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

[pemerton]

I still contend that "framing" can feel very coercive in practice, though maybe that's just a matter of expectations (i.e. in a "strict time records" sort of game)

Well, all RPGing needs someone to frame scenes in some fashion or other. Otherwise there is no context for the players to declare actions for their PCs.

And all RPGing involves skipping over the passage of time between scenes - otherwise the PCs would never arrive at the dungeon entrance, at the next town, etc.

So it's really about how scenes are framed, isn't it? Eg are they treated as extrapolations, via "causal"/"naturalistic" reasoning, from the backstory plus past events? Are they opportunities to introduce some colour and let players have their PCs shine (which I think is how I interpret the description of OC/neo-trad play)? Or are they deliberate attempts to provoke a "crisis" or at least a thematically/dramatically meaningful choice from the players vis-a-vis their PCs? That last one is what I'm calling "situation first".

I don't see situation first as coercive. It doesn't involve any more authority over the fiction than backstory first, as best I can tell. It does locate the exercise of that authority during play - the GM framing a scene is the counterpart to the player declaring an action, which also happens in the course of play. I think where assumptions about map-and-key methods are strong, then that shifting of authorship from before to during - which also has the result that the GM's role during play is more than just neutrally refereeing and naturalistically extrapolating - might be surprising.

The GMing process of every rpg requires the GM to frame compelling scenes. Scenes can be compelling without initially having clear stakes (the stakes may come into focus later on in the scene).

This claim isn't true.

Here is the opening scene of Lost Caverns of Tsjocanth:

START
For the Dungeon Master: Read the BACKGROUND and Players’ Start to your players. Allow them to copy down the verse clue to the location of the cavern, if they ask. Explain to them that they are now on a narrow pathway that wends ever deep into the mountains. The sun is just emerging over the peaks to the east; it is time for them to set forth. . . .

For the Players: Your party has been gathered by agents of the Margrave of the March of Bissel. He tells you that there are “political considerations,” which he does not explain, that prevent him from searching for Iggwilv’s trove himself. However, it is vital that the treasure not fall into the hands of his enemies. Your party’s goal is to get the treasure before Bissel’s enemies do. [What follows is a discussion of the support provided by the Margrave to the PCs, and their obligations to him in respect of repayment.]

An examination of your map reveals that the track through the mountains has numerous branches. At the end of each track is a number, evidently standing for something unknown. The agents of the Margrave cannot tell you anything about their significance, except that it is likely that at one of the sites are the caverns you seek. Obviously, the map is incomplete, for from what you know of this part of the world, there are mountains where nothing but blank space is shown on the chart. With this map you must somehow find where the treasure is hidden. The more direct your route to the caverns, the less the likelihood of injury or death from the many perils of the journey. A scrap of parchment with a bit of doggerel on it might be a clue, or it might be of no use whatsoever, save to mislead you.

[What follows is the verse.]

After a journey of a sen’night your band has reached the foothills of the Yatils without incident. Before you is the winding path leading into the grim mountains.​

This is not a compelling scene. It's a location on a map.

Here's the opening of the CoC module The Vanishing Conjurer:

It is a pleasant weekday in the latter half of the month of June, 192-. In London, one of the investigators is contacted by an old friend, Howard Horne, who is a theatrical agent working in London's West End. Horne sends the investigator four tickets for a conjuring show taking place that evening at a small theatre of Drury Lane. A small note scribble on Horne's business card attached to the tickets gives no more details about what the investigators might expected, but Horne appears to require their help in a matter of some urgency. . . .

The show starts at 7.30, and lasts for around two hours. There are maybe two hundred people in the audience, half-filling the theatre. . . . It is a rather tireseome affair, as none of the participants are especially entertaining or outstanding practitioners of their art. Come the second interval, it is likely that some of the investigators will be wondering whether to bother staying any longer, but it is at that moment that Horne joins them. . . .

Horne makes no mention of the problems he referred to in his note. . . .

The third part of the show drags its weary way towards the finale . . . Once the show is over, Horne invites the party to join him for a meal and a drink . . . His brisk, bustling manner doesn't allow anyone space to refuse his invitation.

[There is then around 600 words of narration of what Horne says to the PCs]

Horne can attempt to answer any questions the investigators have . . . When there are no more questions, Howard Horne gets up to leave, though before he deals out his card to everyone and asks them to get in touch as soon as they have any news, or they need any more information.​

That's not a compelling scene. It's just the GM providing the players with a whole lot of backstory and a mission for their PCs.

Every rpg begins with backstory/setting - even story now. One might even say that since story now is so player backstory driven that it depends far more on this starting state than many D&D styles.

