D&D 5E A case where the 'can try everything' dogma could be a problem

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm glad to hear it, but I don't see how resources and factors outside the character's volition or knowledge are a problem.
[...]
Okay. So as long as you keep player knowledge & resources out of it when determining the actions & attitudes of the character, you're OK.

If considering factors that the character is unaware of can be considered poor role-playing (which it is, based on this definition), then the player spending resources that the character is unaware of isn't even role-playing. Rather, it's asking the player to multi-task between role-playing and out-of-character stuff - what I would call 'story-telling', since it involves taking control of the story on a higher level. Most of the time you're in-character, thinking and acting as the character, but then sometimes you spend a FATE point (or whatever) to take a director-level action.

It's certainly possible to role-play a character authentically (without meta-gaming) in a system where the player also has some out-of-character resources that operate on a narrative-control or director level (which the character is entirely unaware of), but I don't really see the point of including such mechanics in an RPG to begin with. Such an inclusion would be limiting your target audience to those players who enjoy both role-playing and story-telling, at the expense of players who only enjoy role-playing and don't enjoy story-telling. And even among the set of people who enjoy both, there's still a significant sub-set of people who enjoy those activities separately without any desire to mix them.

Of course, there's also the possibility that a game might hit onto a superior combination, that is more popular than just the sum of its parts. Some people may hate peanut butter, and many people may greatly enjoy chocolate, but Reese's peanut butter cups might still end up being more popular than just a straight-up plain Hershey's bar. That doesn't mean you'll ever sell a peanut butter cup to someone who hates peanut butter, though.

For example, you, as a player, might know that your character has 40 hps, and the goblin holding a knife to his throat, can't possibly do more than half that, even with the nastiest critical hit the DM has added to the game, but you wouldn't just have your character let his throat be slit, secure in the knowledge it can't kill or even inconvenience him, rather, you'd treat the situation as one of dire danger.

That really seems like a narration issue with the GM, but there's no reason to assume that the character necessarily believes the world to operate differently than it really does (as reflected in the game rules). It's weird if the GM would narrate that situation as a regular attack, when the expected outcome should probably involve death or near-death on the part of the PC; a more reasonable GM would avoid narrating that situation as such, unless the goblin had your character pinned (or whatever) and was in a position to deliver a CDG (or whatever they call it in the game you're playing - most games that use HP have some sort of rule for governing attacks which bypass HP).

When the rules of the game don't line up with what's happening in the narrative, it creates a conflict between the player and the character. While the player could try to run the character as unaware of what the game mechanics would say, it can be difficult to keep that up for an extended period of time, and the justifications for taking certain actions can snowball out of control. Without getting too far into House Rule territory, the easiest fix is for the GM to bring the mechanics and narrative back into harmony by providing narration that is more consistent with the game mechanics.

For example, instead of running HP as abstract luck that is slowly worn away by near-misses and which is replenished by Cure spells (that have no visible effect, since you weren't actually hit), the GM could describe successful hits as causing minor cuts and abrasions (and knocking the wind out of you), such that the character is aware of how much punishment it's taking and the relative likelihood of staying up much longer (on a scale from "Bring it on!" to "I can't take another hit like that...").

Or you could also bring player-knowledge into harmony with character-knowledge by briefly altering the game rules. In a situation where the goblin literally has a knife to your throat, the basic assumptions of combat - the justifications for HP and weapon damage ranges - may no longer hold, and the GM might tell the player that this attack is going to bypass HP.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If considering factors that the character is unaware of can be considered poor role-playing

Now wait a minute. If the idea is to decide upon the action based on what the character would do, with what the character knows, then doing so /in spite of having player knowledge/, is just fine. How could it not be? The player inevitably has knowledge, a point of view, and attitudes that are radically different from the characters (he's sitting around a table with fellow nerds, not fighting for his life, for the most obvious instance).

It's certainly possible to role-play a character authentically (without meta-gaming) in a system where the player also has some out-of-character resources that operate on a narrative-control or director level (which the character is entirely unaware of)

Well, there you go then.

, but I don't really see the point of including such mechanics in an RPG to begin with. Such an inclusion would be limiting your target audience to those players who enjoy both role-playing and story-telling, at the expense of players who only enjoy role-playing and don't enjoy story-telling.

