D&D and Creative Authority [Archive] - Wizards Community

D&D and Creative Authority [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
James_Nostack
03-31-07, 11:18 AM Every role-playing game I know involves a handful of real people getting together to describe imagined events. These real people imagine something collaboratively. When people collaborate, they frequently disagree.

The rules of a role-playing game (and here I am using "rules" to describe not just the text of a published book, but also the customs of a particular group) perform many functions. But perhaps the most important function is to assign imaginative authority.

In Dungeons & Dragons, at least the way I always played it, the player has unquestioned authority over her PC's thoughts, feelings, intentions and actions. The Dungeon Master has unquestioned authority over overall situation: the behavior of NPC's (including monsters), the map of the dungeon, the weather, etc.*

There are also areas of shared or waived authority. A player has some control over her character's backstory, but the Dungeon Master can veto certain parts as inappropriate.

Most commonly, however, authority is determined through probability. The player wants to hit the goblin; the Dungeon Master wants the goblin to survive. According to the published rules, to determine who has authority over what happens, roll some dice. Assuming that the procedure was conducted according to the rules, either the player's wish, or the DM's wish, comes into effect and no one can gainsay it without cheating (i.e., violating the authority-pattern set up by the rules).

Note, please, that none of this necessarily requires published rules. If a group wants to ignore a written rule and just wing it, doesn't mean that there isn't some deeper "rule" at work, such as, "Let's handle this by consensus" or "The DM's word is law."
======
D&D, at least as it's commonly played, allocates an enormous amount of authority to the Dungeon Master. The Dungeon Master:
* determines which rule-sets to use (kind of a meta-authority)
* creates the setting
* has (often waived) veto power over character concepts and builds
* creates the situation/adventure/plot
* has authority over how the situation/adventure/plot develops
* has authority to interpret unclear rules
* has authority over rewards (XP and treasure)
* probably does a lot more stuff I'm not thinking of right now

This is often a wonderful and terrifically fun way to play the game--if you have a good Dungeon Master. If your Dungeon Master is stupid, boring, irritating, or just not bringing his A-game, it can be very frustrating.

It is also very easy for a Dungeon Master to burn out, because he's responsible for an enormous part of the shared experience.

(On the other hand, because D&D gives the Dungeon Master so much authority, particularly over the prep, it becomes addictive to build new things out of these pieces. How many people on these boards have a handful of campaigns "in development", which you know will never see play? It's sort of like a mini-game, and it works because all of that authority is on you.)

=====
But the D&D model is not the only one possible. You can have group setting creation. Or group character creation. Primetime Adventures (http://www.dog-eared-designs.com/games.html) uses both. In the early stages of the game, everyone brainstorms characters together, taking each others' opinions and imaginative needs into account. (In my view, this is a lot more satisfying than the typical D&D way of doing it, where each player creates a character in isolation.)

You can also have player input on the situation/adventure/thingy. In Sorcerer (http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com/), each player create their own plot-hooks, called "kickers." And whatever else is going on in the adventure, it's really all about resolving the crisis created by the different kickers as the players interact and complicate each others' lives. So, the GM prepares a backstory--but it's the kicker, supplied by each player, which makes the situation come to life and rope in the characters.

You can even use probability for a more radical distribution of authority. In Donjon (http://www.crngames.com/donjon/), victory in any particular task (like searching for a secret door) is measured in points. Each point can be exchanged for a Fact about what's happening. So, if the player gets three Facts, she can say:
* Fact 1: I find a secret door.
* Fact 2: The door opens onto the villain's throne room.
* Fact 3: The villain doesn't notice us sneak in.

...and then the Donjon Master has to accept these facts, and provide additional info. ("Okay, the villain doesn't notice you sneak in--but the captured princess does. 'HELP ME!' she shrieks.")

======
None of this is to suggest that D&D should do things differently. Merely to point out something some people may not have known about because it's so fundamental.
James_Nostack
03-31-07, 11:37 AM As noted above, but perhaps overlooked, rules perform other tasks too: providing creative constraints, modeling a "real" world, creating adversity to be overcome, etc.

But the issue of assigning authority is a fundamental one, and often passes unnoticed.
a_psh
03-31-07, 01:13 PM Thanks, James! This is like a thread I wanted to post but didn't have time to. It'll probably come back later as a "Questioning..." thread.

