D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[Hussar]

Oh, and to answer [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION]'s examples:

First response - well, that's a nice couple of straw men we're creating aren't we? I mean, we've gone from adding a couple of boxes to an alleyway (where it is perfectly reasonable that the PC's might not have noticed the boxes) to adding the most famous NPC in Faerun and adding family ties to said NPC very likely in contradiction to established facts about said NPC. I mean, there's thousands of pages of information about Elminister, so, I imagine his family has been pretty thoroughly detailed at some point.

Actual responses:

1. Sorry, this contradicts established campaign facts. Players don't get to do that. And stop being a prat.

2. Sorry, umm, since when are there hovercraft in D&D? Please refer to the outline of the campaign that we all talked about before the campaign started. This doesn't fit with the campaign that you agreed to play. Why are you being a prat?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Actual responses:

1. Sorry, this contradicts established campaign facts. Players don't get to do that. And stop being a prat.

2. Sorry, umm, since when are there hovercraft in D&D? Please refer to the outline of the campaign that we all talked about before the campaign started. This doesn't fit with the campaign that you agreed to play. Why are you being a prat?

I assume the example was supposed to be honest, so some new kid didn't get why these things don't fit... that's why I compromised with a more fitting nPC, and the hippogriff with a winged carraige

 

[pemerton]

By my approach, if it's undefined then it's irrelevant. If it was going to be relevant, then it would have been defined.

If you want fill it out as you go along, then it's bad to make it up as it would be relevant, because that goes against the roles of DM and player by having the player try to describe the environment.

How does one know what is relevant, or not, at the beginning of a campaign? In practice, I turn up to the games club, a new game is starting, I roll up my PC and join the others in the group in exploring the GM's goblin lair. It's fairly traditional in D&D that the core campaign theme/elements don't even emerge until a few levels of play have passed. If the GM is following the standard advice, there won't even be a camaign world beyond a village with a shop, and a nearby dungeon to explore.

Suppose, in the second session of play, we meet some NPC veterans in the dungeon. The reaction roll is favourable, and we start chatting. They ask my where I'm from. I don't know - do you expect me to ask the GM? Do you think that the GM, in having the NPCs ask me that pretty innocuous question, was setting up a trigger for him/her to have a conversation with him-/herself.?

In every group I've played with, the player would make stuff up. If s/he wanted advice from the GM, s/he would ask for it. If the GM though it was at odds with some other important element of campaign backstory, the GM might suggest a modification.

But no-one would suppose the player was "going against the role of a player". And if the goal is immersion, nothing breaks that more than having an NPC ask "Where are you from?" and having to defer to a 3rd party (the GM) to answer on behalf of my PC!

 

[pemerton]

Hey, it says the GM establishes the target roll. That clearly implies that the GM gets to have a say on how likely the PC is to find what they're looking for. No ignoring of rules text is required to make that statement.

Yes. Its says the GM sets the DC, and gives examples. It doesn't say that the GM first gets to decide if cheap guns are available at a good price, and if s/he decides that they're not then the check automatically fails.

The point of the skill is to give the players a (potentially risky, because illicit) pathway to getting the things they need to succeed at the sorts of adventures that Traveller (at least in its classic incarnation) encourages.

Streetwise is part of the character makeup but, regardless of how the GM adjudicates its usage, you apparently see it's usage as the player affecting the setting directly and I see its usage as the player affecting the setting through the character.

I see it's usage as the player affecting the setting directly because the player, through a successful roll, can make it true that high quality guns are available at a low price. This is not something that the character is making true.

Its existence in the game (somewhere) is mechanically determined by there being a Paladin (somewhere) who has just reached 4th-level.

<snip>

All the player does is trigger it.

<snip>

The player doesn't put it there, the game does.

Huh? The player triggers it. That's [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point.

If the game has "Bond points" or OGL Conan-style "fate points" then all the player does is trigger them. "The game" puts them there, via the rules for awarding them.

I'd say you're talking about what I'd call "Entitled GM Games" - which are a subset of Trad RPGs. In an Entitled GM Game the GM has the sole right and responsibility to determine the setting and anything the players are permitted to know about the setting must come through and be approved by the GM. The characters have no knowledge of the world they live in that allows them to act with confidence unless such has first been approved by the GM. They have no bounds of expertise that live anywhere except on their character sheet. They do not live in their worlds so much as they have been inserted there as near-blank slates, having fallen through from another world; their knowledge of the world they live in is starkly limited.

<snip>

The difference is on expectation. Whether the players are expected to contribute and it is expected that the world and setting are shared or whether it's purely owned by the GM. Indeed that's a big part of why games that have GMs have them.

The argument here is whether we have Entitled GMing and that it's the GM's world and the GM's story to which the players are graciously permitted to contribute, or whether the game belongs to the table as a whole - and while the GM has the final authority it is expected that they use this sparingly and the setting comes from the combined contributions of all the people in the game.

I think this is nicely put.

I've said time and again that I am discussing how the game rules were written by design

The idea that the GM has sole authority over the introduction of story elements, once the players have built their PCs in accordance with the rules, is not stated in any AD&D book I know, nor in Moldvay Basic, nor in Traveller.

