D&D 5E Role playing and wargaming

[Warpiglet]

Hello fellow gamers…

Just had some musings about roleplay, multi-classing and character choices…wondered what others think about these issues. (If TLDR, look at the last few lines for my discussion questions).
(My one disclaimer or caveat for discussing this would be please don’t remind me that this has been discussed before and you are tired of it. I too have read other discussions but want to have a new one. Please indulge me).

I am a long time player. I played AD&D 1^st edition, some third and now love 5e. I totally skipped 2e, 3.5 and played one session of 4e. If that changes anything, I thought I would throw it out there.

Over time, there has been a lot of discussion about roleplaying and rollplaying (an artificial dichotomy, I believe), power gaming, rules bending and so on. The internet has changed this discussion dramatically and frankly, I believe it has altered history in a sense.

Looking back on the game’s roots, I am struck by how much the game was focused on surviving hazards and encounters via problem solving and dice rolling. It seems to me that the strong emphasis on deep roleplaying “my character would not do that even though it is optimal,” is a newer addition to the game. At the very least, its primacy would be a later addition.

I know roleplaying is important. It is one reason I like TTRPG over games like Diablo for example. But allowing it to trump all other conventions and choices seems to be a recent development. The guilt of not playing the game seriously can really hamper a person’s fun should they be inclined to such seriousness.

I seem to be walking a fine line. I really did not like the stacking of prestige classes without much regard to story. It could go too far for me: (“my Mega Knight, Clownmaster, Beaststalker, Robe Designer has proficiency of +14 for this roll, all bonuses probably included!). Conversely, the idea of a prestige class wedded with the game, even two of them, could make sense.

Currently, I want to play a Blade Pact Warlock with a few extra spell slots. I plan to start as a Sorcerer for one level and then move forward as Warlock. The character is a mountain dwarf. I actually thought his background and talent for innate magic made sense and could attract a patron. Wow. It suddenly all fits, even if it did not at first!

But let’s be real: I first thought of Mountain Dwarf because of increases to abilities and armor proficiency. And starting as sorcerer? I got the idea because I wanted to be able to cast detect magic without using an invocation. The search for abilities to deal with the game fostered character development into a whole concept which would not have occurred without some limits or barriers or synergies.

I do not feel guilty about the search for effectiveness. I could take it a few steps further but I like some of my suboptimal choices for character reasons. I do not feel guilty about making some choices for increased efficacy. And as it turns out, neither is really inconsistent with the game’s intent. I also do not worry that I could be taking MOAR power vie eldritch blasting all day. My group will not suffer if I want to reduce DPS to fight with a hammer sometimes!

For anyone who likes to merge roleplaying and effectiveness, I would love to hear how you marry the two masters in a seamless whole…

And did you ever doubt your approach or wonder if it was consistent with the game’s design/purpose?

 

[iserith]

For anyone who likes to merge roleplaying and effectiveness, I would love to hear how you marry the two masters in a seamless whole…

Very easily, by knowing that I am in full control of my character. "What would my character would do?" is whatever I say it would do. Whatever I decide it does can often be easily justified with established characterization or with the written personal characteristics (personality traits, ideals, bonds, flaws). When it is less easy, then that just means my character changes in some dramatic way which is at the heart of character development anyway. I think characters should be changed by their experiences as adventurers.

Generally, I create high concept characters that are optimal to the concept, but not always optimal in every way. I then use my player skill to try to succeed, falling back on the character build only when I have to. (Which is when the DM asks for a roll.)

And did you ever doubt your approach or wonder if it was consistent with the game’s design/purpose?

No, but I am constantly challenging myself to have a better understanding of the game's design and purpose and am open to modifying my approach as needed.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Looking back on the game’s roots, I am struck by how much the game was focused on surviving hazards and encounters via problem solving and dice rolling. It seems to me that the strong emphasis on deep roleplaying “my character would not do that even though it is optimal,” is a newer addition to the game. At the very least, its primacy would be a later addition.

Initially the game was a bit more adversarial between the DM and the players, with the characters being more tactical pieces that might be killed quite often. Rerolling often assigned stats in order, then the player would try to fit those ability scores into whatever class they went best
With the growth of the expectation that a PC might survive longer, so also grew the thought that a PC might have an actual character, with its own personality rather than just being the player's avatar in the game.
So also did the option of assigning ability rolls to specific abilities strengthen the idea of starting with a character concept and creating a character fitting that concept.
Both of these options reinforced each other and people grew more attached to their characters and willing to think about them as actual people inhabiting their worlds. With that came the concept that they might have preferences that might be suboptimal within the game, such as a warrior choosing to use an axe rather than a sword for example.

I know roleplaying is important. It is one reason I like TTRPG over games like Diablo for example. But allowing it to trump all other conventions and choices seems to be a recent development. The guilt of not playing the game seriously can really hamper a person’s fun should they be inclined to such seriousness.

Making a fellow player feel bad or lose enjoyment because they aren't roleplaying as you'd like is just as much of a jerk move as doing so because they aren't optimising as you'd like. Extremes to the level where you are impairing the fun of the game should be avoided.

