D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[Mishihari Lord]

But, what is being "contaminated" here? The DM, before the players ask, does not know if there is a beard or not. He hasn't thought of it - a likely event. Or, even if he has thought about it, it is not established in the game. It hasn't been described yet.

It makes absolutely no difference to the integrity of the game world whether you randomly roll the presence of that beard or declare it's presence or absence based on anything else- player wishes, the phase of the moon, whatever. None of this matters the slightest whit to the game world.

Now, if you change things after they have been established in play, fair enough. I totally agree with you there.

There are players, and I've met a fair number of them, who like the game world to feel real. They want to play the game as if there's something objectively there, and not as if the world alters itself dreamlike to their activities. If you're DMing for these guys and something is decided, you should stick to it. It's what they expect and want, part of the social contract for your group. You can probably fool then once in a while as described with the beard thing, but people are pretty perceptive. Do it often and they'll catch on, and the fun goes away.

On the other hand, if your players are not like this, then knock yourself out. It's a great technique for groups that aren't concerned with the issues I described above.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

They want to play the game as if there's something objectively there, and not as if the world alters itself dreamlike to their activities.

That's a good way of putting it. The world feels more real if it's not influenced by player preference.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

That's a good way of putting it. The world feels more real if it's not influenced by player preference.

And it feels more alive if it is. It's a matter of balance.

 

[BigVanVader]

Any world that was directly influenced by what I wanted would feel about as alive as a Holodeck.

It's not a matter of 'balance', it's a matter of preference.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Any world that was directly influenced by what I wanted would feel about as alive as a Holodeck.

It's not a matter of 'balance', it's a matter of preference.

Rule number one: the DM lies. I understand where you're coming from, but the DM doesn't have to be completely straightforward about his thought process.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Rule number one: the DM lies. I understand where you're coming from, but the DM doesn't have to be completely straightforward about his thought process.

Here's a compromise, then: It's important that the narrative not feel like it's being influenced by player preference. That feeling cheapens the experience.

From a practical standpoint, appearance can be more important than substance. (From an idealism standpoint, I would also prefer that my DM not lie to me, but that might just be me.)

 

[pemerton]

after[/i] they have been established in play, fair enough. I totally agree with you there.

But, beforehand? There's nothing to contradict. There are no discrepancies in the game world.

Yes. This is what I was saying upthread.

Rolling randomly is a good way of simulating the ultimate end result of countless unknown circumstances, yes, but whim of the DM can work almost as well in most cases. DM whim, under influence of PC behavior, is just about the only way to have any sort of cross-contamination between the real world and the game world.

Most DMs that I know, when they feel that they have been biased by PC behavior, will roll randomly for such things if they should come up and it would matter.

When you say "PC behaviour" do you mean "player behaviour"?

That said, I don't follow your point under either interpretation. It seems to me that the gameworld should absolutely reflect PC behaviour, given that the PCs are active agents with causal powers in the gameworld. If the GM decides how the gameworld is independently of what the PCs have done within it, what is the point of the players even declaring actions for their PCs?

But I don't follow your point under the "players" interpretation either, because in this context the only player behaviour is asking the question "Does the NPC have a beard?" Answering yes to that question is not "being biased by player behaviour". It is responding affirmatively rather than negatively to a question from a player.

Making things more difficult for the players can actually foster more creativity. I think my players would hate it if I said yes to every idea they had.

There are players, and I've met a fair number of them, who like the game world to feel real. They want to play the game as if there's something objectively there, and not as if the world alters itself dreamlike to their activities. If you're DMing for these guys and something is decided, you should stick to it.

It's important that the narrative not feel like it's being influenced by player preference. That feeling cheapens the experience.

The experience of what?

I think there is some confusion here. All three of these posts seem to be talking about action resolution.

But the question "Does the NPC have a beard?" is not a declaration of an action. It's a question about the existing contents of the campaign world. Similar questions include things like "Are there any ashes around the edge of the fireplace?" "Is the barmaid pretty?" etc. The players are wanting the GM to tell them more about the content of the gameworld, and at least in some cases they are hoping that the answer will be X rather than Y.

