D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[The Crimson Binome]

I think the only person in this thread to have suggested that is @Majoru Oakheart. The original suggestion (from @Lerysh, 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.

I thought that's what I said, but I can see how it might be taken differently. From my perspective, there's little difference between the DM independently thinking that A would make for a better story, and the DM picking up on the idea that the players would prefer the story of A. They should both be equally irrelevant to the reality of the situation, since the DM is expected to be unbiased toward the players.

The word "honest" here seems misplaced. It is not dishonest to author fictional elements in a way that fosters game play.

It really depends on the social contract between the players and the DM. When I play, I would find it to be... disingenuous (at the very least) if the DM were to do that.

That's the style of social contract I learned back in AD&D, and it's a big part of what I find enjoyable in the hobby. The alternative holds very little appeal to me.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think you're missing the point here.

Not as such, insofar as the analogy is meant to illustrate what is happening in the discussion in this thread, not meant as an example of gameplay. But I think maybe you knew that.

 

[LostSoul]

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?

I know that in Burning Empires any player (including the DM) can apply binding constraints on character action based on the outcome of conflicts - Duel of Wits and Firefights. You can also change the character that you're in conflict with: "If I win, he gets the trait REMF." Or even something bigger: "He admits that I know the truth of the Lar-ta-Largi, the Path of Fire [religious doctrine], and that his interpretation is heresy."

There is a limit, though a subjective one, in BE. It's based on the margin of success of the conflict.

 

[aramis erak]

I know that in Burning Empires any player (including the DM) can apply binding constraints on character action based on the outcome of conflicts - Duel of Wits and Firefights. You can also change the character that you're in conflict with: "If I win, he gets the trait REMF." Or even something bigger: "He admits that I know the truth of the Lar-ta-Largi, the Path of Fire [religious doctrine], and that his interpretation is heresy."

There is a limit, though a subjective one, in BE. It's based on the margin of success of the conflict.

There are actually several limits in BE... no adding traits (advantages or disadvantages) to other's sheets without consent, no uninvolved main characters being affected, no "nerfing a success"... and the stakes have to be set before the roll...

-=-=-=-

In John Wick's Blood and Honor and Houses of the Blooded, EVERYTHING is up for grabs... if you have enough dice.

Since I've run a bunch of B&H, I'll use it... HotBlooded is the same basic system, but different terms, and slightly different character definition.

NPCs are usually introduced with nothing more than a name (personal and family), a Duty (think class) and rank thereof, and maybe one or two defined elements. When a task is resolved, everyone with a stake in the outcome generates a dice pool, and then splits that into two groups - dice rolled to decide the task, and dice reserved to make statements. He who rolls highest says whether the task succeeds or fails, and if he rolled 10+, gets one statement per die from their pool that they didn't roll. Everyone else who rolled 10+ gets one statement per 2 dice not rolled. Starting with the highest roller, and in descending roll order, each person with statements left makes one statement about the task or the scene. Then, if anyone has statements left, another round, and so on.

Each statement can be one action by any character present in scene, one level of damage, wielder's rank in unnamed persons killed with a katana, one named person killed with a katana, one attribute of an NPC in scene defined, one statement by any character in scene, one named or a group of unnamed people added to or removed from scene, one level of a temporary trait added to any character in scene... but none are allowed to refute prior statements in that action.

Ideally, every statement relates to the task, or reactions to the task, or previously unknown conditions leading up to the current situation. Everything is required to make story sense, tho'.

For example, Ikugi Nobu is attacking Kanawa Ichiro over an insult in the tea house. He is attempting to cut him down with iaijutsu. Kanawa Yotsu, the local Daimyō, is also present, as is the unnamed matron of the tea house. Ikugi has Prowess 5, and Giri (duty) Bushi 3... He also has a reputation as a duelist at 2... so he's got 5+3+2=10 dice. He rolls 7, because he wants to assure that he can win. Kanawa Ichiro has only 6 dice; he's relatively certain he's going to die, but rolls all of them anyway, so that he might not. Kanawa Yotsu has but 4 dice in relevant abilities, and rolls only 2, just in case he gets lucky. Nobu rolls a rather unimpressive 11... Ichiro has a frightful 32 on his 6 rolled dice. Yotsu gets a 12... The order of speaking will be Ichiro, Yotsu, and Nobu. Ichiro keeps all his unrolled dice - but that's zero. So he gets to make the decision. Yotsu kept 2 dice, and gets to make one statement. Nobu, who rolled 6 of 10, has 4 dice unrolled, and not being high roller, gets two statements.

