D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[Hussar]

Ok, the notion on the table is that early RPG's contained no story gaming elements explicitly in the design. Is that a fair way of putting it?

I obviously disagree. Here is my evidence:

Exhibit A - The Paladin. Brought into the game during OD&D, certainly it's old enough to count as part of the early RPG. The paladin, at least by AD&D, had a Paladin's mount mechanic. When I take a paladin character, at 5th level or higher, I can quest for a mount. IOW, I, the player, am telling the DM, "Hey, I'm 5th level now, the rules say you have to make a quest for me to go out and get my mount." I've added elements to the game world that did not exist before. This is largely a player resource, since a character has no idea that he's 5th level does he? There's no conception that my paladin says, "Well, heck, I just killed that orc, so, now I feel ready to get my divinely inspired horse." It's pure meta-level story gaming.

Exhibit B - Training. In AD&D, if your character did not behave in a proscribed manner, you were forced to spend more money and time training. There was very little in the way of justification for it - a fighter that runs away has to spend 2-4 times as long training? Why? If you acted against archetype, you were punished. Very much story elements in the game.

Exhibit C - Alignment. In AD&D, if you acted against your stated alignment, you could actually change your alignment and you would lose a level. Very much a punishment for not acting according to archetype. So long as you stayed within your chosen archetype, you would not be punished. Enforced play through punishments in order to create a particular kind of story. Sounds like a story element to me. Why have alignment in a game with no story? After all, you don't need alignment in Chess or Monopoly. Why is it required in an RPG?

Exhibit D - Utility spells. What justification in the game world is there for clerics to have Find Traps or Water Breathing? Water walking? Ok, fair enough, I can see where that one comes from. Lower Water? Ok, no problem. Judaeo-Christian stories borrowed into the game. No worries. But Silence 15' Radius? Doesn't sound too divine to me. Why is Create Water a 1st level spell? The choice of spell levels and the spell lists themselves are all based on developing a particular story. It's not about a "game world" or "in game reality" but about the utility at that level to the party of adventurers who are presumed to be delving into a dungeon at that particular level.

Exhibit E - The monk and the druid. By choosing either of these classes, I have just added either a monastic or druidic order to the DM's game world. There has to be one because, at higher levels, I have to fight my way through to gain a level. I cannot choose these classes without having that larger order in the game world. The DM can either veto the choice at the outset - thus obviating the need for an order of some kind, or, he has to create that order at the behest of the player.

Exhibit F - Reaction Tables. These are not based on the in-game reality but on pure story creation. They dictate how this encounter is going to play out. You are supposed to roll that reaction every single time the party encounters some new group of NPC's. The DM then follows that reaction and creates the particular scenario. The DM could be all geared up for a fight, but the dice tell him that the NPC's are non-hostile and the DM is expected to follow that. Now, many DM's didn't, but the expectation was certainly there that you would. Having a high Cha character in the party could be a huge advantage because it would skew the dice such that most encounters would be neutral or even friendly. Certainly the DM is not supposed to pre-define the encounter in these cases but is just as much in the dark about how the encounter will play out before the encounter begins as the players are. If there were no story elements in the game, why would you bother having non-adversarial encounters? Doesn't make much sense in the absence of story to have friendly encounter after friendly encounter.

Exhibit G - Fudging. The DM in the 1e DMG, is specifically advised to ignore rolls that don't make sense in context and to fudge rolls to make the game more interesting. Ie - the DM is supposed to have a story in mind and is advised to ignore the dice when convenient.

Well, there's my evidence. I think I've sufficiently proven that there are a number of story elements in AD&D and earlier RPG's. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has nicely outlined one from Traveler as well. Granted, these are pretty primitive mechanics. Designers hadn't quite gotten the idea of sharing the authority out to the players quite yet, but, you can easily see the beginnings of it from the outset.

 

[Mark CMG]

The random chance is affected by the PC's Streetwise skill.

Can you explain how you think this is any different from Burning Wheel's Circle mechanic?

The streetwise skill is a part of the character, an in-game resource, and when it is applied it is governed by the limits of the setting, per the GM's prerogative (and random chance to some degree). The player is merely affecting the world through the character, not assuming authorial control over the GM's purview. Why do you want to compare it to the Circle mechanic? You do understand that there are some elements in storytelling games that are similar to RPG game elements, right?

Exhibit A - The Paladin (. . .) Paladin's mount

Character resource. No player authorial control except through character.

Exhibit B - Training (. . .) spend more money and time training

Character resource. No player authorial control except through character.

Exhibit C - Alignment.

Setting mechanic (which are often ignored or disliked) but doesn't give authorial control to players.

Exhibit D - Utility spells.

Character resource. No player authorial control except through character.

Exhibit E - (. . .) monastic or druidic order to the DM's game world

No player authorial control except through character, though less abstract than wealth or gear or spells, it still happens through the character.

Exhibit F - Reaction Tables.

No player authorial control, just a guide for GMs for how to adjudicate encounters and his setting.

