D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Imaro]

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.)

I wasn't saying that this couldn't happen... I was saying I don't believe this (not being immersed) is one of "the" two reasons advocacy for one's character happens, which was what [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] claimed. What you're talking about here, the tension that advocating one's character can bring about when it comes to immersion... I have no problem accepting. I also believe that there are plenty of times where immersion in one's character and advocacy for one's character often align perfectly (or close enough not to cause tension in D&D). I think I know what you're getting at with D&D combat, but I wouldn't mind hearing more of your thoughts.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

And this is a big problem with a lot of worldbuilding. That it's far far too coherent. Look at the real world. and how it is chaotic. A coherent world is a bad thing.

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?

And this is where RPGs are weird. Especially more democratic ones that share the authority as much as possible. If I'm playing a top-down classic D&D game, my goal is to win. And random deaths are ... annoying. But some of my best experiences have come from deaths - although very seldom in D&D.

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?

First, the stakes are higher in combat as war as a boardgame, so the desire for advocacy To Win is stronger. Second where your headspace is is different.

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...

Right now I feel this is pure projection by someone who has only tried a tiny range of things and believes them to be the be all and end all and is utterly unable to grasp the idea that it is a focussed tool for a focussed job.

I am currently both running D&D (4e) and playing D&D (Pathfinder). I do not know of a single better challenge focussed RPG than D&D (there are some who would claim Luke Crane's Torchbearer). Part of the way it does this is through arbitrary rules and gamist systems like hit points that undermine immersion but provide information for the challenge while not providing negative feedback loops like hit point death spirals that make things unfun. (As you take damage you take penalties to act. Nasty negative feedback loop in a lot of RPGs).

That I respect D&D for what it does rather than arbitrarily declaring it an all singing all dancing superlative that makes the tea and cures cancer doesn't mean I dislike it. It means that I understand what the design intent was.

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.

And once more this is just a single function of the rules. Rules that provide limits are superb for challenge centred play. Arbitrary rules that provide limits that do not fit with character concepts are awful for immersion - every time you run into one it breaks immersion. Rules also have other purposes including to communicate and get on the same page, to guide towards and reinforce the character's personality (something D&D alignments are terrible at, as is the WoD Humanity system), and to evoke themes and worldbuilding (something D&D often does).

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.

And again this is pure projection by someone who appears to not understand the design of RPGs - or even why D&D is an amazing game at what it does.

 

[Imaro]

Snip... A bunch of irrelevant stuff that fails in any way to back up your original assertion... but still manages to present your preferences and opinions as some kind of fact

Do you even remember the original statement you made that was refuted? The one below...

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.

Or is the purpose now to throw thinly veiled insults out and try to impress with your self-declared understandings of rpg design and your own personal opinions about what they do or don't do well?... What games have you actually published again?

 

[Aenghus]

It's also my experience that less adversarial RPG campaigns more easily permit player collaboration. Players are less tempted to angle for advantage in their requests or conceal information from the referee, and referees feel less obligated to default to answering "no" to every player request out of concern a dangerous precedent is being sneaked in under the table.

I came close to burning out while running a fairly adversarial game of 3e. My current campaign is more collaborative and less adversarial, which reduces my workload and rations my creative limits better, and suits my current players more.

If I had more competitive, gearheaded players I would change my game to suit, (providing I kept enjoying it, I have my limits). I miss it a little sometimes, but in general prefer my current style of game. A few years ago I played in an older school game and found that while I could adapt back to that style I disliked the hypervigilance mode it triggered in me.

 

[Imaro]

It's also my experience that less adversarial RPG campaigns more easily permit player collaboration. Players are less tempted to angle for advantage in their requests or conceal information from the referee, and referees feel less obligated to default to answering "no" to every player request out of concern a dangerous precedent is being sneaked in under the table.

I came close to burning out while running a fairly adversarial game of 3e. My current campaign is more collaborative and less adversarial, which reduces my workload and rations my creative limits better, and suits my current players more.

If I had more competitive, gearheaded players I would change my game to suit, (providing I kept enjoying it, I have my limits). I miss it a little sometimes, but in general prefer my current style of game. A few years ago I played in an older school game and found that while I could adapt back to that style I disliked the hypervigilance mode it triggered in me.

This I can get behind... I think the preferred playstyle and even personalities of the participants has more to do with whether collaborative authoring or not is a good fit... as opposed to some theory about them being damaged or scarred from DM's denying them the ability to co-author the setting...

 

[BryonD]

The post to which I replied stated the following:

I then gave some instances of cases in which I, or players whom I GM, have powers that their characters do not and cannot have - namely, the power to dictate religious truths which, in D&D, include truths about the disposition of certain divine beings.

Perhaps that wasn't the sort of power that you had in mind, but given that you seemed to be intending a general attack upon the compatibility of player authorship with immersion in character, I'm not sure how I was meant to know that.

