• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I don't understand the analogy.

The waves on the sea are real things exercising real causal power. The gameworld is an imaginary thing that exercise no causal power.

The explanation of why a ship rolls requires talking about the forces to which it is subject. These include forces imparted by waves.

The expanation of why a participant in a game made a certain decision requirs talking about the "forces" to which that person is subject. These forces do not include imaginary things.
Sure they do.

A player (at least one worth having) is going to take game-world forces into consideration when making decisions. A super-simple example: if the game-world has no Hobbits then a player's decision on what race to play is forced elsewhere. I know as a player, for example, that if the game-world doesn't have revival-from-death magic I'm going to be a lot more cautious about throwing myself into danger; if someone's going to die I'll make sure it isn't me. But if there *is* revival magic I can be a lot more gung-ho (and have a lot more fun too).

To give a simple example - if confict breaks out at a table because one PC tries to assassinate another PC, it is no good simply saying "Well, I was playing my character!" The relevant factors, rather, are things like that you chose to play a certain character, that you chose not to have your character forgive/repent at the relevant time, etc. The fiction in an RPG isn't spontaneously self-generating. It is authored. And authorship is a species of decision-making. Talking about the gameworld as if it had its own causal potency just obscures this.
It introduces a new variable, certainly...but a valid one.

Player decisions in a courtly Birthright game are most of the time going to be quite different than in a kill-or-be-killed medieval version of the Wild West. The resulting story, whether authored by the DM, the players, or some combination of the two, is also going to be quite different - as a direct result of the game-world setting. You can't deny this; and if the Forge does then its conclusions are based on insufficient data.

Lan-"kill-or-be-killed is my kind of game as long as I get to do the killing"-efan
 

log in or register to remove this ad

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
But its pretty clearly the genesis point of such ideas. Because once you've said its ok to demand in game elements from the DM, it's a pretty small step to add in game mechanics that allow you to make other demands.

Spin it the way you want, I think that's really grasping at straws. I don't really see the line of descent between the paladin's warhorse (or even Traveller's streetwise) and significant player authorship mechanics.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Why? The horse only exists once I call it. Remember it cannot ever be more than about a week's travel from me. Ever. It only exists when I, the player, make it so. The DM has very little input.
Not true. The horse may or may not have existed all along; what the player does - and all the player does - is make that horse become relevant to the run of play. Subtle but in this case quite significant difference, I think.

Lan-"flogging an undead horse"-efan
 

Not true. The horse may or may not have existed all along; what the player does - and all the player does - is make that horse become relevant to the run of play. Subtle but in this case quite significant difference, I think.

Isn't that exactly the same as the "noticing boxes in an alley" part of the debate, though? The boxes may or may not have existed all along. What the player does is make them relevant to the run of play. If one is a storygame mechanism, the other one is.
 

Hussar

Legend
Spin it the way you want, I think that's really grasping at straws. I don't really see the line of descent between the paladin's warhorse (or even Traveller's streetwise) and significant player authorship mechanics.

I think that it goes without saying that you're not seeing the line of descent here.

If the horse existed all the way along, then, somehow, that horse is following me around, never more than 7 days ride away, no matter where I go, ready for the call with some poor schmuck apparently cursed to follow the horse around to protect it from me, but no too strenuously, since the challenge is very obviously meant to be overcome.

It's no different than 4e's scaling challenges. The challenge will be exactly the same, no matter what level I choose to initiate the quest. At no point will the challenge be overwhelming or a cakewalk. it will level with me.

So, you have a scaling challenge, initiated by the player, that the DM is obligated to run. You can call that grasping at straws all you like, but, to me, it's about half a step away from pass the story stick gaming. The only thing the player hasn't done is dictate the exact nature of the challenge. He has, OTOH, dictated that the challenge can never vary too much from the character's level.
 

Hussar

Legend
Isn't that exactly the same as the "noticing boxes in an alley" part of the debate, though? The boxes may or may not have existed all along. What the player does is make them relevant to the run of play. If one is a storygame mechanism, the other one is.

