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

[pemerton]

Here is another post to try and describe the difference between "situation first" and "backstory first" RPGing. That distinction does not correlate in any strict sense to "story now" and <something else>. Situation first can be railroading (eg the D&D-as-living-novel approach that Lewis Pulsipher criticised back in the late 70s/early 80s). And the most paradigmatic form of "backstory first" is a Gygax or Moldvay-style dungeon, which when run as they (especially Moldvay) advise will not be a railroad. (But the flip side of that - related to my reply to @Crimson Longinus in post 1156 just upthread - is that it might be boring, if the players get unlucky and miss the interesting bits of the dungeon.)

Situation first need not eschew the use of maps. In my Classic Traveller game I've used some map in our past several sessions - deck plans, and plans of an ancient alien installation. But the use of the plans is different from "backstory first". Not utterly different, but different.

I will explain with reference to this session. The PCs board and explore an alien vessel. Much of the play, particularly in the earlier part of the session, looks a bit like a dungeon crawl: the players say where their PCs go, and I say what they see.

The difference is in the way the map feeds into scene framing and action resolution. The fact that we know, from the "free narration" phase of play, where the various PCs are when the Alien attacks gives me licence to frame scenes that establish and maintain the unfolding drama. If you read the play report, you can see that we are not counting squares on a map and correlating that with movement rates to work out time elapsed. Rather, I am making decisions - using my authority over scene-framing - as to who is in which scene. Those decisions have to respect the established fiction - ie our shared knowledge of who is where - but they are not outputs of an action resolution process. They are authorial decisions, made by me, that pick up what was just colour (Tony's on the bridge; Vincenzo and Alissa are in the hydroponics room) into scenes (Vincenzo and Alissa are attacked by an Alien in the hydroponics room, and Tony can't help them because he's on the bridge!).

It's worth expressly noting that adopting a situation-first generates its own, new, demands on action resolution mechanics. Eg what happens if Tony, under attack from an Alien, yells into his communicator calling for help; and Blaster's player declares I rush to help him? We need a way to resolve this action - in the fiction, does Blaster get there in time? and in the real world can Blaster's player insert Blaster into the scene? In Burning Wheel this would probably be a Speed check; in Prince Valiant it would be Brawn + Agility; in Apocalypse World it seems like it might be Acting Under Fire. What about Classic Traveller? It's less clear - Traveller is not as robust a resolution engine as those other systems, and some extrapolation or improvisation might be needed: perhaps a throw of 8+ if the distance is not too great, with bonuses for high STR and/or Tactics or Recon.

One consequence of this difference in the use of the map - situation-first rather than backstory-first - is that there is no risk of "offscreen" failure. PCs getting to where the action is does not depend on counting squares and keeping track of time elapsed as a result of movement.

(Here is a classic illustration of the reverse approach, where scenes are framed by first applying map-and-key to resolve declared movement actions:

• The time to traverse town with super-running is deemed insufficient to arrive at the scene, with reference to distance and actions at the scene, such that the villain's bomb does blow up the city. (The rules for DC Heroes specifically dictate that this be the appropriate way to GM such a scene).)

 

[pemerton]

Evocative descriptions and 'funny' voices are about creating immersive environment. I don't understand why you wouldn't want that. I really don't get it, it seriously sounds like you want RPGs to be bland, which I doubt you actually mean.

We're worlds apart in preferences here from my perspective. What I value about roleplaying games are the way they combine the fun of acting/directing, watching a good film or TV show, and playing games into a new activity that has parts of what I love about each but feels different from any of them alone.

It seems that I am closer to Campbell on this point.

As a player, among the most intense scenes I've experienced RPGing were when Thurgon met his brother, and then mother, after years in exile from his ancestral estate (s-blocked for length):

Spoiler

At the start of the session, Thurgon had the following four Beliefs - The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory; I am a Knight of the Iron Tower, and by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory; Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more!; Aramina will need my protection - and three Instincts - When entering battle, always speak a prayer to the Lord of Battle; If an innocent is threatened, interpose myself; When camping, always ensure that the campfire is burning.

Aramina's had three Beliefs - I'm not going to finish my career with no spellbooks and an empty purse! - next, some coins!; I don't need Thurgon's pity; If in doubt, burn it! and three instincts - Never catch the glance or gaze of a stranger; Always wear my cloak; Always Assess before casting a spell.

<snip>

the two character's wanted to continue more-or-less due east on the other side of both streams. This was heading into the neighbourhood of Auxol, and so Thurgon kept his eye out for friends and family. The Circles check (base 3 dice +1 for an Affiliation with the nobility and another +1 for an Affiliation with his family) succeeded again, and the two characters came upon Thurgon's older brother Rufus driving a horse and cart. (Thurgon has a Rationship with his mother Xanthippe but no other family members; hence the Circles check to meet his brother.)

