D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[pemerton]

Hmmm. I think it would feel constraining to me if and only if I felt that I couldn't opt out of the hard transition. If I say, "Hang on! I wanted to go back to the Caves of the Chameleon and try to disassemble the xixchil device!" and you said, "Nope, you're fighting a drow patrol," that would be disturbing.

The issue of "take-backs", or other forms of pushing against GM scene-framing, is an interesting one.

[MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] and I had this exchange a couple of years ago:

when closing scenes, I have a bit more give-and-take than you describe. For instance, if the player insisted that they were going to buy a new gun, I would probably back up to that - but my preference would be for the ruleset itself to minimise the mechanical significance of buying new guns, and hence to minimise the incentive for players to do that sort of more exploratory play in pursuit of mechanical advantages.

I agree about the rules preferences. I'm the same. Personally, I won't back up. I just say "Yeah, you bought a gun. So, what about this rattlesnake?"

I can certainly see the appeal of sticking to the framed scene and just saying yes to the players' attempts to back up.

 

[pemerton]

D&D 5e is a different game than D&D 4e

But not so different, at least in this respect.

From the 4e DMG (pp 74-75):

Sometimes, a player tells you, "I want to make a Diplomacy check to convince the duke that helping us is in his best interest." That’s great - the player has told you what she’s doing and what skill she’s using to do it. Other times, a player will say, "I want to make a Diplomacy check." In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about how the character is using that skill. Sometimes, characters do the opposite: "I want to scare the duke into helping us." It's up to you, then, to decide which skill the character is using and
call for the appropriate check. . . .

In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn't expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . .

However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense
in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, "Can I use Diplomacy?" you should ask what exactly the character might be doing to help the party survive in the uninhabited sandy wastes by using that skill. Don't say no too often, but don't say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.​

So the player is obliged to describe what his/her PC is doing in the fiction. Which is necessary for the GM to do his/her job, which includes having to "describe the environment, listen to the players' responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results" (p 74).

I think the difference from 5e is that the player gets to indicate what skill s/he thinks his/her PC's fictional move falls under. In general, in 4e the relationship between resolution mechanics and fiction is meant to be established somewhat consensually, and this is an illustration of that. I think 5e might be more unilateral in its approach.

 

[iserith]

I think the difference from 5e is that the player gets to indicate what skill s/he thinks his/her PC's fictional move falls under. In general, in 4e the relationship between resolution mechanics and fiction is meant to be established somewhat consensually, and this is an illustration of that. I think 5e might be more unilateral in its approach.

That is the broader point I sought to make as well as to indicate that people often take their assumptions from one game to another, even if those games don't have "D&D" in the title. D&D 5e is a different game than D&D 4e as much as D&D 5e is a different game than Dungeon World and should be treated as such in my view. After all, what right do I have to complain that I didn't get a wife and three kids to put in my little metal roadster when playing Monopoly? Clearly I'm in the wrong for thinking it followed the same rules as Life.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Which is why I'm not a fan of sandboxes in general since it feels like a bunch of random unconnected events that don't have any relation to one another.

Do you think sandboxes necessarily have to be the way you describe? Or is this an understandable generalization of the "level 1 stuff goes here, level 4 stuff goes here" style of sandbox?

I ask because this is not at all how I view the sandbox campaigns I run. The players -via their characters- are constantly pushing at goals they have. This makes the entire game seem rather connected, from my experience. It has a bit more of a "timeline of multiple individuals" feel than a "bunch of random unconnected events that don't have any relation to one another" feel. That description doesn't reflect my experience, but I could see what you mean if you were referring to the sandbox layout I described, above.

 

[ThirdWizard]

That is the broader point I sought to make as well as to indicate that people often take their assumptions from one game to another, even if those games don't have "D&D" in the title. D&D 5e is a different game than D&D 4e as much as D&D 5e is a different game than Dungeon World and should be treated as such in my view. After all, what right do I have to complain that I didn't get a wife and three kids to put in my little metal roadster when playing Monopoly? Clearly I'm in the wrong for thinking it followed the same rules as Life.

