Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7602922" data-attributes="member: 4937">This is my sense of what belongs to the player:1) Their character, once blessed for play, belongs to the player.   Typically, the GM will establish a character generation process and make legal whatever the character generation process allows, but in some cases when using a large body of character generation resources, the GM might still impose a reasonableness test.   Once in play, in a typical, fortune in the middle game - such as D&D and most traditional RPGs - the player may propose any action that their character could do, including any action an average adult could propose to do, as well as any action that is blessed by their characters described heroic or extraordinary abilities.  They cannot however act with any assurance that a proposed action will succeed.  So any statement like, "I pull the rope out of my backpack...", really means, "I attempt to pull the rope out of my backpack..."  2) The backstory of a character belongs jointly to the player and the GM, and neither ought to tamper with the backstory without some sort of formal permission from the other one to do so.  Typically, the GM ought to bless any backstory that is reasonable for the setting, and make suggestions on how to make the backstory more appropriate to the setting or campaign, by supplying details that the player could not otherwise know.  Some process of negotiation occurs where the GM and the player hash out something they are both happy with, and then it becomes an established truth of the fiction - part of the stories 'myth'.   This process can continue after play begins, but should generally involve some sort of agreement between the GM and the player on how that process should be handled.  Different players and GMs will have different ideas about what is reasonable to introduce, and if there is any question, they should defer to the other's judgment.2) The possessions of the character belong to the character, not the player.  They are the things established by the fiction that the character is in possession of.   The player can propose to interact with them, like for example, proposing to take the rope out of their pack.   But they are in no way in control of the rope beyond what their character is capable of.  They cannot introduce new possessions for the character except through the process of play, whatever that is.  Note that some games do allow the player to introduce possessions for the character through the process of play, but typically those games require the player to spend some sort of resource - such as one of a number of limited inventory slots to do so.   Thus, even though the player is introducing the specific possession, they are still doing it through the process of play.  You cannot propose an action with an object you don't possess.  That's just nonsense.   If you don't have a Greatsword, you can't swing one.   Nor can you introduce a possession from the setting unless it is established that the object is in the setting (usually by the GM).   You could reasonably say, "Since I'm in a weaponsmithy, I look around for a weapon - preferably a greatsword.  If I see one, I grab it."   You cannot reasonably say, "Since I'm in a weaponsmithy, I grab a greatsword."   You could reasonably say, "I grab the greatsword [which you previously described as being there] off the pegs where it is hanging on the wall.", but until the GM establish something is around and that you have acquired it successfully, it's not in your possession.   This is all I think obvious.3) NPC associates and other sentient resources established via backstory or character generation mechanics are part of the game's backstory.  Quite often they exist to establish for the player what sort of setting resources that the GM will automatically bless.  For example, the 5e "Criminal's Contact" is basically a sort of backstory resource.   You could establish this as part of your backstory, but the GM is by having such a mechanic basically asserting that unless you acquire some sort of Character Generation resource, he's unlikely to bless anything as valuable as "Criminal's Contact".   Mechanics like "Criminal's Contact" exist to put a limit on the player's expectations as to what they can introduce via their background.   Generally speaking, an NPC is still an NPC and is still therefore part of the domain of the GM.  The GM is just contractually agreeing with you that the NPC will meet certain basic expectations - the NPC is reliable, friendly disposed to you, well-connected, and famous enough that messages can be routed to them from anywhere you could route messages.   Some Chargen resources introduce highly loyal NPCs with very close attachments to the player.  Familiars and Animal Companions tend to fall into this category.   They are still NPCs, and still part of the GMs world, and the GM may decide to RP them from time to time for the sake of color and interest, but the characters control over them is so complete because of telepathic or empathic connections, that for most purposes they can be considered an extension of the character.  Or like any NPC a GM may extend permission to RP the animal companions to the player if that is interesting (for example the Familiar was sent on a mission or the PC is unconscious), but while that may be the norm it's not something that the player can really demand.  Technically, when the character proposes an action for a Familiar or Animal Companion, they are only commanding the Familiar or Animal Companion to do these things.  It's just that the player has such a reasonable expectation that the command will be obeyed, that normally all the extra steps are cut out for the sake of speeding play.Personally, I'm not a fan of as weak of backstory resources as 5e provides for, since they end up siloing perfectly reasonable backstory resources.   The implications of things like "Researcher" or "Position of Privilege" is that you can only do things like that if you chose the right chargen attributes.  So the more of these you actually introduce over time, the more propositions you are making unreasonable for a player to expect to succeed.4) Elements that are part of a player's backstory, such as friends, relations, family estates or homes are pretty much fair game for the GM to use just as any other setting element.  GMs should however take care not to disestablish some truth of the backstory without permission.   For example, if the backstory establishes that an NPC is a close and loyal friend, the GM should not establish through play that the NPC is actually treacherous and hates the player, unless the player has already agreed that he enjoys that sort of twist.   And while the GM may have the authority to do with setting established through backstory whatever he likes, a well-mannered GM will not exercise that authority without restraint and without some consideration for the feelings of the player.   Remember, players are often playing some sort of avatar of themselves, and as such things like family members are often in some way representative of their real family members.   Since real life family relations can be strained and difficult, care should be taken not to carry out family drama that is too much like real sources of pain for the player, and GMs should be willing to back off story lines of that sort if the player expresses discomfort.   It is perfectly valid for a player to establish with a GM certain "hands off" rules for NPCs that should not be made to be too much sources of risk or challenge.   However, if an NPC is to be "hands off", the player shouldn't insist that they are in the foreground of stories where they would reasonably face danger and hardship.  If you carry your kid into a dungeon after making a "hands off" agreement, you shouldn't expect that its now immune to fireballs.   "Hands off" requires both sides to leave the NPC in the background of the story.</blockquote>

Verification