D&D 5E Role playing and wargaming

[The Crimson Binome]

I posted in a previous thread and I used an example of a character who's only sub optimal choice was picking a d6 vs a d8 weapon, and some reacted as if I had designed a monstrosity, a character so weak it was bound to doom the entire party, out of sheer malice.

Not quite. The outrage was over the reason for making a poor choice - a choice that the character made, rather than one made by the player and which the character was forced to deal with - and not the mere degree of sub-optimality.

But that's another axis of tolerance entirely. Some people are entirely intolerant of bad roleplaying.

 

[Ancalagon]

Not quite. The outrage was over the reason for making a poor choice - a choice that the character made, rather than one made by the player and which the character was forced to deal with - and not the mere degree of sub-optimality.

But that's another axis of tolerance entirely. Some people are entirely intolerant of bad roleplaying.

Yes, because using a weapon that is traditionally associated with the culture of the PC is bad roleplaying.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yes, because using a weapon that is traditionally associated with the culture of the PC is bad roleplaying.

Because strict adherence to tradition, rather than re-evaluating that tradition to see if it actually makes sense before risking the lives of yourself and others upon it, shows poor judgment on behalf of the one making the decision.

It's either bad roleplaying (because the character actually is smart enough to figure that out, and you're playing them as though they aren't), or it's good roleplaying of a dumb character (because the character isn't smart enough to figure it out, so the other players would have to roleplay their characters poorly in order to accept them).

 

[abirdcall]

Sure, slaying dragons might be a bit much, but who says they can't be a "mighty hero"?

Is a small town sheriff a "mighty hero"? How about Wyatt Earp?

What constitutes a "mighty hero" is definitely in the eye of the beholder.


Again, people can take it too far. I had a player who wanted to play an immortal paladin who was cursed to consume the souls of the damned to power his abilities, at level 3.... Obviously I said no, but if he had come saying he was a local hero who had fought off orc raids, that sounds reasonable, and he could well be a "mighty hero"

That is why I specified the example of slaying adult dragons.

I even used the word 'adult' because I assumed someone would reply that they could potentially kill a wyrmling.

There is a reason why there is a 'folk hero' background. I never said that was wrong. I never said characters need to be children. I just said that character stories and personalities should reflect their abilities.

If you want a super powerful character at the start you should play at a higher level.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Because strict adherence to tradition, rather than re-evaluating that tradition to see if it actually makes sense before risking the lives of yourself and others upon it, shows poor judgment on behalf of the one making the decision.

It's either bad roleplaying (because the character actually is smart enough to figure that out, and you're playing them as though they aren't), or it's good roleplaying of a dumb character (because the character isn't smart enough to figure it out, so the other players would have to roleplay their characters poorly in order to accept them).

That's starting to get into the "Are the D&D rules an imperfect reflection of a reality that is (excluding magic etc) similar to ours, or is the game reality a perfect reflection of the D&D rules." - type issue.
Which rarely goes anywhere productive because its pretty table-dependent.
I'm sure that there are worlds in which there are mass-transit systems consisting of long lines of labourers with readied actions, because its bad roleplaying to not realise that passing an object along a line of such happens instantaneously.

 

[Ancalagon]

...or spheres and cubes having the same shape...

 

[Tony Vargas]

...or spheres and cubes having the same shape...

Pi = 4

 

[pemerton]

I think it's not just about personal preference, but also how it's perceived. Some people don't bat an eye at some kind of 4-class monstrosity. But others are very ... touchy. I've been accused of being a power gamer because I had made a basic "dwarf tank" (heavy AC, good con kinda deal).

But not only is there a tolerance/intolerance to "cheese", there is also a tolerance/intolerance to sub-optimality. I posted in a previous thread and I used an example of a character who's only sub optimal choice was picking a d6 vs a d8 weapon, and some reacted as if I had designed a monstrosity, a character so weak it was bound to doom the entire party, out of sheer malice.

Not quite. The outrage was over the reason for making a poor choice - a choice that the character made, rather than one made by the player and which the character was forced to deal with - and not the mere degree of sub-optimality.

But that's another axis of tolerance entirely. Some people are entirely intolerant of bad roleplaying.

That's starting to get into the "Are the D&D rules an imperfect reflection of a reality that is (excluding magic etc) similar to ours, or is the game reality a perfect reflection of the D&D rules." - type issue.
Which rarely goes anywhere productive because its pretty table-dependent.
I'm sure that there are worlds in which there are mass-transit systems consisting of long lines of labourers with readied actions, because its bad roleplaying to not realise that passing an object along a line of such happens instantaneously.

My "outrage" at [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION]'s example PC build (a STR-based scimitar-wielding fighter) was different again - I don't see why the game should penalise (in the form of d6 rather than d8 damage) a choice that is made for purely "flavour" reasons.

That is, unless we think it is important, in establishing the feel/flavour of the setting, that scimitars be less brutal than longswords. But in this case, Saelorn's point comes to the fore (ie why is a person proficient in all weapons - a D&D fighter - choosing to use a weaker one).

I think the weapon issue is different from the peasant rail gun issue, and so is not really a "rules as physics" issue. The railgun issue is a result of taking an action resolution abstraction intended for one context (small-unit skirmishing) and applying it in a compleltey different context (large-scale movement of objects from person to person).

