D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[Mark CMG]

My post was in response to a post that said that, in an RPG, "You don't get to use the rules to force other PC's to do stuff." I presented a pretty well-established counter-example from the oldest RPG.

Sure, but it seemed that you were using the example to validate the conflation of RPGs and storytelling games so I pointed out where the flaw would be in using that example for that purpose. I'm not arguing his position, though we might agree on some things, I am strictly arguing my own (in the collegial sense of spirited, friendly discourse). It gets back to "affecting the world through the character" rather than "affecting the world directly through narrative control."

 

[Mark CMG]

As it stands, it looks to me like you are badly misreading what's being talked about.

Naw. There's a conflation between RPGs and storytelling games that muddied the initially debate over character play vs player play. As it turns out, some folks like yourself strongly believe that storytelling elements like narrative control of the world by players is a staple of RPGs (but it isn't) and that has sidetracked us away from the original discussion (though it is a good sidetrack to be clarifying for the original discussion).

 

[Hussar]

Naw. There's a conflation between RPGs and storytelling games that muddied the initially debate over character play vs player play. As it turns out, some folks like yourself strongly believe that storytelling elements like narrative control of the world by players is a staple of RPGs (but it isn't) and that has sidetracked us away from the original discussion (though it is a good sidetrack to be clarifying for the original discussion).

It isn't a staple of RPG's, in your opinion, I think you mean. I can point to any number of elements of narrative control built into rpg's from day 1. Spells being the most obvious example, as I said before. THere's no functional difference between Player 1 overcoming the challenge of climbing through the window by casting a spell and Player 2 adding believable details to the game. The entire set up of the game is contrived to create interesting scenarios for the players. You never go into an empty dungeon where everything was cleared out a week ago. Bombing the party with a red dragon at 1st level is considered a very bad thing, so, shock and surprise, red dragons are not met on the 1st level of a dungeon. Players have always had significant control over their own back stories and are, in fact, encouraged to create such to bring their character to life. On and on. Narrative control has always been a staple of RPG's.

-----

I wonder if the idea of rolling being bad works both ways. If my character lies to an NPC, how does the DM determine the NPC's reactions? If it's purely DM fiat, then it's all about playing the DM, and not the game. If I tell a good enough lie, in the DM's judgement, then I succeed, regardless of my character. Do DM's who hate players relying on the dice to resolve challenges also refuse to use dice in the other direction? I don't think so, judging from this thread, since several DM's have talked about wanting to remove bias from their judgements. Roll for the presence of a beard or whether or not the door is closed.

So, if it's good that a DM relies on the dice to remove bias, why is it bad for the player to do the same thing?

 

[Imaro]

AFAIC, nope, you as the DM get absolutely no control over my PC. (Barring things like charm or the like I suppose). As a DM, I draw a nice solid box around the PC's and I'm not allowed to play in that playground. I have an entire world to play with. I can do all sorts of things to your character, good and bad. What I don't get to do is rewrite PC details.

But in your playstyle (And if I am mis-interpreting please correct me) the players also have an entire world to play with... Anything undefined by you is up for grabs, so while you may get first go at the world you don't get that to yourself. I didn't mention anything about PC details being rewritten, I'm speaking to the same thing you are... undetermined details.

By the same token, the authorship powers I'm talking about don't rewrite the DM's world either. If a detail is already established, then I wouldn't contradict that detail. However, there are all sorts of details that are not established, and in that space, I prefer the players have resources to fill in the blanks. So, really, nothing is ever being changed.

I never said they did, again I am speaking to the same thing as you.

That needs to be repeated and underlined:

NOTHING IS BEING CHANGED IN THE GAME WORLD.

Again, I don't think this is being assumed... though you've addressed it 3 times now, it's why I asked about the limits... but you've flat out said the DM gets no type of narrative/authorial control over PC's in your game... so does this distinction even matter iof the amswer is a blanket no?

The only thing that is happening is previously unestablished details are being filled in. Those boxes over there were not mentioned, nor was their absence mentioned. It is perfectly believable that there might be some boxes and crates in an alley, so, the player fills in that detail. The player adds in a family member in the town they are in. This contradicts nothing. There are always undetailed citizens in a town. One of them could quite possibly be a family member. Heck, why not allow the player to claim familial ties with an established NPC? Makes for an interesting story, possibly.

My question is why are these non-established details not up for grabs for the DM when they are about a character?

The idea that a DM needs to be able to add details to the PC's because it would be unfair otherwise is ridiculous. The players have direct input on a single character and possibly filling in some undefined details as they occur. The DM has direct input on an entire world. And, let's not forget, the DM generally does have a fair degree of direct input during chargen - backgrounds can be veto'd for a variety of reasons, race, class, whatever, can all be dictated to some degree by the DM. ((No elves!)) About the only time that starts is after the campaign begins, and, even then, the DM can always simply ask the player - "Hey, can I add this NPC to your background?". It's not like it's impossible to add stuff. I would simply run it past the player first.

