-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Watchmen have brought *real* role-playing to D&D
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
And then we come full circle with certain segments of the "old school" crowd claiming that such things are not "real" roleplaying.
LotFP: RPG: Role-Playing is not...
LotFP: RPG: Role-Playing is not...
Scribble
First Post
I don't know if there's a circle. I think it's just another example that "You play wrong!" has existed for a VERY long time.
What I find interesting is how you can look at examples of pop culture like this (as well as books, movies, and games) and almost get a snapshot of the prevailant human tastes at the time. I mean is it a coincidence that games like Vampire: TM came out at roughly the same time period and started gaining in popularity? Or shows like The Wonder Years, or even The Cosby Show (which despite being comedy also tended to focus on deeper character growth storylines.)
It's good for a player to have an interesting character. It's also good for the player to accept that bad things may happen to his character, that his character may try and fail, and that his character may die (all this happens in Watchmen too).
In my thoroughly Old School campaign (1975 Empire of the Petal Throne), we have all kinds. We have a player whose character has a portrait (drawn by himself, since he's an artist), a well-developed personality and who rolls against his character's intelligence to see if he thinks of things (I don't require this... it's a limitation he places upon himself). We have a player of a fairly workmanlike fighter who has yet to reveal any deeper personality traits (we know that she's an amazon warrior chick, that's about it)... and that's entirely sufficient and she participates very well. We have a well-developed priest with a complex backstory, and some other characters who have some development but not so deep.
It all works. Each player develops their character as far as they wish and find interesting. Then things happen during play that can be used as springboards, if they player wishes, to further development.
What we do not do is have a character enter the game with a pre-approved "script immunity" and a sure destiny of greatness. Greatness is won by proper risk management (i.e. smart play). That is true even though sometimes a player will have his character do something deliberately dumb because it is fun.
I think it's a mistake to try to take these things as absolute positions. If you want to play a developed character, go for it. If you just want to be a grim slayer-of-baddies, go for it. Whatever turns out to be fun. Just don't expect the Ref to constantly engineer your survival... when you decide to fight a monster, its blows subtract from your hit points, not from the paragraphs of your backstory.
In my thoroughly Old School campaign (1975 Empire of the Petal Throne), we have all kinds. We have a player whose character has a portrait (drawn by himself, since he's an artist), a well-developed personality and who rolls against his character's intelligence to see if he thinks of things (I don't require this... it's a limitation he places upon himself). We have a player of a fairly workmanlike fighter who has yet to reveal any deeper personality traits (we know that she's an amazon warrior chick, that's about it)... and that's entirely sufficient and she participates very well. We have a well-developed priest with a complex backstory, and some other characters who have some development but not so deep.
It all works. Each player develops their character as far as they wish and find interesting. Then things happen during play that can be used as springboards, if they player wishes, to further development.
What we do not do is have a character enter the game with a pre-approved "script immunity" and a sure destiny of greatness. Greatness is won by proper risk management (i.e. smart play). That is true even though sometimes a player will have his character do something deliberately dumb because it is fun.
I think it's a mistake to try to take these things as absolute positions. If you want to play a developed character, go for it. If you just want to be a grim slayer-of-baddies, go for it. Whatever turns out to be fun. Just don't expect the Ref to constantly engineer your survival... when you decide to fight a monster, its blows subtract from your hit points, not from the paragraphs of your backstory.
Remathilis
Legend
and I couldn't agree with LotFP less.
That, my friends, isn't role-playings. Its chess. I give his "character" as much concern as I would a pawn or the Shoe in monopoly.
If I'm not playing D&D to create a character, I'm playing a toon with nothing more than a handful or numbers scrawled on a sheet of paper. No depth. No history. No quirks and talents. No dreams, fears, loves and hates.
Might as well pay WoW for all that means to me.
That, my friends, isn't role-playings. Its chess. I give his "character" as much concern as I would a pawn or the Shoe in monopoly.
If I'm not playing D&D to create a character, I'm playing a toon with nothing more than a handful or numbers scrawled on a sheet of paper. No depth. No history. No quirks and talents. No dreams, fears, loves and hates.
Might as well pay WoW for all that means to me.
Daniel D. Fox
Explorer
This, this and this.
Diablo at the table doesn't interest me whatsoever. Thankfully, I have a great group of players that have been playing together with me for about 12 years who think the same way.
JimLotFP
First Post
When I play (sadly that rarely happens for various reasons) instead of running a game, I always give my characters individual personalities and such. I'm not saying doing so is bad, at all.
What I am saying is that doing so is not the core of what "role-playing" means. You don't *need* to create a unique personality for your character in order to be role-playing. It's an add-on, an ornament to the basic structure, for greater enjoyment. When you play D&D, your basic "role" is determined foremost by class, race, and alignment (which I completely forgot about in the original blog post). I think Gygax's guidelines in the AD&D training rules (1e DMG p86) would indicate he had thoughts along those lines, and I don't think he thought personalities and characterizations were bad things at all.
What I am saying is that doing so is not the core of what "role-playing" means. You don't *need* to create a unique personality for your character in order to be role-playing. It's an add-on, an ornament to the basic structure, for greater enjoyment. When you play D&D, your basic "role" is determined foremost by class, race, and alignment (which I completely forgot about in the original blog post). I think Gygax's guidelines in the AD&D training rules (1e DMG p86) would indicate he had thoughts along those lines, and I don't think he thought personalities and characterizations were bad things at all.
Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
Method acting VS Improv.
In my experience, method acting makes the games too personal.
JackSmithIV
First Post
I prefer Meisner technique, personally.
Similar Threads
- Locked
