Yes, a separate question.
This is the player having a form of narrative control.
Some people are all fort this, some are (near violently) against it.
It's a very interesting question (and one that may need to be revived for 5e though I remember it causing quite the ruckus in past threads) but would likely only muddy the waters here.
This is the player having a form of narrative control.
Some people are all fort this, some are (near violently) against it.
Yes, a separate question.
This is the player having a form of narrative control.
Some people are all fort this, some are (near violently) against it.
It's a very interesting question (and one that may need to be revived for 5e though I remember it causing quite the ruckus in past threads) but would likely only muddy the waters here.
It's up to the DM, really, how important the declaration vs the PC abilities (and qualities, like being a Noble or a certain race or whatever) may be. The DM keeps information behind the screen so the players don't know about it - the players have no such option, if the DM wants to know your Background, stat, proficiency, etc, he gets to know it and factor it into whether you skate, check, or crash & burn.This, all about this.
The whole goal:method approach is all about the declaration. Whether or not you need to make a roll is based on the declaration. Whether you have advantage/disadvantage on the roll is based on the declaration. It makes the declaration very, very important.
The actual skill of the character only comes up after the declaration, and, even then, only if the declaration triggers a skill roll called for by the DM.
Who judges that declaration? The DM, of course. Which places the DM front and center of all player facing actions. Which means that since the character's abilities don't come up until after that judgment, the character's abilities are less important than the player's ability to make declarations. They have to be.
In the example, the goal was getting past a guard, and the method was prominently displaying a noble crest and acting like a noble ('cause he was one, which is presumably easier than bluffing that you're one when you're really a Folk Hero or Outlander or something).So, the player uses his Noble background to get past the gate guards. To me, that's not goal:method.
But notably a player in D&D 5e who is familiar with his or her role in the game is not very likely to make such a statement in my view, effectively making this a non-issue. If the player is approaching D&D 5e as if it is some other game, however, and starts making such statements, then it's not hard to see what the problem is here - assuming this game is like other games in this regard.
Yes, a separate question.
This is the player having a form of narrative control.
Some people are all fort this, some are (near violently) against it.
It's a very interesting question (and one that may need to be revived for 5e though I remember it causing quite the ruckus in past threads) but would likely only muddy the waters here.
I'm not sure that a game that validates pemerton's proposed proposition actually exists, at least not in the form he suggests. Most games that have shared authorial control of the setting or backstory have some sort of rules framework that limits how much anyone other than the game moderator can introduce new setting or backstory elements. Typically these games grant players one or more variously described 'tokens' which must be spent (either put back in a pot or given to another participant) if you as a player are going to introduce new setting or backstory elements in author stance, and typically the other game participants can bid their own tokens to overrule the newly asserted element. No RPG I'm aware of allows as much arbitrary unlimited authorial control as pemerton's example of "Francis the Guard".
pemerton's hypothetical game where author insertions were valid player propositions at all times, would very likely cease to be an RPG and revert to a game of make-believe, as it would quickly degenerate toward the problem of no authorial control that RPGs were trying to solve with shared games of make-believe.
But even that requires the DM's assent and the limits (the designer above remarks that HE would be the one to decide what treasure it was!) are likely understood formally or informally in the form of a table rule.
Well, see, here we go to the jump to exaggerated...I'm not sure that a game that validates pemerton's proposed proposition actually exists, at least not in the form he suggests. Most games that have shared authorial control of the setting or backstory have some sort of rules framework that limits how much anyone other than the game moderator can introduce new setting or backstory elements. Typically these games grant players one or more variously described 'tokens' which must be spent (either put back in a pot or given to another participant) if you as a player are going to introduce new setting or backstory elements in author stance, and typically the other game participants can bid their own tokens to overrule the newly asserted element. No RPG I'm aware of allows as much arbitrary unlimited authorial control as pemerton's example of "Francis the Guard".
pemerton's hypothetical game where author insertions were valid player propositions at all times, would very likely cease to be an RPG and revert to a game of make-believe, as it would quickly degenerate toward the problem of no authorial control that RPGs were trying to solve with shared games of make-believe.
In other words, you might as well be playing "Cowboys & Indians" or "Cops & Robbers" where you have no mechanism for handling the mutually contradictory assertions, "I shot you!" and "No, you missed!"
If the player can propose on the fly a background that establishes or even overturns who a particular NPC is - whose to say that "Francis" doesn't already have a name and a stat block - what stops the following propositions from being valid:
a) "I notice that some has accidently dropped a wand of lightning bolts in the ditch!"
b) "My coming to this town fulfills a long awaited prophesy, and the inhabitants great me as their king, carry me on their shoulders, and shower me with gifts."
c) "When I was a youth, the goddess of death fell in love with me. As such, whomever I hate, she hates, and I am incapable of dying."
d) "Although I am a simple seeming rogue, for many years I was a secret student of the Grand College of the Archmagi, where I was a favored pupil that absorbed all that could be taught by the ancient masters. Now, recalling my long training and my great success their, I cast Polymorph Other to turn the dragon into a toad."
e) "My father was a master swordsmith so I pull out my +5 holy avenger which he gave to me as an heirloom."
Games of make believe can be fun, but they are not RPGs.
The fundamental problem that underlies this turn of discussion is that the truth of a backstory is expressed by and validated by the player's mechanical abilities. Backstory cannot be used to conjure abilities or resources out of thin air. You cannot assert new wealth, patrons, titles, rank, knowledge, allies or really any other sort of advantage on the basis of backstory. Backstory proceeds from and justifies the choices taken in character creation. You don't get to bypass character generation or other rules of the game just because backstory, nor can you reasonably introduce backstory to the game without consulting the rules (if the game allows for the possibility of found allies or resources, for example something like Mouseguard does with a Circles test) and the DM (as even with a circles test, the DM decides the obstacle to overcome). It's perfectly possible to create a backstory which cannot be expressed by character generation, but that doesn't mean that character generation is wrong and that you get all the resources you want simply because you wrote them down. Again, this is a player who isn't playing an RPG, but is engaged in playing "make believe".