Ichiro decides he that Nobu missed the strike.
Yotsu states that Nobu is embarrassed by missing. Nobu writes the temporary trait.
Nobu has two statements. He gets to use one. Nobu notes that Yotsu is horrified by the uncouth public misbehavior of Ichiro.
If Ichiro or Yotsu had any statements left, they would go, but the don't, so Nobu continues. he has Yotsosama say, "There is no Kanawa Ichiro! Ronin, begone!"

It doesn't matter who was the Ref. If Nobu had won with a 37, he could have made it look like this...
N: I fail. (Statement 1 of 4 Yotsu stayed my hand.
I has no dice saved, so has nothing to add, despite a 36 roll.
Y: I will deal with my cousin to satisfy your Honor.
N: (Statement 2, putting words in Yotsu's mouth Yotsu continues, "Kanawa Ichiro died here this night."
N: (Statement 3 The oba is in the Shōgun's employ as a spy.
N: The Shōgun knows by morning of the "death" of Ichiro.

Or, he could have instead done
N: I succeed. (S1 But Yotsu was also cutting him down.
Y: I am cutting down Nobu, too.
N: 3 unused wagers - I die with 2 more reputation... as an honorable death.
(There are benefits for other PC's in such cases.)
Note that the only reason he can cut down Nobu is because Nobu had him use iaijutsu to co-kill ichiro.

It's a lot of fun. It's very very very unlike playing D&D. Everyone is 1/3 GM, 1/3 actor, and 1/3 narrator.

Note the lack of character protection. Note also: they add (or in example 2, delete) items on character sheets. Both Ichiro's and the Oba's.

 

[Hussar]

Now that I would call a story game. When everyone is 1/3 GM, 1/3 actor and 1/3 narrator.
[MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION], perhaps if you said plainly what you meant instead of using metaphors I might better understand your meaning. As it stands, it looks to me like you are badly misreading what's being talked about.

 

[jbear]

I haven't read the entire thread, skipped to the last page after the first two, but I'll add my two cents.

RE: OP and Roll vs Roleplay
I agree that players should not expect to solve things immediately just based on a successful roll, especially game elements specifically designed to be a challenge not only to characters but also to the players themselves (Herein lies the core of the issue, correct?). It is a game and players should expect to be challenged, and be expected to put in their fair share of making a roleplaying game fun. "I rolled high, tell me the answer" is not fun.

Having said that it is equally as un-fun from a player perspective when you run into a dead end, and your attempts to get out of the dead end and move forward are met with failure because you did not happen to think of the one expected solution. Or because the clue finding process was more laborious/boring/frustrating than challenging/fun, so the group never gets to a stage where they can actually solve the puzzle because they lost interest.

I do think that a skilled DM will provide a wide range of clues/threads for PCs to follow that even when they feel stuck, they have another thread to follow up on. And if a player rolls high when they are stuck ... well, perhaps they found another clue that you can invent on the spot (or even a low roll if need be ... something awkward/amusing/embarrassing happens and a new clue is stumbled upon).

Besides, if an adventure has a bottle neck that the PCs can't figure out, you have to be accept that the PCs might simply walk away and do something else entirely. 'Poof'. All that time and energy invested in preparing the adventure ... wasted. To avoid this happening I think there should be multiple prepared pathways around any 'puzzle situation', and an open mind to new unexpected pathways that the PCs come up with. (Of course some can be better pathways than others, while some can be catalyst to new and catostrophic events! ... They just don't lead to dead ends, because dead ends are boring).

As you said, it's a 50/50 responsibility of both players and DM to make the game enjoyable and to keep it moving forward. I think it is fair to establish that roleplay is expected and will be rewarded, roll-play is not. But then as a DM you have to be flexible and not set in 'your plans' and 'your story' when players do role play in unexpected ways. (That does not mean immediately circumventing challenges just because they are roleplaying if the chosen actions are foolish, but it does mean having the game world be dynamic and responsive to player actions (failure can be fun), and not just a dead end).

