D&D 5E (2014) Character play vs Player play

[Hussar]

Rotflmao. You don't see the irony of a magically created horse, created entirely at the player's behest, compared to noticing some boxes in an alley.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

To repeat: nowhere does the DMG assert, or imply, that the random encounter table is to be read in a simulationist fashion, such that anyone who wanders through a city every night will meet a demon or undead on a near-fortnightly basis. Gygax talks about the use of rumours, but he never suggests that rumours might yield the percentage layout of a random encounter table.

Does the DMG assert that the random encounter table shouldn't be used in such a fashion? Rumours wouldn't be accurate, due to sampling errors - few people survive to warn about the existence of a lich - but should reflect the truth of whatever the situation is.

if the GM rolls a lich on that encounter table, then that lich now has to be incorporated into the gameworld, even though the GM may well not have thought about it as part of the campaign backstory until this very moment.

If you're rolling on the encounter table, and not actively deciding that a result of "lich" will be re-rolled, then the lich already exists. It wouldn't be on the list if there wasn't a chance of encountering it. The encounter table exists, in the form upon which you roll it, because it's an accurate reflection of your chance of encountering those things.

Or you could play it with massive retcons depending on how you happen to roll. Whatever. Even if there's nothing that explicitly speaks against it, though, I can't see the appeal of such a thing, or why you would choose that over the obvious non-retcon alternative.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Rotflmao. You don't see the irony of a magically created horse, created entirely at the player's behest, compared to noticing some boxes in an alley.

You're missing the key point. It is a magically-created horse, created with magic that exists within the game world, by a character who exists within the game world, using a magical ability which that character actually possesses, and which allows that character to magically create a horse.

There is no comparison between that, and giving the player, who does not exist within the game world, and who does not possess magical powers, the ability to create boxes where none previously existed.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I just used this as an example because people point to this style of campaign as the style that most closely follows "in game causality". My point is that it doesn't matter. Design choices are always grounded in meta level decisions. They might be rationalized by in game fiction, but meta level considerations are always part of every design decision.

While I think that answer might be a little bit... misleading? in how it's phrased, I appreciate the response. Thanks, Hussar.

 

[pemerton]

The horse is created magically on-the-spot when the paladin calls for it.

This is your own house-rule. It is not what the DMG or PHB assert. For instance, if the horse is guarded by an evil fighter of the paladin's level, the implication is that the fighter may have had the horse in his/her entourage for some time - not that the gods spontaneously gifted the fighter with an extra horse just to test the paladin!

The "magical appearance" of the horse, mentioned in the PHB and elaborated in the DMG, is talking about the horse appearing to - ie being witnessed by - the paladin - the DMG clarifies that this will be by way of dream or vision rather than in the flesh. It is not saying that the horse magically appears - ie is spontaneously created - in the world.

Does the DMG assert that the random encounter table shouldn't be used in such a fashion?

No. My point is that it leaves it open.

If you're rolling on the encounter table, and not actively deciding that a result of "lich" will be re-rolled, then the lich already exists. It wouldn't be on the list if there wasn't a chance of encountering it. The encounter table exists, in the form upon which you roll it, because it's an accurate reflection of your chance of encountering those things.

I don't understand why you are not addressing the point.

The point is that the GM will not have worked out, in advance, the details of every possible outcome on that encounter table. In the typical game, the GM will roll a lich result and then decide where and how the lich fits into the campaign world. That is an act of authorship, triggered by an out-of-game event (the roll on the table). The result is that the shared fiction is developed in a way that it previously wasn't, including the introduction of past events - such as the origins and previous history of the lich.

This sort of thing is happening all the time. It is part and parcel of being a good GM that one can do this sort of thing smoothly, without disturbing established elements of the gameworld.

EDIT: Here is a further elaboration of the point. Suppose that the GM rolls up a lich result, works the lich into the already-established fiction, the PCs encounter the lich, and they don't get killed by it (let's say they strike a deal with it).

Now, the next (ingame) night the PCs are out on the streets again, and the GM rolls a random encounter, and lo and behold, the result is once again a lich! Is it the same lich - perhaps come to check if the PCs are keeping to their bargain - or is it a different lich - perhaps a rival, tracking down the PCs to try to get them to break their promise to the first one and work for it instead? The encounter table doesn't dictate an answer to this question. Nor do considerations of ingame causality - either is possible. The GM will have to make something up.

Nothing in any GMing manual I've ever read has suggested that, in making something up, the GM shouldn't have regard to what would be interesting to the table as best s/he can judge what that might be.

