D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[pemerton]

II'm really not seeing where that's supported anywhere in the books, though. Even when the DM just starts with a dungeon and a town, it goes on to explain how the DM is the one responsible for building the rest of the world as necessary, without suggesting that the other players get any say in the matter.

I quoted the passage upthread, from Gygax's PHB, in which he flags player authorship of PC backstories, with no consraints suggested on when that might take place.

There are well-known passages in the 4e DMG and DMG2 which suggest the possiblity of player authorship (eg sidebars on p 28 and 21 of the DMG and DMG2 respectively; pp 16-19 of the DMG2 under the heading "cooperative worldbuilding").

From Gygax's DMG, p 93 (under the heading "Territory Development by Player Characters"):

You [the GM] must have a large scale map which show areas where this is possible . . . The exact culture and society of this area is up to you. . . .

Assume that the player in question decides that he will set up a stronghold about 100 miles from a border town, choosing an area of wooded hills as the general site. He then asks you if there is a place where he can build a small concentric castle on a high bluff overlooking a river. Unles this is totally foreing to the area, you inform him that he can do so.​

This is quite analogous to the "boxes in an alley" example, except at the terrain/geography level rather than the "urban junk" level.

Gygax's PHB (p 27), in discussing thieves, says:

Any thief character of 10th or greater level may use his small castle type building to set up a headquarters for a gang of theives . . . [T]his will bring the enmity of the local Thieves Guild, and they will struggle to do away with the rival organization.​

Not unlike [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s example of the paladin calling for a warhorse, this is an example in which the GM's worldbuilding and provision of antagonists is expected to follow a lead set by a player.

These are all examples where the rulebooks do not assume that the players have no role in th game, and in contributing to the shared fiction, except playing their PCs within the constraints of those PCs' imagined causal powers.

 

[billd91]

I had a look at how this skill is handled in MegaTraveller - the text is changed, with similar flavour text but no "player authorship" mechanics (1987, p39):

The individual is acquainted with the ways of social subculture (which tend to be simiar everywhere in human societies) and thus is capable of dealing with strangers without alienating them.

Close-knit subcultures (for example, some portions of the lower classes, trade groups such as workers, and the underworld) generally reject contact with strangers or unknown elements. Stretwise expertise allows contact for the purposes of obtaining information, hiring persons, purchasing or selling conraband or stolen goods, and other shady or borderline activities.

To initiate a gang of smugglers: Difficult​

This skill works in the way that [MENTION=5]Mark[/MENTION]CMG and [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] prefer.

I think the reason for the original Traveller approach is that the game has no general, binding resolution for social conflict. So instead there is the player-authorship approach. The change in MegaTraveller seems to me consistent with the general trend towards illusionist mechanics in late-80s and 90s mainstream RPGing.

I can't help but marvel that this is over-analysis of very small textual changes. The streetwise skill in Traveller Book 1 and the MegaTraveller Player's Guide are described in almost the exact same terms. The difference? Traveller Book 1 describes 2 sample tasks while MegaTraveller describes 1. Yet, somehow you are able to construct a difference that is prototypical player authorship on one hand and captures the zeitgeist of late-80s derogatorily termed gaming on the other.

 

[Campbell]

Here's the thing : the set of play techniques and principles involved in games like Dungeon World, Marvel Heroic Roleplay, Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, and others were not invented out of whole cloth. They were the result of people playing role playing games. Much of the indie game movement comes from criticism of Vampire and Ars Magica play not lining up to people's expectations. I can understand the claim that they are different enough from traditional role playing games to not belong to the same category, but given the amount of conceptual bleed between traditional RPGs and "Story Games" I don't find it terribly useful. What I find distasteful about defining "story games" as not RPGs is the seeming rejection of a shared heritage.

 

[Hussar]

Here's the thing : the set of play techniques and principles involved in games like Dungeon World, Marvel Heroic Roleplay, Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, and others were not invented out of whole cloth. They were the result of people playing role playing games. Much of the indie game movement comes from criticism of Vampire and Ars Magica play not lining up to people's expectations. I can understand the claim that they are different enough from traditional role playing games to not belong to the same category, but given the amount of conceptual bleed between traditional RPGs and "Story Games" I don't find it terribly useful. What I find distasteful about defining "story games" as not RPGs is the seeming rejection of a shared heritage.