Exhibit G - Fudging.

No player authorial control, just a guide for GMs for how to adjudicate encounters and his setting.

 

[Mark CMG]

There is always a plot in D&D.


(. . .)


Most DMs I know map out the adventure (plot) and the PCs progress through it. The majority of players I know prefer it this way. They in fact expect it to occur this way. They would consider a DM lazy and boring if he didn't have an adventure (plot) prepared.

That is without a doubt a storytelling game built with the D&D RPG system but done in a way that really presents very little player authorial control that matters. I see plenty of it but have never been satisfied with a RPG where the player character has so little agency or a storytelling game where the player has so little authorial control. Granted, I am just as unsatisfied when I game with a GM who doesn't have a fleshed out setting to explore or cannot improvise when players take a left turn or "go off the map." But, in an RPG, to be lead through a string of scenes by the GM who has predetermined the outcome would feel far too restrictive.

 

[Cyberen]

In Gygaxian D&D, the "GM's purview" is more often than not generated on the fly, relying on random tables. The idea of giving the Players some means to influence those random rolls is afaict not present in AD&D or before, but doesn't feel too far fetched to be excluded from "traditional" RPG.
In the good ol'days, the tools given to players were essentially put in the spell list, which restricted their access to spell casting classes (not really a problem when the PC group is considered as a whole, but not necessarily a good spotlight sharing tool), and given out on a strict power level basis : many mid-level spells would trivialize the mystery of the guard bewitched by a succubus. 3e and, to a greater extent, 4e, have put forward skills which blur the frontier between mundane and magic. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seems glad to make the jump as far as to allow player fiat to channel via those skills to the extent of scene framing (and it seems to work great !), as in the example of Streetwise helping a PC to furnish a street scene, or, in another thread, Aragorn to Track an orc warband by hearing them through the ground more than twelve miles away. 5e has shyed from this "skills as spells" approach, but gives PCs plenty of fiat tools, through their Background, Inspiration and Spells (in 5e, Aragorn has Commune with Nature on his spell list).
I envision Inspiration as a Fate point mechanic in these kind of situations : if your character is skilled in Streetwise, he should definitely shine in a scene set in a back alley. A "Spend Inspiration to get some fiat" rule would do a lot to give this precept some teeth while keeping it balanced across the screen and between players.
To solve riddles and mysteries, I would love to use a Skill Challenge framework, with success/failures earned through a mix of skill rolls and explicit decisions, and Inspiration as wildcards...

 

[Hussar]

Umm, how is adding a paladin's mount to the game world not authorial control? I will never meet one unless I play a paladin (well, unless another paladin is riding one, but, that's not something I can acquire for my character is it?) and the second I DO play a paladin, that mount is added to the game world. How is that not the player editing world content? I play a paladin, a mount is added to the game world. I don't play a paladin, it's not.

And, if I choose not to go on the mount quest, does the mount still exist in the game world?

By choosing that quest, I've effectively dictated to the DM that I will go on a quest, which he will make for me, and at the end of that quest, should I prove successful, I get a mount. In what way is that not the player adding content to the game world? And, if it's purely an in-game thing, how do I know that I'm qualified for that quest? Is there a special ding that plays when I hit 5th level that tells me that I'm now eligible for a mount? Note, this isn't the same as simply casting a Find Familiar spell. This isn't anything the paladin character is doing. The player tells the DM, I want a mount now that I'm 5th level. At no point does the paladin actually have any control over this. There is no character resource to spend here.

I will grant that most of this lies on the DM's side of the screen. It's very primative. Look at the horrible Kender pockets mechanics and you'll see how bad these mechanics can be (the DM is expected to maintain a list of about 100 items that the kender has in his pockets and add and subtract to and from that list as the campaign goes on - a huge PITA for the DM). But, that's because the idea of dumping this sort of thing off on the players hadn't quite percolated yet. At least, not explicitly. But, it's a pretty small jump to go from, "The DM determines what's in your pockets" to "You spend this much time looking through your pockets and find anything you're looking for within reason that's worth less than 50GP". Because that's essentially the same thing.

The seeds are all there and they sprout out of the game well before any Forgisms are even a thought in anyone's head.

 

[Mark CMG]

Umm, how is adding a paladin's mount to the game world not authorial control?

It's a resource of the character as wealth or spells might be for another. The player acts on it through the character not directly on the game world.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

When such a thing is not properly established ahead of time, it comes off as more of a Deus Ex Machina than anything else. It cheapens the whole experience to the point of worthlessness. If it is a novel, then it is a poorly-written one, which I would not care to read.

