D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[Mark CMG]

I think you're drawing a pretty fine distinction there.

Naw, since skills and class features are part of the character, it isn't all that tough to understand as such.

I would really like to hear more about these scenarios, because, from your description, they sound anything but reasonable.

Regardless of whether a GM thinks the player's idea is reasonable, it is the reaction that needs to be reasonable (which is what I wrote), rather than name calling or stone walling the player in such a circumstance. I know you really didn't take an honest run at the scenarios above, as I don't think you would actually react the way you described at a game table, so why not approach the hypotheticals again with a cooler head now that there's been some time since your first reaction?

 

[Neonchameleon]

We can discuss a lot of things about the way any particular rule is written but always bear in mind that for an RPG versus a storytelling game it comes down to player authorial control which further comes down to the player affecting the world through the character (the player's role) or affecting the world directly as a player (authorial control over the setting). A skill is used as part of the character resource pool and a Fate point is used as part of the player resource pool, the character has the skill but the player has the Fate point.

And you are mischaracterising how both skill and a Fate Point work.

In Fate you can only use a Fate point to establish something through an aspect. They are using a Fate Point to establish something as true that is congruent with existing parts of the setting.

What spending a Fate Point does is cuts off irritating games of 20 questions.

When the player utilizes the character skill, he is affecting the world through the character but when using a Fate point it is directly being used to affect the setting, things normally outside control of the character). You're mischaracterizing a character skill as a Fate point.

Not actually true unless you use the tightest possible interpretation of the word skill. If a skill is "Something that the character can do with mechanical representation" then it applies also to aspects - and you need there to be an aspect before you can spend a Fate point to establish something. If you are using it in the narrow sense and a game (e.g. D&D - any edition except 2E) doesn't have the engineering skill, your character de facto can't engineer.

It's understandable since the skill in question is poorly written in such a way that it leads to a false interpretation that the player can, in extreme circumstances, demand a setting be changed to setting the player's needs but, aside from that being incorrect, a skill is used so that character, not the player directly, can affect the setting.

Alternatively it's written in exactly the way it was intended, the setting is assumed to not be mapped out by the GM in excrutiating detail, and the Realism camp that you belong to and Gygax railed against mostly took over in the 80s.

I don't mind being brought back into the discussion, since I am planning to jump back in after a some folks have had to discuss the hypothetical questions I proposed earlier. Please take them to heart and answer them as you would have if they happened to you. The two scenarios, essentially, happened to me at game tables and I had to react to them in a reasonable manner. Any answer that involves name calling or stone walling wasn't really an option, though I can imagine it feels like an option some GMs might have wanted to choose.

Neither scenario sounds in any way reasonable to me and both sound as if there were out of game problems that were going on. In the Elminster case that's a deus ex machina attempted solution. Which means that the player wanted to duck the game almost entirely. And wtf? The game was badly off the rails at the time for whatever reason. And without more information about how the game broke I can't say what I'd have done.

The Hovercraft scenario is something else, and it depends fundamentally on the nature of that character. In Fate, if their High Concept was something like "Collector of Scavenged Tech" then I'd allow them to spend a Fate point to have a Hovercraft in their collection. And an unpowered battlesuit if they want it (although getting the power to run it would be an adventure in itself). Likewise if they had a temporary aspect "A Dragon's Horde of Tech Salvage" and wanted to spend a Fate Point to establish that one part of that was a Hovercraft rather than me having to detail all the loot that would be fine. Especially as it's big, hard to hide, easy to steal, needs fuel, and is little more than a larger horse. That thing's both cool and going to cause them trouble. If not, I'd ask them if they know how much it costs and how to get fuel for one in Greyhawk.

 

[Mark CMG]

And you are mischaracterising how both skill and a Fate Point work.

Naw, as you describe it above, the Fate point can affect the setting directly beyond the capabilities of the character and a character skill is a way in which a character can affect his own situation or circumstances within the setting, physically or otherwise.

the Realism camp that you belong to

Since I don't exclusively play any one type of game, I doubt you'd find me in any single camp.

Neither scenario sounds in any way reasonable to me and both sound as if there were out of game problems that were going on.

I'll get back to how you feel it is best to react to the scenarios but regardless of if you feel they are reasonable, it is important that the reaction be reasonable.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

As a DM, you need to understand this so that you do not get frustrated with your players. They are not necessarily being pitas, they are just not getting it and as a result, they may be getting frustrated with you. And sometimes as DM, no matter how good of clues you thought you gave out, if the players need the information, you are going to have to spell it out for them. If they do not need the information, then you sometimes "out of character" need to make it clear to them (as you did try to do in your one example) that yes, their assumptions would normally be correct, but they are not correct in this case, no matter how good they roll on the dice.

