D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[Hussar]

By "advocate for your PC", I mean picking a goal for your PC and trying to achieve it in the game. I'm not sure how you're using the term here.

I was thinking in context with Majoru O's point that he views player requests with suspicion. If players only advocate and make requests solely based on their own character without taking a broader table view, I think it becomes disruptive because everyone at the table is pulling in a different direction.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The difference is that, at least in a conventional D&D game, the GM is free to declare that the city contains no horse-merchants. Whereas when a 9th level AD&D fighter builds a stronghold, the GM is not free to declare that no lieutenant turns up to serve the PC. (In 2nd ed AD&D the chart for rolling for a fighter's troops and lieutenant even appears in the class entry for the PHB.)

In Rolemaster or Runequest, if the player of a fighter wants his/her PC to obtain a lieutenant, this is analogous to buying a horse in a city - it is all about engaging with whatever world-content the GM has authored. But in AD&D, for a 9th level fighter the situation is different. The rules require the GM to bend the campaign world to meet the dictates of the player.

It's not mere coincidence or oversight the RQ and RM have diffrent rules in this respect. Those games are deliberately written to reduce payer control over the gameworld that is not simply a direct ingame causal consequence of the PC's actions.

I think the importance of definitions is groslly overrated, both in serious argument and in message board discussions. It's more helpful to work out what the idea is that someone is trying to convey, rather than fussing over the terminology they have adopted to convey it.

I'm quoting this because it's the most important part and it's been thoroughly buried in the middle of a long post.

There are people who play D&D the way that some are advocating here. But that's not how Gygax' D&D rules were written. The move away from D&D towards "realism" (something Gygax had views on) is amongst other things the move away from abstract saving throws narrated by the PCs to RM/RQ/3.X style procedural saving throws.

And the reason I'm making these points is to demonstrate that the approaches to GMing and to RPGing found in more recent games didn't come from nowhere. They have obvious and deep roots in the history of RPGing.

This. Player authorship reaches as far back in the history of D&D as Braunstein. It started being stripped away in 1974 shortly after the publication of D&D. And was most strongly stripped away by games that were reactions against D&D.

 

[pemerton]

There are people who play D&D the way that some are advocating here. But that's not how Gygax' D&D rules were written. The move away from D&D towards "realism" (something Gygax had views on) is amongst other things the move away from abstract saving throws narrated by the PCs to RM/RQ/3.X style procedural saving throws.

Procedural saves are certainly one example of a move towards realism/sim.

I've seen plenty of posts over the years that say that it is "silly" or unrealistic that killing and looting should make a person a lord of the realm and an attractor of followers. Rolemaster and RQ (and to a lesser but real extent 3E) are made for these people.

But the original idea seems to have been that if you do play the game well and long (and thereby get a high level PC), then you will get to dictate, by fiat as it were, certain features of the gameworld. 4e revived this general idea (although with different implementation both in technical detail and flavour) with its paragon paths and epic destinies. And you see the same criticisms of them.

The fact that post-AD&D systems drifted closer towards "player=PC-and-nothing-more" play shows that AD&D wasn't as close to that sort of play as it is possible to get. (That's one reason why not everyone saw 4e as some radical departure from the D&D that had come earlier.)

 

[aramis erak]

But the original idea seems to have been that if you do play the game well and long (and thereby get a high level PC), then you will get to dictate, by fiat as it were, certain features of the gameworld.

AD&D didn't do that. You have never shown a bit of Gygaxian text saying the could change the setting other than through their character's actions and abilities. The closest to that is via use of wishes, and that's still through the character.

Some AD&D groups did, but that is going beyond the rules; Gygax's open derision of letting players dictate anything other than their own character's attempts is plain to see in the AD&D DMG and in the SR and early Dragon issues. The use of hirelings is and troops, even in 0E, always a matter of giving orders and the GM usually having them followed, not a player fiat of describing what they do.

In the much abused example of the boxes in the alley... if the player had simply stated he was climbing the boxes, I suspect Gygax would have been rather dismissive, along the lines of, "Boxes? What boxes? There are no boxes! Climb Sheer Surfaces roll!" Whereas if they asked if there were boxes he would likely have added them. (His attitude towards player authority in his writing was pretty negative even recently; his reaction to player creativity when not conflated with authority was usually far more open.)

And you're conflating the advice to reward creativity with authority; they are not the same, and the game didn't have player authority over anything but the character.

