D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Imaro]

@pemerton just for reference here is the paladin warhorse ability as described in the AD&D 1e PHB...

At 4th level - or at any time thereafter - the paladin may
call for his warhorse; this creature is an intelligent heavy
warhorse, with 5 +5 hit dice (5d8 plus 5 hit points), AC 5, and
the speed of a medium warhorse (18"); it will magically
appear, but only one such animal is available every ten years,
so that if the first is lost the paladin must wait until the end of
the period for another.

So the 1e PHB actually states that this ability is a magical summoning...

Here is the relevant passage from the DMG...

The Paladin’s Warhorse:
When the paladin reaches 4th or higher level, he or she will eventually
call for a warhorse (as detailed in the PLAYERS HANDBOOK). It will
magically appear, but not in actual physical form. The paladin will
magically “see” his or her faithful destrier in whatever locale it is currently
in, and it is thereafter up to the paladin to journey to the place and gain
the steed. As a rule of thumb, this journey will not be beyond 7 days ride,
and gaining the mount will not be an impossible task. The creature might
be wild and necessitate capturing, or it might be guarded by an evil fighter
of the same level as the paladin, and the latter will then have to overcome
the former in mortal combat in order to win the warhorse. In short, the
gaining of the destrier is a task of some small difficulty which will take a
number of days, possibly 2 or more weeks, and will certainly test the
mettle of the paladin. Once captured or won, the warhorse knows its role
and relationship to the paladin, and it will faithfully serve thereafter for 10
years. Thereafter, the paladin must seek another mount, as the former one
will be too old to be useful.
The intelligence of a paladin’s warhorse is 5-7 points. The number of hit
points per hit die of the steed will never be fewer than 50% of the level of
the paladin, i.e., a 4th level paladin means the warhorse he or she gains
will have at least 2 hit points per hit die, excluding the additional bonus of
+5, while a 16th level paladin’s special steed will have maximum hit
points (8) per die, of 5 X 8 = 40 +5 (additional hit points) = 45 total hit
points for 5 + 5 hit dice.
If the character loses paladinhood for any reason, there will be an
immutable enmity between character and mount, and the former will not
be able to ride the latter, while the steed will escape at first opportunity.

Again... the player isn't authoring anything... the rules of the game itself set the parameters for the "quest" up (which are implicitly accepted when one allows the paladin class and still worded as guidelines for the DM vs, strict rules), and the DM creates the actual "quest"... all the player does is decide when his character will undertake the quest. this is further supported by the fact that the PHB has none of the information pertaining to the "quest" within it, only the DMG does.

IMO, this is akin to claiming that by adventuring beyond the DM's created map the player is authoring new content because the DM now has to construct what lies beyond the border. On top of that it is unclear from the passages whether the entire quest is magical or mundane. If in fact it is magical... it's like claiming a spell authors setting content into the world. Both are ridiculously stretching what authoring actually means since in neither case does the player actually create anything... he or she is instead using an ability through his/her character... that's it.

EDIT: The only way this would be the player authoring content would be if he actually you know... authored content( decided what the quest was, who or what challenges he faced, the nature of the steed, etc)... the player in fact doesn't decide any of that and so is not authoring content.

 

[Sadras]

The player's choices about his PC's backstory introduced new content into the shared fiction of the campaign world, which otherwise would not have been there.

Based on the above, your definition of player authorship would then also include character creation when introduced, nevermind character backstory, since a character is "new content introduced into the shared fiction of the campaign world, which otherwise would not have been there". It makes it true that this character exists and was born n years ago.....etc

With a definition inclusiveness on that scale every D&D game in history possessed and possesses player authorship, unless one wants to discount games with pre-generated characters, and even then I'm sure one could find something to fall into that broad spectrum of the definition.

It feels with such an open all-inclusive definition, the term loses much of its value.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ok, but what if the DM leaves out a detail and would like to veto the player's authorial entry. I mean he is fallible so would you allow for that?

There are very few games where the GM doesn't get a veto.

At a crime scene on the street where a dog was suddenly introduced they are then able to utilise Speak to Animals to circumvent the entire investigation and the adventure?

This happens approximately as much as someone picking up the ball and running with it in a game of pick-up football (soccer) on the grounds there isn't a referee. Sure there's no referee to send you off but you're there to play football and if you try that sort of nonsense it's pretty clear you aren't there to play. If the players want to circumvent the entire adventure then there's an out of game problem somewhere.

Sure, but between the scale of rags and riches there are plenty in between. It allows one to cast Mend on the clothes to obtain a positive reaction adjustment from the NPC. Sure nothing special in the great scheme of things, but the player authorial control leaves something like this to be broken unless the DM keeps describing everyone who takes pride in their appearance.
Silly example sure, but personally I prefer to remove such possible exploitation.