There is a first time to introduce everything, and it can be done well or poorly. If you take someone who never read spiderman, and show him 5 issues, the first one he uses his proportional speed and str of a spider, and his webs plus the wall crawl he thinks he has a handle on it.
then bam in the second issue he claims to have a spider sense that is some danger sense... he always had it, but it didn't come up. in the next issue, he needs to follow someone so he throws a spider tracker... wait where did that come from? well it just got used. More on point the third and fourth issue is a 2 parter with a tech based villain that kicks his but. WHat does spidy do, he calls his best friend who he plays pool and double dates with Johnny. Johnny by luck lives with his sister and brother in law, and his brother in law reed is one of the top 5 smartest people in the world... wait is that a deus EX machine? NO it's just something, a resource that is only being used now and not before... the fifth issue is worse still, when the whole city is invaded by venom synbiotes, spidy doesn't call his best friend, he reatches into a wallet and pulls out a card. That card is a communicater for him to call a bunch of powerful allies this reader hasn't seen yet... he just says "Avengers Assembel" and Iron man, cap, wolvrien, luke cage, iron fist, and spiderwoman all show up.

In the game the Ninja clan isn't just some Deus Ex Machine, it is the players teacher that is assumed to have always been there...

You make it sound as though the DM has this planned out ahead of time, with a particular solution that the players are expected to find, such that the would need help if they don't find it.

I'm not sure what your saying here... I designed a city that something the PCs needed was in, they had to find away to do so. One PC suggested that there old Ninja trainer could help... so

In its natural state, D&D doesn't have a "plot" of any sort. It merely is. The DM describes the world, and the players describe their actions.

DM: the item you need to complete your quest is locaeted in "Storm Keep" it's a powerful fortress city built 8 generations ago by combined tinker gnomes and mystic fey gnomes. It is made of Adamantine and Mythral and full of technological and magic traps. The main keep itself id practically impregnable...

Player 1: SInce I'm a cool Ninja, I was trained by blind assassin guru on the Mountin citadel not far from there, I want to go there and get help from the clan to find a weak spot and maybe help us in...

sounds exactly like what you wanted... DM describes the world, players describe there action...

The DM is free to introduce NPCs who have their own motivations, and whose actions will have impacts on the world, but it's not the DM's place to tell the PCs what to do.

agreed

They do whatever they want, and if they can't figure out a puzzle which is blocking their way, then they're generally free to go do something else.

um... ok but they can also use common sense resources to help them... everyone is trained by someone everyone has parents that raised them, everyone has childhood friends... this is all resources at there disposle. it is not some magical deus ex machine... it is just the game

It's a resource of the character as wealth or spells might be for another. The player acts on it through the character not directly on the game world.

isn't that the same thing...

DM: You walk into the city of Sheni, it's an elven city of splendor.

PC playing a half elf: Cool, can I have lived here with my semi noble family as a kid

DM: Sure

PC playing half elf: Cool, we can stay at my place in town...

 

[Mark CMG]

isn't that the same thing...

DM: You walk into the city of Sheni, it's an elven city of splendor.

PC playing a half elf: Cool, can I have lived here with my semi noble family as a kid

DM: Sure

PC playing half elf: Cool, we can stay at my place in town...

That's more of a player exerting authorial control over the story rather than utilizing a character resource which had been previously established. I can see why you might be confused on this one.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's more of a player exerting authorial control over the story rather than utilizing a character resource which had been previously established. I can see why you might be confused on this one.

but it's not really, the parents always existed (inless you just assumed all characters just walked out fo the mist fully grown) what makes the parents, friends, family, and other assumed things not character resources?

 

[Hussar]

It's a resource of the character as wealth or spells might be for another. The player acts on it through the character not directly on the game world.

Walk me through this. How does the paladin gain his mount? What does the paladin do to initiate the quest to get the mount? How does the paladin know when he can do so? When my magic user wants a familiar, I cast Find Familiar - that's a character resource. What, specifically, does the paladin do?

The mount quest is initiated by the player, the character has nothing to do with it. Heck, it's not unreasonable for a player to ask the DM if he could have a variant mount as well. Certainly not IME anyway. I've seen all sorts of mount variants. In 3e, I'd be able to better buy that it's a character resource - after all, there is no quest and it's a class ability to summon a mount from somewhere else. The whole "pokemount" thing that is often pooh poohed as being too video gamey and not properly part of a role playing game at all.

But in 1e? The paladin character can't do anything. There is nothing he can do to gain that mount. Not until the player intiates that quest, which the paladin doesn't even have to know is specifically a "mount quest". Anything can be a mount quest. But, it's purely a player thing, initiated by the player with the quest reward pre-determined by the fact that the player chose this particular class. At what point is this not story gaming? The player initiates the story, "I am 5th level, I want a mount. Mr. DM, I'm ready for my mount now, show me the quest". The DM is obligated to provide that quest. After all, the DM isn't supposed to veto the paladin gaining the mount is he? There's a pretty strong message here that when the paladin gets his mount, the DM is supposed to let him have the mount.

Can the player dictate the quest? No, of course not. It's not a story game. That quest is supposed to be created by the DM. But, the point of the matter is that this quest is intiated by the player, not the character. The character can't possibly know when he gains 4th level. How is the character supposed to know when he can get the mount?