Players choose what their PCs do . . .

FrogReaver · Jul 21, 2019

pemerton said:
Now can someone tell me how that sort of play is going to put fundamental pressure on the player's conception of the character? I've not seen that in the real world, and I'm not seeing it in these descriptions either.

We have given you all kinds of examples. You dismiss them all because there's no dice involved.

So let me give you a 5e example with dice this time. Tonight my character volunteered for a magical ritual whose outcome was uncertain that would on a failure kill him and on a success take his soul. The ritual succeeded and so now my PC has no soul.

Note that it was fully in my control to volunteer for this and that I roleplayed my character honestly in volunteering. Note that neither outcome was a good outcome for me - but one much worse than the other. Does this example qualify as a challenge to my characterization?

If not why not?

FrogReaver · Jul 21, 2019

pemerton said:
The transcript might be the same, but the play experience won't have been.

Yes, different mechanics can influence different play experiences.

Note: a play experience is not a roleplay experience. What I mean by this is - Many play experiences are achieved by introducing mechanics that influence play toward a certain kind of experience, but those mechanics simply increase drama and/or tension for the player without actually doing anything for the actual roleplaying. I think you may be confusing mechanics that enhance play to evoke a certain feel and certain tensions with enhancing roleplay.

Additionally, in order to achieve that play experience, those systems put more limitations on your roleplay decisions than systems without those mechanics.

Tony Vargas · Jul 21, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Sure. I would just love once to hear their take on the pros of 5e in relation to roleplaying.

Its an RPG, the whole thing is about roleplaying. Relative to the other WotC eds the biggest 'pro' in 5e is the DM - DM Empowerment.

But, the real "pro" of 5e is...

What can it do that all these other systems can't?

Move product in volumes not seen since the 80s.

FrogReaver · Jul 21, 2019

Manbearcat said:
Ill answer your question:

Let me preface this with: thank you for answering the question.

1) 5e doesn’t get enough credit for its Social Interaction mechanics. In a system that is about GM-mediated puzzle-solving, they did a great job of exemplifying that with a subsystem that feels like Wheel of Fortune or Pictionary in play...which, coincidentally is similar to trying to get to know a person and influence them.

Interesting description. It's not one I would have made... but sounds good so far!

2) Background Traits, though limited, do a great job of providing the kind of cross-character player fiat that was only available to spellcasters in AD&D and 3.x.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.

3) Lair and Legendary Actions are quite good for thematic and tactical dynamism. If only they were orthodox across monsters.

agreed, but I'm not sure how that impacts roleplaying. Very good mechanic though.

4) 5e makes no bones about its emulation of AD&D. I called it AD&D 3e in the play-test because it was utterly obvious that they were surveying, consulting, and designing with intent toward that paradigm. What does it do well:

* The heavy GM mediated experience of 2e where players are touring a setting or being run through a preconceived metaplot (either GM conceived or an AP). The opacity and GM facing resolution machinery and the GMing ethos (spotlight balancing, lead storytelling, et al) allows for GMs to deftly curate the experience, deploying Force and Illusionism where necessary to achieve the desired result of the experience of the setting, metaplot, and fun for casual players who are inclined toward a more passive role (which is a HUGE number of players), heavy on characterization and some GM-curated dice throws to actualize character concept in his/her story medium.

Great description. Still a little light on how all that relates to the roleplaying aspects. But the post isn't over yet!

* It’s probably the best hexcrawl game on the market (or at least the ones I’ve run). The exploration mechanics/measurements/PC tools are integrated very well. So it does a good game with a predefined, tightly scaled map with various threats and goings-ons for players to navigate and engage strategic decision-making (where to go, how to go there, what resources to allocate). So 1e but vastly superior.

Great description again. Though I'm feeling a little deprived since your great descriptions don't seem to be relating the games benefits for roleplaying and you definitely would be good at capturing that idea if you tried.

FrogReaver · Jul 21, 2019

Manbearcat said:
Following from that, you’ve just wasted my (and others) time with a rhetorical request to evaluate 5e that you obviously had no interest in engaging with. Feels bad. Please don’t make such requests, get sincere replies, and then completely ignore them. If you think TTRPG analysis isn’t useful, or actively harmful, why are engaging in a thread like this?

I forgive you for your rush to judgement. Now please don't do it again.

Tony Vargas · Jul 21, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Note: a play experience is not a roleplay experience.

True, if youre playing poker or polo or pachinko, your play experience is not a roleplay experience. And, if you're playing Hamlet or Naughty Schoolgirl or Devil's Advocate, your roleplay experience is not a game-play experience.

But if you're playing an RPG, it really /should/ be both.

