D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[The Crimson Binome]

It seems to me - and maybe I'm wrong - that because of the quite rigid style you follow, what you're playing is not different from a computer RPG, where everything is set up in advance, PC's contributions are forbidden and everything is determined randomly by the DM, only your version of computer RPGs doesn't have pretty graphics and nice music.

It has something better than graphics and music - it has the ability to do literally anything that the character can think of, no matter how unlikely that any programmer could have predicted it. Given that I have effectively infinite design space to do anything that my character could do, why would I want to compound that by adding another axis of authorial control? It's just not needed, or desired in any way.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm certainly not seeing how anyone but the GM is exercising imagination or personal creativity

I think that's why this thread is failing. (And why I've stayed out of the main thrust of the debate, and why I post so little most of the time these days... I made my Wisdom check and I know to stay out.)

What I mean by that is that it seems like people are talking passed one another, and that some posts are starting to turn rather insulting. It's already been pretty tribal, but now it's getting close to "[insult other team]" followed up by ["slap on the back* "I agree"]. That'll kill this thread even more. Just a heads up.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm certainly not seeing how anyone but the GM is exercising imagination or personal creativity - which is what Gygax, at least, promised to all the participants.

It's a different kind of creativity, sure. The GM is exercising creativity in designing the world, and the players are exercising imagination in playing the characters who explore that world.

It would kind of defeat the point if the players were playing characters who explored the world that those same players had created. I mean, you could do it, but you lose something in the process.

 

[pemerton]

It's a different kind of creativity, sure. The GM is exercising creativity in designing the world, and the players are exercising imagination in playing the characters who explore that world.

It would kind of defeat the point if the players were playing characters who explored the world that those same players had created. I mean, you could do it, but you lose something in the process.

I am sure I am not the only person who has started a campaign where not every PC's background is fleshed out. On your approach that seems to literally mean that they have no parents and no memory of where they grew up.

In my experience, fleshing out PC details during the course of play is utterly standard, and not an obstacle to but rather an aspect of "inhabiting" the character.

 

[Lanefan]

The mount is a character resource.

But it is not created by the character (contrast 3E, where the "pokemount" is created by the character). It's existence in the game, and it's availability to the character, is dicated by the player.

No it's not.

Its existence in the game (somewhere) is mechanically determined by there being a Paladin (somewhere) who has just reached 4th-level. Its availability to the Paladin, ditto. The *exercising* of that availability is up to the player, but that's about the same as having a MU create a magic item.

Hence why Hussar has correctly identified this as an instance of a player in AD&D exercising authorial control over the content of the shared fiction which extends beyond the ingame causal capacities of his/her PC.

Here is the relevant text from Gygax's DMG (p 18):

When the paladin reaches 4th level or higher, he or she will eventually call for a warhorse . . . It wil magically appear, but not in actual physical form. The paladin will magically "see" his or her faithful destrier in whatever locale it is currently in . . . The creature might be wild and necessitate capturing, or it might be guarded by an evil fighter of the same level as the paladin, and the latter will then have to overcome the former in mortal combat . . .​

In otherwords, when the player decides to have his/her PC "call for a warhorse", it becomes true in the fiction that there exists a warhorse waiting for the paladin to come and get it via a quest of "some small difficulty which will take a number of days, possbly 2 or more weeks, and will certainy test the mettle of the paladin" (DMG p 18).

This a player exercising (modest) authorial control over the setting.

Er...again, no it's not.

Assuming the DM allows Paladins in the game (not all do), it must be assumed by the DM that sooner or later a PC Paladin will hit 4th level and at some point then or later call for her warhorse. Which means the DM can then plan out what might happen on this trigger, be it a mini-dungeon, a full adventure with the whole party helping out, the horse just wandering by, or whatever. The point is, the call-for-horse is a known factor that the DM can plan for. All the player does is trigger it.

And again, the comparison with a MU crafting an item is clear. Sooner or later, assuming the game allows arcane casters (most do), it's reasonable to assume someone is going to want to craft an item. Either the game rules or the DM's house rules indicate what happens when a character decides to do this, and again the DM can plan in advance for it in terms of time, costs, material requirements and availability, etc. All the player does is trigger it and firm up the previously-unknown-to-DM variable of what item is to be made.

This is all *much* different than a player springing something game-affecting on a DM on the fly, such as declaring there's boxes in an alley or that her character's the daughter of a noble who just happens to live where the party is.

The point is that the GM is obliged, at the behest of the player, to make it true that, in the gameworld, there is a warhorse waiting to be obtained by questing. But the paladin didn't make it true that the warhorse exists: the paladin calling for his/her warhorse doesn't create a warhorse and a 4th level evil fighter to guard it. If there is any causal power at work here, it is the power of the paladin's deity - so, in effect, by calling for his/her warhorse the player of the paladin gets to dictate certain actions of his/her PC's deity.

