D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[The Crimson Binome]

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...

When such a thing is not properly established ahead of time, it comes off as more of a Deus Ex Machina than anything else. It cheapens the whole experience to the point of worthlessness. If it is a novel, then it is a poorly-written one, which I would not care to read.

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?

You make it sound as though the DM has this planned out ahead of time, with a particular solution that the players are expected to find, such that the would need help if they don't find it.

In its natural state, D&D doesn't have a "plot" of any sort. It merely is. The DM describes the world, and the players describe their actions. The DM is free to introduce NPCs who have their own motivations, and whose actions will have impacts on the world, but it's not the DM's place to tell the PCs what to do. They do whatever they want, and if they can't figure out a puzzle which is blocking their way, then they're generally free to go do something else.

 

[pemerton]

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.

The random chance is affected by the PC's Streetwise skill.

Can you explain how you think this is any different from Burning Wheel's Circle mechanic?

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.

Where does that theoretical possibility come from? The rules text states that the player specifies the item to be acquired. The examples given seem to me intended to reflect degree of illicitness - contrast easy licences with easy guns.

I don't think the original Traveller rules have any statement equivalent to "rule zero" or White Wolf's "golden rule", but maybe I'm misrembering.

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 only person in this thread to flag that alternative was me. As an automatic success unless time matters, in which case it might be a Streetwise check. So I don't think it's any surprise that an earlier example that I gave resembles the earliest version of Streetwise skill with which I'm familiar!

But in any event, the similarity is this: the player is entitled, within the play of the game, to take steps to introduce elements into the shared fiction that are not being created by his/her PC.

A GM who, in adjudicating a Streetwise check in Traveller, rolled a d6 in [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s style to see if any guns were avaialable before setting the Streetwise DC would not be departing from the rules as written. Whether or not guns are available is, in part, influenced by the PC's Streetwise skill. It's much more like my example of deciding whether or not the door is open by reference to the player's Athletics check. That is, if the Streetwise check to get guns fails then the Traveller referee is free to state either "No guns were available" or "The guy you'd heard off won't sell you any guns". The rulebooks don't give advice on which option to choose when, but they leave both options open.

Hence, it can't be the case that doing thing's LostSoul's way is paradigmatic of RPGing, and doing things my way is not, given that Traveller's 1977 edition is one of our paradigms of an RPG. They are different ways of RPGing which have been around for over 30 years.

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

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

They are new in the sense of not having previously been authored. If J K Rowling writes a new Harry Potter book in which we're told that Harry's shoe size is 10 (or his left armpit is hairier than his right, or whatever other trivial detail has not yet been established), that is new information, even if it has always been true in the fiction.

Likewise, if the players ask if the NPC has a beard, or if there are boxes in the alley, this requires the GM to create some new material. The fact that the material is not new within the shared fiction is irrelevant to the people in the real world, who nevertheless need to have some procedure for generating it.

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."

<snip>

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.

Nor is there anything saying that the GM shouldn't have regard to what the players want. And there are certainly example from Gygax which only make sense on the assumption that the GM is having regard to what the players want.

I quoted Traveller upthread, a paradigm RPG from 1977, which stated that "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." What is the source and nature of that responsibility? Given that it is "to further the cause of the adventure being played", I think that it is natural to think that the author of those rules had the story in mind as one significant aspect of the adventure. A Traveller referee who set out to "further the cause of the adventure" but who didn't have regard to what the players are actually interested in probably wouldn't be doing a very good job, would s/he?

In its natural state, D&D doesn't have a "plot" of any sort. It merely is. The DM describes the world, and the players describe their actions. The DM is free to introduce NPCs who have their own motivations, and whose actions will have impacts on the world, but it's not the DM's place to tell the PCs what to do.

From Moldvay Basic (1981, pages B19, B51):

When the players have rolled up their characters and bought their equipment, the DM will describe the background of the adventure. This might include . . . some rumors about the dungeon the party is going to explore. . . .

Before players can take their characters on adventures into dungeons, the DM must either create a dungeon or [sic] draw its map, or become famiiar with one of TSR's dungeon modules. . . .

This section gives a step-by-step guide to creaeting a dungeon. . . . [Step]A. CHOOSE A SCENARIO

A scenario is a background theme or idea which ties the dungeon together. A scenario will help keep a dungeon from becoming a boring repitition . . . A good scenario will always give the players a reason for adventuring.​

I don't see how this fits with what you say. It expressly states that the GM gets to tell the players which dungeon their PCs are exploring. It also says that the GM's dungeon should give the players (and their characters? I think that is what is intended) a reason to adventure.

