A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Sadras]

So doesn't this kind of sound like Mother May I?

Don't get me wrong....I don't think any and every instance of needing DM approval counts as Mother May I. I love D&D and run and play it regularly, and these concerns rarely come up. But I certainly am aware of the risk that having so much DM authority presents to the game. I actively work to not let it become an issue....but the risk is there, I think. And this examples starts to move in that direction, I'd say.

Would you agree with that?

Bolded emphasis mine.
It is tricky. I understand Pemerton and maybe other posters may view any Say No as strictly Mother May I. I usually would reserve such a word for a table-style that is very authoritarian. But even there, I defeat my own definition because I use the word very, and that is a subjective word. What may be very to me, maybe excessive to you, maybe moderate to Max.

I do not have an issue with your example (adventuring uncle told your PC about trolls), in fact I would allow it at my table, even though I reserve the right to use Say No in other instances. See it is messy.

But I do agree with you, Saying No in that instance, can tend to move in the direction of MMI, obviously. BUT classifying someone else's game as MMI, well - I would need more data points and even then, it would be my opinion.
I will say Pemerton's definition is cleaner as it does not allow for any Say No's, the only issue is that the word is a pejorative so it has the ability to offend.
But feelings are not necessarily my concern (which gets me into issues on other topics).

I know a simple yes or no could have sufficed but you know how it goes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So the first thing I would do upon getting that background is figure out what level the uncle is. A level 5 adventurer uncle will have far less monsters encountered and learned about than a level 15 adventurer uncle. Then I would look at the area of the world the uncle adventured in and what monsters would be commonly encountered up to his level. For those monsters, yes the PC would get a check and I would treat it similar to having a knowledge skill. The DC would be the same as someone who didn't have the background, but had the appropriate skill.

Seems like potentially a lot of effort to avoid an otherwise simple solution. I think that, as with many examples, you're assuming that the player continually does this kind of thing. He's constantly introducing new uncles that have various areas of expertise and who have imparted their knowledge on the character. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about one instance, and it was an instance related to the players being uninterested in the content of play, so they help move things along.

That specific example aside, I don't have a problem if the dice are used to determine such things. Maybe the uncle is introduced to the fiction as a result of a successful dice roll. I think that's the kind of emergent play that many are advocating.

I ask my players for a written background so that I have an idea about their PCs. It's not all encompassing, but it gives a pretty good general idea of what they might know or not know. They can add in more details later, but only with respect to something they've put into their background. For example, they can add a limp to their uncle received by a raging owlbear later on, so long as the adventurer uncle was in the original background. They can't just keep adding in new uncles to suit their desires.

Why not have them create that background as you play? Why write anything down ahead of time?

I genuinely mean that. I am not saying that writing a background is bad in and of itself, but rather that it has pros and cons. One of the cons seems to be it locks things in place, but the brief nature of such a background means that what's locked in place is limited.

It seems arbitrary to me to hold the players to that kind of limited detail. Again, nothing wrong with writing it down, but I think allowing for additions to their background is likely a good idea.

The players know about the HPs and other resources, but the character does not. The character would be aware that he is tiring and getting bruised up, slowing him down and/or making him more sloppy, which is more likely to get him killed, but he won't know that he dropped from 30 hit points to 10. The player is the only one to know about something like second wind. A character isn't going to be able to just trigger a second wind at will. Second winds come when they come in the game world, but outside of that the player is choosing. Since metagaming is having the character act on player knowledge about something the character wouldn't know about, none of that is metagaming.

The character would, whether at full HP or 1 HP, expect a flail strike to the head by a gnoll to be a lethal blow. However, when the fighter has full HP, he will be less concerned about any individual attack. Hence, he is acting on the game mechanics, or out of fiction knowledge.

Again, I don't have a problem with this. I just think it demonstrates that metagaming is present in every game, and is actually often very beneficial to play.

Bringing out of character knowledge into the game is where metagaming happens.

Sure. Whether that's a bad thing or not, and whether the DM can block it, is what we're talking about. Again, I know you're coming at this from a D&D perspective, but to insist that metagaming is always cheating is where I disagree.

