D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[Greg K]

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?

Well, the 1e DMG says that the paladin calls for his warhorse and receives a vision of its location which is within 7 days ride. So the answer is he calls for it. How does he know that he can do so? Maybe he gets a vision or other sign from his deity that he is, now, worthy to acquire one. It is even possible that paladins in the world know that they will eventually receive one as a reward, but not when he is worthy until they receive the sign.

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.

The DM might provide the quest, but the DM is not obligated to to drop everything and provide it if the timing is inappropriate. The warhorse in 1e will be no more than 7 days ride and the quest might take two or more weeks to complete. Therefore, it is possible, that the quest could be delayed due to in-game reasons or the character might have to leave the main adventure for a few weeks or more of game time.
Also, the character is not entitled to have the mount, just to have a reasonable attempt at acquiring it. Per the DMG, task must not be impossible, but should test the Paladin's mettle. Depending upon the quest, it is even possible for the Paladin to be killed given that an example of a quest in the DMG was for the Paladin to engage a Fighter of equal in mortal combat to win the warhorse.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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?.

Yes, it is. By and large, comic books didn't have the most believable plots, even once you've bought into the premise. Comic books were cheap, and designed for an audience that wasn't entirely discriminating.

And apparently there is call for that withing D&D, because Eberron explicitly is an homage to classic pulp fiction, but that's a far cry from suggesting that the narrative should be cheap and poorly written. At best, it might suggest that a lot of people don't care about plot holes or Deus Ex Machina, but that's still a long way from encouraging those things as the most effective way to play successful adventurers.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes, it is. By and large, comic books didn't have the most believable plots, even once you've bought into the premise.

I would say that is the difference between good and bad comicbook plots...

Comic books were cheap, and designed for an audience that wasn't entirely discriminating.

wait... what!?!?! you do realize that comes off realling insulting to people who are BOT discriminating AND comic book fans right... and I bet this board has a higher % of comic fans then most on the internet...

[sblock] I do dislike a lot of modern comics, I liked the end of the eighty's and bits and pieces of the 90's in both Marvel and DC, when they were trying (not always succeeding) to tye all of the stories together. I don't expect every story to be the best ever written, but there is a lot good.

My example is a perfect example of good writing... why are Johnny and spidy friends, well they are the same age group and have similar sense of humor and both work the same high stress job in NY. Just because not every reader knows of the friendship (it isn't always referenced, and some times if you don't notice it's just a cell call from johnny) but it means he is a friend and resource.

on the other hand look at batman... he is a JLA member who when the whole city is attacked can't call his friend clark... because reasons. It's dumb when written that way.

[/sblock]

And apparently there is call for that withing D&D, because Eberron explicitly is an homage to classic pulp fiction, but that's a far cry from suggesting that the narrative should be cheap and poorly written.

again.. just because it can be poorly written doesn't mean it has to be poorly written.

At best, it might suggest that a lot of people don't care about plot holes or Deus Ex Machina, but that's still a long way from encouraging those things as the most effective way to play successful adventurers.

There is always a first time for everything... you can't say the first time character X uses resource Y it's a Deus Ex Machina, you can't that's just insane...

The resource is there, it makes sense it's there, it fits the story that it's there, it doesn't just poof solve the problem it just is a resource to combat the problem...

in the example we started with the PC needed to get into a city, the resource they used was there old mentor... you say doing so is a Deus Ex Machina... lets go through my points above

The resource is there, the ninja clan lives near by... they have to be somewhere, inless there is a real good reason why not?


it makes sense it's there, They didn't just pop out of the ground as a ninja fully trined and grown, someone trained them...

it fits the story that it's there, again someone somewhere trained them, it is now a resource they need, and they tap into it..



it doesn't just poof solve the problem it just is a resource to combat the problem... and again no one said (even you) "Poof nPC solve problem" just let the PC go to the ninja clan for help.