I agree. I try to let them figure stuff out on their own. But if they NEED to solve something to continue, I'll eventually beat them over the head with bigger and bigger clues.

However, if them missing a clue doesn't matter to the end result of the adventure, they will just continue clueless.

For instance, I finished running Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle(Spoilers for that adventure):

Spoiler

In that adventure, a Raksasha joins their party in part one with an illusion up as a guard. At the end of the adventure, the "guard" attacked the party with powerful magic then picked up an extremely heavy object and flew off.

Then in part 3 of the adventure, he comes back disguised as a Red Wizard of Thay that they know is dead. Then he followed the party invisibly in order to wait for them to unlock a safe they had found the key to. Then he stole it out of their hand, invisibly and ran off.

In part 4, he taunts the paladin NPC that has been giving the PCs all of the missions throughout the adventure by turning into the paladin's long dead squire from when the paladin killed the Raksasha the first time. The Raksasha has been reincarnated and wants revenge on the paladin. He wants the PCs to bear witness. So they all go to Dragonspear Castle. Along the way they stop in an inn where some NPCs ask the PCs where they are headed as they were paid to find out this information by the Red Wizards who are a little annoyed at the PCs by this point. My players readily told them where they were going. The NPCs didn't even have to ask. They attempted to hire them as wagon drivers to take them to Dragonspear Castle.

So, they got to Dragonspear Castle, "defeated" the Raksasha and declared victory. Then, as they were about to leave, they encountered a Death Knight and some Red Wizards who showed up to stop them, permanently. The party was pretty much slaughtered but that was the end of the campaign anyways.

The PCs in my game never figured out that the Raksasha was the guard who betrayed them in Part 1. They never figured out the Rakshasha was the invisible creature who stole the item from them. All they knew is that a Raksasha showed up at the end and taunted the paladin NPC. They had no idea that it was related to the rest of the adventure. They also had no idea that they sold themselves out by telling the spies where they were going.

I informed them all out of character at the end of the adventure so they had some closure and the adventure made more sense. But I never told them while the game was ongoing because that information was not needed to get further in the adventure.

But this group never had any problem with not knowing things. At the end of the adventure they said "OHHH...yeah, I can see that now. We missed that, but it seems so obvious now that you tell us. I can't believe we sold ourselves out by purposefully blurting out our destination to those guys.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Naw, as you describe it above, the Fate point can affect the setting directly beyond the capabilities of the character and a character skill is a way in which a character can affect his own situation or circumstances within the setting, physically or otherwise.

What are "The capabilities of a character?" If a billionaire throws money at a problem to make it go away is that within the capabilities of the character? And is it necessary to detail every one of the 28 cars they own before they can drive one?

This is where the fundamental disconnect lies.

 

[Mark CMG]

What are "The capabilities of a character?"

That *is* the question to ask for each of the examples being brought up but it would be impossible to delineate each and every element in every RPG and storytelling in game in a single sentence. As a general rule, though, ask yourself if any particular element allows the character to affect the setting or if it is beyond the character.

If a billionaire throws money at a problem to make it go away is that within the capabilities of the character?

If the character has a billion dollars and wishes to throw it at a problem, they sure can try to make the problem go away.

And is it necessary to detail every one of the 28 cars they own before they can drive one?

I'm not one of the people you are arguing with who requires the GM make up everything in advance rather than the GM improvising things on the fly as necessary.

This is where the fundamental disconnect lies.

The separation of player and character is problematic for some folks and it is at the heart of the OP question as well as the fundamental disconnect for those who don't see a separation between RPGs and storytelling games.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I find during play to be generally more fluid but YMMV.

The reason I don't like to do this during play is that I find it causes people to drop out of character too much and continually think in the meta-game. I really like players to be thinking "Alright, I'm on a street, I'm a badass rogue who owes money to everyone in the city. I see people in the shadows...what would I do?" rather than "Oh, wouldn't it be awesome if the people in the shadows were members of the Shadow Cartel and they want me dead because of a job I failed to pull off for them 2 years ago? Hey, DM. Can the people in the shadows be that group?"

