D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[The Mirrorball Man]

Ideally, there is no narrative pursuit in a roleplaying game but rather character development while a story might happen to unfold.

I have been playing role-playing games for thirty years and I have never met anyone who saw things that way. I have to say that I couldn't disagree more, but it's certainly an interesting approach.

I don't want the player trying to play to the DM; I want the player to play to the game world.

It makes sense. But in what way is it better or more fun?

 

[billd91]

For me, the particular frustration comes from the fact that the only actual increase in difficulty is time spent at the table before getting to the good part.

I mean, in the real world, if I have to go and get lumber from the other side of the village and carry it back to the building I'm trying to break into, that makes things more difficult.

But in the context of RPG play, that is just more stuff that I have to play through, taking up time at the table, with the likelihood of anything exciting coming out of it being rather small. It's busywork, the non-combat equivalent of filler encounters.

Your busywork may be someone else's immersion-enhancing detail.

 

[LostSoul]

It makes sense. But in what way is it better or more fun?

That is a hard question to answer! There's no objective answer, I don't think; it depends on what you want to do, what you think is fun. There is a thrill, as a player, when you are able to achieve your goals in a game that's been refereed fairly and evenly. As DM, I find it creatively fulfilling to see how the players react to what I've put out in front of them.

I wouldn't say "better" in all circumstances, though maybe better for getting a specific type of game play.

 

[Mark CMG]

I have been playing role-playing games for thirty years and I have never met anyone who saw things that way. I have to say that I couldn't disagree more, but it's certainly an interesting approach.

Forty years for me and it's what I have seen most. In roleplaying games, I mainly see people play the game and play their role, sometimes with group or personal goals, but not with the idea of making sure that the story that can be told after all is said and done is the prime goal. In storytelling games, I mainly see people looking for ways to ensure good story arcs and reach a finale in a way that makes narrative sense, actively using their characters to advance the story toward a narrative goal. They are very different games, really, though I have seen some who do blend one type of game into the other.

 

[Hussar]

The guy should go to whoever he thinks is more likely to solve his problem. If there are two parties of adventurers in this tavern, then he should choose one based on appearances, or based on his budget, or any number of in-game reasons. He can't go to the PCs, merely on the grounds that they are PCs, because that isn't something which has any meaning within the game, or which is observable to him in any way.


The character can do anything that the character can do, and the player has zero agency beyond what the character can do. I don't see how that's such a difficult concept to grasp.

And yet, shockingly enough, the guy always goes to the players. The players are always the ones that he thinks can help him.

How do you justify any re roll mechanics if players have zero agency beyond what the character can do? How do you justify Action Points? But, apart from the difficulty grasping the concept, I wonder why you feel the need to defend anything. I've repeatedly stated that this is how I want to play the game, not anyone else. It's simply a play style thing.

 

[Mark CMG]

How do you justify any re roll mechanics if players have zero agency beyond what the character can do? How do you justify Action Points?

I won't answer for Saelorn but per my own answer up-thread, I specifically distinguish re-rolls from action points (or other similar bennies) because a reroll (which I do allow) acts on the character's effort (putting their back into it, an extra effort, etc.) while an action point can act on the world (which I do not allow).

 

[KarinsDad]

And yet, shockingly enough, the guy always goes to the players. The players are always the ones that he thinks can help him.

Not always. Not in every game I've run. I have had NPCs come into a tavern to talk to other NPC adventurers in front of the PC adventurers.

How do you justify any re roll mechanics if players have zero agency beyond what the character can do? How do you justify Action Points?

I don't use action points. I am glad they are now gone from the game system.

But, apart from the difficulty grasping the concept, I wonder why you feel the need to defend anything. I've repeatedly stated that this is how I want to play the game, not anyone else. It's simply a play style thing.

It sounds more like he is having a discussion as opposed to defending anything. And it's fine that you want the players to determine that a given NPC has a beard, but to me, that's counter intuitive and the DM's job. As a DM, I prefer to set up the campaign world as opposed to the players doing it. Different strokes.

 

[Hussar]

I won't answer for Saelorn but per my own answer up-thread, I specifically distinguish re-rolls from action points (or other similar bennies) because a reroll (which I do allow) acts on the character's effort (putting their back into it, an extra effort, etc.) while an action point can act on the world (which I do not allow).

But, you only reroll after you know that you have failed. I mean, you only reroll after the player knows that his character has failed. Never minding things that force rerolls on other targets as well, like dodge mechanics or the like.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Forty years for me and it's what I have seen most. In roleplaying games, I mainly see people play the game and play their role, sometimes with group or personal goals, but not with the idea of making sure that the story that can be told after all is said and done is the prime goal. In storytelling games, I mainly see people looking for ways to ensure good story arcs and reach a finale in a way that makes narrative sense, actively using their characters to advance the story toward a narrative goal. They are very different games, really, though I have seen some who do blend one type of game into the other.

I have never seen anyone not blend these two different styles, nor have I met anyone who used different terms to differentiate them. I really don't see the big difference that you're trying to make here.

 

[Hussar]

Not always. Not in every game I've run. I have had NPCs come into a tavern to talk to other NPC adventurers in front of the PC adventurers.

That had nothing to do with the PC's whatsoever? That they would have no interest in at all? You would make your players listen to two NPC's discussing something that is completely unrelated to them?

I don't use action points. I am glad they are now gone from the game system.



It sounds more like he is having a discussion as opposed to defending anything. And it's fine that you want the players to determine that a given NPC has a beard, but to me, that's counter intuitive and the DM's job. As a DM, I prefer to set up the campaign world as opposed to the players doing it. Different strokes.

Oh, fair enough. To me, I'd rather engage the players more and, again for me, the way to do that is to give players very limited control over the game world. It completely stops DM's from roadblocking, which is a very good thing IMO, and allows the players to guide the campaign in ways that are slightly outside of the standard DM/Player role.

Then again, for me, pacing is one of my biggest issues. I want the game to run at a much, much faster pace than a lot of DM's that I've met or played with. Which means that having the players declare details just speeds things along better. "Hey, the wizard has a beard" would not bother me in the slightest. Means that they get on with their plan and get to the good stuff - executing that plan.