Players choose what their PCs do . . .

generic · Jul 14, 2019

pemerton said:
(1) This thread is in general RPG. Not D&D. There's a reason for that.

(2) I'm not saying that players should or shouldn't do anything in every system. The OP invites discussion about various ways in which true descriptions of PC actions might be established. The current discussion has moved on a bit from that, to also talk about how true descriptions of PC choices, PC emotional states, etc might be established.

(3) If someone's answer to the questions posed in the OP is the way D&D does it, end of story then they're welcome not to participat in the thread. If they're going to make ungrounded assertions that nothing else is really possible, well that's not very helpful either and is fair game for clarification or correction.

(4) The most interesting thing for me at the moment - obviously I can't speak for others - is what are the necessary conditions for a genuine challenge to character concept? This is what @Ovinomancer and I have disagreed about - I believe without undue acrimony! I would be very interested to hear what @Campbell, @chaochou and/or @Aldarc thinks about it, should they care to weigh in. (Of course it's their prerogatibe not to.) My own views on this are heavily influenced by a certain conception of GM role in terms of framing scenes that put players under pressure by putting things that matter to the PC at stake. I don't know Exalted at all except from Campbell's accounts in this and other threads; and my experience with PbtA games is fairly limited, although I know the rulesets for DW and AW fairly well.

Yes...

But I'm not making ungrounded assertions. I specifically said that Burning Wheel is fun, but not the average experience. This is not ungrounded, it is, in fact, grounded by any statistical study on RPGs you can find.

My point was not that you are a wrongfunnotmywaydonogooder, but that D&D is (though not necessarily should be) the baseline assumption. If we can't argue from a base of some sort, then there is no argument.

FrogReaver · Jul 14, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
In the absence of rules, how do you determine what’s cheating?

If the rules state that a character decision is entirely up to the player, then how can there be a preferred choice?

I mean, in most situations, I’d expect a player to pick whatever he wanted and then justify that choice in any way he felt was suitable. If he’s the sole authority on what his character thinks or feels, then how can a GM or any other participant decide that a choice he’s made is cheating?

It all seems very self-contradictory, no?

@chaochou obviously feels always choosing what's expedient is not a good way to play. I happen to agree with him on that as I believe you do as well. The overall point is that the playstyle I suggest doesn't lead to that unless a player ignores their character conceptualization.

You are way to hung up on my definition of always choosing what's expedient as cheating.

Tony Vargas · Jul 14, 2019

pemerton said:
The most interesting thing for me at the moment - is what are the necessary conditions for a genuine challenge to character concept?

Brief side observation/perspective: Even just being able to model a valid genre character concept is still a challenge RPGs aren't exactly all up to, even though some have been doing it for a long time.

FrogReaver said:
I think the best way to address that is to ask, what character from such a system can't be played identically in a D&D type system (assuming same overall setting etc).
...
Anyways, Since D&D largely leaves personality free form, then all the personalities allowable in exalted are available in D&D and all the ones not allowable in it are as well.

Even if that were true (D&D class & alignment, among other things, do put constraints on PC personality), it wouldn't be comparing Exalted to D&D, but Exalted to freestyle RP.

hawkeyefan · Jul 14, 2019

FrogReaver said:
@chaochou obviously feels always choosing what's expedient is not a good way to play. I happen to agree with him on that as I believe you do as well. The overall point is that the playstyle I suggest doesn't lead to that unless a player ignores their character conceptualization.

You are way to hung up on my definition of always choosing what's expedient as cheating.

I’m questioning your definition because I don’t know how it works. I can’t comment on what [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] thinks, but I expect that it would likely depend on the system in place. He probably views things one way for Burning Wheel, and another for Blades in the Dark, and yet another for D&D.

It sounds to me like you want players to play true to their character, right? So if someone’s playing a paladin whose vows include a vow of chastity, you’d expect the player to roleplay the character accordingly. Now, he could be devoutly chaste or it could be something he struggles with...really, it’s up to the player how he decides to play it. Right?

If the above is all true, then how can you ever say a player is “cheating” in what they decide? So yeah, if the player always takes the most expedient route, always makes the easiest choice...how is this a negative?

It is simply what the player decided for their character and they are the sole authority of that character’s thoughts and feelings and decisions. How can the player ever ignore their character conceptualization when they alone can make decisions about it?

In the absence of rules of some sort, how can any decision the player makes be cheating? There are literally no rules to break.

Umbran · Jul 14, 2019

I see several signs of people getting snippy, personal, and being far more interested in being right than exploring ideas. Folks are looking dug in, defending positions rather than thinking about whether the other guy has a point.

That's a good sign that the thread's about done.

Keep it respectful, keep it constructive, or find another topic, folks.

Lanefan · Jul 14, 2019

To save quoting a bunch of recent posts and replying line by line, I'll just sum up with this:

The title of the thread - "Players choose what their PCs do" - almost sums the whole thing up before we start.