 

[Hussar]

You're missing the key point. It is a magically-created horse, created with magic that exists within the game world, by a character who exists within the game world, using a magical ability which that character actually possesses, and which allows that character to magically create a horse.

There is no comparison between that, and giving the player, who does not exist within the game world, and who does not possess magical powers, the ability to create boxes where none previously existed.

Hang on. The paladin is creating the mount? Really? You might want to check your facts there. If the paladin is creating the mount, then how come he has to go fight someone for it?

Sorry, no. The paladin can call the mount, he doesn't get to create it.

But, you're still missing the point here. All of this, every single element of it, is 100% at the behest of the player. Does the paladin get to decide that he's worthy of the mount today and not yesterday? How did he determine that? Before, I was told that a god was sending me visions of where my mount is, now, I'm fabricating the mount all on my own? Are you telling me that paladins can create living beings? That's a pretty serious miracle right there.

Unless, somehow, the paladin is aware of thingsl like "level" and "experience points" then there's absolutely no way he would know when he could summon the mount.

Let's look at what's actually happening here:

1. The character gains enough xp to make 4th level.
2. At a point in time of the player's choosing, the player tells the DM that he wants his mount now.
3. The DM is then obligated to create a quest (ie adventure) specifically tailored for the paladin PC, with challenges that are level appropriate (meaning that if I wait levels before calling my mount, for some reason, the challenge will be significantly different than if I do it right away).
4. The DM is also obligated to give a specific reward to the character (ie the horse).

In what way is this not player authorship? The only thing the player hasn't done here is write the quest. He initiates the quest, dictates the rough location, time, and reward of the quest. Not the character, the player decides all of this. This is pretty clearly player authorship. What do you think player authorship actually means?

 

[KarinsDad]

In what way is this not player authorship?

It's minor player authorship, but nothing like the box example.

The horse would happen in my campaign.

The boxes? Probably not (it depends, of course, on exact situation).

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

IMNSHO the random encounter tables are not plausible representations of a simulated living and breathing game world. They would seem to strongly imply that the average significant city has a lich problem AND a demon problem AND a devil problem AND a bandit problem as the bog standard normal internal challenge threatening to tear the community apart, in addition to external threats and other internal threats the DM chooses to create. (My memory may be fuzzy on a few details.) Of course, I speak of averages here; a particular city might be "lucky" and have 3 liches and none of the rest, if the dice roll weirdly.

From a narrativist point of view, it is easy to imagine that the once a decade random threat happens to occur the very evening the our heroes rode into town.

From a gamist point of view, too lethal random encounters are a stick to both keep the players guessing and punish dawdling, for the benefit of the larger game experience.

 

[Lerysh]

Does the DMG assert that the random encounter table shouldn't be used in such a fashion? Rumours wouldn't be accurate, due to sampling errors - few people survive to warn about the existence of a lich - but should reflect the truth of whatever the situation is.

We wouldn't want our rumors to be inaccurate.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The point is that the GM will not have worked out, in advance, the details of every possible outcome on that encounter table. In the typical game, the GM will roll a lich result and then decide where and how the lich fits into the campaign world. That is an act of authorship, triggered by an out-of-game event (the roll on the table). The result is that the shared fiction is developed in a way that it previously wasn't, including the introduction of past events - such as the origins and previous history of the lich.

In a typical game, the GM will look at the encounter table and see that Lich is a possible result. By looking at this table and agreeing to roll on it, he has thus accepted as an established fact that there is a Lich around here... somewhere. If that Lich didn't exist, then there wouldn't be this 2% chance of encountering it. There is no meta-game event, because whether or not the party encounters the Lich is not a factor in the Lich existing, or in determining anything about its prior history.

Now, the next (ingame) night the PCs are out on the streets again, and the GM rolls a random encounter, and lo and behold, the result is once again a lich! Is it the same lich - perhaps come to check if the PCs are keeping to their bargain - or is it a different lich - perhaps a rival, tracking down the PCs to try to get them to break their promise to the first one and work for it instead? The encounter table doesn't dictate an answer to this question. Nor do considerations of ingame causality - either is possible. The GM will have to make something up.

The DM should have determined this before rolling. It is probably the same one, given how few Liches "live" in any given area. And if the party had "killed" the Lich during the first encounter, then this result should probably have been re-rolled - that entry should have been stricken from the template, to better reflect the in-game reality that there are now fewer Liches in the area than there were previously.