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

[Ovinomancer]

I pay attention to pacing a lot, but pacing definitely is a part of presentation.

I absolutely pay attention to pacing when I run 5e. I don't care about pacing at all when I run Blades in the Dark.

I absolutely think it's my job as GM to manage pacing in 5e. I don't care about pacing at all when I run Blades in the Dark.

I absolutely use Force and Illusionism to manage pacing in 5e. I don't care about pacing at all when I run Blades in the Dark.

Pacing is function of the kind of game you're running. It is not universal. Other games operate in ways that pacing is just not a concern. So, yes, if you're just used to running D&D, then you're very used to paying attention to pacing. Even here, though, there's differences of opinion about if it's a thing. If I'm not mistaken, @Lanefan doesn't care about pacing either -- this is a feature, not a bug, of his approach to play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To whom is the thing being paced, being presented? I think the point is that if something is being presented to you, you are not an active participant. In the same way, if someone entertains you, you aren't the one doing it (grammatically, you're the object not the subject).

Only way for GM to not present anything to the players is to be silent. I don’t think that’s gonna work. So as functioning of the game requires GM to present things, I find it bizarre that it is somehow controversial that they should aim to do it well!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Only way for GM to not present anything to the players is to be silent. I don’t think that’s gonna work. So as functioning of the game requires GM to present things, I find it bizarre that it is somehow controversial that they should aim to do it well!

This is weird pea-swap. Pacing means the GM presents things to the players? That's a non-standard definition.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I absolutely pay attention to pacing when I run 5e. I don't care about pacing at all when I run Blades in the Dark.

I absolutely think it's my job as GM to manage pacing in 5e. I don't care about pacing at all when I run Blades in the Dark.

I absolutely use Force and Illusionism to manage pacing in 5e. I don't care about pacing at all when I run Blades in the Dark.

Pacing is function of the kind of game you're running. It is not universal. Other games operate in ways that pacing is just not a concern. So, yes, if you're just used to running D&D, then you're very used to paying attention to pacing. Even here, though, there's differences of opinion about if it's a thing. If I'm not mistaken, @Lanefan doesn't care about pacing either -- this is a feature, not a bug, of his approach to play.

Scroll to top of the page. What does it say? Is this general or D&D section? Please understand and respect the context. Stop trying to sell the steaks to the vegans who are discussing how to best utilise the lima beans! It is not relevant and makes it seem that you’re evangelising.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is weird pea-swap. Pacing means the GM presents things to the players? That's a non-standard definition.

How is pacing not part of presentation? It obviously is.

 

[prabe]

How is pacing not part of presentation? It obviously is.

There are games where pacing isn't entirely in the GM's purview. The less the GM controls it, the less it's part of pacing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Scroll to top of the page. What does it say? Is this general or D&D section? Please understand and respect the context. Stop trying to sell the steaks to the vegans who are discussing how to best utilise the lima beans! It is not relevant and makes it seem that you’re evangelising.

I decline your offer.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There are games where pacing isn't entirely in the GM's purview. The less the GM controls it, the less it's part of pacing.

And is D&D that sort of a game? Furthermore, that you don’t fully control pacing doesn’t mean that it is not part of presentation when you do.

 

[FrogReaver]

The main difference between a platonic living sandbox and a platonic Story Now game is that in a platonic Story Now game literally everything you do as a GM is centered on creating and resolving an on screen situation that is directly relevant to the narrative trajectory of the player characters based on their dramatic needs. The fallout to the setting is based entirely on the narrative logic of what has just occurred rather than causal reasoning of its attendant ramifications on the setting. You are trying to make the fallout of what happens in each scene as meaningful as possible.

In a platonic living sandbox pretty much the inverse is true. What the player characters seek out to do is just one small piece of the living sandbox. One of many inputs. Causal rather than narrative logic wins the day. We base fallout not on reflecting the narrative weight of player decisions and conflicts, but on reasoning based on the fiction what the fallout should be.

I think this is an excellent starting point.

That said I think for living sandbox play you need to also be able to describe the game from the players perspective and not just the GM's. That's where it really gets interesting. The players drive play in two ways, 1) their actions serve to alter the fiction within the game 2) their decisions also impact the immediate focus of the game (and not just in a - let's pick an option from a list sort of way).

So while the GM is definitely doing more outside the immediate context than story now GM's and focusing on causal relationships to a large degree, the players do drive the game as from their perspective the game revolves around them and their goals and they have the power to keep it centered there. The game structure isn't structured for narrative/dramatic focus+pacing the same way that a story now game is. I agree there. But that doesn't mean the players aren't driving the game toward their goals and keeping the focus of the game on those things - it's just done in a more causal and less narrative/dramatic way.

No game is really going to fit either platonic ideal though. The specific arrangement of priorities, techniques and the tradeoffs that entail are going to differ from game to game. Blades in the Dark in particular while not being a living sandbox game does utilize a number of techniques that make it closer to living sandbox play than say Sorcerer would be. It still utilizes those techniques in ways that are fundamentally different than say Stars Without Number.

Agreed

 

[prabe]

And is D&D that sort of a game? Furthermore, that you don’t fully control pacing doesn’t mean that it is not part of presentation when you do.

I think in D&D the DM decides how much they care about pacing.

I think in a game where the players or the dice control more than a little of the pacing, the GM can't really care about the pacing, because they have so little control of it. A carefully paced fragment will ... clash (like plaid with plaid) with the rest of the game.