In my game players can pick any common background. If they want a chance for something better like nobility, they can roll for it and if they get lucky, they are a noble or come from a family of wealthy merchants, with all the advantages that come with that. However, if they roll, they can also end up a street urchin, which comes with less money than normal. It's up to them if they want to chance it.

Okay. I personally find that such backgrounds are not "better". They may offer an advantage such as more starting money, or maybe an extra skill or language or something similar. But they also often come with related drawbacks....familial obligations, established enemies, expectations of behavior, and so on.

No they don't. The first half of hit point loss never even touches the PC at all. A 100 hit point fighter would have to be at 50 hit points before he takes even a scratch or bruise. Then it takes hitting 0 before any major wound happens, and that's all it takes for a high level fighter to potentially die. One hit. The other "hits" aren't really hits. They're close calls that the character isn't aware of as hits.

Well, this is your very specific take on HP. There are many ways to narrate HP and what they mean (and I don't want to add that topic to this debate as well), but this doesn't change the fact that the character with full HP will tend to act more decisively because he knows he's at less risk of dying.

Because one is all about unfair advantages and the other is not. If the player waits until he is right in front of a hydra to tell me that his uncle was a hydra hunter, that's really hinky. Setting it up in advance, though, doesn't guarantee the player that it will ever be useful as the PC might not encounter a hydra. It's just a background piece that may or may not be useful. Personally, I like bringing bits of PC backgrounds into the game. I've found it makes the players happy when it happens and it's fun to surprise them with something like that.

I wouldn't say it's an unfair advantage, especially since the players already have the knowledge. Rather, it's a way of reconciling that player/character knowledge discrepancy.

I get the distinction you're making, but I don't think it's an unfair advantage so much as having to commit to a background detail at the time of character creation knowing it may never be relevant is more of an unfair disadvantage. Isn't it cooler to have characters whose backgrounds matter? Isn't that better for play?

This is the kind of relevance that many are pointing toward. Sure, the DM can take a background element and incorporate it into the story...I do that all the time. But letting the player introduce it as it comes up ensures that it happens, and that it happens in a way the player would like to see. And it really shouldn't be a hindrance to the DM in any way....so I really don't see the issue.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure there are going to be things that a fictional person in a fictional world may have "common knowledge" of that the player might not. That's where you ask the GM, "Would my character know about X?" The GM may say "yes", or "Let's see, make an IQ roll at -2", or "Do you have the Lore: X skill?".

But I don't even mean common knowledge that everyone knows. I mean specific knowledge that may vary from person to person, and may come from a variety of sources. Even someone living in a desert may have read a book, or may have spoken to merchants who crossed the desert, or may have traveled to other areas. Are all these things off the table?

Another way to look at it is: why do we trust the GM to make a rational judgment call, but not the player? Everyone seems to assume the GM will make a principled call and abdicate accordingly, but that the player is just somehow trying to scheme a "win" out of things. Can't a player be reasonable?

I've found that a lot of times, when given the freedom to decide for themselves, players are reasonable. They're often less agreeable to some of their ideas than I would be.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Bolded emphasis mine.
It is tricky. I understand Pemerton and maybe other posters may view any Say No as strictly Mother May I. I usually would reserve such a word for a table-style that is very authoritarian. But even there, I defeat my own definition because I use the word very, and that is a subjective word. What may be very to me, maybe excessive to you, maybe moderate to Max.

I do not have an issue with your example (adventuring uncle told your PC about trolls), in fact I would allow it at my table, even though I reserve the right to use Say No in other instances. See it is messy.

But I do agree with you, Saying No in that instance, can tend to move in the direction of MMI, obviously. BUT classifying someone else's game as MMI, well - I would need more data points and even then, it would be my opinion.
I will say Pemerton's definition is cleaner as it does not allow for any Say No's, the only issue is that the word is a pejorative so it has the ability to offend.
But feelings are not necessarily my concern (which gets me into issues on other topics).

I know a simple yes or no could have sufficed but you know how it goes.

I do agree it is tricky. I don't think that GM driven games must all be Mother May I. I generally think if it's gotten to that point, it's because something has gone very wrong, or perhaps there is some other strong reason....maybe a group made up of entirely new and/or young players who need guidance to grasp how the game is supposed to work. But in such an instance, you would expect it to be a temporary thing.

