D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

A player both plays the character and are advocates for the character's perspective/interests at a meta level, among other things. That is D&D and always has been. In fact, it is true for nearly every RPG. Really.
A player controls the character, and may advocate for that character out of game, but has practically zero control on the meta level. There are exceedingly few mechanics which grant that level of meta-control in D&D. Re-roll style luck, in some editions, is one of them.

To say that it is D&D would be highly mis-leading.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

aramis erak

Legend
First, I've yet to see evidence that the Forgists didn't all know that roleplaying predated The Forge. Which means that the claim you are making that they thought their games were the only ones involving roleplaying is trivially false. (That they think their games are the best for roleplaying is a different kettle of fish.)

Second, if you are meant to play simulationist games based on the narrative without paying attention to the rules what are the rules there for?

The GM. In most simulationist games, the players typically don't know the rules all that well. They don't need to. The GM does need to.
 

The GM. In most simulationist games, the players typically don't know the rules all that well. They don't need to. The GM does need to.

You seem to assume that there is only ever one GM at a table - the only times I recall playing with fewer than three people who regularly GM at any given table have been when I've been introducing RPGs to new players. (There's only ever one person GMing a given game, but that's a different story).
 

Hussar

Legend
Your god has deemed you worthy of receiving the benefit of a holy steed. Do you question the generosity and greatness of the deity you serve?

How? How was that decided? If I kill X orcs I get my warhorse? But, if I kill Y orcs carrying extra cash, I get my warhorse earlier? If it is my god that deems my worthiness, why do I get to tell my god when I'm worthy? After all, I decide to call the warhorse, not the god. You'd think my god wouldn't need my input, he/she/it is a god after all.

Remember, it's not that you automatically get the warhorse at 4th level. You get the ability to call the warhorse at 4th level. How do I know that? Where in the description of paladins does it say that the god tells me that I'm now worthy to pick up my warhorse, at my own convenience of course. Because I could wait levels before picking up that warhorse if I wanted to. Heck, I might not pick it up at all. I can refuse godly gifts? Talk about questioning the generosity and greatness of my diety.

And what about paladins that don't worship a Diety? After all, you don't actually have to worship a specific diety to be a paladin. Nothing in the 1e PHB says I need a god to be a paladin. Is that in the DMG?
 

Hussar

Legend
It's based on your success in championing the causes which grant your divine powers. Once the powers-that-be deem you have accomplished a certain amount, they send this companion to you. The knowledge that you can call your mount is granted in a flash of divine insight.

Can you please cite this? Where is this found in the rules? What divine powers? We're talking about a 1e paladin. He's not tied to a god. He only has to be Lawful Good. The idea that the knowledge is granted to me in a flash of divine insight is a post hoc rationalization and it is no different than, "Hey, I didn't notice this boxes over there." It's identical.
 

Hussar

Legend
There's a huge difference between a character believing something, and it actually being true. And even if it is true, for some high-magic settings, the player is playing the PC - the player isn't playing the guardian angel.

Unless you're playing a game where the players routinely have control over NPCs, but that isn't D&D (unless you're into DMG2 territory, for how to change the game dynamic).

You control your familiar do you not? What's the difference?
 

pemerton

Legend
And now we're getting into critical theory. I prefer the informal fandom approach to the formal one that whitters on about Signifier and Signified and that obfuscates through excessive jargon.
I don't think of the Forge primarily as literary theory (maybe because I'm not a literary theorist). I think of it as closer to interpretive sociology or cultural anthropology, but with a practial bent. It is trying to make sense of certain human behaviours, with an eye to improving them.

For the sociologist or anthropologist it is very important to have regard to the religious beliefs of a community. But in putting forward accounts of that community's behaviour, it is not permisssible for the sociologist or anthropologist to appeal to the doings of gods or spirits. Such entities will figure only as the objects of belief, and it is the beliefs, not the spiritual beings, that are imputed with causal power.

And if the Forge ignored the Watsonian in favour of the Doylist, if they focussed on the experience of the player over the in-game logic this was at the very least a useful correction to analysis that had been almost exclusively the other way.
Personally I see it as more than a useful correction! Playing a game creates an experience. I want designers to have that experience in mind when designing games.

