D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

pemerton · Nov 4, 2014

Lanefan said:
Which is pretty much the same as the DM being obligated to react whenever a player of any class uses any class mechanic; the difference being this particular mechanic-and-reaction is both much more elaborate and (perhaps fortunately) much less common.

But also, the GM has to place a warhorse, at the end of a quest, which wasn't created by the paladin. That is, using the class mechanic makes something true in the gameworld that wasn't a result of the causal agency of the PC.

Lanefan said:
This is the part that confuses me. I don't see any of this as "story gaming"; though I probably would if the player calling for the horse also designed and set the quest. Instead, I just see it as part of the game.

It's "story gaming" in the sense that the player gets to declare something true in the gameworld - namely, the existence of the warhorse - even though his/her PC didn't make it true via causal agency.

And yes, it is part of the game. That's [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point!

pemerton · Nov 4, 2014

Lanefan said:
Question for you lot: where on the story-gaming scale does it fall when a player in-character sets an adventure for one or more other characters, with the DM's approval but limited if any input?

Well, there are two ways of looking at this that I can see.

One way emphasises that it is the player character who is posing the challenge, and hence there is no exercise of authorial control by that player outside the causal agency of his/her PC.

A different way notes that suddenly it is another player who is setting the antagonism for the rest of the group, which is traditionally a GM's role.

The closest I remember coming to this sort of thing in play is when one PC hired a group of crossbowmen to kill a different PC. The player whose PC hired the crossbowmen exercised de facto authorial control at that point, in so far as he was the one who suggested the availability of mercenaries in the current ingame context and there was no reason to question this. But the crossbowmen themselves were NPCs, and I (as GM) ran them when they launched their assault on the target PC and his friends. So I don't think the player came as close to taking on the GM role as in your example.

LostSoul · Nov 4, 2014

pemerton said:
I had been assuming that we're resolving the action - "I flee" - via a single check.

Cool. (In the actual game we were in combat.) Yeah, then I don't see much value to rolling randomly for a single feature - I could also roll to see if the stairs are slippery or rotting, or if the front door was closed, or if a cat ran across the PC's path, or anything else one can imagine. The situation is abstract enough - like a "to-hit" roll in AD&D melee combat - that I think the check can handle it.

I tend to run my game at a more concrete/less abstract level, except (notably) when in the wilderness.

pemerton · Nov 4, 2014

LostSoul said:
I tend to run my game at a more concrete/less abstract level, except (notably) when in the wilderness.

Yeah, we've talked about that in the past.

4e has encouraged me to go less concrete, more abstract! (Except in combat. Hence my recurrent complaints about the skill challenge/combat interface.)

LostSoul · Nov 4, 2014

pemerton said:
Yes. Its says the GM sets the DC, and gives examples. It doesn't say that the GM first gets to decide if cheap guns are available at a good price, and if s/he decides that they're not then the check automatically fails.

The point of the skill is to give the players a (potentially risky, because illicit) pathway to getting the things they need to succeed at the sorts of adventures that Traveller (at least in its classic incarnation) encourages.

I see it's usage as the player affecting the setting directly because the player, through a successful roll, can make it true that high quality guns are available at a low price. This is not something that the character is making true.

I side with you on your take with this skill, from what I've read so far (I've neither played nor read Traveller). The PC shouldn't have any ability to determine the availability of the good they're looking for, so why then is availability tied to PC skill?

In my game I'd first make a random roll to see if such goods were available, and then make the check. This is why I have a system to determine what types of goods are available in any given settlement - if a PC wants to buy plate armour, there needs to be an "Armoursmith II" in town (they tend to show up only in larger settlements, though each settlement has one "specialist" NPC per settlement level that breaks this mould). All goods work this way - if you want to buy a shirt there needs to be a tailor in town (and there isn't in a 1st-level settlement, though you could barter with a guy for the shirt off his back).

A more obscure example of this in my D&D game was when a PC was on the moon in the citadel of Sehanine. She asked if there were any rocket ships available for purchase; I made a random roll (1-3 nope, 4-6 yes) and it turned out two were (I think I rolled a 5). She bought them both after going through some social conflict.

Mallus · Nov 4, 2014

Mark CMG said:
How would any of the posters involved in this discussion handle the following situations?

