D&D 5E Role playing and wargaming

[pemerton]

In the interest of contributing to the collection of thoughts about D&D in the 70s, although it is admittedly not Gygax, here is Mike Carr in the Foreword to the AD&D PHB (one of a list of "guidelines ... to make the game experience more fun for everyone concerned...")

"Get in the spirit of the game, and use your persona to play with a special personality all its own. Interact with the other player characters and non-player characters to give the game campaign a unique flavor and "life"." (2 June 1978)​

FWIW

Yep, I quoted it upthread. In that post I also pointed to the other passage in the PHB that refers to PC personality, namely, the discussion of morale. (Which explains that PCs don't check morale, because the player chooses whether they are of cowardly or brave personality.)

I don't think these two passages are comparable, in scope and even intent, to the 2nd ed PHB.

I think that, in 1978, it was taken for granted that you would have a name for your character, and might have some basic tendencies. But the full ramifications hadn't been thought through, at least in print and in the published guidelines.

For instance, suppose you decide that your character always attacks goblins on sight, because she hates them so much. How is that meant to interact with the advice about always casing the dungeon before staging a treasure-recovery raid? Or with the advice about avoiding wandering monsters unless it's impossible to do so?

The guidelines are silent. The XP rules are silent - they explicate "good roleplaying" simply by reference to class function and alignment. And speaking of the latter, does a character who has LG written on her sheet, but who sees some goblins and therefore attacks them (because she is someone who attacks goblins on sight), thereby jeopardising the wellbeing of her friends, lose her LG alignment?

The original AD&D rulebooks, and Moldvay Basic, simply don't provide any guidance for answering these questions.

The guidance in the 2nd ed books is, on the whole, no better - it basically tells the GM that s/he is to sort it all out some way or another - but I think they were at least conscious of the issues.

This is not a criticism of Gygax's rulebooks. Rather, it's an observation about them - they don't in any serious way engage with the proposition that the aim of playing the game is to cultivate a unique personality for one's PC. I think those writers simply saw that as a byproduct of what (to them) was the real deal - namely, beating a dungeon via skilled play.

 

[pemerton]

I was re-reading Christopher Kubasik's "interactive toolkit" essay and came across this, which seemed apposite to the discussion of the STR-based, scimitar wielding fighter:

The obsession with one caliber or weapon type over another: Although there are gross differences that can be taken into account between weapons, in a piece of fiction all that matters is whether you or your opponent goes down. Weapons are currently focused on so that a certain kind of player can think himself wise and clever in matters paramilitary. Character-based games don't need this baggage. It shifts focus from character and character goals to thoughts about how to get an extra two points of damage in the next fight.​

If we want a player's choice of weapon to express something about the character (eg cultural tradition), then why do we add elements to that choice (like variable weapon dice) that create incentives that push in other directions?

I can see why WotC does this: they are trying to publish rules with maximum market appeal, and some players will insist on variable weapon dice.

But for those who don't care about DPR or which sword is bigger than which, why not just give the STR-scimitar guy a d8 to damage like the longsword wielders get?

The only reason I can see is because variable weapon dice have become fetishised in the same way as XP-for-kills.

 

[Chaosmancer]

To give just a simple example: if your claim about your character is that s/he is brave, then show me that in mechanical terms. Show me how s/he is resistant to fear. Show me how her morale is unbreakable. If you show me your low-hp thief who has no serious WIS/will save/defence and will fall unconscious at the first turn of the wheel on the rack, I can see how your character might be reckless or foolhardy, but I'm not seeing anything that shows me s/he is brave.

I think this is one of my biggest quibbles with all Role-Playing Games. And, amusingly enough, it is almost exclusively fear that has this baggage for me. 5e has incredibly few ways to prevent fear from wrecking a character.

However, it also has very few enemies that inflict fear, and those that do make sense that they do. Dragons and high level demons should shake the soul of even the stoutest of heart.

I actually ran into this with a character of mine, thinking back, I was playing a Storm Sorcerer who was... Prideful, we were high level, and due to story and DM homebrewing I was well on my way to being an Elemental Lord. Fighting our... 4th dragon? I was hit with fear. Now, this guy would never retreat from an enemy, he wouldn't acknowledge he was scared.. but I was hit with fear. Little quirk of 5e, fear doesn't make you run away, you just can't move closer to the enemy. I was under fear for the entire fight (stupid high save DCs) but my character showed his arrogance and "bravery" by not moving from his spot. He didn't move forward, but he never retreated. It was as close as I could get.