 

[Hussar]

Well, the 1e DMG says that the paladin calls for his warhorse and receives a vision of its location which is within 7 days ride. So the answer is he calls for it. How does he know that he can do so? Maybe he gets a vision or other sign from his deity that he is, now, worthy to acquire one. It is even possible that paladins in the world know that they will eventually receive one as a reward, but not when he is worthy until they receive the sign.


The DM might provide the quest, but the DM is not obligated to to drop everything and provide it if the timing is inappropriate. The warhorse in 1e will be no more than 7 days ride and the quest might take two or more weeks to complete. Therefore, it is possible, that the quest could be delayed due to in-game reasons or the character might have to leave the main adventure for a few weeks or more of game time.
Also, the character is not entitled to have the mount, just to have a reasonable attempt at acquiring it. Per the DMG, task must not be impossible, but should test the Paladin's mettle. Depending upon the quest, it is even possible for the Paladin to be killed given that an example of a quest in the DMG was for the Paladin to engage a Fighter of equal in mortal combat to win the warhorse.

But, you're missing the point. The DM must provide the quest at the behest of the player. The warhorse only exists, the quest only exists, because the PLAYER made it so. How is this not player authorial control over the game world?

You can justify it in game any way you like. The player says, "I want my horse quest now" and the DM responds by sending the horse quest in a dream. It's exactly the same as, "I want some boxes in the alleyway" and the DM saying, "You look around and notice some boxes that you missed before". The point of the exercise is that the player is initiating the game world change. [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION] apparently doesn't consider this to be player authorial control since the player can't simply dictate the existence of the boxes or the existence of family members in the town.

But the player absolutely can dictate the existence of the warhorse in the game world AND gets to tell the DM when he wants to go get that warhorse.

Look, I'm not trying to say that early D&D was a story game. Of course not. That would be ridiculous. The only point I'm making here is that early D&D, and early RPG's had all sorts of story telling elements in them, mostly implicit, and the idea that early RPG's were somehow "pure" RPG's, free from story telling elements is ridiculous. There's been no refutation of my points, simply nay-saying and "Nuh uh, that's not story telling elements". There's been numerous examples in this thread of story telling elements that would be perfectly acceptable in any version of D&D or any RPG.

 

[Mark CMG]

But, you're missing the point. The DM must provide the quest at the behest of the player. The warhorse only exists, the quest only exists, because the PLAYER made it so. How is this not player authorial control over the game world?

The quest is at the instigation of the player through the character (the paladin "calls"), as part of roleplaying, like any other undertaking within the setting by the character.

Mark CMG apparently doesn't consider this to be player authorial control since the player can't simply dictate the existence of the boxes or the existence of family members in the town.

No more so than access to spells because one chooses to be a cleric is authorial control over the setting, since it is roleplaying through the character. I thought you were going to stop quoting and/or mentioning me?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There is always a first time for everything... you can't say the first time character X uses resource Y it's a Deus Ex Machina, you can't that's just insane...

If there's no foreshadowing, and it just conveniently happens to come in exactly when it's needed? Yeah, that's Deus Ex Machina. It's one of the most traditional examples of poor writing.

If you want there to be a ninja stronghold in this mountain range, then you should work with the DM to make sure that it's established before the game starts. Then, if you need to call upon those ninjas, it is just the world carrying out as it logically should.

 

[Hussar]

The quest is at the instigation of the player through the character (the paladin "calls"), as part of roleplaying, like any other undertaking within the setting by the character.

/anip

The boxes exist at the instigation of the player through the character "I look around and see boxes lying nearby". The family exists at the instigation of the player through the character, "Hey, I just remembered, my aunt lives in this town. I haven't seen her in years".

You can justify ANYTHING through the character. Being able to justify it in game doesn't make it not story gaming. Good grief, you can justify any 4e power, which were explicitly story game based, through in game fiction. "I feint the bad guys in and when they charge me, I smack them all" justifies Come and Get It perfectly well. The only difference here, is that in 4e, the powers were explicit, while in earlier editions, those sorts of changes were implicit.