But perhaps Moldvay Basic is not an RPG but a storygame?

What about AD&D? From Gygax's DMG (1979, p 96):

Assume that you have assembled a group of players. Each has created a character, determined his or her race and profession, and spent some time carefully equipping these neophyte adventurers with everything that the limited funds available could purchase. Your participants are now eagerly awaiting instructions from you as to how to find the place they are to seek their fortunes in. You inform them that there is a rumor in the village . . . <snip scenario outline>​

In it's natural state, as presented by these two preeminent authors, D&D contemplates that the GM will design an adventure and the players will take their PCs through it. Moldvay contemplates that the characters will have a reason other than the basic metagame one of "seeking their fortunes". It's only a small step from that to the GM modulating aspects of the backstory in response to what is interesting to the players.

 

[aramis erak]

I'm personally expressing doubt about the utility of the "storygame" label. I mostly see it used (not by you in this thread) to label games they don't play and don't like, typically as part of a "purity of RPGing" agenda.

I find it particularly useful, because it's the largest split between player groups that has lots of "I WILL NOT CROSS THIS LINE!!!" players... on both sides. And, it's the label the community that developed the counter-tradition chose for themselves... But not all of those in the Storygames movement accept the term as a subset of RPGing; some of them see it as the only RPGing. (*Cough*John*Cough*Wick*Cough*) It helps in discussions to use terms that don't overlap as much so that there's no "They aren't" accusation.

As for Traditional... The rise (in the early 90's) of what would become identified as Narrativism (in the late 90's) was always a minority in both users and designs. The games were, prior to about 1995, almost all designed for mechanical support of Strong GM, No/Limited player input into the setting, and almost entirely action resolution (often combat actions only), and almost all player input into setting or conditions was explicitly required to be vetted by the GM. 20 years is plenty long to be "tradition" - as is "the vast majority of players hang onto that style" - and it's a style with a large, wide, space for variation.

It also happens to be a term that's less generally offensive than the implication that the Storygames aren't RPGs. Especially to the smaller still subset who play across the spectrum. (Like me. In all great irony, I don't actually like most of the storygame engines... because I know I cannot trust all the people I play with to not cross the offensive-play line...)

And there are a lot of games that are still Roleplaying but neither Traditional nor really Storygames. Games like Cosmic Patrol... Weak GM, Action resolution, GM rotates scene by scene, plots on rails that make a Gygax dungeon look like a veritable macrame wall-hanging of choices, Everyone's PC is a GMPC every (number of players)th scene... It can be run as a rules-light traditional game... but it's not intended for that, and the advice within isn't suited for that use. Or like many educational sims, most of which are actually roleplaying, but use single roll event resolution, rather than specific action resolution. (I've run several different commercially released ones at work.) Or like GDW's old En Garde - which, outside of combat, uses scene resolution, but has strong GM, and is optimized for Play-by-mail... and dates to 1975.

There were a heck of a lot of things not there in early D&D design. Skills being probably the biggest one. Does that mean that skills are not part of traditional RPG's? In 1983, we got Dragonlance, which had things like Kender Pockets, where the Kender player could look into his pockets, and the DM would randomly roll what he found - with the table being modified by the kender's level (the higher numbers were more useful). IOW, back in the early 80's you had on the spot world changes. The contents of a kender's pockets were pretty much undetermined at all times.

So that's official rules adding story game elements way back in 1983. That's not that long after AD&D came out. And I'm pretty sure if you went back into The Dragon or White Dwarf, you would find other, similar things. I'm fairly sure that tables were adding story game elements about fifteen minutes after they started playing D&D in any form. It may not have been there by explicit design, but, it was certainly presumed in a lot of cases.

Someone tried that argument on the Forge back in about 2003... it was a fallacy then, and still is now.

Skills, in part, date to 1975 (see D&D Supplement 1; same one also adds hit dice other than d6's and variable damage by type of weapon). They're part of the Trad space. In fact, they're absent in most of the Storygames. They're not generally something that governs narrative control, either.

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] - and that works for you. Great. So what? I still have zero interest in playing that way. I've seen far, far too many Man With No Name characters come from players to not think that this is exactly the reason why. You probably have a very light touch and the player's have no problems with it. I've seen many DM's with a much more ham fisted approach who drive players to do this.