Even the direct input upon the world that you claim the DM has is tempered, limited and shaped by the player's characters. Now I've seen you advocate strongly for the position of DM's saying yes and allowing anything the player wants at character creation, so I take it with a hefty grain of salt when you now turn around and use this as a way DM's have power (and again not narrative or authorial control which is what we are speaking to) over a character in your playstyle.

That aside, you still haven't given me a real reason for why authorial and narrative control shouldn't be shared equally as opposed to the DM giving up his "playground" but the player's having their own untouchable piece and still getting to play in the DM's playground as well. You say the DM can simply ask the player, but I am asking do you advocate the player being as open to minor changes and the filling in of details for their PC by the DM as you seem to be for the DM allowing players to do the same to the world? I assume not since you stated earlier there is a very tightly defined box around the players characters... but again I don't understand why. If I am to believe that we are all making changes for the betterment of the game, whay can't the DM be trusted (like every other player) to do the same... even when it comes to the PC's in his game?

 

[Mort]

It isn't a staple of RPG's, in your opinion, I think you mean. I can point to any number of elements of narrative control built into rpg's from day 1. Spells being the most obvious example, as I said before. THere's no functional difference between Player 1 overcoming the challenge of climbing through the window by casting a spell and Player 2 adding believable details to the game.

I'm scratching my head on this one, because there is a huge difference!

Player 1 is using character resources to affect the outcome for his character:

DM: You see no visible way to get to the second story window.
Player 1: I'm a mage, I cast levitate and float up to the window.

Player 2 is using player resources to affect the outcome for his character in a way his character couldn't:

DM: You see no visible way to get to the second story window.
Player 2: *checks character sheet, sees no rope climbing spikes etc* hmm, I need to get up there, ok I use a fate point - there's a hidden fire escape mechanism to the window which I now trigger. I climb up the fire escape.

While the result is equivalent, the means are far apart and some people strongly object to the second way.

It may not be fair that some characters get access to such easy means (magic!) and others don't, but that a topic for a different discussion.

 

[Mark CMG]

It isn't a staple of RPG's, in your opinion, I think you mean.

Naw, RPGs (trad games to some) are pretty much about players affecting the world through their characters.

I can point to any number of elements of narrative control built into rpg's from day 1. Spells being the most obvious example, as I said before.

We went over this above where it's been pointed out that spells are a character resource and don't break the conceit that players are affecting the world through their character.

THere's no functional difference between Player 1 overcoming the challenge of climbing through the window by casting a spell and Player 2 adding believable details to the game.

That's exactly the functional difference between an RPG (trad game) and a storytelling game. Essentially, you've (always?) played RPGs with storytelling game elements but I have played RPGs in the "trad" sense and recognize that fundamental difference in the games.

The entire set up of the game is contrived to create interesting scenarios for the players.

I think that means different things to different people.

You never go into an empty dungeon where everything was cleared out a week ago.

I've played in games with worlds run for multiple player groups where such was not only possible but one group of PCs specifically looked for such a place, a dungeon/tomb recently cleaned out by another group, to use as a base of operations. Many GMs do make adjustments to their campaign setting based on the interactions of groups who have played in them.

I do. My Grymvald setting which first came into being in 1974 as a little dungeon built by a kid near a little town so the players had a place where their PCs could purchase gear. As the PCs moved through the dungeon and killed things or died, I updated room descriptions. There were a number of places, bottlenecks, where PCs could find caches of starting level gear if they didn't mind cleaning it.

Periodically, I have advanced the timeline of Grymvald, between campaigns and/or groups, by anywhere from 5 to 50 years. There are tombs encasing PCs from some of my earliest campaigns that would be great places for PCs of today to plunder, others do indeed lie empty.

I'll see if I can find some time this weekend to post about an ongoing game concern which involves two different PC groups potentially happening upon the same cursed sword. It involves a number of things that have been part of this discussion including character background creation and narrative control, as well as PCs finding a location that was already plundered to some extent by an entirely different PC group from years prior.

Bombing the party with a red dragon at 1st level is considered a very bad thing, so, shock and surprise, red dragons are not met on the 1st level of a dungeon.

I'm not sure you've been at this long enough to remember the thrill of hiding from dragons while exploring the Outdoor Survival map with low level PCs. Dungeon Crawl Classics is a recent RPG that fairly well exploits that conceit to the delight of many. Even the character creation phase of the game (which happens in early gameplay) is called "the funnel" because it includes multiple PCs being whittled down in a Darwinian slaughter.