Doesn't change the fact that they were story game based mechanics though.

 

[Mark CMG]

The boxes exist at the instigation of the player through the character "I look around and see boxes lying nearby". The family exists at the instigation of the player through the character, "Hey, I just remembered, my aunt lives in this town. I haven't seen her in years".

The character doesn't have the power to simply say that boxes or NPCs are located at their convenience but a paladin does have the power to call for a warhorse. The former two are examples of authorial control over the setting while the latter is roleplaying.

 

[mouselim]

Finally, that adventure described with the unsolvable suicide is, in fact, stupid. To present a problem and just expect the PCs to IGNORE said problem is terrible, awful, horribly bad adventure design. It's like saying "Here's a cookie, but you can't have the cookie, you can only stare longingly at the cookie until you go eat your vegetables in this other town where wizards are controlling the cookies".

Why not? There are a lot of things in life that just doesn't have an answer or will be too tedious to find an answer or nigh impossible to get one.

 

[pemerton]

I find it particularly useful, because it's the largest split between player groups that has lots of "I WILL NOT CROSS THIS LINE!!!" players... on both sides.

<snip>

As for Traditional... <snip> 20 years is plenty long to be "tradition" - as is "the vast majority of players hang onto that style" - and it's a style with a large, wide, space for variation.

<snip>

And there are a lot of games that are still Roleplaying but neither Traditional nor really Storygames

BW isn't deeply into the Storygame space; it's definitely outside the trad space as well, but it's very much directly between the two in play.

The fact that BW doesn't fit within the classification is part of what makes me doubt its utility. Likewise MHRP. Likewise 4e D&D? I've certainly seen 4e attacked for giving players an excessive amount of non-magical fiat ability.

Who dictates how, where, and when the NPC is found.

<snip>

Trad	BW Circles
You go find them	increased difficulty if you want them to find you or to be here already
You make another test or some dialogue to convince them	increase the difficulty, and they're already convinced
you have to plan ahead if you want them to meet you	You narrate the flashback when making the roll when you want them to show up
if you fail, you don't find them; if you botch, bad stuff happens	if you fail, they either aren't there, or are annoyed with you.

That help make it more visible?

In Traveller's Streetwise rules, I think there is a clear implication that you don't have to make another test to convince them. There may be additional dialogue, but that is colour, not action resolution, and might equally be present in BW, depending on how a table handles that sort of thing.

I agree that unlike BW Circles there is not the option to increase the difficulty to increaes the proximity. I'm not sure, though, that that is a very firm marker of a "trad"/"non-trad" divide.

In Traveller, no bad stuff happens if you fail; you just don't find them. That's not a contrast with Circles, though, that's the fact that Traveller doesn't use fail forward and BW does. You could introduce fail forward narration into Traveller just as, for instance, Tweet advocates introducing into Over the Edge in the foreword to the 20th anniversary edition, and just as the two DMGs for 4e advocate introducing it into D&D.

How many Traveller GMs, having seen the Streetwise rules, adapted them similarly to Admin (to find a bureaucrat when needed/desired) or to Broker (to find a merchant) or to Carousing (to find NPCs in bars and clubs)? I'd be surprised if it was none.

I'm not saying that there has been no change/development in RPG design in 40 years. But I am denying the claim that, up until some time within the past 10 to 15 years, it was taken for granted that players would have no impact on the fictional content except through resolving action declarations that model the causal powers of their PCs within the shared fiction. This may have been taken for granted at some tables. But it wasn't taken for granted in general. And the Traveller Streetwise rules are an instance of this in print - a player, by making a successful Streetwise roll, can bring it about that a helpful NPC is available to help with the supply of illicit goods/services.

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.

What has rule zero got to do with this? The rules are fairly explicit that the GM sets the target number. If the PCs have, at best, a streetwise of +3, then all he has to do is set the target to 16 to make it impossible to find the object of the search.

The Streetwise skill is part of the character. But the player can use it to make it true, in the fiction, that the PC has found a helpful contact to provide licences, guns etc.

