D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[Mark CMG]

Suppose we start playing the game, and I have not written up any detailed backstory for my PC.

Then the game starts chugging along, the PCs have a starting village and home base, etc, etc.

And I suggest to the GM that I might have family. Friends. Even a mentor. And given how my PC has started to turn out in play, I even suggest a little bit about what these people might be like.

Or, we get to a new town, and I suggest to the GM that a certain sort of NPC might be found there. The GM has not given that any though in the past, but thinks the idea is plausible.

Am I now story gaming rather than playing an RPG? Because in my experience that sort of behaviour - which is the player affecting the setting by direct authorship or authorship suggestions - is not uncommon. I think it would be possible to try and more formally describe it using some sort of notion about "locus of the character" (this would apply to Burning Wheel's Circe rules, also - the NPCs a PC can encounter via this mechanic are shaped by that PC's "lifepaths" established as part of character generation). But it goes beyond "affecting the adventure setting through the character".

Are you now story gaming rather than playing an RPG? You certainly are adding some storrytelling elements into the RPG you were playing. It largely depends on the approach. In a traditional RPG, the player doesn't decide what's up with NPCs, even the PC's relatives.

In an RPG, the traditional way to approach this would be for the player to ask the GM if the player has any living relatives. A lot of traditional GMs would roll some dice, might have some charts handy for the process or just mentally decide the odds before rolling. So, yes, it seems you are used to having some storytelling elements mixed in with your RPGing. It's not a problem, IMO, but some folks in the thread seem to find it troubling to recognize this as if identifying this circumstance is wrong.

It's like you telling me that you painted the kitchen but it happens you also wallpapered some trim work, around the top of the walls, then when I point out that you both wallpapered and painted the kitchen some folks got upset and claimed that you hadn't. They say you really only painted the kitchen, that it is troubling that anyone would point out that you sometimes used wallpaper paste for the job. They argue vigorously against the idea, differently phrasing the description of how the glue was applied much the same way as paint, even using a paintbrush in this case. It would feel strange in such a scenario that folks are troubled by the mention of wallpaper.

It may well be that some folks have used storytelling elements in their RPGing their whole gaming lives, even before the advent of storytelling games. The idea of making full-on storytelling games that are similar to RPGs, and even use many RPG elements, didn't spring up from nowhere. It's weird that some folks find this evolution in gaming troubling to discuss or even identify.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I guess my quibble here is the characterisation that any game which has mechanics that allow the player to have some authorial control are automatically story games. Action points do not make D&D a Story Game. It's still a trad game that has now borrowed a smidgeon of stuff from the other side of the fence. But, again, what baffles me by all this, is the total acceptance of casters being able to completely rewrite the in-game reality whenever they feel like it.

If authorial control is a "thing" at all-it's a story game. In my game, I control the game world at large and everything in it EXCEPT the player characters. The players have total control over what their characters do. There is no story to exert authorial control over. The players go and do what they wish and the world reacts accordingly. In that sense the players are the authors of their actions and the DM is the author of the world response. Lets take a closer look at story:

sto·ry
/ˈstôrē/
noun
noun: story; plural noun: stories
1.
an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment.


OK so we have a dictionary definition of story. The first thing I notice about this is that a story is an account. An accounting takes place AFTER the fact. What happened in our game last week is a story that can be told. What we are currently playing out as actual play won't be a story until we are finished with that session of play.

Once play concludes you have your story. At that point an accounting of the events of that play session can be made but that part of the story is done. Authorial control at that point is meaningless unless you want to alter the story for the reader for some reason.

Is it just because "it's magic"? Is that all it takes? The party has a wizard in it, faced by the second story window, the wizard drops a Rope Trick spell and poof, they climb up. There wasn't a rope there before and now, you don't even need any skill checks to climb up. All it took was a player spending a bit of character resources and the in game reality is changed. The higher the level of the caster, the greater the changes the player can effect. Sure, you can justify it as, "Well, it's magic", but, you can easily justify the boxes too. "You look around and see a bunch of crates that you hadn't noticed before". Poof, done.

Or is it that trad games have always allowed certain classes to manipulate the in-game reality, so, it just doesn't get questioned out of habit?

Magic is capable of doing things that cannot be accomplished by any other means, that is why it is magic. Technology would be considered magic by those who were completely unfamiliar with the concepts that power it. If you were to demonstrate a cell phone to a man from the year 1200, he would likely think it was magic. To us , such a device is mundane. If magic cannot accomplish anything that isn't possible by more mundane means then it is not that impressive or magical. The effect doesn't have to be all that flashy or spectacular either. A simple mending spell is magic not because it can repair a broken item, but because it can do so without requiring materials, time, or crafting skill. Sure a tailor could repair that cloak but not with a wave of his hand!

