D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[Majoru Oakheart]

The previous post was on the original topic, but to address the topic the thread has kind of become:

There needs to be a mix of storytelling mechanics and simulation mechanics, IMHO to really have fun.

I think players should have SOME input into the game world and the background. However, I think that this input should be moderated by the DM and preferably done between sessions rather than during.

For instance, I really like the players to suggest organizations, NPCs that have a relationship with them and possible reasons their character might be involved in the adventures. However, I really see this as an extension of the principle that players have control over their own characters. If their character's background requires an NPC to exist, by all means make them up. If the player needs to have some event happen in history in order to make his character work, then make it up or at least ask the DM for an appropriate event that already exists in their world. Sometimes that extends to other things as well, like saying "Hey, I used to be a member of the thieves guild in another city...do I have any contacts in this city?"

However, this power should ALWAYS be phrased in the form of a question or at least should be submitted with the assumption that it is a request and it can be denied for any reason the DM feels like. In the end, the DM has the final say on basically everything.

I only get frustrated when players come up with something and then get angry when the DM says no to it. The DM knows more about the storyline of the game than you do and could be saying no for any reason at all that you don't understand the reasoning behind.

For instance, I literally had a player get angry at me when they tried to convince an NPC who was mind controlled by the bad guy to do the exact thing the enemy told him not to. The PCs didn't KNOW he was mind controlled. They just thought he was being unreasonable and I was being a stupid DM by railroading them and not allowing their die rolls to work when they OBVIOUSLY should. Their logic was sound. No one should be as stubborn as this NPC was being. I even suggested "You're right...they ARE being rather overly stubborn about this." Rather than say "Oh...wait...maybe something is going on that we don't understand", they instead just chose to get more angry at me for screwing them over.

Basically, they'd settle for nothing less than me saying "The person is obviously mind controlled". I instead like to give hints and let players figure things out on their own.

 

[Hussar]

Yep, YOU get it.

Yes, it can be toxic.

It's also carte blanche to ignore any and all rules. Later editions don't carry that level of GM fiat.

You're still missing the point.

The point is not that AD&D is a story game. It isn't and no one is claiming differently.

The claim on the table is that no story game elements exist in early RPG's. That they were all added by DM's outside of the rules themselves. That you can remove the rule does not change the fact that these rules actually DO exist in early RPG's. It's irrelevant.

Look, if you open your PHB to the section on Paladins, does it state that a Paladin get's a warhorse at 4th level? Yes it does. If you then turn to the DMG and turn to page XX, will you find further mechanics detailing the paladin's quest for a mount? Again, yes you will.

Do these exist in the books? Yes, they do. Therefore, story game mechanics DO exist in the rules of early RPG's. Full stop. Can the DM remove these rules? Yup, no problem. But, that doesn't change their existnce. If I rule no Elves in my D&D game, does that mean that elves cease to exist in D&D?

 

[Hussar]

Of course, this doesn't quite explain why someone would be gun-shy about joining an in-world organization or some other campaign group. The Thief's Guild probably isn't going anywhere, so why, when the offer is extended to the party thief to join, do they decline?


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...s-Vagabond-quot-Archetype/page5#ixzz3ICiiNysu

This can be really problematic. The player doesn't understand why something doesn't work when, by rights, it should work. And, often the first reaction is to presume that the DM is screwing them over and it's a bad reaction. But, it does happen.

I think, as an armchair quarterback, the first reaction from the DM should be to call for Insight (or whatever kinds of checks your system uses) checks to notice things. Even if the check fails, you've now planted the idea in the player's head's that something might be going on here that they should look into, rather than assuming bad faith on the part of the DM. Waiting for the obviously frustrated player to come to that option is probably a bad idea, since the player's already pissed off, he's not thinking about other possibilities.

Is it the best solution? Perhaps not. But, trying to work around the pissed off player probably won't work either, so, instead of holding onto the secret, and further frustrating the player, sometimes it might be better to just cave and move on. Show the player why he's being unreasonable this time, and hopefully it won't happen again.

 

[Greg K]

It's also carte blanche to ignore any and all rules. Later editions don't carry that level of GM fiat.

Reread your 3.0 DMG.
While the 3.0 DMG discusses play styles and DMs trying to accommodate play style differences and make the game enjoyable for everyone, the author makes it clear in the beginning that the DM is in charge of how the game is played and are not beholden to the rules. From the introduction:
"Let's start with the biggest secret of all: the key to Dungeon Mastering. (Don't tell anybody, okay?) The secret is that you're in charge. This is not telling-everyone -what-to-do-sort of in charge. Rather, you get get to decide how your player group is going to play the game, when and where the adventures take place and what happens. You get to decide how the rules will work, which rules to use, and how strictly to adhere to them. That kind of in charge." (Note: Emphasis mine)


Throughout the the first thirty pages, the 3.0 DMG reiterates the above at different points. DMs are told that they are free to change rules, that rules can be ignored and decisions made to keep the game moving, etc. The author even provides numerous rules variants and options for tailoring the game and classes

And as for "my way or the highway" as it was brought up earlier in the thread, Dms are told to not invite back problem players (including those that stop the game with arguments or whom you would not enjoy spending time in another social setting). I include players who argue with the DM over play style differences and campaign preferences/details set by the DM (including allowable races, classes, supplements, etc.) to fall into the category of problem player at the table.