 

[Neonchameleon]

AD&D didn't do that. You have never shown a bit of Gygaxian text saying the could change the setting other than through their character's actions and abilities. The closest to that is via use of wishes, and that's still through the character.

Some AD&D groups did, but that is going beyond the rules; Gygax's open derision of letting players dictate anything other than their own character's attempts is plain to see in the AD&D DMG and in the SR and early Dragon issues. The use of hirelings is and troops, even in 0E, always a matter of giving orders and the GM usually having them followed, not a player fiat of describing what they do.

You seem to think that AD&D is where Gygax started. Rather than him being confused after publishing the oD&D rules about why people wrote to him and asked for more rules. Because inventing things yourselves was part of the fun of the game. Also AD&D has a very different tone to oD&D and the B/X and BECMI that followed in its footsteps (after all Gygax went to court to prove legally that it was a different game).

And it's known that the relationship between the player and the rules changed after the rules were published. To the point that oD&D calls out a specific player that now the rules actually say something his interpretation isn't valid. You'll note the moral behind that story. That because it didn't explicitly have written down that meteor swarm was fire the player's vision of how it worked was allowed to trump the GM's.

 

[aramis erak]

You seem to think that AD&D is where Gygax started.

No. I see OD&D as more Arneson than Gygax, while AD&D, aside from 3 years further development, was almost pure Gygax.

Also note: Jim Ward's anecdote isn't about Gygax at all... the DM in question was Rob Kuntz. So it utterly fails to illuminate how Gygax felt. It sounds like a playtest session, from the implied timing.

 

[pemerton]

You have never shown a bit of Gygaxian text saying the could change the setting other than through their character's actions and abilities.

A paladin player can make it true, in the setting, that a warhorse is waiting for his/her PC to come and claim it. That is changing the setting other than through the character's actions and abilities (the character has no ability to spontaneously create warhorses, nor their guardians and homes). A fighter player can make it true, in the setting, that there are 100 mercenaries led by a 5th level fighter carrying a +2 battle axe looking to take service under that fighter (the character has no ability to spontaneously create armies, lieutenants or magical battle axes).

Gygax's open derision of letting players dictate anything other than their own character's attempts is plain to see in the AD&D DMG and in the SR and early Dragon issues.

<snip>

In the much abused example of the boxes in the alley... if the player had simply stated he was climbing the boxes

The example of the boxes - which I introduced into the discussion - is of a GM responding to a player query as to whether or not there are boxes in the alley. So I don't know why you are talking about "the player simpy stating that his/her PC is climbing the boxes." Even in a game with OGL Conan-style fate points, the player first has to spend the point to create the boxes, which is subject to GM veto.

The only bit of text in Gygax's DMG that I recall that discusses this sort of example is on p 93, under the heading "Territory Development by Player Characters":

Assume that the player in question decides that he will set up a stronghold about 100 miles from a border town, choosing an area of wooded hills as the general site. He then asks you if there is a place whre he can build a small concentric castle on a high bluff overlooking a rive. Unless this is totally foreign to the area, you inform him that he can do so.​

There are a number of possible responses to that player request. The GM might say no, suspecting the player of some sort of bad faith. [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION] has, upthread, said that his default orientation to such requests is to say no.

Another possibility is determining the terrain via random roll. [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] has, upthread, said that this is his default approach, because it assures GM neutrality rather than risking GM bias.

Gygax advocates saying yes "unless what is requested is totally foreign". The fact that Gygax advises this is not, in itself, a reason to do it. I'm not saying that Gygax's approach is better than anyone elses - different approaches have their different reasons and results that they fit with.

My point is that the passage from Gygax is not a million miles from this (MHRP Operations Manual p 54):

A lot of things in the story don’t have dice associated with them because they’re a part of the fiction that everyone at the table just agrees on. Lampposts, sidewalks, plate windows, random passersby, bouquets of flowers, newspapers, and other items that aren’t immediately important are just context and color. You can make them
important by using your effect dice to make them assets, or use them as part of your description for stunts, but so long as you have the power to smash a glass window (most people) or rip a lamppost out of the street (anyone with Superhuman Strength) it shouldn’t even require dice.​

This is not identical to Gygax's example. For instance, it connects player narration of backstory more intimately to action resolution than in Gygax's example. But non-identity is not the same thing as radical difference.

you're conflating the advice to reward creativity with authority; they are not the same, and the game didn't have player authority over anything but the character.