I think you need to expand on this a bit to really communicate what you're driving at.

It may be useful to group authority into a few categories (like narrational, situational, &c.) and talk about how to centralize / decentralize each one. Though that's a pretty daunting task.
James_Nostack
03-31-07, 05:07 PM It may be useful to group authority into a few categories (like narrational, situational, &c.) and talk about how to centralize / decentralize each one. Though that's a pretty daunting task.

The assumption that I know what I'm talking about is quite flattering. Honestly, figuring out a formal classification scheme doesn't appeal to me, and would probably end up alienating more people than it helps.

For the purposes of this thread, I just want to throw an idea out there: D&D is a game about imagining things. The rules of D&D, including unwritten rules of your local group, determine who is the "official imaginer" of any particular event. D&D invests the Dungeon Master with an enormous amount of authority; so do many other RPG's. Yet there are alternate ways to distribute this power. Some of these alternatives are every bit as entertaining as the D&D approach, at least for some people.
a_psh
03-31-07, 05:53 PM So you're shooting for something more like this (http://www.collaborativeroleplay.org.uk/Welcome) than a theory/design thread? That's cool.

Incidentally, "Starting to Collaborate" is a great essay there, but, God, I really wish that site was clearer and had more stuff.

Personally, I really like player-driven games with a central GM for support. I think it's absolutely vital that the people playing the protagonists in a scene don't have much in their way, which is why I shy away from Universalis-style shared authorship; but I also really want the players be able to freely narrate detail, because that's how you keep everyone's imaginations more or less on the same page -- not doing that imposes a huge block and really hampers roleplaying. As a GM, I also really like group setting and character creation.
James_Nostack
03-31-07, 06:26 PM Yeah, group character & setting generation is absolutely essential. It's such an easy thing to implement, and the effects are so profound, that it's amazing D&D has never done it before. If anybody on the D&D 4e design team is reading--for goodness' sake, include some procedures for this. It makes the game much better.

I like games where other people have authority over the adversity you face, but I don't think a GM is always necessary. Capes (http://www.museoffire.com/Games/downloads.html), and the Capes Lite free demo, is one of the funnest games I've played ever.

Here's what a_psh and I are talking about, for people who don't enjoy all this name-dropping:

In Dungeons & Dragons, there's the player, and the Dungeon Master. The rules give the player authority over her character, and the Dungeon Master has authority over the opposition (for that player, and for all the other players too). If you wanted to re-distribute that authority, you could create teams, or a round-robin, or whatever. But you could also say, "Each player has control over her own opposition."

In my experience, that distribution of authority isn't much fun.
James_Nostack
04-02-07, 08:41 AM A follow-up, based on a thread about social systems:

I think what most people object to about dicing for social interactions in the game is that how your character reacts to someone is within the traditional locus of player control. Removing player autonomy in this one area--the one most notable thing that players have usually had control over--and giving some of that authority to the dice or the Dungeon Master--is always going to be unpopular.

I would suspect that giving the players something else to control, might make it more palatable.
Seeker95
04-02-07, 09:45 AM James, I really like your post and the thoughts expressed therein. I would suggest that you copy it, delete it, and submit it to Dragon Magazine as a Development article, or even talk with WotC_Mark (Jindra) about getting it up on the main website.

Then again, there is always Regdar's Repository. But that spot doesn't pay cash. :D
James_Nostack
04-04-07, 06:35 PM Thanks. It's a pity no one seems interested, but that's the Internet for you.
a_psh
04-04-07, 07:33 PM I don't think no one's listening per se. I think it's hard to get what you're talking about without having tried the examples.

John Kim's article on "proactive" play (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/plot/proactivity.html), I think, is a good start.
Seeker95
04-04-07, 08:06 PM Thanks. It's a pity no one seems interested, but that's the Internet for you.It is not that nobody is interested. It's that you have waaayyy too much here for the amount of time most people have available for response.

This is more of a thesis than a post.
Arrowhen
04-04-07, 08:22 PM Thanks. It's a pity no one seems interested, but that's the Internet for you.

I, for one, am very interested. This thread, along with a_psh's one, have come at a very interesting time for me, a time when I'm (melodramatic as this sounds) seriously questioning what it is I want out of the hobby and starting to have grave doubts about whether D&D is the system that can give it to me.