Whereas the weapon issue arises at the very heart of the ingame subject matter the weapon rules are meant to address, namely, how brutal is any particular weapon? If we don't think there's any point in distinguishing scimitar from longsword in this respect, then just let the scimitar wielder do d8. If we do, though, then what is the ingame explanation for why the character uses the weaker weapon?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think the weapon issue is different from the peasant rail gun issue, and so is not really a "rules as physics" issue. The railgun issue is a result of taking an action resolution abstraction intended for one context (small-unit skirmishing) and applying it in a compleltey different context (large-scale movement of objects from person to person).

Whereas the weapon issue arises at the very heart of the ingame subject matter the weapon rules are meant to address, namely, how brutal is any particular weapon? If we don't think there's any point in distinguishing scimitar from longsword in this respect, then just let the scimitar wielder do d8. If we do, though, then what is the ingame explanation for why the character uses the weaker weapon?

The scimitar issue is taking a mechanical abstraction (the weapon statistics,) of another mechanical abstraction (hit points,) intended for one context (quick and easy combat resolution at the expense of detail) and applying it to a completely different context (character image and concept.)
We know that scimitars, sabres, tulwars etc were used in our world. That would appear to indicate there there are factors in play that aren't covered by the rules - a fact that we're all already aware of: D&D just isn't granular enough to cover the sort of intricacies that lead to the development of different weapons, armour, fighting styles etc.
A player might take the inspiration of their character from this, perhaps envisioning their fighter having a whirling, athletic fighting style that fits well with the shape of a scimitar and that it is the traditional weapon of their culture.
To them, the 0.65 DPR damage potential difference is less important than their enjoyment in playing a character with a strong image that they like.

Would you really want to be the sort of person to accuse them of 'bad roleplaying' because the rules say that their character is proficient in longswords as well and they are playing a stupid character if they don't start using them because they would do 0.65 DPR more if they switched to longsword?

Note that this a different issue than the option of reskinning: You can quite happily say that their heavily curved sword is considered a longsword in the game. This would be quite acceptable, and assuming there was some reason you couldn't just kick them from the game, would hopefully silence the player making those accusations. At least until they started on feat choice, subclass and ability picks, and any other decision that the other player makes where they made something other than the mathematically optimal choice.

 

[pemerton]

I'd certainly consider the Player's Handbook a core product. And as you can see from my post, it clearly states that role playing is a thing.

the 1e PHB the importance of role playing and imagination

<snip>

As a role player, you become Falstaff the fighter. You know how strong,
intelligent, wise, healthy, dexterous and, relatively speaking, how
commanding a personality you have. Details as to your appearance your
body proportions, and your history can be produced by you or the Dungeon
Master. You act out the game as this character, staying within your "godgiven
abilities", and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics
(called alignment). You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim
and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Folstaff the
fighter, angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic! The Dungeon
Master will act the parts of "everyone else", and will present to you a
variety of new characters to talk with, drink with, gamble with, adventure
with, and often fight with! Each of you will become an ortful thespian as
time goes by - and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown
as you become Falstaff the Invincible!

The proper interpretation of that passage has been discussed at some length in this recent thread.

Nowhere, anywhere else, does Gygax's PHB talk about playing a PC, in the sense of developing and expressing a distinct personality or characterisation. The advice on pp 107 and 109 of the PHB about how to prepare for a session assume that the only considerations are efficiency and effectiveness across the party (there is not the least hint there that, for instance, the Mistress of Magic might refuse to memorise fire spells because "that's not what my character would do!").

And when, in his DMG, Gygax talks about good roleplaying (in the context of experience points and level gain), it is all by reference to class functions, not to character personality. (The nearest thing to an exception is the reference to alignment.)

At the time the 1st ed AD&D rules were written, I don't think the books were talking about roleplaying in the sense of creating a character's personality. Whereas the 2nd ed AD&D PHB puts this front and centre. The contrast between the way the two sets of books present the point of the game, and what it is to play a PC, is very marked.

That's not to say that people weren't doing it the "2nd ed" way before 2nd ed was published. The 2nd ed rulebooks were following, not leading. But I don't think the 1st ed PHB addressed this issue of PC personality in any serious fashion.

Similar passages exist in both Moldvay's and Mentzer's basic books as well. Mentzer is way obvious and they have a whole page devoted to it on page 2. Moldvay says a couple times that you take the role of your PC to create the story, and in the example D&D session, it clearly has the role-playing aspect as important.

I don't agree with your reading of Moldvay. (I've never read Mentzer.)

For instance, when Black Dougal dies, all that happens is that one of the other PCs takes his pack and the cleric player says "I give him the last rites of my church." There is no genuine sense of PC personality. (Again, with alignment as an exception in the context of Morgan Ironwolf being healed by the cleric.)

Contrast the 2nd ed PHB, which talks about creating a unique and memorable personalilty for one's PC. Nothing in Moldvay says anything like this; in this respect, Moldvay resembles Gygax's PHB.

EDIT: The importance of imagination in RPGing is independent of the idea of roleplaying in the sense of character personality.

Because what distinguishes a RPG from a boardgame is that the fiction matters to action resolution, imagination is absolutely crucial. Eg in the example of play in Gygax's DMG, the players come up with ideas like using a pole to poke in the stream, or forming a human pyramid to investigate the holes in wall that lead up to the secret door with the ghouls behind it.

But - as the Gygax exmaple itself shows, with character absolutely devoid of roleplaying in the characterisationse sense - you can exercise this sort of imagination without developing a distinct or unique personality for your PC.