Additionally, in order to achieve that play experience, those systems put more limitations on your roleplay decisions than systems without those mechanics.

Is that undesirable? Because, if it is, freestyle RP is totally a thing, and you won't need to deal with being limitted by any mechanics at all, unless your car breaks down on the way to a session.

FrogReaver · Jul 21, 2019

pemerton said:
These two accounts of 5e seem pretty congruent with one another. They remind me of a certain, fairly common, sort of approach to 2nd ed AD&D.

I've also edited a post about half-a-dozen upthread having read these posts.

EDIT: and I also just read this, which seems equally congruent with the other two posts:

I think they were excellent accounts of 5e. I think they hardly touched on what 5e does good IN RELATION TO ROLEPLAYING. But I'll be happy for what I got even if it wasn't completely what I asked for.

FrogReaver · Jul 21, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
True, if youre playing poker or polo or pachinko, your play experience is not a roleplay experience. And, if you're playing Hamlet or Naughty Schoolgirl or Devil's Advocate, your roleplay experience is not a game-play experience.

But if you're playing an RPG, it really /should/ be both.

I think there's a distinction there that is overlooked. A mechanic can influence one, the other or both IMO. I think there's a lot of one true way baggage that often prevents us from acknowledging that's the case and acknowledging things in an RPG sometimes have nothing to do with roleplaying value.

Is that undesirable? Because, if it is, freestyle RP is totally a thing, and you won't need to deal with being limitted by any mechanics at all, unless your car breaks down on the way to a session.

Honestly, if freestyle RP had a DM that arbitrated the experience in a mutually agreed upon setting, it really wouldn't play much different than how I approach D&D.

The only difference would be the combats - and I must admit I rather enjoy the combat minigame even though I recognize it's about the furtherst thing from roleplaying that you can get (even though you can occasionally roleplay during it)

pemerton · Jul 21, 2019

FrogReaver said:
take my current character. A Barbarian / Rogue with an Int of 6. He is dumb as a brick, but strong and fast and very hardy. He has the personality of a gentle giant for the most part. However, he will fiercely defend his friends. He doesn't care for much in the world except having someone that will provide him a meal everyday. For example, just this last campaign he agreed to have a magical ritual performed on him by a powerful cult member that had the potential to flat out kill him if it failed and would take his soul if it succeeded. He agreed to this because the cult member agreed to feed him and the party didn't overly try to persuade me not to go through with it. The ritual was successful. So I'm still alive and now with no soul. The cult member afterwards even volunteered to help us out of our current predicament. It's uncertain how much his helpfulness was influenced by me volunteering, but I imagine it had some effect.

FrogReaver said:
Tonight my character volunteered for a magical ritual whose outcome was uncertain that would on a failure kill him and on a success take his soul. The ritual succeeded and so now my PC has no soul.

Note that it was fully in my control to volunteer for this and that I roleplayed my character honestly in volunteering. Note that neither outcome was a good outcome for me - but one much worse than the other. Does this example qualify as a challenge to my characterization?

If not why not?

I don't see any challenge to characterisation. You tell us your character is someone who cares about little but being provided with a meal. And so in exchange for a promise of food you submitted yourself to a process that - as you describe it - you seemed to have no control over.

As a result you have no soul - I don't know what that means in mechanical terms in 5e, but it doesn't seem to require you to approach your character any differently.

30 years ago I GMed an AD&D game in which one of the PCs, in order to be returned to life, had to be treated by a sage. The result of the sage's herbal treatment was that the PC permanently turned blue. That's a cute enough result, but it's not a challenge to the player's characterisation of the character.

What do you see as the challenge to your characterisation in the example that you have provided? What deep commitment or self-conception was put at stake?

FrogReaver · Jul 21, 2019

pemerton said:
I don't see any challenge to characterisation. You tell us your character is someone who cares about little but being provided with a meal. And so in exchange for a promise of food you submitted yourself to a process that - as you describe it - you seemed to have no control over.

As a result you have no soul - I don't know what that means in mechanical terms in 5e, but it doesn't seem to require you to approach your character any differently.

30 years ago I GMed an AD&D game in which one of the PCs, in order to be returned to life, had to be treated by a sage. The result of the sage's herbal treatment was that the PC permanently turned blue. That's a cute enough result, but it's not a challenge to the player's characterisation of the character.

What do you see as the challenge to your characterisation in the example that you have provided? What deep commitment or self-conception was put at stake?

In 5e having a soul has no mechanical effect.

I've not yet decided how to portray a character that has no soul. There is going to be some difference for sure. Whatever that difference is, that is what was put at stake.