Players choose what their PCs do . . .

Lanefan said:

This to me is a false premise, in that not all (or even all that many) challenges need only have two clear mutually-exclusive outcomes to still be defined as challenges. Outcomes often run on a scale, with highly-desireable at one end and highly-undesireable at the other and a whole lot of other options in between.

Which is fine provided it's done within the framework of the game mechanics. An NPC charms or dominates my character? Cool - I can run with that.

But if the GM declares my PC's actions or thoughts by fiat then at that point I think (at least 98% of the time) I've probably got a bad GM.

Click to expand...

True enough, but they are still operating within the rules of many RPGs, due to the ability to change the rules on a whim.

Lanefan said:

As long as you-the-player retain control over declaring the attempted action, this doesn't conflict with what I said...though again it probably points to a bad GM unless there is in the fiction some difficulty in walking e.g. on an icy slope.

And the player can decide what and how the character thinks, and what its emotions are, unless that control has been removed as above.

To me the latter two of those three are concatenated: the GM gains control only when the mechanics allow her to.

Click to expand...

THe default for many games, "The GM can change the rules on a whim," (not quite word for word, but expressed cogently in AD&D, both editions) means that the GM can literally justify any imposition. The only firm rule in AD&D is that the GM can alter the rules as they see fit.

I much prefer Burning Wheel's Rule 0... "Don't be a dick." (word for word.) Which said, BW is explicit about the attempt portion; it also requires players to state the method and the intent... at least outside combat... and to agree before rolling on the outcome.

aramis erak said:

True enough, but they are still operating within the rules of many RPGs, due to the ability to change the rules on a whim.

THe default for many games, "The GM can change the rules on a whim," (not quite word for word, but expressed cogently in AD&D, both editions) means that the GM can literally justify any imposition. The only firm rule in AD&D is that the GM can alter the rules as they see fit.

Click to expand...

Technically true, though the 1e DMG also in various places says - in flowery Gygaxian prose, of course - the much-more-to-the-point Burning Wheel edict you quote below.

It also suggests (more than once, I think!) that rule changes be carefully thought through before implementation, wich rather goes against the notion of changing rules on a whim.

I much prefer Burning Wheel's Rule 0... "Don't be a dick." (word for word.) Which said, BW is explicit about the attempt portion; it also requires players to state the method and the intent... at least outside combat... and to agree before rolling on the outcome.

Click to expand...

In general this is fine - 'don't be a dick' sums up about ten pages of the 1e DMG into 4 words.

The only problem I have with the rest as an overarching rule is that it by forcing agreement on possible outcomes before rolling it straitjackets the GM (and the player, to some extent) into a much narrower field of possible results, particularly on a success. Most of the time this won't matter - the action and intent and possible outcomes are rather obvious - but sometimes it's nice to be able to introduce a success outcome that isn't necessarily what the player/PC had in mind. A simple (and probably not stellar) example of such:

Player: I carefully open the desk drawer and, disturbing as little as I can, search for any financial records that might help prove the Duke is receiving payments from Southtor (an enemy state). (GM nods; player rolls well into the success range)
GM: Well, there don't appear to be any financial records or ledgers here at all but in a corner of the drawer you do find a seal and some wax; and the pattern on the seal is the twin dragons of Southtor.

So, search for one thing, find another just as good that the GM introduced just for fun.

For the record, I'm ok with a GM editing my backstory. Or telling me my memories of it were implanted. Or whatever. The GM is allowed to tell me what happened to...what was imposed externally on...my character.

Just don't try to tell me how my character feels about it.

Ovinomancer said:

This is why the baseline argument fails -- D&D is a specific model, not a general one. You can't logically argue from the specific to the general. This is amplified in cases where the model is of poor skill, such as D&D and social skills. As I said before, the D&D way is akready endlessly argued from within the ruleset, so hiw can it be an effective model for general discussion.

Click to expand...

It's Sisyphean, but starting with the familiar concepts of D&D, and explaining the broader alternatives in those terms, would be using it as a baseline, but not assuming it as the only thing.

Maybe?

This, frankly, smells of "but if you just agree with me upfront, you'll see that you agree with me."

Click to expand...

There's some of that in "if you'd just master this other system and accept it's paradigm, you'd understand..."

pemerton said:

This is an interesting question - in general, and about D&D play: To what extent is the GM permitted to rewrite player-authored PC backstory by drawing upon a combination of (i) situation and stakes and (ii) failed checks.
In BW (for instance) I think this is fair game. The only version of D&D I can think of able to handle this is 4e. I don't really see how it would be done in AD&D. And from what your saying it's not really feasible in 5e.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I can't see it by those mechanisms. Arbitrarily, though, sure. Your character could always believe he was the son of a navigator on a spice freighter, only to find out later...

Ovinomancer said:

I think that the default for D&D is that the GM can ask the player for a change to the mental state of the PC. I think this is important to D&D because the GM enjoys broad authority to directly change the PC's physical state, and has control over the fictional positioning at all times. Therefore, this narrow player authority is both important and essentially the third rail of D&D.

Click to expand...

This feels like kinda a new idea to me. In the WotC era, until 5e, the privilege of the DM was being challenged. In 5e, it's restored.

So I can see how, from other WotC eds, to 5e, the idea might have evolved that the agency left to the player is decisions, and that implies 'mental state' (except magic, as always), and that must be sacred, because it's the last little sliver of agency they have left...

