D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[Mark CMG]

I'm not ignoring any differences. (. . .)


I'm not conflating them. (. . .)


It's not a strawman. (. . . )

The thing you are fighting against is that you have started off on the wrong foot by reading some portion of the rule and rather than assume it is meant to be in line with other rules, assumed it is an exception to the rules. Others have explained these exceptions you point out can just as easily be interpreted in a way that sticks within the rest of the rules but you insist otherwise and then build on faulty interpretation as a basis for further misinterpretation.

Given that I am the first poster in this thread to have raised the possibility of boxes in the alley, I believe I am an authority on what my point was.

A - "Touchdown!"

B - "We're bowling, so we call that a strike. A touchdown is a football term."

A - "I think I know what a touchdown is, I'm the one who brought it up."

B - "Well, if you mislabel it as a touchdown, it could lead to further errors."

A - "Well, I am calling it a touchdown. And I am taking my seven points."

B - "A strike gets you ten immediate points and whatever points you get from the next two rolls added to this frame."

A - "But a touchdown is worth seven. You have to acknowledge that is true."

B - "It's bowling. There is no touchdown."

A - "But I yelled 'Touchdown' a little while ago. So, now I get seven points. I don't understand why you keep arguing that a touchdown isn't seven points."

B - "You're missing the point."

A - "I think I know what my point is, I'm the one who first brought up touchdowns."

B - "Yes, but touchdowns aren't part of bowling."

A - "I don't see why they can't be. Nothing in the rules say you shouldn't score a touchdown. I'm going to mark down the seven points in Roman numerals."

B - "In bowling you get ten points for the strike and points in this frame for the next two rolls. In football, you get seven points for a touchdown."

A - "Why bring up the difference between bowling and football? It does nothing to further the discussion of whether to use Roman numerals or not."

Nothing in any of the GMing advice I have ever read, including Moldvay's and Gygax's, suggests that the GM should ignore the player's desires in giving an answer.

Your leap and assumption is that the way to quench desires is your way only rather than something akin to what the rest of the rules suggest or what anyone else might do.

B - "Why do we have to keep waiting for you each frame?"

A - "Between turns, I take food to the homeless in the alley. Nothing in the rules of bowling say I should let children starve."

 

[Hussar]

The problem here Mark CMG is your inability to accept a fairly well established example - namely fairly well supported examples of player authorship in early versions of D&D - such as adding in a complete, and completely tailored adventure to a campaign through the invocation of a player. That it's dressed up as a character option doesn't change the fact that it is the player, pure and simple, who is adding the horse and the horse quest to the game when the player chooses to do so. The DM is obligated by the rules of the game to provide a tailored quest for the player with a mount at the end of that quest as a reward.

The only way this could be more player authorial is if the player wrote the quest himself. But, by spending a game resource, i get to tell the DM, "I want a mount, now, and you have to provide the opportunity for me to get it, right now." All the way down to the point where the mount is also pre-determined. You cannot even change the mount that I get. Or at least, there's no suggest in the rules that you should. Nor is there the slightest suggestion that the DM should do anything other than provide a mount quest when and if the player requests it. The DM certainly doesn't get to determine the timing of the quest. The player determines pretty much everything other than whatever opposition the DM (tailored for that specific paladin mind you) decides to toss in.

You've still failed to explain how this isn't player authorship. So what if it's a character option. That doesn't matter. You can do the exact same thing with Fate points. Are you now arguing that Fate is a traditional RPG?

You can pretend that the examples don't fit with your preconceived notions all you like, but, you still haven't been able to put up any coherent argument as to why these are not examples of player authorship, other than claiming that anything with in-game connections can't be player authorship. That's already been proven false. You can have all sorts of post hoc justifications that you like to spackle over player authorship, but, it doesn't change anything.