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] - Of course I'm showing my bias. At what point did I claim otherwise? Yes, I believe that DM's should not start adding details to PC's without asking. I think it causes all sorts of problems and leads to the DM overbearing the players. There are a million ways to achieve the exact same scenarios that you outline above, without ramming your interpretations of that character down the player's throats. Adding in a suitor to a character? Really? Good grief, that's a pretty major character element. Your players would be okay with that? Out of the blue, you have decided that my character was romantically involved in some NPC? And you're going to use that romantic involvement to forward the game? Yeah, no thanks. That's about as rail roady as it gets.

Adding an NPC pursuing the character for any reason is part of a Traditional GM's purview. It doesn't really matter whether that's pursuit for romance, rape, violence, meat, or information; what matters is that players don't axiomatically control anything but their character in trad play. Everything that isn't a PC belongs to the GM; Gygax even says so, in a backhanded (and IMO hamfisted) way in the AD&D 1E PHB, written in late 1976 (and published in 1977). (See PHB, p 8, lc, ¶3 and ¶5.) In the original edition, he merely strongly implies it.

And in trad play, even as a kid, I realized that I could, when the GM thrust a femme fatale in my Character's way, go ahead and disabuse said character of her notions. That was the almost explicit social contract of RPGs in the early 80's. The GM could tell you you had known X, but only you got to tell the GM how your character felt and feels about X.

With a GM who's trusted by the players, and doesn't abuse them, it's a non-issue.

I added to a PC's backstory last week. He's a former Gold Dragon. I mentioned that he recognized several of the leaders in the fresco in the cemetery... Nothing about how he felt. He added that. I merely noted that he recognized them.

 

[JamesonCourage]

and that works for you. Great. So what?

Uh, I specifically addressed this question in my post:

"Just like player control here makes for a better game for your group. Which is cool. Play what you like

My point, of course, is that even though I get some say over that 0.01% (the PCs), my players still love it, and my players don't make Man with No Name characters, as you asserted. Players may do that, but I believe that's because of other factors, personally."

I'm telling you that I think your assertion is wrong. I'm saying this while also saying that if more narrative control in the hands of your players works for your group, awesome. Because, play what you like

I still have zero interest in playing that way.

Awesome! Play what you like

I've seen far, far too many Man With No Name characters come from players to not think that this is exactly the reason why.

And I've never had this problem. Anecdotes are fun!

You probably have a very light touch and the player's have no problems with it. I've seen many DM's with a much more ham fisted approach who drive players to do this.

This applies to almost everything with GMs, though. Players often like some plot from the GM, but hate railroading, for example. The factor you're referencing seems to be degree rather than GM control of player background, as far as I can tell (yes, I said "seems to be" and "as far as I can tell" so that you know I'm not putting words in your mouth; I'm just telling you what it seems like you're saying to me).

 

[aramis erak]

[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.

Who dictates how, where, and when the NPC is found. In BW, the player gets to say all of them, if he's willing to accept a high enough difficulty... and at Ob=8, it can be, "Fred the blacksmith, who is just under that blanket over there, right now, and willing to help." If he makes it, Fred's there, is just under the blanket (which need not have existed in the fiction yet), and willing to help.

Trad	BW Circles
You go find them	increased difficulty if you want them to find you or to be here already
You make another test or some dialogue to convince them	increase the difficulty, and they're already convinced
you have to plan ahead if you want them to meet you	You narrate the flashback when making the roll when you want them to show up
if you fail, you don't find them; if you botch, bad stuff happens	if you fail, they either aren't there, or are annoyed with you.

That help make it more visible? (Note also: BW isn't deeply into the Storygame space; it's definitely outside the trad space as well, but it's very much directly between the two in play.)

In a true storygame, you simply state that they're there, and unless someone uses mechanics to take the narrative away, they are there as you said.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't see how this fits with what you say. It expressly states that the GM gets to tell the players which dungeon their PCs are exploring. It also says that the GM's dungeon should give the players (and their characters? I think that is what is intended) a reason to adventure.

That's all premise. It's pre-game stuff. By all means, encourage the players to create characters who will have a reason to interact with the world and NPCs you've designed, because otherwise the DM has zero influence over what they'll do.

 

[billd91]

Where does that theoretical possibility come from? The rules text states that the player specifies the item to be acquired. The examples given seem to me intended to reflect degree of illicitness - contrast easy licences with easy guns.

I don't think the original Traveller rules have any statement equivalent to "rule zero" or White Wolf's "golden rule", but maybe I'm misrembering.

What has rule zero got to do with this? The rules are fairly explicit that the GM sets the target number. If the PCs have, at best, a streetwise of +3, then all he has to do is set the target to 16 to make it impossible to find the object of the search.

But in any event, the similarity is this: the player is entitled, within the play of the game, to take steps to introduce elements into the shared fiction that are not being created by his/her PC.

