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

[Campbell]

Successful completion of the adventure in most D&D play is not a character goal. It's a player goal that becomes a character goal. You do not arrive at it naturally because that's what your character would do. Your character takes on that goal because that's like what the game is about.

From my perspective it's about looking at the real world causes for what we are doing rather than just the fictional ones. We're not just roleplaying. We're playing a roleplaying game that has objectives, gameplay loops, etc. We elide that while we are playing, but if we are not able to address that when talking about play we cannot really have a meaningful discussion about game design.

 

[prabe]

I'm not seeing a qualitative difference that's being established that there are significant differences in kind here, just that some things are small wins and some big wins and that there's never a big enough win for the whole shebang at once.

Try this, and I promise I'll leave it (and you) be:

Winning, in the sense of tackling a runningback for a loss, is not the same thing as winning, in the sense of holding the opponent to a three-and-out, which is not the same thing as winning, in the sense of winning a football game, which is not the same thing as winning, in the sense of winning one's conference, which is not the same thing as winning a Super Bowl, which is not the same thing as having a dynasty. I don't think the differences are merely in scale here. One runs a team differently if one is thinking only about winning a championship this year, than if one is thinking about contending for the next three, for instance; same as one runs a team differently if one is trying to rise to contention than if one is trying to stay there.

I think I have just found at least one problem with using sport as an analogy for TRPGs, but that's not an argument I want to have now, or with you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is equally semantic, as you are redefining in-game strategy and tactics as "win conditions" to no meaningful effect aside from redefining them. Due to the overall win conditions of the game--have a higher score at the end of regulation--teams adopt strategies for scoring (offense) and preventing the other team from scoring (defense), each which breaks down into a series of tactics. In a more capacious definition of the term, "win" could be applied to any number of successful tactics ("the defensive tackle won his battle on that down"). But "win conditions" for the game suggests a more constrained definition. Put differently, you might say for any game, "the goal of this game is X, and the way you do that is Y and Z)"

No, because this would mean that there are no goals that can be accomplished at any scale. "Win conditions" is not redefining the things you say, it's a blunt and inelegant way to say "goals" such that it's hard to sidestep. "Win conditions" is a rhetorical device in some way, yes, because it is blunt and inelegant, but that doesn't render it untrue or not useful. I find "win conditions" to be more useful because it is, in fact, ugly and requires addressing the argument head on. It's certainly teased out quite a number of arguments that feel more akin to defending dogma than analyzing the structure of play.

Honestly, this whole debate strikes me as semantic insofar as certain aspects of the game, especially character goals, are being defined as "win conditions." I almost feel trolled, lol. That's why I ask, what are the stakes of saying all those little goals characters have are "win conditions"? Why does it matter that we use that terminology? Because in my experience the stakes of conceiving of goals as win conditions are that it encourages adversarial play because of the zero-sum connotation (either between players or between player and gm) and creates play expectations that are too narrowly focused.

No, it bluntly puts in that play is about achieving things and not about the usual "fun" that gets deployed. That actual play is engaged in players attempting to accomplish their goals, small, medium, and large. GMs also have goals. The use of win conditions is intentional to make the point blunt and unavoidable and slightly uncomfortable so that analysis gets very clear.

 

[Xetheral]

I haven't looked up a dictionary or wikipedia, but it seems to me that a spectrum requires not just that some things resemble others, but that there be a single dimension of comparison (colour, in the literal case) which permits any exemplar of that dimension (eg any coloured thing) to be placed in a linear relationship, such that - in respect of the relevant dimension - it more closely resembles those on either side of it than any others on the spectrum.

Even if we focus on degree of authority over situation in RPGing I'm not persuaded there's a spectrum, because there are not exemplars, like colours, that can be "lined up" - to use more technical language there is the determinable (degree of authority) but no individual determinates (ie particular shades). Another example like this is loudness - of course noises vary in how loud they are, and we can even measure it, but that doesn't mean there is a spectrum of loudness, because different volumes don't themselves manifeset particular properties/qualities (unlike colours). In this respect loudness is more like brightness, not shade.

The reason I think this is of more than just pedantic interest is because reference to the so-called sandbox/railroad spectrum is a very frequent occurrence on these boards which paints a completely false picture of the range of possible approaches to RPGs, and in my view even to D&D.


Not all differences are spectrums. I mean, when I look at my couch I can see that it's soft and comfortable to sit on. When I look at the bluestone rocks that edge my garden bed outside, I can see that they are hard and even sharp in places, and so not very comfortable to sit on. Thus have I discovered the couch-bluestone spectrum!

I think it is worth going to the dictionary here, as you appear to be arguing that I am using the word "spectrum" improperly.

Here's Merriam-Webster's definition.

Definition 1b is the relevant technical definition, and definition 2a as the relevant colloquial definition. My usage of the term "spectrum" satisfies either definition. There is no requirement that a spectrum have specific exemplars/determinates along the range, only that the range exist as a continuum of a specific characteristic (or characteristics, as in the listed example of a mass spectrum that has two dimensions: mass and charge).

The sandbox spectrum as I've defined it in this thread is a continuum of campaigns based on how the percentage of occasions on which players are expected (based on that campaigns social contract) to select their strategic choices from a list offered by the GM rather than being able to make such choices without that constraint. That easily satisfies either definition: (1b) it is a continuum resembling a color spectrum by consisting of an ordered arrangement by a particular characteristic, and (2a) it is a continuous sequence or range. For my usage of the term "spectrum" to be improper, it would need to satisfy neither definition.

The reason I think this is of more than just pedantic interest is because reference to the so-called sandbox/railroad spectrum is a very frequent occurrence on these boards which paints a completely false picture of the range of possible approaches to RPGs, and in my view even to D&D.

