D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[Cyberen]

... also, the 1e DMG introduces many elements meant to ensure the DM is not the only purveyor of the fiction. At least, this is my interpretation of some famously game-bending magic items, such as the Deck of Many Things or the Ring of 3 Wishes.
"Be flexible" is the advice painted all over the book.
When it encourages uncanny cross-overs (cow boys ! Post apocalyptic goodness !), do you seriously think all of this is supposed to come only from the DM ? Nope ! I am pretty sure the history of the Monk class is that some friend of Gary Gygax asked to bring some Shaolin Monk at the table, and the DM rolled with it... (and as stated by Mark CMG earlier, PC generation falls outside of the scope of "trad RPGing", which only concerns the role playing of the characters once they are created)

 

[Manbearcat]

Going back to this that I posted upthread, I'm going to try to get a little more traction out of it in a different way:

2) I'm going to contrive the (bog standard imo) GM exposition of the opening to a quick scene below:

"The gruel of the common room is stirred by drunken laughter, a haze of pipeweed smoke, lively music, a roaring firepit dead in the middle, scantily clad entertainment on a stage in the back, and flaring tempers at each of the card tables.

When you open the tavern doors, the eyes of the men playing the instruments are drawn to you. The music abruptly stops. The laughter chokes off. And the scattered grim-faced members of the gang you're seeking go slack-jawed. Their hands reflexively go to their weapon belts and their feet anchor to the floor to push their chairs out from under their respective tables! Much to the chagrin of the monkey perched on her shoulder, the dancing girl slows her gesticulations to a halt and screams!"​

​

Because they aren't actually there to take in the sensory information, each player will then in-fill the rest of the details of the scene. They'll hone the resolution as is required for them to personally imagine it. Consequently, every other aspect of the scene exists in a state of sort of quantum superposition until the conversation of play formally establishes it, or not, into the shared-imaginary space. These other scene elements that they are imagining are everywhere at once (spatially with respect to other objects - some of those, again, not formally established yet - and themselves) and nowhere. That is until those scene elements are invoked and formally established within the fiction via play procedures (which includes mundane conversation between GM and PC). A sort of triangulation such that each of the players (GM included) slowly possess some measure (certainly not remotely absolute) of uniformity between their shared imaginary spaces.

Again, that is pretty standard exposition for me as a scene-opener. So what procedurally comes next?

1 - The players consider the (a) stakes of this conflict, (b) their immediate goals, (c) the relevant scene elements, (d) their suite of abilities and how these four facets play into their considerations for the actions they immediately wish to declare.

2 - If any of a, b, or c is unclear to them, or of too low resolution for them to feel comfortably declaring an action, a conversation is engaged between myself and the players to clarify or more fully flesh out the situation presented to them.

3 - Lets talk about (c) as its the most immediately relevant portion of the present topic. In real life, I'm inhabiting my own mind. Through that presence of mind, I am immediately aware of several layers of sensory information. Further, I'm immediately ensconced in whatever psychological and emotional states that the situation either invests within me or I invest in the situation. Through that combination of presence of mind, sensory awareness and calculation, and emotional/psychological fallout, I am immediately orienting myself and making permutations about whatever course of action (benign or other) that I might take. I then act.

No questions are asked. There is no sensory proxy that they must correspond with to ensure the details that they should orient themselves toward and feel this way or that way about. There is autonomous experience, and from it there is certitude and immediate bio-feedback. So that is first person, in real life. That process is one of the things I consider when I'm GMing. Life is swift and all of that stuff happening in your mind is immediate...a blurring pace of mental collage. I want my players to sense. I want them to feel. I want them to orient, permutate and extrapolate. And I want it to be quick, both for the sake of the game's pulse and our collective pulse at the table.

