D&D 5E (2014) DM imposed restrictions to the game (+)

[Whisper-Kitten]

No Feat Book
Limited multiclassing
Limits on flanking
Players handbook +1
Very limited 3rd party books

 

[Thomas Shey]

It isn't, because that is not the sort of thing the whole "mental model" thing is about.

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. Someone can have a pretty good mental model of their character in a vacuum, while still not considering how out-of-sync they are with the reality of the game situation. People do the equivelent in real life all the time.

I'd say they're just independent variables.

 

[AlViking]

Of course it's not a valid model. That was the point.

The point is "If you make a model that violates the game rules, it's invalid; the rules win over the model. That's equally true for a wizard casting high-level spells in D&D, and a character with absolute control over their mindset in Vampire or Pendragon."

If you want to assert that your model prevents you from losing control in those games, you'd be outside the game rules, and it's as egregiously obvious as a wizard casting 6th level spells at 2nd level.

It's not a design flaw that those games restrict player agency over decision making, it's the entire point of the ruleset.

Which is why nobody proposes that as a model and I don't understand why you would even bring it up.

What you're saying is unrelated to a player making decisions. They can still make any decision they want, they just can't automatically make it happen. As you say what they can accomplish is limited by the rules of the game and the DM's adjudication of the results of your action declarations.

I've had players declare actions that were not possible. I told them it wasn't possible and why. Then we figured it out from there and we worked out what they could do. But I still don't understand what that has to do with a mental model. A mental model is a model of how they think, it informs what actions they will declare. It says nothing about whether those action declarations are legitimate or will even be possible.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Definition of supernatural: "of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural"

Therefore anything that breaks the rules of our reality is by that definition supernatural. Dragons are supernatural creatures, as are giants, ghosts and on and on.

Other things don't work exactly like the real world game but that's because of modelling simplification and gameplay considerations which would include things like HP.

Your definition of supernatural is accurate but it doesn’t matter one fig about the ‘natural’ of our world, the game doesn’t take place in our world it takes place in DnD land, the fact dragons exist isn’t ‘supernatural’ to the people that live in that world in the same way we don’t consider bears to be supernatural, they’re a regular, if dangerous, creature that has to be dealt with sometimes, you got ghosts? Better call the local exterminator-i mean cleric.

 

[Remathilis]

Basically, you continue to assert, actively and passively, that playing out the effects of a resolution check as your character isn't actually "roleplaying" because as a player, you didn't make your own decision, based on your predetermined character model.

Again, people are willingly looking past the nuance of arguments because they are trying to score Internet Points.

An NPC rolls a persuasion check against a PC. The argument is convincing. The question is; who decides how the player acts on that argument. Let's try this example:

"Kill yourself." Persuasion check 40.

Does the character, having heard the most persuasive argument imaginable, now have to to end his own life? Does the player have ANY right to say "My character would not do that under any circumstances?" Does he even get to choose the time and method? Does the DM just declare the PC had slit his own throat and the player can do nothing to stop them? Does the combination of the dice, rules and DM allow the player no choice but to watch there own character come to the willful decision to kill themselves?

It's a simple answer: either Yes the character was convinced to kill themselves over the objections of the player or no, the player should have the final word on if his character would be convinced to kill himself.

Well everyone, which is it?

 

[Lanefan]

having too much control over your character basically ends up overreaching into controlling the world, making it bend around them

The player has control over the character's trying to bend the world around itself. The DM has control over whether or not the world in fact bends.

Seems simple enough.

 

[Lanefan]

Why do you think agency is the only thing you own in an RPG? You own your character, right?

Yes, and included in that ownership is agency over what that character proactively tries to do within the setting, as bounded by the game rules and-or common sense.

But you don't have perfect or complete control over what happens to him.

Correct. There's other things in the setting that can try to proactively do things to me, and for some of them there's game rules that determine whether those attempts succeed or not. If-when they do, my next action (or lack thereof!) may well be forced by the game state. All saving throws and most opposing rolls to hit in combat fall into this category. That's fine.

Where the arguments arise is where there's no rule (or where there's an unnecessary rule) that determines whether those attempts succeed. In these cases, I (and others) posit that my character's reaction should be mine to determine, not the DM's or the game state's. Social mechanics and the like, if-when applied to PCs, tend to fall into this category; as does the DM simply telling me what my character thinks and-or feels*.

