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 coming! 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: 8431193" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Not really. The players "describe what they want to do" (ie declare actions for their PCs). Then these have to be adjudicated and the outcomes of those actions established. I don't think it's super-crucial to allocate that to any particular step - we're not talking about a statute whose provisions, for some reason, might have to be interpreted and applied separately from one another - but if I had to allocate it to a step I would allocate it to Step 3. That is, the adjudication of action resolution is a precursor to and an essential incident of the GM narrating what happens</p><p></p><p></p><p>To me there is a degree of non-sequitur in this. Whether rules should be read in a literal, richer textualist, intentionalist, or purposive fashion (just to call out some possibilities) is separate from thinking that <em>there are rules</em>. Jeremy Crawford's remarks may be helpful for some interpretive methods, but may be irrelevant to others.</p><p></p><p>As far as "natural language" is concerned: Apocalypse World is written in natural language, except for its use of "tags", which are analogous to keywords in 4e D&D. 5e also uses keywords in places (many PC build elements have keywords; there are more damage-type keywords than in 4e D&D; there are spell schools; there are weapon types; etc). 4e D&D uses natural language plus keywords also, but in the case of its power formatting relies more heavily than 5e in its spell formatting on standardised bundles of information.</p><p></p><p>My favourite RPG rules are the Burning Wheel rules, which do use natural language, have very few charts, and use far fewer keywords than 5e D&D (weapon lengths, range bands, and spell elements are the ones I can think of at the moment).</p><p></p><p>These issues of drafting style and approaches to rules interpretation don't really bear upon whether or not the rules of the game contemplate players enjoying agency in respect of the shared fiction.</p><p></p><p>There's a reason that D&D play is prone to rules exploits, which has nothing to with player agency. It's because the basic approach to PC build - and here I mean the <em>full specification</em> of a PC which in D&D often includes spells with associated mechanics as well as fiction, and equipment, both magical and non-magical, of which the same is true, as well as class, race/heritage, feats, skills, stats, etc - involves mushing many distinct elements together, which have multiple points of interaction (multiple sources of temp hp; multiple bonuses to hit; changes to stat numbers; enhanced movement abilities; etc, etc) both with one another and with various resolution subsystems. The game also lacks a uniform resolution system, which means when subsystems collide there is no answer to how to resolve them (eg DEX, movement speed, and actions-per-round all seem like they should be fictionally correlated but mechanically are not; so the haste spell need separate rules for its affect on initiative, dodging, movement rate, attacks per round etc - whereas in Burning Wheel (for example) it's enough for it to grant a +2D bonus to Speed and then all the rest is just picked up by that).</p><p></p><p>In RPGs that don't use the D&D paradigm, those sorts of break points do not emerge. Can you give me examples of rules exploits in Burning Wheel? RuneQuest? Classic Traveller? Apocalypse World? Marvel Heroic RP?</p><p></p><p>[spoiler="tangent"]There's another aspect of the RPG design legacy that creates break points in the rules, as Ron Edwards explains <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" target="_blank">here</a>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"> in these games [ie purist-for-system: think RuneQuest or Rolemaster], the imagined universe is made of "points." Therefore character creation and often resolution are often characterized by layering: paying points to get values for named scores, which themselves are mathematically derived to produce effective values. Interestingly, in-game money and possessions are often considered merely another facet of the universe that can be expressed in these points. This relationship between points and reality seems very well entrenched in Purist for System design, which is understandable, as it provides concrete insights to the internal-cause heart of the game that a player can latch onto prior to play. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">In this sort of design, there's no possible excuse for any imperfections, including scale-derived breakdowns of the fundamental point/probability relationships. The system must be cleanly and at the service of the element(s) being emphasized, in strictly in-game-world terms. A good one is elegant, consistent, applicable to anything that happens in play, and clear about its outcomes. It also has to have points of contact at any scale for any conceivable thing. It cannot contain patch-rules to correct for inconsistencies; consistency is the essence of quality. