What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

pemerton said:

Suppose that the players play their PCs as keeping their distance from the chamberlain, opening windows when he enters the room, etc - because the players have decided that their PCs think the chamberlain smells - while the GM, exercising his/her power to describe the environment, insists that the chamberlain doesn't smell. Whose view prevails? What is true in the fiction - does the chamberlain smell? are the PCs hallucinating? can the GM insist that the PCs in fact don't think the chamberlain smells?

The idea that each can have absolute authority over a domain - PC beliefs/feelings; the rest of the gameworld - with no possibility of contradiction isn't tenable, in my view.

Click to expand...

I think the idea here would be that the GM can insist that they don't smell anything (because there's nothing to smell), but they're free to insist that they do - so they're either hallucinating, deluded, or just teasing the guy. And, really, probably not hallucinating, but deluded, yeah, if the distinction is that hallucinations are /caused/ by something (like the ergot in the rye bread that came with your standard rations - should've sprung for the iron), while delusions are self-imposed.

This seems straight out of the Gygaxian playbook. I don't think it suits a game in which the player wants to play a PC who is embedded in the gameworld rather than a relative stranger to it.

Click to expand...

There's a bit of a traditional double-standard at play, here. OT1H, you have the ideal of Gygaxian skilled play, in which knowing that trolls can't regenerate fire damage and thus having your PC who's never seen or heard of them make with the flaming oil he's never used that way before, is just smart play - "challenging the player" to tie it back. OTOH, you have the contrary ideal that you should never use 'player knowledge' (these day we'd say "no metagaming!"), in which case you only use the knowledge the character should have - "challenging the character."
Both are pretty old-school, in spite of being inherently contradictory. The game was played very differently by different folks and/or at different times back then.

iserith said:

I think [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] establishes a good line here: The player is free to draw upon hard-won knowledge to inform how he or she has the character act. The limit is when the player is not acting in good faith and has, as you suggest above, read the module and presumably didn't tell anyone. I think a player not being forthcoming about this many people would consider rude or worse. But sometimes my players replay my one-shots to try out a different character or approach with a new party. It can work just fine even with perfect knowledge.

But anyway let's say that the player does say "earth elementals are vulnerable to thunder damage" then says he or she wants to go Ye Olde Magick Shoppe to buy some scrolls or thunderwave for the party wizard to use. You know as DM that THESE earth elementals have no particular vulnerabilities to thunder damage. Let's up the ante and say that the characters have never encountered earth elementals before. Let's go one step further and say the character is an Int-8 barbarian. What do you do here as DM? Does the character go buy the scrolls or do you invalidate the action declaration?

Click to expand...

Thinking through that scenario happening, I'd end up asking at least two questions. 1) Why is the barbarian buying scrolls that they cannot use? There are many answers, from buying them so other party members can use them to them not knowing that their barbarian can't use scrolls. Then, 2) I'd ask them why they think their character would believe the Earth Elementals to be weak to thunder damage? Now, maybe the party wizard is going to jump in and say they told the barbarian, so the barbarian could buy the scrolls, and they have studied the arcane including elementals so they should know. And I would respond, okay, maybe, let's roll Arcana since you're backstory was a conman who stole a spellbook. And so on and so forth.

The idea is a consistent fiction, as consistent as we can make it. Which includes every character suddenly being a walking encyclopedia in spite of their backgrounds.

iserith said:

That depends on the context. I don't understand the first question. The second could be done through a knowledgeable NPC, and I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to get the correct information into the PCs' hands. Not to mention - the smart play is to act on assumptions only after verifying them.

Click to expand...

You know, it is amusing to me that you keep repeating that line. "The smart play is to verify". It isn't that I don't agree with you, that is the smart play, but people don't always do the smart play. In fact, especially when it comes to verification, they rarely do.

For an IRL example, it might be smart to check that your car has gas before you try and start it. After all, someone might have siphoned it off in the night. But, I doubt almost anyone does that. Because the vast majority of the time, your car is the exact same as it was when you stopped driving it the last time. The chances your verification will turn up anything new is low, so you are likely to skip verifying.

This is why I said that unless you are changing things with some regularity, often enough that players realize anything could be different any time they sit down, then I doubt they really go out and verify much of anything.

iserith said:

That sounds like a few problems at play to me, mostly having to do with personalities and how the group deals with conflict resolution. What appears to kick things off is that the player acted on an assumption without verifying it first. But the DM bares some responsibility here as well by failing to describe these vampires as somehow distinct from others. Then there's an issue with how the players move forward on action declarations as a group and how they resolve conflicts. This can't be laid entirely at the feet of the person wanting to attack the vampires and frankly there are plenty of characters that might credibly do that even if the player knows something is off about these vampires.

