D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[Mark CMG]

I have never seen anyone not blend these two different styles, nor have I met anyone who used different terms to differentiate them. I really don't see the big difference that you're trying to make here.

I can see you are not following me but that's fine. It seems you blend the two types of games (and you seemingly see that in other games from your experience), and that's all good too.

For my part, I've run a campaign setting of my own making for these last forty years and the players find the unpredictability of the roleplaying game exciting and always fresh. My experience with storytelling games is generally more predictable barring the nuances individual players bring to the table.

When I've played or run convention or gameday roleplaying scenarios, the same has been the case. Since my first Gen Con in 1976, IIRC, after a couple of years of playing with just my home crowd, when I participated in The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, it was run as a mini setting rather than a story that was predetermined.

When I've played in (what were billed as) roleplaying game scenarios where the GM was running it as a story through which we players were meant to move from one scene to another as dictated by the GM with a set beginning, middle, and end (whether at a convention, gameday, or worse yet a home campaign), I have been less satisfied by the experience. These are usually scenarios where the GM allows the players to add to the story in ways where they are all adding to the outcome but are really meant to be serving the story and its finale. Granted, this is a type of storytelling game that is often called a railroad.

I have seen well-run storytelling games where the facilitator (by whatever name) allows the players to really affect the story from beginning to end and even add most of the elements, and they are fun, but they focus less on roleplaying than I like so I stick with RPGs, run as such, for the most part.

 

[Hussar]

To be fair though, just to jump over the fence for a sec, there are things I do think should be die rolled. I'm a huge fan of morale rules, for example, And that's one place where I don't want my own biases to show. So, I am sympathetic to the idea of rolling for the beard or whatnot.

 

[Mark CMG]

But, you only reroll after you know that you have failed. I mean, you only reroll after the player knows that his character has failed.

Not as such. A re-roll is made right after the roll, if the player is not happy with the immediate result. The door isn't budging but you can push harder right now, rather than later with a second attempt.

Never minding things that force rerolls on other targets as well, like dodge mechanics or the like.

Can you clarify this, step by step, and I'll try to clarify how a re-roll might be used in a similar circumstance?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I can see you are not following me but that's fine. It seems you blend the two types of games (and you seemingly see that in other games from your experience), and that's all good too.

No, I disagree with your premise: these are not two types of games. Roleplaying games are storytelling games, storytelling games are roleplaying games. Because you don't like one particular style, you've decided that it belongs to a completely different category of games, but as far as I'm concerned it makes as much sense as pretending that action movies are not films because they're too different from the kind of cinema you like.

 

[Mark CMG]

No, I disagree with your premise: these are not two types of games. Roleplaying games are storytelling games, storytelling games are roleplaying games.

Well, our experiences are obviously different and, by definition, these are two different types of games though both include players running characters. I appreciate that you like them to be blended and don't say there is anything wrong with liking that.

Because you don't like one particular style, you've decided that it belongs to a completely different category of games, but as far as I'm concerned it makes as much sense as pretending that action movies are not films because they're too different from the kind of cinema you like.

Oh, don't shoot the messenger. But to adjust the words you wish to put in my mouth allow me to say that Action movies are indeed films and so are RomComs, but one is not usually also the other. To exemplify the analogy, and bring it back on point, I believe Killers (2010) was meant to be both but I haven't seen it, even on accident.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Did you say there were no boxes? If not, what is being changed? And how was the absence of boxes part of the parameters that the GM established?

My first step in creating or even running an adventure is for me to visualize a scene. I get to a section of a prewritten adventure that says "The thing the PCs want is on the second floor of a building that has a window facing an alley. The PCs must climb(DC 15) or find some other way up. There is nothing else in the alley." then even before I've said "There are no boxes in the alley", it has been established by the book.

Even if I'm running an adventure I wrote myself and even if I'm making it up on the fly, I go through the same process. I visualize what I imagine the location looks like and then I allow my players to ask questions about it. But I don't change anything from my original visualization. This is my way of staying impartial. I didn't know the PCs were going to try to use boxes to get up there. So, I didn't plan for it in advance.

IMHO, this makes the world feel much more real since it doesn't change in order to make the PCs plans conveniently possible. If every time a PC says "Hey, is this around?" and the answer is yes, the world becomes very unbelievable to me: "Of COURSE it is. Anything we could ever want is always around the moment we ask for it. Seems way too coincidental to be real."

Furthermore, if the window is in an urban area, then the presence in the vicintiy of boxes, or lumber, or hay bales from stables, or barrels, or other devices for making steps, is a part of the established parameters. If the PCs are on a timer, make it a Streetwise check; otherwise, it seems that any group of PCs in an urban area, with a couple of hours and a couple of siver pieces, could collect this sort of junk.