Character Ability Scores vs Player knowledge
Character ability scores should matter. As a DM making the player with average intelligence playing a genius wizard feel smart and knowledgeable when the group face a thinking puzzle is not hard. They are the player you pass the notes to with the wee clues on. They then get a chance to knowledgeably pass on their clever observations to the rest of the group. But of course they don't just solve the problem.

On the flipside, I play dumb PCs, and often find myself in a position where I have noticed something as a player that I know my character simply would not have picked up on.

I either pass the info OOC to the 'smart character's players' or my character stumbles upon it in a way that lines up with their shear stupidity, leaving a clue so obvious to other players that they then catch on and are able to solve the issue intelligently. This can be lots of fun.

I have also played characters with really low charisma, although I myself have a way with words (Yes, if I say so myself). One in particular had a terrible stutter, so although he had good ideas, it was a real pain actually paying attention to him long enough to hear them. Every now and again I would want to get really important ideas across to the group in a clear way. He was a magic user so he used 'Ghost Sound' cantrip to speak without a stutter. Except this was portrayed as a chilling, ghastly voice (PCs eyes rolled back into the head for extra non-charismatic effect).

In short, stats should matter but should add to RP oportunities without limiting player ability when it is important IMO.

Player Narrative Control
My DMing style has changed over time (from my perspective it has matured and improved ... but of course I would think that, right?), shifting from a very fixed and defined world where PCs were given 0 narrative control/input (and were often met with ridicule when they tried to influence the narrative), to a far more open approach where I enjoy player input in world building.

I do not ALWAYS say yes. Sometimes 'the wizard simply doesn't have a beard', but neither is my game world or the adventure 100% developed and defined before hand. For example, although it was not written in my dungeon notes, if players began with a plan that involved disguising themselves as said wizard ... well, they might just find a portrait of the wizard on a bedroom wall in the near future, so they could get a good look at him and then devise a new plan involving a disguise based on what they saw.

Or for example, why can't a player invent a thieves faction on the spur of the moment that they had shady dealings with in their past, which they try and recontact in search of information to move the game forward? That expands the game world, adds colour and detail, provides connections that the player finds meaningful because they invented it, and provides opportunities for me as a DM to bring in new plot lines to mess with the player in the future that I know will hook the player in an enjoyable way. Win/Win.

Does that mean that the players can walk up to a locked door and 'invent that the key is hanging next to the door on a hook' ... no of course not. That wouldn't be fun. But when the players take the narrative in a direction that is fun, then I happily run with it.

Often the players' fears as to what is happening are much more evil and twisted than my own plans. Why be set in my ways with my crappy plan, when what the PCs fear is happening is so much more fun? Whose gonna know that I changed the plot line other than me?

Anyway, I enjoy far more having a bigger picture idea and letting the details evolve and develop organically, and very much enjoy when players help paint the picture.

Like with all things I think its about finding that balance where players feel like they have the freedom to contribute to the story, but are able to do that in ways that adds colour and improves the game without derailing the fun, and the DM engages them in a dynamic, living and breathing world where player actions matter (for good or for ill). If that is happening, then I don't think players mind when their plans fail or they are met with a no, because it never feels like a dead end but rather a new exciting challenge to overcome.

 

[pemerton]

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.

My post was in response to a post that said that, in an RPG, "You don't get to use the rules to force other PC's to do stuff." I presented a pretty well-established counter-example from the oldest RPG.

It seems that you and [MENTION=6779310]aramis erak[/MENTION] are working with different notions of what is an RPG and what is a storygame. Which is fine as far as it goes, but is reinforcing my sense that the "storygame" categorisation isn't adding a great deal of analytical value.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

I think there are (at least) two things going on here.

First, whether the door is open or shut is an element in the resolution of a declared action - where the action is "I flee!"

I think this is different from the beard case, where there is no declared action - if the NPC is bearded, that will at best be a prelude to discussion and planning by the players, followed by the actual declaration of actions to be resolved mechnically as Bluff or Disguise checks, etc.

I think this (first) point is true whatever means one uses for deciding if the door is open or shut.