So with that said, one of the other advantages of having the default be "saying yes" to intuitive, plausible scene elements proposed by players is to ensure a higher likelihood of maintaining PC habitation, rather than a jarring experience of 20 questions (with the answer being very much up in the air) with your sensory proxy (the GM). This seems intuitive to me given the pace, autonomy of human experience processing, the certitude and bio-feedback that comes with it. Assuming good faith on behalf of the players (and a simple credibility test of whether a proposal is plausible or not is simple in the extreme), it would seem that player proposals for tightening up the scene's resolution (in-filling details that weren't canvassed at initial GM exposition when framing the scene) should be propositions that are intuitive for them (eg - make sense from an "inhabiting the PC's PoV"). They're seeing it in their mind and just affirming it.

However, it seems that some see the applied principle above ("say yes...or roll the dice") as a gateway for bad faith metagaming as the default mode of players' play. So then we need to initiate the nuclear precautionary principle option of implementing play procedures whereby the sensory proxy (GM) veto hangs over the head of each and every player proposal of a scene element...right down to the utterly mundane "beard on NPC001's face" and "boxes/crates/barrels (etc) in an alley". How in the world is that not "jarring" to players? I can't imagine playing under such a scenario and ever feel like I'm inhabiting my PC.

 

[Mark CMG]

Nonsense. Plenty of GMs have sat down to run games creating material on the spur of the moment - whether using random generation tables, or just making stuff up because it seems like fun.

(. . .)

There's no "mental bible" there beyond some basic conceptions about what the player finds interesting about his/her PC, and what the GM thinks might be an interesting way to put pressure on that.

A mental bible about ones setting can be as simple as the latter or even more rich, and that is generally the mark of a more thorough or dedicated GM, but there is always a setting bible. It can't be helped. Saying that there is is simply the codification of an involuntary or voluntary process every GM goes through from the moment they undertake the role. I know there is no way you cannot recognize this nor really object to my defining it in this manner. I know you think about your setting and believe other GMs do as well, and that the more one thinks about their setting and running their game the better a GM they will likely be.

I'm afraid this discussion, between the two of us at any rate, has gotten to the point where you wish to nay say. Aside from outright arguing something I know with which you agree, the remainder of the post where you address me seems to want to point out areas where later RPGs that have storytelling elements and more fully formed storytelling games both have elements of RPGs, something I have said from the start but which you seem to want to argue as if I have never said it, or simply because I haven't repeated it whenever I have had to repeat my definition of (trad) RPGs. Sorry, buddy, but this has become unproductive.

... also, the 1e DMG introduces many elements meant to ensure the DM is not the only purveyor of the fiction. At least, this is my interpretation of some famously game-bending magic items, such as the Deck of Many Things or the Ring of 3 Wishes.
"Be flexible" is the advice painted all over the book.
When it encourages uncanny cross-overs (cow boys ! Post apocalyptic goodness !), do you seriously think all of this is supposed to come only from the DM ? Nope ! I am pretty sure the history of the Monk class is that some friend of Gary Gygax asked to bring some Shaolin Monk at the table, and the DM rolled with it... (and as stated by Mark CMG earlier, PC generation falls outside of the scope of "trad RPGing", which only concerns the role playing of the characters once they are created)

Don't forget that there are dice. By your logic we must recognize the authorship of dice as well. Or, we can recognize that the main guideline for GMing is that the game and setting are the GM's to do with as they will and if they wish to include a "Deck" or any other item outlined in the DMG, or wish to include or exclude a class or race, or wish to randomize something with dice it is their purview. That makes setting authorship in a (trad) RPG solely that of the GM, even if a player, through his character, looks for crates in a previously undetailed alley and finds them. It's the bottomline of how it works and your attempt to take the argument to an extreme opposite position really points a fine point on how obvious it is, your interpretation notwithstanding.

Oh, and btw, can you quote (the full post) where you claim I said "PC generation falls outside of the scope of "trad RPGing", which only concerns the role playing of the characters once they are created)" because I think you are misunderstanding the point I was making. It may have been some akin to the RPing not starting until after the PCs are generated or some such. And, you do understand this doesn't negate the fact that the GM decides what can be used by the players in PC generation, the range of what the players can bring into his setting, to use to explore his setting? It may just be the separation of the OP "Character play vs Player play" rather than the RPG to RPG with storytelling elements to storytelling games discussion we've been having but, in any event, it is frightfully clear you either didn't understand the post you are quasi-quoting or have taken it out of context to try and support an argument that misunderstands (trad) RPG GMing anyway.