Pretty much this. The players make the boxes, or the beard, relevant to play. Heck, even if the player asks, "Are there boxes in the alley" and the DM says yes (off the cuff, it wasn't noted before), this is only a tiny step from direct player authorship anyway. The only difference is that the player didn't spend any character resources to do so. It's no different than the Traveler player saying, "I beat the Gamemaster set DC, so, now there are guns available." The existence of a DM veto does not change the fact that this is pretty much player authorship.
 

Cyberen

First Post
... and the biggest "offender" for early player authorship outside of character is imho on p10 of every edition : "pick your class". This is totally meta, and has a great bearing on the scenes yet to be framed by the DM, sooner or later in the game.
So... I guess we should stop this debate about traditionalism (which reeks of OneTrueWayism and retconning) and get back to the OP :)
 

... and the biggest "offender" for early player authorship outside of character is imho on p10 of every edition : "pick your class". This is totally meta, and has a great bearing on the scenes yet to be framed by the DM, sooner or later in the game.
So... I guess we should stop this debate about traditionalism (which reeks of OneTrueWayism and retconning) and get back to the OP :)
you know the funny part is, that I have no problem with "There are boxes there to stack" or "My family lives around here we can stay for free." or "Hey my old blind Ninja master can help" but class is a big problem...

Infact in 2e I could plan most of my campaigns as having atleast 1 cleric or druid, and atleast 1 wizard, at least one fighter type... in 3e/3.5 I got used to casters all the time, until we got book of nine swords. Then came 4e... and my biggest problem was that I never knew what was coming...

I went 3-4 campaigns with no wizards and no clerics... it was nerve wracking sometimes...
 

Mark CMG

Creative Mountain Games
Pretty much this. The players make the boxes, or the beard, relevant to play. Heck, even if the player asks, "Are there boxes in the alley" and the DM says yes (off the cuff, it wasn't noted before), this is only a tiny step from direct player authorship anyway.


So, you do understand the difference between player authorial control and exploration through the character. What makes these two things different (the "tiny step") and how does that difference affect gameplay?


As to my earlier posting, sorry not to get back to the thread sooner regarding the two scenarios but I've had other things occupying me. Both of those scenarios happened at game tables I was GMing, in essence. Both were games I was running for folks I (mostly) hadn't previously met and both games utilized pregens that the players could modify at the start, as well as ask general questions and clarify some background details they wanted to add to help them RP their characters. I run a lot of games at gamedays and convention with dozens of people each year who I have never GMed before as well as regular games with a regular group (usually at a gamestore).

How would any of the posters involved in this discussion handle the following situations?

Scenario one:

You're running a Forgotten Realms game (or a setting with identical facets) at a gameday or for all new players in your home or at one of the player's homes. Characters have been created and the group has moved through a town looking for something, let's say specific warm weather gear that isn't on the equipment list in the PH (like a polar bear fur coat), and they've realized they are being chased by thieves or muggers or they suspect possibly worse. They run around a corner while fleeing into an alley and one of the players says, "And in the alley there are some crates. On one of them, Elminster is sitting smoking his pipe and he recognizes me because my uncle worked for him loyally for over a dozen years before dying. I ask him to help us out of this jam." The players at the table turn to you expectantly. How do you handle this.

The first involved a convention pickup game where a young teen player asked at the start, to get his bearings, I thought, if the setting was like Forgotten Realms. He also said that he wanted his character to have come from a large family. Having run hundreds of games for strangers over 40 years, I get kinda used to curve balls and players looking for angles. As long as they do so in character, and accept any perceptual twists I have to add because they can only take in the setting through their character, then we're all more or less on the same page. What made this leap to mind was the earlier mention of crates, because this player did actual mention that Elminster was sitting on some crates.