There was a reunion between Rufus and Thurgon. But (as described by the GM) it was clear to Thurgon that Rufus was not who he had been, but seemed cowed - as Rufus explained when Thurgon asked after Auxol, he (Rufus) was on his way to collect wine for the master. Rufus mentioned that Thurgon's younger son had married not long ago - a bit of lore (like Rufus hmself) taken from the background I'd prepared for Thurgon as part of PC gen - and had headed south in search of glory (that was something new the GM introduced). I mentioned that Aramina was not meeting Rufus's gaze, and the GM picked up on this - Rufus asked Thurgon who this woman was who wouldn't look at him from beneath the hood of her cloak - was she a witch? Thurgon answered that she travelled with him and mended his armour. Then I switched to Aramina, and she looked Rufus directly in the eye and told him what she thought of him - "Thurgon has trained and is now seeking glory on his errantry, and his younger brother has gone too to seek glory, but your, Rufus . . ." I told the GM that I wanted to check Ugly Truth for Aramina, to cause a Steel check on Rufus's part. The GM decided that Rufus has Will 3, and then we quickly calculated his Steel which also came out at 3. My Ugly Truth check was a success, and the Steel check failed. Rufus looked at Aramina, shamed but unable to respond. Switching back to Thurgon, I tried to break Rufus out of it with a Command check: he should pull himself together and join in restoring Auxol to its former glory. But the check failed, and Rufus, broken, explained that he had to go and get the wine. Switching back to Aramina, I had a last go - she tried for untrained Command, saying that if he wasn't going to join with Thurgon he might at least give us some coin so that we might spend the night at an inn rather than camping. This was Will 5, with an advantage die for having cowed him the first time, against a double obstacle penalty for untrained (ie 6) +1 penalty because Rufus was very set in his way. It failed. and so Rufus rode on and now has animosity towards Aramina. As the GM said, she better not have her back to him while he has a knife ready to hand.

The characters continued on, and soon arrived at Auxol,. The GM narrated the estate still being worked, but looking somewhat run-down compared to Thrugon's memories of it. An old, bowed woman greeted us - Xanthippe, looking much more than her 61 years. She welcomed Thurgon back, but chided him for having been away. And asked him not to leave again. The GM was getting ready to force a Duel of Wits on the point - ie that Thurgon should not leave again - when I tried a different approach. I'd already made a point of Thurgon having his arms on clear display as he rode through the countryside and the estate; now he raised his mace and shield to the heavens, and called on the Lord of Battle to bring strength back to his mother so that Auxol might be restored to its former greatness. This was a prayer for a Minor Miracle, obstacle 5. Thurgon has Faith 5 and I burned his last point of Persona to take it to 6 dice (the significance of this being that, without 1 Persona, you can't stop the effect of a mortal wound should one be suffered). With 6s being open-ended (ie auto-rolls), the expected success rate is 3/5, so that's 3.6 successes there. And I had a Fate point to reroll one failure, for an overall expected 4-ish successes. Against an obstacle of 5.

As it turned out, I finished up with 7 successes. So a beam of light shot down from the sky, and Xanthippe straightened up and greeted Thurgon again, but this time with vigour and readiness to restore Auxol. The GM accepted my proposition that this played out Thurgon's Belief that Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more! (earning a Persona point). His new Belief is Xanthippe and I will liberate Auxol. He picked up a second Persona point for Embodiment ("Your roleplay (a performance or a decision) captures the mood of the table and drives the story onward").

Turning back to Aramina, I decided that this made an impact on her too: up until now she had been cynical and slightly bitter, but now she was genuinely inspired and determined: instead of never meeting the gaze of a stranger, her Instinct is to look strangers in the eyes and Assess. And rather than I don't need Thurgon's pity, her Belief is Thurgon and I will liberate Auxol. This earned a Persona point for Mouldbreaker ("If a situation brings your Beliefs, Instincts and Traits into conflict with a decision your PC must make, you play out your inner turmoil as you dramatically play against a Belief in a believable and engaging manner").

In these encounters there was no elaborate description. I don't think there were any funny voices - maybe there was a slight shift in intonation or volume to signal that the NPC and not the GM himself was speaking. What made these engaging was the situation itself - what it meant, and what it threatened and promised.

As far as Campbell's list of desiderata goes, this had the first two of his three items:

1. Heightened emotional experience. What Nordic LARP calls bleed. That feeling of inhabiting a character in the moment, feeling what they feel, and acting as they would act. Making things feel as real as possible.
2. The thrill of watching a narrative unfold in motion. Being fans of these characters and feeling the tension when we are not sure what will happen to them. This is something I want to be shared with the whole group.

