D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[Sadras]

Buidling strongholds is another interesting example, although less dramatic than the warhorse one. For instance, a fighter, by bulding a stronghold, makes it true that the gameworld contains a level 5 mercenary captain with a +2 battleaxe who turns up ready for service.

And yes, if your RPG contains this sort of stuff then you might as well define it as co-authored. Not all RPGs do contain this kind of stuff, though. Rolemaster doesn't. Runequest doesn't. 3E doesn't as its default - Leadership is expressly optional, and paladin mounts are spontaneously magically created by summoning, unlike the AD&D mount.

I find that entire premise hypocritical and illogical. If you decided to nominate this singular paladin power as player authorial control then you cannot logically speaking claim that the purchasing of a mount through roleplaying should be excluded from your player authorial control definition.
With the player telling the DM that his character asks around to find out which merchant sells the finest horses in the city. The player is therefore making the statement true that horses and merchants exist in this city. How is that any different to the AD&D pony power or the mercenary captain? Where exactly are you drawing the line between the two? It is absolutely delusional to draw a distinction.

I view RM, RQ and 3e as games which include player authorial control based on your definition.

 

[Sadras]

Look at something as simple as a 3e Prestidigitation spell - it's effectively a very small wish. You can do virtually anything with it, within the limitations of the spell itself. I can create objects, change colors, whatever. In a minor, but very real way, that's Player Authorship.

But do you agree that Prestidigitation is not any different to the PC's coming into a new town and the player turning to the DM and telling him that his cleric character will be visiting the town's local church in order to establish contact with the local clergy. So before the DM has had an opportunity to describe this town, the player has auto-authored that a church exists and that the clergy are available. You don't need to go as far a spells.
In a sense almost every character action is an example of player authorial control by the definition you and Pemerton keep on repeating. Where do you two draw the line?

Funny enough @pemerton stated that default 3e doesn't have player authorial control yet you picked a 3e spell from the default list of spells and stated that the spell does reflect player authorial control. So which one of you is right? You two seem unclear as to what constitutes player authorial control in your definitions and what doesn't. You have a much wider arc for the definition, whereas Pemerton does not.

Again, who is right? That is why I find this definition/representation hypocritical and extremely illogical because its half-baked.

 

[Sadras]

He's authoring the existence of a horse and a quest that heretofore had not existed. The difference between this and a spell is the story element involved that obliges the DM to make a quest for the PC.

So you would say it is all PC actions that depart from railroad adventures that oblige the DM to roleplay scenarios that he/she did not prepare for? Or is player authorial control only limited to quests for paladin mounts?

 

[Cyberen]

Hmmmm. No need to call names here.
Pemerton, and the Forge, and myself, we say that, from an IRL point of view, that the content generated during a RPG is co-authored by the players and the DM. This point can't really be denied.
The point being discussed by Mark CMG is about this content being generated by the characters ("trad RPGs") or not ("storygames"). Several posters here, including myself, say this point is moot, as several rules already present in AD&D show that Gygax was quite aware the game had to cater for the players (and not only their characters) and that there is no functional difference between "acting through character to use an arbitrary magical ability giving my character control of the setting" and "acting through character to ask providence to give me control of the setting". Of course, this is veiled edition warring, as the various editions of the game don't give the same advice to the DM, and only 4e made the jump of explicitly functionning on a outcome-based paradigm. Also, I think there is great fun to be had by allowing more control to the players, and I think this trace back to some magical items goodness such as Nolzur Pigments and Rings of 3 wishes. If you find them fun, why don't you incorporate more of these effects (in a limited way, more Prestidigitation than Wish) into the game ?
I have also said that PC generation doesn't fall in the scope of "role playing" (role defining, maybe), so D&D is not, since day 1, only about playing a role, but also about players giving an impetus to the game they are going to play, by chosing a flavourful role (note that AD&D has flavourful classes, compared to OD&D). I think it covers the corner case of the Paladin raised by Hussar in a satisfactory manner, as I believe all the subclasses (Druid, Ranger, Illusionist, Assassin) and even the main classes, especially Clerics, Thieves and Monks, bring a lot of baggage with them that could be brought up during play by the DM or the player.
But, addressing the OP, I have a question for you Majoru : how as a DM do you handle looking for secret doors ? Do you allow the players to roll without describing their actions ? Do you fudge the results ?

