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

[Lehrbuch]

In D&D such a character [weak/burden] does not really help overcome obstacles as much as other, more typical characters.

Yes, but it is only an illusion that there are objective obstacles to overcome in a game of D&D. The fiction story being told is always about the PCs that the players are actually playing overcoming / bypassing / being flummoxed by / being injured by or killed by obstacles.

The fact that if, hypothetically, the players were playing a different set of PCs (weaker or stronger or just different), then the story might be about different obstacles being overcome (or not overcome) is totally meaningless.

The game is about the PCs the players are playing, not the PCs that the players didn't choose to create.

In another thread, when I mentioned "character as byproduct", another poster (I think @Tony Vargas) seemed to take this as a dismissal or trivialisation...

I think that "character as an emergent property" might be a less pejorative way of phrasing this.

 

[pemerton]

As for Burning Wheel, I am not at all familiar with it. It sounds interesting, and I'm glad you seem to enjoy it (and perhaps work there? )

I live in Australia, not NYC, and my only relationship to Luke Crane is that he has got (directly or indirectly) about $200 from me out of buying his books!

I think you misinterpreted my assumption about game mechanics. And sure there are other games, but we're talking about D&D. But now I'm thinking you just wanted to sneak in another plug for Burning Wheel

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted. But there are a number of relatively common assumptions that seem to be made on these boards (and in this thread) that I find frustrating, because they seem to rehash debates that were silly even in 1990 and that make no sense at all in the light of the last 20 years of RPG design.

These assumptions include that powergaming/optimisation = combat (back in 1993 I was running a Rolemaster game where some of the most optimised characters were optimised for perception and social skills and teleportation and summoning magic); that an interest in or attention to mechanics equates to an obsession with combat (see above; or see the all-thief AD&D game I was running in 1988/9); that there is an inherent tension between mechanically-driven play and story/character/"roleplaying" (not true even in games like RQ or RM back in the day; not true running AD&D Oriental Adventures in the mid-to-late 80s; not true in Burning Wheel; not true now in 5e, given the background and personality/inspiration mechanics); that it is somehow "nobler" as a roleplayer to sit back and let the GM drive the ingame events while providing colour with an accent and a quirky personality, rather than to take the game by the horns as a player and drive it where you want it to go (this one is not an assumption of fact, and so can't be rebutted just by adducing counterexamples, but to me it goes almost completely against the spirit of the game as presented by Gygax.

Taking D&D by the horns, as a player, means declaring actions. Which often (not always) means making checks. The game is fairly punishing for failed checks (especially in combat, where the default failure state is miss-a-turn if only one PC goes down, and TPK if the whole party goes down). So thinking about the ability of a player to make checks is not a strange thing to do.

When [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] points out that a 10th level 6 STR barbarian has an 80-odd percent chance to successfully lock down a hobgoblin in a grapple, that's not any sort of challenge to those who say that mechanical competence matters. It's just pointing out that the maths of the game are more forgiving (or, perhaps, more cleverly designed - in my view there's no disputing the overall attention to detail in the maths of 5e) than the other person thought.

 

[pemerton]

I think that "character as an emergent property" might be a less pejorative way of phrasing this.

I don't think "byproduct" is pejorative. It's certainly not intended as such, as I went to some effort to explain.

When I say that I like games that are designed to produce dramatically satisfying story as a byproduct of play (what the Forge calls "narrativism" or "story now") I'm not meaning to insult myself or belittle the value of dramatically satisfying story. Quite the opposite - I think that RPG play that sets out directly to narrate dramatically satisfying story is in fact self-defeating, because that approach runs straight into problems with managing the potentially competing agencies of the multiple participants.

it is only an illusion that there are objective obstacles to overcome in a game of D&D. The fiction story being told is always about the PCs that the players are actually playing overcoming / bypassing / being flummoxed by / being injured by or killed by obstacles.

<snip>

The game is about the PCs the players are playing, not the PCs that the players didn't choose to create.