And I personally find that if I treat my players like adults they behave like adults. I've only seen this type of exploitative behaviour from players who had grown used to DMs (or normally Storytellers) who allowed them nothing and found it a huge change to be treated like adults and trusted with it.

But for the more general point of knowing people in an organization, it comes down to a character concept that would already be established. And if it fits the established concept, I'm strongly inclined to say "yes". I probably won't let them know the guard at the door, for example (unless the background fit knowing the serving staff very well) but assuming that an appropriate character knows a name he could drop would be likely. This is a much more soft narrative construct unlike the prior conversations I've engaged which were very specific to defining the physical world.

Honestly from the sound of it you wouldn't be making much of a change by allowing player authorship. The only major difference here is that rather than you being inclined to say yes you would by default say yes and only actually stop things (rather than build on them) when you needed a veto. It's a fairly major philosophical difference but not actually much of a practical difference than what you describe here.

As to immersion, I think you are describing story immersion and I am describing character immersion. If you as a player have powers that your character can not have then it is defacto true that you are not immersed in "being that character".

This is emphatically both untrue and ridiculous. You are claiming that immersion is never possible in games without explicit rules. You are claiming that immersion is impossible in freeform. Any single example of two kids playing in the playground is sufficient enough to disprove this claim. Or is immersion to you somewhere that only ever shows up in tabletop roleplaying and nowhere else?

To expand, you're close to something true but not actually there. If as a player is exploiting powers they don't have then yes, it is true to say they aren't immersed. The two cases listed by Sadras above are good illustrations of people not being immersed.

On the other hand my character has powers I do not have within the game world. The powers of scent and taste. The ability to look at a room and see details at a single glance. And that's before we've started. Your "You can not have any powers" issue is like taking a normally sighted person and saying "We are roleplaying and you're playing an old person with dim vision. Full sight means you have a power they don't- to see to the far end of the room. So I'm going to blindfold you. Because you can't possibly be immersed if you have powers they don't have but it doesn't get in your way at all if they have powers you don't."

I'm immersed if my decisions are based on the same basis as my character's. If my emotional involvement is as close as it can be. If my knowledge of the world is as close as it can be. And either I can play effectively blindfolded with very limited knowledge of the world my character is a part of (which actively inhibits my character immersion) or I can fill out the details. The narrative power you oppose is not a power of my character to create, but one of my character to actually see rather than be blindfolded and given a tour guide.

You may be immersed in the story and contributing to that story, but it is still different. I have no complaint about your preference. May your next game be better than any before it. But it is still different.

Oddly enough there's a whole lot less "active contributing to the story" in storygames than traditional RPGs. The games are set up so the story is an emergent property.

I don't accept this as truth. It is beyond obvious that RPGs came from wargaming completely lacking in character immersion. But reading about the history makes it clear to me that this concept changed overnight with the evolution of Chainmail to D&D.

That said, even if I concede for the sake of argument that every founding designer unanimously and unequivocally agrees with you, when I started playing 35 years ago it was intended to be about immersion and a game was a fully expected bonus.

I'll add that I've also frequently stated that one of the things I love best about RPGs, and DMing, is the random unexpected impacts of players. That constant input of the unexpected is what makes a story that I seed into something completely different and a truly awesome thing.

On this we wholly and unequivocally agree.

 

[Imaro]

It feels with such an open all-inclusive definition, the term loses much of its value.

IMO, with @pemerton's definition it pretty much looses all of it's value and everything a player does becomes authorship since players through their characters are always "changing the fiction"... that's kind of the point of the game. The comparison I though @Hussar was making earlier was to player authorship as it appears in games like Fate where the player is empowered to actually create something (not have the GM create it) outside the purview of his character's in-game abilities...

 

[Imaro]

And I personally find that if I treat my players like adults they behave like adults. I've only seen this type of exploitative behaviour from players who had grown used to DMs (or normally Storytellers) who allowed them nothing and found it a huge change to be treated like adults and trusted with it.

I always find this claim... what's the word I'm looking for... suspect. I expect a player to advocate for his character in a game like D&D, why shouldn't he, especially if his character could die... and if I give him tools to use, why wouldn't he take advantage of them?

EDIT: I also find it strange that you seem to infer that the players should just have an intuitive knowledge of what crossing the line (whatever that may be) is with authorship... I doubt it works this way with strangers or even with people who have played together.

That's the whole point of a game where combat is played as war instead of sport (to use a contentious but somewhat apt descriptor for 2 different playstyles). To then turn around and claim this is a symptom of DM's who treat their players like children is borderline denigrating an entire playstyle. IMO, it has nothing to do with being treated as an adult, since one of the trademarks of an adult is learning to work within boundaries... while children often have trouble with that... IMO of course.

 

[Sadras]

@Neonchameleon

And I personally find that if I treat my players like adults they behave like adults. I've only seen this type of exploitative behaviour from players who had grown used to DMs (or normally Storytellers) who allowed them nothing and found it a huge change to be treated like adults and trusted with it.