 

[Hussar]

But do you agree that Prestidigitation is not any different to the PC's coming into a new town and the player turning to the DM and telling him that his cleric character will be visiting the town's local church in order to establish contact with the local clergy. So before the DM has had an opportunity to describe this town, the player has auto-authored that a church exists and that the clergy are available. You don't need to go as far a spells.
In a sense almost every character action is an example of player authorial control by the definition you and Pemerton keep on repeating. Where do you two draw the line?

Funny enough @pemerton stated that default 3e doesn't have player authorial control yet you picked a 3e spell from the default list of spells and stated that the spell does reflect player authorial control. So which one of you is right? You two seem unclear as to what constitutes player authorial control in your definitions and what doesn't. You have a much wider arc for the definition, whereas Pemerton does not.

Again, who is right? That is why I find this definition/representation hypocritical and extremely illogical because its half-baked.

What is the difference between the player telling the DM that his cleric character is visiting the town's local church before the DM has actually established that there IS a church in this town and the player telling the DM that he is stacking boxes in an alley that the DM has not established as actually existing? Or the beard on the wizard that the DM has not established?

Would you have any problems with the cleric player doing this? Would you consider this to be something that never (or almost never) occurred in the early days of the game?

I argue that any time the player adds elements to the game before the DM has established those elements, that this is player authorship. The DM can and possibly should veto some additions, but, in many cases these would pass without comment and be added to the game without anyone even really noticing.

What do you define player authorship as?

As far as 3e goes, I'm failing to remember exactly what Pemerton said about the existence of authorial control, but, all you have to do is point to Action Points, a key element in Eberron and a fairly commonly used rule elsewhere, to see that player authorship lives in 3e. The PHB2 Association rules (I think I got the name wrong - the rules for creating and maintaining groups and factions in the game world) contain all sorts of player authorship elements. I'm pretty sure there are boatloads more out there for those who want to look for them.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Quite right, but outside my experience due to the fact that in well over 30 years of doing this I have yet to meet a DM who kept that rule in the game, myself included. (but see below) Ah, but does 4e give experience for *avoiding* skill challenges?

All I can say to that is 'Mu'. A skill challenge is a generalised challenge (as opposed to task) resolution mechanic. And when I run them they only appear as a DM-side tool when the PCs have chosen what to do. To avoid skill challenges the PCs would have to avoid their own plans.

"This area simply illustrates the use of slanting passages to help prevent players from accurately mapping a level." There's no guarantee that players and their PCs will know they are out of their depth.

And no guarantee in any other mode of play either the PCs will realise how deep water they are in.

You only need to label something as such if it isn't the default by design,

And the idea that PCs had the freedom to invent parts of the game world (as with Mike Mornard's baby balrog PCs, one of whom invented the Balrog Times and he invented the concept of a Balrog Reporter for (using his thumb as the flash)) was the default by design. The design default was also one of shifting DMs and in which no one DM had full control of the world because different people would DM different dungeons.

You appear to be in the first wave of players of the published rules. Which is where things like this appear to have got lost.

Do people actually play this way - they make PCs with the expectation that they'll be able to do something but then it turns out there's nothing for them to do?

Not if everyone is on the same page and the game designers weren't idiots. But there are games (notably Cyberpunk 2013/2020 and Shadowrun) that even go so far as to have the Hacker/Decker play their own separate mini-game.

The problem is that "players" aren't one entity with one opinion. At any one table you're likely to have 4-6 players with 4-6 different likes and dislikes. There is literally NO way to make everyone completely happy. I believe that due to this fact, it is the responsibility of all players to be flexible. I enjoy acting my character and a bit of intrigue and social challenges, I enjoy killing things, I enjoy exploring dungeons, I enjoy puzzles. If any of these things come up in game, I'll just go with it.

To me, the idea that someone would show up at the table hating one of those things so much that if the game moved in that direction they'd be forced to leave is kind of wrong. Those people don't really like D&D.

To me, the idea that someone would show up at the table hating everyone adding to the richness of the world and thereby bringing in player authorship so much that if the game moved in that direction they'd be forced to leave is kind of wrong. Those people don't really like D&D.

And it isn't just the responsibility of the players to be flexible but also the responsibility of the DM to be flexible.

They only like a subset of D&D that caters to their particular needs/wants.

Indeed. And so do you. By hating player authorship you only like the subset of D&D that caters to your particular needs/wants.

The point, in my case, is to make the game more interesting or at least go towards a more interesting conclusion.

Absolutely. And both as DM and as a player I invariably find games with player authorship more interesting than those without.

That's because, IME, almost all player proposals ARE coming from a position of bad faith.