But I do think that one of the potential concerns about GM driven games is that the possibility of Mother May I type issues developing is there. It's something I think a GM should be aware of and guard against. Much like running a published Adventure Path may lend itself to railroading, so the GM should be aware of that and do what he can to mitigate it.

Every game has potential potholes, regardless of system or style, and it's a smart thing to be aware of what those are.

As for pejoratives....I prefer to try and avoid them myself, and I know they can provoke a strong response, but I also know that context and intent matter greatly in such matters. At least as far as talking about RPGs go.

 

[sd_jasper]

But I don't even mean common knowledge that everyone knows. I mean specific knowledge that may vary from person to person, and may come from a variety of sources. Even someone living in a desert may have read a book, or may have spoken to merchants who crossed the desert, or may have traveled to other areas. Are all these things off the table?

No, which is why I said that if this sort of situation came up, I'd ask the player to justify their action. Based on that I might agree, or ask for a roll ("Sure you've read a lot, but was THIS creature in those books?"), or say no ("You character is an illiterate barbarian that spent your first 20 years as a slave... but you somehow read a book that tells you the weakness to this rare creature that has never been seen before in this kingdom?").

Another way to look at it is: why do we trust the GM to make a rational judgment call, but not the player? Everyone seems to assume the GM will make a principled call and abdicate accordingly, but that the player is just somehow trying to scheme a "win" out of things. Can't a player be reasonable?

I've found that a lot of times, when given the freedom to decide for themselves, players are reasonable. They're often less agreeable to some of their ideas than I would be.

Sure. And like I said, this is all hypothetical because the people I've played with, do play in a reasonable way. I'm just pointing out what I would do IF a situation came up where I felt the player was using metagame knowledge to have their character act in a way that was not consistent with what the character knows.

 

[Lanefan]

(A) 4e is a tightly-designed game. Therefore it lacks terrible design.

That which I've bolded might just be the most controversial statement you've ever posted in here.

And though to argue it would re-open edition wars best left in the past, bait which I'll decline this time, don't assume for a second that silence denotes agreement.

 

[Lanefan]

So when a player creates a character, they can't select something that has some kind of advantage? Like being of a noble family, so they start with more coin....that kind of thing. No one gets to do that?

Correct. If it gives an advantage you can't select it; and the random roll aspect reflects the reality of some people just being born luckier than others.

Because I think almost every character in my game has exactly that kind of thing going on....some kind of perk based on their background. These are baked into 5E but we also go a step or two beyond that.

If it was decided up front that all the PCs would have some sort of advantage via their backgrounds, that's a fine table rule. The reality is, though, that the vast majority of people in ye olde typical medieval society were peasants who really didn't have much going for them at all; and I don't mind if the game reflects this at least to some extent.

But what makes it so okay to decide it ahead of time rather than later? Here is were I ask you the same question....how is this result different from the perspective of the player?

It's different because when being decided on the fly it's usually being decided for a reason: the player/PC needs or wants (and thus is asking for) an advantage in the here and now.

Chances are that had the player/PC known about the advantage ahead of time, the roleplay leading up to this point would have been somewhat different.

Example: party arrives at Karnos, an unfamiliar and not-that-friendly town. Player A, who has up to now left her character background mostly blank, suddenly declares "Oh, don't worry - I'm the local noble here and my word is the law. Everyone knows me. And look, here come some of my personal guards now - they saw us coming.".

If this (that a party member is the local noble here) had been known from square one the party's dealing with and feelings toward Karnos would have almost certainly been much different. Very likely they'd have used it as a safe home base all along, rather than only coming here now because they have to.

In fairness, it's always possible that the player for some reason had kept her PC's noble status a secret up to now; but that's a different matter.

This is not my point....sure, people may know they're hurt. But no one would ever rush into a fight thinking "it'll be at least 10 or 12 hits before I'm down!" But Fighters do exactly that when they have full HP.

I'd say it's more they rush in anyway, and only after taking a hit or two do they Steve Rogers up on it: "I can do this all day."

Metagaming is constantly happening in the game. Avoiding some while turning a blind eye to a whole lot more just seems odd. There are degrees, sure, and even I would say that some metagaming actions would be "bad", but no game is free of metagaming.

Agreed. But where possible, let's minimize it.