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Another common problem is rules-bloat, which usually creeps into Simulationist game text as a form of anti-Gamist defense. I suggest that adding more layers to character creation is a poor idea, as it only introduces more potential points of broken Currency. I suggest instead that the most effective "defense" is to avoid ratios in one's layering, as in Godlike. More generally, beyond a certain point, anti-Gamist defensive rules design has a negative effect: given an increased number rules and punctilios, players simply punt in terms of understanding the system, and the GM has to "be" the entire game. This is exceptionally difficult in games like Rolemaster or GURPS (perhaps less so in Dread or Call of Cthulhu). Therefore the effort - to preserve the integrity of the Simulationist experience - often backfires as play gets harder and more full of speed-bumps rather than easier.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Rules-bloat can also result from the design and writing process itself. Cogitating about in-game causes can transform itself, at the keyboard, into a sort of Exploration of its own, which results in very elaborate rules-sets for situational modifiers, encumbrance, movement, technology, prices of things, none of which is related to actual play of the game with actual people. During the writing process, "what if" meets "but also" and breeds tons of situational rules modifiers. When this effect hits Currency, you get tons of layering in the form of prerequisites and nuances of described competency (e.g. Awful vs. Really Bad vs. Mediocre). The result is often what I like to call Paying to Suck, which is to say that character creation includes paying many points merely for the character to be bad or barely-adequate at things.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">My recommendation is to know and value the virtues of Simulationist play, specifically refined toward the goals of a particular subset (as listed or make up your own), and to drive toward them with gusto. Don't spin your wheels defending your design against some other form of play.</p><p></p><p>PC building in contemporary D&D contains elements the purist-for-system legacy, but rather than defending against "gamism" modern D&D PC building is also designed to <em>reward</em> skilled play, by permitting the choosing of options that will synergise well together and make a more mechanically effective PC. It's not a surprise that this sort of design has break points.[/spoiler]</p><p></p><p>Aren't these all red herrings, or perhaps non-sequiturs? I mean, how does pointing to the action economy rules, which limit bonus actions to one per turn, show that the rules don't give players agency? All you're doing is stating the rule more fully.</p><p></p><p>Likewise the need for there to be a place to hide. That's implicit in the idea of declaring (as one's PC) <em>I take cover and hide</em> or <em>I turn invisible and hide</em> or whatever it might be. The general point is that most action declarations rely upon fictional positioning beyond the mere fact that the PC is not dead or unconscious. But that's as true of Apocalypse World as it is of 5e D&D, and would anyone use that as a basis for asserting that there is no player agency in AW?</p><p></p><p>Your example doesn't show that the player lacks agency. It just shows that your GM is not very good at conveying the fiction!, because - assuming, of course, good faith on the part of the player - the player believed that there was a pillar nearby and yet the fiction didn't contain one.</p><p></p><p>Of course misunderstandings about the shared fiction are also possible, but it seems to me that those who argue the GM has all the agency in the game might think the GM is under an especially stringent duty to make sure that the fiction is communicated clearly.</p><p></p><p>The presence of a homebrew effect that prevents bonus actions is much the same as the presence or absence of a nearby pillar - it's just more fictional positioning. But it does raise a couple of further questions. First, wouldn't the player suspect the presence of such an effect, because the GM should be narrating the fiction? - eg this might be analogous to the reality-warping effect of a beholder's central eye ray in 4e D&D, which limits characters to basic actions only; or the debilitating whispers of a 4e mad wraith that dazes all characters in the AoE. The idea of an effect on one's capacity to do things that one doesn't notice seems weird to me.</p><p></p><p>Second, what are good GMing principles for the use of secret elements of fictional positioning to thwart players' attempted actions? AW suggests one answer: soft moves before hard ones. If in doubt, I would say that a 5e D&D GM might adopt the same principle.