Now, you just admitted you can 'role-play,' even under your intolerably narrow, prejudicial definition, even while using player-resource mechanics or possessing (but not basing your character's actions on) meta-game knowledge. So, no, including such things /doesn't/ exclude a player who wants to portray his character to that level of fidelity, but it /does/ expand the target audience to include those who may want to use such resources.

What's more, such resources are endemic. Some are just more obvious than others. Hps are the prime example we've mentioned before. Your character can be fairly confident he's in good health when he feels well, and certainly knows that he's wounded when bleeding, but whether he's taken 21 or 35 of 42 hps is not something he could be expected to quantify. You might know you have 7 hps left and face a danger that can't do more than 6, but you can still play your character as only knowing he is badly wounded and facing a deadly danger.

If you can do that, you can deal with a player-triggered luck-based re-roll, a mcguffin plot point, or any other nifty little mechanic a game less than 30 years old might throw your way.

That really seems like a narration issue with the GM, but there's no reason to assume that the character necessarily believes the world to operate differently than it really does (as reflected in the game rules).

On the contrary, the whole point you were making is that it's essential that the character not be aware of the meta-game.

When the rules of the game don't line up with what's happening in the narrative, it creates a conflict between the player and the character. ... Without getting too far into House Rule territory, the easiest fix is for the GM to bring the mechanics and narrative back into harmony by providing narration that is more consistent with the game mechanics.

Sure. For instance, in the scenario where a lowly goblin has gotten lucky, and has his knife to the throat of a much more capable PC (ready to deliver an automatic CdG, for all the good it'll do 'im), you /could/ take your knowledge of his hps & the damage rules, and re-frame the narrative to be more in accord with it. It could be as simple as the character being confident he can grab the goblin's wrist before it can react, at worst getting away with a scratch. You're just tweaking the meaning of hps (to the character), not even really going beyond the rather broad, abstract way they were discussed (at length) in 1e, and actually neatly in accord with the 5e side-bar.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Now, you just admitted you can 'role-play,' even under your intolerably narrow, prejudicial definition, even while using player-resource mechanics or possessing (but not basing your character's actions on) meta-game knowledge. So, no, including such things /doesn't/ exclude a player who wants to portray his character to that level of fidelity, but it /does/ expand the target audience to include those who may want to use such resources.

A better example would be the sport of chess-boxing. I could play chess during a match of chess-boxing, but I see no reason why I would want to subject myself to the boxing aspect of the activity in order to do so. Just because I can do some role-playing in an story-telling game doesn't mean I would want to, or that it's a good compromise activity for a mixed group of individuals who enjoy one activity but not the other.

On the contrary, the whole point you were making is that it's essential that the character not be aware of the meta-game.

The point is that the character shouldn't make any decisions based on information that it can't know. Rather than jumping through hoops to justify the character making one decision in spite of the player knowing something else, though, the simpler solution is to present information that the player possesses in such a manner that the character also knows that information. The character doesn't know that it's at 7/42 HP, but it's roughly aware that it may or may not withstand the next arrow, which is effectively the same information the player possesses.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A better example would be the sport of chess-boxing.

I wasn't even drawing an analogy. You conceded that it was possible to play a character faithfully, based only what it knows, even if you had meta-game knowledge or player-resources. That's not a lame metaphor or bogus analogy, that's the actual topic we're discussing.

Just because I can do some role-playing in an story-telling game doesn't mean I would want to, or that it's a good compromise activity for a mixed group of individuals who enjoy one activity but not the other.

First of all, 'story-telling game' and RPG are synonymous, the former just reeks of 90s role-not-roll pretense. I can understand wanting to scrub that connotation that off with loofah, but aside from it, you're really not saying anything. You can RP in a RPG, it's what they're for. You can also cooperatively (or not so cooperatively) create a story in one. They're also games. There's no contradiction in any of that.

The point is that the character shouldn't make any decisions based on information that it can't know.

Right. And, you, as the player controlling the character, know what the character knows and know what you know that the character doesn't - mata-game data like hps, player-managed resources, how to use a computer, etc, etc, - and can compartmentalize them so the latter don't interfere with the former.

