D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[pemerton]

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.

Absolutely.

The significant effect on play is not in-character vs out-of-character; it's whether or not the players have to engage the challenge on the GM's terms (in idealised terms, we could say - engage the GM's framed scene via the action resolution mechanics) or get to rewrite the challenge in their own terms (in idealised terms - bypass action resolution and just reframe the scene).

If you think this is not fun when a player does it by dropping a fate point, it's almost certainly not going to become more fun just because the player drops a wish spell instead!

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.

With all due respect, I think you are proving Hussar's point.

In any game, the authorship it limited to the rules. But if the players all want a game in which the GM frames the challenges, but the rules of the game permit the players to reframe or bypass those challenges, it is not an especially big deal whether those rules are framed in in-character or out-of-character terms. It will still be anti-climactic and suck.

This is why high level modules in D&D classically would have a list of banned spell effects. To stop the anti-climax. The fact that there is an ingame rationale (magic works differently on the Abyss, or on the demi-plane, or due to underground magntetic forces, or whatever) is secondary - it's not that someone imagined an ingame limitation then wrote up rules for it! Rather, Gygax recgonised that teleportation is a scene-reframing ability, realised that it can tend to make modules suck, and so banned it from the D-series and then wrote in an in-game figleaf.

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.

<snip>

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.

Again, I don't agree.

Consider OGL Conan, which has a modest fate-point mechanic. I could trivially rewrite that as an ingame mechanic - certain behaviours draw the admiration of Crom, who awards those who perform them with a certain number of "boons" - but it wouldn't fundamentally change the play of the game.

The fact that a given ability is inherent to the character is secondary - it has no more than rather minor consequences for some of the narration of ingame events. The real issue is how it affects the content of the fiction, and the ability of the players to enage with that content. If I have to wear down an enemies hit points via the default combat rules, that's one thing; being able to cast Imprisonment, or Power Word Kill, and simply have that enemy dissappear, isn't radically different from the player of a fighter having some sort of rationed ability to say "OK, I win this fight without needing to roll any dice!"

Likewise, whether the boxes appear because I spend a fate point, because I mention the possibility to the GM and s/he follows my lead, or because I cast a "conjure boxes" spell, the basic dynamic of play is the same: I want there to be boxes in the scene, and there are. Or, to give a different example, the diffrence in play experience between Limited Wish or Wish used to undo a bad result, and a fate point spent on a reroll, is pretty minimal - either way, an undesired outcome is reversed.

This is another example that illustrates why I think the Forge is right to focus on the reality of the play experience, rather than infiction considerations. From the infiction point of view, a spell is something a character can do, and it has no constraints other than those of the ingame logic of magic. In practice, however, this produces spells that break the game in well-known ways - like 3.5's Shivering Touch (? the dragon-killing DEX-draining one), like teleport in many cases, like various summoning spells, like many scrying spells.

The 3E DMG advocated a mixture of illusionist GMing (fudge the outcomes) and in-game first techniques (a good GM can handle broken spells and incorporate them into his/her game). I prefer to be upfront - if I don't want a game in which the players get to reframe any challenging situation at their leisure, just drop teleport from the game. If I want to run mysteries, just drop scrying magic. Approach design from the perspective of the real world - what sort of authority do these character abiliites give to the players vs what sort of authority does the GM need to make the game fun for the participants. Then rewrite the ingame fiction to suit.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Correct. If a lich is never rolled, then for all we know there is no lich in the town, perhaps in the countryside, perhaps in the whole world.

If a lich is rolled, though, then of course it has a past and history in the gameworld - which the GM now has to make up. That is a big part of what GMing a game that uses classic random encounter tables involves.

The random encounter table is a system for turning possibilities - things that might be fun, or interesting, or challenging, or maybe all three - into actualities.

In my 4e game I don't use random encounter tables, but sometimes I will flick through a MM for inspiration. When the sorcerer in my game stood on the back of a dead dragon and tried to coalesce its chaotic energies into a form usable for crafting magic items, I had him roll an Arcana check. It was not a great success, and so I decided that something heard the call of the chaos and turned up. Flicking through my MV2, I found an entry for mooncalves - and so decided that some mooncalves, who seemed suitably chaotic, flew down to investigate the situation.

Prior to making that decision, who know whether or not their were moonclaves in the gameworld - nothng had been authored one way or another. That is the nature of fiction. Until it is written, it has not determinate content. (Of course, once it is written, from the point of view of those within the fiction it has been ever thus.)

 

[Hussar]

This is why high level modules in D&D classically would have a list of banned spell effects. To stop the anti-climax. The fact that there is an ingame rationale (magic works differently on the Abyss, or on the demi-plane, or due to underground magntetic forces, or whatever) is secondary - it's not that someone imagined an ingame limitation then wrote up rules for it! Rather, Gygax recgonised that teleportation is a scene-reframing ability, realised that it can tend to make modules suck, and so banned it from the D-series and then wrote in an in-game figleaf.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...cter-play-vs-Player-play/page62#ixzz3JJyiTeLm

This is a point I hadn't considered until you brought it up, but, it does fit nicely. If there is no difference between casting a spell and swinging a sword, why are spells so often nerfed while swords almost never? Spells radically alter the entire nature the game at certain levels. Once you hit certain points in spell casting power, certain challenges become so trivial as to be non-existent. It's impossible to get lost and starve to death if you have 5th+ level casters with you. It's impossible to keep 10th level parties out of locations, ((Or at least next to impossible)) unless you start bringing out the nerf bat. Heck, once the party is over 9th level, it's virtually impossible to actually kill anyone. At least permanently kill them.

How's that for player authority? The DM kills a PC and another player basically says, "Nuh uh. He's not dead. Poof, back on your feet constant soldier." Given a Rod of Resurrection, that's no longer even limited to clerics in AD&D.