I've likely already figured out who the people in the shadows are and why they are there and it is way too late to start giving the PCs authorial control over the adventure. If something happens DURING the adventure, I likely already have a good reason for it and don't want my plan second guessed by players. Once you give them control over one thing, then they get in that mindset and start LOOKING for things to change and are quick to make suggestions constantly. Then they also tend to get annoyed with you if you've said yes a couple of times and suddenly say no to one of their suggestions. Then they start to metagame WHY you said no to this particular request and trying to guess at what secret game information they may have gleaned.

It also just slows the game down.

If it's done between sessions, it can at least be done by e-mail and therefore semi-privately and allows for a bit more discussion in terms of saying "Sure, but with a couple of changes to your ideas. How about this?"

Mind control is a very dangerous thing because looked at objectively the players have a lot less information than the characters. Take a film (preferably a good one) and turn on the narration track. Then turn off the screen.

You understand the subtle details of the film based on just that? This is about the level of information even a good GM gives out. Changing the rules on them (as Mind Control does) just makes things a whole lot harder.

Most of the time the narration track doesn't even bother trying to explain what is happening in the movie. It normally consists of "When I was planning this scene, I thought...we need a big explosion. So, we had a crew out there for the better part of a month planning just this one explosion." Which of course tells you absolutely nothing about what happened in the movie other than something exploded.

But yes, I think I can do a good enough job of conveying what is happening through a combination of subtle clues description and intonation combined with throwing in a bit more description when I know something is important.

In fact, it is precisely this lack of detail that lets me steer the adventure in the direction I want it to. If I really don't want them figuring out the answer to a puzzle too early, I can avoid describing certain things unless they ask about them. I can not call for Insight checks unless they specifically ask for them. And so on.

If I think now is the proper time and place to reveal the secret, I can make things extremely obvious.

It's the exact same things books will do in their narration. If they don't want the reader to figure things out, they'll make sure you avoid mentioning it until later.

I don't. In BSG you have an entire cast and their body language to worry about complete with directing and costuming. In a tabletop RPG your information is limited to what the GM can convey and as all the information you get comes through the narrator (i.e. the GM) you must be able to trust that narrator. The only way I see that working is as a moderately large scale LARP or with a group that knows each other very well.

Well, given the writers didn't even figure out who were Cylons until a short while before each of them were revealed as Cylons, I doubt body language or costuming, directing or costuming would have tipped you off. Each of the actors, directors and costumers had no idea who the Cylons were so they couldn't have shown it, even subtly.

Instead, they were just revealed at the appropriate time to make the most impact on the story. Which is still fun in its own way. Yes, it means that it was likely impossible to ever figure out who the Cylons were. But that doesn't make their reveal any less dramatic and interesting. Sometimes a plot twist can be fun simply BECAUSE it is a plot twist.

 

[KarinsDad]

I informed them all out of character at the end of the adventure so they had some closure and the adventure made more sense. But I never told them while the game was ongoing because that information was not needed to get further in the adventure.

But this group never had any problem with not knowing things. At the end of the adventure they said "OHHH...yeah, I can see that now. We missed that, but it seems so obvious now that you tell us. I can't believe we sold ourselves out by purposefully blurting out our destination to those guys.

Interestingly enough in your story (and many stories that I have been part of or read), the NPCs in many campaigns often initially have a leg up in games over the PCs. Somehow, the BBEG just happens to know the right place to be to thwart the PCs, or there are NPC spies along the way (which PCs often do not figure out), or NPCs have just the proper spells to handle a given situation. If the DM does not do these things and plays NPCs totally based on their own knowledge (which is super hard to do), a lot of the kewl things will not happen in the game. If NPCs stumbled around as badly as the PCs sometimes do, the game would be a piece of cake for PCs. Instead, NPCs, especially reoccurring villains, have to stay ahead of the PCs.

I do have to admit that in many of my games, there were a boatload of things happening in the background that the players never latch onto. As a DM, I find it difficult to just hand out some info that the PCs should not know, but on the other hand, I do want the players to get most of the whole picture of the campaign at some point. It's a tough thing to do. Give out the right clues so that the players get a sense of what is going on, without spoon feeding them some significant portion of the plot.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That *is* the question to ask for each of the examples being brought up but it would be impossible to delineate each and every element in every RPG and storytelling in game in a single sentence. As a general rule, though, ask yourself if any particular element allows the character to affect the setting or if it is beyond the character.

In short the Fate approach. Where there is a loose mapping rather than the tight mapping of e.g. D&D or GURPS and you use Fate Points to fudge the gaps.