 

[Hussar]

It has, but it's not just veto in some games.

It's often dice roll.

As a DM, I often just let the dice decide. We have a "high is good for the PCs" D20 roll. Roll low? No boxes or anything to hide / climb.

Sure. I do the same thing quite often. One DM I knew used a 6d6 random encounter roll. The more sixes, the more friendly the encounter. The more ones, the more dangerous. No sixes or ones, and no encounter.

/edit to add

Just to make a point here though, no one is saying that there aren't a multitude of ways of dealing with this. There certainly are and most of them work. You could rule by fiat, you could go with [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s point and everything must originate from the DM, you can use a resource system, or you can free form it. They all work, for a given value of work. My point has always been though, that every way of dealing with this has been part of RPG's since very close to Day 1. The only one that kinda comes later is a resource system, at least for D&D. Although, resource systems for changing the game world have been around since at least 1983 (James Bond RPG) and I'm pretty sure you could find earlier examples. As I've said before, I see the Paladin's mount system as a resource system for changing the game world. At least, a very early form. Things like the spell system in D&D have long been used as a resource system for changing the game world. This is why they are so strongly limited.

Imagine, just for a second, we change the AD&D magic system and strip out all utility spells. They only have attack and defense spells. If you lower down the power a bit on some of those spells, you no longer really need a Vancian system. That's why all the at-will powers in 5e are attack or defense. They're just another way of dealing damage, which is something everyone at the table can do. It's the world changing spells - the create food and water, water breathing, invisibility, and the like that need to be limited. Because now, with limited choices and limited number per day, it becomes a mini-game for casters - do you deal damage, or do you take stuff that will let you change the world? The more damage you deal, the less you can alter challenges that the DM sets in front of you.

Sorry to bring up this bugaboo, but, I think that's the primary problem with the 3e caster system. It's fairly trivial, particularly at higher levels, to get around those daily limits and selection limits. Buy a scroll to get a new spell. Buy lots of scrolls and you no longer need to memorize some of those game altering spells. At high levels, you have so many slots that you don't even really need to fill them up with spells - just leave a few open and 15 minutes later, poof, you have the magic key to whatever problem is in front of you.

Yes, it's tied to class, but, it's still pretty much direct player authorship. The DM puts a magic item in a lake. The PC's could try to swim down, possibly drowning, or wait a few minutes and water breathe to the bottom and not worry at all. Problem goes away with the wave of the holy symbol. Who needs boxes in the alley, Unseen Servant in 5e can fly (possibly, not sure I agree with that interpretation) and tie a rope up there for you so you can climb up. Never mind spells like Rope Trick or Levitate.

How often have people complained that problems get solved by the casters throwing magic at it? Why do you think they are having problems? IMO, it's because a lot of DM's fail to realise that casting spells is functionally the same as player authorship. The DM throws the challenge at the party, the caster (whichever flavour), wiggles his fingers and rewrites the challenge. The limitations on it are virtually the same as you'd see for any player authorship system. The only issue, in my mind, is that it's limited to a small number of players at the table. But, even then, that's not necessarily a problem. Lots of story style games trade in game direct power with player authorship power. The Scoobies in Buffy The Vampire Slayer have far less direct power than the Slayer, but, the Slayer will kill vampires a heck of a lot more easily. Lots of games do this. It's really just based on the D&D model.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And I have to reiterate - this is not about whether or not the lich exists in the gameworld. Of course it does - it isn't spontaneously created at the point the PCs encounter it. This is about when that fiction is authored. That fiction is authored by the GM at the point when it is, or might be, needed.

