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

[FrogReaver]

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.

This also explains why when I’m giving his 3 categorizations and heavily points to map and key as backstory first and story now as character/situation first that I’m struggling to place living sandbox play in any of those categories. It’s different than them all and so I’m left trying to force it into the most appropriate of the inappropriate categorizations.

 

[Manbearcat]

So story now is basically defined by how often you improv places/NPCs into the game?

That is necessary but not sufficient.

The improvisation is deeply structured and constrained by premise, by system's say (principles, procedures, rules), and by player's say (including PC build flags, evinced interests, actual conversation, and their declared actions and resolution results).

For instance, a game of complete Calvinballing improv content generation by a GM is nearly the opposite of Story Now GMing despite the ratio of prepped vs improvised content being the same in both cases.

Does that help?

 

[FrogReaver]

That is necessary but not sufficient.

The improvisation is deeply structured and constrained by premise, by system's say (principles, procedures, rules), and by player's say (including PC build flags, evinced interests, actual conversation, and their declared actions and resolution results).

For instance, a game of complete Calvinballing improv content generation by a GM is nearly the opposite of Story Now GMing despite the ratio of prepped vs improvised content being the same in both cases.

Does that help?

But outside of extreme calvinballing don’t those things happen in every playstyle?

 

[Manbearcat]

But outside of extreme calvinballing don’t those things happen in every playstyle?

They either don't happen in proportion or perhaps at all. You'll have to correct the record on your own play (to do that you're going to have to talk about governing structure, principles, procedures, rules that GM's must observe - the system's say - they can't have no teeth and be discarded at GM discretion...if you have examples, I'd love to hear about them), but when I'm not running Story Now games, what I depicted above is either (a) outright not in play at all or (b) play is sufficiently ungoverned by structure and principles that underwrite this form of play that its missing the key ingredients (the sufficient part of my post to you above) or (c) when it happens, it is the exception that proves the rule (that Story Now agenda, principles, techniques, structure, authority distribution don't underwrite the trajectory of play...they just perturb it, maybe, infrequently).

* When I run Pawn Stance Moldvay, its prep-heavy, improv light, and neither the prep nor the improv are principally GMed to revolve around dramatic needs. My framing and adjudication is structured but centered principally around distilling skilled play. The system has its say.

* When I run RC Hexcrawls, its prep-heavy, improv light, and neither the prep nor the improv are principally GMed to revolve around dramatic needs. My framing and adjudication is structured but centered principally around distilling skilled play (the primary difference between this and the above is its not Pawn Stance and it incorporates an entire macro-setting, not just the micro-setting of a dungeon). The system has its say.

* When I've run AD&D and WW metaplot-intensive and setting-tourism-intensive games (my own or others), its prep-heavy, improv light, and neither the prep nor the improv are principally GMed to revolve around dramatic needs. My framing and adjudication is governed only by the structure I give it and the only principal constraint is "what do I feel best serves the synthesis of keeping this metaplot online + keeping the players' enjoyment of the metaplot and their touring of the setting at any given moment." Effectively, there is neither system-driven structure nor constraining principles that I must abide by, so system has very little say.


Outside of 4e, those are the 3 forms of D&D I've run with the first two being the overwhelming % of D&D that I've run. The split is probably 35/30/10 w/ 4e Story Now/Skilled Play hybrid making up the last 25 % or so. In those first 3 buckets, that final parenthetical wasn't a thing, even though there was invariably some improv in each.

And again, even if there was (lets say all of the integrated features that define story now play and underwrite the trajectory of play were present in some tiny fraction...they're not, but lets say they are), their infrequent instantiation would only perturb the status quo GMing/play paradigm that underwrites the trajectory of play.

 

[niklinna]

But outside of extreme calvinballing don’t those things happen in every playstyle?

Yes—but again, it's not that they happen, but why/when/who/how/how much etc. And it's about what doesn't happen in Story Now'™' brand play—the GM is explicitly not supposed to prep more backstory/situation/setting/what-have-you than is necessary to get a ball rolling.

There are specific formal processes for how to handle that improv stuff in Story Now'™' games, with constraints on the GM and players both. Some of those processes even hand the authorial pen to the players*, allowing them to declare facts about the world.

* Which the GM in any game always has the option to do, of course, but it's rare I've seen it happen in more traditional games.

 

[prabe]

the GM is explicitly not supposed to prep more backstory/situation/setting/what-have-you than is necessary to get a ball rolling.

Isn't this--at least possibly--something of a matter of judgment and/or taste? I mean, some GMs (or plausibly players, or tables) might need more context (I guess, for lack of a better word) before they feel comfortable kicking stuff off, however much prep they're going to do between sessions.

 

[loverdrive]

But outside of extreme calvinballing don’t those things happen in every playstyle?

The fact of improvising stuff isn't enough. It's about the constraints. Things you can't improvise.

While, say, running D&D 5E, you're completely unshackled, until it comes to combat (and even there, there's rule 0, fudging and all that contentious jazz I'll not delve into).

There's nothing you can do that directly breaks the rules of the game. 1st Regiment of Tarrasque Cavalry of United Liches Army doesn't break any rules, saying that barbarian intimidated an NPC so hard that they have a stroke and died doesn't break any rules, a rogue strolling though the dungeon, triggering a trap, falling a save and dying doesn't break any rules.

And then, there's why you improvise. In Story Now paradigm, you improvise for one reason and one reason alone: to add fuel to the story. In story before, you improvise to get things back on track. In story after, you improvise because the situation at hand demands a fair and logical response. These things are not the same.

 

[prabe]

In Story Now paradigm, you improvise for one reason and one reason alone: to add fuel to the story. In story before, you improvise to get things back on track. In story after, you improvise because the situation at hand demands a fair and logical response. These things are not the same.

Not arguing, but it seems there might be some overlap between "add fuel to the story" and "fair and logical response."

 

[niklinna]

the GM is explicitly not supposed to prep more backstory/situation/setting/what-have-you than is necessary to get a ball rolling.

Isn't this--at least possibly--something of a matter of judgment and/or taste? I mean, some GMs (or plausibly players, or tables) might need more context (I guess, for lack of a better word) before they feel comfortable kicking stuff off, however much prep they're going to do between sessions.

Oh, for sure, and it's why I used "not supposed to" instead of "not allowed to". But it's definitely part of the culture, as it were, to keep that stuff minimal (I am reading the pretty nifty essay about cultures of play somebody linked above). "Play to find out" and all that.

Look at the settings you get out of the box in Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark. AW tells you something bad happened to the world, oh and there's this psychic maelstrom thing—have at! Blades in the Dark gives you a city with geography and important NPCs and factions, but then lets you fill all that in with the details, which it encourages you to do through play. But you could do it ahead of time, if you wanted. Another game might stat out all those NPCs and things right in the rule/setting book (available as a stretch goal in the kickstarter! ).

 

[Xetheral]

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.

I agree that "Backstory first", as @pemerton is defining the category, appears to distinguish Story Now from other approaches. Indeed as a category it seems purposefully defined to do exactly that. I asked pemerton what purpose they saw in categorizing together disperate approaches because I want to know if they see any additional purpose to the "Backstory first" category beyond just distinguishing Story Now.

If the main use of the "Backstory first" category is to distinguish the approach it was defined to distinguish, that makes it a perfect example of axiomatic categorization.

(Which, to be clear, would not by itself mean there's anything wrong with "Backstory first" as a category. But it would explain disinterest in using the category by those who prefer to categorize playstyles in a way that more closely tracks differences in play experiences.)