I'm not really sure that follows since it would be the PC heading out to work the locals to find access to the object of the search and not the player deciding by fiat that it is there to be found. It just doesn't seem to me too different from a PC in D&D, for example, heading to the local market day to get a sack of inconsequentium to make inconsequentium stew. Chances are the GM doesn't have that level of detail on the market and decides, on the fly through some method, whether or not the inconsequentium is there. I'd hardly call that a case of the player introducing elements into the shared fiction in any really significant way - at least not in any way worth arguing whether older school RPGs have tools for the players to direct the story outside of their PC point of view.

 

[Celtavian]

When such a thing is not properly established ahead of time, it comes off as more of a Deus Ex Machina than anything else. It cheapens the whole experience to the point of worthlessness. If it is a novel, then it is a poorly-written one, which I would not care to read.

You make it sound as though the DM has this planned out ahead of time, with a particular solution that the players are expected to find, such that the would need help if they don't find it.

In its natural state, D&D doesn't have a "plot" of any sort. It merely is. The DM describes the world, and the players describe their actions. The DM is free to introduce NPCs who have their own motivations, and whose actions will have impacts on the world, but it's not the DM's place to tell the PCs what to do. They do whatever they want, and if they can't figure out a puzzle which is blocking their way, then they're generally free to go do something else.

There is always a plot in D&D. The story and objectives are written down in a linear fashion of increasing challenge. How the plot progresses and how the characters develop is up to the players. D&D is a cooperative story. The DM does not write it alone. He merely sets up the plot and lets the players write how they deal with the plot points. That's what can make D&D an interesting story. Then again, a lot of players are very boring and do even more boring stuff than the DM might think up if he had written his own story. I have players who try to beat the majority of encounters in combat over and over and over again. How interesting would that be as a story? Doubt you would read that novel either.

They are not free to go do something else unless your DM feels like making something else up for them to do. Most DMs do not want to do that. They have an established progression. If the PCs want to go do something else, you tell them they do and end the adventure right there. "You spend the rest of your life as a soldier or guard in some caravan or city. The End." That wouldn't make for much of a story. I haven't played with a single DM that operated in this manner. Most DMs I know map out the adventure (plot) and the PCs progress through it. The majority of players I know prefer it this way. They in fact expect it to occur this way. They would consider a DM lazy and boring if he didn't have an adventure (plot) prepared.

 

[Celtavian]

I don't like to put limited riddles, puzzles, and the like in the game unless I intend to allow a check to figure it out if the player is stumped. Most people in real life aren't as intelligent as the wizard in an adventuring party. I feel as a DM if you put a puzzle, riddle, or the like in the game, you should do so with the idea of making your wizard or other intelligence based player seem intelligent rather than making your party figure out something obscure out that only you might have read or learned. You don't want to make a PC feel stupid or weak. The entire idea behind fantasy gaming is to play something you are not. Not only does that include being a master swordsman or powerful wizard, but also something that knows something those types of characters might know. For example, if a DM puts a complex puzzle into the game, why not let the PCs make a skill check based on an appropriate skill to solve it. It's no different than an actor that isn't a brilliant scientist solving a complex physics problem he knows nothing about in real life. Your job as a DM is to create a scenario that makes the player feel like a wizard with an 18 intelligence with a deep knowledge base that the real player doesn't possess. This helps your player invest in his character and makes for a more interesting experience for all.

Putting an NPC in to provide the answer eliminates an opportunity for a PC your running to shine. It should bring pleasure to a DM when his players get to shine solving a difficult challenge only their particular PC is well equipped to solve. You work to create such moments whether it is the fighter going toe to toe with some powerful foe or a rogue disarming some extremely dangerous trap to progress through a dungeon or a wizard deciphering the ancient magical text to determine the secret name of a demon lord you must defeat. DMs should put players in a position to succeed whether it is a player's real life knowledge or their characters in-game knowledge.

 

[Hussar]

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.
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?

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

I'd have no real problem with the boxes collapsing as a result of a failed skill check. If the DM simply allows the boxes to be present but then makes the boxes useless, well, that's kind of a dick move. Might as well just say no in the first place if you're going to do that.

Adding family ties to an existing NPC is a pretty big campaign change. A lot greater in scope than adding a half dozen boxes to an alleyway. What kind of resources would you have to spend to make that large of a campaign change? If it takes an inspiration point, for example, to add boxes in an undetailed alley, how many points would you have to spend to add family ties to a major noble in the campaign setting?

IME, players won't push things that far.