The AD&D PHBs (Gygax's and Cook's) talk about the players playing their characters, and using their character's abilities, but they do not say that the players may not suggest story elements to go along with it, and Gygax's PHB expressly contemplates player authorship of PC backstory. Nor do these books tell the GM not to have regard to player desires in answering questions about the content of the shared fiction.

How would any of the posters involved in this discussion handle the following situations?

Upthread I had some discussion with [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] about the difference between the door open/shut case, in which the issue of fictional content is intimately bound up with action resolution, and the bearded NPC case, which is not bound up with action resolution.

Your examples are both about action resolution, namely, escaping.

They also involve introducing very improbable story elements, unlike either a bearded man (assuming that the setting does not have strong conventions around being clean-shaven) or boxes or similar rubbish in an alley.

I can't imagine a player suggesting either of the things you suggest, so don't have a view on how I would respond as a GM. If either thing came up, there would be bigger matters to handle as a GM than this particular episode of action resolution. For instance, there is a strong implication that neither player really wants to play a fantasy RPG along the lines I'm running.

 

[pemerton]

If I understand correctly, the PC is making an Athletics check to resolve the action "I flee!"* I'm not sure how exactly we are resolving this - is the PC rolling against a DC and that's it, or are we using an initiative system? If it's just a DC, everything is abstract and up in the air for narration - the whole situation is a "Schroedinger's escape".

If we are using initiative, then I imagine the PC would use a move action to get up the stairs, roll Athletics to break it down, and if successful continue on, while the NPCs would move and attack on their turns. I think you'd narrate each task's success/failure in the typical fashion - "You slam into the door but it holds", "The cultist is able to grab on to you", etc.

I had been assuming that we're resolving the action - "I flee" - via a single check. You could resolve it as an extend contest/skill challenge if you want, but that wouldn't give any more reason to make a random roll to decide on the door state - rather, the GM would narrate it as open or shut as seemed effective for framing the sequence of checks in the challenge. (Eg "You race to the top of the stairs, but the door is shut" could be a possible way of narrating the upshot of a failed initial Athletics check.")

If you are resolving the situation via initiative checks, movement actions etc within the action economy of D&D combat, then the GM has to decide whether or not the door is shut before that particular mode of resolution is used, because that system allows for FitM for melee combat (the GM doesn't have to decide whether the cultist blocks, ducks, parries etc until narrating the outcome of the dice rolls) but not for manipulating objects that might impinge on movement.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Suppose, in the second session of play, we meet some NPC veterans in the dungeon. The reaction roll is favourable, and we start chatting. They ask my where I'm from. I don't know - do you expect me to ask the GM? Do you think that the GM, in having the NPCs ask me that pretty innocuous question, was setting up a trigger for him/her to have a conversation with him-/herself.?

Why don't you know your own character's backstory? Even just the basics, like what region it's from? For as much as the designers have actually considered that sort of thing, you should have had it established before the game started.

Maybe it's different when you just show up at the local games club, and immediately create a character that you start playing the same day. Sure, maybe you just want to roll dice, and you haven't figured out the whole character identity yet. But why wouldn't you work with the DM before the next session, to get anything down? How can you play the character, incorporating relevant aspects from his or her backstory, when those elements haven't even been approved by the DM yet?

Because the DM describes the environment, and that includes the existence of any nearby ninja strongholds. Nothing exists until the DM says it does. If you want to introduce an NPC or organization, then the DM had better know all about it before it ever shows up.

 

[pemerton]

Why don't you know your own character's backstory?

Because you haven't written it yet? I posted an example of this upthread, where the player of the fox spirit in my game decided that it made more sense if he was an animal spirit banished from the Celestial courts, rather than an ordinary fox that had elevated itself to human-hood.

The actual play of the game very frequently suggests new ideas for players' backstories.

Even just the basics, like what region it's from?

If the GM hasn't designed anything but a village and a dungeon - as per the standard GMing advice in Moldvay Basic and Gygax's DMG - then there aren't any regions to be from until the players start making them up!

For as much as the designers have actually considered that sort of thing, you should have had it established before the game started.

<snip>

But why wouldn't you work with the DM before the next session, to get anything down? How can you play the character, incorporating relevant aspects from his or her backstory, when those elements haven't even been approved by the DM yet?

<snip>

If you want to introduce an NPC or organization, then the DM had better know all about it before it ever shows up.

"Should have", "had better know all about it", "why wouldn't", "how can you"?

I've explained upthread that I don't feel the force of your "should". As a GM it's never troubled me that backstory gets developed over time, as part of play. As to how this can be done, I've explained this at some length upthread, with an actual play example.

From what you've said, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I have both been RPGing, with D&D and other games, for longer than you. That's not a reason for you to change how you play, but I think it might give you pause when you tell us that what we're doing is something deviant within the D&D framework. It's very common, and doesn't contradict anything in the rule books.

