D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[LostSoul]

I hate it when the group comes up with a plan, but the DM wants to "add difficulty" so he just starts obstructing the players by saying no. It's often not about "the integrity of the setting" but rather, "I want to make the players work for their success, so, I'll just make this more difficult, just to make it more difficult". I find it so frustrating when DM's do this.

This is precisely why I roll randomly for minor details that may have an effect on the PC's actions. It helps remove any bias on my part. Not completely - I still decide when to roll - but it helps.

I recall an encounter with about 20 cultists and one PC - she stumbled on them in the cellar of a farmhouse and, after failing to con them, they turned hostile. She decided to flee. I wasn't sure if she had closed the cellar door behind her, or if any of the cultists had shut it, so I made a random roll (1-3 closed, 4-6 open). It turned out that no one had shut it, so she escaped.

 

[Mark CMG]

Oh totally agree it's a play style thing. I'd rather The players have minor authorial control. But that's just me.

Not just a playstyle thing. While I have played and enjoyed both, I find it to be a fundamental difference between roleplaying games, where a player affects the world through their character, and a shared storytelling game, where the player has a direct affect on the narrative beyond roleplaying their character.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

As I asked, do these same players feel that the story is contrived when the plot-hook patron approaches their PCs without the GM rolling for a reaction check first?

Speaking for myself, yes, that would totally seem contrived unless there was some in-universe reason for the NPC to do so. That's meta-gaming, and a violation of every social contract I've ever played under.

If you have a mandatory plot-hook which must take place in order for the game to exist, then the correct place for that is before the game starts. Once the world has been established, and players are actually controlling their characters, the time for such shenanigans has passed.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Not just a playstyle thing. While I have played and enjoyed both, I find it to be a fundamental difference between roleplaying games, where a player affects the world through their character, and a shared storytelling game, where the player has a direct affect on the narrative beyond roleplaying their character.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who makes that distinction. I guess the difference for me is that I enjoy roleplaying games, and I actively dislike storytelling games. Hence my desire to excise any and all storytelling elements from D&D, in favor of roleplaying.

 

[mcbobbo]

...That would violate causality, and a non-causal reality is too ridiculous to merit playing in (i.e you lose players who are unwilling to suspend disbelief that far).

Or to put that another way: some players may see it as a violation of the social contract, and feel cheated, if you change the script without a good (in-universe justified) reason.

Then let them go. Plenty more fish in the sea, as it were. Metagaming happens, as do retcons. It works well as a two way street navigated by friends with maturity. There's more to life than negativity from unyielding people. Props if you like that sort of thing though.

 

[mcbobbo]

... That's meta-gaming, and a violation of every social contract I've ever played under.

An NPC offering a quest is metagaming and violates every social contract you have ever played under?

Hard to believe.

What game is it that you play that's completely immune from metagaming? It can't be D&D. The level/class system alone is rife with it.

 

[mcbobbo]

I do endorse rolling when you need to decide something as-yet undefined. But the dice should only ever make the decision when it doesn't matter. Male or female, for example. When it matters you should decide. When it could go either way, roll.

IMO

 

[The Crimson Binome]

An NPC offering a quest is metagaming and violates every social contract you have ever played under?

That's not what I said. The metagaming would be if the NPC offered a quest to the PCs without having an in-game reason to approach them as such.

What game is it that you play that's completely immune from metagaming? It can't be D&D. The level/class system alone is rife with it.

There is nothing within the class and level system of D&D which necessitates meta-gaming, because class and level are symbolic of in-game skill-sets and competences. What you would refer to as a fifth-level wizard is, in-game, a wizard of sufficient power and skill to cast a Fireball spell.

 

[mcbobbo]

The metagaming would be if the NPC offered a quest to the PCs without having an in-game reason to approach them as such.

Like needing adventurers who can do it, for example?

What you would refer to as a fifth-level wizard is, in-game, a wizard of sufficient power and skill to cast a Fireball spell.

Justify it however you like. I'm not here to cram the red pill down your throat.

Maybe we just have different definitions for that word. Yeah, go with that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Like needing adventurers who can do it, for example?

That's a perfect reason, yes. A guy walks into the tavern, needs something done, and heads over to the people who look like they can do it. That's one of the reasons why adventurers like to hang out in taverns, even.