Second, I think there are different approaches to action resolution. The door's state can be made an element in fortune-in-the-middle resolution, which is one of the ways I said that I might handle it. Equally, you could do it your way (via randomisation) or another of the ways I mentioned (PC "luck" roll - break 10 on d20 to get lucky, or whatever other odds the GM sets). If you go FitM, then the action declaration doesn't get precisified beyond "I flee" - much as, in classic D&D, melee combat declarations don't get any more precise than "I attack". If you go one of those other ways, of firming up the situation prior to fully processing the action declaration, then the action will get precisified in the sorts of ways that you describe.

I think the way one handles the second issue - about action resolution technique - can vary over the range of approaches that we have canvassed without that affecting the truth of the first point, that the trap door and it's state are intimately bound up in the resolution of an action declaration in a way that the beard is not.

(For a contrasting example with the beard, imagine the PC is in combat with the NPC and wants to declare a dirty fighting action - "I grab his beard and yank on it". At that point the beard is bound up in action resolution in much the same way as the trap door is. Personally I would find it odd to resolve the existence of the beard via FitM - because in the game it doesn't vary between states in the way a door does - but I'm sure there are groups out there who might be happy to handle it that way.)

 

[pemerton]

as a DM you have to be flexible and not set in 'your plans' and 'your story' when players do role play in unexpected ways. (That does not mean immediately circumventing challenges just because they are roleplaying if the chosen actions are foolish, but it does mean having the game world be dynamic and responsive to player actions (failure can be fun), and not just a dead end).

<snip>

why can't a player invent a thieves faction on the spur of the moment that they had shady dealings with in their past, which they try and recontact in search of information to move the game forward? That expands the game world, adds colour and detail, provides connections that the player finds meaningful because they invented it, and provides opportunities for me as a DM to bring in new plot lines to mess with the player in the future that I know will hook the player in an enjoyable way. Win/Win.

Does that mean that the players can walk up to a locked door and 'invent that the key is hanging next to the door on a hook' ... no of course not. That wouldn't be fun. But when the players take the narrative in a direction that is fun, then I happily run with it.

<snip>

I think its about finding that balance where players feel like they have the freedom to contribute to the story, but are able to do that in ways that adds colour and improves the game without derailing the fun, and the DM engages them in a dynamic, living and breathing world where player actions matter (for good or for ill). If that is happening, then I don't think players mind when their plans fail or they are met with a no, because it never feels like a dead end but rather a new exciting challenge to overcome.

This is pretty close to my approach.

The key example I would compare to [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s "open or shut door?" example - it is bound up in action resolution, and so different from wondering whether or not a defeated NPC has a beard, which is the prelude to, rather than a component in the midst of, action resolution.

I also think your example of the thieves, and also [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s discussion not too far upthread about GM rights of veto, brings out a contrast between the beard case and [MENTION=6779310]aramis erak[/MENTION]'s discussion of Blood and Honour. The beard example wasn't about a player's authority to specify the actions of another character as part of action resolution. It was about whether a GM, in exercising his/her authority over as-yet unspecified backstory, should or shouldn't have regard to known player desires.

The former sort of example is clearly not very traditional - although I wouldn't be surprised if there are examples of play going a long way back in which a players has made a CHA check in order to be able to declare actions/decisions for his/her henchmen. But the latter doesn't involve any change in authority away from the traditional allocation. It's about the basis on which a GM makes decisions about backstory, not about who has the authority to make such decisions.

That's why I think [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] was right to frame it as a question about "bias". Should the GM be biased towards what the players want when it comes to declaring backstory? I think there are good reasons for answering that question yes - not universal reasons, but reasons that are worth considering for anyone who is not playing a game that prioritises exploring and gaming the setting over other considerations.

the DM is expected to be unbiased toward the players.

I think this is widely accepted in relation to action resolution. (Though not universally, given some of the fudging threads I've read.)

But the idea that the GM should be unbiased towards the players in determining backstory - ie the content of the fictional world which forms the context for the players' declarations of action for their PCs - I think is not widely accepted. Off the top off my head, I can't think of any DMG that advocates it. For instance, when Gygax talks about spell research, magic item creation, etc he at least impies that, if a player is interested in having his/her PC try this sort of stuff, then the GM should include the world elements (eg sages, high level MUs, etc) that will facilitate it, although s/he is under no obligation to make it easy for the PC to turn these world elements to his/her advantage.

