Players choose what their PCs do . . .

[Tony Vargas]

. Most of my issue comes down to the possibility for intent or stakes negotiation to slide into what the player wants to happen for story reasons completely outside of what their character is attempting. In some rare cases they might declare an intent that is actually a loss for their character. Basically the danger of player side railroading.

I think I get what you mean, and that it doesn't seem to come up in a lot of RPGs. Rather the opposite, really, as there are archetypes - like the reluctant hero - that you just can't do if you're trying to play from the headspace of the character, in an RPG that makes you fight for every moment if spotlight time or the stereotypical adventure hooks that straight up want to hire adventurers or pull you in with a treasure map or whatever.

It's all on the GM, and if one does step up with the ordinary people thrust into extraordinary circumstances, it's a coercive beginning, and railroading.

 

[Lanefan]

So when I talk about playing with integrity I am speaking to playing your character with integrity. What I mean by this is in the moment of play when you are making decisions for your character you should strive to only be guided by your sense of their hopes, dreams, goals and take on their emotions so they become your emotions and do this without regard for where you, the player, might hope things lead or some sense of "the story". To at all times be a curious explorer of the fiction, to finding out who this character really is when tested.

I would also add that I have nothing against characters with long term goals or capable antagonists. Both are things I celebrate and are welcomed whole heartily by me. I'm simply talking about a way of playing role playing games where we follow the fiction like a dog after a bone. Like, I want to feel the weight of my character's decisions in my bones. I want access to their unique insights. I want there to be actual weight to their relationships and emotions. I also want a commitment from the rest of the group to see what happens and not decide ahead of time what should happen. I want to be a fan of the other character and the world and see where journey takes us.

This all sounds just excellent when written down...but what do you do when the (IME) inevitable happens: two or more players/PCs want to follow the fiction in wildly different and incompatible directions at the same time? Or if two or more PCs have or develop long-term goals that are directly opposed e.g. one wants to marry the Duke while another wants to kill him? It's not like this could have been sorted out in session 0 - the Duke might not have been brought into the fiction until session 4.

 

[Lanefan]

So when it comes down to intent based resolution I have no real issues with it if players stick to character intent and are advocating for their character. Most of my issue comes down to the possibility for intent or stakes negotiation to slide into what the player wants to happen for story reasons completely outside of what their character is attempting. In some rare cases they might declare an intent that is actually a loss for their character. Basically the danger of player side railroading. I mean it's easy enough to avoid if the play group is disciplined. Like I don't think it's an issue that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] or [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] really have to deal with. Just like you can be disciplined and follow the fiction in GM mediated games.

Put another way, then: as long as the player has the character do what the character would do, without regard for metaplot or metagame or out-of-game concerns, then it's all good?

If yes, I couldn't agree more!

Thing is, almost every time I say this I catch hell from someone - or several someones, and not always the same - who want out-of-game and metagame concerns to play a part; so put yer helmet on. But to those someones I say poppycock!

As an example: if relationships within the party have deteriorated* to the point where my PC wouldn't want to run with that group any more, then >foop< out it goes...and I've role-played myself right out of some games this way in the past, when no replacement PC was available.

* - usually but not always involving - somehow - a failed romance or bad breakup with another PC.

In general I don't think we talk enough about player side railroading. Mostly because of the authority gap it tends to be highly dependent on the GM.

I've tried bringing the concept up once or twice - other than that you're the first person I've seen mention it in here.

 

[Lanefan]

I suggest that "toughness" in the fiction is not an objective constant. A thing that it tough for a shopkeeper to kill may not be tough for a 10th level fighter to kill. When you were first level, the bugbear was tough. When you're 15th, not so much....

In the view of the person doing the killing, sure. But in the view of the bugbear on the receiving end, its toughness hasn't changed a whit and nor has anything else about it: it's the same bugbear. All the changes that make the combat play out differently have happened on the attacker's side. All of them.

And to reflect this in the fiction, nothing about the bugbear's numbers should change at all. The fighter, on the other hand, is probably on her fifth character sheet by now...