Going back to living sandboxes - A living sandbox isn't about revealing the initial backstory/setting to players which would imply that it's not backstory first according to your definition above.

"Backstory first" doesn't mean the GM reveals initial backstory. It is about what has the priority as far as the fiction is concerned. In the living sandbox, the GM frames scenes by referring to the backstory they have prepared.

And I've repeatedly noted that any situation needs backstory. The issue is what has priority - pre-authored backstory, or the situation. If you read my accounts of BW play (eg post 1229 not too far upthread), I think you'll see the difference in the relationship between backstory and situation.

It's loop is more like: Players do stuff -> the backstory/setting gets updated (both in the players field of vision and far outside it) -> the updated backstory/setting elements get used as the starting point of the next loop. The constantly changing backstory/setting (and not just in response to player actions) is what makes this style 'living' and that livingness is the reason that backstory first doesn't adequately describe it.

<snip>

The more we discuss the more I view your terminology/framework as rooted in explaining the difference between traditional D&D play and 'story now'. It's not a broad enough framework to really get at the differences between living sandbox/traditional D&D play/story now.

What does players do stuff mean? I assume you don't mean they eat chips. Do you mean they roll dice? Do you mean they declare actions? How do those declared actions affect the process of "updating" the setting? This is part of the DL modules, but I assume you don't count those as a living sandbox.

And when you say the updated backstory/setting elements get used as the starting point of the next loop you seem to be agreeing with me that it is backstory first! The fact that the backstory is constantly changing doesn't meant that it's not coming first. Your own statement shows the priority of the backstory, authored by the GM, as the input into situation/framing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

OSR fans will often (and loudly) complain about Critical Role or use it as the epitome of everything "wrong" with modern gaming. What these complainers seem to take issue with is less the worldbuilding, which is fairly familiar, but the emphasis the show places on working in character backstory, prerogatives, and relationships to often-recurring NPCs, and the way that the players and audience, in their view, over-identify with those characters. So is the game trad, because afterall its dnd and there is all that world building going on in the background? Maybe, but also quite different in the way it continually focuses on the drama of the characters, which in fact is its appeal. Maybe dnd doesn't provide the "right" tools for this, maybe its "incoherent," but it seems to work perfectly fine for them.

From what I know of CR and using the Six Cultures of Gaming categorisation I'd have described Critical Role as a mix of Trad and neo-Trad, with Mercer having learned in a trad style but also being an actor familiar enough with improv and what his players actually want to go neo-trad. And that the OSR is not half as traditional as they like to claim.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

OSR fans will often (and loudly) complain about Critical Role or use it as the epitome of everything "wrong" with modern gaming. What these complainers seem to take issue with is less the worldbuilding, which is fairly familiar, but the emphasis the show places on working in character backstory, prerogatives, and relationships to often-recurring NPCs, and the way that the players and audience, in their view, over-identify with those characters. So is the game trad, because afterall its dnd and there is all that world building going on in the background? Maybe, but also quite different in the way it continually focuses on the drama of the characters, which in fact is its appeal. Maybe dnd doesn't provide the "right" tools for this, maybe its "incoherent," but it seems to work perfectly fine for them.

I think I'm just uninterested in axiomatic categorization. Categories can have a heuristic function, but usefulness of them is identifying styles, practices, mentalities, and mechanics that can nudge a game a little bit in one direction, or in another, or in a third. More useful, to me, than saying X game is in the trad/backstory bucket and Y game is in the story-now/situation bucket with brightly painted dividing lines between them. I'm more interested in the reality of these games in how they are played, which I would venture is, from the perspective of rigid categorization, often "wrong" or "incoherent": styles or preferences that cross-pollinate, blur boundaries, or are otherwise unruly.

BTW, I've been talking about presentation mattering, and Critical Role is (unsurprisingly) an example of presentation being top notch. Mercer is excellent at creating mood and describing situations and location immersively. Though I feel the people of the setting are the most important part. The NPCs are portrayed excellently, their character comes though via their speech, mannerisms etc. And of course players portray their characters superbly too. And this is not just for show, it is to make the world seem real, to make these people seem real, and make them distinct from the GM/players portraying them. And acting conveys information! It is far more effective and immersive if the player/GM can act and thus convey the emotional state of the character rather than just tell you it! It seems utterly bizarre to think that the game would somehow be better if the participants just monotonously stated things, instead of trying to fully portray them.

