Players choose what their PCs do . . .

Tony Vargas

Legend
I think they hardly touched on what 5e does good IN RELATION TO ROLEPLAYING.
Your definition of role-playing is simply too narrow. Especially given the need to go all caps and bold like some sort of outraged Darth Vader voice.

I think there's a distinction there that is overlooked.
There's at least a 3-way distinction. There are games that aren't role-playing, there are instances of playing a role that are in no way games...

...and there are role-playing games, that integrate (not merely juxtapose) the two. In an RPG the fact that you are playing a game and the fact that you are playing a role are inseparable.

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.
OneTrueWayists tend to want to define and judge narrowly. That which confirms to their way is True Role-playing, that which does not is other, to be dismissed out of hand.

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 -
Thank you for your honesty.

I don't think it's that unusual, outside of the loci of magic and combat, D&D traditionally leaves us essentially Freestyle'n.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I decide in these cases what my character will put on the line, and so there is always that layer of safety, even if it seems my character has losses, and is struggling with angst. ( I have done my share of WOD). When I play in games with role playing mechanics that really puts on the pressure, it is different. It's actually more immersive, despite the initial reaction that role playing mechanics should destroy the player's autonomy. Everything has a more immediate feel, a greater intensity.

This earned a lot of xp, but the take-home needs to be emphasized.

In real life we aren't characterizing ourselves. In real life we don't have nearly the expression of autonomy or internal locus of control that one characterizes their PC with in a game of AD&D, 3.x, and 5e D&D.

In real life, our behavioral outputs are a collage of external inputs (from emotional provocateurs to those that turn genes off and on), irrational compulsions, irrational biological imperatives, divorced-from-conscious-mind-neurological-subroutines, crappy heuristics, erudition, practice, and well-considered mindfulness.

So that very pressure (that you cite) is fundamental to our daily lives, and shapes the most visceral moments of our lives in key ways...ways that transcend that moment and feed back onto the rest of our days. Mechanics that push/pull/provoke/demand (often with the seduction of immediate return at the cost of "the long game") are the best way I know of to model the fundamental role of those many externalities (like a drug addict battling their addiction, or an enabler battling their conscience, or a workaholic battling their zeal/anxiety, or someone who is more comfortable sad than happy battling their damaging comfort with melancholy, or someone who lacks discipline trying to control their disorderly compulsions, or someone who is being leaned on by the police for 36 hours who confesses to a crime they didn't commit, etc etc).

A man arrives 5 minutes too late from a 2 hour journey that was meant to save his sister from suicide. Her body rests on cold white tile, laying in a pool of thick red, blood and gore on the wall next to her. He stoops down over her. The world is complete silence as they share this moment. This is the last time he will ever see her and he probably knows this will haunt him the rest of his life. Dilated pupils in her dead eyes. Frothing mouth. Wet hair from the blood and gore. Skull fragments everywhere. He just stares into her dead eyes. For who knows how long.

Why does he do this? Is it because this moment he has waited on for so long is finally upon him and he doesn't want to consider the philosophical implications? He doesn't want to hear the sound of his mother's heart breaking when he calls her to tell her what has happened? Because she has left 3 children behind and they're likely to all be ruined by this? If he just stays in this moment, his sister won't truly be reduced to this broken biological state and he won't have to confront all of those things. As he is staring, he knows this is a terrible image to imprint upon himself...it will have lasting effects for certain. But he can't tear his eyes away from hers nonetheless.

That is life.

Its marked by visceral events that aren't "full-agency characterization" (such as the case is when there is no active machinery or feedback loop putting pressure on you) that are completely transformative. You're not struggling with contrived angst in real life that is all bark (mere performance) and no bite (actual emotional, physical, or philosophical phase-change). There is real pressure brought to bear against you from several different directions (some internal, some external). And the misbegotten idea of a singularly unified consciousness (rather than overwhelmingly an amalgamation of entangled inputs wholly divorced from the "you" that you identify with) that is cooley in control of your behavioral outputs is quickly put to rest.
 

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.

When I read this, I'm imagining a Texas Hold 'Em tournament where:

1) There was no codified "buy-in" $ figure for the tournament and we don't know what the participant's financial situation is going into the tournament (is this a desperate attempt to get a windfall at zero hour so a debt to the mob can be paid off?).