Put it instead as "Barring external pressures e.g. magic or game mechanics, players always choose what their PCs (attempt to) do and always choose what/how their PC thinks and-or feels" and we probably could have all agreed, stopped right there, and saved an awful lot of electrons from an untimely demise.

And sometimes those choices do represent challenges, be it to the PC or player or both; and sometimes choices force a challenge onto a player or PC or both. But the player still gets to choose, unless mechanics or magic get in the way, and I can't see anything even mildly controversial about that.

Aldarc · Jul 14, 2019

Maxperson said:
Your Ad Hominems bore me. Either respond to the arguments I make or don't respond to me or talk about me.

Ad Hominem? I don't care about your argument. It was a dry comment that it would not be a pemerton megathread without your usual appeal to the lexicon at some point in this discussion.

Ovinomancer · Jul 14, 2019

Aebir-Toril said:
Yes...

But I'm not making ungrounded assertions. I specifically said that Burning Wheel is fun, but not the average experience. This is not ungrounded, it is, in fact, grounded by any statistical study on RPGs you can find.

My point was not that you are a wrongfunnotmywaydonogooder, but that D&D is (though not necessarily should be) the baseline assumption. If we can't argue from a base of some sort, then there is no argument.

Why, when discussing the ways that you can do something in RPGs, should D&D be the baseline assumption? Because it's popular? That seems a silly assertion to make, that you have to assume the popular way to do something in order to talk about ways you can do something.

The base here is RPGs. D&D is a big contender -- how it does things should definitely be in-bounds. But, D&D being in-bounds doesn't mean everything else is out-of-bounds. Or that just understanding how D&D does things means you have an understanding of how it can be done. D&D does social pillar stuff very poorly. So poorly that it's either been broken (3.x diplomancers) or almost non-existent (every other edition except, maybe, 4e, and then only if you squinted and imported some non-D&D ideas). Locking the discussion into having to baseline with D&D's bad performance seems like a tremendous way to handicap any useful discussion. Let's not.

I'm happy to talk about how D&D works. I'm happy to talk about where I find it does okay, where it shines, and where I avoid because it's terrible. I'm running my weekly 5e game right now (on dinner break), and enjoying it. So, I'm obviously not hostile to D&D. I just don't believe it's the best thing since sliced bread, either -- I look at it a lot more honestly these days.

FrogReaver · Jul 14, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
I’m questioning your definition because I don’t know how it works. I can’t comment on what @chaochou thinks, but I expect that it would likely depend on the system in place. He probably views things one way for Burning Wheel, and another for Blades in the Dark, and yet another for D&D.

It sounds to me like you want players to play true to their character, right? So if someone’s playing a paladin whose vows include a vow of chastity, you’d expect the player to roleplay the character accordingly. Now, he could be devoutly chaste or it could be something he struggles with...really, it’s up to the player how he decides to play it. Right?

If the above is all true, then how can you ever say a player is “cheating” in what they decide? So yeah, if the player always takes the most expedient route, always makes the easiest choice...how is this a negative?

It is simply what the player decided for their character and they are the sole authority of that character’s thoughts and feelings and decisions. How can the player ever ignore their character conceptualization when they alone can make decisions about it?

In the absence of rules of some sort, how can any decision the player makes be cheating? There are literally no rules to break.

How about you ask the guy that suggested it was a problem to begin with... your buddy [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]

generic · Jul 14, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Why, when discussing the ways that you can do something in RPGs, should D&D be the baseline assumption? Because it's popular? That seems a silly assertion to make, that you have to assume the popular way to do something in order to talk about ways you can do something.

The base here is RPGs. D&D is a big contender -- how it does things should definitely be in-bounds. But, D&D being in-bounds doesn't mean everything else is out-of-bounds. Or that just understanding how D&D does things means you have an understanding of how it can be done. D&D does social pillar stuff very poorly. So poorly that it's either been broken (3.x diplomancers) or almost non-existent (every other edition except, maybe, 4e, and then only if you squinted and imported some non-D&D ideas). Locking the discussion into having to baseline with D&D's bad performance seems like a tremendous way to handicap any useful discussion. Let's not.

I'm happy to talk about how D&D works. I'm happy to talk about where I find it does okay, where it shines, and where I avoid because it's terrible. I'm running my weekly 5e game right now (on dinner break), and enjoying it. So, I'm obviously not hostile to D&D. I just don't believe it's the best thing since sliced bread, either -- I look at it a lot more honestly these days.

Yes, all true, but can we not have a baseline?

D&D is that baseline, and yes, because it is the most popular. Thus, the largest number of people will be able to engage in the conversation.

Other systems are great, and D&D might not be everyone's favorite system. Furthermore, it's not like I'm saying that other RPGs are doing things incorrectly, I'm merely stating that D&D should be our baseline in these discussions. I don't think D&D is perfect. In fact, it's far from it, but it is the baseline, whether you want to admit it or not.

If we attempt to address every system , there will be no place for conversation.