The game is about those PCs, yes. That doesn't make the obstacles illusory - unless the GM is disregarding mechanical resolution altogether (not unheard of, but in my own view not all that conducive to satisfying RPGing on either side of the table), the players will actually have to declare some actions for their PCs. And the resolution of those actions, by those players at that table, will then determine some future ingame states of affairs (eg is my PC on top of, or at the bottom of, the cliff?; did my PC kill the orc, or vice versa? etc).

If those checks all fail, the game can tend to grind to a halt, because D&D tends not to have particularly robust approaches to managing PC failure. Especially failure in combat. (5e has preserved some of 4e's developments in this respect, but it's not a leader in RPG tech in this particular respect.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Sure, but you're assuming some sort of mission based structure. What if you had no choice? What if circumstances are thrust upon the characters? What if they were already in the situation and that is how they came to be friends? As @AaronOfBarbaria said, there could be many reasons for "adventuring " beyond your control.

The premise is that you have a group of mighty adventurers, in a grim-and-gritty world where people you care about can die and have died in ways that are not necessarily glorious or important, and someone wants to join them.

Sure, there are all sorts of ways that you could make it work with a massive power disparity in the group, but that's not the situation at hand. The Lord of the Rings was epic, but it was still basically an escort quest, and even then you never saw Frodo charge into combat with a battle axe as a matter of first resort and taken seriously for it. A barbarian with Strength 6 is basically Scrappy-Doo. It's not an equal member of a serious adventuring party.

 

[Lanliss]

The premise is that you have a group of mighty adventurers, in a grim-and-gritty world where people you care about can die and have died in ways that are not necessarily glorious or important, and someone wants to join them.

Sure, there are all sorts of ways that you could make it work with a massive power disparity in the group, but that's not the situation at hand. The Lord of the Rings was epic, but it was still basically an escort quest, and even then you never saw Frodo charge into combat with a battle axe as a matter of first resort and taken seriously for it. A barbarian with Strength 6 is basically Scrappy-Doo. It's not an equal member of a serious adventuring party.

I do not think that "barbarian" is enough of a description to decide if that 6 STR is worthy. As others have said, it could be an old Barb, with high INT and WIS, fully capable of leading the party with his years of experience. It could be a charming silver fox, capable of getting the party what they want no matter the circumstances. It could just be a tough old bastard, capable of weathering blows while the more capable sorts do what they do best. He is not any more of a liability than a STR 6 rogue is, and could be just as capable depending on his choices of character. The only way he is an absolute failure is if he gets thrown into a white room with a STR 20 barb, and they are told to fight it out.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I do not think that "barbarian" is enough of a description to decide if that 6 STR is worthy. As others have said, it could be an old Barb, with high INT and WIS, fully capable of leading the party with his years of experience.

You're thinking of a Bard. A barbarian is someone who charges into combat with an axe.

This is D&D. There is no mincing of stereotypes. A barbarian in D&D is a very specific type of character. They rage, and they charge into combat. (Fighters and rogues are less specific types of characters.)

Your stats do not change with age, in this model, so an old barbarian would have needed to survive that long as a barbarian with low Strength in order to reach level 10. Moreover, rogues have several class features that allow them to use Dexterity in place of Strength, and many class features which give them alternative options to fighting; and the lore supports them approaching a problem with in an indirect manner.

If your idea for a cunning "barbarian" is that it cleverly outwits an opponent rather than engaging them in direct combat, then the correct model for how to represent that character within the language of the system is for it to be a member of the rogue class. You don't get better at raging and swinging heavy weapons by cleverly outwitting your opponents.

 

[Lanliss]

You're thinking of a Bard. A barbarian is someone who charges into combat with an axe.

This is D&D. There is no mincing of stereotypes. A barbarian in D&D is a very specific type of character. They rage, and they charge into combat. (Fighters and rogues are less specific types of characters.)

Your stats do not change with age, in this model, so an old barbarian would have needed to survive that long as a barbarian with low Strength in order to reach level 10. Moreover, rogues have several class features that allow them to use Dexterity in place of Strength, and many class features which give them alternative options to fighting; and the lore supports them approaching a problem with in an indirect manner.