 

[Mark CMG]

The problem here Mark CMG is your inability to accept a fairly well established example - namely fairly well supported examples of player authorship in early versions of D&D - such as adding in a complete, and completely tailored adventure to a campaign through the invocation of a player. That it's dressed up as a character option doesn't change the fact that it is the player, pure and simple, who is adding the horse and the horse quest to the game when the player chooses to do so. The DM is obligated by the rules (. . .)

Four things. One, please don't conflate the discussions of player authorial control and adventure tailoring. Second, a few people repeating a misinterpretation doesn't make it fairly well established. Third, the fact that something is a PC feature or ability and has to be used by the player while roleplaying the character is precisely the point. Four, the GM isn't "obligated." I started this post with "two things" then read the third sentence, then the fourth, and after reading the rest that builds on a litany of faulty premises there's really there's little point in adding more "things."

 

[Hussar]

You keep making statements without providing any actual evidence. How is the DM not obligated? The player uses the paladin's power to call a warhorse. Where in the rules does it say, "grant this unless you don't feel like it"? I see a section in the PHB that says that the horse will be granted when you reach the appropriate level. I see a section in the DMG that talks about how the DM should make those things available.

What I don't see is any section that says, "Well, if you don't feel like granting the player his warhorse, you don't have to." But, even if there was such a passage, the existence of a DM veto does not, in any way, preclude something from being player authorial control. Again, we've established that numerous games which do allow for pretty direct player authorial control are still subject to DM veto.

Adventure tailoring IS a form of player authorial control when the tailored adventure only exists at the behest of the player. There is no conflation here.

Look, it's simple. The player tells the DM that he wants his horse. The DM then creates a (presumably short) scenario for the character, tailored to the level of that character, wherein the player gets his horse. Done and done. The ONLY reason that this adventure, these NPC's, these challenges and this horse exists is because the character starts the ball rolling. And the player knows, before even setting out on the adventure, that his prize is at the end of that adventure, AND that this adventure is specifically tailored for his PC. Again, the only thing the player didn't write was the actual adversary.

So, you can keep denying it all you like, but, until you can actually back things up with something resembling an actual fact, we're done here. You can keep denying things all you like, but, the truth is, most of the story gaming elements that you claim only appear later in the development of D&D, appear pretty darn early in the game. I'm pretty sure that if I started trawling through the old The Dragon magazines, I'd find more and more examples of the same thing. It's not like Weiss and Hickman were playing Dragonlance in the 80's. They started with AD&D, in the very early days. And it's not like they magically conjured these things out of thin air. Trad games contain a fair number of story game elements right from the get go. True story games simply emphasize what was already there, not create anything really new.

 

[Mark CMG]

How is the DM not obligated?

The rules are guidelines and, for instance, if the GM doesn't have horses in his setting he is under no obligation to have one in his setting. "Obligated" implies an absolute and I am providing one of what might be countless reasonable instances where that isn't the case, therefore there is no obligation.

Adventure tailoring IS a form of player authorial control when the tailored adventure only exists at the behest of the player. There is no conflation here.

Just so I am clear what you are saying, you are saying that the work a GM does on an adventure (and a setting?) because it is created for players is an example of player authorial control? Can I ask anyone else (maybe pemberton? GM for Powergamers? Anyone at all?) if they agree with this interpretation?

Look, it's simple. The player tells the DM that he wants his horse.

The player tells the GM that his character is calling for a warhorse . . . thus the player is roleplaying. The GM explains what happens next, how that functions in his setting. It is simple. You just need to remember that it is a roleplaying game and when you don't understand how something works, think back first to how roleplaying games work rather than proceed to a misinterpretation and then allow that initial misinterpretation to foster further misinterpretations.

 

[Sadras]

Just so I am clear what you are saying, you are saying that the work a GM does on an adventure (and a setting?) because it is created for players is an example of player authorial control? Can I ask anyone else (maybe pemberton? GM for Powergamers? Anyone at all?) if they agree with this interpretation?