This is a situation with multivariate issues. To lay it at the feet of just one thing looks a lot like confirmation bias to me.

Click to expand...

Of course there was more going on here than a single issue. There is always more going on than a single issue. But the usage of player knowledge under the assumption that anything they brought from the books was true, was part of the problem. No matter how many other things you can point to as contributing to escalating the problem, that was an aspect of it that ties directly into what we are discussing.

Celebrim said:

I'll be honest [MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION], at this point I consider you to be trolling and not even arguing in good faith. So I see no reason to continue any of the arguments we've been having.

However, I will say that I find this new element of the conversation highly ironic, since if you do believe this, then it is not me that you have an argument with but rather yourself and those that have been arguing similar view points.

Under my theory of play, all you've just said is true. Per the process of play I outlined, I cannot as GM tell you that a backstory relationship regarding a loving wife which was previously established to exist, in fact is false because to do so would be impinging upon the conception of your character. While the NPC wife is external to your character, the nature of the relationship between you and that NPC once established cannot be retconned without your permission because that relationship is part of how your character is defined.

But consider that it is your own side of this argument that disagrees with that. When the "Francis the Guard" example was introduced as a valid process of play, that is to say that the player could introduce an NPC to the setting who was his best friend and insist that that NPC was present right now at this moment in the setting, the claim was made that since the setting/character line was so blurry, the correct and proper response by the GM to the player introducing an NPC to the setting in the middle of an encounter or situation was for the GM to invent that the best friend now held some grudge against the PC on account of some thing that the player had done the past that the GM could now impose on the player. In other words, it was argued that sure, the player can impose things on the setting, but in turn the GM can (and ought) impose facts about the player's character on the player, up to and including changing the fundamental relationship between the PC and NPCs as the player understood them.

How can you not see not only how dysfunctional that is, but how obviously both sides are crossing a not so blurry line, how the ends of this argument actually contradict your claims about it, and how contrived these claims are?

Fundamentally, you cannot introduce a backstory without the GMs permission. You may correctly observe that this means you cannot play a particular character without the GMs permission, and that is true, but even though this is so, this does not mean that the GM can play your character. Typically players create a backstory in good faith, and the GMs validate it as a reasonable backstory and therefore expresses facts that are true within the setting. Occasionally a GM may ask the player to make tweaks to better fit the setting, and the player can either except these tweaks or come up with a different backstory entirely. Very very rarely, a player might introduce a backstory that cannot at all be validated by the GM because it is totally at odds with the setting or else is obviously a bad faith attempt to unfairly hog the spotlight that ought to justly be shared equally by all players, but generally this indicates a problem player, or a player who is completely new to the setting, and isn't something that happens a lot with long running groups. In the case of your otherwise generic and simple background for your Paladin, in most cases I'd expect a GM to validate that, but if the GM was planning to run a game in a setting like Ravenloft or Midnight, he'd be well in his rights to tell you, "In this setting, towns like Mayberry don't really exist. At best, if you insist on playing a character that believes that they are from Mayberry, you have to understand that the character is in some fashion deluded and his beliefs regarding his hometown and the relationships in it are false."

Now, I will say that 30 years ago as a teenage DM I used to think that a GM had no right to tell a player what to play, and I would have probably had to have been convinced that that wasn't true if someone made that claim. But I had in my head at the time a very simplistic idea of character, and I would have been defending a proposition like, "The DM can't force the player to play a LG cleric." and defending a proposition like, "The player should be allowed to make their own character." And while I still might defend those propositions, I now realize that in a healthy game the DM can't approve every character that a player might create. Yes, the DM can and ought to try to accommodate the players wishes regarding his character as far as is possible, but there are some concepts for a character that will sooner or later (and usually sooner) result in dysfunction and a less than enjoyable experience for all parties.

Click to expand...

I wonder why I keep getting accused of not arguing in good faith. I read what people post. I try and see where their arguments do not align with what is either being said or what is trying to be expressed. I point it out and try and put forth my position. I make no attacks. I make no appeals to authority. I try and avoid every logical fallacy I can.

And the longer the conversation drags on, the more likely it is people say that I am trolling and not arguing in good faith.