If I were using the sandbox spectrum to try to describe the "range of possible approaches to RPGs" or the "range of possible approaches to D&D" then you would have a valid complaint. But I'm explicitly not doing that--I've stated from the beginning that the spectrum describes only those campaigns that fit on it.

If you simply want to caution against using non-general analytical tools too broadly, I'll wholeheartedly support you. But not every analysis needs to be made in the general case, and limited tools are useful for looking at the domains on which they operate so long as one is cognizant not to try to generalize outside that domain.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't agree. I've run AD&D quite successfully using shared backstory authority (especially in PC build, but also the GM taking suggestions from players on the way through) and GM authority over situation/scene-framing.

I don't see why 5e D&D couldn't be run the same way if a group wanted to do so.

I only have the vaguest notion of what you mean here. Care to elaborate?

 

[Xetheral]

No, because this would mean that there are no goals that can be accomplished at any scale. "Win conditions" is not redefining the things you say, it's a blunt and inelegant way to say "goals" such that it's hard to sidestep. "Win conditions" is a rhetorical device in some way, yes, because it is blunt and inelegant, but that doesn't render it untrue or not useful. I find "win conditions" to be more useful because it is, in fact, ugly and requires addressing the argument head on. It's certainly teased out quite a number of arguments that feel more akin to defending dogma than analyzing the structure of play.

No, it bluntly puts in that play is about achieving things and not about the usual "fun" that gets deployed. That actual play is engaged in players attempting to accomplish their goals, small, medium, and large. GMs also have goals. The use of win conditions is intentional to make the point blunt and unavoidable and slightly uncomfortable so that analysis gets very clear.

In conjunction with previous posts, you appear to be arguing here that, because you have a rhetorical purpose for using the phrase "win conditions", those who think that a different term or terms might be more useful in highlighting conceptual differences (or the lack thereof) are necessarily making purely semantic arguments in lieu of substantive arguments.

I strongly disagree. To the contrary, if the terms are sufficiently nebulous that you can select "win conditions" over other options simply for rhetorical purposes, I'd consider that strong evidence that debate participants are not be using the same terms to refer to the same concepts. If true, that would indeed make the current debate semantic, by definition. (There could still be a disagreement on the concepts beneath that semantic debate, but we have no way of finding out unless/until the terminology can be standardized.)

 

[Malmuria]

No, because this would mean that there are no goals that can be accomplished at any scale. "Win conditions" is not redefining the things you say, it's a blunt and inelegant way to say "goals" such that it's hard to sidestep. "Win conditions" is a rhetorical device in some way, yes, because it is blunt and inelegant, but that doesn't render it untrue or not useful. I find "win conditions" to be more useful because it is, in fact, ugly and requires addressing the argument head on. It's certainly teased out quite a number of arguments that feel more akin to defending dogma than analyzing the structure of play.

No, it bluntly puts in that play is about achieving things and not about the usual "fun" that gets deployed. That actual play is engaged in players attempting to accomplish their goals, small, medium, and large. GMs also have goals. The use of win conditions is intentional to make the point blunt and unavoidable and slightly uncomfortable so that analysis gets very clear.

I'd rather think in terms of affordances when it comes to RPGs than nailing down win conditions.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In conjunction with previous posts, you appear to be arguing here that, because you have a rhetorical purpose for using the phrase "win conditions", those who think that a different term or terms might be more useful in highlighting conceptual differences (or the lack thereof) are necessarily making purely semantic arguments in lieu of substantive arguments.

Nope. Not even close. I'm saying that discarding the argument being made using the term win conditions because you disagree with the term and would prefer something different is a semantic argument attempting to sidestep the actual points being made.

I honestly don't care if you sub in a different term -- call them goals or whatever. You can't just dismiss the points being made.

I strongly disagree. To the contrary, if the terms are sufficiently nebulous that you can select "win conditions" over other options simply for rhetorical purposes, I'd consider that strong evidence that debate participants are not be using the same terms to refer to the same concepts. If true, that would indeed make the current debate semantic, by definition. (There could still be a disagreement on the concepts beneath that semantic debate, but we have no way of finding out unless/until the terminology can be standardized.)

Wait, because synonyms exist, this proves there's no actual idea or object described by those synonyms? That's a very interesting take.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'd rather think in terms of affordances when it comes to RPGs than nailing down win conditions.

So, in terms of how RPGs can or should be used. Cool. Can or should RPGs be used to accomplish goals in play? Do RPG rules have any affordances to do anything other than resolve conflicts? Can conflicts exist without goals being established? Is "win condition" not a particularly inelegant synonym for goal?

 

[Xetheral]

Nope. Not even close. I'm saying that discarding the argument being made using the term win conditions because you disagree with the term and would prefer something different is a semantic argument attempting to sidestep the actual points being made.

I honestly don't care if you sub in a different term -- call them goals or whatever. You can't just dismiss the points being made.

Thanks for clarifying! Apparently we see the discussion so far quite differently. From my perspective, no one has tried to discard your argument based on disagreeing with your word choice. Instead, as I see it some posters have disagreed with the points they saw you as making based on the wording you chose to communicate those points. If you don't see the choice of "win conditions" vs the choice of "goals" as implying conceptually different arguments, whereas other posters do, then I definitely think there's a communication issue here.

Wait, because synonyms exist, this proves there's no actual idea or object described by those synonyms? That's a very interesting take.

No, as above, I'm saying that because you apparently see no substantive difference between "win conditions" and "goals" (because your choice between them was purely rhetorical) and other posters apparently do see a substantive difference between those terms, that's evidence that different posters are using the same terms to refer to different concepts. So long as the same terms are being used differently, we can't know if there is an actual conceptual disagreement underlying the semantic one.