.

What's different about that kind of fictional correspondence and what @Thomas Shey is getting at is how closely the metacurrency or metagame control is limited to corresponding to just the character and their very immediate situation. This is why a metacurrency that a battlemaster fighter can spend to knock a creature prone (representing his skilled swordsmanship to some degree) is acceptable to such players while a metacurrency or metagame control that allows a character to specify 'this is the location of evards tower' is not acceptable. One is limited to the corresponding character and some particular contest they are in and the other is related to the character and establishing fiction outside a particular contest the character is in.

See also the metacurrency of inspiration that 5e allows DM's to hand out. Players can use that metacurrency to affect their characters chances on a single chosen skill check and skill checks are specifically related to a character in a very immediate situation.

The further away something drifts from that specific character and that immediate situation the more issues you will find these players have with it.

 

[pemerton]

I think the rules are pretty clear that when you cast find familiar you get your familiar--there's no rules anywhere indicating that getting anything else is possible. I think it'd bother me at least as much as not being able to shoot the fleeing hag, to be honest with you.

We have quite different responses to this.

The FInd Familiar spell says

As an action, you can temporarily dismiss your familiar. It disappears into a pocket dimension where it awaits your summons. . . . As an action while it is temporarily dismissed, you can cause it to reappear in any unoccupied space within 30 feet of you.​

This seems to leave open who/what else might be in the pocket dimension. Can the familiar grab something and take it into the pocket dimension? Can something grab it and come along for the ride? I don't see that there is any contradiction of the rules or the fiction in the redcap scenario: rather, it's about what is considered "fair play" in situation framing.

Whereas the inability of a ranger with Hunter's Mark cast to shoot the hag seems to contradict both the rules and the established fiction.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well. I misread, then. It could make sense, if there were hags--but that's kinda counterfactual, innit?

Well there were fey involved, and the familiar is a fey creature. So it kind of makes sense that when the familiar was dismissed to the pocket dimension, the redcaps may have been able to go along with it, and then when it was resummoned to the PC, they’d come along then, too.

When I say “makes sense” I mean it seems suitably backed by the made up elements

I think the rules are pretty clear that when you cast find familiar you get your familiar--there's no rules anywhere indicating that getting anything else is possible. I think it'd bother me at least as much as not being able to shoot the fleeing hag, to be honest with you.

Well I won’t say you’re wrong. One of our group kind of balked at the idea. And I get it. I just don’t see any rules being overruled by the GM here.

This was not the PC’s initial casting of Find Familiar…it was already on scene and he sent it out to scout, and the redcaps jumped it. The PC was unaware at that point because it was more than 100 feet away. He dismissed it to a pocket dimension per the spell, and then brought it back within 30 feet (this allows you to dismiss and bring back your familiar multiple times with a single casting of the spell). The redcaps came along for the ride.

Again, it’s not in the rules in any way….but it’s less clearly overriding the rules. At least, that’s how it seemed to me.

 

[niklinna]

Again, it’s not in the rules in any way….but it’s less clearly overriding the rules. At least, that’s how it seemed to me.

Also, it gives at least weak precedent for the Wizard to use their familiar to store/hide items in the pocket dimension, or even creatures touching/grappling the familiar. There are GMs I would absolutely explore this revelation with...and others I would know better than to bother.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't really care how they choose to see it.

Then as I said, you're picking a fight either deliberately or out of negligence.

 

[Malmuria]

I don't really care how they choose to see it. Most of them have never done anything differently. I look at what's happening in play -- and what's often relayed (when you can get anything) is a very passive -- as in not much is actually demanded of the player by the game -- experience. The players receive the fiction from the GM who has sole authority to create this (and the expectation). The players marshal resources and manipulate this fiction to find a why to get the GM to narrate the next bit of fiction. And the GM responds by narrating the next bit, or narrating a failure of the manipulation and the cycle starts again. I mean, the basic 5e play loop has been repeatedly cited and banged hard upon in this very thread.

There's some nuance -- players may be expected to have a backstory with some drama, but then they wait until the GM shines the spotlight at them so that they know they're on stage. However, the play really doesn't change much, because what usually happens is that the GM is still inventing and presenting the fiction, just with an eye to engaging whatever the player hook was. There's been a good amount of discussion about a player looking for their brother only to get tasked by a faction to do a non-backstory thing to get a backstory clue, and that the GM may have already determined that the brother was dead without checking with the player. This was presented without irony as a totally normal thing to do. The player, in all of this, is entirely passive. They don't even declare actions. But this is held out as normal play!

And it is! If I were playing 5e, I would not be the least surprised by this play. It's what I expect. I'm not playing 5e to put my stamp on the fiction and forge forwards on a personally defining quest, to learn about my characters and be surprised by that learning, to learn about the setting and surprise the GM with that learning along with myself. It's not the point. The whole combat minigame exists to add some bits of control and engagement, but it's extremely shallow on the fiction front while very heavy on the manipulation of the fiction pieces the GM provides front.

All in all, the experience of playing D&D is pretty passive. I mean, there's a whole branch of approach called "beer and pretzels." The primary goal of D&D is not uncommonly referred to as "kill things and take their stuff." These aren't derogatory statements, they're fans talking about a game they love! But they certainly are showcasing a pretty passive approach to play, given the entirety of ways to play.

Well that's the thing about words...they have connotations and associations that exceed their literal meanings. And yes, generally, "active" has more positive connotations than "passive."

Relatedly, it's not the best word to actually describe what you are trying to describe. The 5e play loop does not situate the player in an inherently passive position. Passive players are those that are not engaged or have no reaction to the world as presented. I would say that 5e players are reactive: the DM initiates the play loop, the player responds, and then the DM responds in turn. The GM has more work to do in their steps, but that does not mean that all the puzzle-solving and tactical combat-having is passive (let alone the character-building and backstory-creating, which may as well be a pillar of play).

I don't really care how they choose to see it. Most of them have never done anything differently. I look at what's happening in play -- and what's often relayed (when you can get anything) is a very passive -- as in not much is actually demanded of the player by the game -- experience.

Perhaps more importantly, "passive" may or may not be how players describe their own experience with a system. For example, Call of Cthulhu scenarios are fairly linear, and a lot of what the keeper does is literally hand the players sheets with pre-made backstory. Yet from experience I've had, players find that experience to be engaging and dialogic, involving both their imagination and problem-solving skills. When considered in the whole range of ttrpgs, it's easy to forget that even traditional games and linear scenarios feel very "active" for a lot of people, new and continuing players. That feeling of engagement is what draws people to 5e as well.

Unlike me, you seem very confident that you can look at other people's games, and overwrite their own experiences. That if someone (and actually lots of people) say that they play 5e modules more or less by the book, and they find the time they spend with their characters to be active, collaborative, and engaging, you'll be able to step in with your "unromantic" analysis (with its already-set categories) and say, "nope, 5e is passive." That's what I mean when I say you are articulating a prescriptive, axiomatic perspective in these posts.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Oh, like hitpoints! And AC points! And Death Saves!

ETA: the opposition to metacurrency always seems so much special pleading to me.

And spell slots. And turning attempts, and any ability with uses per day/turn/arbitrary period. And - prior to 4E - character levels, xp, Constitution points; yadda yadda; blah blah.

The entire game in any iteration is predicated on numbers which we track. The numbers go up and down. Meanwhile we beat our heads trying to cram them into representing something they really don't and cannot - some kind of objective measure in the game world.

Some cows are sacred, but on inspection it transpires they are not flawless red heifers.