First "Attack"? This from the guy who assured me how much he would dislike being in my game (in a post in which you also specified that you didn't know much about my game, no-less)? And your buddy (who also recently pretty much the same thing) hits me with the wet streets cause rain logic of I like roughly 4 days for healing NOT because that works for me but instead because I choose to dislike 4E and the go back a decide my tastes solely to support this arbitrary and otherwise baseless lack of enjoyment of 4E. And yet you had no issue with it. But I'm on the attack because I'm insisting that A is A?

That said: in the same post you have quoted I also said: This is a much more soft narrative construct unlike the prior conversations I've engaged which were very specific to defining the physical world.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?408712-What-are-the-Roles-now/page82#ixzz3QobhAmw4

So you are now simply cherry-picking quotes of of context.

Given that these are the sorts of examples that [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] gave, they are precisely the point. And the use of the word "knowledge" causes needless confusion.

In the fiction, the PC knows the tenets of his/her religion. But at the table there typically is nothing to know - the gameworld is a fiction, with no real existence, and the bulk of things that are true within that fiction obtain that status by being authored. So when a player wants to "know" what it is that his/her PC knows, s/he can't just introspect - s/he has to make stuff up. Which is player authorship - a player authoring material that becomes part of the shared fictional content.

Again, you demonstrate this recurring 4E vocal fanbase tendency to describe how you experience the game and build your argument on the presumption that this is the one and only way that any other person or group could ever experience it.
As an object example the idea of a player running a religious character adding to the background of their religion is very much cool and encouraged. But within the context of this conversation it is critical to keep in mind that much about that religion is already known. The new information must have some reasonable fit with the established narrative and, once accepted, is part of the story for future events and even campaigns. You present this concept as if there is a blank slate at the start of every session.

The question of GM veto is also orthogonal. Nearly all RPGs that permit extensive player authorship also preserve GM veto. This is because, in anything like a traditional RPG, it is the GM who has overall custody of the gameworld and its backstory, and is responsible for making the whole thing fit into a coherent whole.

It is not remotely orthogonal. It is centralto the point that I have repeatedly made. The fact that you see it this way just goes back to your insistence on forcing your experiences and preconceived ideas of the one true way upon other people's opinions and tastes.

For the best discussion I know of this responsibility, and the relevant considerations on how it can be discharged, I recommend Luke Crane's Adventure Burner. (I think it is more insightful that FATE Core, or than anything I've read from Robin Laws.)

This is a new claim - about solving problems.

Take literally, it is always true that a player solves problems in ways that his/her PC could not - for instance, the player solves the problem by rolling dice and talking to people, whereas typically for the PC this would be ineffective.

If you mean that a player using mechanics that don't correspond to things his/her PC is doing in the fiction must break immersion in character, then I know this to be false too. And I know it to be false even if the mechanics in question are player authorship mechanics, because I have seen players use player authorship mechanics as part of action resolution without losing immersion in character. There is no simple connection between the psychological state of immersion, and the psychological process of using RPG mechanics.

And yet again, you just wildly miss the point.

You repeatedly reject the claim that you restrict players to things their characters can do. I state that a great deal of fun comes expressly from doing this. I use the word "immersion" as a way to express this point. You may very well be HIGHLY immersed in what you are doing. But you are not immersed in doing THIS THING while you are actively rejecting THIS THING. I don't care what label you accept or reject for THIS THING.

In the end, you are not engaging in conversation. You keep going back to your one true wayism and skewing my and other arguments through that misleading filter. The you go quote Chapter 7 verse 14 from some Dave Arneson letter to his niece and act like this pseudo-academic reference provides authority to your proclamations.

You don't have to give a flip about my game. But if you want to understand the marketplace and why some things are popular are some thing much less-so, and maybe even use that knowledge to increase the acceptance of things you like, then you need to start with opening your mind. Or not. But if every reply to you requires more text removing your false filters from my experience before I can even start trying to share how I get joy from the game, then you are not going to make any overall progress. Which is, of course, completely your choice.

 

[BryonD]

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.

But, to me, and I've had many conversations about good game with my group, it is a fine line with HUGE implications.

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?

I am claiming it is impossible to be immersed in something you are not doing.
As I said to you, I make no dispute in your sense of immersion in the game and narrative. I can become completely immersed in a novel. And clearly I'm not sensing the same feeling as the idea of being in character and dealing with situations using only the abilities and resources of that character. And neither is the same as playing a character but having abilities to change how a situation is resolved that their character does not have. And as I said to P, if you don't like to word "immersion" pick something else. To me it is the correct word.
It is untrue and ridiculous to claim you can be immersed in something that you are actively rejecting doing.

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.

Eh, I'm not buying the "exploiting" myself. But, trying to look at it from your point of view, that may be exactly the right word to communicate the point. The thrill of success comes from knowing this character achieved this in a way that I can vicariously say *I* achieved it as-if in his shoes. (This is not remotely the only thrill of TTRPGs, for the record ) So if you do something that you couldn't do in that guy's shoes then you have "cheated". Again, that tone doesn;t describe how I feel it, but it kinda works. The obnly thing you ahve really cheated is yourself out of the opportunity to achieve "as that guy".