Players have always had significant control over their own back stories and are, in fact, encouraged to create such to bring their character to life.

That's a GM-specific thing but as I pointed out above happens prior to gameplay, for the most part, and if used as a way to gain narrative advantage in an RPG, a GM in the trad game sense would randomly roll most likely for PC family details and such.

On and on.

Yes. I, too, am sensing a pattern.

Narrative control has always been a staple of RPG's.

By players? Nope. As someone who started RPGing in 1974 I can tell you, Hussar, that you're mistaken on this point.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Naw, RPGs (trad games to some) are pretty much about players affecting the world through their characters.

I don't know, since 2e (yea I know not as far back as you) I've seen players (not there characters) creating towns, and organizations, and even magic artafacts. Infact the 1st game I ran a PC made up a group of pacifist goblins hiding out in the hills...

That's exactly the functional difference between an RPG (trad game) and a storytelling game. Essentially, you've (always?) played RPGs with storytelling game elements but I have played RPGs in the "trad" sense and recognize that fundamental difference in the games.

I disagree, RPGs and Storytelling games have a lot of over lap, and you are selling the RPG short if you think "Trad" says no story telling...

I'm not sure you've been at this long enough to remember the thrill of hiding from dragons while exploring the Outdoor Survival map with low level PCs. Dungeon Crawl Classics is a recent RPG that fairly well exploits that conceit to the delight of many. Even the character creation phase of the game (which happens in early gameplay) is called "the funnel" because it includes multiple PCs being whittled down in a Darwinian slaughter.

I find none of that entertaining... not Darwinian slaughter or hding from dragons... I want to play the dragon slayer not someone hiding...

That's a GM-specific thing but as I pointed out above happens prior to gameplay, for the most part, and if used as a way to gain narrative advantage in an RPG, a GM in the trad game sense would randomly roll most likely for PC family details and such.

BS... there is no more likely a chance of dice rolls then just common sense...

DM: You enter the town of Voonlar, it is the city of temples. The main road has churches to every major religion and pantheon, most of witch are the normal cosmology, but some odd balls as well

Cleric player: Hey, since I never said where I'm from can I say I lived and grew up here?

WHY IN GODS NAME WOULD YOU NEED DICE TO ANSWER THAT?!?!

DM: Sure, you learned your trade here..

Cleric Player: Cool, then I say "No need to stay at an Inn tonight, my parents live in town and my mom makes enough food for an army every night" (Notice he didn't ask permission)

DM: (You tell me what do you think the DM would say)

By players? Nope. As someone who started RPGing in 1974 I can tell you, Hussar, that you're mistaken on this point.

As someone who started in the 90's but who was playing with a player from the 80's and who now has a group that includes people who played in 76, and people who stated only a few years ago (with 4e) I can tell you You are wrong... people DID play this way from day 1 and people still learn this way today

 

[GMforPowergamers]

AN example from way back, and one recent:

Example 1: I was playing in a Scared Lands game. I was just one of 7 players. I drew up a group of chronomancers, including stats and hombrew spells based on the 2e book. Then I gave the stats to the DM and said "Here is a cool idea for some good aligned villains, something we do that's goodish they want to stop because of unforeseen consequences." They then became reacuring challenges

Example 2: I'm currently running a Mage game where rutinly I am surprised when I get to game (with 0 notice) when PCs have cities or area's maped out and say "Hey can we do x tonight"

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't know, since 2e (yea I know not as far back as you) I've seen players (not there characters) creating towns, and organizations, and even magic artafacts. Infact the 1st game I ran a PC made up a group of pacifist goblins hiding out in the hills...

As posted above, I am fully aware that some groups have added storytelling game elements to RPGs.

I disagree, RPGs and Storytelling games have a lot of over lap, and you are selling the RPG short if you think "Trad" says no story telling...

More apropos to say that storytelling games share some of the elements of RPGs. I've only picked up the word "trad" based on how others were using it to delineate between RPGs and storytelling games as they have come to be known. Some folks like to say that all RPGs are and always have been storytelling games and vice versa, but it is simply not true. Some folks use the expression "trad" as a way to define certain games as World-GM-controlled or lacking in player authorial control, so I picked it up here as a way to keep us all moving the discussion along.

I find none of that entertaining... not Darwinian slaughter or hding from dragons... I want to play the dragon slayer not someone hiding...

Neither do I but in 1974 the hiding and leveling thing was all new. DCC doesn't get my gaming juices flowing, though I played it a bit during playtest at conventions and tried it out after release with Joseph Goodman running the game (so I assume I experienced the game as it is meant to be experienced).

BS... there is no more likely a chance of dice rolls then just common sense...

Just deciding the way something is is certainly one way to handle it as GM but in RPGs back in the day and in some ways of running RPGs that are newer but, ahem, "trad" one would leave that stuff up to the gods of randomness.

