D&D 5E Role playing and wargaming

[pemerton]

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?

I had hoped I made it clear I don't think this is primarily a RP issue. It's a mechanical issue. Why should the player, who envisages his/her PC using a scimitar rather than a longsword, suffer a mechanical penalty? How does that make the game better?

As I said, the only answer I can think of for insisting on this character's scimitar doing d6 rather than d8 is that we deny that this is all abstraction - that we think that it matters to our sense of the shared fiction of the game that longswords are heavier, more dangerous weapons than scimitars. But now we can legitimately ask, why is the character using the lighter weapon? And we can ask that in character! (Which is [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s point.)

In my BW game, the character who choose to carry a shortsword rather than a longsword despite being equally competent with both had an answer - she was an assassin, and wanted to be able to hide her shortsword in her backpack.

Maybe the scimitar-wielding STR fighter has a similar answer (though I'm not sure that, at the same weight as a longsword, the scimitar is actually all that much smaller). In which case I'm happy to hear it - though it, as [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] mooted, the answer is "tradition", one might reasonably push back against this in character.

TLDR: if it's really all abstraction, why is the player being penalised in the name of fetishing the weapon chart? if it's not abstraction and actually means something in the fiction, then the character should have some answer in the fiction.

 

[Uchawi]

I have intertwined the need to role play and fine tune a character at the same time since I began playing blue box D&D. My body of knowledge has increased over time, so my yearning to further specialize and play out different concepts was driven by playing new versions of RPGs. There was never one specific RPG that satisfied that thirst completely. I believe developing a character whether it is based purely on random luck or purposeful design, just describes preferences on how we become immersed in a setting through our character.

We all take different paths, so at the end of the day can we get along at the table? For the later, your ability to show tolerance and being able to work towards a common goal is more important that anything the game rules lays out. However if you prefer a abstract game over one that is very detailed, then at some point you either make a concession or move along.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Nowhere, anywhere else, does Gygax's PHB talk about playing a PC, in the sense of developing and expressing a distinct personality or characterisation. .

How many times does it need to be said though? It's extremely explicit. I'll even repeat that paragraph, highlighting again the parts that stress role-playing:

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!

That's in the introduction, at the very beginning of the book, on what the entire game is about. And it's not just lip service, but extremely explicit. For the meat of the books, yes Gary talks about rules. Because the rules are how to run the game. How many rules do you need that say, "This is a game of pretend, where you act the part of your character?" So I'm sorry, but any claim that roleplaying wasn't really part of D&D until 2e is simply ludicrous. Especially since it should be noted that Mentzer's basic was before 2e, and is the most sold edition, and it was extremely explicit on the importance of role-playing. We have provided example after example of where since the early days, role-playing was called out as being important.

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

He mentions a couple times about how D&D is recreating a story, and last time I checked, you couldn't really have a story without interaction. Also, on page B59 with the example of game play, it's clearly presented as role-playing in the first person perspective.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So.... does it matter?

Seriously, whether the 1st edition rules implied it, stated it directly, or ignored the entire idea until 2nd edition.... We're on the 5th edition and the idea is pretty well entrenched in the game.

Found a video interview of an old gamer though, maybe him talking about the game will reconcile some of this.

[video=youtube;uzEVAMIvJG8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzEVAMIvJG8[/video]

 

[pemerton]

How many times does it need to be said though? It's extremely explicit. I'll even repeat that paragraph

I'm familiar with the passage. I typed it out into the thread I linked to in my previous post.

it's not just lip service, but extremely explicit.

I didn't say it's lip service. (I don't see what the relationship is beteen "lip service" and being explicit, either.) I said it plays not role in the actual description, in the book, of how to play the game.

If you read pp 107-109, which are not rules but rather are advice on how to play the game, you will see that Gygax does not once refer to PC personality. PCs are treated as fully interchangeable, depending only on their class, equipment, spell load-out and alignment.

