D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[Mark CMG]

I've heard of this one before, but I never really bought into it. I mean, they actually did call this one out somewhere in one of the books as pretty much the definition of meta-gaming - you shouldn't assume that every monster is beatable (by you, now), or that every challenge can be overcome, just because you're playing the game. It's fallacious to assume that the world is level-appropriate to you.

Of course, that's definitely going to vary by edition. Starting at least as early as 3E, and even moreso with 4E, they really hammered on the idea that the DM should be building encounters for the party to face.

Yup, you and pemberton hit on a grey area there in regard to when storytelling elements became ingrained in an edition of D&D ("tailored encounters" in 3.XE as opposed to what 3.XE termed "status quo encounters"). I believe that this is potentially a storytelling element but some would argue that since it is the GM who decides just how tailored it is, it still falls under RPGing elements.

After all, the GM buys whatever monster books (or adventure) he is going to use, turns the page to the monster, reads or misreads the monster stats, maybe fudges the HP if the last monster was nearly killed but not quite by one HP and dragging on the combat would mean little else could happen that game session.

That's always been the GM's purview so, some would say, why would a full acknowledgement of tailored versus status quo encounters not be considered a simple codification of the GM's purview that has always existed? Some would say that the rules don't force a GM to use tailored rather than status quo encounters, though certainly there is a ton more information (as one would expect) on how to tailor encounters (including an entire CR system!). Also, some opposed to calling out tailored encounters as a storytelling element would point out the lack of player authorial control over the GMs decision. Although, it seems fair to point out that the player has indirect control because he is striving have a more experienced PC which in turn affects the tailoring of the encounters the PC will face.

So, while I understand these arguments I am less likely to put my full force behind them. The fact that it is flat out codified in the rules to the point that it is seemingly the default to have tailored encounters in 3.XE sways me to the side that 3.XE had a fair amount of storytelling game influence and rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

The single biggest violator of this principle, in the typical D&D game, is the decision to go and explore this location/problem, with these people, with an expectation that success is a real prospect. In other words, the basically protagonistic orientation of the PCs in most D&D play.

This is based on information that the character doesn't have, but is hugely salient to the player - namely, that I am here, at my friend's house, playing a player character in a FRPG where the GM opposite me has prepared some sort of gameworld or scenario or whatever for the rest of us to engage with via our PCs.

Although this is true, it is often kind of irrelevant.

Yes, there are DMs and game systems that try to kill off PCs in an attempt to get the players to realize that their PCs would not have an expectation of success, but to me, that's just silly.

I view it as a game, meant to be played and meant to be fun. I don't view it as some type of mental exercise in always playing my PC "100% in character". That's too much effort for a game meant to be fun.

I prefer a world of degrees and probabilities. For example, 10% of encounters are easy, 35% of encounters are moderate, 50% of encounters are hard, 5% of encounters are deadly, and 0% of encounters are so deadly as to be nearly auto-TPKs.

It doesn't matter to me that "if a fantasy world really existed", the PCs might run into a group of foes, each one CR 10 higher than the party. As long as it doesn't happen in the game, then I'm ok. If it does happen in the game, then the DM is probably being a xxxx. There is no reason or need for a non-protagonistic orientation of the PCs form of game where the PCs are expected to die often and not expected to be successful, at least for me. I would tell a DM who wanted to run such a game to "go be a xxxx somewhere else".


Note: Having said this, I would state, however, that an overly protagonistic orientation of the PCs can be taken to extremes. As an example, the first section of HotDQ. It's just plain nonsensical to go to a burning town with a dragon flying overhead at first level. So yes, a given adventure or given DM can have a situation with an excessive and implausible protagonistic orientation which grates on the sensibilities, but that tends to be the exception instead of the rule in most adventures (unfortunate that the flagship adventure of 5E started out that way IMO, our table spent at least 20 minutes on this because it was just so unbelievable that PCs would do this).

 

[pemerton]

I view it as a game, meant to be played and meant to be fun. I don't view it as some type of mental exercise in always playing my PC "100% in character". That's too much effort for a game meant to be fun.

Sure. But once you take this outlook, it's not that outrageous for the GM to decide the answer to the boxes question, or the beard question, based on what will be fun rather than (say) rolling a die, or (say) answering "no" because s/he wants to make the players jump through his/her preferred hoops.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sure. But once you take this outlook, it's not that outrageous for the GM to decide the answer to the boxes question, or the beard question, based on what will be fun rather than (say) rolling a die, or (say) answering "no" because s/he wants to make the players jump through his/her preferred hoops.