Edit: Given the above, I would say that 3e does give the same amount of carte blanche to ignore any and all rules. However, the author of the 3e DMG also states in the book that making rules changes is a challenge for DMs with little experience. I think that a lot of things presented in the rules are there to help them. For instance, the DM does not need to know all of those skill DC examples in the 3e PHB. Jonathan Tweet, in a Dragon preview of 3e, provided a quick rundown of what easy, hard, impossible, etc. mean for skill difficulties. Really, the DM needs only that and, from the DMG, the DM's best friend variant about modifying DCs or rolls with a modifier from 2 to 20 to adjudicate skills. That is nice, quick and simple. Having those quick skill dc descriptions in a Dragon preview article rather the skill section from the PHB and DMG was in my opinion a mistake.

 

[Mallus]

Different editions require different levels of DM fiat to run smoothly. There are simply some common questions the older editions (and now apparently, 5e) leave to the DMs judgment.

No edition permits or allows for any more or less DM fiat.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So, am I the only one who on a gameday with new players would let the hovercraft/elmunchkin thing slide at all? SO far it seems like I am...

I did think both scenes where WAY over board from anything else we talked about, but I thought someone would be more liberal then me with them...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

You're also familiar with the instances where the rules say that the DM will inform the players of their character backstory, along the lines of (paraphrasing) - "You were an apprentice to a wizard of sixth-level or higher, from a nearby village, and now you've been sent off on your own; your master has supplied you with basic provisions, including your spellbook." Player input not requested.

That might be a difference between 1E and 2E, though. I don't recall that much authorship being given to the DM in AD&D 2E, so obviously the exact lines may have shifted over the years. If you sort through all of the editions of the DMG, you can probably find something to support any perspective you want, as they tried to grow and re-define their market.

 

[pemerton]

You're also familiar with the instances where the rules say that the DM will inform the players of their character backstory, along the lines of (paraphrasing) - "You were an apprentice to a wizard of sixth-level or higher, from a nearby village, and now you've been sent off on your own; your master has supplied you with basic provisions, including your spellbook." Player input not requested.

Why is player input not requested? Who gets to decide the sex of that mentor? His/her name? Where s/he lives? Why s/he took in the apprentice? Why s/he has now sent the apprentice out to find fame and fortune?

The DMG doesn't address those questions. The PHB suggests that the player or the referee might decide these things.

In What is Dungeons & Dragons?, published 1981, the authors - who knew the UK RPG scene pretty well - assumed that it was the player who got to decide thse aspects of backstory, in their example of desigigning a 1st level magic-user PC.

The last time I had a player design a 1st level magic-user with a mentor who had sent him out to find fame and fortune is a long time ago now, but on that occasion the player decided that his PC's mentor was a fugtive hermit who lived inside a large hollow tree-trunk in the forest near the PC's home village. (I can't now remember how much of this was worked out in advance, and how much during play.) I, as GM, filled in further detais about why this reasonably powerful wizard was a fugitive, who his enemies were and what they wanted, but not until later in the campaign when I brought those enemies in as a source of antagonism.

Nothing in the approach I've just described contradicts, or is at odds with, anything in the 1st ed AD&D rulebooks.

If you sort through all of the editions of the DMG, you can probably find something to support any perspective you want, as they tried to grow and re-define their market.

To th extent that this is true, I don't think it supports the claim that permitting player authorship of backstory, and allowing player desires to infuence GM authorship of backstory, is at odds with the rules of D&D as written.

 

[pemerton]

I think players should decide the strategy and actions of their players. A die roll should never determine WHAT your character does(except in very specific cases like insanity or confusion magic). A die roll should determine how WELL you do what the player has decided their character does.

This principle can't really be given practical application until you decide at what level of detail the player has to declare an action.

Upthread [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] and I discussed whether or not "I flee" is a sufficienty detailed action declaration. In a 4e skill challenge I think it probably is. In tactical combat of the 3E or 4e variety it isn't - the player needs to also indicate where his/her PC is moving, and also has relate the declared action to the action economy of the game.

In general, in D&D, "I attack" is a sufficiently detailed action declaration. In LostSoul's D&D variant it is not - LostSoul aso requires the player to declare certain details of the attack (I think at roughly the same degree of detail a REH uses to describes Conan's combat manoeuvring). Nor is it in Rolemaster, which requires, at a minimum, a declaration of attack-bonus split between offence and defence.

The player in your OP impicitly declared an action - "I think hard about this situation and work out what is going on". And then he wanted to roll the dice to find out how well his PC went at this task. But you didn't regard that action declaration as being sufficienty detailed.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why is player input not requested?

Ask Gygax. It just says that the DM will inform the player of these facts. Why it doesn't ask for player input is beside the point. Maybe it just wasn't relevant to the game at hand.

It's like you're giving all freedoms to the player wherever it's not explicitly held for the DM, but there's no reason to believe that it should be the case. I mean, it never says who determines the hair color of any NPC, so would you let the players make suggestions on that as well? Because that does explicitly contradict the 5E rule that the DM describes the environment.