Would you allow this?

FrogReaver said:

1) The fact that they give it a quick glance is evidence they are exterting control over backgrounds.

Click to expand...

Sure, the DM has veto rights (just like in the title of the thread), but the DM isn't the one creating the story. That's the point: the player is actively inventing elements of the campaign setting, related to but outside of the character. So the only difference between that and the thing Saelorn is saying he doesn't like is when it occurs. On to the next point...

2) Can one roleplay a character that's simply a race and a class with no other information.

Let's try this with an example: Let's take Gnarl the Human Fighter. Gnarl is asked to dance by a human woman. With no other details other than you being a human Fighter you are left more or less randomly picking an answer. A more expansive background and personality opens up the possibility that you can actually pick the course of action that makes the most sense for the character instead of just picking a random course of action.

Click to expand...

How expansive? Do you carefully describe every day of every year of the character's life? Of course not. So by restricting yourself to only what you put in the backstory you are actually limiting the backstory and personality. I'd rather start with a sketch, and then during gameplay the events of the adventure, the cues from other players, and even the luck of the dice will give me good ideas to further develop that character.

Think about how (good) books or movies unfold: you see this character, and get a couple of hints at his/her personality. As the story evolves, more hints and references emerge and you develop a more complete picture, but that picture also changes. (The change in character being the entire point of classic storytelling.)

Now compare to a novel...we've all read these...where the first few pages describe a character in detail, down to the color of his eyes, the brand of his whisky, and the caliber of the gun he carries, and then the rest of the book is just that character doing his thing. Sure, sometimes those stories are rollicking adventures that are hard to put down, but we are (ok, I won't speak for you, but I am) somewhat embarrassed to find them enjoyable.

Personally I'd rather tell the former kind of story.

I suppose both can be defined as roleplaying in the sense that you have a character and are having him do things and react to situations. I also suppose it's impossible to entirely get away from reacting to situations that your character could literally act either 50/50 way on. But while such situations are impossible to avoid, it's not those situations that really highlight what roleplaying is. Roleplaying is best highlighted by a "fleshed out character" where a player can leverage certain background truths and personality traits and determine a course of action for said character.

So I guess the best way to say it is that there is a gap between what actually can be fit into the definition of roleplaying (such as having a character make choices) and what we are actually striving for with roleplaying (having a character make choices by leveraging their background and personality).

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's all valid opinion, but you present it as fact. It's not.

What I strive for with roleplaying is to portray a character that others at the table find interesting and compelling. Whether the ideas that I use to accomplish that existed before the game started, or whether they occur to me on the fly, shouldn't matter to other players, nor should the difference be discernible to them.

EDIT: Wasn't it Saelorn who wrote, a couple of years ago in a thread about this sort of thing, that roleplaying a wood-elf would require asking "What would a wood-elf do in this situation?" That flabbergasted me.

FrogReaver said:

There has always been a bit of preparation required before one can actually roleplay a character. In our Hobby such preparation involves inventing the character we are going to roleplay. Inventing a character requires some backstory. Both the backstory and the character must meet DM approval to even be in the campaign to begin with. All of this is a requirement before we can even begin to consider actually roleplaying a character.

In other words, it's entirely different. Character creation and backstory creation are necessary components for roleplaying. You can't roleplay without them. However, you can roleplay without taking narrative control in the middle of a gaming session where you probably should be roleplaying instead of not-roleplaying (unless your group finds a nice mixture of narrative control (*not-roleplaying) and roleplaying to be more fun.)

Click to expand...

That's not even close to being true. I've come into games in the middle of a session and been introduced before rolling up the character or creating a backstory. I roleplayed just fine. I sort of determined things about the character on the fly and when the time came to roll him up, I included those in the rest of the character creation.

Maxperson said:

That's not even close to being true. I've come into games in the middle of a session and been introduced before rolling up the character or creating a backstory. I roleplayed just fine. I sort of determined things about the character on the fly and when the time came to roll him up, I included those in the rest of the character creation.