And yeah, most of us are not professional actors, but one can still do it. In my circles a lot of people are also LARPers. In a LARP you cannot just state things, you cannot just say 'my character is sad,' you must act it for the other players to know. And thankfully this carries over to tabletop RPGs. And I wouldn't have it in any other way.

 

[FrogReaver]

Skipping straight to this part as I think it explains our primary disconnect.

"Backstory first" doesn't mean the GM reveals initial backstory. It is about what has the priority as far as the fiction is concerned. In the living sandbox, the GM frames scenes by referring to the backstory they have prepared.

To me, backstory is what happens before the game. That's been the crux of this disagreement and it shouldn't have taken pages of posts on the topic to figure that out. Sometimes it feels like you are too focused on and rely to heavily on jargon to communicate ideas that would be better communicated with natural language.

And I've repeatedly noted that any situation needs backstory. The issue is what has priority - pre-authored backstory, or the situation. If you read my accounts of BW play (eg post 1229 not too far upthread), I think you'll see the difference in the relationship between backstory and situation.

Pre-authored backstory implies that there's some backstory that is not pre-authored. To me what it means for backstory to not be preauthored is that it's the backstory that emerges based on what happens in play. I'm expecting that you are using the term in a more jargony way that means something different?

What does players do stuff mean? I assume you don't mean they eat chips. Do you mean they roll dice? Do you mean they declare actions? How do those declared actions affect the process of "updating" the setting? This is part of the DL modules, but I assume you don't count those as a living sandbox.

I think you are just being pedantic here.

And when you say the updated backstory/setting elements get used as the starting point of the next loop you seem to be agreeing with me that it is backstory first!

The same thing happens in story now. That doesn't make it backstory first.

The fact that the backstory is constantly changing doesn't meant that it's not coming first.

Since it's changing based on what's happening in play that takes away the pre-authored aspect. Isn't pre-authoring an important consideration when classifying something as backstory first (or does authorship not matter?)

Your own statement shows the priority of the backstory, authored by the GM, as the input into situation/framing.

That's kind of why I keep talking about the update process. If you want to claim that the GM instead of randomness, the events of play, and player choices author the next iteration of backstory then that seems equally true of story now. If that shows the priority of backstory then why doesn't it do the same for story now?

I don't doubt there's some difference but I'm not finding backstory first/situation first to be very explanatory in analyzing living sandbox play vs story now play (at least without a bunch of predefined jargon).

*Also, I noticed something peculiar. In trying to make a counterpoint that the GM's job isn't to frame compelling scenes you referenced an obscure game (at least to me). Why do you pick games to use as examples that are so obscure. It almost feels like part of the method of discussion is to push me out by using examples I can't readily relate to or even list a counterpoint about.

 

[Xetheral]

My interest is in a posteriori categorisation that serves an analytic or explanatory purpose.

For example, I think in this thread I've explained why certain traditional techniques for feeding prep into resolution - ie map + key - generate pressure to use GM Force to manage pacing. And have suggested, for those who prefer to avoid the use of Force, an alternative approach - "situation first" - which I think is feasible with 5e D&D.

None of those categories is an axiomatic one. They are based on the interpretation of play, and deployed to practical ends - ie identifying actual and possible processes of RPG play, and the sort of experience these can provide.

"Backstory first" doesn't mean the GM reveals initial backstory. It is about what has the priority as far as the fiction is concerned. In the living sandbox, the GM frames scenes by referring to the backstory they have prepared.

What purpose do you see in categorizing together playstyles that provide different experiences?

For instance, in the second quote above you're evidently defining "Backstory first" as a singular process broad enough to encompass both static map-and-key and living sandbox styles even though those styles use backstory differently and produce different experiences.

It's your use of such seemingly artificial definitions that make it appear that the way you categorize play styles has more to do with how you are defining the categories than with mapping play styles to play experiences. That's what makes your approach to categorization come across as axiomatic.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Skipping straight to this part as I think it explains our primary disconnect.

To me, backstory is what happens before the game. That's been the crux of this disagreement and it shouldn't have taken pages of posts on the topic to figure that out. Sometimes it feels like you are too focused on and rely to heavily on jargon to communicate ideas that would be better communicated with natural language.



Pre-authored backstory implies that there's some backstory that is not pre-authored. To me what it means for backstory to not be preauthored is that it's the backstory that emerges based on what happens in play. I'm expecting that you are using the term in a more jargony way that means something different?


I think you are just being pedantic here.


The same thing happens in story now. That doesn't make it backstory first.


Since it's changing based on what's happening in play that takes away the pre-authored aspect. Isn't pre-authoring an important consideration when classifying something as backstory first (or does authorship not matter?)


