D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[pemerton]

You don't find it at all contrived or damaging to suspension of disbelief that the PC just happens to have the perfect background contacts and skills that are exactly what is needed to save the day? Really?

Because that's what this sort of free-form narrative control encourages. If you don't have the skills or abilities to solve the situation yourself, just make up something to get you through any obstacle in front of you.

I think it would be helpful if you'd address the actual examples given.

For instance, [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], upthread, contrasted the beard example with finding the keys hanging next to the locked door. And in my discussion with [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] I've distinguished cases where action resolution is actually underway, with cases where what is at stake is the framing of the fictional context wihtin which actions will then be declared.

If the player gets to estabish his her family/contacts/ninja-clan, that doesn't make the obstacle go away. It means the focus of play becomes what the player has in mind (persuading the ninjas to help) rather than whatever the GM had in mind.

What does it matter if the obstacle is circumvented in that way; or by climbing boxes rather than a rope-and-grapple; or by impersonating a bearded NPC; rather than whatever it was that the GM expected?

 

[Mark CMG]

[MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION] and others may be interested in this extract from the skill rules in Traveller, Book 1 Characters and Combat (1977, p15):

Streetwise - The individual is acquainted with the ways of local subcultures . . . The referee should set the throw required [on 2d6] to obtain any item specified by the players (for example, the name of an official wiling to issue licenses without hassle = 5+, the location of high quality guns at a low price = 9+). D[ice]M[odifier]s based on streetwise shoud be allowed at +1 per [skill] level. No experise DM = -5.​

So here we have, in 1977, in a game that Mark CMG has called out upthread as the paradigm of "trad", a mechanic which allows a player to specify some item to be obtained or contact to be made, and then make a skill roll to locate/identify it. How does this differ from BW Circles mechanic? As best I can tell, the only difference is that Circles generalises the idea beyond acquaintance with local subcultures to social connections more generally.

"The referee should set the throw required [on 2d6] to obtain any item specified by the players" is no different than what folks have been saying all along regarding a player asking about something and the GM randomizing the possibility if it isn't already delineated.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What does it matter if the obstacle is circumvented in that way; or by climbing boxes rather than a rope-and-grapple; or by impersonating a bearded NPC; rather than whatever it was that the GM expected?

It matters because it's the difference between dealing with the situation at hand, or authorially changing the situation to something else.

The game is the DM describing situations, and the players describing what their characters try to do in those situations. That's why we're playing D&D, or some other traditional RPG, and not a shared-authorship story-telling game of some sort. I mean, there's nothing wrong with those sorts of games, if that's what you're into, but it's really weird that you would try to shoehorn D&D into that mold.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

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.

That needs to be repeated and underlined:

NOTHING IS BEING CHANGED IN THE GAME WORLD.

The only thing that is happening is previously unestablished details are being filled in.

Which is, in itself, a change to the game world.

Adding a detail where none existed before is every bit as much a change as changing an existing detail; and if a player does it as a fait accompli it is, while not changing a preset detail, taking design space away from the DM.

Those boxes over there were not mentioned, nor was their absence mentioned.

Did anyone ask?

Also, if the player *is* allowed to state there are boxes in the alley, is the DM (if nobody asks) then allowed to have them noisily collapse under the PC while she's climbing up them as they are too flimsy or rotten to support her?

Once it's established though, details don't get to be changed, because that would be inconsistent.

Agreed.

You can still run into problems, however, if the DM *has* detailed something but the PCs don't know about it yet. In the family-of-an-NPC example, if the DM has it as part of the hidden plot that the Baron's family is corrupt to the core and a player decides their PC is the Baron's son (and thus would be highly likely to know of the corruption if not be an integral part of it), then what? Is the DM expected to give away her plot secrets? And if the DM says "no, that won't work" where it otherwise might the players are logically enough going to metagame that there's something amiss with the Baron's family. Again, not desireable.

Lan-"That box in the alley? The son of the Baron is in there, and he'll be mighty annoyed if you disturb him"-efan

 

[pemerton]

It matters because it's the difference between dealing with the situation at hand, or authorially changing the situation to something else.

The situation is "alley with wall to climb". How do we know whether or not their are boxes present?