I haven't been playing along, but if you don't mind...

Scenario one:

(player declares Elminster is a buddy of theirs).

I'd say "no, he's not". My general rules regarding players adding directly to the game's fiction (outside of PC actions) is this: you can add anything that makes the game more interesting -- but you can't add direct solutions to the challenges at hand.

(this also applies to swapping-out PCs: you can always switch to a new PC of the same level, unless you're doing so specifically to overcome/defeat the current enemy or problem).

Scenario two:

("hey look, a hovercraft!").

This one's different. The hovercraft is kinda a solution to the immediate problem, but a random bar-fight isn't a big threat, so the hovercraft becomes more a "cool thing that can lead to more interesting adventures" rather than "a boring quick fix". Besides, something like a technological artifact is fully under the DM's control, it's as much a tool for me as it is the PCs.

So tl;dr version: players are free to add complications, but not solutions.

As for the integrity of the game world -- the overriding truth about a game setting, any setting, really, is that it is a kind of fiction. Made of words/published text/napkin scribbles. It's only as real as the players interest in it. And when they're telling you want they find interesting by adding their own contributions to it, you might want to listen...

The Crimson Binome · Nov 4, 2014

pemerton said:
From what you've said, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I have both been RPGing, with D&D and other games, for longer than you. That's not a reason for you to change how you play, but I think it might give you pause when you tell us that what we're doing is something deviant within the D&D framework. It's very common, and doesn't contradict anything in the rule books.

I feel like we're arguing over whether "meta-gaming is bad" or not. It's a strong preference that some people have, which was variously encouraged or discouraged depending on the edition and the product cycle.

Or maybe I'm just bothering-by-the-book, and you're suggesting the common way of skipping ahead to the fun stuff, because the other stuff is boring. I'm really not seeing where that's supported anywhere in the books, though. Even when the DM just starts with a dungeon and a town, it goes on to explain how the DM is the one responsible for building the rest of the world as necessary, without suggesting that the other players get any say in the matter.

billd91 · Nov 4, 2014

Mallus said:
(player declares Elminster is a buddy of theirs).

I'd say "no, he's not". My general rules regarding players adding directly to the game's fiction (outside of PC actions) is this: you can add anything that makes the game more interesting -- but you can't add direct solutions to the challenges at hand.

Maybe it should be: "You think he's your buddy, but really he just wants that 500 gp you owe him. Pay up now, or else."

Piratecat · Nov 4, 2014

billd91 said:
Maybe it should be: "You think he's your buddy, but really he just wants that 500 gp you owe him. Pay up now, or else."

I'd say "of course he is." In reality, "Elminster" is a warlock charlatan who plans to pin a crime on the PC. Or he's a clone. Or a simulacrum. Or a doppelgänger.

pemerton · Nov 4, 2014

LostSoul said:
I side with you on your take with this skill, from what I've read so far (I've neither played nor read Traveller). The PC shouldn't have any ability to determine the availability of the good they're looking for, so why then is availability tied to PC skill?

I had a look at how this skill is handled in MegaTraveller - the text is changed, with similar flavour text but no "player authorship" mechanics (1987, p39):

The individual is acquainted with the ways of social subculture (which tend to be simiar everywhere in human societies) and thus is capable of dealing with strangers without alienating them.

Close-knit subcultures (for example, some portions of the lower classes, trade groups such as workers, and the underworld) generally reject contact with strangers or unknown elements. Stretwise expertise allows contact for the purposes of obtaining information, hiring persons, purchasing or selling conraband or stolen goods, and other shady or borderline activities.

To initiate a gang of smugglers: Difficult

This skill works in the way that [MENTION=5]Mark[/MENTION]CMG and [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] prefer.

I think the reason for the original Traveller approach is that the game has no general, binding resolution for social conflict. So instead there is the player-authorship approach. The change in MegaTraveller seems to me consistent with the general trend towards illusionist mechanics in late-80s and 90s mainstream RPGing.

LostSoul said:
A more obscure example of this in my D&D game was when a PC was on the moon in the citadel of Sehanine. She asked if there were any rocket ships available for purchase; I made a random roll (1-3 nope, 4-6 yes) and it turned out two were (I think I rolled a 5). She bought them both after going through some social conflict.

A lot of interesting things seem to happen in your game!