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

[Xetheral]

The issue with viewing all play on a linear to sandbox continuum is that not all nonlinear play is sandbox play.

That's one of the reasons I defined the spectrum I'm promoting on a sandbox to non-sandbox range, rather than sandbox to linear. But yes, there are certainly styles of play that cannot be easily mapped to that spectrum. The existence of such styles, however, doesn't make the spectrum less useful for considering the distribution of authority among the many styles which do fit on the spectrum.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think players having authority over something more than their players automatically leads to the sort of thing you're describing, or the world not making sense--and I say that as someone who prefers to lay the game world's foundations and large-scale things solo, as GM, because I have things I want the game world to be and not to be.

I have had a player go a little overboard in writing his character's backstory, but A) it was a tragedy, B) it didn't make the world not make sense, C) the player now realizes (without my explicit prompting, I think) he went well over the top and D) I have learned to ask players to keep backstories kinda short and to remind them their characters are closer to the beginning of their story than the middle, let alone the end. (And I think that last works, even if you expect the story to be understood mostly looking backward.

I am familiar with the stammering and muttering, but I think some of that is about knowing your players. I have never seen a player who understood what they were being asked exceed the ambit of their authority, or try to.

The cleric "popping up to Valhalla for lunch" is a real world example. A big part of my setting is that getting to other planes of existence is never easy. Maybe that wouldn't bother you, it changes part of the core lore of world building that I've established. I'm okay with people coming up with stuff, but I maintain editorial and veto power because I want my world to be consistent and to fit my view of how the world workd. What the player of the cleric PC stated was neither.

 

[prabe]

The cleric "popping up to Valhalla for lunch" is a real world example. A big part of my setting is that getting to other planes of existence is never easy. Maybe that wouldn't bother you, it changes part of the core lore of world building that I've established. I'm okay with people coming up with stuff, but I maintain editorial and veto power because I want my world to be consistent and to fit my view of how the world workd. What the player of the cleric PC stated was neither.

So you talk to the player and negotiate. Remind them about the nature of planar travel and the dubious existence of the gods. Ask them for something that better fits the world as you've previously defined it.



If it doesn't work with that player, it doesn't.

 

[Aldarc]

I have had a player go a little overboard in writing his character's backstory, but A) it was a tragedy, B) it didn't make the world not make sense, C) the player now realizes (without my explicit prompting, I think) he went well over the top and D) I have learned to ask players to keep backstories kinda short and to remind them their characters are closer to the beginning of their story than the middle, let alone the end. (And I think that last works, even if you expect the story to be understood mostly looking backward.

I generally ask guided questions for the players. Namely questions like "What/who are your connections in this town?" and "Why are you adventuring?" or "What objectives/goals do you hope to achieve with your adventuring?" With the latter two questions, I'm primarily concerned with their "kicker." I approach characters much like I do with settings: I prefer that characters and settings start out in sketched form but then fleshed out through play. IME, it's not always easy for players to have a good grasp of their character until they really discover them as part of play with a group and interacting with the world.

 

[billd91]

My general issue with published adventures is that they presume player goals. What's most important to me as a player is the freedom to set my own agenda. I am flexible on how much say I have over my characters' thoughts and feelings, but the ability to decide how characters should interact with the scenarios the GM presents is integral. I am fine wit the expectation that players should be expected to interact with the scenario in some way, but I think players should have the freedom to choose their enemies and allies, what their goals are, and how to go about achieving those goals. Obviously there will be some constraints, but that freedom to set and pursue (a usually somewhat shared) agenda is integral to most of the RPG play I enjoy.

If the GM is transparent about it I can casually enjoy a game where this is not the case, but will not have nearly as much fun as one where it is.

Yes, they tend to assume some kind of goal - be it the player's goal to play that adventure/AP and explore the story contained therein - or the PCs' goals. And I think it's a fair assumption that at least one of each player's goals is to actively play the adventure/AP and their PCs' goals will be compatible with the assumptions of the adventure/AP whatever those are (save the locals from giant raids, win fame and fortune, defeat the necromancer, etc). If a player can't align to that goal, then they're clearly not the right kind of player for that adventure/AP and either the table (DM and other players) shouldn't choose it or that player should choose to sit out that campaign or play elsewhere, depending on the dynamics of the group as a whole.

So, I agree that transparency is important when the DM is pitching the campaign to the players and the players are choosing what game/campaign to play next. That's transparency in both directions - the DM pitching the game and the players responding with their honest reactions and intentions with respect to it.

 

[Lanefan]

Plot authority - over crux-points in the knowledge base at the table - now is the time for a revelation! - typically, revealing content, although notice it can apply to player-characters' material as well as GM material - and look out, because within this authority lies the remarkable pitfall of wanting (for instances) revelations and reactions to apply precisely to players as they do to characters​

Heh - I don't see that as a pitfall; I see it as an ideal result toward which to aspire. .