Now, I'm not a GM who likes things to come to a screeching halt, nor likes to say "No" but since I am not actually running an FR game, just one that I had told the player was near enough that he'd be comfortable using FR as a reference, I did paint myself somewhat into a corner. Part of GMing for me is about improvisation and making sure to introduce conflict while still maintaining GM authorial control over the setting and having the players experience the environment through their characters.

So, I went with it but only as far as my own setting would allow. The guy on the crates jumped up and said, "Follow me!" Then he led them down the alley and through a door. When they all felt safe he revealed himself to be the uncle, not dead at all and disguising himself as this great wizard to avoid the very people who had been chasing the PCs (one of the major villainous factions in this particular town). The game moved forward and as the rest of the session unfolded, the uncle revealed that he had made up "Elminster" and had been using the false identity for years to right wrongs by convincing adventuring groups to go on quests. This was essentially the day that PC found out there was no Santa Claus. In this way I was able to ease the player back into RPing rather than storytelling and was very happy to see he understood the difference through the rest of the game.


Scenario two:

Similar setup but it is a Greyhawk game (or nearly identical setting for our purposes). The four players all have one character and you have started them in a tavern for whatever reason, even if you would never normally do that, when a fight breaks out. The players all agree that their characters should flee the tavern and the area. As they exit, one of the players says, "I look over and see a hovercraft. It's a four-seater like the kind I got in another Greyhawk game when exploring near the Barrier Peaks. Since this character I am playing today has a background in engineering, which I knew would come in handy, I tell everyone to jump in and I hot wire the thing so we can take off quickly." One of the other players looks over his character sheet and clears his throat. Two others look at engineer character player smiling enigmatically. The first player speaks again asking, "How fast does this one go?" How do you proceed?


This one was a bit trickier. It was an older player than myself who knew GH up and down and killed a few more minutes than I would of liked at the beginning of the slot with "I remember when my [first/second/favorite PC] did [this] and [that]" stories. There's often a bit of this early in games while players sort out their gaming pecking order. I don't really mind it as long as it isn't ongoing through the whole slot with each situation becoming a "This reminds me of . . ." session.

Now, I don't really do tech in my Grymvald setting. It's not post apoc nor does it include aliens from outer space. But, not one to jump first to saying "No" I figured someone might have something like this in the form of a modified flying carpet, which I described to the player as what the PC saw when he looked closer. It wasn't exactly what he wanted as a player but in character, he then went on to describe to the other characters how he knew of these things as pale imitations of the tech he knew. Once he owned that this was what his character was saying, I was fine. A PC can say whatever he wants. He can lie. He can be mistaken. He can be deluded. Unless that clarification needs to be part of the game because the player presses it, I leave it open to conjecture. It doesn't really change the setting for the PC to say anything at all. As it turned out, they couldn't work the flying carpet with no command word and made a dash for it when the carpet-alarms went off. I left it at that as they got on with adventuring.
 

Hussar

Legend
Mark CMG said:
So, you do understand the difference between player authorial control and exploration through the character. What makes these two things different (the "tiny step") and how does that difference affect gameplay?

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?370391-Character-play-vs-Player-play/page56#ixzz3J40Vh6C

The DM describes the scene that we are in an alley and the window we want to climb through is 15 feet off the ground. I declare that I'm looking around for boxes to climb on. The DM, not having described the presence of any boxes in the scene, decides that there are indeed boxes and we can climb.

Is that "exploration through character" or "player authorial control"? To me, the question is moot. There's no real difference here. The only reason that there are boxes in this alley is because I, the player, wanted boxes in the alley. Had none of the players brought up the idea of boxes, then there would be no boxes in the alley. That we had to get the DM to say yes, rather than just spending a Fate chip or whatever, is fairly irrelevant, since the outcome is identical.

I mean, you added the uncle to the scene entirely because the player introduced it. Had the player not said anything, there would not have been anyone seated in the alleyway would there? Again, how is this not player authorial control? Just because you can modify his idea, doesn't change the fact that the player, not the character, the player, changed your game world simply by adding in elements. To me, your first example is quintessentially player authorial control.
 

Remove ads

Top