D&D 5E Role playing and wargaming

[Mercule]

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

Don't overthink it. I mean that in multiple senses. Really, though, I used to go to wargaming cons and played lots of minis games (I mean the kind that use tape measures, not hexes). I like really games with a lot of complex strategy potential. Not everyone does. When I play with folks who are up for it, I love it. When I play with folks who aren't as gung-ho, I tune it down a bit. That doesn't mean I don't still use strategy, I just don't take the other players' moves with the same level of consideration that I would in another setting. It's still a ton of fun.

I've also taught lots of people to play lots of games. The Avalon Hill Advanced Civilization is one of my all time favorites. There is not a prayer of a new player beating me (or anyone else who has played it dozens of times). I do not steamroll them. It's not fun for me, short term, because it doesn't prove anything. It's not fun for them, at all. It's not fun for me, long term, because they probably won't play again.

The same goes for D&D. There's a level of optimization that I can't sink beneath, but my main goal is to encourage the other players to want to come back again. If I dominate the table, they won't have fun. I could probably build them a character, but if it's too complex or relies on too many nuanced rules, it won't be fun, either.

Basically, I play at or slightly above the level of the table. Of course, it probably helps that I've done the wargaming, know what it's like, and would probably be doing that as a hobby if I really wanted it. I prefer the role-playing and narrative aspect, which is why I play D&D. I'm more likely to get irritated at a player who has a bland PC than one with an under-powered PC. YMMV.

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

Not really. RPGs have evolved. I'm invested in my own fun. I respect the authors' contributions, but that's as far as it goes.

 

[Shiroiken]

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.

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?

When I make a character, the first thing is an idea of what type of character I want to play (spellcaster, non-caster, special/weird, etc.), because I have to want to play that type of character for it to last. Once i have an idea (sometimes a class or race will already be determined, but often not), I figure out who the character I want to play is (i.e. the personality and maybe some backstory). Once I have that hammered down, I then go about making the best possible character within the parameter's I've set. Once I finish the character, I go back and detail the backstory to make all aspects of the character work together.

You example is different than mine, but everyone's process is unique to them. Nothing about the character seems "cheesy," which is where many roleplayers object.

As for the game's design/purpose, it doesn't matter. What mattes is how it works for you and your group. If you are all happy, then you can be doing things that makes Gygax spin in his grave for all anyone should care. There are many people who's style oppose my own, and I don't give a damn unless they try to convince me that their way is The One True Way (tm).

 

[nexalis]

That's why I said eighties or nineties, rather than seventies or eighties. Prior to AD&D 2E, thinking about things from your character's perspective wasn't really a "thing" that people did, let-alone the primary way in which players were expected to interact with the game.

This statement strikes me as particularly absurd. As I stated in an earlier post, my group and I were roleplaying and crafting detailed backstories for our characters as far back as 1978. Story and character development were center stage for us from the very first. I very much doubt that we were alone in this!

Why do people insist on generalizing about the past based on their own anecdotal experiences? Play styles differed back then just as much as they do now!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why do people insist on generalizing about the past based on their own anecdotal experiences? Play styles differed back then just as much as they do now!

Because this thread is explicitly asking for personal experiences on the topic. In my experience, role-playing wasn't a "thing" in D&D until 2E came out, based on my anecdotal evidence of how people describe playing each edition, and how the books are written.

It's good that your experience is different. I'm glad to know that some people figured out the whole role-playing thing before the books started encouraging it. I wish more people with your perspective would post in this thread.

 

[nexalis]

It's good that your experience is different. I'm glad to know that some people figured out the whole role-playing thing before the books started encouraging it. I wish more people with your perspective would post in this thread.

I don't agree with your premise that the books didn't encourage roleplaying prior to AD&D2E. Take a look at the player characters described in the back of the original Rogue's Gallery published back in 1980 (https://dnd.rem.uz/Advanced D&D (unsorted)/AD&D - The Rogues Gallery.pdf). You'll see that they all have quirks, personalities, and backstories suitable to a modern game with roleplaying as its emphasis.

Character building and personality development were at the core of the game from its earliest days. Different groups chose to emphasize it to different degrees of course, but it was definitely there in all sorts of articles and supplements that were published back in the day. I definitely can't take credit for somehow figuring it out in a vacuum as you seem to imply.

On the other hand, the amount of time and energy spent on character optimization is something that I would characterize as a relatively new phenomenon. Sure, people optimized their characters to varying degrees back in the day, but there weren't any "optimization guides", or "DPR analysis", etc., in any type of published format that I am aware of.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't agree with your premise that the books didn't encourage roleplaying prior to AD&D2E. Take a look at the player characters described in the back of the original Rogue's Gallery published back in 1980 (https://dnd.rem.uz/Advanced D&D (unsorted)/AD&D - The Rogues Gallery.pdf). You'll see that they all have quirks, personalities, and backstories suitable to a modern game with roleplaying as its emphasis.

