What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

[Celebrim]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], I largely agree with what you've said, with a slight amendment that, as a DM, I tend to fob off a lot more authority at the table onto the players.

I'm not even convinced that's a disagreement. Without some way of quantifying how much you "fob off a lot more authority" I couldn't really say whether your methodology is different than mine or not. I've allowed players to create whole new deities and establish a cult of assassins operating secretly under the auspices of a neutral good deity.

What's important is that they did so under my blessings. That's the core of what I'm outlining. Ultimately authority over a setting lies with the DM, no matter how often that "fob off" that authority.

So the only thing that would be an actual disagreement with me is the claim that players have and by rights ought to have some sort of unlimited fiat authority. If you think that, then we have a disagreement. If you don't think that, then we are just discussing subtle differences in approach to what is fundamentally the same point of view.

While I understand the notion that letting players have limited fiat control might be off putting to some, I find that since each player has their own fiat control powers, it becomes more a sense that everyone at the table is contributing towards authoring the game, rather than the DM being so central to the larger campaign.

So, if this is actual disagreement with me, then the first thing I'll want to know is how the system works. If players have "their own fiat control powers", what do those powers look like? How are they actually used in play? How are disputes between participants resolved? How is spot-light balance maintained between the players? How do you support the aesthetic of challenge if a player actually has fiat power over the narrative?

It's all great to say, "Sure, I give my players fiat authority." But, if that authority is operating under the veto power of the GM, then it's not authority at all nor is it particularly unique or different than the normal way to play. And if the authority is not operating under the veto power of the GM, and it's true fiat authority then you are going to run into all the problems that plague games of make-believe or attempts to write stories one page at a time with a rotating cast of authors, plus all the additional problems that come from removing the supports from what are aesthetics of play that experienced players are going to expect to be supported. So in short, I'm not going to believe it until you actual explaining it, and in the mean time will assume that subtle differences aside, your table plays pretty much like mine and every other table I've seen.

And, just because Bob adds in "Frances is my friend" to use an example, doesn't mean that the scene suddenly becomes a non-issue for the rest of the group.

No, but again, that's never been the stake. The stake is whether the player has the authority to force all the other participants, including a GM, to accept that this random NPC is in fact "Francis, my friend". The GM has that authority, and in most games exercises it all the time. When however I try to imagine a game where everyone has that authority, I find my imagination fails me. The closest I can imagine is the sort of make-believe play my daughters engaged in as 1st or 2nd graders.

As far as everyone else is concerned, does it really matter if "Frances is Bob's friend" comes from Bob or the DM? Either way, the rest of the group now has more information in the scene to work with.

I don't have enough information to answer that question, but I can certainly imagine cases where it really matters to play that the guard is "Frances, Bob's Friend", and the GM or some other participant cares. The problem with your question is that the answer is "No", if and only if no one has any stake in this encounter at all, and introducing "Francis, Bob's Friend" is everyone agrees the most interesting thing to do with the scene. But just as the case when you are passing around a notebook adding a story to it a page at a time, it does at some point really matter that the story is departing from where it was going, and participants can get frustrated by the different directions each participant wants for a scene or the plot. Sooner or later, you are going to have a situation where more than one participant has an idea for what the scene should be and they are, while all perhaps valid, contradicting.

And, since 5e does allow for this sort of thing by leveraging backgrounds, nemesises (nemesi?) and the like, I find it encourages players to become more grounded in the campaign and thus, more immersed.

Yes, but that's not anything novel or particular to 5e or D&D. It's completely tangential to the real issue which is narrative authority, and not whether lengthy backstories that provide contacts and settings are useful and fun in play or anything else of the sort. The thing that is unusual about the "Francis the friend" example IS NOT and never was that the idea came from the player. The thing that is unusual about it is that it was asserted as a solution to a challenge (get through the gate) without any blessing by the DM required to accept the statement as true.