I didn't respond to the thread because I was too busy thinking about it. ;)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
James_Nostack 03-31-07, 11:18 AM	Every role-playing game I know involves a handful of real people getting together to describe imagined events. These real people imagine something collaboratively. When people collaborate, they frequently disagree. The rules of a role-playing game (and here I am using "rules" to describe not just the text of a published book, but also the customs of a particular group) perform many functions. But perhaps the most important function is to assign imaginative authority. In Dungeons & Dragons, at least the way I always played it, the player has unquestioned authority over her PC's thoughts, feelings, intentions and actions. The Dungeon Master has unquestioned authority over overall situation: the behavior of NPC's (including monsters), the map of the dungeon, the weather, etc.* There are also areas of shared or waived authority. A player has some control over her character's backstory, but the Dungeon Master can veto certain parts as inappropriate. Most commonly, however, authority is determined through probability. The player wants to hit the goblin; the Dungeon Master wants the goblin to survive. According to the published rules, to determine who has authority over what happens, roll some dice. Assuming that the procedure was conducted according to the rules, either the player's wish, or the DM's wish, comes into effect and no one can gainsay it without cheating (i.e., violating the authority-pattern set up by the rules). Note, please, that none of this necessarily requires published rules. If a group wants to ignore a written rule and just wing it, doesn't mean that there isn't some deeper "rule" at work, such as, "Let's handle this by consensus" or "The DM's word is law." ====== D&D, at least as it's commonly played, allocates an enormous amount of authority to the Dungeon Master. The Dungeon Master: * determines which rule-sets to use (kind of a meta-authority) * creates the setting * has (often waived) veto power over character concepts and builds * creates the situation/adventure/plot * has authority over how the situation/adventure/plot develops * has authority to interpret unclear rules * has authority over rewards (XP and treasure) * probably does a lot more stuff I'm not thinking of right now This is often a wonderful and terrifically fun way to play the game--if you have a good Dungeon Master. If your Dungeon Master is stupid, boring, irritating, or just not bringing his A-game, it can be very frustrating. It is also very easy for a Dungeon Master to burn out, because he's responsible for an enormous part of the shared experience. (On the other hand, because D&D gives the Dungeon Master so much authority, particularly over the prep, it becomes addictive to build new things out of these pieces. How many people on these boards have a handful of campaigns "in development", which you know will never see play? It's sort of like a mini-game, and it works because all of that authority is on you.) ===== But the D&D model is not the only one possible. You can have group setting creation. Or group character creation. Primetime Adventures (http://www.dog-eared-designs.com/games.html) uses both. In the early stages of the game, everyone brainstorms characters together, taking each others' opinions and imaginative needs into account. (In my view, this is a lot more satisfying than the typical D&D way of doing it, where each player creates a character in isolation.) You can also have player input on the situation/adventure/thingy. In Sorcerer (http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com/), each player create their own plot-hooks, called "kickers." And whatever else is going on in the adventure, it's really all about resolving the crisis created by the different kickers as the players interact and complicate each others' lives. So, the GM prepares a backstory--but it's the kicker, supplied by each player, which makes the situation come to life and rope in the characters. You can even use probability for a more radical distribution of authority. In Donjon (http://www.crngames.com/donjon/), victory in any particular task (like searching for a secret door) is measured in points. Each point can be exchanged for a Fact about what's happening. So, if the player gets three Facts, she can say: * Fact 1: I find a secret door. * Fact 2: The door opens onto the villain's throne room. * Fact 3: The villain doesn't notice us sneak in. ...and then the Donjon Master has to accept these facts, and provide additional info. ("Okay, the villain doesn't notice you sneak in--but the captured princess does. 'HELP ME!' she shrieks.") ====== None of this is to suggest that D&D should do things differently. Merely to point out something some people may not have known about because it's so fundamental.
James_Nostack 03-31-07, 11:37 AM	As noted above, but perhaps overlooked, rules perform other tasks too: providing creative constraints, modeling a "real" world, creating adversity to be overcome, etc. But the issue of assigning authority is a fundamental one, and often passes unnoticed.