I do not feel guilty about the search for effectiveness. I could take it a few steps further but I like some of my suboptimal choices for character reasons. I do not feel guilty about making some choices for increased efficacy. And as it turns out, neither is really inconsistent with the game’s intent. I also do not worry that I could be taking MOAR power vie eldritch blasting all day. My group will not suffer if I want to reduce DPS to fight with a hammer sometimes!

How or why you made the choices for your character are irrelevant. If the character is fun for the other player's characters to interact with and isn't outshining any of them to the point where they feel marginalised, and you are having fun playing it, then it is a good character.

 

[Warpiglet]

I think that everything should be placed on a continuum. As someone who is still very much in the 1e mindset, I happen to think that there are those who have carried the cult of optimization a little too far. I think that it's perfectly fine for them to play that way, I just don't care for it myself.

Part of this is due to the innate strictures that I've grown up with; to me, I wouldn't play a dwarven monk or a dwarven sorcerer ... because it just feels wrong. It feels wrong to me. I'm fine with other people deciding on that; but I wouldn't do it, because I have my own conceptions and biases, and I am traditional that way. And it gets to the larger point-

I don't ever decide on the mechanics first, and the character second. It's not like optimization was foreign to 1e- there's a reason long swords were so common, and, hey, look at the 5th level Magic User who had to learn Fireball! But there was also less choice to optimize; so many innate abilities were simply gained by lockstep character advancement, and they weren't affected much by choice (your saves advanced by level and class, and you liked it).

So when I play 5e (on those rare occasions that I play), I come up with an idea for a character. A monk that refuses to use any weapons or magic. A misguided warlock that believes his patron is the one true god and doesn't understand that he can't heal people* (undying light-UA). I don't make ineffective characters - I wouldn't create "Bill, the Accounting Warlock with the IRS patron and the 6 CHA," but I know that 5e is robust enough that the characters I make are fine. They contribute. I play them well. And I have fun.

And that's they key. There's nothing wrong with those who want to optimize, and there's nothing wrong with those who want to beer & pretzel, and there's nothing wrong with those who want to have fun playing interesting characters. So long as those people don't try and convince everyone else that they're Doing it Wrong(tm).


*Moreover, doesn't understand that every time he tries, he blasts them to bits. Oops!

I could not agree more strongly with the idea of a continuum. In fact, being a behavioral scientist, I could not help but entertain the idea of making a questionnaire for describing playstyle which could be used to match up "perfect" groups (of players that is--characters are secondary).

The dial has been sliding on my scale for some time. I know where I fall and it is not at an extreme end.

As to your limitations with race and class combinations: I have chosen to move past them for the most part. However, some of the limitations made for novelty when someone found a way to get around them in some way. I still like the idea of strength rogues, tough wizards and so forth because expectations create opportunity for novelty.

I just realize that I had started to buy into more of an emphasis on roleplaying than I really enjoyed. It seems high minded, different, serious. But at the end of the day I want to succeed in tasks too. Roleplaying helps me to do so with style. But I really stay with characters who have both. I like the bonds, flaws and traits a great deal.

Of all the fun I have had, the most has been with real character for characters. In the AD&D (1st edition) days, there were no that many knobs to turn in comparison with feat and skills and so forth (hell even with point buy options!). We went through lots of characters....but the ones that had legs had personality and maybe the lucky find of a magic axe that took things in new directions.

That all being said, I still like to be effective in some things, to have options...sometimes the fun of those choices helps me make a character. Sometimes the character helps me make those choices. So even in character development I am all over the place.

The end result is not right or wrong of course, but should be one of enjoyment. From age 7 to now, in my forties, I find it interesting that I have moved from one extreme to the middle back and then to the middle again. And I am guiltless unless for some reason I were to reduce my friends' enjoyment with my choices, of course.

 

[Warpiglet]

How or why you made the choices for your character are irrelevant. If the character is fun for the other player's characters to interact with and isn't outshining any of them to the point where they feel marginalised, and you are having fun playing it, then it is a good character.

I think this is where I have landed as well. I just want to have fun and hopefully high five my buddy when he rolls well and saves us or to laugh with another about the snottiness of his hilarious halfling's personality. Its all good if its all fun. My only exception to this rule would be selfish players. By that I mean a player who only worries about his own gain in game, and frankly does not think about his actions impact the fun of other players. Fortunately this sort of player is rare in my circles...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

I pretty much agree with lowkey. I think all playstyles have always existed, and my group has always been on character theme first, mechanics second. Additionally, and you mention it in your OP, is that role-playing isn't just role-playing out your character in 1st or 3rd person for things like interaction, but all types of problem solving. It seems a lot of people view the interaction part as the role playing bit, and combat as the roll playing bit. In my experience over 35 years for my group only, a huge chunk of our roleplaying is during combat or other challenges. I.e., taking advantage of our environment and what's going on in the game that has nothing to do with any particular mechanics. Whether that be talking about strategy, flipping over that table to block the room entrance, detailing how we're overcoming that trap or encounter outside of actual combat rolls, etc. For us, you can't divorce role-playing from any pillar of the game, or else you're left with pretty much just a board game. The great thing about TTRPGs over boardgames and CRPGs is that you can use the environment and your character however you imagine, and not limited by an official power/ability or coding.