Trying to reach Rufus - the cynical Aramina succeeding in shaming him, but the noble Thurgon then being unable to bring him out of his shame back into honour; and then calling on the power of the divine to lift the burdens and resignation from Xanthippe, which was a redemption not just of her but of Thurgon, given his failure with Rufus - that is where the immersion is found, for me.

I don't need the GM to provide evocative narrative. I need the GM to establish these compelling situations.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes it is, in that until it was fixed the DM - and us players - had to accept that in the fiction the crystal had been broken; and he had to weave in a means of fixing it.

Developments can always be undone. A simple example: it's a development that your Fighter just lost his arm. A Regereration spell later undoes that development.

And once the player's ability to navigate the scene becomes noticeably better than that of the player's PC in the fiction, there's a disconnect.

There is also a disconnect while a player's ability to navigate a scene is notably worse than the player's PC in the fiction. And the bandwidth that a DM, any DM, has to communicate information to me as a player is vastly, staggeringly less than the PC would have in the fiction with the ability to use all five senses, and has knowledge based on having grown up in the world.

To put this into perspective if the PC was walking through the dungeon blindfolded with someone at their shoulder describing things to them they would still have access to four senses that I, as a player, do not. They would also have the benefit of someone able to focus entirely on them in their descriptions rather than having to split their time between half a dozen players and the mechanical part of the game.

Even the best DM in the world can therefore not, through pure description alone, enable me to approach the level my character could navigate their game world blindfolded with someone describing things to them. And if you think descriptions work try and ask someone to help you navigate the world blindfolded just by talking to you and not even touching you.

The question therefore is whether, given that the PCs are considerably worse than blindfolded in their ability to navigate the world in detail whether something should be put in place to compensate or whether it is utterly unacceptable that there is anything put in place to compensate and worse-than-blindfolded is some sort of ideal.

For me knowing the mechanics are one of those things that bring my ability to interact with the setting into the same ball park as my PC even if it's not exactly the same way as they would. Being blindfolded I find a profoundly unsatisfying experience. And knowledge of the mechanics is one way to compensate for the physical limits of not being there and not really being able to use my eyes or my nose while having a DM who has to split their attention. Thus with the mechanics I'm far nearer what my PC can do in the fiction rather than having only the abilities to understand the world that are a crippled subset of my character.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've excerpted this one bit because I think this is absolutely emblematic of the disconnect between posters, here.

If you said this about a Blades in the Dark game, it would not make a bit of sense. Like, totally, absolutely, just wouldn't make sense. It's so far outside the concept space that the idea that player input could stall the game or nothing interesting happen would be contemplating a complete failure of the game. It would be like saying that having the GM present a plot hook in D&D would result in no one knowing what to do and the whole game just stopping entirely (because the GM presented a plot hook). That's the kind of doesn't make sense I'm talking about. This statement just stopped me hard in my tracks.

So, why is that? Well, because it's true and absolutely wrong at the same time, and the way you read it is going to be very much how you approach the play of the game. If you're very much centered in the received wisdom of RPGs as handed down through D&D, then the statement makes sense. If the players are declaring actions that aren't progressing what the GM has prepared, or that are prompting the GM to make up stuff the GM doesn't care about, then absolutely play will stall. And, equally absolutely, the GM should prod the game to move it a bit and hopefully get to play that isn't stalled (well, I think @Lanefan would say the GM shouldn't prod it and just let the players stall out if that's what they choose to do). And, this makes perfect sense. Like, 100% agree that from this framework (which is, by far, the most common one in RPGs and perfectly cromulent) this statement makes sense!

But, from a different framework, it's nonsense. And it's nonsense because you can play RPGs where the player's declarations are what's at stake - they literally cannot stall the game because that's what the game is about. You can't have a game otherwise. And, if you're not familiar with this approach, if you have no experience with it, then this is making no sense to you -- you're imagining a lot of play exactly like you know and are instead imagining the GM doing things that don't make a lot of sense and seem frankly horrible to you if they happen to make this thing I just said make sense. It's cool, I was there once, too. But, here's the thing -- it does work, and it does make for awesome games (not better games, just awesome, like the other way can have awesome games, too). And, in that sense, the statement I quoted is absolutely nonsensical.

So, if you're a person that cannot imagine a game that operates in a way that the quoted sentence makes no sense without going to horrible examples of play, then this is the reason for the disconnect in this thread. I 100% understand and recognize the play being defended in this thread (although why the need to defend it exists I am a tad baffled by). I was taught to play that way and played that way for decades. There's nothing to "living sandboxes" that is surprising or unique to me -- if anything, this exactly describes the first AD&D game I joined, and the 2e and 3e games I ran. Why? Because that's how I was taught to play. But, I've since spread out, and play games that don't follow this paradigm, that are different, and that do very different things. And so, the statement I quoted is one of those things that makes total sense to me but also is nonsense. Just depends on which way I approach it.