I'm not conflating anything. Upthread I've asserted that the difference between a default GM approach of saying yes to player nomination of backstory, between player authority over backstory via some rationing scheme and subject to GM veto, and player authority without GM veto, are technical differences.

They are not radical cleavages that mark off classic D&D from more "modern" RPGs. Even moreso because, in a game played as a social activity (and often among friends) the reality of authority can be very fluid even if the game rules demarcate it in quite a formal fashion.

 

[Cyberen]

Honestly, I don't believe there are real "direct player authorship" moments in AD&D. RAW, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] are right, the Paladin mount quest is one, but I would guess the RAI is not as clear cut. I would say it is a strong advice, for Players and DM alike, about the strong flavour of the Paladin class : if there is a Paladin in a party (a special snowflake, really, as the required stats are nearly impossible to get), then "adventuring" should involve trials of honor, mettle, and moral quandaries. This is exactly the type of strong background promoted in OA, I guess, and quite a clear acknowledgment that the game, at a larger scale, is co-authored by the DM and the players. Concerning table adjudication in media res, I think Gygax's take on it is quite close to the 5e DMG disclaimer : the DM is in charge of the fun, and should roll with the players'(crazy) ideas when possible, while pretending absolute control of the situation. Presuming the presence of a bearded NPC or boxes in a back alley is contrary to *table etiquette* (we are knee deep in Forgist metagame considerations here !), and would be met with disapproval (and retaliation !), even if I am with [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] (and Mearls !) when he says such an etiquette leads to a game of "DM may I" than to emotional investment (but this emotional investment was not really part of Gygax's agenda, I would guess). I don't believe in RAW, in the early editions, and I certainly believe table etiquette is something better left to the table. Certainly, Arneson's or Kuntz's were different...
Going with the "Drawmij nonfiery meteors" example, the beard example could be adjudicated in a cheesy way :
Player : DM, is this guy bearded ?
DM, pretending to roll dice : Let us see... No, he is clean shaven
Player : as I am ! How lucky I shaved this morning.
as the DM gets to decide for the NPC, but has no say on the supposedly yet undecided state of the PC's beard !
Welcome to Schrödinger's dungeon
Also, one has to note how abstract AD&D can be : attacks, HP, saving throws, secret doors, and, yes, name level status are abstract subsystems meant to be invoked by the players or the DM, without needing a thorough description of the in-game fiction. I believe it is a good description of RM, RQ, and some later editions, to be a reaction against those (dissociated ?) systems. Of course, if a table wants to focus on the acquiring of status, it can be role-played more concretely, or some Fame system can be added, but the default presented is that, upon attaining 9th level, a Fighter is a Lord and is entitled his stronghold and followers. I think it really showcases how Player vs Character has never been clear-cut, and shouldn't be addressed by the rules but by mutual agreement.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

To me, the idea that someone would show up at the table hating everyone adding to the richness of the world and thereby bringing in player authorship so much that if the game moved in that direction they'd be forced to leave is kind of wrong. Those people don't really like D&D.

And it isn't just the responsibility of the players to be flexible but also the responsibility of the DM to be flexible.

This is just impossible in most cases. If I show up with a copy of the Tomb of Horrors in hand after saying "Hey guys, I'm going to run the Tomb of Horrors next week, if you want to play show up with new characters, level X and be ready to play. The game will take place in Greyhawk and will take place in and around the City of Greyhawk." and a player shows up and says "I'm a pirate. I own my own ship. I rob ships and use it in order to fund my private crusade against Y country that I hate and want to liberate." I'm going to say "Alright, you can be that, but you'll need a reason why your character is going into the Tomb of Horrors and you'll need to realize that your ship, your crew, the country you want to liberate and that entire storyline is likely not going to factor into this adventure at all. We are playing Tomb of Horrors."

I don't want my players "adding to the richness" of Greyhawk. I know what all the countries look like and a general idea of its geography and political situation. I don't want my players making up new countries. I want them to make their character to fit the world, not the other way around. Feel free to make up things as long as they fit within the framework I've established as a DM before the game started.

I'm also running a written adventure. The adventure will not focus on the player's personal goal except as how they relate to the plot of the adventure at hand. The above pirate PC might be delving into the Tomb of Horrors in order to come up with great riches to fund his crusade. But the crusade is what happens after the adventure finishes, off screen(likely...unless it interests me enough that I decide to make it the focus of the next adventure).