It might be that it occurs because these forums drag conversations on for days and weeks at a time and people get lost down rabbit holes of their own arguments.

Because I never agreed that Francis the Guard should be at the gate. I did call people out who claim players have "absolute authority" over their characters thoughts and actions, yet decried Francis the Guard as a step too far. But, interestingly, I have never gotten an answer to the follow up of Francis not being at the gate. Does Francis exist within the city?

My entire goal in this thread is to figure out the consistency, if there is "Absolute Authority" of a player over their character, then there are things that should not be true.

Like, for example, you pointing out that a DM could tell a player they cannot play a LG Cleric. I think you are right. A DM can tell a player that, hopefully with good reasons and not just "I hate the gods" since a DM should try and work with players whenever possible.

However, the player can also tell the DM, that this is the hometown they grew up in. Now, a DM could again, deny them that and tell them it doesn't fit, and I agree with that. If the player is setting up something that doesn't fit with the setting, then DM is perfectly within their rights to tell them to come up with something else, maybe work with them to find a way to fit it.

And we can come up with examples of players declaring things, choosing things, or trying to create things within the shared universe of the table, and the DM could deny any and all of those, especially those that do not fit within the shared vision of the table.

Now, why are a PCs thoughts and actions different? If a player declares a character's belief or action that is too far out of alignment with the tone and setting at the table, why can the DM not exercise the same authority they have been exercising every step of the way and say "No, that doesn't make any sense"? I'm not saying they should, I'm not saying it will be common, I'll even say that the list of things a DM might say no to in this case is microscopic while the list of things they'd say yes to is macroscopic in the extreme.

This ties back into your "playground cops and robbers" problem. While I will say I think that sharing many things and being respectful of staying within the fiction means that it will appear as though no one has the authority, and that is the ideal situation. Ideally, the DM and the player work together. But the DM has the final say on everything.

Why then have I been arguing about Francis the Guard? Because the people I have been arguing with have claimed both that Player's have absolute authority over their characters and that those players do not have the authority to create Francis somewhere within the town. But, if the player has absolute authority over the character, then they have absolute authority over the character's background, and therefore they have absolute authority over the creation of NPCs that tie to that background. Because absolute authority is absolute.

So, if a player does not have absolute authority over their background, then they do not have absolute authority over their character. Without absolute authority over their character, then it is possible for the DM to exercise their authority over that character.

Because absolute authority is absolute.

Chaosmancer said:

Thinking through that scenario happening, I'd end up asking at least two questions. 1) Why is the barbarian buying scrolls that they cannot use? There are many answers, from buying them so other party members can use them to them not knowing that their barbarian can't use scrolls. Then, 2) I'd ask them why they think their character would believe the Earth Elementals to be weak to thunder damage? Now, maybe the party wizard is going to jump in and say they told the barbarian, so the barbarian could buy the scrolls, and they have studied the arcane including elementals so they should know. And I would respond, okay, maybe, let's roll Arcana since you're backstory was a conman who stole a spellbook. And so on and so forth.

The idea is a consistent fiction, as consistent as we can make it. Which includes every character suddenly being a walking encyclopedia in spite of their backgrounds.

Click to expand...

What is the Arcana check for? I don't see an action declaration from the wizard in your breakdown.

Chaosmancer said:

You know, it is amusing to me that you keep repeating that line. "The smart play is to verify". It isn't that I don't agree with you, that is the smart play, but people don't always do the smart play. In fact, especially when it comes to verification, they rarely do.

Click to expand...

That's not the DM's problem. It's up to the players to play their characters effectively.

Chaosmancer said:

For an IRL example, it might be smart to check that your car has gas before you try and start it. After all, someone might have siphoned it off in the night. But, I doubt almost anyone does that. Because the vast majority of the time, your car is the exact same as it was when you stopped driving it the last time. The chances your verification will turn up anything new is low, so you are likely to skip verifying.

Click to expand...

My car doesn't use gasoline. That is the smart play.

Chaosmancer said:

This is why I said that unless you are changing things with some regularity, often enough that players realize anything could be different any time they sit down, then I doubt they really go out and verify much of anything.

Click to expand...

My players do because they have an incentive to. As an example from my current Eberron campaign, the players found a chamber in the dungeon containing crates covered in brown mold. I telegraphed an unusual chill in the adjoining chamber. A couple of characters ran afoul of it and took a bit of cold damage when they kicked down the door to said chamber. Everyone in my group is an experienced player. They knew this was brown mold and how to do deal with it (cold damage) and how not to use fire on it. But, they know that I change things up from time to time and, with the wizard having no cold-damage cantrips and only one spell slot remaining, they could not take any risks on this.