I don't know what this means. As immersive as the game gets, I can't forget that I'm rolling dice and marking numbers on a character sheet.

In the best moments, I can. The rolling etc. is done almost unconsciously by muscle memory, while my conscious thought is in the fiction.

Gotta run - more in a bit...

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] I don't think we disagree on this. I was just describing a particular style of play.
Can this style of play lead to dangerous character situations (troll example) requiring what some might describe as a disconnect to occur? Sure.

Dissociation, even!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As far as whether the PC could be the brother/comrade/twin of the BBEG, that could work out, but it would need the DM's approval for it to happen. Players cannot just decide that it happens unless you've altered the game to be more player facing.

I think you are quite rigid in your interpretation of what is within the bounds in D&D. Nowhere does 'classic' D&D really talk about backstory in concrete terms. It is something which exists at the level of simply things that participants might do, not do, etc. Thus there are no such things as 'rules' about it. You don't need to 'alter the game' in order for a player to establish such a fact, with or without DM approval.

Classic D&D DMs, and 5e ones too AFAIK, can basically tell you to take a hike, but that usually results in players simply going elsewhere for their D&D! In practical terms I've never had a DM insist that he/she is going to fight me on backstory. Anyway, it is certainly most effective when the player is collaborating with the DM in terms of what is already established.

This is of course part of the reason that DW is very close to 'zero myth' (the DM generally does establish a small set of basic initial conditions, a map with a couple of things on it for instance). The players are free to embellish the setting in any respect which relates to their PCs. They can establish origin stories and other backstory during the initial session, and then can embellish that later on by using Spout Lore, or simply by asking questions. The GM is also supposed to constantly ask questions and make notes of whatever the players express interest in or whatever they describe so that it can be input to the fiction. In no case is there any such thing in DW as a pre-established fact, only narrative in play can establish that in DW.

That being said, the GM is expected to create fronts and generate ideas and such himself too.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Using fire to attack a troll is not an action that a character would have no knowledge of. Heck, the class table in the AD&D PHB even lists whether or not each class can use flaming oil (all can except monks).

I'm telling you how the game was actually played, in the skilled play paradigm, at the time Gygax was writing his rules. It was taken for granted that players improved their knowledge of the game over time. That was an aspect of what skilled play meant. In that respect, it was a form of wargaming.

@Lanefan, upthread, following the logic of your (that is, @Maxperson's) preferences, said that it woudl be good roleplaying to let your PC be killed by a troll rather than rely on your knowledge that a troll is vulnerable to fire. That's the opposite of skilled play as Gygax describes it. Playing the game your and Lanefan's way will not mean that the PCs of more experienced players are more successful as adventurers, because - if the game is played your and Lanefan's way - then an experienced player will deliberately not draw upon his/her experience in playing his/her PC.

What you and Lanefan are advocating is an approach to play that I would say had its first express system support in RuenQuest or Chivalry & Sorcery, in the late 70s. No doubt people were playing D&D that way in that time also, but in doing so they were disregarding Gygax's advice, not following it.

I think this is one of those areas where it is hard to really parse what Gygax, or, maybe even more importantly, Arneson, was thinking. There were BOTH aspects of RP, including a concept of being 'in character', AND aspects of 'skilled play' which originate in wargames; from which D&D is directly derived. Thus it is QUITE POSSIBLE that Gary or Dave might have considered some instances of skilled play of the sort you describe as crossing a line, but not others.

While I played D&D in the 1974-1979 period it is hard to really define exactly how things evolved. Virtually every group in 1974 was an isolated group of players who had little, if any, contact with other groups. Often entirely idiosyncratic approaches grew out of these games with little reference to what was intended by the game's authors, and no real way of knowing how they used it. Usually someone went and played with some other group, someone somewhere had gone to Gen Con, Strategic Review or The Dragon showed up with some sort of 'stuff' in it that gave some direction, but I would be hard pressed to be able to tell you what very many people did before 1978-ish when I had the fortune to join a LARGE gaming club (100's of active members that probably played 4-5 different D&D games every week just in the club space). There were common practices there, but I would say that there was usually not much concern for purity of approaches, and maybe the few GMs who had any hard notions about such things were considered fairly hard-core.