But, IMX of old-school D&D, the DM would often feel fine trampling all over your character's backstory, mental state, decisions and whatever else. You have an alignment, you must act accordingly. You're an Elf, you have to hate orcs. You would never use that, because of your class. Etc...

Agency? If you want to work for "The Agency" play Top Secret.

I agree 4e opened the door through the vague nature of skill challenges to alter this, both by giving players the ability to encroach into fictional authorities and the GM into PC mental authorities.

Click to expand...

Any number of class and monster powers also did that sort of thing in little ways (often abstracted as something as simple as forced movement).

Lanefan said:

To me I'd say it comes down to whether or not the player has already come up wth a viable backstory. If yes, I'd say the GM (and by extension the game) is largely expected to leave it intact - or at least not subtract from it or overly alter it - though nothing stops her from adding to it in ways consistent with what's already there. For example, if in my character's backstory I have her serving a tour of duty with the 14th Legion before she started adventuring (assuming such makes sense in the setting) then the serving of that tour is locked in; but the GM is free to fill in details of what her unit did during that time, what her commanders and-or inferiors were like, what the general troop morale was, and so forth.

But if the player hasn't come up with a backstory, or only the most bare-bones version of one - a common enough case in old-school D&D where characters weren't always expected to last very long - then the GM is free to fill in any level of details as needed. Some players even prefer this, and are quite willing to trust the GM to fill in those blanks if and when required for the story.

Click to expand...

This is congruent with the way most of my groups handle it. As GM, I wouldn't invalidate a character's preexisting (and pre-approved) backstory. Despite not playing much D&D these days, I still run games in the style of D&D in terms of player and GM roles. In GURPS, these sorts of things come up when characters succumb to disadvantages that create conflicts with their goals or other advantages or disadvantages. For example, a character's alcoholism might create a conflict with a patron or an ally or create an opening for an enemy, all of which have mechanical aspects. If one of these story elements created a situation where it might be cool to change the backstory (a false memory, etc.), I would consult with the player rather than impose it unilaterally. My groups (at least the mature, adult folks I game with, as opposed to children and teens) tend to be pretty collaborative about character stories, too. So it's common for other players to suggest new elements that are then woven in. It's not unheard of, either, for a player to declare it based on a die roll: "I'm going to make an IQ check... if I fail [or succeed, depending], I realize that my backstory has holes that don't make sense! Who am I, really?"

Lanefan said:

aramis erak said:

BW is explicit about the attempt portion; it also requires players to state the method and the intent... at least outside combat... and to agree before rolling on the outcome.

Click to expand...

The only problem I have with the rest as an overarching rule is that it by forcing agreement on possible outcomes before rolling it straitjackets the GM (and the player, to some extent) into a much narrower field of possible results, particularly on a success. Most of the time this won't matter - the action and intent and possible outcomes are rather obvious - but sometimes it's nice to be able to introduce a success outcome that isn't necessarily what the player/PC had in mind. A simple (and probably not stellar) example of such:

Player: I carefully open the desk drawer and, disturbing as little as I can, search for any financial records that might help prove the Duke is receiving payments from Southtor (an enemy state). (GM nods; player rolls well into the success range)
GM: Well, there don't appear to be any financial records or ledgers here at all but in a corner of the drawer you do find a seal and some wax; and the pattern on the seal is the twin dragons of Southtor.

So, search for one thing, find another just as good that the GM introduced just for fun.

Click to expand...

Your example doesn't show any narrowing of possible results. The scenario you describe is a possible failure narration; and it could be a success narration if that is what the player decides his/her PC searches for.

pemerton said:

Your example doesn't show any narrowing of possible results. The scenario you describe is a possible failure narration; and it could be a success narration if that is what the player decides his/her PC searches for.

Click to expand...

But, what it cannot be is a success narration if the player decided that is not what the PC searches for. IOW, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s point about narrowing possible resolutions does stand. A success can only be what the player decides.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] - if narrowing of possible resolutions = the GM being bound by the results of checks, than sure, any system other than "GM decides" will have that consequence.

But unless the dice are rigged then fails are possible, in which case fail scenarios are possible resolutions, and there is no narrowing of the range of possible resolution.

pemerton said:

[MENTION=22779]
But unless the dice are rigged then fails are possible, in which case fail scenarios are possible resolutions, and there is no narrowing of the range of possible resolution.

Click to expand...

What part of "particularly on a success" didn't connect for you? Your response to that is to note that the failure case is always infinite, so there's no narrowing at all? Really?

pemerton said:

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] - if narrowing of possible resolutions = the GM being bound by the results of checks, than sure, any system other than "GM decides" will have that consequence.

Click to expand...

Not quite, in my view.

When the roll shows 'success' the GM is bound by that to narrate a successul outcome...of some sort. This successful outcome doesn't (or at least IMO shouldn't) necessarily have to directly match what the player had in mind* as long as the narration reflects an overall success for the PC.

My example above, though not the best, tries to show this: the search doesn't find the incriminating financial records the PC was looking for but does find something else that's every bit as incriminating: the Southtor seal, which no loyal noble would normally have anything to do with. Specific goal of finding financial records: not met. Overall goal of finding incriminating evidence agains tthe Duke: met in spades.

* - though most often it will anyway, as much of the time the success-failure outcomes of a given action are fairly obvious.

But unless the dice are rigged then fails are possible, in which case fail scenarios are possible resolutions, and there is no narrowing of the range of possible resolution.

Click to expand...

This gets back to our old argument regarding what 'failure' represents; here you'd have a failure just become a different type of success, which isn't a failure at all.