D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

At the end of a long day, when resources have been depleted, ask why the character cannot cast the spell. The D&D spellcaster can tell you that she doesn't have any spell slots left. The Fate spellcaster... well, I'm not sure how she would explain it, because she doesn't know about the existence of Fate points. You might be able to improvise some excuse about being too tired, or some sort of magical interference, but nothing that actually corresponds to the insufficient Fate points.

 

[Hussar]

"Fortune favors me again. I have found the secret door." Seems pretty easy to show in game. In my Suggestion example above, both characters cast a spell to change the mind of the chamberlain. The mechanics of spell casting might be different, but, in game, they are identical. Sure, dwarf resistance to poison might be known in game, but, how about different classes? My fighter has a better save vs poison than your thief, but, we're both human, have identical Con scores. How do we explain that?

I think you are drawing very unnecessary lines here and trying to find differences where none actually exist.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The mechanics of spell casting might be different, but, in game, they are identical. Sure, dwarf resistance to poison might be known in game, but, how about different classes? My fighter has a better save vs poison than your thief, but, we're both human, have identical Con scores. How do we explain that?

In-game, the D&D character knows about spell slots, but the Fate character doesn't know about Fate points. It is a substantive in-game difference that the D&D character knows about spell slots, and can plan around them.

In-game, Fighters are known for their physical resilience where Thieves are not. This is all in-game stuff. When the characters discuss who to send ahead to brave the poison-gas room, it makes sense in-game to suggest that the Fighter has a better chance of surviving it. Of course, if you have a human Fighter against a dwarf Thief, then it might get fuzzy (just as the math will also get fuzzy, and we can't tell who has a better chance unless we know more details).

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

I like how you put this. It highlights what I believe really matters the most: player engagement.

It is auspicious when a player just jumps in and says "I stack up crates" or "I jump off the bannister and swing from the chandelier" or "Would you know my uncle?" That kind of engagement is something to encourage, and considerations about muddy authorship just does not seem important.

Is it such a desired thing that the players know it is critical interrogate the DM before their PC moves a muscle or utters a syllable? I do not think so

Yes, there is theoretical potential for abuse. Certainly the DM has the right to veto, or counteroffer (e.g. "You have the bad luck to be in one of the few alleys in this warehouse district with no crates or boxes whatsoever. But there is a long pile of rotting barrels. They could easily be stacked up, but, it might be rickety if you are in a hurry.")

 

[Hussar]

At the end of a long day, when resources have been depleted, ask why the character cannot cast the spell. The D&D spellcaster can tell you that she doesn't have any spell slots left. The Fate spellcaster... well, I'm not sure how she would explain it, because she doesn't know about the existence of Fate points. You might be able to improvise some excuse about being too tired, or some sort of magical interference, but nothing that actually corresponds to the insufficient Fate points.

Wait, what? You actually play this way? Your characters know what spell slots are? I'd point you to pretty much every single D&D fiction written that disagrees with you. It's always the "I'm too tired" excuse and never, "Well, I already cast my two third level spells and I can't cast any more third level spells. You want a second level one?"

 

[Hussar]

In-game, the D&D character knows about spell slots, but the Fate character doesn't know about Fate points. It is a substantive in-game difference that the D&D character knows about spell slots, and can plan around them.

In-game, Fighters are known for their physical resilience where Thieves are not. This is all in-game stuff. When the characters discuss who to send ahead to brave the poison-gas room, it makes sense in-game to suggest that the Fighter has a better chance of surviving it. Of course, if you have a human Fighter against a dwarf Thief, then it might get fuzzy (just as the math will also get fuzzy, and we can't tell who has a better chance unless we know more details).

By the same token, a higher level thief might have a better poison save than the fighter. So, do characters know their level too? Do people in your world actually know their class? If I walk up to someone, can I say, in character, "What level ranger are you?"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

By the same token, a higher level thief might have a better poison save than the fighter. So, do characters know their level too? Do people in your world actually know their class? If I walk up to someone, can I say, in character, "What level ranger are you?"

that seems WAY more metagamey then anything else proposed...

infact the whole "Fort save thing" has me thinking...

we have a 18 Con Fighter 1/Rouge (assassin) 5 and a 16 Con Rogue (assassin) 3/ Fighter (Battlemaster) 3.... how would they in game decied who had a better Con save? well the f1/r5 is profecent and has a +1 better... but there is no way to express class level/build in game...

I now imagine that all games run by [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] look like the order of the stick... everyone knows spell slots, and hp and no one can ever be creative on the fly...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wait, what? You actually play this way? Your characters know what spell slots are? I'd point you to pretty much every single D&D fiction written that disagrees with you. It's always the "I'm too tired" excuse and never, "Well, I already cast my two third level spells and I can't cast any more third level spells. You want a second level one?"

Really? You must not have read very much D&D fiction, then. I mean, I've only read some of the Drizzt stuff from back in the 2E era, but they did very much talk about running out of spells or not having certain spells prepared at the moment, and everything else.

They would talk about actual spells prepared, rather than spell slots, because spell slots didn't really exist independently of the spells you prepared in them until 3E came around.

 

[aramis erak]

Sorry, but that's true of ALL RPG's.

No, it's not. Not all RPGs grant the GM veto over player actions.

Fate, for example, usually puts rules authority not to the GM, but to the players. The GM has no veto, but the whole table does. (Some specific Fate games don't follow the trend, but of the 8 I've read, and 2 I've played, most do. One didn't).

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?

No, again, Fate does NOT always use aspects as a character resource. If I spend to invoke my character's aspect, that's a character resource. If I use yours against you, a Tag, it is again a character resource. But if I use it to state that something exists in setting that otherwise shouldn't be there, that's not a character resource, but a player one. And if I spend a point to force your character to jump off a cliff using his "reckless daredevil" aspect, without having my character shove him or intimidate him, then I've just used yours as my player resource.

Fate is neither fully trad nor fully storygame... it's in that space between.

You really need to stop looking at it as a binary case, and see it as a spectrum.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

By the same token, a higher level thief might have a better poison save than the fighter. So, do characters know their level too? Do people in your world actually know their class? If I walk up to someone, can I say, in character, "What level ranger are you?"

Characters know roughly how tough they are, even if they don't refer to class and level. They don't know specific game terms, such as "class" names and "level", but they would know about the in-game truths which those game mechanics represent. Things like Fortitude/Con save, Hit Points, skill bonus... they all have very specific meanings within the game world, and someone within the game world can observe those facts of which these numbers are merely abstractions.