* - when such is not blatantly obvious to all. If for example the characters walk into a room where the temperature is north of 40 degrees C, I think the DM is well within rights to tell those of us without heat resistance that we all feel bloody hot!

He can get bitten by a snake and die from a failed poison save, right? He can get charmed or petrified or what have you. I suggest that having perfect control over his internal mental state is not inherently any more right or true or preferable than claiming perfect control over his hit points or saving throws, telling the DM "Sorry, I veto that failed poison save. This is my character and I control him."

The rules and game state take precedence. If for example I fail a save against non-lethal poison the game state might tell me what my mechanical penalties are but I should still have control over how it looks in the fiction; as in am I vomiting or woozy or white as a sheet or whatever. And yes, this means different characters might be player-narrated as reacting in different ways to the same poison - works for me.

What does the game give you to compensate for loss of perfect agency? As I've explained a couple of times, it gives you (or at least it gives ME) an experience in play which is more fun, dramatic, and true to Le Morte d'Arthur and similar tales and legends. Moreso than any D&D campaign about knights has ever managed for me (and I've played in some good ones).

Agency is generally a good thing. A key element of a good game is making meaningful decisions, right? Your choices matter. Whether tactical or characterful. That remains true. But my character occasionally doing something different than what I, sitting comfortably in my chair and not facing down that giant, that hated Saxon, or that seductive sorceress, would choose as the optimal move in the moment, is not an evil. It's not robbing me of anything. It's giving a different play experience.

Read perhaps uncharitably, it almost sounds like those games don't trust the players to make sub-optimal choices when such might make sense in terms of fiction and-or entertainment. And indeed, there's a significant subset of players out there who have to be forced by the game into doing anything sub-optimal ever.

If the game encourages you to make more dramatic decisions, to take greater risks, to err and betray others or your character's principles, that creates dramatic stories.

I guess I'm coming at this from a position of not really needing that encouragement and in fact probably needing encouragement not to do those things! Unless I'm playing a perhaps-boring character I tend to be quite high risk high reward in the way I play, and betraying others (and even betraying myself) is old hat.

 

[AlViking]

Again, people are willingly looking past the nuance of arguments because they are trying to score Internet Points.

An NPC rolls a persuasion check against a PC. The argument is convincing. The question is; who decides how the player acts on that argument. Let's try this example:

"Kill yourself." Persuasion check 40.

Does the character, having heard the most persuasive argument imaginable, now have to to end his own life? Does the player have ANY right to say "My character would not do that under any circumstances?" Does he even get to choose the time and method? Does the DM just declare the PC had slot his own throat and the player can do nothing to stop them? Does the combination of the dice, rules and DM allow the player no choice but to watch there own character come to the willful decision to kill themselves?

It's a simple answer: either Yes the character was convinced to kill themselves over the objections of the player or no, the player should have the final word on if his character would be convinced to kill himself.

Well everyone, which is it?

Player decides. Unless someone casts dominate person and the PC saves, a character cannot be forced to do anything.

On a related note, whoever is running the character decides how they respond even if the character is an NPC.

 

[Lanefan]

As a fairly basic example, your mental model might be of a brave knight who will face any danger in Pendragon, which totally works until you fail a Courage check.

Even then you can still portray the character as fearless, if a bit deluded:

"I wasn't running away! Never! You just think you saw me running away; in fact I was changing tactics in mid-combat and had to briefly retreat so as to set up an attack from a different angle. Yeah, that's it!"

 

[Lanefan]

There's two very important words missing from this play-loop, and they make all the difference:

The core gameplay loop is simple and hasn't ever changed.

1. The Dungeon Master Describes a Scene.
2. The Players Describe What Their Characters Do.
3. The DM Narrates the Results of the Adventurers’ Actions.

The second one should read: "2. The Players Describe What Their Characters Try to Do."

Without that "try to" in there, the DM can't narrate anything other than success.

The only way the PC changes the world is through what they say and do in step #2. In step #3 sometimes the DM will narrate that the PC are unable to do something. They can't open the door because it's locked, they can't climb the wall because it's too slippery or whatever. I may have declared an action for my PC but the DM adjudicates the result which may include "You can't do that because as you try to stand you realize that you are restrained" or similar.

[...] The DM controls the world. Sometimes the world limits possible actions my character can take or occasionally enables actions I normally could not.

We agree on this, but without that "Try to" clause in there our position falls apart.