Would you allow this?

[Guest 6801328]

But I don't want to do that, and I don't want to play those kinds of games. Free time is too valuable to spend on activities that you don't enjoy.

No argument at all from me about that.

My only objection is your assertion that those who enjoy their RPGs differently than you do should "find another game".

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No argument at all from me about that.

My only objection is your assertion that those who enjoy their RPGs differently than you do should "find another game".

I don't mean that they should find a game that isn't D&D. I mean that they should find a game that's run by someone other than myself, because I'm not going to run it in the style that they like, so they probably won't be having much fun.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Dude. When you narrate what your character does, you're just narrating what he does in his role. That's every bit as much roleplaying as what you do. It's just a different kind. Saying that you have the one true way to roleplay is kinda arrogant.

Sorry, but I don't follow.

Role-playing is about the process by which you make decisions for the character. If you make decisions by pretending to be the character and evaluating the information from their perspective, then that's role-playing. Whether you narrate it in the first-person or third-person is irrelevant to that.

When you invent details that the character has no control over, like the historical or cultural significance of an object (that the character doesn't even know about), then that's not role-playing. I'm not trying to pass judgment that it's good or bad, except to say that I don't personally enjoy it, but it is not role-playing in any form when you make that decision. I mean, who do you think you're pretending to be - which role do you think you're playing - when you decide the meaning of that scarf?

 

[Li Shenron]

This is a hypothetical situation: I'm asking not because it occurred at the table but because I think different POV's about roleplaying/rules might result in different answers, which might be interesting.

Situation: a player wants to play an Aasimar, but thinks the flying is kind of cheesy/OP, so describes the character as having burn-scarred stumps instead of wings (with an appropriate backstory explaining how this happened.) The player asks the DM for nothing in exchange for giving up this ability.

Many levels later, the player finds him/herself in a desperate situation where a short burst of flight will save the party from TPK. He/she narrates that in a burst of divine energy, newly formed wings burst forth from the stumps, and the character proceeds to fly, as per RAW in SCAG.

Would you allow it? Why/why not?

I would allow it, because it's balanced mechanically and reasonable narratively.

Mechanically, the player essentially decides not to benefit from a feature that she had all the right to use, so this is a voluntary choice to give up something in order to make the story better. Getting it back just makes the character as balanced as it was meant to be. It could be argued that a character in a very specific situation might effectively have an advantage from first not having a feature and suddenly gaining it, for example this could be used to trick enemies into using a tactic based on assuming the PCs cannot fly; but if the PC has previously voluntarily not used the feature, she has already paid some price and for me all is fair enough.

Narratively, the mileage might vary but personally I think it makes for a cool story. Is it less reasonable/believable than the rest of the story? Not to me!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sorry, but I don't follow.

Role-playing is about the process by which you make decisions for the character. If you make decisions by pretending to be the character and evaluating the information from their perspective, then that's role-playing. Whether you narrate it in the first-person or third-person is irrelevant to that.

When you invent details that the character has no control over, like the historical or cultural significance of an object (that the character doesn't even know about), then that's not role-playing. I'm not trying to pass judgment that it's good or bad, except to say that I don't personally enjoy it, but it is not role-playing in any form when you make that decision. I mean, who do you think you're pretending to be - which role do you think you're playing - when you decide the meaning of that scarf?

That's a philosophical point. Giving players control over elements of the story their characters don't have control over is built into the mechanics of some RPGs, such as the Fantasy Flight Star Wars RPG.

Think of it as collaborative story-telling, rather than role playing, if you prefer.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, but I don't follow.

Role-playing is about the process by which you make decisions for the character. If you make decisions by pretending to be the character and evaluating the information from their perspective, then that's role-playing. Whether you narrate it in the first-person or third-person is irrelevant to that.

When you invent details that the character has no control over, like the historical or cultural significance of an object (that the character doesn't even know about), then that's not role-playing. I'm not trying to pass judgment that it's good or bad, except to say that I don't personally enjoy it, but it is not role-playing in any form when you make that decision. I mean, who do you think you're pretending to be - which role do you think you're playing - when you decide the meaning of that scarf?

The invention of those details is irrelevant to roleplaying. If I learn that the woman across the way is wealthy and then decide that my PC wants to go over and meet her, I'm roleplaying. If I then narrate to the DM, "I go over to the wealthy woman and introduce myself to her, kissing her hand charmingly as I do so. In response she giggles and smiles at me.", I have still made a decision for my character based on information from his perspective. The addition of that detail changes nothing. An analogy would be you and I both have weekly poker games, but at my table the dealer can require the other players to take a drink of beer. You then claim that the additional ability at my game means that we aren't playing poker. Well, no. We are playing poker. It's just poker + beer.

 

[jaelis]

I think that Saelorn is trying to explain a distinction he sees, involving how much narrative control a player has. If you would prefer a different name for that distinction, suggest it.

But as far as the distinction itself, it makes sense to me.

 

[Maxperson]

I think that Saelorn is trying to explain a distinction he sees, involving how much narrative control a player has. If you would prefer a different name for that distinction, suggest it.

But as far as the distinction itself, it makes sense to me.

No. He's claiming that one true way is roleplaying and the other isn't. Yes, there is a distinction, and if he just stated that he preferred his method roleplaying, that would be fine. We all have our preferences about how we like to play the game. When he declares that the others are not roleplaying because of that difference, though, he has crossed the line.

 

[Satyrn]

I think that Saelorn is trying to explain a distinction he sees, involving how much narrative control a player has. If you would prefer a different name for that distinction, suggest it.

But as far as the distinction itself, it makes sense to me.

Aye. It would be easier to digest, though, if he used a different term for his narrow/precise definition than the one that describes our hobby - roleplaying games - in general.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Do we really need to do this? Lord knows I've gotten sucked into such devates as threads devolve into nitpicking and arguments about what is or isn't the "right" way to game. But this gets so far off the rails that we lose sight of the OP's question of whether he should have allowed his player to use his character's flight ability after not wanting it originally and not having used it.

To bring things back to that question, an important thing to consider is how the decision will impact the game moving forward. Does this open a can of worms that will get out of control? Will this set a precedent that you might regret? Personally, I can't think of much. Your players may start trying to think outside the box, or start to assume that they can narrate events that may overstep the level of control that you're comfortable granting, but I think these potential issues are easily managed by a conversation with your players to reset or reassert the social contract of the game.