Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8429408" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Agreed. I would frame it this way: there is authority over <em>backstory </em>(histories, maps, cosmology, relationships, etc); over <em>situation</em> (what is happening here and now); over <em>action declaration</em> (which characters are doing what - this follows pretty naturally from <em>situation</em>); and over <em>what happens as a consequence of the declared actions</em>.</p><p></p><p>All these are parts of the shared fiction - the "narrative", if you like,</p><p></p><p>I think [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] and [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] are correct to say that it is not true, in conventional D&D, that the GM has authority over all these things. An analysis of D&D that begins from the premise <em>the players do not have liberty to introduce any old backstory for free</em> (eg the guards example in the OP) to try and conclude <em>the GM has authority over all of the fiction, including all backstory, all situation, and all outcomes</em>, is in my view mistaken.</p><p></p><p>In 5e D&D, the players exercise some control over backstory via their PC backgrounds. These also influence situation - eg when a Folk Hero meets some peasants then the situation should typically be one of a friendly reception, unless the GM is just running roughshod over this aspect of PC build. How the declared actions are resolved in this sort of case seems like it is not under unilateral GM control either - given the player's contribution to backstory and situation, I would expect some reasonable degree of negotiation and/or consensus in action resolution (eg if the Folk Hero asks the peasants to hide the Macguffin in their haystack) or at least a relatively generous CHA-type check.</p><p></p><p>In AD&D, there were reaction and loyalty rules to resolve how a NPC responds if asked to do something by a PC. 5e doesn't have exactly those rules, but it does have rules for CHA checks. If a PC asks a NPC to do something, the default GM response in 5e D&D should be to frame an appropriate check. If the request is absurd - eg an out-of-the blue demand that the king relinquish his throne to the PC - then maybe no check is required. But how common are such absurd request? And of course if the request is not out-of-the-blue, or if the PC has leverage (ie is staging a coup or a revolution) then we're back in the terrain where a check seems warranted. (In the real world leaders forfeit their thrones from time-to-time in the fact of coups and revolutions.) GM authority over backstory and situation in these sorts of cases doesn't, as such, licence GM control over <em>what happens next</em>.</p><p></p><p>In 5e D&D, it is almost always the GM who frames encounters with potentially hostile NPCs/creatures. And who draws the map etc in which these encounters take place. That is authority over backstory and situation. But once the swords are drawn and the spells start flying, the GM is not at liberty just to dictate outcomes. <em>What happens next</em>, in 5e D&D combat, is governed by a host of rules (spread over the character build chapters, the equipment chapters, the spell chapters, the basic resolution/stat check chapter, as well as the stuff under the "Combat" heading). The GM is not at liberty just to ignore all that stuff.</p><p></p><p>[USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] has mentioned "secret notes" a few times. (I won't ask him where he picked up that analytical framework!) GM's secret notes work well, in typical D&D play, when they form parts of the backstory that the players, via their action declarations for their PCs, have to work out - secret doors that conceal secret passages, for instance; or the fact that the scullery maid is really the deposed former queen in disguise. Secret backstory might even include unhappy surprises that reveal themselves in the moment of action declaration - <em>there's an anti-magic zone here</em>; <em>the ambassador is wearing a ring of mind-shielding</em>; <em>this sort of aberration is immune to Domination</em>; <em>there's another, invisible, foe who's about to attack your mage from behind for a boatload of damage</em>; etc. But using secret backstory as a device for controlling outcomes seems weak to me, and a sign of poor GMing: examples like <em>this person will never give in to threats, no matter what they are</em>; <em>this person will only provide the information if the PCs take steps A, B, C</em>; or the notorious <em>if the PCs kill the BBEG, then NPC X, the second-in-command, fills the shoes of the deceased and keeps the pre-scripted events moving along.</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is the play mode that is typical of D&D modules from around the second half of the 1980s. There's no doubt a lot of people enjoy it. To the extent that it requires giving the GM control over all outcomes of action declarations, it does make something of a mockery of all those pages and pages of rules! - it did in the AD&D days, and still does in my view.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I can't speak for all the offspring, but in the case of Apocalypse World and Dungeon World this doesn't seem accurate to me. There are very few AW player-side moves that require the player to assert facts about the world or NPCs (the Battlebabe's Visions of Death is one, likewise the Operator's Reputation; and the Savvyhead's Bonefeel gives the player a degree of authority over situation). Seduce/Manipulate, on a 10+, permits a player to oblige the GM to have a NPC go along with the PC's request. The difference from a D&D CHA check is that the odds are clearl spelled out, and the restrictions on what the GM has the NPC say and do if the check succeeds are much clearer. But this is mostly about principles that govern the GM's narration - the GM has more constrained authority over the outcome than in the D&D case, but I don't think there is a fundamental cleavage here: the D&D GM's authority is just as constrained if a player's to hit and damage rolls oblige the GM to drop a NPC's hit points to zero.</p><p></p><p>AW does have the notion of <em>asking questions and building on the answers</em>, so the GM can initiate or invite player contributions to backstory and situation. I'm not sure if that's what you have in mind?