Click to expand...

How did you roleplay before rolling up a character?

FrogReaver said:

How did you roleplay before rolling up a character?

Click to expand...

I will repeat, " I sort of determined things about the character on the fly..." That is sufficient to play the role of the character.

I am fully capable of determining how my character behaves in response to the game world and what happens within it without having a background or rolled up character before hand. It gets more problematic, but not insurmountable if combat happens. I will know what race and class I am, as well as approximate bonuses, AC, etc. and can quickly roll up hit points, prime stat, quickly pick or be assigned armor(if necessary) and just go.

I would definitely allow the wings to grow. It's a great piece of storytelling that I wouldn't reject just because, I, the GM didn't think of it. Personally, I have found allowing player input into the narrative enriches the story. It's not all on me to come up with cool ideas. It doesn't break immersion, anymore than munching on snacks, answering the phone, or needing the bathroom. We are sitting around a table in a 21st century home;players adding story details is the least immersion breaking thing that can happen.

Some of my richest characters have started with the sketchiest of backgrounds. Often, if I create a detailed personality ahead of time, the character ends up having other ideas anyway, and then I'm busy changing personality details, alignment, etc. There are a fair number of games that recommend players fill in details during game play, so it's not that uncommon. It can take a few sessions to get a solid feel for your character. I'm thinking, even in 5e, it might be better to hold off on the traits for a session or two.

As for leaping in before even making a character? Sure, if the other players are not directly involved in a fight or something. Sounds fun.

Maxperson said:

I will repeat, " I sort of determined things about the character on the fly..." That is sufficient to play the role of the character.

I am fully capable of determining how my character behaves in response to the game world and what happens within it without having a background or rolled up character before hand. It gets more problematic, but not insurmountable if combat happens. I will know what race and class I am, as well as approximate bonuses, AC, etc. and can quickly roll up hit points, prime stat, quickly pick or be assigned armor(if necessary) and just go.

Click to expand...

If you want to go this route I will repeat too, you said:

"I've come into games in the middle of a session and been introduced before rolling up the character or creating a backstory. I roleplayed just fine. "

Hmmmm….. Seems my question still stands

FrogReaver said:

If you want to go this route I will repeat too, you said:

"I've come into games in the middle of a session and been introduced before rolling up the character or creating a backstory. I roleplayed just fine. "

Hmmmm….. Seems my question still stands

Click to expand...

In order for it to still stand, it would need legs to stand on. As it has already been answered not once, but twice, there are no legs left.

FrogReaver said:

Can we at least agree that it isn't roleplaying when a player says their character magically regrows their wings when the character in question has no ability that would allow this?

Click to expand...

Nope.

D&D is an RPG - a role playing game. Characters play a role in a story. The DM and the players are working together to make it the best story they can.

There are a lot of great stories where a main character suddenly does the impossible... and it is best when the impossible was foreshadowed. If it is a story point that he has no wings, having them sprout at just the time of need can be a great wy to carry the story forward. Did his will manifest them? Were they there all along? Did a God take a role in bringing them forth? Or are they something darker? Lots of great ways to move the story forward there.

The player wants to move the story forward in this direction... it makes for a fun game... it isn't overpowered (as it restores an ability he was allowed under the rules)... go for it.

This doesn't seem very controversial to me. Here is a somewhat comparable thing that happened in my 4e game.

Roleplaying in a RPG tends to mean "playing one's character". This is one way of playing one's character. Someone who describes the furniture in his/her PC's house isn't "not roleplaying" just because the purchase and arrangement of said furniture happened at some earlier, unspecified moment in the gameworld.

Elfcrusher said:

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?

Click to expand...

More than fair I would say, it is briefly returning something they should have permanent access to but voluntarily gave up for pure role-play purposes for no other benefit. Perhaps you could go further and use it as a personal plot device where the heavens offer the PC their wings back, or some other equivalent ability in return for closer service to them or their aims?

Plenty of good stuff you can do with someone who personally emphasises role-play over roll-play like that.