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: 8442369" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I am talking about <em>play</em>. You seem to be talking only about <em>the fiction produced</em>.</p><p></p><p>Knowing what fiction resulted from a session of RPG play tells us almost nothing about what the play experience was like. What makes this obvious is that any given bit of fiction could be produced by the GM just railroading the players through it.</p><p></p><p>My play reports <em>don't</em> just state the fiction. They set out the processes of play. And I think it's fairly clear how these differ from a living sandbox. The most important difference, for present purposes, is that the GM does not extrapolate situations (both their framing, and what is at stake) from pre-authored setting/backstory; and does not generate consequences by naturalistic extrapolation.</p><p></p><p>And this is Exhibit A. This is fiction, but tells us nothing about play. Who established that Tirga's brother died? Is the "searching all his life" and the "so far it's all been dead ends" something that has been played, or is it just pre-play background? Who established Tirga's associations? Who decides that Herkes approaches Tirga? That there is a brewing faction war? Who decides the information that Herkes imparts after the successful raid?</p><p></p><p>And as well as all those "who" questions, there are corresponding "how" questions. For instance, is the information about who the killer is read from notes? Made up via a random roll? A consequence following from a check - and if so, a failed or a successful check?</p><p></p><p>I don't fully follow this.</p><p></p><p>The way I have referred to player-authored hooks is that they give the GM material to use in framing, and in consequence narration. They aren't connected to "railroading" - you can see the way it works in the example of play with Thurgon meeting Rufus. The key "fork-in-the-road" moments are the Circles check (if that had failed, it might have been an angrier Rufus; or maybe "the master", whoever that is!); and Thurgon's Command check (if that had succeeded, then Rufus would probably have been brought over to Thurgon's cause, rather than slinking off cowed and resentful).</p><p></p><p>Map-and-key is probably the most paradigmatic example of backstory first. It's not the only one.</p><p></p><p>Living sandbox is also backstory first: the central method of framing is to <em>extrapolate from the GM's setting material</em> to work out what would be happening here-and-now. And reference to that material is an important input into action resolution: for instance, it's by reference to that material that the GM decides that the faction will provide information to the PC if the PC first raids the outpost.</p><p></p><p>(I mean, I guess a GM could just be making that all up as they go along rather than working from notes. But in that case, what possible reason does the GM have to defer engagement with the player's preferred concern - the hunt for the killer - and instead send play on a detour via the outpost?)</p><p></p><p>This is obviously wrong!</p><p></p><p>Here we start to see one way in which it's wrong - in D&D the player doesn't have the power to call for a Persuasion check.</p><p></p><p>This will quickly lead to a second difference - what are the <em>stakes</em> for a persuasion check? What happens to the PC, and hence the player, if it fails?</p><p></p><p> [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] has already posted a bit about this. In this thread I've talked about differences between PbtA ("if you do it, you do it") and BW ("intent and task"). I've talked about "vanilla narrativism" using AD&D and RM. I've given examples of non-backstory-first exploration-rather-than-story-now play (from 4e and Classic Traveller play).</p><p></p><p>Your post prompted me to go back and find some of my older posts (2013-14) comparing social skill challenges to Duel of Wits resolution:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>These bring out the importance of stakes-for-failure. And the last couple of posts are from a thread that has a lot that is interesting i the context of this thread - including a discussion of "living sandbox" methods used to resolve an attempt by the PCs to have a NPC chamberlain obtain an audience for them with the king. The difference from a "situation first" approach - in particular, the use of backstory - comes through clearly in those posts.</p><p></p><p>Now if you're saying that 5e D&D might be used to run a "situation first" rather than "backstory first" game, then I take it you're agreeing with what I posted way upthread:</p><p>But this wouldn't be "living sandbox" as I understand it, because the preeminent role of GM setting/backstory material would be dropped.</p><p></p><p>In reviewing that old fighter-vs-spellcaster thread, I also came across this:</p><p>It's interesting for two reasons:</p><p>(1) First, it shows how PC build techniques that have their origins in rules-heavy "simulationist" RPGing (RM, Champions and the like) can be adapted for more character-driven, "story now" play.</p><p></p><p>(2) It helps us see how PC build rules intersect with the relationship between "story now" and "neotrad" RPGing. This is something that [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] in particular posts about very passionately! The more the expression of character is "locked in" and unchanging, the less we get of intense character development play, and the more we get predetermined character arc play. 4e allows for the former via re-training. And I can't imagine I'm the only person ever to have had a PC change race, or Paragon Path, during play, even though the retraining rules don't technically allow for that. 4e facilitates this because of its symmetry/uniformity of PC build, and the relative lack of dependence of idiosyncrasies of PC build on the details of play.</p><p></p><p>In RM and BW, there is less of the "retraining" style of change - ie substituting equivalent build elements - though BW does have rules for voting traits on and off, that's quite a bit different. But both allow the player to shape the character in new ways in response to the way play is unfolding - RM via skill development choices, and BW via checks to open new skills or advance existing one.</p><p></p><p>There is less opportunity to do this in AD&D, which is one of the hurdles that situation-first story-now AD&D play will have to get over.