If you assume that the gameworld contains nothing but what the GM has already described, orally to the players or in prior writing in his/her notes, you will get a gameworld that is absurdly austere compared to the real world. Walk around an inner urban neighbourhood and look at all the stuff in the streets, in the lanes, on the verandahs, visible through the windows, etc. Or, if you think those results will be exaggerated because of the increase in material production between mediaeval and present-day times, look at a list of household contents in a decent history book.

Now look at the descriptions provided in the typical module or world-setting. Either people in D&D don't comb their hair, sew their clothes, feed their horses, butcher their meat, etc, or alternatively the gameworld contains a whole lot of combs, needles, hay, knives, etc that are not being described in those notes.

At which point, a decision needs to be made when the players ask - for instance, if it's not "Are their boxes in the alley" it might be "Is their a horseshoe nail that I can try and use as an improvised lock pick?" or "Is their a skillet that I can bang loudly to attract attention?" or "Does the temple have a scholar whose fluent in ancient languages?" or any of the other hunreds of ideas that players might come up with to take advantage of the bog-standard stuff that is found in streets and houses and cities.

In these circumstances the GM has to add new backstory elements. And I'm still asking you to cite some GMing advice that says that, in doing so, the GM should not have regard to what will be interesting to the players.

"The referee should set the throw required [on 2d6] to obtain any item specified by the players" is no different than what folks have been saying all along regarding a player asking about something and the GM randomizing the possibility if it isn't already delineated.

It's quite different. First, the player gets to specify the relevant ingaeme element. Second, the PC's Streetwise skill is a DM on the roll, which is made by the player. The GM sets a DC, but does not get to randomise the outcome.

In other words, it's the player using a PC skill (Streetwise) to introduce content into the shared fiction, although the PC is not him-/herself the ingame creator of that content.

There is no functional difference between this and the BW Circles mechanic. And the only functional difference between this and an OGL Conan-stye fate point system is that the latter allows auto-success whereas the Traveller mechanic requires a successful skill roll.

 

[pemerton]

if the player *is* allowed to state there are boxes in the alley, is the DM (if nobody asks) then allowed to have them noisily collapse under the PC while she's climbing up them as they are too flimsy or rotten to support her?

I think this is a misdescription of the core idea that is being discussed.

The question is not "Does a player have the authority to declare that there are boxes in the alley" - even in OGL Conan, the player's expenditure of a fate point to create boxes is subject to GM veto, and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] mentioned GM vetoes upthread.

The question is, "If a player would like the GM to exercise his/her authority over backstory this way rather than that way", should the GM have regard to that? In other words, it's about GM bias towards player desires in exercising authority. (This is how [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION], correctly, has been framing the matter.)

I found another interesting passage in Traveller, Book 3: Worlds and Adventure (1977, p 19):

Encounters with non-player characters serve as a vehicle for directions and input by the referee. . . . Encounters also serve as a method for players to gain comrades, weapons, vehicles or assistance whre necessary. . . . The referee is always free to impose encounters to further the cause of the adventure being played; in many cases, he actualy has a responsibility to do so.​

The rulebook doesn't go on to say what considerations should govern the exercise of that responsibility, but there is nothing at all to suggest that the desires of the players wouldn't be a factor (eg if the players are lookig for comrades or assistance for their PCs), and the Streetwise rules that I quoted upthread suggest that the desires of the players are a relevant consideration.

 

[Mark CMG]

It's quite different. First, the player gets to specify the relevant ingaeme element. Second, the PC's Streetwise skill is a DM on the roll, which is made by the player. The GM sets a DC, but does not get to randomise the outcome.

In other words, it's the player using a PC skill (Streetwise) to introduce content into the shared fiction, although the PC is not him-/herself the ingame creator of that content.

There is no functional difference between this and the BW Circles mechanic. And the only functional difference between this and an OGL Conan-stye fate point system is that the latter allows auto-success whereas the Traveller mechanic requires a successful skill roll.

It's consistent with the difference between the player stating that crates simply exist and asking the GM if there are crates and the GM randomly determining if they are in the alley. The player asks if the character, whose role includes being streetwise, has a chance to have or procure a resource and there being a random chance for it to be in existence for the character in the setting. It's consistent with traditional RPG play.