 

[Mark CMG]

How's that for player authority?

If you mean "player authorial control" in a (trad) RPG then it isn't. A GM decides if any particular type of magic is available in his setting and players use or do not use magic through their PCs. If a GM decides to use a published adventure, they can use it as is and take on the restrictions of it for their setting, or not.

 

[Hussar]

If you mean "player authorial control" in a (trad) RPG then it isn't. A GM decides if any particular type of magic is available in his setting and players use or do not use magic through their PCs. If a GM decides to use a published adventure, they can use it as is and take on the restrictions of it for their setting, or not.

Oh please. That's ballocks.

Look, is there a spell called Raise Dead or Resurrection (take your pick) in the D&D books that you own? Is it there? Then it's part of the game. Yes, we know you can remove stuff. Guess what? You can remove stuff from a Story Game too. Who cares if you can remove it?

This is about the lamest argument you can make. "Well, you can change the game to remove story game elements, therefore the game has no story game elements" is a ludicrous argument. It's like saying that Poker isn't a gambling game because you can play it without betting. It's 100% true that you could play poker without gambling. But, it's also 100% true that Poker, as written, is a gambling game.

Put it another way. If I remove Fate Points from Fate, does that mean that Fate is a (trad) RPG? See how ridiculous this line of argument is? Fate isn't a story game because I can remove the story game elements?

Bottom line, yes or no, is there a Raise Dead or Resurrection spell in D&D? Because a Res spell, or even better, a Rod of Res (because that's usable by anyone) appears in MY copies of every edition of D&D that I've played. And Raise Dead or Resurrection is pretty much direct player authorial control. You get to retcon PC death.

And, bringing this back around to 5e, I was perusing the 5e DMG Basic rules and noticed this little gem:

Ring of Evasion:
Ring, rare (requires attunement)
This ring has 3 charges, and it regains 1d3 expended charges daily at dawn. When you fail a Dexterity saving throw while wearing it, you can use your reaction
to expend 1 of its charges to succeed on that saving throw instead.

Oh look, direct retcon of results. Player Authorship in action. You fail a saving throw, and spend a resource to make the save, instead. Nice to see. I'm pretty sure if I went back into the old 1e DMG, I could likely find all sorts of examples like this. Be an interesting thing to look at.

 

[Mark CMG]

Who cares if you can remove it?

It's part of the rules that the GM can remove anything that doesn't fit his setting and, in a (trad) RPG, the players still need to make it happen through their characters.

 

[Hussar]

It's part of the rules that the GM can remove anything that doesn't fit his setting and, in a (trad) RPG, the players still need to make it happen through their characters.

Sorry, but that's true of ALL RPG's. Just because it's tied to your character sheet doesn't make it less of a story game element. Every single Aspect in Fate is tied to the Character. Everything that the player can do, through invoking those aspects, is 100% due to that character. Does that make Fate a (trad) RPG?

 

[Mark CMG]

Sorry, but that's true of ALL RPG's. Just because it's tied to your character sheet doesn't make it less of a story game element. Every single Aspect in Fate is tied to the Character. Everything that the player can do, through invoking those aspects, is 100% due to that character. Does that make Fate a (trad) RPG?

A character is unaware of Fate points and they are a player resource, not a character resource.

 

[Hussar]

So that's the distinction we're making here? Anything that the character is unaware of is a player resource? So, elven secret door detection is a player resource? Dwarves saving throw bonuses? Any number of mechanics that are pretty much entirely meta-level bonuses that the character should have no real knowledge of? After all, what's the difference between "I can find secret doors pretty easily" and "I'm very lucky and lucky things happen to me"?

And, thinking about this, while the specific action of Fate Points might be hidden from the character, the justifications for them certainly aren't. Take the following old chestnut - the players want to see the king and the chamberlain is having none of it. They try to persuade the chamberlain, but, no go. The chamberlain, for whatever reason, isn't going to let them see the king.

D&D: My caster character casts Suggestion and we get to see the king.

Fate: My character has the aspect of "Student of Magic" and casts a spell to change the mind of the chamberlain and we get to see the king.

What's the difference here? In the first case, we strike off that memorized spell (maybe, since Bards could also do suggestion without using a specific spell) and move on. In the latter case, we spend a Fate point, and move on. In both cases we spend character resources and do the exact same thing.

Or are you trying to argue that only Vancian casting counts as role playing? What about games with spell points or at-will casting?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So that's the distinction we're making here? Anything that the character is unaware of is a player resource? So, elven secret door detection is a player resource? Dwarves saving throw bonuses? Any number of mechanics that are pretty much entirely meta-level bonuses that the character should have no real knowledge of? After all, what's the difference between "I can find secret doors pretty easily" and "I'm very lucky and lucky things happen to me"?

That's a big part of it, yes. When I'm playing a character, I don't want to make any decisions based on information that the character doesn't have. That goes hand-in-hand with not affecting the narrative beyond the scope available to the character. They are both central aspects of role-playing - of playing the character, rather than playing the game and merely controlling the character.

The secret door thing, and dwarf save bonuses, are not player resources. Both exist within the narrative, and can be discussed between characters. Most people know that poison is less effective on dwarves, and that elves have keen senses which let them spot secret doors. There are excessively few meta-level bonuses which a player must consider, which do not exist as real things that are discussable within the game world.

There is very little difference between sending the elf to search for secret doors, and sending the halfling who is lucky enough to spot those secret doors, because those both exist in-game and can be considered on that basis. There is every difference in the world between sending the lucky halfling to hopefully spot secret doors, and spending the human with the "Lucky" feat to find secret doors, because the latter requires player-resource control to activate - it requires the player to do something on behalf of the character, in a manner which the character cannot reasonably explain in-game.