If your idea for a cunning "barbarian" is that it cleverly outwits an opponent rather than engaging them in direct combat, then the correct model for how to represent that character within the language of the system is for it to be a member of the rogue class. You don't get better at raging and swinging heavy weapons by cleverly outwitting your opponents.

1) As far as I know, there is no limitation on what you HAVE to be in D&D, hence there being evil paladins, weak but dexterous fighters, Intelligent Sorcerers, and wise Wizards. An archetype does not by any means limit what you are allowed to do, and I would happily allow anyone to play a charming Barb, and am actually bored, just by the idea of another big stupid swinger of great axes.

2) Your stats do not change with age, but there is no reason a player can't make their Strength a 6, and say the reason is that they are old. They could just as easily make a tiny child barbarian with a 6 strength, or a cursed middle aged barb with 6 STR.

3) Have you never read a story that had a crafty viking? maybe not as powerful with an axe as his brethren, but a good enough grasp of people that he could keep up in different ways? That aside, who's to say the old man doesn't plan on taking some rogue training? He has gone Barb for 10 levels, trying hard to fight through his limitations as a late starter on his Tribe's teachings, maybe he finally gives up and looks for better ways to apply his capabilities.

As I understand it, D&D is not a game about "You are this, you must do this". It is a game of meeting challenges in whatever form they come, be they traps, enemies, or poor ability scores. Maybe it is just my point of view, but I cannot see such an enticing character as I have made here as a failure.

 

[Lehrbuch]

The game is about those PCs, yes. That doesn't make the obstacles illusory - unless the GM is disregarding mechanical resolution altogether (not unheard of, but in my own view not all that conducive to satisfying RPGing on either side of the table), the players will actually have to declare some actions for their PCs. And the resolution of those actions, by those players at that table, will then determine some future ingame states of affairs (eg is my PC on top of, or at the bottom of, the cliff?; did my PC kill the orc, or vice versa? etc).

If those checks all fail, the game can tend to grind to a halt, because D&D tends not to have particularly robust approaches to managing PC failure.

It's not that the obstacles are illusionary, but the idea that there are specific obstacles that must be overcome in a specific way is the illusion. The obstacles depend on the PCs. If the players have different characters you just have different obstacles, not that the players fail somehow.

For example, all other things being equal a STR 8 Fighter has a 20% chance less of hitting something than a STR 15 Fighter. So, what does that mean? It just means that a combat against the same opponent lasts slightly longer, on average, for the weaker fighter, so that on average the weaker PC (or other party members) get a bit more damaged. So, she needs healing more often or has to contrive to have a rest a bit more often.

This is not the end of the world.

And all other things are not equal. The STR 8 fighter (if using the standard array, anyway) has a 15 Ability somewhere else, so she's got a better chance of overcoming some other obstacle using that Ability, which might sometimes totally eliminate the need for the combat at all, or resolve the combat some other way than just hitting things. In addition, the DM isn't meant to be a robot who pushes out the same encounters regardless of the PCs capabilities. The DMG talks a lot about scaling encounters and so forth to the capabilities of the PCs. So the weaker fighter might not be fighting the same opponent, or the same number of opponents, etc.

 

[jasper]

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?

oH COME ON We know that Jack Kirby played a character and story campaign. Stan Lee got mad and started his own power gaming campaign and turn Steve Rogers into a DMPC.

 

[BoldItalic]

I claim the 200th post.

In the context of this thread, my question is: are long threads better than short threads?

It seems to me, that the optimum thread should consist of a single post, expressing a point of view, perhaps, that is so overwhelmingly persuasive that it garners hundreds of XPs from people simply agreeing with it and no-one actually needs to post anything in reply because it has all been said.

This thread is clearly not like that.

This leads me to believe that the people posting here (and here I include myself) are not optimised.

Shame on you !!!!

You have 5 posts to reach a consensus, after which I shall stop reading this thread !!!!