</p><p></p><p>I suspect that 5e is closer to AD&D than to 4e or RM in this particular respect, but don't know it well enough to make a super-confident judgement.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8442369, member: 42582"] I am talking about [i]play[/i]. You seem to be talking only about [i]the fiction produced[/i]. Knowing what fiction resulted from a session of RPG play tells us almost nothing about what the play experience was like. What makes this obvious is that any given bit of fiction could be produced by the GM just railroading the players through it. My play reports [i]don't[/i] just state the fiction. They set out the processes of play. And I think it's fairly clear how these differ from a living sandbox. The most important difference, for present purposes, is that the GM does not extrapolate situations (both their framing, and what is at stake) from pre-authored setting/backstory; and does not generate consequences by naturalistic extrapolation. And this is Exhibit A. This is fiction, but tells us nothing about play. Who established that Tirga's brother died? Is the "searching all his life" and the "so far it's all been dead ends" something that has been played, or is it just pre-play background? Who established Tirga's associations? Who decides that Herkes approaches Tirga? That there is a brewing faction war? Who decides the information that Herkes imparts after the successful raid? And as well as all those "who" questions, there are corresponding "how" questions. For instance, is the information about who the killer is read from notes? Made up via a random roll? A consequence following from a check - and if so, a failed or a successful check? I don't fully follow this. The way I have referred to player-authored hooks is that they give the GM material to use in framing, and in consequence narration. They aren't connected to "railroading" - you can see the way it works in the example of play with Thurgon meeting Rufus. The key "fork-in-the-road" moments are the Circles check (if that had failed, it might have been an angrier Rufus; or maybe "the master", whoever that is!); and Thurgon's Command check (if that had succeeded, then Rufus would probably have been brought over to Thurgon's cause, rather than slinking off cowed and resentful). Map-and-key is probably the most paradigmatic example of backstory first. It's not the only one. Living sandbox is also backstory first: the central method of framing is to [i]extrapolate from the GM's setting material[/i] to work out what would be happening here-and-now. And reference to that material is an important input into action resolution: for instance, it's by reference to that material that the GM decides that the faction will provide information to the PC if the PC first raids the outpost. (I mean, I guess a GM could just be making that all up as they go along rather than working from notes. But in that case, what possible reason does the GM have to defer engagement with the player's preferred concern - the hunt for the killer - and instead send play on a detour via the outpost?) This is obviously wrong! Here we start to see one way in which it's wrong - in D&D the player doesn't have the power to call for a Persuasion check. This will quickly lead to a second difference - what are the [i]stakes[/i] for a persuasion check? What happens to the PC, and hence the player, if it fails? [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] has already posted a bit about this. In this thread I've talked about differences between PbtA ("if you do it, you do it") and BW ("intent and task"). I've talked about "vanilla narrativism" using AD&D and RM. I've given examples of non-backstory-first exploration-rather-than-story-now play (from 4e and Classic Traveller play). Your post prompted me to go back and find some of my older posts (2013-14) comparing social skill challenges to Duel of Wits resolution: These bring out the importance of stakes-for-failure. And the last couple of posts are from a thread that has a lot that is interesting i the context of this thread - including a discussion of "living sandbox" methods used to resolve an attempt by the PCs to have a NPC chamberlain obtain an audience for them with the king. The difference from a "situation first" approach - in particular, the use of backstory - comes through clearly in those posts. Now if you're saying that 5e D&D might be used to run a "situation first" rather than "backstory first" game, then I take it you're agreeing with what I posted way upthread: But this wouldn't be "living sandbox" as I understand it, because the preeminent role of GM setting/backstory material would be dropped. In reviewing that old fighter-vs-spellcaster thread, I also came across this: It's interesting for two reasons: (1) First, it shows how PC build techniques that have their origins in rules-heavy "simulationist" RPGing (RM, Champions and the like) can be adapted for more character-driven, "story now" play. (2) It helps us see how PC build rules intersect with the relationship between "story now" and "neotrad" RPGing. This is something that [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] in particular posts about very passionately! The more the expression of character is "locked in" and unchanging, the less we get of intense character development play, and the more we get predetermined character arc play. 4e allows for the former via re-training. And I can't imagine I'm the only person ever to have had a PC change race, or Paragon Path, during play, even though the retraining rules don't technically allow for that. 4e facilitates this because of its symmetry/uniformity of PC build, and the relative lack of dependence of idiosyncrasies of PC build on the details of play. In RM and BW, there is less of the "retraining" style of change - ie substituting equivalent build elements - though BW does have rules for voting traits on and off, that's quite a bit different. But both allow the player to shape the character in new ways in response to the way play is unfolding - RM via skill development choices, and BW via checks to open new skills or advance existing one. There is less opportunity to do this in AD&D, which is one of the hurdles that situation-first story-now AD&D play will have to get over. I suspect that 5e is closer to AD&D than to 4e or RM in this particular respect, but don't know it well enough to make a super-confident judgement. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e
Top