And I'd be happy to allow that. It just requires the PCs to spend the time and effort to track down boxes in order to build their stairs. Which takes more time than simply climbing up without the boxes. That's the point I want to get across to the PCs. Coming up with certain plans requires more time and effort than other plans.

Which can make certain plans "better" than others. I want my players to come up with the "better" ideas instead of just saying yes to any old poor plan they come up with.

I think insisting that the players come up with the very solution the GM had in mind in framing the situation risks turning the gameplay from a roleplaying session into a group sudoku session. There is a time and a place for sudoku, but I'm not convinced that an RPG session is it.

I think if solutions work or don't work fairly logically based on the available information then it's fine. If a DM frames a scene in such a way that there IS only one answer to the problem then having to come up with that solution is perfectly fine to me. That's the situation we are in, why would we be angry that solutions that can't work in this situation DON'T work in this situation?

I'm sure we could get angry at the DM for coming up with the situation in the first place. But I certainly wouldn't. I take it as a challenge to come up with the solution instead of complaining that the DM isn't running the kind of problem I'd like to see.

I'm sure that, from the GM's point of view, he was holding us to solving the puzzle with the resources that he had put in front of us. From out point of view, that was the last session we played with that GM. Next week the GM was absent, and everyone else rolled up characters for a RM game that I wanted to start. The following week we told the GM that there was a diffrence of creative opinion, and wished him better luck with his next group of players.

Wow...I don't even know what to say. We've had this exact same thing happen to us repeatedly in games we've played in. We shrugged and said "Damn...we captured the stupid kobold who can't help us(or won't help us...maybe he's pretending to be dumb). That's too bad. I guess we'll come up with another way to get the information we need."

If a player got angry at me because one of my NPCs wouldn't tell the party something that they felt they should know, I would show that player the door for being way too entitled. As the DM, I get to decide what my NPCs know, how smart they are, what they feel like sharing when you capture them, and so on. If I decide they won't tell you something, then they won't tell you something.

This reads like this to me:
Player: "We don't kill the kobold...See? I bet the DM didn't think of that! He expected us to kill the kobolds, but I'm not going to. Now we'll get the information from the kobold that the DM didn't want us to have! See, look at me, I'm so smart! I come up with great plans!"
DM: "The kobold doesn't know anything."
Player: "WHAT!?!? But I captured him when you weren't expecting us to! I beat you! You can't just shut me down! I beat you fair and square! Screw this, I'm going to find a DM that gives me what I want!"

I mean, in the real world, if I have to go and get lumber from the other side of the village and carry it back to the building I'm trying to break into, that makes things more difficult.

But in the context of RPG play, that is just more stuff that I have to play through, taking up time at the table, with the likelihood of anything exciting coming out of it being rather small. It's busywork, the non-combat equivalent of filler encounters.

Technically, it doesn't make it "more difficult", it just makes it take longer. I like to get the same point across to my players. If their plan involves doing something long and tedious then I want them as players to understand that their characters are going through that process and make their decisions accordingly. I will sometimes add some extra description and make them make some more rolls in order to simulate this process to the players.

After all, it's really easy to say "We spend the next month hauling away stones from the tunnel entrance in order to clear a path". But most of the players wouldn't be willing to sign up for a month's worth of backbreaking labor.

So, if that is their plan, I'll make sure the players are as bored as their characters for at least a couple of minutes of game time. I try not to make this go on TOO long, because you are right, at a certain point it just uses up game time for no good reason. But for immersion purposes, yes, I'm more than willing to use up some game time on playing through some boring stuff. This just encourages the players to come up with an exciting solution to the problem next time instead of the boring solution.

 

[pemerton]

My first step in creating or even running an adventure is for me to visualize a scene.

<snip>

I visualize what I imagine the location looks like and then I allow my players to ask questions about it. But I don't change anything from my original visualization.

<snip>

IMHO, this makes the world feel much more real

<snip>

If every time a PC says "Hey, is this around?" and the answer is yes, the world becomes very unbelievable to me: "Of COURSE it is. Anything we could ever want is always around the moment we ask for it. Seems way too coincidental to be real."

I think it depends a lot on what this is. If this is a spare holy avenger, then sure. But if this is a box in an alley, or a beard on a dead wizard, then not so much.

I live in an inner urban area with lots of lanes, alleys, etc. Even with regular garbage collection, local government employees whose job it is to keep the streets clean, etc, there is still quite often stuff lying around in lanes. Not to mention (if one wanted to get elevation) the rubbish bins, parked cars, etc. On those occasions when I've need to get over 7' and 8' gates blocking off lanes between houses (because I've lost or forgotten front door keys, and know that the back door is open), I've had no trouble finding rubbish bins to stand on to get a bit of elevation.