Similarly, Gygax implies that, when a player is having his/her PC thief establish a guild, now is the time for the GM to introduce rival guilds and the like to spice things up for that player.

AD&D Oriental Adventures, which has a player dice up family, birth rank etc as part of character generation, also have advice for the GM on determining the patterns of families, alliances etc across the campaign world, with a strong implication that this is meant to matter to the PCs (and therefore the players).

As I said, I really can't remember ever having read a piece of GM advice that advocates authoring the backstory without regard to what the players might find interesting. I'd be interested if anyone can point to something that I've forgotten about, or not encountered.

 

[aramis erak]

My post was in response to a post that said that, in an RPG, "You don't get to use the rules to force other PC's to do stuff." I presented a pretty well-established counter-example from the oldest RPG.

It seems that you and [MENTION=6779310]aramis erak[/MENTION] are working with different notions of what is an RPG and what is a storygame. Which is fine as far as it goes, but is reinforcing my sense that the "storygame" categorisation isn't adding a great deal of analytical value.

If you're claiming storygames axiomatically aren't RPG's, you're using the term RPG in a way I cannot fathom. There are SOME which are not...

In D&D, a charm spell never has given PC1 control over what PC2 attempts. It has given the DM authority to override PC2's choices, but not carte blanche for PC1 to dictate and narrate what PC2 does.

In B&H, however, with a sufficiently large pool, one can literally rip control over a PC away from their player, have them do things the player objects to, and even make permanent changes to the character. It requires huge amounts of trust to work.

Now, there are some few story games that aren't RPGs in the sense that there is not a connection of player to character, and in the sense that getting into character is not part of the experience. Those aren't many.

Once Upon A Time, the rules are not much more than, "Start telling a fairy tale, and each time you say a word on one of your cards, play it to the table; if someone else has a suitable interrupt, they can stop you, play their card, and take over narrating. First one out of cards wins." It's a competitive storygame without roleplaying.

Microscope, while in most of the actual plays tends to result in in-character interactions, doesn't actually require that. And the characters may or may not be used in more than one scene. It's usually got roleplaying, but doesn't actually require it.

Many of the edge cases, like Burning Wheel, Fate, and Cortex Plus, in their various derivatives, have elements of both traditional play {strong investment in, and strong control over, the character, only one player plays each character (but can be required to do certain things by others), strong GM authority over the narrative}... but also strong elements of player empowerment {Burning Wheel use of Wises to make things appear in the fiction, Fate and Cortex use of fate/plot points to declare things exist, Fate use of the compel mechanic to force a character to act in a particular accord with their definition, Fate and BW player input into the campaign establishment stages, CortexPlus Firefly collaborative building of the ship, BW allowing resolving entire conflicts with a single roll...}.

And it's not like WFRP 1E fate points allowed the character to dictate what happens... they just are a guarantee the character will somehow survive the encounter and remain playable. They are a hedge against bad rolls.

Ars Magica 2E/3E is far more a storygame than a Trad game... players own multiple characters, and multiple players play many of the unowned characters, players collaboratively generate the setting and major plot ideas, there is no specific single GM... but at the same time, for whomever is GMing at the moment, it's very Trad in play - players aren't empowered once things begin on an adventure, but also tend to realize that, when it's their turn as a player, the guy making the suggestion may get even...

Trad is strong GM, players control their characters attempts at actions, and no sharing characters as a matter of rules. It also tends to imply dice-based action resolution, and resolving actions, not scenes. once you get to systematic violations of those as regular parts of play, you're really out of the Traditional RPG playspace and into something closer to a Ron Edwards style storygame.

Storygames, as a generality, focus on Vincent's Admonition (Say Yes or Roll the Dice), player narration being as valid as GM narration, and story control being what's covered in the mechanics more than action resolutions.

But most important of all: the different styles of games support different styles of play, and that's a good thing. I don't want New Player X dictating to me as a D&D DM where and when their character shows up, nor that Orc #3 is carrying a seax rather than a scimitar. If I were in the mood for that, I'd be running B&H....