Sure.
Adults play sport, adults exploit the rules/boundaries. Politicians are adults, politicians exploit the system. Now you can rebut with money is at the root of it and without money there is no incentive. But our entire judicial system is based along adults not behaving like adults - drinking and driving, ignoring speed limits, children neglect, abuse...etc
Why would you assume adults act perfectly in hobbies?

 

[Neonchameleon]

I always find this claim... what's the word I'm looking for... suspect. I expect a player to advocate for his character in a game like D&D, why shouldn't he, especially if his character could die... and if I give him tools to use, why wouldn't he take advantage of them?

EDIT: I also find it strange that you seem to infer that the players should just have an intuitive knowledge of what crossing the line (whatever that may be) is with authorship... I doubt it works this way with strangers or even with people who have played together.

Part of the answer is that a world made up of half a dozen different visions all working together is a whole lot more vibrant. Part of it is that advocacy for character normally happens in two situations - firstly when someone is not immersed because they are playing so-called Combat as War as dispassionately as you play a board game, and secondly when the rules of the game break the immersion because of unrealistic limits. With softer limits the places people rub up against the rules and the DM that positively encourage them to use whatever they can are a lot less present.
[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], the judicial system is set up to deal with jerks. I try not to play with jerks at my table. And the stakes are comparatively minor.

 

[Imaro]

Part of the answer is that a world made up of half a dozen different visions all working together is a whole lot more vibrant.

Some might say the world ends up being more chaotic and less coherent...

Part of it is that advocacy for character normally happens in two situations - firstly when someone is not immersed because they are playing so-called Combat as War as dispassionately as you play a board game,

This is quite frankly bull... immersion and boardgame play have nothing to do with advocating for one's character, ultimately D&D is a game with a goal (even if it's just to have fun)... if you have the most fun when your character stays alive, succeeds, etc... what does that have to do with whether you are immersed or not? In the same vein what does playing combat in a boardgame like fashion (and let's not pretend like you can't play either the war or sport style in a boardgame like fashion) have to do with advocating for your character?

It's like the old claim that you can't both want to create the most powerful character you can and still be concerned with roleplaying your character well. Right now I feel like you're just creating crackpot theories about the way others play and think to justify your own particular preferences as somehow superior...

and secondly when the rules of the game break the immersion because of unrealistic limits. With softer limits the places people rub up against the rules and the DM that positively encourage them to use whatever they can are a lot less present.

I'm not even 100% certain what you're trying to say here... Ultimately the rules are supposed to provide limits, whether one considers them "unrealistic" (for whatever definition you mean here) is a totally subjective thing. Again this just seems a long winded way of you stating your particular preferences and then trying to justify it by putting down the preferences of others. just say you prefer something and leave all the minor league psycho-babble about others out of it. I may not agree with what you prefer but I can at least respect it then.

@Sadras, the judicial system is set up to deal with jerks. I try not to play with jerks at my table. And the stakes are comparatively minor.

Nice generalization...

 

[LostSoul]

I always find this claim... what's the word I'm looking for... suspect. I expect a player to advocate for his character in a game like D&D, why shouldn't he, especially if his character could die... and if I give him tools to use, why wouldn't he take advantage of them?

I agree with you here; this is why I don't use player authorship in my game as a general rule.

This is quite frankly bull... immersion and boardgame play have nothing to do with advocating for one's character, ultimately D&D is a game with a goal (even if it's just to have fun)... if you have the most fun when your character stays alive, succeeds, etc... what does that have to do with whether you are immersed or not? In the same vein what does playing combat in a boardgame like fashion (and let's not pretend like you can't play either the war or sport style in a boardgame like fashion) have to do with advocating for your character?

It's like the old claim that you can't both want to create the most powerful character you can and still be concerned with roleplaying your character well. Right now I feel like you're just creating crackpot theories about the way others play and think to justify your own particular preferences as somehow superior...

I'm not sure I agree here. I think there can be a tension between immersion (whatever that means! it's a fuzzy term) and advocating for your character. I don't think there must be, but some rules can get in the way. For me, personally, I have strange requirements for immersion in combat situations (I think, based on what I've read), and typical D&D combat brings me out of it. For me there's a tension in combat between advocating for my character and immersion there. (I can go into more detail about why that is if you're interested.)

 

[Bluenose]

The archer has always been a fighter in D&D, and I think dexterity was always valued a little higher than constitution because the better your armor class the fewer hits overall you'd receive. That would make more difference in the long run than a few more hit points.

Archer isn't a Role in the sense it was used in 4e or in MMOs or in wargames or any of the other places it's used. Ranged damage dealer probably qualifies as a role. And that's certainly not restricted to fighters. The point of Roles is that they describe what sort of things you do when compared to other Roles, rather than how you do them.