D&D General DM Authority

[happyhermit]

... players should see their characters pretty much in the same light as a GM sees NPCs. Y'know, as characters and not avatars of themselves.

IME, that is equivalent to saying most players should play their characters in a way that is less fulfilling and fun.

I don't claim to be any authority on the subject, that's why I think that players should see their characters in the way that works the best for them, within the system they are playing. "Author stance" or whatever it's being called these days is certainly not inherently superior.

Isn't collective storytelling, like, the main thing about RPGs?

Nope, the main thing about Roleplaying games is roleplaying. Collective storytelling is, like, the main thing about Collective Storytelling games. Who'd a thunk?

 

[Chaosmancer]

IME, that is equivalent to saying most players should play their characters in a way that is less fulfilling and fun.

I don't claim to be any authority on the subject, that's why I think that players should see their characters in the way that works the best for them, within the system they are playing. "Author stance" or whatever it's being called these days is certainly not inherently superior.

The point is that generally having a player associate with their character too much leads to problems.

Bad things happening to the character is not bad things happening to the player.

Nope, the main thing about Roleplaying games is roleplaying. Collective storytelling is, like, the main thing about Collective Storytelling games. Who'd a thunk?

Wow, so much snark so little worthwhile content.

The point that I think you miss utterly, is that the term "Roleplaying" puts the person doing it in a very similar position as an Actor. They are playing a character, in a story, and deciding on what happens within that story.

Does Ronan the Subtle kill the helpless captives or show mercy? The DM can't tell you that, there is no author making that overarching decision, the player decides that. They are telling that story.

And Ronan's companion Kab is going to add to that story by reacting to the decisions of the captives and of Ronan.

And collectively the players and the DM are going to craft a story about what happened when Ronan and Kab were faced with this choice. Yes, this is very different than the Collective Storytelling of things like "the Quiet Year" or "Yes, Dark Lord" but it is still a style of collective storytelling.

 

[FrogReaver]

The point is that generally having a player associate with their character too much leads to problems.

Bad things happening to the character is not bad things happening to the player.

Is there any actual evidence that anyone has ever thought this? I mean people use language to loosely explain themselves where they say 'I' when referring to something their character did. That doesn't mean are too dumb to realize there is a difference between their character and themselves. It's loose language. So any actual evidence anyone thinks this?

Wow, so much snark so little worthwhile content.

The point that I think you miss utterly, is that the term "Roleplaying" puts the person doing it in a very similar position as an Actor. They are playing a character, in a story, and deciding on what happens within that story.

Does Ronan the Subtle kill the helpless captives or show mercy? The DM can't tell you that, there is no author making that overarching decision, the player decides that. They are telling that story.

IMO. Telling what you do in a story is not telling a story. Overcoming obstacles real time is not telling a story.

And Ronan's companion Kab is going to add to that story by reacting to the decisions of the captives and of Ronan.

And collectively the players and the DM are going to craft a story about what happened when Ronan and Kab were faced with this choice. Yes, this is very different than the Collective Storytelling of things like "the Quiet Year" or "Yes, Dark Lord" but it is still a style of collective storytelling.

IMO. Having shared fiction isn't the same thing as collectively crafting a story. The goal in an RPG is different. The players view of character advocacy in an RPG is different.

 

[FrogReaver]

Technically the DMG has a way of playing while not having a designated DM... I don't personally think it's any good, but it's real, so a game can still be DnD without a DM.

That’s a better point.

 

[Maxperson]

IMO. Telling what you do in a story is not telling a story. Overcoming obstacles real time is not telling a story.


IMO. Having shared fiction isn't the same thing as collectively crafting a story. The goal in an RPG is different. The players view of character advocacy in an RPG is different.

I don't have an issue with viewing the result of the game being viewed as a story. I mean..

"After defeating the goblin hordes in the Caves of Despair, Dumphwith the Bard stared at the baby goblin for some time before deciding to spare its life." - written by an author.

and

"After defeating the goblin hordes in the Caves of Despair, Dumphwith the Bard stared at the baby goblin for some time before deciding to spare its life." - after actions taken by both DM and player(s).

...are functionally the same. Both can be viewed as a story.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't have an issue with viewing the result of the game being viewed as a story. I mean..

"After defeating the goblin hordes in the Caves of Despair, Dumphwith the Bard stared at the baby goblin for some time before deciding to spare its life." - written by an author.

and

"After defeating the goblin hordes in the Caves of Despair, Dumphwith the Bard stared at the baby goblin for some time before deciding to spare its life." - after actions taken by both DM and player(s).

...are functionally the same. Both can be viewed as a story.

IMO they are only functionally the same via one vantage point. From another perspective, One was made up by an author the other emerged from roleplaying in an rpg. That’s a pretty big difference IMO.

 

[prabe]

IMO they are only functionally the same via one vantage point. From another perspective, One was made up by an author the other emerged from roleplaying in an rpg. That’s a pretty big difference IMO.

It's come up before (maybe in this very thread) but part of the problem here is that English doesn't really have good concise language to describe what happens in an RPG, where a story emerges from the processes of play. What happens is it gets described as "collective storytelling" but that implies more in the way of intentional authorship than at least seems to be the norm in games like D&D--it's plausible that in Fate, or Blades in the Dark, or any of the myriad PbtA games (and I'm sure people who are more into this playstyle than I am can name other games that are more story-oriented than these) the people at the table are more aware of/concerned with the story.

If you have a preference for current events in the game to be consistent with prior events in the game, that's arguably a preference connected to the story that's emerging from play.

 

[Maxperson]

IMO they are only functionally the same via one vantage point. From another perspective, One was made up by an author the other emerged from roleplaying in an rpg. That’s a pretty big difference IMO.

Sure. One story was made up by an author and one story emerged from roleplaying an RPG. I agree. The method to get there is very different. The result can still be termed a story, though. The next day when I go tell Bob what happened at the game, I'm telling a story that I didn't author up, but was created via shared RP in a game.

 

[loverdrive]

Is there any actual evidence that anyone has ever thought this? I mean people use language to loosely explain themselves where they say 'I' when referring to something their character did. That doesn't mean are too dumb to realize there is a difference between their character and themselves. It's loose language. So any actual evidence anyone thinks this?

Hm, masked murderers of like half of rpg horror stories are people who couldn't separate themselves from their characters and wanted to win the game.

And all of the issues of bad kind of metagaming, munchkinism and things like that just can't exist if the player sees their character as, well, character.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure. One story was made up by an author and one story emerged from roleplaying an RPG. I agree. The method to get there is very different. The result can still be termed a story, though. The next day when I go tell Bob what happened at the game, I'm telling a story that I didn't author up, but was created via shared RP in a game.

One can tell bob a story about what happened in the superbowl as well. That doesn’t mean the Super Bowl was a story. I think you’ve got to be careful bringing up what you are doing the next day and calling that a story. Everything is a story in that perspective.