 

[Lanefan]

Page 42 could be interpreted that way, if you like. But it's very clear, in 4e, that you can 'fluff' a spell however you like so long as it doesn't cross the line of changing the mechanics. You don't /need/ a new arcane power to be published or a vague DM-fiat procedure to create a new mechanic in order to get a 'new' spell, /in the fiction/. You just take your idea for a new spell, pick an existing one with mechanics that fit, and re-skin it to match.

What if there isn't one? There's great drooling gobs of design space between the mechanics of the existing spells.

IIRC, the 1e spell-research rules specifically said the player wouldn't know whether he failed in his research because the DM deemed the spell impossible (unacceptable) or because he just got unlucky. Of course, it's been a while...

Hmmm - I don't remember seeing that one - got a page number? That said, it's the sort of thing I wouldn't put past Gygax...and if it is a rule, it's a dumb one and thus as DM I hereby exercise my prerogative to ignore the hell out of it and my limited persuasion skill to encourage all others to do likewise.

That's fine for you. 1e didn't have crits or fumbles

By original RAW, no; but there were various ideas for such put forth in Dragon over the years.

and did recommend just 'taking the average' to save yourself rolling all those unlikely-to-hit/unlikely-to-miss attacks.

Another one I don't remember seeing; could that have been a 2e thing?

You can have dozens of minions in a high level encounter,

If you're designing the encounter yourself then yes, you can have as many as your grid can hold. I was referring to the published adventures, where even for the high level encounters there aren't often many minions...a typical ratio seems to be 1 or less for each non-minion in the encounter.

Classic D&D had a similar point - with fighters 1/level attacks, taking averages, and even falling back on chainmail (or later Battlesystem) - but successive eds were looking for better ways precisely because that didn't work so well. 4e found one. 5e tried something a little different (not /that/ different, for instance, all 5e monsters have a don't-roll-damage option like 4e minions) - BA, and TBH, it retains too many of the original issues, and introduces a new one: being outnumbered telling too heavily.

Being heavily outnumbered*, even by mooks who normally on their own wouldn't be much of a threat, in fact should be a problem for anyone as sheer strength in numbers can swarm you under particularly if you're cut off from your party. This is something D&D never really considers, though it probably should.

* - say, 8-to-1 or worse.

 

[pemerton]

This all sounds just excellent when written down...but what do you do when the (IME) inevitable happens: two or more players/PCs want to follow the fiction in wildly different and incompatible directions at the same time? Or if two or more PCs have or develop long-term goals that are directly opposed e.g. one wants to marry the Duke while another wants to kill him? It's not like this could have been sorted out in session 0 - the Duke might not have been brought into the fiction until session 4.

if relationships within the party have deteriorated* to the point where my PC wouldn't want to run with that group any more, then >foop< out it goes...and I've role-played myself right out of some games this way in the past, when no replacement PC was available.

As per the post below, I think that [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] favours a game that is not based around party play and that takes for granted that PCs may be opposed in various ways, including one wanting to woo the duke while the other wants to kill him:

My own falling out with 4e is due to a couple things. All the resolution mechanics are built around a team of PCs working in tandem where my favored approach is a collection of individuals with their own needs and desires that are sometimes allies, sometimes rivals, and occasionally enemies.

In my Burning Wheel game one PC was committed to saving a NPC that another was committed to killing. In my Prince Valiant game two PCs competed for the hand of a maiden. Etc. I think the games that Campbell favours (eg Apocalypse World) have this sort of thing but more and more intense.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What if there isn't one? There's great drooling gobs of design space between the mechanics of the existing spells.

Not to hear folks going on about the saminess of powers, there wasn't. And what's the system for the DM creating or approving a new spell when there are hill-o-gp formulae for spell research? "Compare to existing spells.."

Hmmm - I don't remember seeing that one - got a page number?

DMG 116 (and 115, actually) its even a bit meaner than I remembered.