Indeed. And so do you. By hating player authorship you only like the subset of D&D that caters to your particular needs/wants.

No, I don't hate player authorship. Player authorship is fun in a game designed for it. It is fun in a more free form game with mechanics designed around player authorship.

However, I've never bought a D&D adventure that said "The BBEG wants to kill the king and take control...here is his plot to do so...unless, of course, the players come up with a different plot or want to do something else...then, you know, scrap this adventure and follow their plot lines instead. Player authorship is important."

I've also never once run into a situation where a player didn't enjoy the overall experience at the table. I've had people complain about a specific event but at the end of the day they'll still have fun. No one has ever brought up "I didn't have enough player authorship in your game" as a complaint.

Personally from experience I believe point 3 to be true. The more freedom you give me the less I feel constrained and as if I need to wrest my character's agency from the GM by whatever means I can. I've seen the same with other players and in other games.

To me this is basic transactional analysis. The players who are being allowed to establish things are being treated by the GM as adults and behave as adults, playing fairly. The players who are playing in The GM's Setting and are not allowed much leeway are being treated as children and so behave as children, trying to sneak past adult authority.

No, they aren't being treated as children. They are being treated like players and not like the DM. They understand their role within the game and maturely play that role instead of demanding abilities that aren't part of their role.

To me, it would be the same as showing up for a hockey game after being told that you'll have to be the goalie and then complaining that you don't get to skate around the ice scoring goals. That's not what a goalie does. I understand that being the goalie for the team isn't as much fun for some people.

But when you show up, you realize that you are playing your character, not writing the plot of the game or designing the campaign world.

And in my experience the very notion of wanting to trick the DM into giving them more power is a consequence of the DM trying to restrict them past the point they find fun. When one of my players says "Hey, how about this..." they normally are quite deliberately screwing over their own character.

In my experience, players tend to have no limit on what they'll ask for if you keep giving them stuff. In the example I used in that post regarding my Rifts game, my restriction was "You must choose an option that is IN the book, no making up your own stuff." I don't consider that an especially restricting experience. However, that didn't stop a player from saying "Something IN the book, eh? What if I combined TWO things in the book together to make them more powerful? That's following the letter of your rules, so you should allow it, right?"

It's obviously a disingenuous attempt to see what they could get away with.I was one of hundreds of those attempts I had to deal with. I should note that I started DMing when I was 15 and mostly played with my friends at the time. Though our primary group consisted of people between 15 and 23. Over time I've DMed with all ages of people but when I first started all I got was attempts to become the most powerful people on the planet. In another Rifts game, someone wanted the gun from the SDF-1 mounted on their armor because the stats in that RPG said it didn't do damage, it just destroyed EVERYTHING in its path. They asked me for it at least once a session. They thought it would be hilarious. It was my job as the DM to say no for balance reasons and to keep the game within the theme, power level, and tone that I wanted it at. That would have ruined it.

Most of the player's I've run into tend to write things so that the story revolves around THEM. If their goal is to overthrow a country, the adventure better revolve around that. The other players better just be background to their grand quest.

The problem is that when you have 6 players who each want to write their own stories, have their own goals and ALL want the story to revolve around them. All of them can't be at the table at once without the plot becoming a chaotic mess. So, it's been my experience that the DM gets to decide on ONE plot and the players have to compromise and follow that plot whether it is the one they wrote or not.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Look at something as simple as a 3e Prestidigitation spell - it's effectively a very small wish. You can do virtually anything with it, within the limitations of the spell itself. I can create objects, change colors, whatever. In a minor, but very real way, that's Player Authorship.

I agree with this entirely. However, I have no problem with it as I've said in a previous post because there are rules and limitations on when and how often it can be used. It is also assumed that the character gets to decide on the effects of these spells, not the player. Which is a key difference for me since it means that the spells will likely be used to accomplish character goals instead of player goals.

Without this assumption you get people casting spells to turn their friends invisible just so they can sneak into the women's showers because it is a player fantasy when neither of the characters involved likely care.

Besides, most spells are limited in scope as well to prevent the complete rewriting of everything. There isn't a spell that says "Make up an organization and give them a history spanning the last thousand years. You immediately belong to this organization and you gain a bunch of advantages, skills, and contacts."

But that's the kind of thing people like to ask for authorial control to do.