Holy balls, 16 pages later and we are still on "Players should have no authoritative control over the universe"? Really?

Really. Players should have the same authoritative control over their universe as you and I have over ours.

I said this way back on page 4 or something and I'll say it again: Saying "Yes" to players leads to happier players and better narratives. If they want to stack up boxes to reach a window instead of buying a damn grappling hook, why should you stand in the way of that? Instead of a DC 15 climb check make it a DC 15 strength check. Same edge of your seat rolling if that's what you want.

My least favorite game session I ever had the DM described a room full of barrels and boxes and an oncoming orc horde that was sure to doom us all. I started to barricade the door with barrels and boxes and the orcs rolled right of them and the rest of the party like wet tissue paper. We all died and for what, because the DM had an unwavering narrative in his head that the boxes couldn't be stacked fast enough. Not only did he not tell me that, he actively punished me for outside the box (the box being hack and slash) thinking by wasting my turn moving boxes. If instead he had run with the idea of the barricade, let us short rest like we needed, and then fight the orcs outside likely no one would have died and the session would have been much more fun.

The basic flow of the plot is establish goal, set up obstacles, allow PCs to overcome obstacles, achieve goal. Everyone wins when these things go smoothly. Obstacles and challenges should be difficult but any action a PC takes to overcome the obstacle should have some reasonable chance at success. After all, all you really want is for them to come up with a solution on their own and work it through. It might fail, and advance the plot through that failure, but it should probably succeed. Letting the PCs toil away for no result is how you get to "Look, what do I have to roll to get passed this".

Your problem here wasn't a lack of narrative control, it was a DM who had already written an outcome for a scenario in his head and wouldn't tolerate any deviation from it. With such an individual, what you choose matters little if at all so there really isn't a point in playing at all.

The response to a closed minded storyteller GM isn't trying to wrestle control away using authoritative rules to gain narrative power. That is the equivalent of arguing with a four year old on his/her level-you aren't going to win and you will appear foolish when trying.

Simply walk away. Life is too short for bad games. If the GM is incapable of running a fair fun game then do it yourself. Show by example.

 

[Imaro]

You know I'm curious, for the posters falling on the side of the players having authorial/narrative control of the world/universe... [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], [MENTION=6783796]Lerysh[/MENTION] and a few others... Is the DM granted authorial/narrative control over the player's characters?

If so, is there a limit?

If not, why not... if everyone is supposed to be equally influencing the game/story? How can this be true if the player's all get a character (piece of the narrative/story) who is off limits from the DM (except through resolution mechanics which everyone has access to)... but the DM gets no such thing that in turn cannot be influenced or changed by the players? If the DM does in fact get this in the playstyle you all are advocating what is the particular thing that is sarosanct from their suggestions/changes/etc.?

 

[aramis erak]

The biggest dividing point between storygames and trad games is "ownership of the character"...

Trad, you OWN your character. Only you get to say what the character attempts, and only the GM says what the character achieves with those attempts. You don't get to use the rules to force other PC's to do stuff. Most storygames allow forcing others to do stuff. Some don't even have you "own" a PC at all (eg: Once Upon a Time), and some aren't even roleplaying (eg: Once Upon a Time, potentially also Microscope).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

OK, so right now I am running a 2e retroclone, and an Owod Mage game all the while planning my 5e game... I will say I have never seen a DM outright say "No you can't make up your own family" but there are degrees. In the Mage game I let the PCs stat out vampires both allies and enemies... and there own mentors and apprentices.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If the GM tells me that the NPC is a man, it follows that either he is bearded or not. If the GM doesn't mention one way or another, than deciding that he is bearded when the players express an interest in that possibiity is not making a beard suddenly exist. It is describing a detail hitherto unknown either way. If the GM said, "No, he's clean shaven" that likewise wouldn't be causing any beard or stubble to cease to exist. It likewise would be rendering determinate what was hitherto unspecified.

Whether or not it was previously described, though, he always either had the beard or did not. It was already true, before the GM describes the character, and before the players ask. Either the PCs exist in a world where this NPC has a beard, or they do not.

You may get the situation where the DM is uncertain which reality the PCs exist in, because he or she didn't think about it beforehand, and so must quickly determine which reality it is. What some people would suggest is that the DM simply pick whichever reality will lead to a better story. Others feel that this is cheating which ruins their fun, because it is not an honest determination, since it is influenced by out-of-game considerations.

Doesn't 5e even have a "lucky" feat?

There's a good reason why they go so far to suggest that, even though feats are entirely optional, individual feats are also entirely optional. Most games that include something like ability this will include a side-bar about how it may be inappropriate, depending on tone of the campaign, so we'll probably have to wait for the DMG to see if they address it at all.