The relevance of rule zero is that the skill description gives sample DCs: 5+ for licences, 9+ for firearms. A referee who sets a DC of 16+ is not folowing those guidelines, and is de facto blocking the player's action declaration. The Streetwise skill description even has the following text, which I elided upthread: "local subcultures [are] asumed to be the same everywhere in human society". Which strongly implies that the example DCs are expected to be generalised.

Other skill descriptions even refer to world law levels (eg Forgery) but Streetwise does not, implying that even on high law level worlds there is still subcultures in which Streetwise will work. (Something of a Bladerunner feel, which also fits with the skill tables for the "Other" service.)

There is nothing in the rulebook that suggests that the player's ability to use the skill to get these goods/services is somehow "governed by the limits of the setting". The notion of the "GM's prerogative" or "GM's purview" does not appear. Here is the relevant text on the referee's role (Book 1, p 3):

[T]he referee . . . actually creates a universe, and then catalogs the creatures and societies which poplate it. . . .

[T]he referee creates a star map and generates the specifics of the worlds noted on it . . . Initially, however, ony clues (sometimes misleading or false) as to the nature of the universe will be available to the players.

The referee may also indicate possible quests for the characters, using rumor, barrooom conversation, or so-called general knowledge. . . .

In any case, the referee can make or break a campaign, as it is his imagination which the other players use as a springboard to adventure.

The referee is responsible for maintaining the master maps and charts of the universe, and for determining the various effects of natural forces, chance and non-player characters on the adventure. He must settle disputes concerning the rules (and may use his own imagination in doing so, rather than strictly adhering to the letter of the rules). He also acts as a go-between when characters secretly or solitarily act against the world or their comrades.​

Nothing there suggests that the referee has licence to disregard the Streetwise mechanics, and decide that the PC doesn't find anything even when the player makes a successful roll against the DC set by the referee.

I'm not really sure that follows since it would be the PC heading out to work the locals to find access to the object of the search and not the player deciding by fiat that it is there to be found. It just doesn't seem to me too different from a PC in D&D, for example, heading to the local market day to get a sack of inconsequentium to make inconsequentium stew. Chances are the GM doesn't have that level of detail on the market and decides, on the fly through some method, whether or not the inconsequentium is there. I'd hardly call that a case of the player introducing elements into the shared fiction in any really significant way - at least not in any way worth arguing whether older school RPGs have tools for the players to direct the story outside of their PC point of view.

In Traveller, the availability of licences issued without hassle, or of high quality guns at low prices (which are the two exampes given under Streetwise) are not "inconsequentium". They are key goods/services that are central to play, as is illustrated (i) by the prevalence of military-background PCs with gun skill, and (ii) by such other skills as Bribery, Forgery and Administration (skill text quoted from Book 1, p 14):

Petty officials can generally be bribed to ignore regulations or porroducmentation, requiring a basic throw of 8+ (plus a cash offer) to do as asked. . . . DMs are allowed: if character has no expertis: -5; Per level of [Bribery] expertise: +1

. . .

Documents necessary for bank transactions, cargo transfers, personal identification, and other purposes are usually closely inspected when officials (police, customs agents, clerks, etc) are encountered (throw =law level of world or higher to avoid inspection). Forged or fake documents are discovered, if inspected on abasic throw of 6+. DM:-2 per level of expertise. . . .

[A]dministration and bribery expertise may affect whether documents are actually inspected. . . .​

It's also different from your example because it is not about the GM deciding, on the fly, whether or not some irrelevant thing is in the market. It's about the playier making a skill check which, if successful, determines the availability, from local members of illicit subcultures (per Book 1, p 15: "some portions of the lower classes, and trade groups such as workers, the underwod, etc") of the desired goods or services.

It is precisely an example of an old-school RPG having a mechanic whereby a player can influence the shared fiction other than through the causal agency of his/her PC. That's what the skill is for, as stated right there on p 15 of the 1977 rulebook.