If you look at the example of play in Gygax's DMG and in Moldvay Basic, you will similarly see no real example of or emphasis on PC personality. It's about what Gygax called "skilled play".

Here is how Gygax describes the goals of play (PHB, p 7):

By successfully meeting the challenges posed, they gain experience and move upwards in power, just as actual playing experience really increases playing skill. Imagination, intelligence, problem solving ability, ond memory are all continually exercised by participants in the game.​

Contrast that with the description of the goals of play in the 2nd ed PHB (p 18):

In truth, [a PC's] survivability has a lot less to do with his ability scores than with your desire to role-play him. If you give up on him, of course he won't survive! But if you take an interest in the character and role-play him well, then even a character with the lowest possible scores can present a fun, challenging, and all-around exciting time. Does he have a Charisma of 5? Why? Maybe he's got an ugly scar. His table manners could be atrocious. He might mean well but always manage to say the wrong thing at the wrong time. He could be bluntly honest to the point of rudeness, something not likely to endear him to most people. . . .

Don't give up on a character just because he has a low score. Instead, view it as an opportunity to role-play, to create a unique and entertaining personality in the game. Not only will you have fun creating that personality, but other players and the DM will have fun reacting to him.​

In Gygax's PHB, the "challenges" of the game are not roleplaying challenges - they are about defeating dungeons so as to gain XP and thereby gain levels. Whereas 10-odd years later, the challenge of the game is the challenge of playing a character well even if s/he has low ability scores.

The only references to PC personalities in the 1st ed PHB are in the Foreword from Mike Carr (p 2) and in the discussion of morale (p 106):

Get in the spirit of the game, and use your persona to play with a special personality all its own. Interact with the other player characters and non-player characters to give the game campaign a unique flavor and "life". Above all, let yourself go, and enjoy!

. . .

Your character will never have to check morale status, nor will any other player character, for each player provides this personally. Some are brave, some foolish, some cautious, some cowardly.​

The contrast with the 2nd ed PHB is pretty marked.

on page B59 with the example of game play, it's clearly presented as role-playing in the first person perspective.

You can do this without developing a personality for one's character. The two are quite distinct. (Equally, a player can develop a personality for his/her PC and yet narrate it in the 3rd person.)

last time I checked, you couldn't really have a story without interaction.

This is also a tangential point. Interaction between PCs and NPCs has been part of the game from year one.

But that is quite different from whether an important goal of play is for players to develop and express distinct personalities for their PCs.

We have provided example after example of where since the early days, role-playing was called out as being important.

You seem to be trying to rebut a claim that I haven't made.

Game texts changed over time. As far as D&D was concerned, this was following, not leading - reflecting changes in the broader playing community. You can see it even in individual magazine contributors: compare the tone of Lewis Pulsipher's essay on how to play D&D in White Dwarf 1977 compared to White Dwarf 1981. Over that time, he comes to place more emphasis on the "theatric", personality-development aspect of RPGing - though the idea of "skilled play" is still more important to him.

Robin Laws describes the phenomenon in the Over the Edge rulebook (p 192 of the 20th Anniversary edition):

Role-playing games changed forever the first time a player said, "I know it's the best strategy, but my character wouldn't do that." Suddenly an aesthetic concern had been put ahead of a gaming one, ie, establishing characterisation over a scenario's "victory conditions." At that unheralded moment, role-playing stopped being a game at all and began quietly evolving into a narrative art form, a junior cousin of drama, film, and literature.​

He doesn't date it, of course - but it is a change in the way that rulebooks for the game present themselves.

 

[pemerton]

So.... does it matter?

Seriously, whether the 1st edition rules implied it, stated it directly, or ignored the entire idea until 2nd edition.... We're on the 5th edition and the idea is pretty well entrenched in the game.

I care about it for a few reasons.

First, I think it is frustrating to see anachronistic projection into old rules texts. It's interesting to try and understand what those rules were talking about, on their own terms.

