Players choose what their PCs do . . .

[Ovinomancer]

That's a very odd way to categorize what I just said. Mechanics are simply boundaries for the characterization. Beyond that they play no role.

Yes, well, I thought it odd that you started by saying that you aren't focusing too much on mechanics and then talk about nothing but mechanics and how they enable your characterization and how you couldn't successfully characterize without knowing the mechanical boundaries. I mean, yeah? Weird.

And, it completely doesn't address the point I initially made that you're too focused on mechanics, here. It's less about how the game does game stuff and more about what you're willing to put at stake. You're coming at it from the point of view of what you don't want at stake and then checking the mechanics to see if they do, indeed, protect these things -- if not, you adjust. I'm saying you can put anything at stake. Sure, the mechanics will influence how at stake things are, but you don't need permission -- which is what I'm saying. You're still asking for the system to give permission or to tell you that you can't protect your PC in some areas. That's too focused on the mechanics -- you've stepped in the right direction by recognizing that more can be at stake than just the health of your PC, but you're not across the line if you're still looking to game mechanics to tell if you such. Take your fighter example. You say you wouldn't play a fighter who's conception is that they can't be beaten in combat if the mechanics say you can. I'm wondering why not? Surely it's interesting to play a character that might fail to realize what they assumed was their core truth and now has to find a new way? Or, maybe, they actually don't lose in combat, and they are the badass (or stupid lucky) that they believe themselves to be! Risk more.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, well, I thought it odd that you started by saying that you aren't focusing too much on mechanics and then talk about nothing but mechanics and how they enable your characterization and how you couldn't successfully characterize without knowing the mechanical boundaries. I mean, yeah? Weird.

Your throwing out a bit too much nuance there in order that you may paint my position as nonsense. In fact, your leaving so much out I'm going to go ahead and label this a flat out mischaracterization...

And, it completely doesn't address the point I initially made that you're too focused on mechanics, here.

Of course it did. Making the point for why mechanics are necessary and speaking for their accurate role cannot be placing to much focus on them. It's exactly the right amount of focus.

It's less about how the game does game stuff and more about what you're willing to put at stake. You're coming at it from the point of view of what you don't want at stake and then checking the mechanics to see if they do, indeed, protect these things -- if not, you adjust. I'm saying you can put anything at stake.

Of course you can. But if you conceptualize your character a certain way and then that gets put at stake, then you risk the whole character conceptualize breaking.

sure, the mechanics will influence how at stake things are, but you don't need permission -- which is what I'm saying.

I'm not talking about mechanical permission. It's like your not even listening to me.

You're still asking for the system to give permission or to tell you that you can't protect your PC in some areas.

Total mischaracterization again. I'm not asking for permission or for my PC to have protection. The mechanics are there simply as boundaries so that my character conception doesn't get broken mid game. It's not about protecting my PC from anything. It's about protecting me as the player. There's a great difference there.

That's too focused on the mechanics -- you've stepped in the right direction by recognizing that more can be at stake than just the health of your PC, but you're not across the line if you're still looking to game mechanics to tell if you such.

The game mechanics or session 0 need to tell me what kinds of characters can't be created by the rules. Some are obviously explicit rules. Some are implicit, like the character that never loses a fight cannot be made in a D&D game (that's because the mechanics don't support such a concept. I'm not aware of any game that supports that concept).

Take your fighter example. You say you wouldn't play a fighter who's conception is that they can't be beaten in combat if the mechanics say you can. I'm wondering why not? Surely it's interesting to play a character that might fail to realize what they assumed was their core truth and now has to find a new way? Or, maybe, they actually don't lose in combat, and they are the badass (or stupid lucky) that they believe themselves to be! Risk more.

You are misunderstanding. I'm not talking about playing a character that THINKS he is too strong to lose a fight. I'm talking about the literal god given truth of a character that is to strong/lucky/whatever to lose a fight.

Your point above is about a PC that THINKS he is too strong to lose a fight and I agree those can be played in any system (well, not in ones that put PC thoughts at stake). Either way, the point is irrelevant to the concept I'm referring to.

 

[Maxperson]

To be even clearer: Narrating the results of actions give the DM more than adequate latitude to 'run your character' - describe action he takes as part of or reactions he has to those results.

There is no such rule. The DM has a rule that allows him to narrate MY actions, but he cannot alter those actions. If I declare that my PC is running across the courtyard, he cannot narrate it as, "You run across the courtyard jumping and skipping while singing a little ditty about Jack and Dianne." He can alter things through in game fiction though, such as "While you run across the courtyard, your back sprouts 20 arrows from archers along the wall. You make it halfway before you black out." In no case can he determine how my character feels without magic or some other supernatural power.

When it comes to NPC actions, he has a section in the DMG about social interactions. In that section it talks about how to influence NPCs and PC altering NPC attitudes, but says nothing about NPCs(or the DM) being able to just play a PC and choose the PCs thoughts and feelings.

Not just in the sense of formally introducing a variant at the start of play, but in the sense of overriding or changing any rule, at any time. It's carte blanche.

Sure. The DM can come up with house rules on the fly. That doesn't change them into anything other than house rules, though, and a house rule created on the fly is still not relevant in a discussion about the rules.