As someone who started in the 90's but who was playing with a player from the 80's and who now has a group that includes people who played in 76, and people who stated only a few years ago (with 4e) I can tell you You are wrong... people DID play this way from day 1 and people still learn this way today

We seem to have come to am impasse. On the one hand, there is me saying that people play many ways and that the folks I know from the earliest days, including myself played without players having narrative control over the world but rather having to affect the world through their characters. On the other hand, despite my own experiences, some folks who clearly were not personally there are claiming that the things I have experienced simply aren't true. I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Hussar]

I'm scratching my head on this one, because there is a huge difference!

Player 1 is using character resources to affect the outcome for his character:

DM: You see no visible way to get to the second story window.
Player 1: I'm a mage, I cast levitate and float up to the window.

Player 2 is using player resources to affect the outcome for his character in a way his character couldn't:

DM: You see no visible way to get to the second story window.
Player 2: *checks character sheet, sees no rope climbing spikes etc* hmm, I need to get up there, ok I use a fate point - there's a hidden fire escape mechanism to the window which I now trigger. I climb up the fire escape.

While the result is equivalent, the means are far apart and some people strongly object to the second way.

It may not be fair that some characters get access to such easy means (magic!) and others don't, but that a topic for a different discussion.

But, the thing is, the magic that is "a character resource" is set up as a player resource. It's that way to specifically BE a player resource. There is zero difference, other than it's restricted to certain classes. Again, explain why clerics get Water Breathing. Or Continual light/Flame. Or various forms of transportation spells. The entire utility bracket of spells is a player resource sugar coated as a class resource. If we had "Lucky" points back in the early days, the claim would be that "Lucky" points are a in game character resource.

By players? Nope. As someone who started RPGing in 1974 I can tell you, Hussar, that you're mistaken on this point.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...cter-play-vs-Player-play/page22#ixzz3Hq4mPmr3

As someone who started RPGing in 1979, I saw, back then, all the things that you claim you never saw. Can we keep playing duelling anecdotes? That's sure fun. I suppose you did start a whole four years before I did, but, wow, I'm really having a tough time believing that in all that time, you never saw players doing the kinds of things I'm talking about. We certainly did.

Then again, by 1983 we started playing the James Bond RPG, and that specifically HAD Bond points which allowed you to do exactly what I'm talking about here. Guess that just fell out of the sky whole cloth because apparently no one could possibly have had that idea before then.

That aside, you still haven't given me a real reason for why authorial and narrative control shouldn't be shared equally as opposed to the DM giving up his "playground" but the player's having their own untouchable piece and still getting to play in the DM's playground as well. You say the DM can simply ask the player, but I am asking do you advocate the player being as open to minor changes and the filling in of details for their PC by the DM as you seem to be for the DM allowing players to do the same to the world? I assume not since you stated earlier there is a very tightly defined box around the players characters... but again I don't understand why. If I am to believe that we are all making changes for the betterment of the game, whay can't the DM be trusted (like every other player) to do the same... even when it comes to the PC's in his game?

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...cter-play-vs-Player-play/page22#ixzz3Hq4mPmr3

Two things. Firstly, go back and reread those threads where you claim you saw me write things and read them again. You'll find that I've been pretty consistent. DM's, IMO, should not veto player choices when the only objection is that the DM doesn't like the player's choice. "I don't like Elves" is not a good enough reason to veto elves, again, IMO. You'll find though, that I'm perfectly behind the idea of DM's veto'ing chargen options for a plethora of other reasons. This particular straw man argument is something that I've managed to inherit because I do say that DM's should back down in a very limited circumstance. Somehow that's gotten blown up to this idea that I said that DM's should never say no.

Anyway. The second thing is, I have zero interest in playing with a DM who is going to worry about only controlling 99.99% of the game world and is going to feel that that other .01%, which comprises the party's character's is something the DM needs direct control over. It's apples and oranges. There's a million ways that a DM can indirectly influence the PC's anyway. He doesn't need direct input. The reason you see players come to the table with Man with No Name characters, orphans who don't know anyone and have no ties to the community because they just arrived a week ago, is a direct result of controlling DM's who want to start futzing about with someone's character. This is a space where a very light tread is a good thing. The DM doesn't need to be able to rewrite minor details on a player's character in order to advance a scenario.

Are you honestly going to tell me that you think that claiming a beard on an NPC that wasn't described beforehand is the same as declaring the undefined appearance of someone's character? If the player doesn't describe his character's hair, for example, would you, as the DM declare that he has long blond hair? Why? What goal is this furthering? The only reason the player is adding facial hair to the NPC is because it pushes the player's plans forward. It keeps the game going forward. What possible use would the DM doing the same thing to a PC have?