That said, it's the sort of thing I wouldn't put past Gygax...and if it is a rule, it's a dumb one and thus as DM I hereby exercise my prerogative to ignore the hell out of it and my limited persuasion skill to encourage all others to do likewise.

Lol.

By original RAW, no; but there were various ideas for such put forth in Dragon over the years.

That's about the size of it, huh? 1e doesn't ever really have to stand up on its own, it's 1e fixed up how we like it.

Another one I don't remember seeing; could that have been a 2e thing?

Probably not 2e hasn't stuck with me like 1e. Anything that seems like a memorable (good) rule or bit of DMing advice I recall from 1e, though could as easily be from Sorcerers Scroll or Leomunds Tiny Hut - Gygax writing in the same style as the DMG, or Lakofka with another variant.

If you're designing the encounter yourself then yes, you can have as many as your grid can hold.

The encounter guidelines devalued minions at higher level - so a regular encounter budget at epic could see the party outnumbered 6:1 by them.

Being heavily outnumbered*, even by mooks who normally on their own wouldn't be much of a threat, in fact should be a problem for anyone as sheer strength in numbers can swarm you under particularly if you're cut off from your party. This is something D&D never really considers, though it probably should.

* - say, 8-to-1 or worse.

Minions were pretty likely to hit, compared to underleveled standards of the same xp value, so they could add up to a real threat, that xp value for them wasn't window dressing.

5e, OTOH, makes being outnumbered a real issue, thanks to BA, the opposite problem as the olden days, potentially - 100 archers killing a dragon &c...

 

[Sadras]

5e, OTOH, makes being outnumbered a real issue, thanks to BA, the opposite problem as the olden days, potentially - 100 archers killing a dragon &c...

That's why I give dragons resistance to non-magical weapons, to highlight the hardiness of the dragon scales.

 

[Umbran]

But in the view of the bugbear on the receiving end, its toughness hasn't changed a whit and nor has anything else about it: it's the same bugbear. All the changes that make the combat play out differently have happened on the attacker's side. All of them.

All the changes that make the combat play out differently are game-mechanics abstraction, not the fiction. And, as we'll see in a moment, the combat probably doesn't play out differently in any meaningful sense.

And to reflect this in the fiction, nothing about the bugbear's numbers should change at all.

The numbers are not the fiction. The fiction is what you get only after all the numbers are crunched, and the thing is summarized with the numbers removed. No game stat appears in the fiction.

Plus... the bugbear in the book is a guideline. I can represent bugbears in my game any way I want - the Monster Manual numbers are merely one mechanical representation. I can have bugbears that are smarter than average, or weaker, or smellier. I can put up a bugbear warlord that has the stats of a 20th level fighter. I can make a sickly bugbear that has the stats of a goblin. Or, I can make a mook bugbear that has a high AC, and one hit point. We are not beholden to the MM.

There is a general expectation about how bugbears are not usually pushovers for low-level parties, yes, but so long as the experience roughly matches that most of the time, we are okay. The only worry we have is if the first attempted hit downs him outright - but for a higher-level party, narrating that as an excellently aimed shot to a vital part is still generally acceptable. If we have a crowd of them, that happening once or twice is okay. It is only if I have a horde of them, and they are taken down like chaff, that am I violating the expected fiction.

It isn't like we are talking about a well-known individual with an established backstory who might be asked to match those storied deeds in play. Correct me if I am wrong, but we are probably talking about a generic guard a higher-level party will encounter once, and probably not have a conversation with other than, "Die, hairball!" If I stat it out as a regular bugbear, the PCs are sure to get past it after a round or three. If I stat it out as high-AC and 1 HP, the PCs are sure to get past it in a round or three. The fiction is the same, either way - some nameless bugbear delays them for a round or three, and dies an ignoble death bleeding on the floor.

 

[Tony Vargas]

. ... It is only if I have a horde of them, and they are taken down like chaff, that am I violating the expected fiction.

Sounds like the cover of some Conan pastiche, actually.