I see it differently: the Paladin training into 4th level is what puts the horse and quest into the world via whatever divine means one likes, and it sits there waiting to be triggered (or not) by the in-character actions of the Paladin. The existence of the Paladin at all (at or above 4th level) is what creates the horse and quest, and the DM has to "make it true" as part of the game world whether the player triggers it or not. Of course, most DMs probably won't give it much real thought until-unless the Paladin's player starts making noises about warhorses; but in my view the horse is out there anyway once 4th-level is trained into due to no other reason than straight-up game mechanics. The player doesn't put it there, the game does.

Lan-"How does a Paladin know she can call for a horse? She is told about it during 4th-level training"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

I am sure I am not the only person who has started a campaign where not every PC's background is fleshed out. On your approach that seems to literally mean that they have no parents and no memory of where they grew up.

In my experience, fleshing out PC details during the course of play is utterly standard, and not an obstacle to but rather an aspect of "inhabiting" the character.

Absolutely, but with a strong to very strong implication that such fleshing out wil not cause any major alterations to the game world or retcons/alterations to what has been or is being played out.

Lan-"and, of course, once done it becomes locked in"-efan

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, it's good to see some things remain unchanged. Like people trying to define E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson's games as Storygames.

Taking one anecdote that springs to mind, Mike Mornard played a baby Balrog in both Gygax's and Arneson's campaigns. He then on one occasion, trying to break into a keep, stuck an asbestos hat on his head, and claimed to be a reporter for The Balrog Times to interview the evil overlord. And used his thumb as the flash. Did the Balrog Times exist before Mornard pulled that stunt? Nope. Were there reporters with flash photography in (I'm not sure whether it was Greyhawk or Blackmoor he pulled that stunt in - Mornard was the only person in both)? Nope. Was it entertaining and entirely within the spirit of the game which was, according to Mornard "We made up some we thought would be fun"? Yes.

For that matter we can go back further. Arneson and Braunstein. Arneson invented D&D on the back of players inventing things within the setting that weren't forseen by the GM.

Now. I'm happy to let you guys have the term "traditional RPG" as long as you're happy to let our side of the fence have Gygax, Arneson, and just about all of oD&D. Is this a deal?

So, yes, it seems you are used to having some storytelling elements mixed in with your RPGing.

Given that the key storytelling element is Cause and Effect then yes we have. If you want to remove all storytelling elements from your roleplaying you're left with ... not a hell of a lot. I'm not sure how you are roleplaying without cause and effect.

The idea of making full-on storytelling games that are similar to RPGs, and even use many RPG elements, didn't spring up from nowhere. It's weird that some folks find this evolution in gaming troubling to discuss or even identify.

Indeed. Tabletop Roleplaying grew out of two roots. The first was tabletop wargaming. The second was a freeform LARP that tabletop wargamers were experimenting with and that was almost entirely made up of what you would call storytelling elements. Tabletop Roleplaying is about as pure as the English Language. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

The idea I find weird is that people are seeking to exclude that which has always been in tabletop roleplaying and to define it as other than one of the fundamentals tabletop roleplaying has been based on.

But the idea that the GM should be unbiased towards the players in determining backstory - ie the content of the fictional world which forms the context for the players' declarations of action for their PCs - I think is not widely accepted.

Indeed. If the PCs are entirely reliant on the DM's descriptions that puts them effectively on the position of relying on a single human interpreter to explain the world to a pack of half a dozen people. Without context most actions are meaningless. And I find such entitled DMing that doesn't trust the players to establish anything about the world is anti-immersive for anything more complex than solving a puzzle dungeon and leads to disengagement from players and overwork and far less fun for the DM. (I speak as someone who DMs at least as much as I play).

Similarly, Gygax implies that, when a player is having his/her PC thief establish a guild, now is the time for the GM to introduce rival guilds and the like to spice things up for that player.

Of course.

As I said, I really can't remember ever having read a piece of GM advice that advocates authoring the backstory without regard to what the players might find interesting. I'd be interested if anyone can point to something that I've forgotten about, or not encountered.

I can't imagine why you would.

I'm scratching my head on this one, because there is a huge difference!

Player 1 is using character resources to affect the outcome for his character:

DM: You see no visible way to get to the second story window.
Player 1: I'm a mage, I cast levitate and float up to the window.