For me, an alley in a (pseudo-)mediaeval town or city with no junk in it doesn't make the world feel more real. It makes me want to know who is the obsessive NPC going around cleaning up all the alleys!

My more general point, I guess, is that in my experience many GMs run campaign worlds that are far more austere than real life.

I'd be happy to allow that. It just requires the PCs to spend the time and effort to track down boxes in order to build their stairs.

<snip>

I'll make sure the players are as bored as their characters for at least a couple of minutes of game time. I try not to make this go on TOO long, because you are right, at a certain point it just uses up game time for no good reason. But for immersion purposes, yes, I'm more than willing to use up some game time on playing through some boring stuff.

<snip>

This just encourages the players to come up with an exciting solution to the problem next time instead of the boring solution.

I get my immersive quota of boredom from real life (domestic chores and marking exams). I wouldn't want to play with a GM who deliberately set out to have the players be bored.

And when it comes to breaking into a second-story window, I don't see that a DC 15 climb check is inherently more exciting than climbing up a pile of boxes, lumber and hay bales.

Wow...I don't even know what to say.

<snip>

If a player got angry at me because one of my NPCs wouldn't tell the party something that they felt they should know, I would show that player the door for being way too entitled.

In that case it was win/win - we saved our GM the problem of showing us the door! So you should be thanking us on behalf our our GM!

If a DM frames a scene in such a way that there IS only one answer to the problem then having to come up with that solution is perfectly fine to me.

<snip>

We've had this exact same thing happen to us repeatedly in games we've played in. We shrugged and said "Damn...we captured the stupid kobold who can't help us(or won't help us...maybe he's pretending to be dumb). That's too bad. I guess we'll come up with another way to get the information we need."

<snip>

As the DM, I get to decide what my NPCs know, how smart they are, what they feel like sharing when you capture them, and so on. If I decide they won't tell you something, then they won't tell you something.

This reads like this to me:
Player: "We don't kill the kobold...See? I bet the DM didn't think of that! He expected us to kill the kobolds, but I'm not going to. Now we'll get the information from the kobold that the DM didn't want us to have! See, look at me, I'm so smart! I come up with great plans!"
DM: "The kobold doesn't know anything."
Player: "WHAT!?!? But I captured him when you weren't expecting us to! I beat you! You can't just shut me down! I beat you fair and square! Screw this, I'm going to find a DM that gives me what I want!"

Well, I can tell you how it was for me and the guys I was playing with. It was already pretty clear that the GM sucked and was a grade-A railroader. The adventure was tedious and predictable. We tried capturing and interrogating the kobold as a way of breaking out of the railroad and becoming more proactive in the situation (eg taking the fight to the kobolds rather than waiting to find out whatever was meant to happen next on the GM's pre-authored timeline). And the GM roadblocked us.

What, up until that point, had been pretty clear, now became crystal clear. So we got out while it was still early in the university year, thereby leaving the GM the opporunity to find some new players before all the groups firmed up for the remainder of the year.

The principle that "I get to decide what my NPCs know, how smart they are, what they feel like sharing when you capture them, and so on. If I decide they won't tell you something, then they won't tell you something" is in my view a poor principle. What is the point of the players even turning up, if their action declarations have no chance of affecting things? In the context of AD&D, for instance, there is a CHA stat - but the GM didn't make a reaction roll. There is a morale stat - but the GM didn't make a morale check. There is the monster's INT stat - which the GM ignored.

I don't think I've ever met a player who would put up with this in the context of combat resolution - having the GM fiat the effects (or non-effects) of declared attacks without regard to the rules for attack bonus, AC, hit points etc. We weren't interested in putting up with it in the non-combat context either.

And it betokens a bigger issue, too. The GM has shown that he has no interest in framing situations that his players are interested in. We clearly wanted to get some intel to run a raid on the kobolds. That's a competely viable scenario for first level PCs to engage in (look at KotB, for instance) and was a competely smooth fit with the story so far. The GM blocked it because he wanted to exercise sole control over the content of the fiction.

I'm glad we booted him. Instead of a bad D&D experience that probably would have fizzled out over the next few weeks or months, I started a group in which I made friends who I'm still close to over 20 years later. And, in this group, I had some experiences with fantasy RPGing that, in respect of dramatic impact and emotional power, I would never have imagined were possible back when I was reading Gygax's rulebooks and playing Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks.

And it's got nothing to do with "Screw this, I'm going to find a GM who gives me what I want!" - unless by "gives me what I want" you mean "runs a game that's remotely interesting and enjoyable". I was the GM that took over, and have been GMing continually for the whole time since. And anyone can read my actual play posts on these boards and see that the PCs in my game don't always get what they want.

