D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[Cyberen]

Wow !
I think I get it, at least.
1) [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION], I think what you mean is "RPG involve the exploration of a world described by a GM through a character", thus concluding that D&D very soon grew out of this definition, which is the exact same position pemerton, neonchameleon, hussar, and I, among others, are defending. I genuinely wonder how RPGs can be defined without referring to D&D, but why not ?
2) my DMG does mention the Battlesystem.. but it is the official french version, so I guess it counts as a later print. It never occured to me it could be more than a faithful translation (with purple prose in french !). I stand corrected !
Fun fact : the french language makes no distinction between RP and RPG, further obfuscating it all.
Still, do we agree that "In the mid eighties, D&D, still in its first edition, had grown to incorporate techniques falling outside the scope of strict role-playing. Those were the seeds for many things to come, including story oriented RPGs of the 2000's." ?

 

[aramis erak]

Sorry Mark, but you are oversimplifying. "The PCs are the players proxies in the game world" is the default mode of play, but, as I have already mentionned, Battlesystem / War Machine have been part of RAW for a very long time and prove unerringly it is not the only mode.
You also haven't adressed Character Creation,and particularly Class picking, which quite often happens mid-play (but not in media res) to replace a dead character. Introducing a new protagonist is clearly authorship, and the rules tend to suggest this power belongs to players (with the DM's approval, of course).
There is value in simplification, but denying the "traditional" game is free from meta aspects is clearly a fallacy.

In Traditional mode, the PC commands them as convenience and contrivance - the GM is always free to specify that a particular unit doesn't follow orders.

Likewise, henchmen are NOT player assets per se; they're assets that usually do as directed by the PC, but always are subject to GM veto.

 

[Mark CMG]

Thus, your claim that "In RPGs, the players exclusively act through their character" is clearly an oversimplification of those *rules*. You are aiming at a simple, short and definitive definition of (trad) RPGs, by ignoring facts. When pemerton (and others) says he has built his actual DMing style upon seeds he has found in those rules, it *proves* those seeds where there, even if others don't see them.

I've yet to see "facts" though I have seen how people have said they play something in their own game that goes beyond what the rules state. Fine in and of itself for any particular game table, and I do it myself as evidenced in my gameplay examples, but not strictly in the rules themselves.

I also feel that you and Hussar agree on player authorship, but you keep nagging at the words he's using because you wouldn't change your terms. Beside this, I have found your contribution to this thread very constructive, especially with your crazy actual examples of power entitlement and your elegant way of solving them, and your insights on "traditional" play. So, please keep on the good work, but I respectfully tell you that I feel your "definitive assertions" about RPGs add more confusion than light to this debate.

We seem to play fairly similar styles of games but, again, I'm discussing what makes an (trad) RPG as written versus a transitional RPG with storytelling elements and on then to full-fledged storytelling games.

 

[Mark CMG]

Wow !
I think I get it, at least.
1) [MENTION=10479]Mark CMG[/MENTION], I think what you mean is "RPG involve the exploration of a world described by a GM through a character", thus concluding that D&D very soon grew out of this definition, which is the exact same position pemerton, neonchameleon, hussar, and I, among others, are defending. I genuinely wonder how RPGs can be defined without referring to D&D, but why not ?
2) my DMG does mention the Battlesystem.. but it is the official french version, so I guess it counts as a later print. It never occured to me it could be more than a faithful translation (with purple prose in french !). I stand corrected !
Fun fact : the french language makes no distinction between RP and RPG, further obfuscating it all.

There was certainly some Battlesystem / Mass Combat stuff in mid-80s BD&D that later got peeled off into the minis skirmish game of Battlesystem. While wargaming rules / systems like that were meant to be played along side or interspersed with RPG games and had / have meta-gaming elements, I'm not sure that speaks to the whole RPG-turned-Storytelling elements we've been discussing as the thread progressed. Certainly it speaks to the OP discussion regarding "Character play vs Player play."

Still, do we agree that "In the mid eighties, D&D, still in its first edition, had grown to incorporate techniques falling outside the scope of strict role-playing. Those were the seeds for many things to come, including story oriented RPGs of the 2000's." ?

I've said all along that folks were adding things to their games that eventually transitioned into RPGs with storytelling elements and later full-fledged storytelling games.

 

[Hussar]

I see things as something of a spectrum:

I. Player exploration of setting through their character. The character enters the alleyway, and the player asks, "What do I see in the alley?"

II. Hybrid form. The character enters the alleyway, "I look around for boxes to use to climb on/hide behind." (The presumption being that the boxes will likely be there, but DM veto is certainly possible).

III. Full story gaming. The character enters the alleyway. The player declares, "I climb up the wall using the boxes I find in the alleyway". Note, the climb part is likely subject to some sort of roll, but, maybe not depending on the system.

To me, the hybrid form has been part of RPG's since day one.