</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's where the clearest discussions are to be found of the different components of the fiction in a RPG, and how authority over them might be allocated in different ways.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8429408, member: 42582"] Agreed. I would frame it this way: there is authority over [I]backstory [/I](histories, maps, cosmology, relationships, etc); over [I]situation[/I] (what is happening here and now); over [I]action declaration[/I] (which characters are doing what - this follows pretty naturally from [I]situation[/I]); and over [I]what happens as a consequence of the declared actions[/I]. All these are parts of the shared fiction - the "narrative", if you like, I think [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] and [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] are correct to say that it is not true, in conventional D&D, that the GM has authority over all these things. An analysis of D&D that begins from the premise [I]the players do not have liberty to introduce any old backstory for free[/I] (eg the guards example in the OP) to try and conclude [I]the GM has authority over all of the fiction, including all backstory, all situation, and all outcomes[/I], is in my view mistaken. In 5e D&D, the players exercise some control over backstory via their PC backgrounds. These also influence situation - eg when a Folk Hero meets some peasants then the situation should typically be one of a friendly reception, unless the GM is just running roughshod over this aspect of PC build. How the declared actions are resolved in this sort of case seems like it is not under unilateral GM control either - given the player's contribution to backstory and situation, I would expect some reasonable degree of negotiation and/or consensus in action resolution (eg if the Folk Hero asks the peasants to hide the Macguffin in their haystack) or at least a relatively generous CHA-type check. In AD&D, there were reaction and loyalty rules to resolve how a NPC responds if asked to do something by a PC. 5e doesn't have exactly those rules, but it does have rules for CHA checks. If a PC asks a NPC to do something, the default GM response in 5e D&D should be to frame an appropriate check. If the request is absurd - eg an out-of-the blue demand that the king relinquish his throne to the PC - then maybe no check is required. But how common are such absurd request? And of course if the request is not out-of-the-blue, or if the PC has leverage (ie is staging a coup or a revolution) then we're back in the terrain where a check seems warranted. (In the real world leaders forfeit their thrones from time-to-time in the fact of coups and revolutions.) GM authority over backstory and situation in these sorts of cases doesn't, as such, licence GM control over [I]what happens next[/I]. In 5e D&D, it is almost always the GM who frames encounters with potentially hostile NPCs/creatures. And who draws the map etc in which these encounters take place. That is authority over backstory and situation. But once the swords are drawn and the spells start flying, the GM is not at liberty just to dictate outcomes. [I]What happens next[/I], in 5e D&D combat, is governed by a host of rules (spread over the character build chapters, the equipment chapters, the spell chapters, the basic resolution/stat check chapter, as well as the stuff under the "Combat" heading). The GM is not at liberty just to ignore all that stuff. [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] has mentioned "secret notes" a few times. (I won't ask him where he picked up that analytical framework!) GM's secret notes work well, in typical D&D play, when they form parts of the backstory that the players, via their action declarations for their PCs, have to work out - secret doors that conceal secret passages, for instance; or the fact that the scullery maid is really the deposed former queen in disguise. Secret backstory might even include unhappy surprises that reveal themselves in the moment of action declaration - [I]there's an anti-magic zone here[/I]; [I]the ambassador is wearing a ring of mind-shielding[/I]; [I]this sort of aberration is immune to Domination[/I]; [I]there's another, invisible, foe who's about to attack your mage from behind for a boatload of damage[/I]; etc. But using secret backstory as a device for controlling outcomes seems weak to me, and a sign of poor GMing: examples like [I]this person will never give in to threats, no matter what they are[/I]; [I]this person will only provide the information if the PCs take steps A, B, C[/I]; or the notorious [I]if the PCs kill the BBEG, then NPC X, the second-in-command, fills the shoes of the deceased and keeps the pre-scripted events moving along.[/I] This is the play mode that is typical of D&D modules from around the second half of the 1980s. There's no doubt a lot of people enjoy it. To the extent that it requires giving the GM control over all outcomes of action declarations, it does make something of a mockery of all those pages and pages of rules! - it did in the AD&D days, and still does in my view. I can't speak for all the offspring, but in the case of Apocalypse World and Dungeon World this doesn't seem accurate to me. There are very few AW player-side moves that require the player to assert facts about the world or NPCs (the Battlebabe's Visions of Death is one, likewise the Operator's Reputation; and the Savvyhead's Bonefeel gives the player a degree of authority over situation). Seduce/Manipulate, on a 10+, permits a player to oblige the GM to have a NPC go along with the PC's request. The difference from a D&D CHA check is that the odds are clearl spelled out, and the restrictions on what the GM has the NPC say and do if the check succeeds are much clearer. But this is mostly about principles that govern the GM's narration - the GM has more constrained authority over the outcome than in the D&D case, but I don't think there is a fundamental cleavage here: the D&D GM's authority is just as constrained if a player's to hit and damage rolls oblige the GM to drop a NPC's hit points to zero. AW does have the notion of [I]asking questions and building on the answers[/I], so the GM can initiate or invite player contributions to backstory and situation. I'm not sure if that's what you have in mind? That's where the clearest discussions are to be found of the different components of the fiction in a RPG, and how authority over them might be allocated in different ways. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e
Top