Yah. Pretty much this. It really is tribalism. I can understand the need to categorize. Really, I do. And I think that there is value and usefulness in doing so. And, no one is claiming that, say, AD&D 1e is a story game. That's ridiculous on its face. But, equally ridiculous, IMO, is the idea that AD&D contains no story game elements. Things like My Life With Master exist BECAUSE of the things that we were doing way back when. If role play gaming was a serious paradigm shift in how games were played (what do you mean you play a game that no one ever wins and everyone is supposed to work together? That's not a game!!?!), the idea that you can then push control over the game onto the players themselves is taking that notion several steps further.

But the seeds of story games are certainly planted in early RPG's. Heck, Weiss and Hickman were playing Dragonlance in the 70's after all. All those story game elements that people derided in Dragonlance? Hey, their genesis was in the AD&D rules.

Heck, look at all the spells and magic items in D&D where you can directly ask questions of your DM. Sure, they might be veiled in the idea that you are asking a god or whatever, but, at the end of the day, you are asking the DM. The 2nd level cleric spell Augury lets you ask the DM directly whether doing X is a good or bad idea and it works 70% of the time (plus caster level). There's nothing in the description of the spell that even mentions a diety or anything else. And the example given in the spell mention nothing about a diety or anything else and only talk about the DM looking at what's ahead in the dungeon (in the example, a troll guarding a gem) and gives an answer based on his judgement as to whether it is a good idea to proceed or not.

It's pretty hard to get more meta than that. The character is casting a spell to ask an entity that doesn't exist in the game world? There is zero connection between what the character is doing and what is happening at the game table. That might not be specifically player authorship, but it's certainly starting to shade in that direction.

 

[pemerton]

I can't help but marvel that this is over-analysis of very small textual changes. The streetwise skill in Traveller Book 1 and the MegaTraveller Player's Guide are described in almost the exact same terms. The difference? Traveller Book 1 describes 2 sample tasks while MegaTraveller describes 1.

The textual change is small only if you don't care about who has authority over what.

The Classic rulebook gives, as examples, the availability of certain goods or services. This is about the player determining that certain stuff is available to his/her PC, although his/her PC did not create that stuff. The Mega rulebook gives, as an example, the infiltration of a smuggling ring (I'm not sure how I mistyped that in my earlier post!). This about resolving something within the scope of the PC's causal agency.

These are differences in the allocation of authority over the availability of stuff to PCs. If you're trying to look at who was authority over what, that is a salient difference.

From my point of view, I would describe it as a nerfing of Streetwise. From the point of view of many posters in this thread, though, I would expect it to be considered an improvement: it clearly puts the authority over what stuff is available to the PCs back into the hands of the GM. I would have expected you to agree with that approach.

late-80s derogatorily termed gaming

Traveller has no binding social mechanics. That is why I describe the "infiltration of a smuggling ring" as illusionism. Contrast, say, the Traveller combat rules: absent GM fudging, these are binding and hence not illusionistic. Contrast also [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s game: he as GM randomly determined the availability of rocket ships, but then the PC was able to obtain one via binding social resolution. LostSoul's game is not illusionist either, although it deploys a different mechanical approach from the one I have been favouring in this thread.

As to whether the late-80s to mid-90s favoured non-binding mechanics, that is a bigger issue but I think the emphasis on GM override of mechanical outcomes "in the interests of the story", found in many RPGs from that period including AD&D and the White Wolf games, tends to support my characterisation. I think in this sort of game having "Streetwise-3" on my PC sheet isn't so much about being able to achieve definite outcomes within the fiction, but rather is about conveying a certain flavour in respect of my character: he's the streetwise guy! Which the GM should then pay some regard to in narrating outcomes, NPC reactions etc.

 

[billd91]

The textual change is small only if you don't care about who has authority over what.

The Classic rulebook gives, as examples, the availability of certain goods or services. This is about the player determining that certain stuff is available to his/her PC, although his/her PC did not create that stuff. The Mega rulebook gives, as an example, the infiltration of a smuggling ring (I'm not sure how I mistyped that in my earlier post!). This about resolving something within the scope of the PC's causal agency.

These are differences in the allocation of authority over the availability of stuff to PCs. If you're trying to look at who was authority over what, that is a salient difference.