 

[billd91]

It's quite different. First, the player gets to specify the relevant ingaeme element. Second, the PC's Streetwise skill is a DM on the roll, which is made by the player. The GM sets a DC, but does not get to randomise the outcome.

In other words, it's the player using a PC skill (Streetwise) to introduce content into the shared fiction, although the PC is not him-/herself the ingame creator of that content.

I think you're pushing a bit here. It allows the PC to try to track down an element, though, theoretically at least, the GM could set the target number so high that it can't be reached or could just say that there is no chance of success with the skill because that element isn't present at that time or on that world. It's not particularly like asking if there are boxes in the immediate vicinity and having the GM say Yes as a rule. It's a lot closer to the alternative of the player wanting to get up to the upper window and heading out to find something that will work like a ladder or stackable boxes.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The situation is "alley with wall to climb". How do we know whether or not their are boxes present?

Ask the DM, who is the one in charge of describing situations.

In these circumstances the GM has to add new backstory elements.

The GM is not adding new backstory elements within the game world, but merely making the players aware of what elements already exist.

And I'm still asking you to cite some GMing advice that says that, in doing so, the GM should not have regard to what will be interesting to the players.

I'm not sure that older editions even go into that sort of thing. I'm not sure that any edition goes into that. I found nothing in the DMG from 1E that had any opinion whatsoever on what should be in the world.

Most of what's in the DMG (for any edition) just goes back to what the PHB from 5E has summarized quite succinctly: "The DM describes the environment." Sometimes there are random roll tables to serve as aid, for a DM who is uncertain about something. There's certainly nothing that suggests the players get to lobby for what exists in the environment, or that the DM should decide what's there on the basis of what the players want.

I do know that the old red box gave advice for the DM to "be fair" in such things.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You don't find it at all contrived or damaging to suspension of disbelief that the PC just happens to have the perfect background contacts and skills that are exactly what is needed to save the day? Really?

yes really, that would be a great game...

Because that's what this sort of free-form narrative control encourages. If you don't have the skills or abilities to solve the situation yourself, just make up something to get you through any obstacle in front of you. Go out of your way to leave yourself with as much undefined history as possible, since that's the currency that you can spend to buy yourself out of dangerous situations in the future. The real loser is anyone who actually wrote out their character backstory in advance, since they have no wiggle room to make up stuff later on!

kind of like every TV show or Movie or Book... if the main character doesn't have the ability to solve the issue, hey look they know someone to go to help them...

That's so far beyond what I look for in a game that it hurts my head to even think about it.

I can't believe you are serious... would you rather the PCs just say "Damn, I don't know what to do?" and sit there? or would you rather what exactly?

If the player gets to estabish his her family/contacts/ninja-clan, that doesn't make the obstacle go away. It means the focus of play becomes what the player has in mind (persuading the ninjas to help) rather than whatever the GM had in mind.

exactly, and it might take me a min or two to figure out how to run with it... Sometimes I jokingly say "Hold on, loading...loading" well I come up with a change...

It matters because it's the difference between dealing with the situation at hand, or authorially changing the situation to something else.

my only consideration is, "Will the new situation be fun" sometimes players have really fun ideas...

The game is the DM describing situations, and the players describing what their characters try to do in those situations.

in this case that description is "Hey I need help, can I phone a friend..."

That's why we're playing D&D, or some other traditional RPG, and not a shared-authorship story-telling game of some sort.

I believe with all my heart I AM PLAYING TRADITIONAL D&D!!! I honestly believe that I am very much playing the game that two great game players designed (Arenson, and Gygax) in the spirit they ment it to be played...

I mean, there's nothing wrong with those sorts of games, if that's what you're into, but it's really weird that you would try to shoehorn D&D into that mold.

I don't think I'm shoe horening anything. When I want a mostly political with some social game with leathal combat I play oWoD, when I want Sci fi game set in my fav universes I play star trek and star wars, when I want to play a post apoc sci fin my choices are RIFTS and SHadow run... I sometime dablle in CoC. Now when I want fantasy games I normally play a D&D like game (I have played a lot of editions and retroclones) I'm not not "trying to make D&D something else", I'm just playing D&D