Rather than jumping through hoops to justify the character making one decision in spite of the player knowing something else, though, the simpler solution is to present information that the player possesses in such a manner that the character also knows that information.

So your barbarian can now program a computer? Doesn't sound like a great idea. Instead of putting yourself through a hoop now and then, you put the whole game through a shredder.

The character doesn't know that it's at 7/42 HP, but it's roughly aware that it may or may not withstand the next arrow, which is effectively the same information the player possesses.

Really, what the medieval PC knows is that arrows kill people, sometimes instantaneously but often slowly and horribly as the wound festers later, and that he's a person. It would be absurd for him to think he could just stand their and be an arrow target until he's accumulated an average of 8 or 9, then suddenly he has to worry about being killed.

How is that the simpler solution? It's effing bizarre.

The simpler solution is to RP the character, notwithstanding your knowledge of hps. You've said you can do it. You must do it every time you play a character who's knowledge & personality differ from your own. Why make it out to be some kind of terrible burden?

 

[pemerton]

You go to an actual gaming table, and you find a mix of styles and agendas, not just among the group of people, but in how each individual plays.

You can find different styles among players, yes. But it's hard to have a very diverse mix of agendas successfully pursued, because so much depends on GMing techniques.

If you have a GM running a pre-authored adventure path, then not much story now play is going to be taking place at that table, however much a given player tries to play his/her PC as a protagonist.

And you only have to look at the number of ENworld threads complaining about "power gamers", "player entitlement" etc to see that various sorts of player approaches (eg forthright gamism in PC building and/or play, players trying to participate in authorship, etc) don't sit well with many GMs' approaches.

But then you get on line and you have people self-identifying as 'simulationists' or being labeled 'narrativist' or calling others 'gamist,' and characterizing games that don't fail at delivering narrative & gamist options badly enough as 'failing to support simulationist play,'

I guess I don't see the problem with that. T&T won't support simulationist play. The rulebook more-or-less comes out and says so! (Using the terminology that was standard in the late 1970s.)

People use the terminology of criticism and analysis to understand the features of books and films, and why they do or don't like them. I don't see why RPGs should be different in this respect.

I do feel like GNS only helps perpetuates such nonsense, though.

I don't think so. The whole point of The Forge analysis, which comes through crystal-clear in Ron Edwards's essays, is to explore and explain the breadth of RPGing approaches, and to contest what it regards as a false consensus of the late 80s through mid-to-late-90s that the only true RPGing is the GM-force-heavy, player-doing-nothing-but-immersing-in-character style that was at the heart of 2nd ed AD&D and White Wolf "storytelling".

My own impression is that if you engage with ENworld posters who have a passing familiarity with The Forge, and the breadth of approaches The Forge talks about, you'll find posters who are aware of and have interesting things to say about a wide range of RPGing styles and techniques. They're also often able to articulate their preferences as preferences. I tend to find that it's those with exposure to only a very narrow range of games (eg 2nd ed AD&D, 3E/PF and perhaps GURPS or HERO or some comparable "universal", sim-oriented engine) that tend to speak very dogmatically about what RPGing must be like, and (for instance) why player authorship is incompatible with RPGing and belongs to some other category of pursuit.

I don't know if I'm more annoyed by how pedantic and pseudo-intellectual that sounded, or by the fact that it made perfect sense to me, and I can't think of an equally accurate, plain-language way of saying the same thing.

I tend to write online the same as I write for my work. I'm an academic lawyer and philosopher. I'm sorry if it puts you off - it's not intentional.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I wasn't even drawing an analogy. You conceded that it was possible to play a character faithfully, based only what it knows, even if you had meta-game knowledge or player-resources. That's not a lame metaphor or bogus analogy, that's the actual topic we're discussing.

I'm saying I could try to squeeze in bits of an enjoyable activity between bouts of otherwise horrendous agony. I could do it, but why would anyone put up with that? Who wants to eat a pepperoni and tripe pizza? Maybe some people are down for that, but for many, the enjoyment gained would not outweigh the cost associated with it. It's only technically an option in the strictest sense of the term; at a practical level, it's not an acceptable choice.