Second, failing to acknowledge that the goals of play changed is an impediment to rational discussion of how the game works, and what the rules are for, and should be. For instance, consider the legacy of "XP for killing monsters". That had a certain logic when the game was built around dungeon-delving, and monsters were obstacles to extracting loot from dungeons. Killing monsters was, broadly speaking, overcoming some of the key challenges the game posed.

But why does the game still have that rule? How does it make any sense in a game the goal of which is to develop and express a character's personality?

Other examples could be given, too, like the fact that the combat rules continue to be the most detailed element in the action resolution rules. Why?

Third, and following on from the above, there continue to be different approaches to RPGing. These include different views about the goals of play, about the role of mechanics, etc. Ignoring different approaches in different rulebooks, and arguing for the assimilation of those approaches to a single "We're all doing the same thing" illusion of consensus, makes it harder to talk about those different approaches, and the different rules and methods that support them.

Instead of useful discussion of different rules and methods, we get silly complaining about "railroading", "player entitlement", "munchkins", etc.

 

[Warpiglet]

The more I read about what others have experienced, the more I am convinced that roleplay and war game falls on a continuum. It has never been pegged at one end, but has moved up and down the continuum.

In in the old days, we wrote up back stories and had fun with it. In our group, I wrote the most and of he four of us, the tactics guy (who I play with some 30 years later!) was lucky to have a name he could remember! In the rules, there were hints about personality and over time, it grew into our codified bonds flaws and traits (which is brilliant for cultivating new rpg players) and developing a campaign around them.

nowadays, with more knobs and turns of them in character creation, it seems like many more choices can relate to the character of characters...other than "take the best armor you can for your class!"

I have settled on taking some for punch and some for personality and then rationalize a total fit with final fluff....

 

[Chaosmancer]

I care about it for a few reasons.

First, I think it is frustrating to see anachronistic projection into old rules texts. It's interesting to try and understand what those rules were talking about, on their own terms.

I completely agree that it is an interesting thing to look at and consider, however, you will find nothing but frustration if you attempt to apply objective truth to something as subjective as reading interpretation.

It seems clear to me that for [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] that paragraph was more than enough to encourage all the levels of role-playing they engaged in back when they played that edition. Furthermore, by looking only at the rulebook, we're missing a key component of the expeirence of learning the game.

Other people.

Dungeons and Dragons spread like a plague, the creators played at their table, told some friends who told some friends and it was off to the races. I'd imagine the first experience of the game for many people was hearing about some epic adventure an acquaintance went on. Why I'm bringing this up is because I imagine this is the origin of the various number of "One-True Wayisms". You want to play the game, sit down with Fido the Dungeon Master, and he helps you create a character. If he is telling you about how you create a persona in the game, then that is how you do it, if he says names don't matter, its all about that phat loot at the end, then that is how you see it.

The fact that the game was created and spread so quickly indicates for me that people wanted something like this, so for some people, all they needed was an excuse for creating a backstory and for others, it took a lot longer to wrap their heads around the idea.

Second, failing to acknowledge that the goals of play changed is an impediment to rational discussion of how the game works, and what the rules are for, and should be. For instance, consider the legacy of "XP for killing monsters". That had a certain logic when the game was built around dungeon-delving, and monsters were obstacles to extracting loot from dungeons. Killing monsters was, broadly speaking, overcoming some of the key challenges the game posed.

But why does the game still have that rule? How does it make any sense in a game the goal of which is to develop and express a character's personality?

Other examples could be given, too, like the fact that the combat rules continue to be the most detailed element in the action resolution rules. Why?

Third, and following on from the above, there continue to be different approaches to RPGing. These include different views about the goals of play, about the role of mechanics, etc. Ignoring different approaches in different rulebooks, and arguing for the assimilation of those approaches to a single "We're all doing the same thing" illusion of consensus, makes it harder to talk about those different approaches, and the different rules and methods that support them.