I think we might be in agreement, then? I thought you were trying to suggest that the lich not actually appearing implied that there might not even be a lich within the setting. If it's just about when those details of the definitely-existing-since-we-see-it-on-the-chart lich are finalizes, then you're right, there's no point in figuring out those details until they become relevant.

The two most famous books teaching GMing - Gygax's DMG and Moldvay Basic - both expressly advise playing the game the way I have described - I quoted Gygax upthread. But for reasons that escape me, you are characterising as a departure from the norms of D&D and of RPGing.

Like I said, it was before my time. I started with 2E, and what you suggest was not in there in any prominent manner. Those are the norms to which I am accustomed, and from which the things you mention are a departure.

 

[Greg K]

Although, resource systems for changing the game world have been around since at least 1983 (James Bond RPG) and I'm pretty sure you could find earlier examples.

It does not allow change to the degree of Bond 007, but the original Top Secret released around 1980 had fame and fortune points which allowed a player to turn a fatal wound into a non-fatal wound or avoid unconsciousness from Hand-to-hand damage. Players just did not know the amount of F&F points they had remaining.

 

[KarinsDad]

How often have people complained that problems get solved by the casters throwing magic at it? Why do you think they are having problems? IMO, it's because a lot of DM's fail to realise that casting spells is functionally the same as player authorship. The DM throws the challenge at the party, the caster (whichever flavour), wiggles his fingers and rewrites the challenge. The limitations on it are virtually the same as you'd see for any player authorship system.

I think that you are reading way too much into it.

A PC casting a spell and "rewriting a challenge" is no different than a fighter swinging his sword and doing the same thing. Sure, one is a bit broader and the other a bit narrower in scope, but for all intents and purposes it's the same thing. The authorship is limited to the rules and I suspect that many DMs do not drill down into it to the extent that you have.

 

[Hussar]

Not really though. I swing a sword at the Orc in no way alters the nature of the challenge. I'm supposed to swing at the Orc. That's the nature of the challenge.

If I use my climb skill to climb up to that window, that's the expected means of resolution. I might fail my check and fall and lose hp. If I change the nature of the challenge by using levitate or adding boxes, I'm no longer being challenged in the same way, if at all.

A spell that lets you bypass a challenge is a player authorship resource. You've rewritten the game by spending resources.

 

[aramis erak]

Using a spell, when the spell is part of the rules and is used RAW/RAI, is no different for a wizard than a fighter using a sword to do deal with the threat. It's a character using a mechanical ability that is inherent to the character.

Using a plot point or a fate point where that simply ensures that the GM has to nerf the badguy somehow is a player using an ability conferred on the player. It may be character linked, and is only a small bit different.

A player using a plot point or fate point to declare some item exists in the fictional universe of the game is a player using an authorial ability, and is considerably different from a spell.

And a player using a character based ability to define other characters is similar to, but more extreme than, a player using a fate point or other obviously player-only resource to do it.

All are fun (with the right group, at least); D&D's advice tends towards the first, with a dose of "apply common sense because the rules can't" in AD&D. In littlebook, there's almost no advice in the rules as written; the OE rules almost require apprenticeship to learn (note the almost...).

Note that wishes, due to the nature of the DM advice on it, are character resources, not player resources - the DM is encouraged to be hyperliteral, and to make any but the simplest and least abusive ones backfire somehow. Further, there's plenty of advice to bar player-level wish phrasing. "I want to be Strength 18" auto-fails, while "I wish to be as strong as I can be" may be a point or a fractional point of strength. And a wish for "A royal ransom's worth of gold" is supposed to be delivered in some nasty way... like with its guards, or dumped directly upon the wishing character, or with a note left mentioning who has it... or even just taking the character to the gold, instead of bringing the gold to the character. It's far less narrative when played as apparently intended that modern views would tend to imply.

 

[Cyberen]

Concerning the adjudication of the Wish spell as intended in AD&D, note how similar it is to the base mechanic of Dungeon World, especially the 7-9 result : yes... with a twist. I would call it "co authorship".