Similar to a) in that it allows the player to change the parameters of the scene, only this time specifically to his/her advantage. If this happens all the time we're into co-operative story country. And see '***' below.
- D&D 4e
What's not mentioned is why the DM doesn't want the element present, and whether this is standard DM procedure at this table or just happening this time. If the DM has a good reason for not wanting the element I'm cool with it; even if said 'good reason' is simply that introducing the element would make things too easy and-or less interesting.
- Assuming its a good faith, plausible proposal by the player, this above, very specific, GMing technique would be found in the portfoloio of a pair of GMing agendas:
1) Metaplot-centric D&D play with heavy-handed GMing deployed to keep the component parts (in this case, a micro-conflict) of the GM's prepared metaplot (or AP) together, keep it dramatic, and as the exclusive locus of play. Players may be good with this because they primarily want to see the setting scenery, experience the GM's story machinations, and roll some dice. Conversely, the situation may become extremely disfunctional as more proactive players seek to propel the story's emergent facets themselves and, when stymied in their efforts to do so, they may "refuse to play along" and "break the game" by "acting out" (as I suspect GMs who feel that is inappropriate behavior might cast it).
2) Challenge-based D&D (pawn stance or not) where the GM is protecting "the precious encounter." If this sort of technique was deployed, and discovered by the players, in this agenda, it would be decried as foul play due to the GM ad-hoc gaming the scene (and the acruing of fairly benign player assets which might then be used for advantageous action declaration and resolution) and upturning the authenticity of the challenge and its resolution (through illusory scene-detail-generation resolution masking what is actually GM force - rather then letting the dice legitimately decide, saying 50:50 and rolling percentile dice out on the table).
However, if the player proposal is not good faith and/or obviously implausible (eg - the player attempts to stipulate an asset that either (i) utterly breaks genre or (ii) is entirely inconsistent with the overt, table-established backstory - solely to execute a scene-ending power play), its the GMs responsibility (to everyone at the table) to rectify this agenda dysfunction (twixt this player and everyone else) neatly in the moment and then address it fully outside of play. Here I would put "beard on NPC001" and "boxes in an alley" on one side and "ELMINSTER'S MY PAL GUSY AND HE IS CONVENIENTLY SITTING RIGHT HERE WITH A BAZOOKA LOL" on the extreme other.
Clearly you couple D&D 4e, 13th Age, or Dungeon World together. It looks like you put the asset/scene-detail generation schematic of the Cortex Plus and Fate systems somewhere to the inside of that. I suspect you put AD&D and 3.x on the other side.[/sblock]
I want to evaluate the above Roguish Swashbuckling of 4e, 13th Age, and DW and the AD&D Fighter Hordebreaking elements and how they might be similar or different (in terms of table agenda, nature of character resources, and play procedures).
The AD&D Fighter (courtesy PHB stock feature in 1e and C&T Heroic Fray in 2e) works out in the fiction as a rock that waves of lesser enemies break upon. How is this accomplished? By way of manipulating the subjective metagame of the D&D action economy when faced with hordes of lesser foes (1 attack per level) in order to achieve the sought outcome; hordebreaker. He doesn't all of a sudden develop some kind of supercharged Haste spell when in the presence of a pile of mooks. His actual rate of attack doesn't increase. However, folks who percieve (a) rate of attack as an actual objective metric whose locus of control is internal to the martial actor and (b) the action economy of D&D as an actual objective process-simulator (1:1 swing of a weapon vs AC mush contest) would seem to need some kind of externality to explain this (extreme to say the least) increase in rate of attack speed. Of course that makes no sense under any scrutiny. Its outcome-based, metagame manipulation of the AD&D action economy/rate of attack rules in order to simultaneously provide the player with a thematic class feature and an engaging play experience. Case closed.
I'm curious why an outcome-based player resource (thematic swashbuckling via asset generation and stunt performance) that "just works out because he is a BA swashbuckler" is authorial control/4th wall breaking and deviant from trad, yet an outcome-based player resource (thematic hordebreaking via metagame manipulation of the action economy when in the presence of mooks) in AD&D (both 1e and 2) might be deemed deployed from the perspective of the character and trad?
*** - several of the above options have me wondering: do the enemies ever get such advantages or is it always just the players/characters who get these benefits? Fairness to me would dictate that the enemies should have their own avenues to change the scene in their favour (where it makes sense, of course; I'm not advocating asshat DMing here) similar to what the characters have. An example: where the guy says he knows the monkey etc., can the DM on the moneky's turn decide (or even roll for if) the monkey has some real bad memories of this guy and just wants to bite his fingers off?
It depends on (a) the play agenda, (b) the GMing principles, and (c) the system's mechanics. In a perfect world, these three components are carefully synthesized by the designers to churn out a specified, functional play experience.
I'll give you a quick example of how this might take place in 4e and Dungeon World.
1) In combat of 4e, the player wants to stunt with the monkey. p42 is consulted for a relevant DC and damage expression and the GM and player negotiate the effect. Perhaps on a successful Streetwise check at medium DC and level + 3 attack vs Reflex, the table of guys take n damage and are prone (as they fall back out of their chairs trying to avoid the monkey). If the player fails the Streetwise check, the character give up Combat Advantage till the end of the next turn or the monkey becomes an aggressive Minion in play (with whatever narrative justification is required).
Same thing can happen in a Skill Challenge except the player eats a Healing Surge loss and now has to deal with an aggressive and angry monkey!
2) In Dungeon World, if the player has outright fiat over the monkey (eg the move says "this happens), then the monkey is off-limits. However, if the player has to mechanically resolve it (2d6 + n) and yields a minor complication with 7-9 or a major with a 6-, then the GM not only can, but is suppose to make a soft or hard move against the player, changing the fiction in the way that puts them in a spot. That might entail something with the monkey going from proposed asset to problem child (like you mentioned).