How many crappy modules have been written because the author only thought about writing an interesting story, as opposed to producing an interesting and engaging play experience?

If you're designing a game, then you should obviously bear in mind that it is a game, so it should be playable. It doesn't matter how descriptive or accurate your mechanics are, if the net result is a game which is unplayable.

If you're talking about the events which occur within the game world, then they should not need to take into account the politics and preferences of the players at the table.
There is no roleplaying game that I know of where the events that occur within the gameworld have not been conceived of by reference to the preferences of the game participants.

For instance, in D&D the game is designed to ensure that the events at the table include monsters, treasure etc rather than farming, peasantry etc. That is not a coincidence; it's a design feature.

In Classic Traveller, nearly every PC ends up being skilled in combat and having some adventurous experience or expertise (fighting, bribing etc). The world of Traveller contains plenty of ordinary shopkeepers and bureuacrats, but the PCs don't live such lives, either in thei backstories or in play. This is not a coincidence; it's a design feature.

There are different ways of ensuring that the events in a game will be engaging to the participants in the game. AD&D and Traveller both rely heavily on random tables strongly weighted towards dramatic events. Other games rely on GM judgement, player judgement or some combination of both.

If PC 1 is fanatically loyal to PC 2, but highly suspicious of PC 3, then that has zero bearing on the out-of-game relationship between Players 1, 2, and 3; and vice versa.
I don't see how you can assert this as a general truth. For instance, I can tell you that I have played games in which hostility between two PCs absolutely had a bearing on the out-of-game relationship between two players. If one player's PCs keep killing another player's PCs, the first player may well get irritated at the second player.

This is much like a multi-player boardgame, for instance: if two players repeatedly gang up to knock out a third player, that third play might start to feel picked on.

The same things goes for GM-player relations: if the NPCs and monsters always target and kill one PC rather than another, the player of that PC might feel picked on.

If your players take issue with the content of the game being run, then that's something you should address outside of the game; if they're bored with the random lightning show, then assure them that more interesting things may happen later on if they stick with it, or ask if you should be playing a different game entirely.
I'm not sure what "outside the game" means here.

In the session I GMed on Sunday, my attempts to get actual play underway kept getting stymied by the players - one in particular - discussing things like what sorts of items they might need to help tackle the forthcoming challenges. In the end, I asserted my authority as GM, and told them that if they wanted to build items they should have sorted it out by email during the week, but I wasn't interested in discussing those things now and wanted to get on with the actual play of the game.

Is that resolving something out of the game? It happened during the session. And it was foreclosing a PC option (making potions) for a metagame reason (the endless discussion with no likely outcome driving me bonkers).

There's a huge difference between a character believing something, and it actually being true. And even if it is true, for some high-magic settings, the player is playing the PC - the player isn't playing the guardian angel.

Unless you're playing a game where the players routinely have control over NPCs, but that isn't D&D (unless you're into DMG2 territory, for how to change the game dynamic).
The player might play a guardian angel, much as s/he typically players a character's familiar, pets, and even henchmen.
 

aramis erak

Legend
You seem to assume that there is only ever one GM at a table - the only times I recall playing with fewer than three people who regularly GM at any given table have been when I've been introducing RPGs to new players. (There's only ever one person GMing a given game, but that's a different story).

I know several people who don't GM ever, several more who GM only when they can't coerce someone else into doing so, and several who have no talent for it. None of them enjoy GM-less games, either. And a bunch who will play a lot of games, but only GM one or two different games. SJ, for example, plays almost anything... but only GMs AD&D2E and Champions 4E. Or WW, who only ever GM'd Paranoia, but played D&D and Traveller. And then there was Ben. Ben was a decent GM... but HATED GMing. But he'd rather GM than not play.

And most of the D&D players I've met don't GM.
 


Also most of the point of strong simulationism in games is so you can predict in advance what is going to happen and plan accordingly. This is naturally much easier if you actually know the rules of the gameworld.
 


AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Upcoming Releases

Top