It's never outrageous (or at least rarely, I cannot think of an example) for the DM to decide the answer to questions.

But, just because a DM tries to base things on fun does not mean that his players are entitled to have any idea that they want just magically appear in the game world. A DM deciding against a beard or against boxes (with or without dice rolls) is not necessarily indicative of less fun, it's indicative of less player authorship.

 

[Hussar]

I dunno about the idea of status quo vs tailored encounters being a new idea.

Look at very early modules like Keep on the Borderlands. Most of the encounters are tailored to level. There are no dragons there. While there is an ogre, it's by itself with no assistance so not that difficult even for a first level party.

Tailored encounters are nothing new either.

 

[Mark CMG]

I dunno about the idea of status quo vs tailored encounters being a new idea.

Codified as part of the rules with 3.XE.


*edit* Never mind the rest. Meaningful discussion is going to be increasingly difficult when posts are misread.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Look at very early modules like Keep on the Borderlands. Most of the encounters are tailored to level. There are no dragons there. While there is an ogre, it's by itself with no assistance so not that difficult even for a first level party.

From what I understand, what is there is what is there, regardless of the party level or composition. You could go there with more characters, or at a higher level, and just defeat everything trivially. The only point that's even remotely meta-game is the recommendation of which level characters it's appropriate for, but that's more of a description rather than a prescription.

 

[Hussar]

Meh. Potato potahto. The module says x characters of y level range. All the encounters are designed based on that range.

They might even include expected calsses as well.

Sounds tailored to me.

/edit to add

The point about reliability is missing the point, as is the point about Fate points.

It doesn't matter if a res fails or not. The point is, that when it succeeds, it's largely a player resource not a character one. It lets the players retcon character death.

Success or failure is no different than the fact that a DM can veto changes or veto classes or powers. That's never been the point. The point is that these things exist in the rules and allow for player authorship over the game.

 

[pemerton]

But, just because a DM tries to base things on fun does not mean that his players are entitled to have any idea that they want just magically appear in the game world.

Nor does it mean they are not.

That's the point - that (i) there's nothing particularly deviant about the GM answering a question (about beards, or boxes, or whatever) by reference to player hopes and enthusiasms rather than (say) random dice rolls; and (ii) that if someone is complaining that his/her players aren't very engaged in the scenarios s/he is offering them, s/he might want to look at techniques that have the potential to more effectively engage the players in those scenarios and their resolution.

And two asides:

(A) The boxes or beards don't "magically appear". As has been discussed ad nauseum upthread, what the GM is doing in such a case is authoring the gameworld. From the ingame perspective, of course the NPC was always bearded (or the boxes always there, etc).

(B) The players presumably are entitled to expect that the gameworld will be full of stuff that is exciting and achievable for their PCs. My point is that it's no huge leap from that sort of scenario-level metagaming to detail-level metagaming.

 

[pemerton]

From what I understand, what is there is what is there, regardless of the party level or composition.

I don't really know what you are intending by this.

If the players turn up to a D&D game with 10th level PCs, what GM is going to pull out Keep on the Borderlands and say "let's play this"? Fewer than 1 in 100, would be my guess.

This once again shows the inadequacy of an ingame perspective for giving advice on game design and GMing techniques.

Of course, if the players turn up with 1st level PCs and start playing Keep on the Borderlands, it's true from within the gameworld that the Keep and the Caves are there for anyone to find. (It's also true, somewhat conveniently, that no one else has come along to clear them out!)

But in the real world, at the gaming table, it need not be true that, had the players turned up with different PCs the gameworld would neverhtless have included the Keep; and almost certainly not as an adventuing option salient to the PCs. Rather, the salient option for the PCs would probaby have included White Plume Mountain or Tomb of Horrors or the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief (choosing modules from within a similar range of publication dates and play styles).

This is before we even get to an experience that I, and I assume others, have had, of a player buying a module so the GM can run it for that player and his/her friends. That is a shift from the GM choosing or writing an adventure that will suit the players (given their interests, PC levels etc) to a player (via the proxy of the module author) presenting the gameworld that his/her PC will explore.