a_psh 03-31-07, 01:13 PM	Thanks, James! This is like a thread I wanted to post but didn't have time to. It'll probably come back later as a "Questioning..." thread. I think you need to expand on this a bit to really communicate what you're driving at. It may be useful to group authority into a few categories (like narrational, situational, &c.) and talk about how to centralize / decentralize each one. Though that's a pretty daunting task.
James_Nostack 03-31-07, 05:07 PM	It may be useful to group authority into a few categories (like narrational, situational, &c.) and talk about how to centralize / decentralize each one. Though that's a pretty daunting task. The assumption that I know what I'm talking about is quite flattering. Honestly, figuring out a formal classification scheme doesn't appeal to me, and would probably end up alienating more people than it helps. For the purposes of this thread, I just want to throw an idea out there: D&D is a game about imagining things. The rules of D&D, including unwritten rules of your local group, determine who is the "official imaginer" of any particular event. D&D invests the Dungeon Master with an enormous amount of authority; so do many other RPG's. Yet there are alternate ways to distribute this power. Some of these alternatives are every bit as entertaining as the D&D approach, at least for some people.
a_psh 03-31-07, 05:53 PM	So you're shooting for something more like this (http://www.collaborativeroleplay.org.uk/Welcome) than a theory/design thread? That's cool. Incidentally, "Starting to Collaborate" is a great essay there, but, God, I really wish that site was clearer and had more stuff. Personally, I really like player-driven games with a central GM for support. I think it's absolutely vital that the people playing the protagonists in a scene don't have much in their way, which is why I shy away from Universalis-style shared authorship; but I also really want the players be able to freely narrate detail, because that's how you keep everyone's imaginations more or less on the same page -- not doing that imposes a huge block and really hampers roleplaying. As a GM, I also really like group setting and character creation.
James_Nostack 03-31-07, 06:26 PM	Yeah, group character & setting generation is absolutely essential. It's such an easy thing to implement, and the effects are so profound, that it's amazing D&D has never done it before. If anybody on the D&D 4e design team is reading--for goodness' sake, include some procedures for this. It makes the game much better. I like games where other people have authority over the adversity you face, but I don't think a GM is always necessary. Capes (http://www.museoffire.com/Games/downloads.html), and the Capes Lite free demo, is one of the funnest games I've played ever. Here's what a_psh and I are talking about, for people who don't enjoy all this name-dropping: In Dungeons & Dragons, there's the player, and the Dungeon Master. The rules give the player authority over her character, and the Dungeon Master has authority over the opposition (for that player, and for all the other players too). If you wanted to re-distribute that authority, you could create teams, or a round-robin, or whatever. But you could also say, "Each player has control over her own opposition." In my experience, that distribution of authority isn't much fun.
James_Nostack 04-02-07, 08:41 AM	A follow-up, based on a thread about social systems: I think what most people object to about dicing for social interactions in the game is that how your character reacts to someone is within the traditional locus of player control. Removing player autonomy in this one area--the one most notable thing that players have usually had control over--and giving some of that authority to the dice or the Dungeon Master--is always going to be unpopular. I would suspect that giving the players something else to control, might make it more palatable.
Seeker95 04-02-07, 09:45 AM	James, I really like your post and the thoughts expressed therein. I would suggest that you copy it, delete it, and submit it to Dragon Magazine as a Development article, or even talk with WotC_Mark (Jindra) about getting it up on the main website. Then again, there is always Regdar's Repository. But that spot doesn't pay cash. :D
James_Nostack 04-04-07, 06:35 PM	Thanks. It's a pity no one seems interested, but that's the Internet for you.
a_psh 04-04-07, 07:33 PM	I don't think no one's listening per se. I think it's hard to get what you're talking about without having tried the examples. John Kim's article on "proactive" play (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/plot/proactivity.html), I think, is a good start.
Seeker95 04-04-07, 08:06 PM	Thanks. It's a pity no one seems interested, but that's the Internet for you.It is not that nobody is interested. It's that you have waaayyy too much here for the amount of time most people have available for response. This is more of a thesis than a post.
Arrowhen 04-04-07, 08:22 PM	Thanks. It's a pity no one seems interested, but that's the Internet for you. I, for one, am very interested. This thread, along with a_psh's one, have come at a very interesting time for me, a time when I'm (melodramatic as this sounds) seriously questioning what it is I want out of the hobby and starting to have grave doubts about whether D&D is the system that can give it to me. I didn't respond to the thread because I was too busy thinking about it. ;)