Judging character performance

[Bullgrit]

Clerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, “cautious” characters who do not pull their own weight – these are all clear examples of a POOR [performance] rating.
--- AD&D1 DMG, by Gary Gygax, pg 86

Do you agree with this description of character performance?

Bullgrit

 

[Erekose]

Well if the class-based system proposed by Gary in AD&D is designed to make roleplaying easier by establishing a class for each classic archetype, then his description in the quote is a typical portrayal of that archetype.

I'm not sure my players have I've ever had typical characters but I can see where he was coming from.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Do you agree with this description of character performance?

Bullgrit

No, I don't. Neither does 3.5 edition.
In 3.5 the PHB says it is okay for Dwarfs even Lawful Good dwarves to steal because it makes a more rounded personality: thus a better character.
It uses Tordek as the example who has that flaw of stealing.

And forcing Clerics to be heal bots? Sheesh what a nice image he had of Clerics.

And Thieves must steakl from their own party: or be labeled bad players. Nice teamwork that creates.

The only aspect I can sort of agree with:
“cautious” characters who do not pull their own weight

That does work because it isn't very realistic in most cases for that sort to be adventuring. Why are we taking Joe the commoner again?

 

[S'mon]

I never personally used the 1e training system of which this was a part. The idea was that the closer the PC stuck to their archetype, the easier & cheaper it was to train to level up. I don't think it's a terrible approach but it's not one I use.

 

[Umbran]

Do you agree with this description of character performance?

No, but I'm not using a mechanic that calls for performance to be measured, either. That measure made some sense in its original context, but that context is not relevant to my game.

 

[MonkeyDragon]

I agree about halfway.

On the one hand, trying to force characters into fullfilling an archetype sucks. Let people build the characters they want and play the characters they want and don't get cranky because one of the "roles" isn't being filled. Also, with all the options out there, the same class can be built many different ways and a character shouldn't be pidgeonholed.

On the other hand, the system DOES work the smoothest (IME) when the basic roles are covered. The problem arises when there IS someone to fill the role, and they refuse to do it.

The rogue who refuses to search for traps. He's the only one who can do it, and he won't. The cleric who refuses to heal the party. This one I've seen firsthand. The cleric was a combat-monkey, all well and good. He would bust out his good healing for himself and one other person in the party. But there was one more front-line fighter, plus the people who stood in the back, and that's where things got stingy. I was a backup healer and I tried to take care of what I could.

I'm not saying that the cleric has to save all her spells for healing. But when you have a character that fills a role, FILL THE ROLE. Contribute your skills to the group.

As far as characters not pulling their weight, THAT gets really frustrating. I think it's every player's responsibility to make a character that can contribute on a mechanical level and WILL contribute on a roleplaying level. Not necessarily a min-maxed overpowered munchkin machine. Just pick what you want your character to be able to do, and build a character that's good at that schtick to the best of your ability. Then when it comes time for combat (or another challenge), do what you've built your character to do well.

Mistakes happen, poor judgement happens. But as far as combat goes, the game is about group skills and group tactics. A person who consistantly fails to pull their weight brings down the overall effectivness of the group, which lessens the fun for everyone. Ideally, a party should function as a well-oiled machine. Teamwork teamwork rah rah rah!

 

[gizmo33]

I don't think Gary used this training system that he described. I recall someone asked him about it (at a Con or somewhere). This came up during some old 1e vs. 3e edition war but I don't know where the reference is now. The training system was inspired by one of Gary's PCs who found a gemstone that increased it's value (according to the 1e method) until it became fantastically valuable, and Gary was seeking (as old school DMs often did) a way of divesting the PC from his treasure. If this story about it's reactive origin is true, I'm not surprised that this rule never had much influence over people playing the game. Then again, I think among people still playing 1e the rule is more likely to be used now than it was back in the day. (Folks more flexible about rules were probably more likely to migrate to the new edition.)

Tenser the magic-user actually went against type by wading into melee (and Tenser's Transformation is an homage to that) but I saw nothing in what Gary and folks wrote about him to suggest that he suffered any for playing against his type. In fact, the Tenser's Transformation spell would seem like a trap for denying the casting wizard XP in this context.

 

[Sparafucile]

On the one hand, trying to force characters into fullfilling an archetype sucks. Let people build the characters they want and play the characters they want and don't get cranky because one of the "roles" isn't being filled.

QFT

Part of the Dm's job is to offer an experience somewhat based on party roles, and if everyone is a fighter for example, then the campaign flavor needs to shift somewhat to reflect the strengths of that group (and in turn, the gaming desires of the players).

Plus, I don't think a DM should EVER be in a position to judge whether another player is playing their "proper" role. That "DM is God" mentality breaks up alot of groups (Plus, it's just psychologically awkward).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Do you agree with this description of character performance?

Within its original context? Yes.

The original context was that, in order to [easily] improve in the class functions of a class, one had to perform the class functions of that class. That idea makes sense.

Clerics who do not remain faithful to their deity are going to require more remedials than clerics who bolster their faith. Cowardly fighters probably didn't learn as much about fighting as bold ones. Magic-users who don't use magic probably don't understand their spells as well. Thieves who refrain from using their thief abilities, likewise, probably haven't learned a whole lot about thieving.

In actual implimentation?

Well, consider that part of the original level concept was that it rewarded players for learning the game, and it makes better sense in implimentation as well. For example, if your magic-user jumps to 8th level without really understanding his spells, the odds are good that he (and his party) will eventually pay a bigger forfeit than longer training times.

The balance in 1e was achieved by the players, not by the system per se. If the players chose to take their 1st level PCs straight to the 4th level of the dungeon, they could do so. If they had mastered the system, they might even do well in quick, hit-and-run bursts.

Training times did more than punish the players; they helped them to guage whether or not they understood their characters' abilities well enough to push into the deep levels.

1e is not 3e, nor is it 4e.

So, in implimentation, I would also say yes.

 

[Lanefan]

I largely agree with the examples, as good reverse examples of what an archetypal character from each class should do. But I also don't mind someone who plays a character against type (e.g. a front-line Thief or a rat-thief Fighter*) provided both the player and the character can pull it off. If nothing else, if what they're doing hurts the party, the party will sort 'em out soon enough.

I run 1e, and I do use training rules, but they're much different than the 1e RAW would have them and the "performance rating" business never enters into it.

* - full disclosure: my namesake character *was* a rat-thief Fighter; who'd steal whatever he could when the chance presented, so it should come as no surprise I don't mind such things. Didn't hurt that he went on to marry a Thief: she taught him how to steal, he taught her how to fight...ah, those were good times...

Lan-"I found this magic sword lying around"-efan