I certainly wouldn't call that a core product, and it doesn't exactly jive with what I get from reading the Basic rulebook, but point taken.

On the other hand, the amount of time and energy spent on character optimization is something that I would characterize as a relatively new phenomenon. Sure, people optimized their characters to varying degrees in the early days, but there weren't any "optimization guides", or "DPR analysis", etc., in any type of published format as far as I am aware.

This trend is much easier to understand. Prior to (roughly) Skills & Powers, there was no way to optimize. You had your rolls (which people were putting in the obvious places, for as long as they had the option), and your class features (which you had no say over), and that was pretty much it. There was nothing like feats or character points or a budget to spend on magical items, so there was no way to optimize them. There just wasn't much to talk about.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't agree with your premise that the books didn't encourage roleplaying prior to AD&D2E. Take a look at the player characters described in the back of the original Rogue's Gallery published back in 1980 (https://dnd.rem.uz/Advanced D&D (unsorted)/AD&D - The Rogues Gallery.pdf). You'll see that they all have quirks, personalities, and backstories suitable to a modern game with roleplaying as its emphasis.

Character building and personality development were at the core of the game from its earliest days. Different groups chose to emphasize it to different degrees of course, but it was definitely there in all sorts of articles and supplements that were published back in the day. I definitely can't take credit for somehow figuring it out in a vacuum as you seem to imply.

On the other hand, the amount of time and energy spent on character optimization is something that I would characterize as a relatively new phenomenon. Sure, people optimized their characters to varying degrees back in the day, but there weren't any "optimization guides", or "DPR analysis", etc., in any type of published format that I am aware of.

Not to pile on, but when we were still transitioning from OD&D to AD&D (OSR to 1e), there was an article in Dragon Magazine #11. You can look it up. "The Play's the Thing."

From the intro paragraph-

"As our character grows in experience and memories, so does his depth of personality, becoming more individualistic and unique. Role playing is a side of D+D which gives it much of its flavor. As a player defines his character’s desires,his hopes and fears, weaknesses and vices, his commitment to him becomes deeper and this investment leads the player to more dangerous but satisfying exploits. Much is missed by those who play their characters always with the same personality, never trying on new faces or actions."

Guess what the (short) article is about? Yes, about how in order to properly enjoy (O)D&D like everyone was, you should be playing to a character ... or, as they put it, roleplaying. They write that role playing (as they style it) is already common, and many people have already devised tables for backgrounds, traits, etc. Sound familiar?

December issue, 1976. So I would say the ideas were pretty widespread prior to 2e.

Exactly. And even if you didn't have access to the Dragon magazine, pretty much everyone had a copy of KotBL at some point. And in that module, there are personality traits there for your NPCs. It's also literally described in the Introduction of the 1e PHB the importance of role playing and imagination*. This idea that role-playing didn't start until 1989 is patently false, and quite frankly absurd. This isn't a case of "well my anecdotal experience is different from yours, so neither of us is wrong.", because we have example after example of objective information we can point to that supports one side. When you have evidence, it no longer is an argument of matter of opinion. So when you actually look at how the books are written, you see stuff like this:

*
As a role player, you become Falstaff the fighter. You know how strong,
intelligent, wise, healthy, dexterous and, relatively speaking, how
commanding a personality you have. Details as to your appearance your
body proportions, and your history can be produced by you or the Dungeon
Master. You act out the game as this character, staying within your "godgiven
abilities", and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics
(called alignment). You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim
and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Folstaff the
fighter, angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic! The Dungeon
Master will act the parts of "everyone else", and will present to you a
variety of new characters to talk with, drink with, gamble with, adventure
with, and often fight with! Each of you will become an ortful thespian as
time goes by - and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown
as you become Falstaff the Invincible!

 

[nexalis]

I certainly wouldn't call that a core product, and it doesn't exactly jive with what I get from reading the Basic rulebook, but point taken.

For an example from the core rulebooks, note that the original DMG had tables for NPC personality traits. I'm sure there are other examples from the original core books, but my memory is not what it used to be. The article mentioned by [MENTION=88539]LowKey[/MENTION] is a perfect piece of corroborating evidence. Role-playing was not only a thing, it was the thing that catapulted D&D to its position of prominence.

 

[Sacrosanct]

For an example from the core rulebooks, note that the original DMG had tables for NPC personality traits. I'm sure there are other examples from the original core books, but my memory is not what it used to be. The article mentioned by [MENTION=88539]LowKey[/MENTION] is a perfect piece of corroborating evidence. Role-playing was not only a thing, it was the thing that catapulted D&D to its position of prominence.

Saelorn has me blocked, so he can't read my posts. But I'd certainly consider the Player's Handbook a core product. And as you can see from my post, it clearly states that role playing is a thing.