Really, what the medieval PC knows is that arrows kill people, sometimes instantaneously but often slowly and horribly as the wound festers later, and that he's a person. It would be absurd for him to think he could just stand their and be an arrow target until he's accumulated an average of 8 or 9, then suddenly he has to worry about being killed.

Arrows might kill some people, but in the experience of any PC, the first arrow is rarely fatal to an otherwise-healthy adult human under battlefield conditions (where the assumptions of combat mean that AC and HP are in full effect). This is an observable reality of the game world, and it's not some hypothetical circumstance of an unarmored target just standing there and accumulating arrows, but actually corresponds to what the character sees during the course of an adventure. (If an unarmored target was just standing there and getting shot, then the assumptions of combat may no longer apply, and the first arrow to make contact might actually be fatal; the rules don't tell us what will happen, because it's not something that's terribly likely to occur during the course of the game.)

The simpler solution is to RP the character, notwithstanding your knowledge of hps. You've said you can do it. You must do it every time you play a character who's knowledge & personality differ from your own. Why make it out to be some kind of terrible burden?

If I forgo my knowledge of Hit Points and how they interact with arrows or falls from a great height, then I have nothing to go on. I don't know whether or not I should be afraid of a knife, or if I could probably disable the attacker with my bare hands. I'm literally left with no information about the world or how anything works, because the game mechanics are the only language through which that information is ever presented. And trying to figure out what to do, based purely on guessing and with no information about how anything works, is an insurmountable burden.

 

[guachi]

I don't think so. The whole point of The Forge analysis, which comes through crystal-clear in Ron Edwards's essays, is to explore and explain the breadth of RPGing approaches, and to contest what it regards as a false consensus of the late 80s through mid-to-late-90s that the only true RPGing is the GM-force-heavy, player-doing-nothing-but-immersing-in-character style that was at the heart of 2nd ed AD&D and White Wolf "storytelling".

I played 2e for the entirety of its run and have no idea what "GM-force-heavy, player-doing-nothing-but-immersing-in-character style" means. I was online from '92 on but discussing D&D online isn't something I or my friends at the time ever did. I played the heck out of 2e but never bought huge amounts of resources.

Do you or does anyone else have any links to a description or discussion of this type of play?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The whole point of The Forge analysis, which comes through crystal-clear in Ron Edwards's essays, is to explore and explain the breadth of RPGing approaches, and to contest what it regards as a false consensus of the late 80s through mid-to-late-90s that the only true RPGing is the GM-force-heavy, player-doing-nothing-but-immersing-in-character style that was at the heart of 2nd ed AD&D and White Wolf "storytelling".

I don't have much experience with White Wolf, but if even that system followed the model set by AD&D 2E, then where did the whole Narrative mechanics idea come from? Because it certainly wasn't Palladium, or GURPS, or Shadowrun, or HERO.

I mean, first you make it sound as though I'm holding some sort of extreme position, but then all of the mainstream games throughout a significant portion of the hobby's history support me.

 

[Agamon]

I don't have much experience with White Wolf, but if even that system followed the model set by AD&D 2E, then where did the whole Narrative mechanics idea come from? Because it certainly wasn't Palladium, or GURPS, or Shadowrun, or HERO.

AD&D 2e's ill-fated railroady "story adventures" followed WW, not the other way around. Lion Rampant created Whimsy Cards, a generic accessory to add more story and player agency into RPGS, and the followed up with Ars Magica, which, while not the first story game RPG, was the first popular one. Lion Rampant then became WW, which followed up with V:tM. That both stole players from D&D and introduced a lot of new roleplayers, so TSR tried to emulate it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

AD&D 2e's ill-fated railroady "story adventures" followed WW, not the other way around. Lion Rampant created Whimsy Cards, a generic accessory to add more story and player agency into RPGS, and the followed up with Ars Magica, which, while not the first story game RPG, was the first popular one. Lion Rampant then became WW, which followed up with V:tM. That both stole players from D&D and introduced a lot of new roleplayers, so TSR tried to emulate it.

You're not making much of a case for Narrative mechanics ever, until very recently, being anything more than something that independent games used to distinguish themselves from the established mainstream RPGs.

Not that those "story adventures" reflect on the AD&D 2E system in any way. The actual rules of the game were one thing, and those were just one type of poorly-designed accessory.