No one in the thread really cares whether a player has a suggestion that this be Francis his friend, especially if the circumstances make sense, and pretty much everyone agrees that in some circumstances that they as a GM might go with it. If you let players add elements like this by going with a suggestion or idea you hadn't previously thought of, congratulations, you are running a bog standard normal RPG and you have absolutely no grounds for thinking you are doing something particularly special or grand. I can find examples of this sort of play in rule books from highly traditional RPGs going back more than 20 years from before Nar or Indy gaming was even a thing. I have no way of quantifying how often or to what degree you allow the PC to introduce ideas into your game to compare it to what I know anyone else has one. I've played under a GM that latter told me that he invented an entire nation and an ongoing civil war entirely to support a player's offhand comment one night that he'd like his PC to be a king some day. This was like in 1991. I hate to break it to you, but you are probably not that special or different.

The real issue is narrative authority and agency. Waving a wand of blessing over a player's idea is not untraditional. What would really be unusual is if you were forced against your wishes as GM for this PC to be Francis, Bob's friend. If you have narrated, "This is Grog, the orc henchmen of the wicked mayor.", and the PC is able to overrules you and say, "Not fun. This is Francis my friend.", then that is something that I'd want you to explain to me because I don't understand it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's always been some ambiguity in how D&D presents

D&D? Some Ambiguity? That's like observing that there's always been some water in the ocean...
...while trying to explain fire to a fish (sorry, 'nuther thread).

its equipment rules: is the starting gp total a resource pool for equippage-by-way-of-points-buy (which is how I've always done it) or is it itself a piece of equipment, to be used in an episode of play that involves buying stuff?

Some eds - mind you, I don't remember which did which - made it clear that starting gear was what you'd accumulated over the years in preparation to realizing your ambition to become an adventurer, whether by purchase, crafting, barter, theft, scrounging or whatever. (Maybe it was 3e, to head off players trying to use crafting skills to stretch their starting gold? 3e was also the first edition I noticed giving players explicit permission to describe their gear, cosmetically, how they liked... "...so, if they want a katana, they can just take a bastard sword and describe it as a katana - so simple! so flexible! everyone'll love it!")

I assume that the rules are intended to accommodate both styles, as well as allowing the equipment list to serve as an element of setting as well as a set of points-buy rules.

IDK, I suspect there's a price list & starting gold because there's always been a price list & starting gold, and it wouldn't really feel like D&D without 'em.

 

[Celebrim]

You can say "Well, that answer doesn't matter to me" but as the DM it does, because you are the player's window into this world. If a player doesn't know where these lines are, because they have absolute authority over their character, they can end up with a character who is completely delusional, constantly wrong about facts of their own lives. And if the player didn't come forward with that as a concept, but is instead dealing with it because of the DMs rulings, that can become an issue at the table.

Let me get this straight:

a) I the player imagine Francis the Guard.
b) I the player imagine that my character believes Francis the Guard exists.
c) I the player then conclude firstly that Frances the Guard exists (!!)
d) and secondly, that this particular NPC is in fact Francis the Guard(!?!?!)

All the other potentially interesting things you are saying for me get wrecked on this bizarre twisted illogical argument. It sounds like some barrister's attempt at a loophole, a diversion from the actual point of the case, to try to lead the court in a merry chase of semantics that in fact isn't really that clever at all.

This is bog simple. Control of your player does not require that everything your player imagines to be true conforms to your desires. Far from being an attempt to assert any sort of control over your character, this is by definition and very plainly an attempt at asserting control over the setting, by the obvious fact that Francis is not your character. The question is not, "Does Francis exist?", because we would need to know far more of the situation than is provided in the example. The only question of any real importance that can be answered from the example is, "Can Bob's player force every other participant in the game to concede that not only does Francis exist, but he is here right now."

First off, the bolded part is false. There are things you can do. Maybe not a lot of productive things, but things nonetheless.

I suppose I could hit the player with a club and hope if they survived that they would have amnesia. But I think that would hardly be advisable as sound DMing. Then again, many claim that GMs should seek to kill their players...

But, as the DM, I am the curator of the story...

Case closed then. You and iserith don't nearly have as much to disagree about as the heatedness of the exchange would indicate.

But am I overstepping by saying they feel a "dawning horror" over the reveal?