Instead of useful discussion of different rules and methods, we get silly complaining about "railroading", "player entitlement", "munchkins", etc.

And I agree all of that is an incredibly interesting discussion, but what we had was not that discussion.

For some people that single paragraph was all they needed to begin focusing on role-playing. For other people they glossed over it looking for the weapon charts or what have you.


Personally, one of the more interesting relics of the game that I've heard about is that Gold=EXP. That is fascinating to me, and has a ton of logistical problems along with it unless it was interpreted as getting the same amount of EXP as you receive gold.

But it definitely would have led to a vastly different style of play, the focus being on how to get the loot, whether through killing or sneaking or tricking. It would never work for some people, especially nowadays, as it is too easy to break if you allow selling things for gold to equal EXP, but it is an interesting thing to look back on and consider.


And, as an honest question, why do you think we still have EXP= Monster killing these days? I've personally never used EXP, I prefer milestones so I don't have to try and figure out how much XP the party gets for spending the day bartering with the local sages guild over access to a book on who knows what because I mentioned a name and they decided that was now the most important thing in the world to follow up on....

Tangent, ever wonder what would happen if you just brought a shiny ball and a laserlight to the table instead of talking? I swear some of my players would be equally fascinated, because they must be at least part cat to get distracted so easily.

 

[Sacrosanct]

First, I think it is frustrating to see anachronistic projection into old rules texts. It's interesting to try and understand what those rules were talking about, on their own terms.

Then you should probably follow your own guidance, for example....

Second, failing to acknowledge that the goals of play changed is an impediment to rational discussion of how the game works, and what the rules are for, and should be. For instance, consider the legacy of "XP for killing monsters". That had a certain logic when the game was built around dungeon-delving, and monsters were obstacles to extracting loot from dungeons. Killing monsters was, broadly speaking, overcoming some of the key challenges the game posed..

You didn't just get XP for killing monsters. For one, monster XP was just a tiny fraction of the possible award so obviously killing monsters was a tiny part of level advancement. Secondly, you got that monster XP for "beating" the monster, which included avoiding it or finding some other way around it. The rules state that as well. Also, when you look strictly at the rules on their own merit without anecdotes, they clearly support a playstyle meant to get treasure and avoid monsters first, then fight them if all else fails. Not only does Gygax literally say this, but the lethality of the mechanics also support this. it was the only way you're PCs would survive back then.

So if you're gonna tell people to talk about rules on their own terms, then you might want to follow your own advice and not do exactly what you're telling others not to do.


I'll also note this fallacy that you (and Saelorn and Tony) seem to keep repeating. That the importance and impact on gameplay of a rule is directly correlated to how many pages it takes up. I said it before that you quoted earlier. How many pages of "role playing is important part of the game" do you really need? You don't, because there is no mechanic around that. When Gygax says something like "you'll be an artful thespian [by playing the game]", that seems pretty obvious, especially with all the other supporting evidence we've already provided, of what the intent of the game is.

Combat vs. roleplay is a preference setting, not encouraged one way or the other by the game itself, but both equally important. People have had entire sessions of no combat and only role-playing, and sessions of only combat. The rules clearly states both are equally important, and always have been. Just because there are more rules for combat doesn't mean role-play wasn't also stressed as important. there are no rules for playing pretend, but there are many needed for combat.

You seem to be trying to rebut a claim that I haven't made.

I'm rebutting a claim that Saelorn made that you seem to agree with.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I completely agree that it is an interesting thing to look at and consider, however, you will find nothing but frustration if you attempt to apply objective truth to something as subjective as reading interpretation. .

TBH, I don't think there can be much controversy on the reading comprehension of that paragraph. How else is one to interpret statements like "you will be an artful thespian [by playing the game]"? I'd be curious to know how anyone can interpret that as NOT saying role-playing is important, even if you ignore the sentences directly preceding it. it's unambiguous and pretty obvious.