D&D 5E What is the "role" in roleplaying

[I'm A Banana]

By the same token, personality is not necessarily independent of mechanics.


Going back at least to the role v roll controversy, there's been this tendency to want to isolate mechanics from something they're integral to: the game, itself. That impulse is problematic and counter-productive.

I agree that they're entangled (or at least that they can be - and I tend to prefer if they are).

The simple trait of Rath being flighty, though, isn't fulfilling any particular function, by itself. Well, maybe it's filling the function of "a personality that Rath's player would enjoy portraying."

The point about skills aren't class is like discounting my points because I used you're instead of your. The point is they are player choices. They are somewhat related to class by stats and by availability to the class- obviously you can get skills other ways.

Personality is player choice, too. In fact, in RPG's in general, personality is a more frequently made player choice than class or skill set (since some games have no classes or skills, but still have players portraying personalities).

Yes. When outcomes are random and the player choices have no way to improve the outcome, that is poor design for an rpg. If I'm at a table and the dm says 'left or right?' And I say ok, I cast divination. No info. Ok perception. Nothing. Ok Insight. Nothing. Ok, left. You fall into a pit trap and die. Then the dm is going to playing with the tumble weeds and crickets.

Outcome wasn't the bit I was interested in examining with that. I was looking at the ability of personality to affect fiction when removed (as much as feasible) from class function, to clarify that class function isn't a prerequisite to affecting fiction.

Actual outcome of the choice doesn't matter there as much as what each personality sees as a possible outcome. Maybe Falstaff's right, maybe Lidda's right, maybe both are, maybe neither is. Not really relevant for determining if their personalities can affect fiction (mostly) independent of their class functions.

 

[Henry]

No one much liked clerics in the olden days. That didn't stop people (usually the last person to join the group) from playing them, because they were so vital to the playability of the game.

I was one of those wierdos whose favorite class in AD&D was the Cleric (and human Clerics at that!) and when I wasn't playing clerics I was playing Druids, because everyone seriously underestimated AD&D Druids. (You know any other classes that get fight-capable companions at 1st level, and 3rd level spells at 3rd character level?) They were really the only classes that could go adventuring by themselves, really, because they were the only ones who had reliable healing in AD&D.

Plus, I just loved the role playing aesthetics of clerics back then. My favorite, a cleric of Helm, lasted till he was murdered by an assassin at 6th level (bastard player decided to murder my PC for the XP!)

'Adjusted?' To what? Take on one kobold at a time and retreat for a week?

I get that everyone played AD&D differently, I really do, I've often made a point of it - but that is is just...

...just...

... it feels like what Vincini thought 'inconceivable' meant.




Seriously, though, fighter, ranger, thief, they each had their traditional functions (frontliner, tracking, getting killed by traps), and each certainly must have been functional in the context of that super-slow-motion, weeks-of-resting between fights, 'adventuring' party (sorry, I know I said 'seriously' but I just couldn't keep it up...
...the very idea....
...sorry - I'll shut up now).

It's funny, but we just didn't play that way in AD&D. For one thing, resting took so long that anything time-sensitive was doomed if you played like that. Secondly, monsters had much lower hit points and went down a lot easier (although so did we!) You either worked to avoid combat, or you sucked it up and kept playing even without full strength, because sometimes you just didn't have the luxury to rest for days.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I was one of those wierdos whose favorite class in AD&D was the Cleric (and human Clerics at that!)

In 1e non/demi- human clerics were either NPC-only or very limited in level, so that's understandable. The Cleric really was a powerhouse, long before CoDzilla. Fighter-like AC, good hps, good combat abilities, /more/ spells at low level than the magic-user, and all spells available to memorize. Crazy. But the role and the concept made it brutally unpopular.

and when I wasn't playing clerics I was playing Druids, because everyone seriously underestimated AD&D Druids.
(You know any other classes that get fight-capable companions at 1st level, and 3rd level spells at 3rd character level?)

So true. I maintain that I played Druids so much because I was totally into thing Celtic back then, though.

For one thing, resting took so long that anything time-sensitive was doomed if you played like that.

That's kinda the point. Cleric, you might sometimes have to 'rest' two days in a row (rest, memorize, cast everything as healing, rest again). No magical healing, weeks - it just wasn't practical.

Secondly, monsters had much lower hit points and went down a lot easier (although so did we!) You either worked to avoid combat, or you sucked it up and kept playing even without full strength, because sometimes you just didn't have the luxury to rest for days.

There's not only the obvious risk of death at that point, there was the brutal mandatory week of complete rest after being reduced to 0 hps.

The simple trait of Rath being flighty, though, isn't fulfilling any particular function, by itself. Well, maybe it's filling the function of "a personality that Rath's player would enjoy portraying."

I feel an impulse to take this line of reasoning a little too far, and don't feel like fighting it down, so...

A 'flighty' character could fill the function of moving things along when more prudent heads are stuck debating difficulty options or stymied for lack of information, or taking a risk no one else is up for, etc...

And, maybe it's reflected in the mechanics - a low WIS, for instance, which affects where he functions well.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sunseeker]

Little bit of column A, little big of column B.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Corwin]

Little bit of column A, little big of column B.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I feel an impulse to take this line of reasoning a little too far, and don't feel like fighting it down, so...

A 'flighty' character could fill the function of moving things along when more prudent heads are stuck debating difficulty options or stymied for lack of information, or taking a risk no one else is up for, etc...

It could, but it doesn't necessarily. I'm not saying that these are two different things, but more that my example was a point near one end of a curve, designed to show that function isn't necessary for one to have an effect on fiction. One could have a function and affect fiction, too, but one could also not have a function and still affect fiction.

And, maybe it's reflected in the mechanics - a low WIS, for instance, which affects where he functions well.

Yeah, and that that point you've added more than just personality. Good, in my mind, but less useful for illustrating my point. One could also have a high WIS and still play a flighty character!

 

[Tony Vargas]

One could have a function and affect fiction, too, but one could also not have a function and still affect fiction.

I think if you've had a meaningful effect on the fiction, you've found a function.

 

[Faenor]

Outcome wasn't the bit I was interested in examining with that. I was looking at the ability of personality to affect fiction when removed (as much as feasible) from class function, to clarify that class function isn't a prerequisite to affecting fiction.

Actual outcome of the choice doesn't matter there as much as what each personality sees as a possible outcome. Maybe Falstaff's right, maybe Lidda's right, maybe both are, maybe neither is. Not really relevant for determining if their personalities can affect fiction (mostly) independent of their class functions.

Outcomes matters. They're what make it a game. If you are setting up situations that take the ability of the players to improve their odds of having a good outcome through their character design choices, then that's poor design.

I do agree that player choices of character personality should influence the choice they make. Ok, bbeg is left? Gung ho warrior says let's go get him. Cautious, high int wiz says no, I can tell that right leads around to the back door and we can surprise him that way.