 

[prabe]

I generally ask guided questions for the players. Namely questions like "What/who are your connections in this town?" and "Why are you adventuring?" or "What objectives/goals do you hope to achieve with your adventuring?" With the latter two questions, I'm primarily concerned with their "kicker." I approach characters much like I do with settings: I prefer that characters and settings start out in sketched form but then fleshed out through play. IME, it's not always easy for players to have a good grasp of their character until they really discover them as part of play with a group and interacting with the world.

I think I am ... inclined to agree, in that I want the players to leave blanks in their conceptions of their characters. And I leave blanks in my setting, both to allow room for future adventures and to allow room for PC attachment points. I like having things I can weave in as I'm setting up scenarios and other instigations that reflect those attachments, and I'm happy to have the players write those.

This is, I suspect, not an unbridgeable difference.

 

[Maxperson]

One thing I've been thinking about is that 5e is tolerant in terms of a diversity of players because of the assumed division of authority.

For example, you can have a table with an "all about the combat" player, a "beer & pretzels" player, a "hardcore RP" player, a "I'm just here because my girlfriend dragged me here" player, a "I like to map and write drown treasure" player, and so on.

There is no requirement that the players all bring a level of enthusiasm to the game at all times. It makes it better, but it still works. It's also easy to integrate new players, who don't even have to know anything in particular about the world (create fiction). You can always up the player authority over narrative, but it's never required.

Other games can be attractive and fun for tables that enjoy a cooperative and engaged playstyle, but I wonder if there is some inherent advantage to a game that allows for that specific type of diversity.

Maybe, maybe not.

This I'm curious about. In my experience, regardless of edition, having differing player types is an issue. The "hardcore RPer" is talking it up with the guy at the general store while buying a 50' rope and the "all about combat" guy is bored out of his mind just wanting to fight something, while the "I like to map and track treasure guy" is also bored, but at least is holding out some hope that the store clerk knows about a dungeon somewhere. It's really hard to take care of them all to the point where they are all happy, because what makes them happy differs so much. 5e hasn't been different for me in that regard. What is it that you see that changes that?

 

[Oofta]

One thing I've been thinking about is that 5e is tolerant in terms of a diversity of players because of the assumed division of authority.

For example, you can have a table with an "all about the combat" player, a "beer & pretzels" player, a "hardcore RP" player, a "I'm just here because my girlfriend dragged me here" player, a "I like to map and write drown treasure" player, and so on.

There is no requirement that the players all bring a level of enthusiasm to the game at all times. It makes it better, but it still works. It's also easy to integrate new players, who don't even have to know anything in particular about the world (create fiction). You can always up the player authority over narrative, but it's never required.

Other games can be attractive and fun for tables that enjoy a cooperative and engaged playstyle, but I wonder if there is some inherent advantage to a game that allows for that specific type of diversity.

Maybe, maybe not.

I agree. What works for my gaming style may not work for others. I know that, in theory, I could give my players much more narrative control (and I do give them a lot of freedom in a lot of areas) and eventually they would get better.

But does that make for a better game? I'm not so sure, at least not for me whether I'm DMing or playing. It's like the difference between reading a good book and writing a story. I enjoy both, but reading feels very different. The advantage of D&D is that you do get narrative control over the PC but it's against a backdrop that exists outside of the PC. It's more ... realistic probably isn't a word I think really applies to D&D ... but that's the closest I can come.

Maybe for me it's a difference between "what did you do for the weekend" that's constrained by my budget and circumstances and a dream I had last night.

Or maybe I'm just babbling incoherently. I guess I just like having an established world with set boundaries and one person in charge of what those boundaries are. Sort of.

 

[Lanefan]

Lyxen, I would strongly appreciate it if, before castigating Pemerton again, you compare what you know about the Sea Maiden scenario to what Pemerton has written above about The Crimson Bull, and see if you can perceive any meaningful difference between how these two scenarios work.

Pemerton has offered one as an example which has events on a timeline, to which the PCs can respond in many different ways and come to different outcomes, and the other as an example which has events in a sequence, which will happen no matter what and the GM is specifically instructed to figure out how to have happen no matter what choices the PCs make.

I can't speak to the Sea Maiden example at all, but I've just this week finished running the 1e module The Gauntlet, which builds in a series of similarly pre-scripted events and which (due to these) I found to be rather underwhelming at least from the DM side. Fortunately, it was something of a one-off for us and thus I just shrugged and went with it, but if I'd been taking it more seriously I'd have had to rewrite large chunks of it to make it robust enough to handle unexpected PC actions and-or timing.