From my point of view, I would describe it as a nerfing of Streetwise. From the point of view of many posters in this thread, though, I would expect it to be considered an improvement: it clearly puts the authority over what stuff is available to the PCs back into the hands of the GM. I would have expected you to agree with that approach.

From my point of view, there is no difference at all. The PC decides what he wants to try to track down, the GM, in both cases, sets the difficulty and the streetwise character makes tries to make the roll. There's no nerfing of anything from Traveller to MegaTraveller. The skill really is the same.

 

[LostSoul]

From my point of view, there is no difference at all. The PC decides what he wants to try to track down, the GM, in both cases, sets the difficulty and the streetwise character makes tries to make the roll. There's no nerfing of anything from Traveller to MegaTraveller. The skill really is the same.

Keeping in mind that I have access to neither text, there does seem to be a difference. If players can make Streetwise checks in Traveller to find weapons, and the GM sets the difficulty, that assumes that there are weapons to be found in the world. Contrast this with a random or procedural system to determine if weapons exist in the world, and at that point the GM sets the difficulty.

 

[aramis erak]

Here's a question. How would the DM be the "final" arbiter if the players are not allowed to add anything to the game? If they are not allowed to add anything to the game world, then there would be no need for any final arbitration would there?



Umm, no? The DM in the paladin's case is obligated to give the player the quest and the warhorse. There's no indication that there is any chance of failure if the paladin's player initiates the quest. He might fail in the quest itself, sure, no problem. But, there's no indication at all that once the player says, "I want my horse" that the DM has any choice in the matter. He has to drop that horse quest. It might be as simple as the horse just walking up (no challenge at all) or it might be a dungeon crawl (IIRC, there's a very old Dragon module around issue 20 or so that details one of these). But, at no point can the DM refuse.

No, the DM isn't Obligated to do either. In AD&D, the DM can, RAW, change the rules on a whim.

In fact, the AD&D1E DM is within his rights to deny the Paladin a mount for any reason, and by the rules, the ONLY recourse a player has is to walk away.

Have you actually READ the AD&D 1E DMG? Or are you just relying upon what you've read about it? I find it difficult to believe you have read it because you seem to be ignoring several key rules from the 1st chapter of the book...

 

[billd91]

Keeping in mind that I have access to neither text, there does seem to be a difference. If players can make Streetwise checks in Traveller to find weapons, and the GM sets the difficulty, that assumes that there are weapons to be found in the world. Contrast this with a random or procedural system to determine if weapons exist in the world, and at that point the GM sets the difficulty.

That's the thing - both editions use the same basic system to determine the main factors behind weapon availability. For a randomly generated star system, there are methods of rolling the tech and law levels, values that are set for published star systems (it should be much harder to get a Tech Level 15 Fusion Gun-Man Portable on a TL 3 backwater than on a TL 15 industrial world, for example). After that, a GM could weigh other setting or campaign event factors like proximity to a border conflict with presence of mercenaries or local culture (it should probably be easier to get illegal weapons on a world frequented by Vargr corsairs than deep within the conservative and bureaucratic Vilani sector, easier along the Imperial/Solomani Sphere border except possibly around Vega where security is tighter to fight Solomani terrorism, etc).

What I don't really understand is if pemerton or you see an authorship element in one, why don't you see it in the other? Both involve the player telling the GM that he wants to use the PC's streetwise skill to find and obtain or do something that's probably sketchy or involves the resources of sketchy people. Both involve the GM setting a difficulty on achieving that goal. What's the difference?

 

[Hussar]

No, the DM isn't Obligated to do either. In AD&D, the DM can, RAW, change the rules on a whim.

In fact, the AD&D1E DM is within his rights to deny the Paladin a mount for any reason, and by the rules, the ONLY recourse a player has is to walk away.

Have you actually READ the AD&D 1E DMG? Or are you just relying upon what you've read about it? I find it difficult to believe you have read it because you seem to be ignoring several key rules from the 1st chapter of the book...

Arrrrrggghh.

This has been brought up a couple of times and it really doesn't matter.

The fact that the DM can change the rules does not change the fact that the rules exist in the first place. Of course the DM can change the rules. But, it was brought up earlier that story gaming elements were not part of the rules and had to be added by DM's. Here we have a story gaming element that is being removed by the DM. That doesn't change the fact that it is a story gaming element and that it exists in the rules.