 

[FrogReaver]

There is no such rule. The DM has a rule that allows him to narrate MY actions, but he cannot alter those actions. If I declare that my PC is running across the courtyard, he cannot narrate it as, "You run across the courtyard jumping and skipping while singing a little ditty about Jack and Dianne." He can alter things through in game fiction though, such as "While you run across the courtyard, your back sprouts 20 arrows from archers along the wall. You make it halfway before you black out." In no case can he determine how my character feels without magic or some other supernatural power.

When it comes to NPC actions, he has a section in the DMG about social interactions. In that section it talks about how to influence NPCs and PC altering NPC attitudes, but says nothing about NPCs(or the DM) being able to just play a PC and choose the PCs thoughts and feelings.



Sure. The DM can come up with house rules on the fly. That doesn't change them into anything other than house rules, though, and a house rule created on the fly is still not relevant in a discussion about the rules.

I'm curious how you would feel about an enemy battle master using menacing attack on you and causing you to be frightened?

 

[Umbran]

Or, the reason mecahnics are essential isn't because of trust, but rather that they set the boundaries for where you may freely conceptualize your character and boundaries for where you must refrain from conceptualizing any particular way.

Explicitly setting boundaries is, in essence, establishing a rule. Agreed upon rules are one basis for trust, as noted previously.

The rules are a *basis* for trust. But they aren't actually a replacement for trust. Even if we establish what rules we are playing by, someone at the table may feel something is unfair, or inappropriate, and so on. Just because it is in the rules doesn't mean everyone is actually okay with what happens within those rules. Rules are only a start.

 

[FrogReaver]

Explicitly setting boundaries is, in essence, establishing a rule.Agreed upon rules are one basis for trust, as noted previously.

The rules are a *basis* for trust. But they aren't actually a replacement for trust. Even if we establish what rules we are playing by, someone at the table may feel something is unfair, or inappropriate, and so on. Just because it is in the rules doesn't mean everyone is actually okay with what happens within those rules. Rules are only a start.

Boundaries are rules that don't require trust. It does require everyone adhere to those boundaries, but that still doesn't require trust.​

 

[Maxperson]

I'm curious how you would feel about an enemy battle master using menacing attack on you and causing you to be frightened?

Special abilities with saves are okay. They are in the magic/supernatural/mental/etc. that I've been talking about. That's not the DM just telling me that my PC is frightened because the green hag winked at him.

 

[FrogReaver]

Special abilities with saves are okay. They are in the magic/supernatural/mental/etc. that I've been talking about. That's not the DM just telling me that my PC is frightened because the green hag winked at him.

That's a fine answer. The battlemaster's ability was the most mundane fear effect I could think of. I was curious if it would have the same negative effect on you.

So out of further curiousity. If the maiden had a special ability causes fear with a wink (save to resist). Would that fall into the same supernatural/magical/mental realm that you have placed the battlemasters menacing attack within?

 

[Guest 6801328]

(emphasis mine)

This is the meat of it, really. We are talking, in the end, about TRUST.

When there are mechanics that the table all agreed to use underlying narrated events, we generally extend trust to the result. We typically see it as "fair", even if we are somewhat surprised by the result.

When we don't have the mechanics, the question of trust comes into play. It also comes into play when there are actually mechanics, but we are not familiar with them - pemerton's story above sits as an example - in the game he was playing, narration of the character moving across the room to introduce a complication was *within mechaical bounds*. Folks who play D&D, however, don't generally play under such mechanics, and they then fail to extend trust.

This is where a lot of conflict ton such issues arises - I've been working with my group for something like a decade. They trust me not to screw them over on a whim. Folks reading about my session on the message boards don't really know me from Adam, don't trust me, and worry that I might be screwing my players over on a whim.

Wow...too much to fully catch up on this thread after a weekend away. But I'll start with this one.

While in general I agree that Trust is central to the question of how you resolve things outside the rules...that is, if you trust your GM (or players) then you don't need a specific mechanic behind every declaration.

But that said, dictation of character thoughts/actions/reactions/feelings is, for me, still sacred territory. Even with GM's I totally trust, and to whom I will happily give a pass for almost any sort of rules transgression because I know it's all in the service of a better story, I still don't want them deciding for my how my character reacts to a maiden winking. That's my turf, and I'll jealously guard it.

That doesn't mean I don't think the GM should ever cross the line: it just needs to be specified in the rules and mechanics. That might range from D&D 5e (where "magic" is required) to The One Ring (where "bouts of Shadow madness" give the GM control of your character) to maybe some RPG out there which just says, "The GM can at any time dictate how your character reacts to something." As long as I know how the mechanics work, and know the GM is working within those boundaries, I'm ok with it. (Partly because I can then decide which games I do and do not want to play.)

I'm not going to try to claim this as the "right" way to play RPGs. I won't claim it's "not roleplaying" if the GM takes over your character ever other minute. It's just not the sort of roleplaying I like.

 

[Maxperson]

That's a fine answer. The battlemaster's ability was the most mundane fear effect I could think of. I was curious if it would have the same negative effect on you.

So out of further curiousity. If the maiden had a special ability causes fear with a wink (save to resist). Would that fall into the same supernatural/magical/mental realm that you have placed the battlemasters menacing attack within?

Sure, but one of the things about the battlemaster ability is that very few can actually do it. Lots of people can pick up a sword, but only a few very highly trained individuals can instill fear that way. I'd expect the same sort of in-fiction explanation for some sort of kiss warms the heart ability in this particular maiden. And it would have to allow a save.