That's kind of why I keep talking about the update process. If you want to claim that the GM instead of randomness, the events of play, and player choices author the next iteration of backstory then that seems equally true of story now. If that shows the priority of backstory then why doesn't it do the same for story now?

I don't doubt there's some difference but I'm not finding backstory first/situation first to be very explanatory in analyzing living sandbox play vs story now play (at least without a bunch of predefined jargon).

*Also, I noticed something peculiar. In trying to make a counterpoint that the GM's job isn't to frame compelling scenes you referenced an obscure game (at least to me). Why do you pick games to use as examples that are so obscure. It almost feels like part of the method of discussion is to push me out by using examples I can't readily relate to or even list a counterpoint about.

Here's the difference -- in the "living world" sandbox play, the players do stuff, then the GM decides how that affects the world and come back and presents more scenes based on what the GM thinks is happening -- ie, the backstory the GM just created -- and play then moves forward exploring/expanding that backstory.

In Story Now play, the GM is not creating this new backstory, they are instead framing in a new situation, one that has multiple possible results that will have their own backstory requirements. The resolution of this situation then requires that the backstory be created to fit.

Here's a classic example: The PCs are fleeing from guards and wish to escape.

Trad/Classic/OSR/Neotrad games: The GM checks the map, describes the scene according to the map and the locations of the PCs and guards, and the players declare choices based on this. Let's say these choices lead them to a dead end. The players declare, in desperate hope, that they search for secret doors. The is resolved by the GM checking the map and noting if one is present or not. If not, this action fails. If so, a check is called for, and, on a failure, the PCs do not find a secret door but the fiction is otherwise unchanged (perhaps the guards arrive, if time is being tracked this way).

Story Now: The GM frames a situation -- that the PCs have entered a dead end with the guards close behind. No map is checked, this doesn't flow from established backstory -- it's framed in as a problem the players have to deal with that sits astride their desire to escape. The PCs decide to check for secret doors. Again, there's no map or key to check -- this backstory has not been established in any way by any participant. Instead, a check is called for. On a success, the players get their want -- a secret door is found. This now establishes the backstory that the secret door was always here. On a failure, perhaps no door is found (and such backstory established), perhaps a door is found, but it is blocked/obstructed in some way (backstory established, new situation also established), perhaps the door is found but it's known by the guards and has 5 mens coming down it (backstory established, situation modified). Regardless, the backstory of the secret door in this dead end is established by play.

These two things can end up with exactly the same fiction at outputs, but this is coincidental and unremarkable. The methods by which that fiction is created are very different.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To me, backstory is what happens before the game. That's been the crux of this disagreement and it shouldn't have taken pages of posts on the topic to figure that out. Sometimes it feels like you are too focused on and rely to heavily on jargon to communicate ideas that would be better communicated with natural language.

Pre-authored backstory implies that there's some backstory that is not pre-authored. To me what it means for backstory to not be preauthored is that it's the backstory that emerges based on what happens in play. I'm expecting that you are using the term in a more jargony way that means something different?

Stepping in here (@pemerton correct me if I'm misrepresenting anything) there are two different concepts being covered by "what happens before the game".

1. What happens before the game in in game time
2. What happens before the game in real world time

And the two are not always the same.

To use a clear cut example in one game I've played one of my fellow players was playing one of the last elven survivors of a goblin apocalypse. That was her backstory.

I, after the game started, retired my character and brought in a replacement. That replacement was a drow survivor of the same apocalypse and they'd known each other and been frenemies and rivals, each disliking each other for being of the wrong elven subrace and having even faced each other on the battlefield fifty years earlier. But they were the only people from each others' homeworlds they were likely to meet and the other might be the wrong type of elf but they were an elf and not a human, let alone a goblin. That was my character's backstory. And to me (and I suspect to @pemerton ) it also became part of the other character's backstory despite it having been written after the game started.

Another example comes from me DMing. One of the characters was the son of the mayor and had a distinctly distant relationship with his father who'd misled him a little. Said character left his village not on speaking terms with his father.

Before he came back to the village six months later in real world time I filled out the details of what the secret his father was trying to protect him from actually was and why rather than just that there was a secret. And if I'd written what the secret was the first time the NPC appeared I couldn't have written something that would tie as well thematically to the PC. To me again this was backstory despite the fact I'd expanded on it as a result of play, being careful to write what it was as consistent with everything that had gone before.

And then there's the old staple of the flashback scene. That scene in heist movies where they show what's really going on and why the protagonists aren't actually up to their necks in brown stuff (with the classic being "I stole the bullets from that gun last night"). I don't think that's backstory but it's arguable.

