D&D 5E Characters are not their statistics and abilities

[hawkeyefan]

Sounds like the 'barbarian is a culture not a class' discussion....

Yeah, definitely. If I actually wanted to classify each of the characters that made up this barbarian group, I'd only label one an actual barbarian. Although that character would be the quintessential D&D style barbarian...complete with rage and spirit totems and the like. The rest of his crew would likely be a mix of other martial classes.

But then once you start looking at it all that way, the very idea of character class becomes a lot less specific....which then kind of challenges the idea of role within the party being defined solely by class.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Do you really think it's the good and noble thing to do, to allow puny Steve Rogers into the Army? Do you think that would have gone well for him?

Are you saying that you consider Steve Rogers an example of someone bringing a "bad" character to the table, and that character getting tossed out in favor of a different "good" character, rather than an example of single character with obvious weaknesses that are dealt with during the course of play?

 

[pemerton]

The conversation, generally, turns around what is considered "inept" play. There exists, within the vast continuum of what constitutes D&D table, some table where a character like this is viable. The trouble is - there would have to be buy in from the entire table. All of the players would have to be okay with it, or, perhaps, they are all deliberately creating absurd characters (Fizzbin, the Wizard who won't cast spells and has a 6 intelligence comes along with Rufus for the adventure into the Kobold lair of Komedy!).

The point was that a player who creates such a character at the vast majority of tables is likely doing so because they are deliberately doing it to antagonize the table

This still brings out a feature of D&D that is different from some other RPGs - eg Burning Wheel.

In BW you wouldn't need buy in from the whole table to play Rufus. Rufus is not an absurd character. In fact, in BW a player playing Rufus could, with a bit of cleverness, dominate the table. Burning Wheel also makes playing a faithless cleric viable. The same is not true for you comedy wizard, though: I don't think that character could be built in BW, and if some version of it could be, it probably wouldn't be viable. This is because of the particular way in which BW handles the build and play of wizards.

even if, as you posit, the goal of D&D is to overcome challenges, there's a small issue with your thesis. D&D is not static. The challenges are different from table to table, and overcoming a challenge with "unoptimized" characters feels just as good as overcoming challenges with optimized ones.

I'm not sure what thesis you are attributing to me. My thesis is that overcoming challenges being the goal of play establishes a certain orientation, in game play, towards the build of PCs. It makes the size of bonuses matter.

In BW, the goal of play is to confront challenges. This goal establishes a different orientation, in game play, towards the build of PCs. The bits of your PC that will determine the content of those challenges - Beliefs, Instincts, Relationships, Reputations (all of which are defined elements of PC building, and all of which factor into encounter deign) - become important. This is why Rufus (a reluctant fighter with a club) and a faithless cleric can be viable characters: because they have clear beliefs, instincts (maybe Rufus, who hates fighting, always enters combat in defensive stance), reputations (maybe the faithless cleric has the reputation "Spat on the floor at the feet of the bishop"), etc.

If the size of bonuses matters to the goal of play, then it's natural that people will have differeing views about what the minimum viable size of those bonuses is. I'm not saying that optimisers are right. (Nor that they're wrong.) I'm saying that the design of D&D makes the existence of optimisers a pretty natural and understandable thing.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

My thesis is that overcoming challenges being the goal of play establishes a certain orientation, in game play, towards the build of PCs. It makes the size of bonuses matter.

You still seem to be putting that on the players, though, rather than their characters. If the goal of D&D was just for the players to steer their pawns through challenges, then the players would want their pawns to have larger bonuses since that increases their chance of winning.

The goal of any role-playing game is for the players to play their characters, though, and it's the goal of the characters to not die while pursuing whatever other tasks they face. I may not necessarily care about the attack bonus of some other PC, because it's just a game and that's not my character so I shouldn't worry about it; but my character probably does care about the ability of a fellow party-member to contribute toward the common goal, so I am forced to care about their Strength bonus for as long as I am trying to role-play a serious character who is facing a life-or-death situation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You still seem to be putting that on the players, though, rather than their characters. If the goal of D&D was just for the players to steer their pawns through challenges, then the players would want their pawns to have larger bonuses since that increases their chance of winning.

The goal of any role-playing game is for the players to play their characters, though, and it's the goal of the characters to not die while pursuing whatever other tasks they face. I may not necessarily care about the attack bonus of some other PC, because it's just a game and that's not my character so I shouldn't worry about it; but my character probably does care about the ability of a fellow party-member to contribute toward the common goal, so I am forced to care about their Strength bonus for as long as I am trying to role-play a serious character who is facing a life-or-death situation.

By that same token, characters would have motivations and drives totally unconnected to the mechanical data of the game. Such as putting up with someone who doesn't always pull their weight because they care for the person.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

By that same token, characters would have motivations and drives totally unconnected to the mechanical data of the game. Such as putting up with someone who doesn't always pull their weight because they care for the person.

If I care for a person, then I'm even less inclined to drag them along on a deadly expedition that's beyond their capacity to handle.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If I care for a person, then I'm even less inclined to drag them along on a deadly expedition that's beyond their capacity to handle.