 

[Lanefan]

Cyberen, Where is the mention of Battlesystem in the 1e DMG. It has been years since I closely read the 1e DMG, but Battlesystem came out 5 or 6 years after the 1e DMG was released. Therefoe I am curious as to whether the designers had plans for Battlesystem that far back prior to its release and I have forgotten its mention or if it was added to a later printing.

I'm going by memory but I think it *is* mentioned somewhere in the DMG, I suspect it was in development at the time and then for whatever reason got delayed, making said mention somewhat redundant for several years.

Lanefan

p.s. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] - interesting list, I'll give it a go when I have more time.

 

[pemerton]

Cyberen, Where is the mention of Battlesystem in the 1e DMG.

It mentions Spells & Swords: page 66. And original D&D mentioned Chainmail.

 

[KarinsDad]

I see things as something of a spectrum:

I. Player exploration of setting through their character. The character enters the alleyway, and the player asks, "What do I see in the alley?"

II. Hybrid form. The character enters the alleyway, "I look around for boxes to use to climb on/hide behind." (The presumption being that the boxes will likely be there, but DM veto is certainly possible).

III. Full story gaming. The character enters the alleyway. The player declares, "I climb up the wall using the boxes I find in the alleyway". Note, the climb part is likely subject to some sort of roll, but, maybe not depending on the system.

To me, the hybrid form has been part of RPG's since day one.

It has, but it's not just veto in some games.

It's often dice roll.

As a DM, I often just let the dice decide. We have a "high is good for the PCs" D20 roll. Roll low? No boxes or anything to hide / climb.

 

[pemerton]

All GMs of RPGs have a mental bible, some more detailed than others, from the moment they sit behind the screen and decide they will run a game in any RPG setting. Remember, we're not saying all GMs are equally good at GMing nor equally prepared to do so.

Nonsense. Plenty of GMs have sat down to run games creating material on the spur of the moment - whether using random generation tables, or just making stuff up because it seems like fun.

On page 169ff of his DMG, Gygax presents a system for random dungeon generation. He says "the system requires time, but it can be used directly in conjunction with actual play."There's no mental bible there. And if the GM departs from the tables because s/he has a better idea occur to him/her spontaneously, or as a result of something suggested by a player, s/he is not breaking any rule.

Here is an exract from [ul=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=1361]one of my favourite pieces of GMing advice[/url], though it is about NPC personalities rather than dungeon geography, and its author (Paul Czege) probably has in mind something a bit more high-brow than the FRPG games that I GM:

[W]hen I'm framing scenes . . . I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. . . . t [is] my job to find out what the player finds interesting about the [player] character. I know what I find interesting. I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this. And . . . the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.​

There's no "mental bible" there beyond some basic conceptions about what the player finds interesting about his/her PC, and what the GM thinks might be an interesting way to put pressure on that.

Playing like that mightn't be your preferred approach, but it is not failing to be an "equally good" GM. From my perspecive it is a prefereable GM.

The player through his character calls for (initiates) a quest by using a class feature of the PC (a character resource).

In Burning Wheel, a player who wants his/her PC to meet a helpful NPC declares an action in character, too, and uses a character resource (Circles ability) to see if a helpful NPC turns up (eg the player, playing the wizard Jobe, who is a member of a sorcerous cabal, declares "I send out word that Jobe the Blue is staying at the [such-and-such] inn and would like to meet with Jabal the Red".)

This doesn't mean that it is not player authorship - when the above event happened in a session of BW that I GMed recently, this was the first that anyone at the table had heard of Jabal: the Circles check failed and so instead of Jabal inviting Jobe to an audience, he sent Athog - a thug - to tell Jobe and his friends to leave town.

In my 4e game, in the very first scene in the very first session, the player of Malstaph Empel (at that time a human wizard) was in conversation with an NPC who wanted to hire the PCs to help take some horses to be sold. In the course of the conversation, Malstaph (as played by this player) asked the NPC if he knew Malstaph's uncle so-and-so. This was an action declared in character, deploying a character resource (basic abilities to think and talk).

Nevertheless, it was the first that anyone at the table had heard of uncle so-and-so. It was an episode of player authorship.

In an OGL Conan game, I can imagine a player whose PC has to get into the second story window declaring "I look around the alley and, noticing some boxes, start piling them on top of one another" - and the player spends a Fate Point to make it true-in-the-fiction that the boxes exist. The boxes only come to light as part of an in-character action declaration.

The fact that something is established by in-character action declaration doesn't tell us whether or not player authorship is involved.

In a (trad) RPG, even if the crates aren't in the alley for the players until the GM decides that they are, that doesn't mean they weren't there all along as far as the characters and the setting are concerned.

This is no different in any RPG. When the player in Burning Wheel, or the player in 4e, decides that Jabal, or the PC's uncle, is part of the campaign world, of course they existed all along from the point of view of the setting.