But the players get a game where their choices and desires make a meaningful difference to the content of the shared fiction. Which, for me, is the key. That's why my default instinct is to say yes to the beard, and to see where the players want to take it, rather than say no and make them dance to my pre-written tune.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I do this as well. I prefer the players to make good decisions and try to prevent issues like this, but if they have an issue, I do not just automatically "just say yes". I let randomness play a part.

I see this "escape from the cultists" example as quite different from the beard example. Because it involves action resolution - the GM (as part of the adjudication of the failed con) has framed the PC into a particuar situation, and the action the player has declared is "I flee!" Deciding whether or not the door is open is part of the resolutoin of that action - if it's shut, then presumably a STR or DEX or similar check is required to pull it open before the cultists swarm the PC.

I'm not 100% sure how I'd resolve this, but I might require an Athletics or Acrobatics check - if the check succeeds then the narration is of the PC slipping through the open door; if it fails the narration is of the PC failing to get the door open in time! Or I might allow the player to make a "luck" roll. Or I might stipulate the door as open or shut depending on my own preferences for difficulty, pacing etc.

But I do think it raises issues of a different kind from the beard example.

Your busywork may be someone else's immersion-enhancing detail.

But probably not for the players the OP was complaining about!

 

[aramis erak]

Yes, I get all of this, but it still does not resolve the issues for me.

Whenever something is passive and not rolled, the best passive skill always 100% wins or 100% loses. Nobody else's skill matters. Stating that "Well, sometimes the best passive is doing something else" doesn't change the basic tenet of the problem.

My solution is to put the rolls back in that the holy grail of "speed of play" (even in 4E) tried to take out. That way, unusual things sometimes happen as opposed to same ol' same ol'. Some times, the dumb old fighter notices something that nobody else does. Same ol' same ol' starts getting boring.

Wait for the DMG and the official advice, then, before declaring it broken...

Because the way it's being published in the adventures isn't "always use passive"... So, either the DMG will concur, and give you advice to not use passive in some cases, or an option to always have a PC roll, or some other mode... But, until the rules are functionally complete, you're jumping at shadows without knowing the substance.

And don't forget that assistance is a source of potential advantage.

"Did you hear that?"
"Yeah, over that way..."

If fred and joe have passive per 10, and ralf has a passive per 14, and fred and joe are working together, their combined may be (if you as the DM grant it) advantage for a +5, giving them a combined 15. Call this the Scooby & Shaggy option; alone, clueless, but together, better than any one of the rest.

Of course, the simplest solution, KD, is to use the passive as a trigger to an active roll... Just a "You think you heard something." Then, let them react, and apply their active perception. Passives are explicitly a shortcut, not the final word.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

But probably not for the players the OP was complaining about!

Being the OP, I can say that out of the 5 players in the game, 2 of the complained about Murder in Baldur's Gate. One minorly complained and the other one majorly complained. The player I was talking about in the OP complained about nearly everything that happened in the adventure. The adventure in question is designed to run in "phases". Most of the phases take place on different days as the events in them need to be spaced out to make the story make any sense. Though the adventure gives the advice that they should be sped up or slowed down in order to create the pacing you want. Though a bunch of the story would make nearly ZERO sense if sped up too much. One event requires a riot after the people of the city have put up with the constant horrible events happening to them over the previous couple of days. I doubt a riot would start later in the day after having to put up with a whole hour of a new law being put into effect.

I was using a pace of about 1 phase on each day. The player in question noticed that. He started making jokes about "Well, since nothing important is happening, I guess I go to sleep. I know that when I go to sleep something interesting happens the next day. When I run out of interesting things to do, I know it's time to sleep since I know nothing else interesting is going to happen today."

I congratulated him on being so smart that he figured out that sometimes interesting things didn't happen more than once per day to them. I encouraged him to spend the rest of the time during the day roleplaying the personal motivations of his character and giving more flavor to his character's personality. Perhaps he could even come up with a way to get a jump on the events happening the next day BEFORE they happened instead of waiting for them to happen.

He sarcastically answered "No, the adventure wants me to wait until the next day, so I do precisely what the adventure wants me to do."

But part of my choosing the pace of events I did was to create a believable story that seemed to flow at the pace one would expect from the events in the adventure. Speeding them up dramatically would have given this player precisely what he wanted: Non-stop action and things to do. But it would have become a world where information spreads to everyone in the city instantly, which would have caused a large issue with immersion.

When I asked at the end of the adventure, only 2 of the 5 had an issue with it. Though, I admit the adventure was contentious. Which was kind of strange because I normally run MUCH more railroady adventures for the same group and they love them. This one had a lot of freedom built in except for the phases(which were still somewhat controllable if the PCs put a lot of effort into changing them), they were able to go anywhere in the city and do anything they want. Compared to most dungeon crawls where their choices consisted of "do I head down the corridor or go home?", this was dramatically more open. Yet this was the first adventure to ever get called out for how railroady it was.