From this there are a limited number of conclusions I can draw:

1. You have been exceptionally unlucky in the players you play with
2. I have been exceptionally lucky in the players I play with
3. Forms of DMing that cripple the players ability to have their character interact with the world encourage players to act in bad faith

Personally from experience I believe point 3 to be true. The more freedom you give me the less I feel constrained and as if I need to wrest my character's agency from the GM by whatever means I can. I've seen the same with other players and in other games.

To me this is basic transactional analysis. The players who are being allowed to establish things are being treated by the GM as adults and behave as adults, playing fairly. The players who are playing in The GM's Setting and are not allowed much leeway are being treated as children and so behave as children, trying to sneak past adult authority.

So, when one of them says "Hey, how about this..." I put my guard up immediate and start looking for the hidden reasons why they'd be suggesting that and why it might make them more powerful. If a suggestion comes out it almost always is an attempt to trick the DM into giving them more power without realizing it.

And in my experience the very notion of wanting to trick the DM into giving them more power is a consequence of the DM trying to restrict them past the point they find fun. When one of my players says "Hey, how about this..." they normally are quite deliberately screwing over their own character.

Four, the GM isn't "obligated."

Indeed. The DM isn't obligated. So far no one has produced a system with player authorship where the DM is obligated to accept it rather than it being the default that they do unless they have a good reason to decide otherwise.

I might be misunderstanding you but my position is that RPGs involve a player interacting with the setting through their character (roleplaying, sometimes with dialog and sometimes narratively from their character POV. e.g. My paladin calls for a warhorse) and that player authorial control is a storytelling game element that was adding into some later RPGs

Where "some later RPGs" include the original game of Braunstein that inspired Dave Arneson to create D&D, and in both the original Blackmoor and Greyhawk campaigns, as relayed by first hand accounts.

As for RPGs involve interacting with a setting through their character, yes they do. Player authorship used by players who aren't trying to wreck the game is a necessary tool to allow the player characters to interact with the setting rather than forcing the players to interact with the GM.

I'm not sure where to go from here except by way of explaining to you that in a roleplaying game, the player affects the setting through his character.

How about stopping explaining and try reading what others have to say.

Without player authorship I am not affecting the setting through my character. I'm affecting the setting through the GM. Every step of interaction with the setting is mediated between the player and the GM. It's like playing an old school text adventure.

You enter the room. There is a large dining table in the centre of the room. It has been set
> Look at table.
On the table there are three place settings, a slowly cooling turkey
> Get carving knife from table
You have a carving knife
> Turn and stab assassin with carving knife
You attack the assassin
​

I'm not interacting with the setting. I'm interacting with the user interface.

Now let's have the same scene, with me doing what I'm trying to do with player establishment.

I run down the corridor and thinking fast I dive into the dining room. I know we're here for Thanksgiving Dinner, and the table is almost certain to be set so I pick up one of the overpriced wedgewood plates and throw it backwards; if he's right on my heels it should buy me time to dart round the table and grab the carving knife and fork and, if the assassin is still following me, I lunge at him.​

Which one is more immersive? Which one flows better? Which one is more fun? Because they are different methods of the character in character trying to do exactly the same thing. And yes, the GM had intended the turkey to be on the table in the second example. But hadn't narrated that. So adapts.

It really is that simple. It's literally in the name of the game. I understand you don't get that and don't play that way, and I am glad you enjoy your games.

I understand that you don't get what we do and don't actually like the PCs interacting directly with the setting rather than filtered through the medium of the DM, and I'm glad you enjoy your games.

 

[Sadras]

Would you have any problems with the cleric player doing this? Would you consider this to be something that never (or almost never) occurred in the early days of the game?

I argue that any time the player adds elements to the game before the DM has established those elements, that this is player authorship. The DM can and possibly should veto some additions, but, in many cases these would pass without comment and be added to the game without anyone even really noticing.

Agree, although as I have said many many posts ago, at our table the question is usually first posed to the DM perhaps out of respect or because of table style and sometimes logical suggestions are offered by the player as to why certain assumptions are made...
1. "Are there any boxes in the alleyway? I would assume there to be empty boxes/crates, bins, something to help climb, given the traffic of the street and that the alleyway is right next to a busy inn...etc"
2. "Does the individual have a beard, a goatee or moustache?"
3. "I assume a settlement of this size has a local church" I would nod "then I seek out an audience with the clergy....etc"

As DM I'm prone to say yes to stuff that makes sense for us in the setting (1 and 3) with (2), I'd probably make a roll if it is not important or not established by me.

What do you define player authorship as?