 

[Warpiglet]

This is a difference that I have often noted.

It is my opinion that one of the larger roleplaying shifts has occured between OSR -> 5e is the difference between experience and design.

In the earliest days, your character's um... character would emerge from their experience and adventures. You might sketch a bit of personality and backstory (but probably not), but instead, they would be defined by what they did, what magic items they gained, and how they acted. The roleplaying would be far more emergent. You might start with with Olaf, the first level fighter who was a blank slate. But then Olaf found a magic trident (Olaf likes tridents now!) and Olaf had some run in at the Barrier Peaks (Olaf has mystic ranged weapons ... heh) and Olaf has vowed to destroy Iuz etc. You learned how to play your character from what you did, not by what you decided before you created him.

Now, I see a lot more design. Full backstories and personalities written before the adventure. Mapped out plans for the next 10+ level (including feats and multiclassing) to make them become what they were intended. Playing to a personality that was designed as opposed to having it emerge.

I'm not saying either is better; just very different.

That is an interesting analysis; I had not thought about it that way for whatever reason, but you are correct. For many, the adventures set the stage for improvisation and these things later hardened into character. We toyed with giving characters phobias or fetishes, but the cooler things were in fact emergent. Consider my bad ass dwarf who developed a hatred and fear of spiders after a near death encounter with large spiders!

However, we often wrote half a page or more character histories...half of the time

I am not sure what is best per se...but I think again about a middle path. i like the idea of some general ideas as guiding principles but i really want to flesh things out in game. I have this warlock I created and do not know exactly how a would be cult leader will play. The joy will be in seeing how that goes as I hack and zap my way to higher levels....

 

[pdzoch]

D&D is the ultimate cooperative game. It is not cooperative just in the sense that the player characters have to work together. It is cooperative in that everyone at the table builds the story together. I custom build my campaign for my players. When they make character or class decisions, I figure out a way to integrate it into the game. NPCs are a large part of making that happen. When one of my players took a prestige class, Tattooed Monk, I created a monk monastery that practiced that form of mastery, including the Grandmaster who mentored the player character. When one of my players entered a bard’s college, I likewise came up with the peers and masters of the college. I also created a competing bard’s college, The College of War, as a nemesis. One of the player characters in my current game has a sailor background. So, a sea going voyage was bound to happen and I brought in old sailing buddies and famous and infamous ship’s captains. Another has the noble background, so the game has more political intrigue that I originally intended. As the game progressed, I noticed the players making character decisions in response to the story playing out in the campaign, seeking certain magical items, selecting certain feats, spells, or other specialization. Ultimately, the characters define the world and the world define the characters.

I think the rules of the game describe generally the characteristics of the player races and classes. Sure, elves are dexterous, but are ALL elves dexterous? Sure that racial bonus to dexterity makes elves fine rogues, but are ALL elves rogues? Elves who play fighters are naturally inclined to use finesse weapons and employ dexterity as a primary trait, but nothing prevents an elf from using strength as a fighter. Just because an elf does not have racial bonuses to wisdom does not mean there are no elven clerics.

I do not worry too much about a player selecting certain races – class combos. I expect certain naturally paired combinations. And I do not expect much explanation unusual combinations either. Every race has clerics and every race has rogues, regardless of their racial inclination towards wisdom or dexterity. A player who makes conscious decisions about the mechanics of the race rules to foster an effective build of a character class also does not bother me. I think variation from campaign race norms would typically be from character races with advantages to do so, and those character races less supportive of the unusual build and variations would be less inclined to do so. [Sure, plenty of people who can’t sing still show up for American Idol, but they don’t go far without some sort of talent].

The game has so many different ways to play, with practically an endless combination of class, race, and backgrounds. I think the game is deliberately design to support that option to be creative more so than the optimal min-maxer builds. In boardgames, these "point-salad" designs allow players to adjust to challenges in the game and disruption of original strategies to still allow for a path to victory. In TTRPG, this is still true and by design.

I will admit that I was not a fan of the prestige classes. Especially when there seemed to be no end of them in previous D&D editions. To me, it was shortcutting the character build by presenting a pre-packaged class, background, story that could have been developed naturally through the normal roleplay of the character in a cooperative campaign. But that said, when my players chose one, we discussed how that prestige class worked in the current campaign. There were times when the players themselves opted out of prestige classes because it did not make sense in the current game – instead, it became the germ of an idea for another character in a different campaign later.

So far, I have not seen anyone suffer any backlash for playing sub-optimal characters. Ridicule, sometimes, but generally good natured. As long as a character brings something to the party, and displays at least one strength to benefit the party, the group has been very forgiving of any other shortcomings in character build.