Player 2 is using player resources to affect the outcome for his character in a way his character couldn't:

DM: You see no visible way to get to the second story window.
Player 2: *checks character sheet, sees no rope climbing spikes etc* hmm, I need to get up there, ok I use a fate point - there's a hidden fire escape mechanism to the window which I now trigger. I climb up the fire escape.

While the result is equivalent, the means are far apart and some people strongly object to the second way.

It may not be fair that some characters get access to such easy means (magic!) and others don't, but that a topic for a different discussion.

I'm trying to think who's advocating that in ... any game. You might get away with it in Fiasco - but it's illegal in Fate. In Fate you need there to be a pre-existing aspect (e.g. Hidden Fire Escapes Everywhere) before you can spend a Fate point to establish a detail like that.

And as I pointed out on ... another thread, the term Storygame was invented for games with a story structure. Normally based round the five act structure that's hardcoded in the rules. So the climax of My Life With Master is one of the poor minions deciding to challenge the master - and the rolling fight is act 4. In Fiasco the mapping to a five act structure is obvious. And very much hardcoded.

People objecting to Gygax and Arneson's D&D, Fate, Unisystem, or GURPS (none of which are Storygames but all at times allow narrative declaration by players) are inventing a completely different axis.

 

[Celtavian]

It pretty simple to answer the question. Can a DM play without players? Nope. Can a player do anything without a DM? Nope. That's why both have authorial/narrative power. Nothing happens in the world or story unless both are participating.
Both have their roles. A DM is expected to have a prepared adventure in an agreed upon setting. The players are expected to construct a character using the rules they agree on including background information, personality, and the like. Then the group plays working in a cooperative fashion that is a combination story and game.

It seems like these arguments have very little to do with the game system and more to do with the individuals involved. I know some DMs don't know what to do if the players go off script, thus they discourage the behavior. Some DMs handle the players going off script fine, turning the foray into other areas into fun. It depends entirely on the group.

As far as discussions of authorship are concerned, books are always scripted. There is no wandering off the script in a book. So saying the players lack authorial or narrative power within the framework of the story is a false supposition. Characters drive the story. They have no less power than any other character in a plotted story that is limited to dealing with the situations they are thrust into. That is the nature of story telling.

What people seem to be debating is the difference between a virtual world and a plot driven adventure. In a virtual world you can go where you like. All the DM provides is a setting with several different options much like MMORPGs provide. The players progress through it as they wish choosing which area to explore or which quests to do. Whereas D&D builds adventures with a combination of linear storytelling and open world exploration, sometimes both in the same adventure. A DM could try to build something more along the lines of a virtual world allowing players to wander around as they like throwing whatever random encounter their way they find while doing so. Some players might thrive in this type of environment. Others prefer a linear story that leads them along a grand quest or through a dungeon with a beginning and end. It's up to the group to build the experience they like together. The game is capable of being played both ways. I don't see the need for an intense debate for something the game supports that is dependent upon individuals tastes, time constraints, and capabilities of the group.

I know I prefer scripted stories because they seem more fun to me. I work in elements my characters build into their backgrounds. I definitely like to empower my players to engage in impactful roleplaying that will affect the course of the campaign. I've never found an edition of D&D that did not allow me to do what I enjoy doing. Not much gets done in D&D unless both the players and DM are engaged in the game, both creating a compelling cooperative narrative that entertains and engages.

I've said my piece. I'm out.

 

[Mark CMG]

The rules are very clear. A player can roll Streetwise (. . .)

Apparently not so clear, as we at least agree that Streetwise is part of the character makeup but, regardless of how the GM adjudicates its usage, you apparently see it's usage as the player affecting the setting directly and I see its usage as the player affecting the setting through the character. I think that is the heart of our disagreement on this example and the main difference we have on what constitutes player authorial control over setting.

He then on one occasion, trying to break into a keep, stuck an asbestos hat on his head, and claimed to be a reporter for The Balrog Times to interview the evil overlord. And used his thumb as the flash. Did the Balrog Times exist before Mornard pulled that stunt? Nope.

So, his character said a business existed that didn't actually exist and which the player had no expectation under the game rules would exist. His player didn't say that a fictional business, that hadn't previously been part of the game world, was real and his character was an employee or owner, nor was the GM forced by the player nor obligated through some rule of player authorial control to add the idea of said business to his setting. Just because some GM, even one of the first GMs, did something that seemed similar to a storytelling game element doesn't mean it was part of the rules at that point in RPG development.

Given that the key storytelling element is Cause and Effect then yes we have. If you want to remove all storytelling elements from your roleplaying you're left with ... not a hell of a lot. I'm not sure how you are roleplaying without cause and effect.