So the wizard used mage hand to collect a small sample of the brown mold, not enough to do damage to anyone, with a test tube. He handed it off to the warforged fighter who has integrated alchemist's supplies. Ten minutes of testing and analysis, a wandering monster check (no wanderer), and a successful Intelligence (Alchemist's Supplies) check later, they verified it was brown mold. The wizard cast an ice knife spell, destroyed the brown mold, and they were able to obtain the schema they were seeking to complete their quest.

The players chose to play effectively. All I had to do was describe the environment and narrate the results of the adventurers' actions.

Chaosmancer said:

Of course there was more going on here than a single issue. There is always more going on than a single issue. But the usage of player knowledge under the assumption that anything they brought from the books was true, was part of the problem. No matter how many other things you can point to as contributing to escalating the problem, that was an aspect of it that ties directly into what we are discussing.

Click to expand...

Yes, the player would have been better served trying to verify his assumptions before acting upon them. But based on the details you provided, this was a minor issue compared to how the group resolves conflict in my view. This wouldn't have been an issue in my group for many reasons.

Chaosmancer said:

I wonder why I keep getting accused of not arguing in good faith.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for any one else, but for my part its because I repeat the same things over and over and they just bounce off. I have a hard time believing that you aren't at this point able to answer your own questions. I mean just considering what you've now posted, the answers to your own questions are present if you are willing to see them. I admit I have weird pet peeves and my social-emotional framework doesn't well align with the rest of the human race, but honestly if you made attacks and cast open aspirations or said "You make me so angry", it would be less frustrating to me and more understandable than what you are doing.

I'm going to respond somewhat out of order. I'm not deliberately trying to misconstrue you in anyway by doing so. I just want to point out how disconnected from itself your argument becomes as it develops.

My entire goal in this thread is to figure out the consistency, if there is "Absolute Authority" of a player over their character, then there are things that should not be true.

Click to expand...

Ok, let's go with that. I agree that player's have "absolute authority" over their characters, and as a result that there are things that implies should and should not be true.

But what does that "absolute authority" mean? What does it look like? When people use the term, what are they saying? Well, you know the answer for that yourself, because you say it:

I did call people out who claim players have "absolute authority" over their characters thoughts and actions...

Click to expand...

So you know already well what people meant. You have no misunderstanding as to what there position is when you decide to "call it out".

So how is it that your point of contention is:

But, if the player has absolute authority over the character, then they have absolute authority over the character's background...

Click to expand...

How is it that when you've well understood that people were saying "players have absolute authority over their character's thoughts and actions" that you've now added to that something of your own invention in order to condemn their position as illogical, namely that the players also have absolute authority over the character's background, and by which you mean something that they never said, that they also have absolute authority to create any background that they like at any time in the game?

Because I never agreed that Francis the Guard should be at the gate. I did call people out who claim players have "absolute authority" over their characters thoughts and actions, yet decried Francis the Guard as a step too far. But, interestingly, I have never gotten an answer to the follow up of Francis not being at the gate. Does Francis exist within the city?

Click to expand...

So why is it surprising that someone who you admit said "players have "absolute authority" over their characters thoughts and actions" should think that absolute authority over their background is a step too far? And further, in the Francis example, we have gone even one step further past claiming that the player has absolute authority over their background, and are now asserting that the background has absolute authority over the setting.

Why should it even be confusing that someone who only started from the proposition "players have absolute authority over their characters thoughts and actions", should not able to answer your question regarding whether Francis exists in the city? After all, even if someone did assert that players had absolute authority over their background, that would only mean that the player could assert that Francis existed sometime in the city in the past. You could not assert on the basis of your authority over background, that now in the present Francis is still alive, still in the city, and still serving in the guard. All of those things could have changed between the point you asserted Francis had existed and the present moment in game, and regardless of your absolute authority over background you could not decide those things without absolute authority over the setting. So of course people can't answer your question in any general way or give you any other answer but "Maybe."

And remember, these people by your own admission never began by asserting players had absolute authority over their background in the first place.