Yes. Not much. It's not something I'm saying you ought to really worry about, in the sense that it is some sort of sin or crime against the player. What I am saying is that as a thoughtful GM, you ought to be consciously aware of when you have dipped a toe over the line and are in the player's business.

Doing what you are doing there is "Director Stance". It's the GM not only being the curator of the story, but the conductor of the actors in it. You are giving the players stage direction and cues. And that's not always a bad thing, but the important thing is to know that you are doing it and what it involves and what it risks, so that you are making the choice consciously and intelligently and intentionally, and not painting yourself into a corner accidently.

That's the only thing I'm saying that you aren't. I'm not going to narrate how they act, but, is it too much to give a nudge in the logical emotional direction?

Ultimately, it's a railroading technique, and a heavy reliance on "Director Stance" indicates low trust by the DM in their players and their players ability to play their characters. I guess I don't really think it's "too much", but I'm not impressed by it, because I'd rather see you talking about how you encourage your players to mature as players, and "Director Stance" really doesn't do that because it teaches the player that part of the game belongs to the GM. A GM in director stance is too absorbed by their own artistic vision, and in my opinion is - ironically considering the larger discussion - not taking enough feedback from the players.

That said, there might really be times to use "Director Stance" as a GM - though at the moment I can't really think of a great example. After all, when I listed "Director Stance" in my essay on railroading, I never said "Good GMs never use these techniques." What I really said was, "Good GMs understand these techniques and use them appropriately (and appropriately tends to be sparingly)."

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ultimately, it's a railroading technique, and a heavy reliance on "Director Stance" indicates low trust by the DM in their players and their players ability to play their characters. I guess I don't really think it's "too much", but I'm not impressed by it, because I'd rather see you talking about how you encourage your players to mature as players, and "Director Stance" really doesn't do that because it teaches the player that part of the game belongs to the GM. A GM in director stance is too absorbed by their own artistic vision, and in my opinion is - ironically considering the larger discussion - not taking enough feedback from the players.

Great paragraph.

 

[iserith]

Blink Blink

The fact that you are saying nothing? Look, I said we can drop it, and we can, but in response to "Does Francis exist even if he isn't that specific guard" you have said "At some tables he might, at others he wouldn't" All while spending an awful lot of words telling me the rules say nothing about it.

That's a non-answer, there is nothing there to discuss. Some tables do, some tables don't. It is true, but it doesn't give us anything to talk about, it is a deflection.

I'm not sure what you're saying here - the truth is a deflection?

And if you decide they are wrong about the existence of an entire person, what does that say about the Character's mind? In fact, since the player cannot choose for the NPC to be real, if they DM chooses that they are not, then the Character has an entire made up person in their head they believed to be real. Why?

You can say "Well, that answer doesn't matter to me" but as the DM it does, because you are the player's window into this world. If a player doesn't know where these lines are, because they have absolute authority over their character, they can end up with a character who is completely delusional, constantly wrong about facts of their own lives. And if the player didn't come forward with that as a concept, but is instead dealing with it because of the DMs rulings, that can become an issue at the table.

In the context of the game, it actually doesn't matter to the DM in my view. My assumption in this example is that the player is making an offer in good faith and with full knowledge of the rules of the game and the table rules. If, however, the player is under some misapprehension that, by the rules of this game or perhaps some other game we're not playing, he or she is empowered to create NPCs wholesale during play, then we'll probably need to stop and have a conversation to get back on the same page. But that is an issue that exists outside the context of the game. It is a mismatch of expectations, not a statement by the DM that the player or character is being delusional.

... So, to be clear. A player stating "I am going to buy scrolls with spell that deal thunder damage because I know we are fighting earth elementals and they are vulnerable to thunder damage" does not require knowledge of earth elementals being weak to thunder damage...

Because, I did state they were buying them under that assumption, therefore it was the driving motivator behind their decision. I didn't say they bought them because they were the cheapest spells in the store, or because they liked loud booms, I said it was because it was utilizing knowledge of a specific weakness. And your counter to that is that they don't neccessarily have to be buying them to utilize that specific weakness.