*Also, I noticed something peculiar. In trying to make a counterpoint that the GM's job isn't to frame compelling scenes you referenced an obscure game (at least to me). Why do you pick games to use as examples that are so obscure. It almost feels like part of the method of discussion is to push me out by using examples I can't readily relate to or even list a counterpoint about.

I don't think he did? I mean Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth is literally a Gygax written Dungeons & Dragons module and CoC is Call of Cthulhu, which is probably the second most famous RPG behind only D&D.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What purpose do you see in categorizing together playstyles that provide different experiences?

For instance, in the second quote above you're evidently defining "Backstory first" as a singular process broad enough to encompass both static map-and-key and living sandbox styles even though those styles use backstory differently and produce different experiences.

It's your use of such seemingly artificial definitions that make it appear that the way you categorize play styles has more to do with how you are defining the categories than with mapping play styles to play experiences. That's what makes your approach to categorization come across as axiomatic.

Backstory first is a broad approach, shared my many approaches that then differ. It's not a singular point of difference, but it is a primary point of difference between many approaches and story now/narrativism. Since this is a point of contention, it's the center of discussion.

If you want to talk about the differences between Classic, Trad, and NeoTrad play, all of which are backstory first approaches, we can do that.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think this is a good chance to talk about the differences in Story Now backstory usage that delineates it from other usage. This is a constant feature FYI.

1) In the session before this last one, 13 new NPCs were created from whole cloth that were essential to play. I had to notes on them prior to their deployment:

* Master Sergeant Rosco Hicks of the Bluecoat Precinct in Coalridge.

* 4 x Ministry of Preservation mercenaries that were imposed on the Coalridge force to be deputized so they could serve the wicked factory foreman that had been pulled out of retirement and placed back in Coalridge as an enforcer to quell a worker uprising.

* 4 x escorts that were secured from a brothel that the Crew are enemies with.

* Clerk who manages the logbook for hotel/apartment building where the mercs were staying on the top floor during their deployment.

* 2 x upper-crust/nobility looking fellows who were attending a card game with 4 aforementioned MoP mercs.

* 1 x maître-de of the hotel/apt.


These were all authored in that session for that session because they were situation-necessary (responsive to player action declarations, goals, or consequences of those action declarations).

Also authored in that session was the locale:

* The apt/hotel building including its features, its clientelle, where the mercs' apt was, and (very importantly) the features of their apt.

Notice the variance in resolution. That is key. Author only what is necessary and no more.


2) Last night? The Crew decided that 3 of those NPCs were very important players for the Score that was accreting in their minds. Consequently, I had to respond to their action declarations with fiction that was responsive to "player say" and "system say:"

* The Clerk was a young aspiring singer/songwriter named Evonia who does her thing at open mic night at an all-night Charterhall University Cafe called Insomnia. Sort of a Jewel figure with an enormously growing crowd.

* One of the 2 upper crust/nobility types was a renowned stage magician named Danton the Montebank. He works constantly for the upper crust of Duskvol and obviously has a bit of a card problem as well (like a Worms character from Rounders) as he gets in with some dangerous people for play.

* The other upper crust/nobility type was actually Charterhall's Dean of the Arts/Music Conservatory. He has a secret relationship with Evonia (she's a poor street performer and he's promised her a place in Charterhall's Orchestra...and he may have a more...intimate relationship with her...unclear). This relationship bought these two guys the ability to not sign in to the hotel/apt logbook.

* Later I had to author a bit of terrible fiction as their Transport Score found them in the middle of a high-rated Occult area in Six Towers. The Demon that is one of the Crew's Rivals (formerly possessed his physical rival; Bluecoat Darmot) has just finished her clock to reconstitute. So she is now "back in play" for me to use as a complication (though we didn't know who she was possessing). Well, I brought her in during a major complication last night on the rooftop where the group's Lurk was in an overwatch position with a long-gun; Lillith (the Demon) was possessing their oldest Crew Friend and a very important Crew-adjacent party; Esme the owner/operator of the tavern Just Booze.

---

I hope this firms up what is happening in Story Now games. My authorship (or the table's if I ask questions and use their answers) is respondent to the immediate needs of play. Need new people...new places? Author them? Do they need to be high resolution? No...leave it loose. Do they need to be high resolution now? Ok, firm it up.

This is not the same as other games (and again...this is a constant feature...this isn't a one-off...this is a constant feature of play).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Manbearcat that's perfectly normal in any style that relies more on improvisation. I often leave things undefined like that and fill them in as needed.