In point of fact, while I've asserted that players do have a sort of absolute authority over their background, I asserted that only in the sense that a player character's background is inviolable. That is to say, a player may absolutely refuse any other participant's suggestion to alter their background. A GM cannot force a player to have a backstory they don't want. A player can say, "Mess with me. I want to have complications and drama because that's the sort of game I want to play.", and thereby give the GM permission to introduce backstory elements. But a player can also say, "My backstory is meant only to serve as backstory, and I only want my character to evolve through forestory, and not by making unwanted revelations about his past." All that is fine, but it is also very different from the assertion that a player has an absolute right to introduce backstory, much less that having introduced backstory, he has some absolute right to insist that present situations conform to his desires and expectations. Even if the player's relationship to Francis is inviolable and even if their is a table agreement to be "hands off" with respect to Francis, such a social contract does not mean Francis is here now in the present. The GM, being absolutely in charge of the setting, could say, "This guard isn't Francis. The Guard says, "So you're a friend of Francis? Yeah, he has the night watch tonight. I'm Robert. We agreed to switch because I'm going to see a lovely little lady tonight at the festival.", or any number of other things. Francis is after all, an NPC, whether he's in your backstory or not.

Now, why are a PCs thoughts and actions different? If a player declares a character's belief or action that is too far out of alignment with the tone and setting at the table, why can the DM not exercise the same authority they have been exercising every step of the way and say "No, that doesn't make any sense"? I'm not saying they should, I'm not saying it will be common, I'll even say that the list of things a DM might say no to in this case is microscopic while the list of things they'd say yes to is macroscopic in the extreme.

Click to expand...

In point of fact, the GM could say that. The GM could for example overrule a character whose IC motivation is to kill the other members of the party, or could overrule a character whose concept is that he's working for the bad guys. I'm not saying a GM should always do that, but it takes an extraordinarily mature group to deal with that in a cooperative fashion.

And this is a good segue into the problem of, "If you are saying that a player has absolute authority over their character and the GM has absolute authority over the setting, aren't there going to be issues in a backstory that equally involve both character and setting? How do you resolve the issue of conflicting desires of two parties with absolute authority? How can the both have absolute authority in that situation?" And the answer is the sort of authority both have in that situation is of the inviolable sort. They both have a right to be obdurate immovable objects. The GM is under no obligation to accept a backstory that implies setting changes he doesn't want, and the player is under no obligation to accept a backstory that implies character changes he doesn't want. As neither can force the other to budge, either the status quo prevails or else they negotiate some agreement between each other.

In my game, the player writes a background and submits it for approval. Once I approve it, it becomes real and the implications are adopted into the setting. Depending on what the player wrote, that can profoundly shape the setting in ways I didn't consider or expect. But as long as it is reasonable, adds to the setting rather than detracts from it, and doesn't seem to be an attempt to outshine the other players in either participation, authority, or control over the narrative, I'll probably agree. But I cannot be made to agree, any more than I can write a background for the player and say, "This is you, like it or not."

I do not think that, provide we apply "absolute" to the right ideas of what a player or GMs authority is, that it is an improper modifier. With respect to what we've said is the rights and privileges, those rights and privileges are absolute. The problem or confusion comes when you start inventing rights and privileges that were never under discussion and then claiming that the modifier implies those rights and privileges. But that is illogical and uncivil.

For example, if I said, "The player has an absolute right to play their character.", and you said, "Well that means that if the character proposes to leap the Atlantic Ocean, you have to allow that regardless of what is on their character sheet, or else you are interfering with their right to play their character.", at most I ought to have to say, "Their character can't leap the Atlantic Ocean. That isn't the character they agreed to play and/or designed for themselves. Leaping the Atlantic Ocean isn't part of their character." If you responded then, "But you said they could play their character any way that they wanted!!!", I'd be inclined to think you weren't serious.

"Okay, but can I jump the Arctic Ocean? It's smaller, and the colder air lets me jump farther."

iserith said:

"Social contract" exists as what the DMG calls "table rules" which are not the rules of the game. These will vary from table to table.

Click to expand...

IDK. The rules of the game probably wouldn't function too well without certain assumptions in that social contract. Change the rules or change the contract, so long as you to get them working together at that table.

I don't imagine the rules contemplate a situation where the DM isn't performing his or her role properly, being a text on how to play the game in its respective roles.

Click to expand...

So you do imagine the rules assume perfection from the DM?
That's fair, actually. While the DM won't be perfect, he is presumably good enough for his group.

I still think that those who believe the player has a right to declare fiction outside of the character during play have a lot of work ahead of them to show any rules support for their position. It's just not there in this game like it may be in other games. (And to repeat what appears to be a necessary refrain lest I be attacked by others for not doing so, people can play how they like regardless of what the rules say.)