 

[pemerton]

The biggest dividing point between storygames and trad games is "ownership of the character"...

Trad, you OWN your character. Only you get to say what the character attempts, and only the GM says what the character achieves with those attempts. You don't get to use the rules to force other PC's to do stuff. Most storygames allow forcing others to do stuff.

In classic D&D I can force another player's PC to do something by using a charm spell, suggestion spell, etc.

In AD&D Oriental Adventures, if I am playing a mid-level samurai or kensai, I can force another player's 1st level PC to flee in fear or surrender.

Also, in any version of D&D, I can declare an attack aainst another player's PC. Because, in D&D, there is generally no distinct "active defence" mechanic - rather, parrying/dodging etc is all wrapped up in the AC stat plus the d20 attack roll - it arguably follows that I am forcing the other player's PC to dodge, parry etc.

I don't think it follows from any of the above that D&D is a "storygame" rather than an RPG.

And here's a list of games which are utterly based around players' "ownership" of a character: Marvel Heroic RP, Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, 4e D&D, OGL Conan. But all have mechanics that, according to this thread, make them "storygames" rather than RPGs: in Marvel Heroic RP a player can make a roll to generate a resource, which can include a helpful NPC; BW has a Circles mechanic, described upthread; HW/Q allows relationships to form part of a character's stats; OGL Conan has minor-detail-adding fate points.

Even 3E D&D has a Gather Information mechanic, which is not radically different from MHRP resources or BW Circles.

Not to mention, in classic D&D play many groups took it for granted that, except in unusual circmstances, players would control their PCs' henchmen. Relationship and Circles mechanics are just an extension of this long-standing practice.

I have never seen a DM outright say "No you can't make up your own family"

I have seen systems where you have to dice for family members, birth rank etc - AD&D Oriental Adventures is one, and I think C&S might be another. Gygax's Dangerous Journeys made you dice to see if you are the seventh son of a seventh son.

But likewise, many systems leave it open for the player and/or GM to decide. The notion that this marks some radical cleavage between roleplaying and something else isn't one that I agree with.

You may get the situation where the DM is uncertain which reality the PCs exist in, because he or she didn't think about it beforehand, and so must quickly determine which reality it is.

Which is what has been discussed in this thread.

What has also been discussed is that the GM may have made a private note, and wish to change it. Altering drafts is a fairy common element in authorship. In the context of a non-ToHish RPG, until it is made part of the shared fiction it is still a draft. (In ToH, information that is secret to the GM is nevertheless part of the game, because the whole point of play is for the players to discover that information and use it to beat the dungeon.)

What some people would suggest is that the DM simply pick whichever reality will lead to a better story.

I think the only person in this thread to have suggested that is [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION]. The original suggestion (from [MENTION=6783796]Lerysh[/MENTION], I think) was that if the players have expressed a preference that the answer be A rather than B, and there is nothing else at stake, then the GM has a good reason to answer A rather than B.

Others feel that this is cheating which ruins their fun, because it is not an honest determination, since it is influenced by out-of-game considerations.

The word "honest" here seems misplaced. It is not dishonest to author fictional elements in a way that fosters game play. It's not as if, in setting up th campaign world or scenario elements or other key elements of the fiction, the GM is unmotivated by the fact that it is a game!

 

[Mark CMG]

In classic D&D I can force another player's PC to do something by using a charm spell, suggestion spell, etc.

A PC (as directed by a player) or NPC (as directed by the GM) can Charm (Suggest, etc.) and thereby influence another PC or NPC. That's roleplaying in an RPG.

 

[Hussar]

Are you now story gaming rather than playing an RPG? You certainly are adding some storrytelling elements into the RPG you were playing. It largely depends on the approach. In a traditional RPG, the player doesn't decide what's up with NPCs, even the PC's relatives.

In an RPG, the traditional way to approach this would be for the player to ask the GM if the player has any living relatives. A lot of traditional GMs would roll some dice, might have some charts handy for the process or just mentally decide the odds before rolling. So, yes, it seems you are used to having some storytelling elements mixed in with your RPGing. It's not a problem, IMO, but some folks in the thread seem to find it troubling to recognize this as if identifying this circumstance is wrong.

It's like you telling me that you painted the kitchen but it happens you also wallpapered some trim work, around the top of the walls, then when I point out that you both wallpapered and painted the kitchen some folks got upset and claimed that you hadn't. They say you really only painted the kitchen, that it is troubling that anyone would point out that you sometimes used wallpaper paste for the job. They argue vigorously against the idea, differently phrasing the description of how the glue was applied much the same way as paint, even using a paintbrush in this case. It would feel strange in such a scenario that folks are troubled by the mention of wallpaper.