That's presuming that it's up to you whether or not they go - when there are a world of possibilities, such as neither of you having a choice, or the one of you likely to be in over their head instigating the deadly expedition and the other is the tag-along trying to keep them safe since convincing them not to do deadly things didn't work.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You still seem to be putting that on the players, though, rather than their characters. If the goal of D&D was just for the players to steer their pawns through challenges, then the players would want their pawns to have larger bonuses since that increases their chance of winning.

The goal of any role-playing game is for the players to play their characters, though, and it's the goal of the characters to not die while pursuing whatever other tasks they face. I may not necessarily care about the attack bonus of some other PC, because it's just a game and that's not my character so I shouldn't worry about it; but my character probably does care about the ability of a fellow party-member to contribute toward the common goal, so I am forced to care about their Strength bonus for as long as I am trying to role-play a serious character who is facing a life-or-death situation.

And that is precisely why it's so baffling that you'd reject the 120 HP, Str 6 old Barbarian. Having him along decreases the chance that you will die But you're going to reject him as a liability and tell him to stay home? Why?!? Because he takes twelve seconds to kill an orc?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And that is precisely why it's so baffling that you'd reject the 120 HP, Str 6 old Barbarian. Having him along decreases the chance that you will die But you're going to reject him as a liability and tell him to stay home? Why?!? Because he takes twelve seconds to kill an orc?

First of all, "old" doesn't have anything to do with Strength. Strength directly corresponds to physique, and Strength 6 corresponds (roughly) to Steve Rogers before the serum. If the character is old, then that's a separate matter. If that's your score, then that's the in-game reality which corresponds to that score, and that's not an in-game reality which my character is going to take seriously.

It's not an image which inspires confidence. It's an image which inspires pity. You're not going to impress me with your ability to take a hit and stand back up again. Come back when you look like you know what you're doing.

 

[pemerton]

D&D doesn't need elitism, as long as the players have their character sheets, dice and are contributing, that should be good enough. In short, I still find the OP's claim to be ridiculous and please don't compare D&D to a sport.

Why can't I compare D&D to a sport?

I like to run. I like to ride my bike. I'm not particularly good at either. It doesn't stop me enjoying what I do that there are elite and competitive runners and cyclists out there. If I wanted to join their teams, it would be on me to step up to their game - they're not obliged to take me just because I'm eager.

I also like to play guitar. I'm not particularly good at that either - I just play songs at home for fun, or for my kids. If I wanted to join a band, it would be on me to practice and improve.

If some people want to play "serious" D&D, that's their prerogative. I've played with D&D groups who, by my standards, didn't take the game seriously enough for my tastes. I wouldn't want those people as a permanent part of my group.

The well-knowm report from the Origins tournament where Tomb of Horrors was played (Alarums & Excursions #4 September 1975) includes this:

As characters were assigned in alphabetical order I ended up as a 6th rate Magic user- supposedly the weakest in the group. Four of the fifteen had any previous experience. I grabbed the callers spot and announced the imposition of military discipline. Judging by the way the game went, Slobbovian army. . . .

[T]here were no wandering monsters (damn few monsters at all, in fact), plenty of traps (too many) and very few experienced players. It was run by Gary's son, who devoted no effort to keeping the characters in character. However, we did just as well as the other Friday night group- with 13 expert adventurers, that many would be callers- and perhaps just a shade to much caution. . . .

Paul Bean having chosen our spells while I described D&D to the 11 novices and Gary's son wrote out the character descriptions . . . No names were assigned to the characters. The remaining two experienced players- New Yorkers I think, retired into a corner to determine their own equipment. It quickly bacame obvious that they had tabbed me as the bossy type and didn't want to argue. The situation- which was dire- demanded such behavior, however. A little more assistance would have been usefull. Paul and I made a bad mistake at once- not being used to playing with single use spells we did not take enough multiple copies of the more usefull ones. . . .

#2 and #3 fighters fell into a trap . . . We dragged them out. Should our Patriarch raise them from the dead? After 5 hours in the Barren Lands my condition might have been described as numb. With a hazy idea of saving the spell for later I ordered them dropped back into the pit for later recovery. Neither the Paladin nor the Patriarch protested. The Dungeonmaster did not tell them they should have (both were neos.) No one suggested that we take their useful equipment along with us (one had a bag of holding.) At this point I ordered a Locate Traps spell used- a bit late- and we avoided two more pits on the way down to the end of the corridor . . .​

That's pretty close to D&D-as-sport. You mightn't want to play that way. I certainly don't want to play that way! But it's a pretty time-honoure way of approaching the game.

People of any strokes who think others who don't play/think/feel/game like them are therefore "playing wrong" are an unfortunate burden on gaming everywhere.

Agreed. Including those who think that playing "serious"/competitive/"our goal is to beat the dungeon" D&D are doing it wrong. That's an approach to D&D play that's been around for just about as long as the game itself. Gygax called it "skilled play", and outlined the basics of the approach in the final section of his PHB for the AD&D game.