Personally, I do not believe 'the paladin calling for his my little pony' is considered player authorial control anymore than a character attaining name level and deciding to construct a stronghold, hideout, tower, castle and attracting followers or for that instance making ANY character decision in the game which "forces" the DM to change the direction of the adventure, incorporate NPCs/items..etc
Then you might as well define all D&D, perhaps even all RPGs, as a co-authored just because players (through their characters) can change the direction of the adventures set by the DM which affects the ongoing story.

If it is ones fetish to define D&D along those lines, have at it, keep banging those drums. The only thing that irritates me is the unbelievable hypocrisy of highlighting this one isolated paladin power, stating there were elements of player authorial control, and discounting ALL other choices as in-game so therefore no player-authorial control. That is some serious nonsense logic.

I can only imagine Socrates in the Elysium Fields shaking his head furiously at this one.

 

[Mark CMG]

The only thing that irritates me is the unbelievable hypocrisy of highlighting this one isolated paladin power, stating there were elements of player authorial control, and discounting ALL other choices as in-game so therefore no player-authorial control. That is some serious nonsense logic.

I might be misunderstanding you but my position is that RPGs involve a player interacting with the setting through their character (roleplaying, sometimes with dialog and sometimes narratively from their character POV. e.g. My paladin calls for a warhorse) and that player authorial control is a storytelling game element that was adding into some later RPGs and, further, that eventually some storytelling games were developed out of this phenomenon. The example being used was brought up by those claiming it is an example of player authorial control, the player forcing a setting change no matter the intent of a GM. I'm not personally "highlighting this one isolated paladin power" but rather responding to someone else highlighting it. I hope that is clear if indeed that was misunderstood.

 

[Sadras]

I might be misunderstanding you but my position is that RPGs involve a player interacting with the setting through their character (roleplaying, sometimes with dialog and sometimes narratively from their character POV. e.g. My paladin calls for a warhorse) and that player authorial control is a storytelling game element that was adding into some later RPGs and, further, that eventually some storytelling games were developed out of this phenomenon. The example being used was brought up by those claiming it is an example of player authorial control, the player forcing a setting change no matter the intent of a GM. I'm not personally "highlighting this one isolated paladin power" but rather responding to someone else highlighting it. I hope that is clear if indeed that was misunderstood.

Perhaps I was unclear.
I don't find traditional D&D to have player authorial control, unless the DM allows it, but that is me. I feel Fate and Summerland and some other RPGs reflect player authorial control not traditional D&D.

My issue is claiming that there was player authorial control based on a paladin power and discounting all the other player/character choices as not is where the hypocrisy in the misrepresentation lies for me.
My point is if one feels the calling of the paladin mount reflects player authorial control, then ALL other PC choices made actually reflect player authorial control and that it is ridiculous to bang on this one isolated power for ones definition/analysis of the game.

Mark I am very much aware you are not highlighting this power.

 

[Mark CMG]

My issue is claiming that there was player authorial control based on a paladin power and discounting all the other player/character choices as not is where the hypocrisy lies.
My point is if one feels the calling of the paladin mount reflects player authorial control, then ALL other PC choices made actually reflect player authorial control and that it is ridiculous to bang on this one isolated power for ones definition or analysis of the game.

Mark I am very much aware you are not highlighting this power.

Ahh, I see. I hadn't considered that others isolating on but one aspect reflected a problematic approach to arbitrary misinterpretation. It's an interesting argument. I think Hussar's later assertion that all GM adventure design is by default player authorial control (if that's indeed his contention, since he hasn't verified it yet) might be more of an all in position.

 

[Sadras]

Ahh, I see. I hadn't considered that others isolating on but one aspect reflected a problematic approach to arbitrary misinterpretation. It's an interesting argument. I think Hussar's later assertion that all GM adventure design is by default player authorial control (if that's indeed his contention, since he hasn't verified it yet) might be more of an all in position.

If that is indeed his latest assertion then fair enough, it certainly did not appear so in the earlier posts (post #261 and onwards in this thread) where they were referencing "elements" within the game which reflected player authorial control when in fact the entire story/adventure could be manipulated by the players through their characters without even using the rules nevermind the acquisition of a horse.