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."

Interesting point. But I don't agree that this steals from the ability to solve problems "as that guy". I had not thought about it, but we did have a PC become blind for quite a few sessions several years back. I do recall a notable amount of side conversation dedicated to capturing that feel. I'd point out first that the PLAYER drove this restriction far more than I did and second that this level of micromanaging a situation was very much an outlier.

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.

I'm fairly sure this is now already covered. You are certainly immersed. But you are not immersed in anything you reject doing. Please suggest another word that adequately captures the point.

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.

Strongly agree.
But then again, I know that my players seek out this style. So I'm playing with the grain of my group. (I do tend to think that over the years my DM style has reinforced that, so maybe there is a circle here to some extent)
But this issue rarely raises it head for a moment at the table. But at the same time, the mutual understanding of it is everpresent.

On this we wholly and unequivocally agree.

 

[pemerton]

Would you agree that an AD&D fighter has decent-to-good ranged ability as a default, with options for players to make them highly effective melee specialists or alternatively into missile specialists?

I'll settle for "decent"!

I think you bring up one of my (admittedly entirely personal and subjective) issues with it, in that the mixed mode character must be a ranger, rather than a fighter, and that ranger won't have the stickiness of a fighter -- nor will he have access to chain or scale mail without a feat. (Let alone plate; any ideas why this was denied even to fighters, and given only to paladins?)

I don't think I've got any special insight, but it seems to me that the issues are around mechanical balance/effectiveness.

The paladin, by having access to plate, has a higher AC (by default) than the fighter, which helps balance the fighter's superior stickiness. As a side effect, it also helps frame the paladin as a "knight in shining armour" while the fighter, in scale, evokes more of a grim mercenary/grizzled veteran flavour.

I think balance also helps explain the ranger's non-stickiness - if the ranger could be good at mixed-mode and be sticky, that would run the risk of crowding out other options. The MP2 archer warlord is a different (leading rather than skirmishing) mixed-mode option, but also will not be very sticky.

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.

This is a strictly mathematical question.

An AD&D fighter with 17 CON has 8.5 hit points per level (on average), rather than 5.5 with no CON bonus - that is a multiple of 17/11, or half as many hit points again.

A DEX of 17 gives +3 AC - that will give a comparable increase in robustness if a 3 better AC reduces the chance to be hit by at least one-third (eg from 9 in 20 to 6 in 20).

So you're probably right - but I'm not sure that's a good design feature!

 

[Hussar]

This I can get behind... I think the preferred playstyle and even personalities of the participants has more to do with whether collaborative authoring or not is a good fit... as opposed to some theory about them being damaged or scarred from DM's denying them the ability to co-author the setting...

Going from purely personal anecdote though, my experience certainly mirrors Aenghus' and NeonC's. Once I started playing far less competitive and competitively with the players, collaborative authoring became a lot more viable and made for a far better game.

 

[pemerton]

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

But as you go on to quote, the DMG makes it clear that the PC receives a magical vision - of a horse that already exists in the gameworld.

the player isn't authoring anything... the rules of the game itself set the parameters for the "quest"

That's not in dispute, but a game like FATE sets parameters, too, for content that a player can introduce.

The point about authorship is that it is the player's choice, not the GM's, that makes this content part of the shared gameworld.

all the player does is decide when his character will undertake the quest.

No. By deciding to undertake the quest, the player also makes it true that there is a quest that is there to undertake.

Contrast the player of an AD&D thief: s/he can always declare that his/her PC goes off to find a mark to rob, but has not power to make it true, in the gameworld, that there are any marks having anything worth robbing.

Hence, the player of the thief lacks player authorship powers of the sort that the paladin player enjoys.

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.

No. Apart from anything else, the GM can declare that the map marks the end of the world. Or that there is an impassable cliff, forest or ocean.

And even if the GM decides not to do any of these things, the players have no authority over the character of what the GM introduces. The paladin player does - there must be a horse nearby in circumstances of a level-appropriate challenge.

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

Making player characters is definitely an episode of player authorship. Hence all the debates, played out on these boards month in, month out, on the authority of the GM to restrict the sorts of PCs that players may build; to veto, alter or insist on various sorts of PC backstory, etc.

These are debates about who has, or ought to have, authority to author shared content.

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

I don't think so. First, there is no universal agreement on how PC generation should work, and what the relative weight of authority is enjoyed by players and GMs.

Second, if you move beyond PC generation to actually playing the game, there is as much if not more controversy over how authority should be distributed.

It's like claiming a spell authors setting content into the world.

Not really, because the paladin character doesn't magically make the horse appear, nor the evil fighter who is guarding it.

That said, the view that spells in D&D - or, at least, spells that give players a high degree of discretion to create new content (Wish would be the poster child here) - are player authorship plus a veneer of ingame explanation is widely held.