Click to expand...

Rules that say you must play in that way are certainly lacking, as are rules that explicitly say you can't.
The rules /do/ give the DM a great deal of latitude in how he runs his game and what he expects from the players. You can, as DM accept an action declarations that includes a declaration of fiction outside the character, or even reward (with inspiration perhaps) or require such, if that works for you. There's no rules being changed or added, to do so, it's just a matter of the convention of what an action declaration is at the DM's table.

In that sense 5e supports both these very different styles under discussion. Which was kinda the point (ok, a point) of writing rules in natural language and actively promoting DM Empowerment.

Tony Vargas said:

So you do imagine the rules assume perfection from the DM?
That's fair, actually. Well the DM won't be perfect, he is presumably good enough for his group.

Click to expand...

No. He's saying the rules expect the DM is performing his own role, and letting the players perform theirs.

Kinda like how the rules of 8 ball assume you're not taking your opponent's shots, or the rules of Euchre expect that you're not playing your partner's or opponents' hands, etc etc etc.

Tony Vargas said:

So you do imagine the rules assume perfection from the DM?

Click to expand...

No more than anyone should expect me to perfectly execute the approach I use and discuss here on enworld, especially after three or more Jamesons. But I know what I'm supposed to be doing per the rules and I try.

Tony Vargas said:

Rules that say you must play in that way are certainly lacking, as are rules that explicitly say you can't.
The rules /do/ give the DM a great deal of latitude in how he runs his game and what he expects from the players. You can, as DM accept an action declarations that includes a declaration of fiction outside the character, or even reward (with inspiration perhaps) or require such, if that works for you. There's no rules being changed or added, to do so, it's just a matter of the convention of what an action declaration is at the DM's table.

In that sense 5e supports both these very different styles under discussion. Which was kinda the point (ok, a point) of writing rules in natural language and actively promoting DM Empowerment.

Click to expand...

A lot of words to say "People can play how they want." Which is and has never been in dispute. But if you want to say the rules support players establishing fiction outside their character without the approval of the DM, good luck finding them.

iserith said:

No more than anyone should expect me to perfectly execute the approach I use and discuss here on enworld, especially after three or more Jamesons. But I know what I'm supposed to be doing per the rules and I try.

Click to expand...

So, yes, you imagine that the rules assume perfection on the part of the DM. It's OK. That's how I see it, too. Afterall, if they're not working from that assumption, they'd have to put checks on the DM's role which would set the rules above the DM rather than vice-versa. It's maybe not the best way of saying - like I said 'trusting the DM' is a more tactful way of putting it than 'assuming perfection.'

Perhaps another way of putting it is that the rules assume the DM will have a better chance of knowing/implementing what's best for his group, specifically, than the designers would.

A lot of words to say "People can play how they want." Which is and has never been in dispute.

Click to expand...

To say that the game is actually down with that. I mean, people /can/ play any ed, or any game, however they want, that's not really saying much.

But if you want to say the rules support players establishing fiction outside their character without the approval of the DM, good luck finding them.

Click to expand...

The rules do support the DM in allowing/encouraging/requiring (or disallowing/punishing/banning) his players establishing fiction outside their character. The same rules that support goal + method. In the sense of 'support' that is little more than "leave plenty of room for the DM to run that way if he likes."
But, no, you're not going to find rules allowing players to do /anything/ without at least tacit approval of the DM - since the DM's role includes that of final arbiter.

Tony Vargas said:

So, yes, you imagine that the rules assume perfection on the part of the DM. It's OK. That's how I see it, too. Afterall, if they're not working from that assumption, they'd have to put checks on the DM's role which would set the rules above the DM rather than vice-versa. It's maybe not the best way of saying - like I said 'trusting the DM' is a more tactful way of putting it than 'assuming perfection.'

Perhaps another way of putting it is that the rules assume the DM will have a better chance of knowing/implementing what's best for his group, specifically, than the designers would.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what your goal is with this.

Tony Vargas said:

To say that the game is actually down with that. I mean, people /can/ play any ed, or any game, however they want, that's not really saying much.

Click to expand...

And yet here we are saying it.

Tony Vargas said:

But, no, you're not going to find rules allowing players to do /anything/ without at least tacit approval of the DM - since the DM's role includes that of final arbiter.

Click to expand...

Except determine what their characters do, think, and say.