Personally I don't believe Trad D&D has player authorship. Player Authorship to me would mean something more concrete than a paladin calling his celestial mount which has already been established by allowing that class in that setting that every paladin within this world can do. By the very fact that the DM can overrule any "authorship" suggests that the player authorship does not truly exist. It is an illusion.
That is very different to the RPG Summerland where a success on an action taken by the character via allows the player to narrate such success for himself, the other players and the Storyteller (GM/DM). The player's narration cannot be overruled. His authorship does not require acceptance by a greater authority (i.e. the Storyteller).
This is my personal definition.

HOWEVER

I do not challenge the claim made by others if they define that D&D has player authorial control, but I do challenge such definition if it is narrowly associated it with the calling of paladin mounts, prestidigitation, action points and druid duels of AD&D and the like. It is either all encompassing of all aspects of player/character actions which drive the story or nothing at all. To suggest that there are only some elements of player authorial control and exclude all other actions which twist and change the DM's story due to player/character actions creates a farce of such definition.

 

[LostSoul]

I do not challenge the claim made by others if they define that D&D has player authorial control, but I do challenge such definition if it is narrowly associated it with the calling of paladin mounts, prestidigitation, action points and druid duels of AD&D and the like. It is either all encompassing of all aspects of player/character actions which drive the story or nothing at all. To suggest that there are only some elements of player authorial control and exclude all other actions which twist and change the DM's story due to player/character actions creates a farce of such definition.

Why must it be all encompassing or nothing at all? You haven't given any reasons or explained yourself here. (Unless I'm missing it.)

Personally I think it can go both ways with the same text and rules - I believe that people play D&D in different ways, and one group might use more player authorial control in some aspects of D&D than in others; and one group might not have any player authorial control at all. I don't really think that's controversial, though some may disagree.

What I think is interesting is why one might want more, less, or no player authorial control - what are the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches?

One problem I've always had personally (as in, when I play the game) with player authorial control is that I can no longer simply advocate for my PC ("play my PC"); I have to balance that with authorial decisions.

 

[Sadras]

Why must it be all encompassing or nothing at all? You haven't given any reasons or explained yourself here. (Unless I'm missing it.)

I think you are missing it - I have explained it in examples upthread, but I will try again.

One of the examples given initially, by those that claim elements of player authorial control in D&D, was that the paladin calling for his mount upon a certain level obliged the DM to create an storyline/quest where the paladin obtained his mount. That is no different to the players via the party choosing to take a different route from point A to B which wasn't planned by the DM. As DM he is obliged to create a quest for this new route. This happens all the time in D&D, unless one only plays in railroad adventures or is such an amazing DM he has catered for every whim or idea the PCs could possibly propose in a session.

So either you acknowledge that most if not all player/characters actions reflect player authorial control or there is no player authorial control at all. You cant claim on a handful of powers/spells that D&D it is a game of player authorial control and exclude the actual roleplaying element of the game (players/characters choices/actions). There is no distinction here between the two.

 

[LostSoul]

I think you are missing it - I have explained it in examples upthread, but I will try again.

Thanks.

One of the examples given initially, by those that claim elements of player authorial control in D&D, was that the paladin calling for his mount upon a certain level obliged the DM to create an storyline/quest where the paladin obtained his mount. That is no different to the players via the party choosing to take a different route from point A to B which wasn't planned by the DM. As DM he is obliged to create a quest for this new route. This happens all the time in D&D, unless one only plays in railroad adventures or is such an amazing DM he has catered for every whim or idea the PCs could possibly propose in a session.

So either you acknowledge that most if not all player/characters actions reflect player authorial control or there is no player authorial control at all. You cant claim on a handful of powers/spells that D&D it is a game of player authorial control and exclude the actual roleplaying element of the game (players/characters choices/actions). There is no distinction here between the two.

I agree with your explanation of the paladin's mount ability in this case. I don't think that this means that it must be an either/or situation.

For example, the player of the paladin could say, "Hey DM: I have this dream. I dream of a horse being held by a cambion. He's bathing it in ointments and unguents - to me it seems like he's preparing it for a ritual. The cambion looks at me and his eyes glow red and, in the dream, my viewpoint pulls back until I see a dark tower in a blighted landscape."

Now maybe something like this has happened before in the group. Perhaps the group realized that the paladin hadn't yet called his warhorse and the DM didn't have anything planned, so he asked the player to come up with a dream. And this led to the group understanding that they could author this "mount dream" themselves as part of how the group plays.

This same group might not allow players to narrate boxes in alleyways, or beards on wizards, but in this one case the precedent is that players are allowed to author their own mount quest.