It may well be that some folks have used storytelling elements in their RPGing their whole gaming lives, even before the advent of storytelling games. The idea of making full-on storytelling games that are similar to RPGs, and even use many RPG elements, didn't spring up from nowhere. It's weird that some folks find this evolution in gaming troubling to discuss or even identify.

I think you're missing the point here.

It's as if you told me that you painted your kitchen and when I point out that you also papered the trim, I've suddenly added that wallpaper out of thin air. It didn't exist beforehand because you didn't tell me it did, therefore, it cannot possibly exist.

I'd say that virtually all folks who play RPG's have used storytelling elements. The idea that you have to ask the DM if you have any living relatives is something I've never even heard suggested. It's not like the DMG comes with a life path chargen system. It's traditional that the player details his own background. It's been that way all the way since day 1. Reading the various PHB's, going back to AD&D, they talk about adding these kinds of details to make your character come alive. Sure, the DM might veto an idea or add to it or change it, but, the idea that I have ask if I have parents is not something I've even heard talked about.

You know I'm curious, for the posters falling on the side of the players having authorial/narrative control of the world/universe... [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], [MENTION=6783796]Lerysh[/MENTION] and a few others... Is the DM granted authorial/narrative control over the player's characters?

If so, is there a limit?

If not, why not... if everyone is supposed to be equally influencing the game/story? How can this be true if the player's all get a character (piece of the narrative/story) who is off limits from the DM (except through resolution mechanics which everyone has access to)... but the DM gets no such thing that in turn cannot be influenced or changed by the players? If the DM does in fact get this in the playstyle you all are advocating what is the particular thing that is sarosanct from their suggestions/changes/etc.?

AFAIC, nope, you as the DM get absolutely no control over my PC. (Barring things like charm or the like I suppose). As a DM, I draw a nice solid box around the PC's and I'm not allowed to play in that playground. I have an entire world to play with. I can do all sorts of things to your character, good and bad. What I don't get to do is rewrite PC details.

By the same token, the authorship powers I'm talking about don't rewrite the DM's world either. If a detail is already established, then I wouldn't contradict that detail. However, there are all sorts of details that are not established, and in that space, I prefer the players have resources to fill in the blanks. So, really, nothing is ever being changed.

That needs to be repeated and underlined:

NOTHING IS BEING CHANGED IN THE GAME WORLD.

The only thing that is happening is previously unestablished details are being filled in. Those boxes over there were not mentioned, nor was their absence mentioned. It is perfectly believable that there might be some boxes and crates in an alley, so, the player fills in that detail. The player adds in a family member in the town they are in. This contradicts nothing. There are always undetailed citizens in a town. One of them could quite possibly be a family member. Heck, why not allow the player to claim familial ties with an established NPC? Makes for an interesting story, possibly.

Once it's established though, details don't get to be changed, because that would be inconsistent.

The idea that a DM needs to be able to add details to the PC's because it would be unfair otherwise is ridiculous. The players have direct input on a single character and possibly filling in some undefined details as they occur. The DM has direct input on an entire world. And, let's not forget, the DM generally does have a fair degree of direct input during chargen - backgrounds can be veto'd for a variety of reasons, race, class, whatever, can all be dictated to some degree by the DM. ((No elves!)) About the only time that starts is after the campaign begins, and, even then, the DM can always simply ask the player - "Hey, can I add this NPC to your background?". It's not like it's impossible to add stuff. I would simply run it past the player first.

 

[LostSoul]

I see this "escape from the cultists" example as quite different from the beard example. Because it involves action resolution - the GM (as part of the adjudication of the failed con) has framed the PC into a particuar situation, and the action the player has declared is "I flee!" Deciding whether or not the door is open is part of the resolutoin of that action - if it's shut, then presumably a STR or DEX or similar check is required to pull it open before the cultists swarm the PC.

I'm not 100% sure how I'd resolve this, but I might require an Athletics or Acrobatics check - if the check succeeds then the narration is of the PC slipping through the open door; if it fails the narration is of the PC failing to get the door open in time! Or I might allow the player to make a "luck" roll. Or I might stipulate the door as open or shut depending on my own preferences for difficulty, pacing etc.

But I do think it raises issues of a different kind from the beard example.

It's interesting that you would call the question of "is the trap door open or closed?" part of action resolution. I never thought about it that way.

I think it's simply because the player can't state that as a part of her action; the trap door's state needs to be resolved in some other fashion. Nor can I as DM - the NPC cultists don't have any ability to ensure all doors are open/closed. The PC's declared action depended on the state of the trap door - if it were open, she'd run through and slam it shut behind her; if it were closed, then she'd have to smash through it. Those are two different actions, so I don't think we can bundle up the state of the trap door as a part of action resolution. Thus I resolved the state of the trap door using my "randomized events" mechanic (roll 1d6 and assign odds).