When a player in OGL Conan uses a fate point to declare the existence of the boxes, in the fiction the boxes existed all along.

This is not a point of distinction between a "trad RPG" and a "storytelling game". Player authoship is about who gets to author the gameworld content. It is not about the metaphysical status of that content from the point of view of the gameworld.

The query "Are there any boxes?" is just fine. But upthread we had players saying simply "There are boxes. I'm climbing them." with no chance for the DM to say "No there aren't any boxes." And *that* is what I'm objecting to.

No one upthread said that. Both [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] have been taking it for granted that the GM always has a veto.

And I've been talking about the GM introducing the boxes because the players ask about them.

In a (trad) RPG, it's up to the GM to decide if they are there and the reason they are or aren't.

By "reason" there you mean ingame reason. But that doesn't tell us about the out-of-game reason. Ingame, the most likely reason the paladin's warhorse is with the evil fighter is because the evil fighter hopes to tame and ride it. But everyone at the table knows that the reason the GM has authored this particular situation is so that the paladin can win his/her warhorse.

In my D&D game, the reason there are Orcus cultists in Threshold is because they are hoping to sacrifice the life of the Baron to their dark lord. But everyone at the table knows that the reason I put Orcus cultists there rather than, say, Zehir cultists is because 3 of the PCs are Raven Queen devotees and, therefore, sworn enemies of Orcus.

Once the GM decides to introduce story elements based on signals sent by the players - whether in building their PCs, or playing their PCs, or just kibbitizing in the course of play - the players are exericsing authorship. Even if final authority - be that primary authority, or the authority of the veto - sits with the GM.

when the DM isn't the actual author she is still making the decisions as to what externally-authored material she will use in her game. She chooses the maps, the modules, the NPC descriptions, and so forth that will (hopefully!) appear in her game. She's just letting someone else - who is not personally involved in the play of her game - do the heavy lifting: the map-drawing, the room descriptions, and so on.

This can't happen when the players are also co-authors.

I don't understand why you think it can't. In the session of Burning Wheel that I mentioned above in this post, a player introduced the NPC Jabal the Red into the setting, as a senior figure in the sorcerous cabal. I decided that Jabal lived in a tower, what it looked like, and who was in it. As it happened I made up the tower's appearance msyelf, but one of the NPCs in it was the wizard Vincenze from the Penumbra d20 module Maiden Voyage. Player authorship wasn't an obstacle to that.

 

[pemerton]

Within the game world, there is some truth about the colour of those clothes. That truth has always been true, even including last week. From our perspective, in the real world, we can't see that truth.

This is not a very felicitous description.

It makes sense to say that now, in the real world, we can't "see" the colour of the t-shirt I was wearing a week ago. Nevertheless, it had some colour.

But when it comes to an imaginary world, the problem isn't that we can't see something that nevertheless existed. The issue is that we haven't written it yet. This is what I was praising The Forge for, upthread - for recognising that fictional material has to be written by someone. It has no indpendent existence - that what it means to say that it is fictional, that it is imaginary.

So we go to determine the color of these pants, because suddenly it becomes relevant. Cool. Let's say we go with a random roll. The DM puts together a quick pants-color table: 1) red, 2-4) blue, 5) brown, 6) green.

In creating this table, the DM has already decided that these are all reasonable answers. The infrastructure exists for every option. Even if black or tan pants would have not stood out, and thus weren't excluded on the basis of condition 1 (above), they have been excluded from the

Most likely because the GM didn't think of them. In Gygax's DMG, the Sword of the Planes is not on the random treasure table. But in the revised charts in Unearthed Arcana, it is there. Why? Because Gygax made it up sometime between 1979 and 1985.

A GM who introduces a Sword of the Planes into his/her campaign, post Unearthed Arcana, isn't making any profound declaration about "differences of infrastructure or feasibility" within the gameworld. S/he is just coming up with something new that hadn't been thought of before.

chart for a reason. They are literally not possible options, (or they fall below the resolution detail of the chart).

If the lich and all of its infrastructure (history, minions, lair, etc) did not already exist within the game world, it would not have appeared on the chart. It's just hiding in parts that haven't showed up yet.

I can tell you that the number of GMs who had every monster in their gameworld written up from the get-go, so that no new geography or history had to be invented in the course of play, is utterly infintesimal as a proportion of the whole. (Even in 2nd ed AD&D.)

And I have to reiterate - this is not about whether or not the lich exists in the gameworld. Of course it does - it isn't spontaneously created at the point the PCs encounter it. This is about when that fiction is authored. That fiction is authored by the GM at the point when it is, or might be, needed.

The two most famous books teaching GMing - Gygax's DMG and Moldvay Basic - both expressly advise playing the game the way I have described - I quoted Gygax upthread. But for reasons that escape me, you are characterising as a departure from the norms of D&D and of RPGing.