2) We don't know what their chip stack was when this hand was played.

3) We can't tell whether they won the hand, lost the hand, or split the pot...and we can't tell what the pot was (and therefore the implications on (2) above).

4) The only thing I can discern is that none of 1-3 mattered to the player of the hand...their decision-point navigation was disconnected to the (possibly) interesting pressures inherent to 1-3 above; it was only correlated to the cocktail waitress promising to bring them another whiskey on the house if they arbitrarily check-raised the Turn or went All-In blind pre-Flop.


Its just background color.
 

aramis erak

Legend
Realism? In a discussion of hit points?

Nope, we don't. A very slight trauma involving relatively little injury can kill instantly, profound trauma over much of the body can be survived. The human body is freak'n weird. People fall in the shower and die. People fall out of airplanes without parachutes and live. It's not because some people rolled 1 on their HD. It's not because falls do d1000 damage. It's because reality is far, far more complex than something like hps can even begin to model.

More over, "Realism" was the bludgeon with which critics attacked D&D in it's earliest days - /for having hit points that increased with level/. Because, if hps were, as you just blithely claimed, just a measure of ability to absorb trauma, then 'experience' increasing them would be wildly unrealistic. Your character would have to physically grow, or become denser, or change his material composition or something.

That criticism was answered, and hps were never conceived as simply a measure of capacity to absorb physical trauma.

But, come the edition war, that fallacious strawman criticism of early D&D was held up as /the way D&D had always been/.

It's about the most 1984-worthy bit of double-think in the revisionist history of the game.

Except that Early D&D didn't describe them that way. Only the detractors did.

D&D OE B1 p 18 said:
Dice for Accumulative Hits (Hit Dice): This indicates the number of dice which are rolled in order to determine how many hit points a character can take. Plusses are merely the number of pips to add to the total of all dice rolled not to each die. Thus a Super Hero gets 8 dice + 2; they are rolled and score 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6/totals 26 + 2 = 28, 28 being the number of points of damage the character could sustain before death. Whether sustaining accumulative hits will otherwise affect a character is left to the discretion of the referee.[/q]

Interesting, that last line... Also interesting is that HP were rerolled at new level. One of the magazine Q&A's suggests rerolling at the start of each adventure. HP were vague.

Gygax tried to NOT pin them down.

AD&D also has a wibbledy-wobbledy description...
AD&D PHB p34 said:
CHARACTER HIT POINTS
Each character has a varying number of hit points,' just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. [...] Thus, the majority of hit paints are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.
I snipped out the detailed example in the middle of the paragraph.

The thing is, many of the detractors didn't read, or didn't understand, that passage.

Holmes doesn't discuss what they represent, other than 0=dead. A serious wound is defined in the lycanthrope entry as 50% of HP...
 


pemerton

Legend
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.
How is something at stake if you don't know what it is yet?
 




FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Your definition of role-playing is simply too narrow. Especially given the need to go all caps and bold like some sort of outraged Darth Vader voice.

LOL. I apologize for the caps. It was 2am and I went too far in trying to emphasize. I don't think so. I think that in order to not sound one true way you have included things under the roleplaying umbrella that aren't actually roleplaying.

There's at least a 3-way distinction. There are games that aren't role-playing, there are instances of playing a role that are in no way games...

...and there are role-playing games, that integrate (not merely juxtapose) the two. In an RPG the fact that you are playing a game and the fact that you are playing a role are inseparable.

I disagree. Just as a cute off the cuff mental example. Suppose that D&D had a mechanic where everytime your character took a hit you had to do 5 jumping jacks. Are you seriously arguing that doing 5 jumping jacks upon taking a hit is inseparable from roleplaying?

OneTrueWayists tend to want to define and judge narrowly. That which confirms to their way us True Role-playing, that which dies not is other, to be dismissed out of hand.

Sure. The opposite to that is that a non-one-true-wayist defines and judges non-narrowly. Anything which confirms to anyones way is true role playing and anything which does not is other. So anything that someone calls roleplaying is to be accepted out of hand.

You see the juxtaposition and the issue right?

Thank you for your honesty.

I don't think it's that unusual, outside of the loci of magic and combat, D&D traditionally leaves us essentially Freestyle'n.

Thanks. Yet, you argue in other posts that freestyln has no benefits to roleplaying, that a system of some kind will always be preferable to that.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top