 

[Lanefan]

Scenario one:

You're running a Forgotten Realms game (or a setting with identical facets) at a gameday or for all new players in your home or at one of the player's homes. Characters have been created and the group has moved through a town looking for something, let's say specific warm weather gear that isn't on the equipment list in the PH (like a polar bear fur coat), and they've realized they are being chased by thieves or muggers or they suspect possibly worse. They run around a corner while fleeing into an alley and one of the players says, "And in the alley there are some crates. On one of them, Elminster is sitting smoking his pipe and he recognizes me because my uncle worked for him loyally for over a dozen years before dying. I ask him to help us out of this jam." The players at the table turn to you expectantly. How do you handle this.

Depends. If the player is smiling I'll assume it's a joke, say something like, "yeah, ri-ight", and otherwise ignore it and move on. If the player is being serious my response might be "that's very astute of you, you're seeing an illusion where there isn't any" and then go on to describe the alley. If the player persists then out comes the smackdown hammer.

Scenario two:

Similar setup but it is a Greyhawk game (or nearly identical setting for our purposes). The four players all have one character and you have started them in a tavern for whatever reason, even if you would never normally do that, when a fight breaks out. The players all agree that their characters should flee the tavern and the area. As they exit, one of the players says, "I look over and see a hovercraft. It's a four-seater like the kind I got in another Greyhawk game when exploring near the Barrier Peaks. Since this character I am playing today has a background in engineering, which I knew would come in handy, I tell everyone to jump in and I hot wire the thing so we can take off quickly." One of the other players looks over his character sheet and clears his throat. Two others look at engineer character player smiling enigmatically. The first player speaks again asking, "How fast does this one go?" How do you proceed?

It wouldn't get that far, as at the word "hovercraft" I jump in with "No, you don't see any such thing!" and then, if needed, describe what actually is there. And again, persistence in championing the existence of a hovercraft will soon prove the existence of the smackdown hammer.

Lan-"in both cases above I'm assuming these developments are sprung on the DM with neither warning nor previous-play backstory"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Ok, rolling back to the Paladin's Warhorse since I want to beat that horse a little more.

Ways in which this Mechanic is a Story Game Element:

1. It is initiated entirely by the player. The DM is obligated by the mechanic to provide the opportunity to gain the mount whenever the player does so.

Which is pretty much the same as the DM being obligated to react whenever a player of any class uses any class mechanic; the difference being this particular mechanic-and-reaction is both much more elaborate and (perhaps fortunately) much less common.

2. It's quantum. According to the DMG, the mount will appear no more than 10 miles away from wherever the PC is at the given time. No matter what. So, if I call the mount on Tuesday in Waterdeep, it appears somewhere within ten miles of me. If, instead, I step through a portal to Greyhawk and call the mount of Wednesday, it STILL appears within 10 miles of me.

Upon further review (i.e. a quick check of my handy 1e DMG) the suggestion given is that the mount be located no more than 7 days' ride from the calling Paladin. It's not that hard to ride 20-30 miles in a day thus 7 days' ride can take one a long way, particularly if said ride takes one through a planar gate or two...

3. The quest is tied to the character's level. If I call for the mount at 4th level, I get a fighter that "tests my mettle" as an example. If I wait until 8th level, I test my mettle against a fighter that's going to be higher level than the first one, since the challenge is tied to my character level.

Assuming you set that as the quest. I've always seen that as merely a suggestion, or example, of how such a quest might go.

4. The mount refreshes. Every ten years, like clockwork, I can get a new mount, complete with new quest. The game world moulds itself to my clock, because it's ten years after the first mount dies. How does that work? The gods can only make horses so fast? It takes that long to get a new fighter to test my mettle? What?

Yeah, that one's kinda bizarre. Me, I'd just have it that if the horse dies it can be raised just like the Paladin can - provided the raise is cast by a Cleric to either a) the Paladin's deity, or b) a deity whose primary sphere is horses and equines. That said, if your adventuring career lasts that long you probably don't need another warhorse as by then you're well on your way to godhood.

Is this hard core story gaming? No, of course not. I'm not even remotely claiming that it is. But, it is at the very least a story gaming element, which [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION] has flat out claimed never existed in early versions of RPG's. That it's not in OD&D isn't really that big of a deal. I'm going to say that AD&D is early enough for this discussion.

This is the part that confuses me. I don't see any of this as "story gaming"; though I probably would if the player calling for the horse also designed and set the quest. Instead, I just see it as part of the game.

Lan-"flogging a dead horse until it's raised, then flogging a live horse"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Question for you lot: where on the story-gaming scale does it fall when a player in-character sets an adventure for one or more other characters, with the DM's approval but limited if any input?

I ask because I've been in a game where this happened. One player's trickster character stole a ve-ery valuable sword from another character (yours truly, in fact), hid it in a place dangerous to others but not to her, then in effect challenged us* to go and get it. Which we did, and I got to it first. The dangerous place was, I think, designed by the stealing character's player with some input from the DM; who then ran it as a small adventure.

* - I say "us" because while I was the possessor of the sword at the time it was taken, I myself had stolen it from someone else; and numerous characters either claimed ownership of it or just plain wanted it.

Lan-"a +2 longsword with Heal (as spell) once a day brings out the Thief in any Fighter"-efan