</p><p></p><p>5e is no different in this respect from any other RPG. Hence if this is sufficient reason to think that players in 5e lack agency, they lack agency in all RPGs. Yet we all know that players in RPGs like Burning Wheel and Apocalypse World enjoy agency over the shared fiction, as established via the resolution systems of those games. Therefore your general point must be wrong.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8431193, member: 42582"] Not really. The players "describe what they want to do" (ie declare actions for their PCs). Then these have to be adjudicated and the outcomes of those actions established. I don't think it's super-crucial to allocate that to any particular step - we're not talking about a statute whose provisions, for some reason, might have to be interpreted and applied separately from one another - but if I had to allocate it to a step I would allocate it to Step 3. That is, the adjudication of action resolution is a precursor to and an essential incident of the GM narrating what happens To me there is a degree of non-sequitur in this. Whether rules should be read in a literal, richer textualist, intentionalist, or purposive fashion (just to call out some possibilities) is separate from thinking that [I]there are rules[/I]. Jeremy Crawford's remarks may be helpful for some interpretive methods, but may be irrelevant to others. As far as "natural language" is concerned: Apocalypse World is written in natural language, except for its use of "tags", which are analogous to keywords in 4e D&D. 5e also uses keywords in places (many PC build elements have keywords; there are more damage-type keywords than in 4e D&D; there are spell schools; there are weapon types; etc). 4e D&D uses natural language plus keywords also, but in the case of its power formatting relies more heavily than 5e in its spell formatting on standardised bundles of information. My favourite RPG rules are the Burning Wheel rules, which do use natural language, have very few charts, and use far fewer keywords than 5e D&D (weapon lengths, range bands, and spell elements are the ones I can think of at the moment). These issues of drafting style and approaches to rules interpretation don't really bear upon whether or not the rules of the game contemplate players enjoying agency in respect of the shared fiction. There's a reason that D&D play is prone to rules exploits, which has nothing to with player agency. It's because the basic approach to PC build - and here I mean the [i]full specification[/i] of a PC which in D&D often includes spells with associated mechanics as well as fiction, and equipment, both magical and non-magical, of which the same is true, as well as class, race/heritage, feats, skills, stats, etc - involves mushing many distinct elements together, which have multiple points of interaction (multiple sources of temp hp; multiple bonuses to hit; changes to stat numbers; enhanced movement abilities; etc, etc) both with one another and with various resolution subsystems. The game also lacks a uniform resolution system, which means when subsystems collide there is no answer to how to resolve them (eg DEX, movement speed, and actions-per-round all seem like they should be fictionally correlated but mechanically are not; so the haste spell need separate rules for its affect on initiative, dodging, movement rate, attacks per round etc - whereas in Burning Wheel (for example) it's enough for it to grant a +2D bonus to Speed and then all the rest is just picked up by that). In RPGs that don't use the D&D paradigm, those sorts of break points do not emerge. Can you give me examples of rules exploits in Burning Wheel? RuneQuest? Classic Traveller? Apocalypse World? Marvel Heroic RP? [spoiler="tangent"]There's another aspect of the RPG design legacy that creates break points in the rules, as Ron Edwards explains [url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/]here[/url]: [indent] in these games [ie purist-for-system: think RuneQuest or Rolemaster], the imagined universe is made of "points." Therefore character creation and often resolution are often characterized by layering: paying points to get values for named scores, which themselves are mathematically derived to produce effective values. Interestingly, in-game money and possessions are often considered merely another facet of the universe that can be expressed in these points. This relationship between points and reality seems very well entrenched in Purist for System design, which is understandable, as it provides concrete insights to the internal-cause heart of the game that a player can latch onto prior to play. . . . In this sort of design, there's no possible excuse for any imperfections, including scale-derived breakdowns of the fundamental point/probability relationships. The system must be cleanly and at the service of the element(s) being emphasized, in strictly in-game-world terms. A good one is elegant, consistent, applicable to anything that happens in play, and clear about its outcomes. It also has to have points of contact at any scale for any conceivable thing. It cannot contain patch-rules to correct for inconsistencies; consistency