An odd aside:
Imagine a person that has only ever known and eaten lima beans. They love lima beans, and they've prepared them in a number of ways and with different spices and seasonings. This person thinks they have the culinary world on lockdown -- they are the master of the lima bean! And then they meet someone that's talking about this weird food called steak. So they ask questions. How do you prepare steak? They hear you can grill it or roast it, even eat it raw, there are all kinds of ways to make steak. And they think, that is like lima beans, I can make lima beans in all of those ways. Steak is not different from lima beans. Then they ask, how can you season steak? And they hear about salt, and pepper, and sauces, and they think, lima beans can be eaten with these. Some, maybe, do not sound appetizing, but indeed, there cannot actually be any difference between steak and lima beans! And so, they declare they know all the things there is to know about steak, and that they need not sample this steak, because there's not any real difference between steak and lima beans. They are, after all, the master of lima beans!

ETA: This is different from a person that tries steak and decides to stick with lima beans, btw. There's nothing saying steak or lima beans are better.

This is D&D section of the forums, mate. Stop offering 'don't play D&D as an answer to D&D related issues. Also, the attitude displayed here is incredibly elitist and condescending. "If only those poor peasants could see the light!" It is not necessarily that people do not know of these other game structures, it is that they bring along with elements that everyone may not like. Or even even if they liked them, as I said, D&D forum so that's the framework we're talking about.

Also, my games do not stall, and I use force extremely rarely. But I don't consider use of invisible force to be a bad thing, so if I need to use it, that is not a problem. There is nothing to be fixed, so you don't need to proselytise to me.

Now the game stalling due the GM relying on fixed backstory and players poking wrong things and nothing happening is something that has happened to me as player, and I find it extremely frustrating, and on those occasions I would have preferred if the GM had employed illusionism/force/whatever to get things going.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't know where you are inviting me to go with this.

If someone thinks that anything other than fixed backstory is objectionable; and if they think that any sort of "soft move" is softballing; then they have to suck up the fact that the sister might get fireballed unknowingly, producing what might seem an anticlimactic outcome.

Conversely, if someone wants "no failure offscreen" (in this case, the key offscreen and unrevealed moment is the sister joining the cultists) - certainly a preference of mine - then they have to vary one or more of the above parameters.

I don't see the point of pretending that backstory is immutable, and of seemingly avoiding soft moves, and then having the GM secretly fudge the identity/location of the sister. That seems like an ad hoc solution to a mismatched set of resolution systems and preferences - roughly speaking, the use of Gygax's mechanics to play out a DL-type story - and not an approach that stands on its own merits.

I'm not sure I'm inviting you to do anything, and it is possible that we agree quite a bit.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It seems that I am closer to Campbell on this point.

As a player, among the most intense scenes I've experienced RPGing were when Thurgon met his brother, and then mother, after years in exile from his ancestral estate (s-blocked for length):

In these encounters there was no elaborate description. I don't think there were any funny voices - maybe there was a slight shift in intonation or volume to signal that the NPC and not the GM himself was speaking. What made these engaging was the situation itself - what it meant, and what it threatened and promised.

As far as Campbell's list of desiderata goes, this had the first two of his three items:
Trying to reach Rufus - the cynical Aramina succeeding in shaming him, but the noble Thurgon then being unable to bring him out of his shame back into honour; and then calling on the power of the divine to lift the burdens and resignation from Xanthippe, which was a redemption not just of her but of Thurgon, given his failure with Rufus - that is where the immersion is found, for me.

I don't need the GM to provide evocative narrative. I need the GM to establish these compelling situations.

Sure, the situation is important, but I think it works together with the presentation. At least to me presentation matters a lot if we want to to get straight to the feels like @Campbell describes. It's the difference between watching a movie with all the music, actors, lightning etc and just reading the script.

 

[soviet]

Sure, the situation is important, but I think it works together with the presentation. At least to me presentation matters a lot if we want to to get straight to the feels like @Campbell describes. It's the difference between watching a movie with all the music, actors, lightning etc and just reading the script.

Someone watching a movie is a passive member of an audience. Someone reading a script is an actor contributing to the work.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Someone watching a movie is a passive member of an audience. Someone reading a script is an actor contributing to the work.

Not really the point of the analogy. Why people always need to do this when comparison so films or books is made?

Fine. A difference between being an actor on the stage in a costume, with all the set pieces, the lightning props and other actors who are doing their best or just reading the script. Better?

 

[Numidius]

Reading makes the brain work to visualize, watching a move does not.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Reading makes the brain work to visualize, watching a move does not.

So what on earth this has to do with the point I was trying to actually make? Did I suggest that the GM literally shows the player a film?