"Saying yes" to such questions, thereby satisfying those hopes, is not making things easier. It is not "the world altering itself, dreamlike, to the PCs' activities". There have not yet been any activities - rather, the players are hoping that the necessary preconditions for attempting certain activities are present.

If a player has come up with a plan for his PC to sneak into the wizard's guild hiding behind a fake beard, I don't see how it is "fostering creativity" to tell the player that the wizard - whose face hitherto has not been described - is clean-shaven. That seems to me to be thwarting creativity.

By saying no, what the GM in effect does is shift the focus of play away from what the player wanted - namely, finding out whether or not the plan with the disguise works - to making the players come up with another plan. I don't see how this helps the game. (Unless you're playing Tomb of Horrors style, in which the point of the game is for the players to accommodate their plan to the pre-written backstory.) And I don't see how the player's perception of the gameworld is going to be altered, and destroyed, by having his/her hope satisfied. The player clearly wants the gameworld to be a certain way. And s/he knows that the GM has the power to make it that way, and (unless s/he is very confused about the difference between reality and authored fictions) s/he also knows that it is by means of the exercise of that power that it will or won't be made that way.

Is the player nevertheless asking the GM to interpose a random die roll between hearing the question and answering it? Is the GM allowed to fudge that die roll? Illusionism about action resolution is one thing, but illusionism about backstory generation seems to me to be a step too far. Do these same players get upset when the GM decides that the patron walks into the inn and asks their PCs to go on the MacGuffin-fetching mission without first rolling a reaction check to find out whether or not the patron likes the look of the PCs?

Deciding without a random check that the patron hires the PCs and not some NPCs, or deciding that its the PCs who are walking past the plot-hook event rather than rolling for that on a table, seem to me to be far bigger instances of the gameworld reality shaping itself to external considerations, than deciding that an NPC has a beard because a player is hoping so. Yet they are the stock-in-trade of every GM everywhere since time immemorial. No one's game has the PC's live boring, uneventful, poverty-ridden lives simply because random content generation gave all the plot hooks to the NPCs!

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I think there is some confusion here. All three of these posts seem to be talking about action resolution.

Nope, mine at least had nothing to do with action resolution.

"Saying yes" to such questions, thereby satisfying those hopes, is not making things easier. It is not "the world altering itself, dreamlike, to the PCs' activities". There have not yet been any activities - rather, the players are hoping that the necessary preconditions for attempting certain activities are present.

Maybe it will clarify my point if I note that that's not what I said. The antecedent for "their" is not "PCs" but "players."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And I don't see how the player's perception of the gameworld is going to be altered, and destroyed, by having his/her hope satisfied. The player clearly wants the gameworld to be a certain way. And s/he knows that the GM has the power to make it that way, and (unless s/he is very confused about the difference between reality and authored fictions) s/he also knows that it is by means of the exercise of that power that it will or won't be made that way.

I was going to pick apart what you said on an instance-by-instance basis, but this really cuts to the crux of it.

The player may want something, but it is hollow to be given that thing just because you want it. There is no sense of accomplishment in carrying out a plan that was set up for you, where there is a sense of accomplishment in making the best of what you have. For a lot of people, the sense of accomplishment is the whole reason for playing the game. Even for those who aren't playing specifically for the opportunity to overcome challenges, the story can seem contrived and pointless when it's influenced by events outside of the narrative - the story should unfold the way it would naturally unfold, because that's the only story that matters.

Where you might see that the GM has the power to shape the narrative at will, and expect him or her to actively do so, I would see that the GM has that power, and I would trust him or her to not do so. Doing so would be a violation of the social contract.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe it will clarify my point if I note that that's not what I said. The antecedent for "their" is not "PCs" but "players."

But then even moreso I don't follow. A player asks "Does the NPC have a beard?" The GM answers "yes". How is this an instance of a world altering itself, dreamlike, to the players' activities? What has altered? And what was the activity?