In your post, you said nothing about the player making the statement you make above. As far as I could tell from what you actually wrote ("For example, buying scrolls of Thunder damage spells in preparation of a battle involving lots of earth elementals under the assumption of them being vulnerable to that damage."), the player merely thought that, not necessarily the character. (Because players and characters are different, right?) So what it appears you've done here is move the goalposts, perhaps unintentionally, and then criticized my response on that basis.

But let's roll with what you added so we have something to talk about: If the player did make that statement and/or established that the character thought it, it still doesn't matter in my view. The player can have the character tell all and sundry why he or she is doing that for all I care. I'm only concerned with describing the environment, sometimes calling for checks, and narrating the results of the adventurers' in pursuit of fun for everyone while contributing to an exciting, memorable story. I don't see anything about the game that suggests I need to give a dusty flumph about why a player chooses to have the character do a thing and I certainly don't want to be policing thoughts, neither the players' nor the characters'.

 

[iserith]

Don't recall if it's been in this thread, specifically, but there's a fair a amount of "this game sux!"/"you're doin' it wrong!" out there.

To speculate wildly (which I'm sure he'll hate, which can only be a comedic bonus at this point, so far beyond the pale has our little high-velocity sub-conversation of acrimonious agreement gone, and only fair since he's diagnosed me with Post-Traumatic Edition-War Syndrome*), iserith might be reacting to some pretty disingenuous criticism of 5e that he's repeatedly demolished using his (pretty impressive, IMHO, & entirely valid) interpretation of how to run the game in a way that doesn't suck, like, at all, only to have it met with such flaming illogic that the only course of action left seems to be to seek cover in the big-R Rules. Like, "Ok, don't play this way because it's sensible, works wonderfully well, and is way more fun, DO IT BECAUSE THE RULES SAY SO!"

Which is a tragic level of foundational exasperation that I'm afraid I've only piled onto, with my own cynical-old-man posting style and lame attempts at humor.

Fair play, since I provided my own diagnosis for you as you say. However, I think it's more simple: I say what I do in my games e.g. players don't ask to make checks. Someone responds to ask why or to criticize my choice (fair enough), often someone who already knows the answer, perhaps adding that he or she does that and his or her game works fine. I say something like, "I do it because there is nowhere in the rules that say players ask to make checks and all sorts of places where it says the DM asks for checks. I'm just doing what the rules say." Objections ensue. Page numbers are referenced. More objections follow, often with silly examples. People who use similar methods as me or who at least understand what I'm saying jump in. At some point I may say that I don't run all games the same way. That gets ignored. Then I try to say something like, "Hey, if you're in my D&D 4e game, ask to make checks all you want. It's says that's cool right there in the book, go nuts. Different games, different approaches." Same deal with players having more control over the environment. But that distinction gets ignored. Then there's a lot of defending "playstyles" which I never actually attacked. It's weird, but thankfully it appears to be confined to just a handful of posters.

You may ask why I allow it to continue. Well, for the same reason I've been slaying the same ol' goblins since the early '90s in D&D games - for the XP.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

It might, if everyone else trusts the DM to tell a good story, while they're exasperated with Bob trying to get away with stuff all the time. (Or, vice-versa if Bob's OK, but the DM's a jerk.)

* Y'don't need even a BS in psychology to figure that one out, really.

Fair enough. But, that's not really a problem with shared authority. That's a problem with Bob or the DM. If everyone is earnestly attempting to make the game better, then there shouldn't be too many problems.

The real issue is narrative authority and agency. Waving a wand of blessing over a player's idea is not untraditional. What would really be unusual is if you were forced against your wishes as GM for this PC to be Francis, Bob's friend. If you have narrated, "This is Grog, the orc henchmen of the wicked mayor.", and the PC is able to overrules you and say, "Not fun. This is Francis my friend.", then that is something that I'd want you to explain to me because I don't understand it.

Meh, it's as simple as, "Well, everyone at the table has a stake in making the game as interesting for everyone as possible." The notion that the DM, by virtue of the DM, somehow has a better sense of what's best for the table than anyone else at the table, let alone everyone else at the table, is a very traditional approach to gaming, but, hardly the only one.