That doesn't match my (perhaps limited) experience. In my experience, people want D&D to be D&D. They don't treat two editions as entirely different games the way they might treat, say, Shadowrun and Burning Wheel.

 

[Hussar]

I would suggest that the role of the DM is to set challenges between the PCs and their goals. That's the very heart of the game. The PCs want to start a bar in a city? City is threatened by super-villain. Succeed at thwarting the destruction of the city, get your bar. Setting a goal yourself or taking on a quest/objective the DM presents as a hook is the same thing - both are goals the players have chosen to pursue.

Of course, it should be noted that as a game of storytelling in worlds of sword and sorcery where the DM and players are tasked with telling an exciting story of bold adventurers confronting deadly perils, setting one's goals as becoming a barkeep seems a bit incongruous. A better example would be your character's goal of restoring your family's wealth and position - now my agenda as DM is to complicate that with challenges that help us create interesting emergent stories.

I agree. Although judging from the examples given, the threats exist regardless of the player's goals. The city isn't being threatened because the players are invested in that city. The city is being threatened and the players can respond to that threat if they like.

IOW the threats and challenges have nothing to do with the pc's. A completely different group with the same campaign would have the same challenges. Again, this is why I'm not seeing a sandbox.

 

[pemerton]

That is the broader point I sought to make as well as to indicate that people often take their assumptions from one game to another, even if those games don't have "D&D" in the title. D&D 5e is a different game than D&D 4e as much as D&D 5e is a different game than Dungeon World and should be treated as such in my view. After all, what right do I have to complain that I didn't get a wife and three kids to put in my little metal roadster when playing Monopoly? Clearly I'm in the wrong for thinking it followed the same rules as Life.

I guess the next question becomes, what happens if you bring assumptions from one game into another?

Just sticking within the sphere of D&D: if I try to play Gygax's AD&D using the assumptions that inform my 4e play, the system will push back in certain ways. The XP system, for instance, is designed around exploration-and-loot play. The action resolution mechanics focus heavily on dungeon exploration, where "dungeon" itself has a certain technical meaning: the exploration mechanics (say, opening doors, encounter reactions, pursuit rules) won't work well for a game involving pseudo-real castles and dungeons, for instance. There is no very robust system for resolving travel through the wilderness (eg there are only monster encounter tables, on a per-day basis which tends to clash with the spell memorisation recovery cycle; contrast the Traveller tables, which include "events" like inclement weather or earthquakes), let alone trying to piece together a mystery via city exploration.

But in what ways will 5e push back if a group approaches its action resolution and skill systems in a more 4e style? The rules state that it is the GM's game, but in what way do they enforce this?

 

[Lanefan]

I never show up as a player expecting to be entertained.

I do. I show up expecting to be entertained by each other player and-or their characters; and by the DM.

In return, I see it as my duty to be at least as entertaining to everyone else as they are to me.

Lan-"of our annual gaming awards, the one for 'Most Entertaining Character' is the one I always put most effort into trying to win"-efan

 

[iserith]

That doesn't match my (perhaps limited) experience. In my experience, people want D&D to be D&D. They don't treat two editions as entirely different games the way they might treat, say, Shadowrun and Burning Wheel.

And that, in my view, is a mistake. A common one, too. I most certainly do not approach 3.Xe, 4e, and 5e in the same way, neither as a DM nor as a player.

 

[iserith]

I agree. Although judging from the examples given, the threats exist regardless of the player's goals. The city isn't being threatened because the players are invested in that city. The city is being threatened and the players can respond to that threat if they like.

IOW the threats and challenges have nothing to do with the pc's. A completely different group with the same campaign would have the same challenges. Again, this is why I'm not seeing a sandbox.

My point being is that it's six of one, half-dozen of the other. A sandbox game is marked, in my view, by the level of freedom the players have to do as they want. That doesn't mean they won't have challenges along the way, be they challenges that exist independent of their initial goals or those that the DM created specifically to make their goals fun to achieve. Contrast with a plot-based game where the players agree the game experience is to follow the pre-determined plot.