Naw, chocolate cake isn't a lime popsicle because chocolate cake has sugar and lime popsicles have sugar. No one has said that two types of games cannot share any of the same or similar elements. The crux of this discussion is that player authorial control over setting was not an integral part of (trad?) RPGs but rather players affected the setting through their characters.

Indeed. Tabletop Roleplaying grew out of two roots. The first was tabletop wargaming. The second was a freeform LARP that tabletop wargamers were experimenting with and that was almost entirely made up of what you would call storytelling elements. Tabletop Roleplaying is about as pure as the English Language. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

The idea I find weird is that people are seeking to exclude that which has always been in tabletop roleplaying and to define it as other than one of the fundamentals tabletop roleplaying has been based on.

I won't get sidetracked into what constitutes LARPing, and regardless of the validity of your point regarding LARPing being a progenitor of RPGs, I should point out that neither LARPing nor wargaming require player authorial control over setting to be honored by a GM.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If the problem is to get up a wall, then poof-ing some boxes into existence is a Deus Ex Machina because it conveniently solves the problem out of nowhere.

agreed, if they poof out of nowhere, aka the DM described an empty ally. on the other hand if the DM just quicly said ally, then more description is needed and the phrase "I look around can I get some creates to pile up" is not poofing, it is looking for more info and suggesting a fun course of action... so that one is boarder line

If you need to fight a more powerful enemy, then poof-ing in a ninja army to fight for you is a Deus Ex Machina.

1st again no poofing, in game they were always somewhern we just never knew it out of game till it matters, and 2nd only if the Ninja win the fight for you... if you still ave tofight, and might still loose, but less chance of looseing then before by definition not adeus ex machine...

That may be what you care about at your own table, but for the purposes of this discussion, it's irrelevant. Better and worse are subjective, but any change that you make from D&D makes it not D&D, at least a little bit.

Um... I don't understand what you are saying here, could you please rephrase it, I get you are disagreeing that the point of the game is to have fun, but not why...

The player went to the ninja clan, which was not part of the environment described by the DM. That goes against point 1 of "The DM describes the environment."

the player is adding not changing and he is doing it WITH the DM, the player doesn't say "I have X" he says "How about X" in this case X is, hey my old ninja clan can help can they just be in the mts here.

The same way you could say "Hey can I have grown up in this city," "Cool we can crash at my parents ohouse here." the same way you could say anything else... it's you and the DM making up the world as you go.

I'm making it impossible to think meta-game. Your in-game thinking is limited to that which exists within the game. Which is as it should be, according to the PHB (both 2E and 5E, as have been referenced thus far in this thread).

but your character has info ingame that you do not have out of game... in the ninja clan example, no one knows where you trained, it is a blank spot in the information out of game, but of course your character knows it in game... so asking suggesting and using it is PART OF THE GAME...

If your parent/mentor/etc were going to be relevant, than it would have been established in advance.

why? does that mean that if in game 7 an orc tribe is going to attack the town, but in game 1 the DM didn't set up an orc tribe he can't add it in game 6? because it wasn't set up before? As long as it makes sense, adding always works.

More often than not, a character's backstory will say that it's from X region of the world, so we know that we don't need to spend much time detailing their exact whereabouts unless the game takes place in that region. If you failed to establish even that much, then that's the fault of you and your DM.

so in the Ninja clan example, is it ok if we always knew that the character was from this kingdom? We still would have the same situation, just instead of my Ninja clan being somewhere in the world it would be somewhere in this kingdom?

It should never be "Can my Ninja clan have agents here?" The only question that makes sense is "Does my Ninja clan have agents here?" And it shouldn't even be that, because you should already know the answer.

you lost me again... why should we know that answer out of game with out asking, and how is can and does any real difference? Is this really the difference in phraseing?

It seems to me - and maybe I'm wrong - that because of the quite rigid style you follow, what you're playing is not different from a computer RPG, where everything is set up in advance, PC's contributions are forbidden and everything is determined randomly by the DM, only your version of computer RPGs doesn't have pretty graphics and nice music. The new edition of Icewind Dale has just been released: wouldn't it be easier to simply play that instead of going through the hassle of having a human impersonate the computer?

It has something better than graphics and music - it has the ability to do literally anything that the character can think of, no matter how unlikely that any programmer could have predicted it. Given that I have effectively infinite design space to do anything that my character could do, why would I want to compound that by adding another axis of authorial control? It's just not needed, or desired in any way.

I don't think it is adding, and now just up thread we have the very first RPGs ever played by and run by the founders of the entire idea of RPGs and D&D did just that... so is that enough to say this had been this way from the beginning, and YOU and YOUR group are changing it? (Not that there is anything the matter with changing to suit your needs as long as you don't claim your way is the one true way or the traditional way or the correct way)