Your example, like your previous examples of other styles of play, shows a pretty strong bias for dysfunctional tables. I'm trying pretty hard to think how a player could justify completely rewriting an NPC that the DM has proposed in play - turning Grog the orc henchman into Francis my friend. How would that possibly be fun for the table? I can't really connect the dots there.

OTOH, this human gate guard suddenly being my friend Frances the Gate Guard is a fairly easy line of logic to follow. The Player has introduced fiction that melds with existing fiction and the challenge is now for the other players and the DM to run with this new fiction. I can certainly see how that works.

Then again, I do not draw such a hard line about what constitutes an RPG. The notion of passing the notebook to author the story, while simplistic and not really much of a game that I would enjoy too much, is close enough to an RPG that it passes my sniff test.

IOW, if everyone at the table is operating in good faith, then there is no problem. The traditional structure where the DM is the sole authority over everything that isn't a PC, isn't the only way to play an RPG. Heck, Ironsworn is a fantastic example of an RPG that can be played with a DM, without a DM, or even solo. Fun game that I SOOO want to play.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You may ask why I allow it to continue. Well, for the same reason I've been slaying the same ol' goblins since the early '90s in D&D games - for the XP.

If only you could earn treasure points on Enworld.

Amirite?

 

[pemerton]

As far as everyone else is concerned, does it really matter if "Frances is my friend" comes from Bob or the DM?

It might, if everyone else trusts the DM to tell a good story, while they're exasperated with Bob trying to get away with stuff all the time. (Or, vice-versa if Bob's OK, but the DM's a jerk.)

This seems to point towards dysfunctionality at the table.

Also, what does trusting the DM to tell a good story have to do with anything? When did D&D referees become storytellers?!

Also also, there's this undercurrent in the thread that the player, by establishing that the guard is his/her PC's friend Frances, is somehow "cheating" or unfairly/improperly subverting a challenge. As if the number of challenges available for RPGing purposes is finite, so that the players are getting a freebie here. If the player would rather play I meet Frances for the first time in 10 years - I wonder what's up with her? rather than Persuade guard number N to let us through the gate, then isn't that in itself a reason to run with it? I don't think there's anything in the 5e rules that is opposed to the suggestion that challenges and quests should follow player interests.

as the DM, I am the curator of the story, I mix the player's various threads and make a whole, and that might mean setting limits on player knowledge, especially when the lore is meant to be revealed as part of a big plot. Sure, I can't wow the veteran player who knows the secret, but that doesn't mean they should ruin the fun for everyone by blurting it out when their character has no reason to know.

Metaphors are tricky things - but I suspect my approach to the GM's role in RPGing is a bit different from yours. And I wouldn't try and use a "secret" that a player already knows.

But the idea that there might be some fiction that isn't yet known to the players (or their PCs) is certainly acceptable to me. (Often it mightn't be known to the GM either.)

And if you decide they are wrong about the existence of an entire person, what does that say about the Character's mind? In fact, since the player cannot choose for the NPC to be real, if they DM chooses that they are not, then the Character has an entire made up person in their head they believed to be real. Why?

You can say "Well, that answer doesn't matter to me" but as the DM it does, because you are the player's window into this world. If a player doesn't know where these lines are, because they have absolute authority over their character, they can end up with a character who is completely delusional, constantly wrong about facts of their own lives. And if the player didn't come forward with that as a concept, but is instead dealing with it because of the DMs rulings, that can become an issue at the table.

I agree with this. When players establish what their PCs think and believe, but the GM is free to establish the fiction independent of this, then the outcomes you describe are possible. My own preferred approach is to democratise establishing the salient bits of backstory, and - as a GM - to regard myself as constrained by fiction that the players establish, and - conversely - where I don't want to be constrained, advise them either (i) what the truth is that their PCs are aware of, or (ii) inform them that their PCs are ignorant.