I'm not one of the people you are arguing with who requires the GM make up everything in advance rather than the GM improvising things on the fly as necessary.

But what you are arguing is that players can't assume things about the setting that their characters would know and be able to exploit - which is the other half of what you use Fate Points for.

The separation of player and character is problematic for some folks and it is at the heart of the OP question as well as the fundamental disconnect for those who don't see a separation between RPGs and storytelling games.

First, this might be problematic. It is also at the root of D&D. Pawn Play where you are playing with your skill rather than the skill of your character. What I am objecting to is the appropriation of the earliest forms of D&D rather than you accepting that RPGs were something that drifted towards versions you like more. We have both oD&D and Classic Traveller. Ironically enough you have Vampire: the Masquerade in line with what you like.

Second, if you are in character, player establishment of things only enhances this. You declare to be true what you believe would be true in character.

Example 1 "I swagger into the Blood Eagle, a low down dive bar by the docks, and ignore the door slamming behind me. Cutting through the crowd, I see the weasely guy in the corner, his face shrouded in shadow. Glancing at him I see he's wearing a tattoo of the Nighthawks." *Tosses Fate point into the pile* "I sit down in front of him and say ..." You don't break character for a second. And you get right to the chase

Example 2: "I go to the docks and start looking for bars. What are they called?" "Right. Now. Do I know which of them are frequented by the Night Hawks? *rolls* That's an 18 on Streetwise." "I walk into the Blood Eagle. What's it like inside?" "I look round. Can I see anyone who looks like they are from the Night Hawks?" "I sit down in front of him and say..."

Which do you think would be more immersive for the player? Because to me it's the one where the player set the scene, established the bar, and then declared the Nighthawk to be there. Not even close.

The reason I don't like to do this during play is that I find it causes people to drop out of character too much and continually think in the meta-game. I really like players to be thinking "Alright, I'm on a street, I'm a badass rogue who owes money to everyone in the city. I see people in the shadows...what would I do?" rather than "Oh, wouldn't it be awesome if the people in the shadows were members of the Shadow Cartel and they want me dead because of a job I failed to pull off for them 2 years ago? Hey, DM. Can the people in the shadows be that group?"

I've never had a problem with this in Fate. What in my experience causes people to drop out of character is having to consult their character sheets. And that's when people start trying to be clever - something a lot of improv coaches try to train you out of. (This applies as much to GMs as it does to players).

It also just slows the game down.

As mentioned, a cardinal sin of keeping characters in-character.

Most of the time the narration track doesn't even bother trying to explain what is happening in the movie. It normally consists of "When I was planning this scene, I thought...we need a big explosion. So, we had a crew out there for the better part of a month planning just this one explosion." Which of course tells you absolutely nothing about what happened in the movie other than something exploded.

Not the one I was talking about. I'm talking about the voiceover for blind viewers. Not the useless self-congratulatory track that I ignore.

In fact, it is precisely this lack of detail that lets me steer the adventure in the direction I want it to. If I really don't want them figuring out the answer to a puzzle too early, I can avoid describing certain things unless they ask about them. I can not call for Insight checks unless they specifically ask for them. And so on.

If I think now is the proper time and place to reveal the secret, I can make things extremely obvious.

The tools of the Storyteller's trade...

Well, given the writers didn't even figure out who were Cylons until a short while before each of them were revealed as Cylons, I doubt body language or costuming, directing or costuming would have tipped you off. Each of the actors, directors and costumers had no idea who the Cylons were so they couldn't have shown it, even subtly.

Instead, they were just revealed at the appropriate time to make the most impact on the story.

Thus weakening the story in many ways. Yes, they are good enough writers that they got away with it. But that's not the same as it being a good idea. And especially not when you are meant to be inhabiting the world.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Example 1 "I swagger into the Blood Eagle, a low down dive bar by the docks, and ignore the door slamming behind me. Cutting through the crowd, I see the weasely guy in the corner, his face shrouded in shadow. Glancing at him I see he's wearing a tattoo of the Nighthawks." *Tosses Fate point into the pile* "I sit down in front of him and say ..." You don't break character for a second. And you get right to the chase

You do break character, though when you decide that this guy is there. That's not something that your character has the power to decide.

It is also much faster than asking questions and waiting for the DM to give you enough details to go on. As much as I hate that sort of thing, I could see the merit in sharing authorial control with players, just so you don't have to spend as much time describing everything. Since the player knows what details are relevant to any given action, it's much faster to establish only those details.