is the essence of quality. . . . Another common problem is rules-bloat, which usually creeps into Simulationist game text as a form of anti-Gamist defense. I suggest that adding more layers to character creation is a poor idea, as it only introduces more potential points of broken Currency. I suggest instead that the most effective "defense" is to avoid ratios in one's layering, as in Godlike. More generally, beyond a certain point, anti-Gamist defensive rules design has a negative effect: given an increased number rules and punctilios, players simply punt in terms of understanding the system, and the GM has to "be" the entire game. This is exceptionally difficult in games like Rolemaster or GURPS (perhaps less so in Dread or Call of Cthulhu). Therefore the effort - to preserve the integrity of the Simulationist experience - often backfires as play gets harder and more full of speed-bumps rather than easier. Rules-bloat can also result from the design and writing process itself. Cogitating about in-game causes can transform itself, at the keyboard, into a sort of Exploration of its own, which results in very elaborate rules-sets for situational modifiers, encumbrance, movement, technology, prices of things, none of which is related to actual play of the game with actual people. During the writing process, "what if" meets "but also" and breeds tons of situational rules modifiers. When this effect hits Currency, you get tons of layering in the form of prerequisites and nuances of described competency (e.g. Awful vs. Really Bad vs. Mediocre). The result is often what I like to call Paying to Suck, which is to say that character creation includes paying many points merely for the character to be bad or barely-adequate at things. My recommendation is to know and value the virtues of Simulationist play, specifically refined toward the goals of a particular subset (as listed or make up your own), and to drive toward them with gusto. Don't spin your wheels defending your design against some other form of play.[/indent] PC building in contemporary D&D contains elements the purist-for-system legacy, but rather than defending against "gamism" modern D&D PC building is also designed to [i]reward[/i] skilled play, by permitting the choosing of options that will synergise well together and make a more mechanically effective PC. It's not a surprise that this sort of design has break points.[/spoiler] Aren't these all red herrings, or perhaps non-sequiturs? I mean, how does pointing to the action economy rules, which limit bonus actions to one per turn, show that the rules don't give players agency? All you're doing is stating the rule more fully. Likewise the need for there to be a place to hide. That's implicit in the idea of declaring (as one's PC) [i]I take cover and hide[/i] or [i]I turn invisible and hide[/i] or whatever it might be. The general point is that most action declarations rely upon fictional positioning beyond the mere fact that the PC is not dead or unconscious. But that's as true of Apocalypse World as it is of 5e D&D, and would anyone use that as a basis for asserting that there is no player agency in AW? Your example doesn't show that the player lacks agency. It just shows that your GM is not very good at conveying the fiction!, because - assuming, of course, good faith on the part of the player - the player believed that there was a pillar nearby and yet the fiction didn't contain one. Of course misunderstandings about the shared fiction are also possible, but it seems to me that those who argue the GM has all the agency in the game might think the GM is under an especially stringent duty to make sure that the fiction is communicated clearly. The presence of a homebrew effect that prevents bonus actions is much the same as the presence or absence of a nearby pillar - it's just more fictional positioning. But it does raise a couple of further questions. First, wouldn't the player suspect the presence of such an effect, because the GM should be narrating the fiction? - eg this might be analogous to the reality-warping effect of a beholder's central eye ray in 4e D&D, which limits characters to basic actions only; or the debilitating whispers of a 4e mad wraith that dazes all characters in the AoE. The idea of an effect on one's capacity to do things that one doesn't notice seems weird to me. Second, what are good GMing principles for the use of secret elements of fictional positioning to thwart players' attempted actions? AW suggests one answer: soft moves before hard ones. If in doubt, I would say that a 5e D&D GM might adopt the same principle. 5e is no different in this respect from any other RPG. Hence if this is sufficient reason to think that players in 5e lack agency, they lack agency in all RPGs. Yet we all know that players in RPGs like Burning Wheel and Apocalypse World enjoy agency over the shared fiction, as established via the resolution systems of those games. Therefore your general point must be wrong. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e
Top