Sometimes this unfolds within the context of action declaration, but often it doesn't. For instance, the players may be discussing among themselves (in character, or perhaps drifting in and out of character) what they should do (eg should they ally with X against Y?). A player may state a reason such as Well, X occupies such-and-such a role in the imperial government, and Y is in such-and-such an organisation that has such-and-such connection to it. If such a statement contradicts an established bit of fiction which the character knows but (eg) the player has forgotten, or has become confused about (eg s/he confused two countries in her note-taking) then often I will intervene to correct the factual misapprehension. Or, if such a statement extrapolates from the established fiction in a way that fits with what the character might be expected to know (eg the PC is a noble, and it makes sense that nobles would understand these relationships that arise among government bureaus and officials), then I am likely to accept the statement as establishing truth about the fiction.

And if such a statement deals with something that the PC clearly couldn't know, then I may point that out. Are you a member of the Imperial Scout Corps? No? Then how do you know what they do in their secret initiation rituals? (Depending on system, the proper response might be to call for a knowledge check. But sometimes stipulation can be the right response.) There can be a range of reasons for taking this approach. One might be to save a big reveal - though I don't normally do that myself. Another might be because the ignorance is part of what establishes the tension in the situation (eg in my 4e game, there was no way I was going to let any player start with a PC who knows the name of the Raven Queen - that is something that has to be, and was, acquired in the course of play). Another might be because, as GM, I want the game to stay focused on this thing rather than that thing, and I'm pretty confident that I can engage the players better with this thing rather than that thing, and so am not interested in throwaway knowledge checks derailing that. (This last is another thing that is system-dependent; what I'm describing here works better in 4e D&D, I think, or Classic Traveller, than in Burning Wheel or Cortex+ Heroic.) I'm also happy with the "metagaming" this can lead to - if the players can see that I've got nothing interesting to offer in response to some or other desire to know a thing, but do have this other interesting thing to offer that's in the current neighbourhood of play, that helps keep us on the same page as to where the action is.

So, to be clear. A player stating "I am going to buy scrolls with spell that deal thunder damage because I know we are fighting earth elementals and they are vulnerable to thunder damage" does not require knowledge of earth elementals being weak to thunder damage...

Because, I did state they were buying them under that assumption, therefore it was the driving motivator behind their decision. I didn't say they bought them because they were the cheapest spells in the store, or because they liked loud booms, I said it was because it was utilizing knowledge of a specific weakness. And your counter to that is that they don't necessarily have to be buying them to utilize that specific weakness.

<snip>

I encourage my players to ask me, just like I ask my DMs. I don't find that shameful or DM powertripping or anything, it just is useful. That way if they are going off of info in the MM that I changed, I can let them know that isn't what I'm using.

This is another example where I think I'm not wildly different from you. If the player is wrong about the vulnerability, and hence is imputing an irrational motivation to his/her PC, I'm happy to point that out. Of course if the player is making a guess then that's what the player is doing too, which is fine. If the player is guessing but believes that his/her PC might know, then we can turn to the system to find out how (if at all) this player/character gap might be traversed.

Anyway, doing things the way I describe in this post hasn't caused me any headaches that I can recall. And in a game in which the motivations and "inner lives" of the characters are meant to matter, it helps avoid the "delusional/alienated PC" issue that you identify.

 

[Hriston]

Sure, but all of the organizations, locations, and NPCs are under the full control of the DM during play as are the outcomes of all action declarations by the player related to the background features above, since you still have to declare an action to seek assistance from the priests of your temple, get messages to your criminal contact, secure an audience with a noble, and so on. This does not suggest control over the environment outside of the character to me; rather, they are rules the DM may choose to use to decide on the outcome of the action declaration. As DM, I'm inclined to say your action declaration to get an audience with the local noble automatically succeeds if you have the "Position of Privilege" feature. But that might not always be the case, for example, if there is no local noble in the town or (for reasons I sure I hope I telegraphed previously) the noble refuses all audiences due to some plot-relevant reason.

Right, but by putting the outcomes of such declarations into the realm of auto-success, these background features constrain the DM's narration of the outcome to align with the desires of the player. For example, if the player of an acolyte declares an action to ask a priest of the acolyte's temple to help in a non-hazardous way, I think it's reasonable for the player to expect the DM to say yes, and that to say no or ask for a Charisma check would require the DM to essentially ignore that part of the character's background feature.