D&D 5E On rulings, rules, and Twitter, or: How Sage Advice Changed

[Thomas Shey]

They can be, but the problem is the behavior not the excuse. Remove all personality traits from the game and I doubt you'll hear any less that "its what their character would do."

Yeah, that one's been a thing all the way back to OD&D.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's not strange at all, it's completely logical. Really not sure what the confusion is.

Do you not have activities you enjoy despite not being particularly good at them?

The problem is that "good at" still requires a reference, and there's no common reference here to work from. "Good at" makes assumptions about what one is trying to do, and what people are trying to do when gaming is not the same.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying a game where everyone is engaged both mechanically and narratively is better, and any rule that pushes for both of those aspects to be engaged simultaneously makes the game design stronger.

But that's you. That's the problem with your ongoing argument here; you're, essentially, setting your priorities in the game as the one that's important. Which is fine on a purely personal basis, but not so much when you take it as a given others should share it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

We both agree there is no one true way. But some ways are still better than others. If you can't see how both can be true, I can't help.

No. Some ways are better for some people. That’s it.

What kind of games are you playing a 1 foot difference in height has substantial mechanical effects on gameplay???

What kind of game doesn’t!? Ease of getting cover/concealment, getting through small spaces, grappling, etc are all affected by size, and not just size category.

The Narrativist revolution cannot come soon enough.

Eh. Nah I’m good.

Come on, now. You can't look at mechanics like playbooks, or Aspects from FATE, or 13th Age's backgrounds and One Unique Thing, and not say they do a straight up better job at encouraging characterization with little, if any, more mechanical heft.

Sure I can. I do. I’ve played all three examples (specifically monster of the week for playbooks) enough to know they don’t reliably improve the amount or quality of roleplaying.

For many players, they detract from it, because the player is thinking about the mechanics rather than simply embodying their character.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I haven’t really been following this thread since it’s recent revival, but I wanted to pop in to say I’m with you on this. I’m fine with structured mechanics like background characteristics in D&D or Virtue and Vice in CofD, but I can’t stand it when the game encourages the DM to hand out bennies at their discretion for “good roleplaying” or “clever ideas” or what have you.

In my experience over the years, its even worse when its baked into the experience system. Its very common and I stopped using what I think of as social-engineering experience many years ago because I concluded the malign elements outweighed the benign ones.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Which is my push back. I don't want the characterization to have any mechanical game rule impact. It, for me, would distract from the RP aspects of the game instead of enhancing it. If I'm thinking about what my character should say in order to check off a box or satisfy some criteria then I'm not thinking about how my PC would think or respond organically.

Ah, so you're also against any XP for fulfilling character goals and roleplaying XP awards. Roleplaying is it's own reward, there should never be any mechanical benefit for roleplaying at all.

Different strokes, I guess.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Ah, so you're also against any XP for fulfilling character goals and roleplaying XP awards. Roleplaying is it's own reward, there should never be any mechanical benefit for roleplaying at all.

Different strokes, I guess.

I'll respond with my approach. I play for immersion (yeah that word). I like to forget I am playing and become the character. Using mechanics for things I personally cannot do doesn't hurt that, as it is me rolling dice to simulate an action in fiction. But when I am inside my character, mechanics that influence decision or push for certain actions completely pulls me out, as I am not thinking as the character, but as a player on how to maximize the mechanics.

Roleplaying isn't "it's own reward" for me - it's the entire reason I am in the hobby- so mechanical input on how I play is, in fact, an impediment to why I play.

 

[TwoSix]

But that's you. That's the problem with your ongoing argument here; you're, essentially, setting your priorities in the game as the one that's important. Which is fine on a purely personal basis, but not so much when you take it as a given others should share it.

I don't have a problem with it. Any assessment requires an assumption that there are some objective standards to measure against. Would you want to read a column of film criticism constantly caveated with "But that's just my opinion, man, maybe you'll really like this movie I think is hot garbage?"

 

[TwoSix]

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'll respond with my approach. I play for immersion (yeah that word). I like to forget I am playing and become the character. Using mechanics for things I personally cannot do doesn't hurt that, as it is me rolling dice to simulate an action in fiction. But when I am inside my character, mechanics that influence decision or push for certain actions completely pulls me out, as I am not thinking as the character, but as a player on how to maximize the mechanics.

Roleplaying isn't "it's own reward" for me - it's the entire reason I am in the hobby- so mechanical input on how I play is, in fact, an impediment to why I play.

You're never thinking as the character, though, this is impossible. If you're actually trying to play a character that isn't just a version of you, then you should constantly be having to consider actions from outside yourself. I understand the comfort of being solidly in the zone, but it's a mistake to suggest that this is really being in tune with a character not yourself instead of just you being immersed in the fiction. It's a myth used to discount play approaches.

I mean, what games have you played that actually use characterization things with teeth? I feel like there's a lot of "I'm pretty sure I won't like that, but I haven't ever actually seen it done or experienced in person," going on. And I say that because I once thought very similarly to your points, here. I have changed my mind, and I haven't lost my desire to have strong characters in play, and I am not disappointed when I play games that feature such mechanics. This is usually because who my character is actually matters to play, while when I play D&D, I need to make sure I don't rock the boat too much for the other players (it's a team game) and that the person deciding what happens is the GM, according to what they want.

There really seems to be a lot of defending "how I've always done it" and I even see this in the defense of BIFTs as they stand -- it's an incredibly weak system even just as RP suggestions and really just reinforces the illusion that character matters in D&D when it usually doesn't. To make this point, play any of the published adventures and see how much changes when you roleplay a different character.