D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[pemerton]

I would guess that, in dnd, acquiring more power (as usual) but making suboptimal decisions counts as capital-R Roleplaying.

I've bolded a key word in your post.

Suboptimal only becomes apposite in a context where the goal is already established, and the decision is counter-productive in terms of achieving it.

Even then, there are complexities: for instance, in Gygax-ish D&D if the best way to get the loot is to drive all the dungeon inhabitants out with a Cloudkill spell; but I object to that because I'm playing my paladin as upright and honourable; then I'm making a suboptimal decision - or maybe not? After all, alignment and similar restrictions are part-and-parcel of the parameters of the game, as much as the XP rules, and so by ensuring I don't suffer any penalties from violating those constraints is in fact sensible and perhaps optimal play.

But let's think about something more interesting. Is pursuing my drug habit - which enhances my magic - to the extent that it ruins me financially and results in me losing my house, suboptimal decision-making? From the point of view of the character, probably - his life went down the toilet, at least for a little while. But from the point of view of the player? When this happened in one of my Rolemaster games, the player was deeply invested in the whole thing, and played out his character's fall (which included agreeing to betray his city in return for a magistracy and the return of his house), and redemption through love, and then a different fall after his lover was killed by a summoned demon that went rogue.

If the goal of play is to find out what happens to my character, then there probably are no "suboptimal decisions" in the sense that phrase is used by D&D players, because whatever decision I make, I'm finding out what happens to my character.

 

[Umbran]

So, this is true of some, but not all, of the many techniques that are often referred to as “the method.”

Which is fine, but no longer really about RPGs.

 

[Blue]

I would guess that, in dnd, acquiring more power (as usual) but making suboptimal decisions counts as capital-R Roleplaying. Whereas the opposite--characters who acquire mechanically important flaws--is not in the rules and would be considered unfun.

Suboptimal is such an interesting term here.

Because so many people wrongly conflate character success with player success. And in a game like D&D where character failure can lead to death which is most often the opposite of player success, it's easy to understand why.

But player success is having fun. So "suboptimal" for whom - the player or the character? If I'm making choices that will cause me to have less fun, that is suboptimal and I am loosing at the game. Even if those choices lead to power or character success. But so many players would mean suboptimal for the character.

 

[Nefermandias]

What Colville calls Roleplaying, I call "improvisational method-acting." Precisely because it's so annoyingly snobbish when certain gamers say stuff like, "my game is low on combat, high on roleplaying!"

No. It's all roleplaying, and the stuff that certain gamers get snooty about is playacting.

That's why I straight up boot any "improvisational play actors" from my tables when I notice them.

Also, good thing Cat Molville isn't any kind of D&D authority...

 

[pemerton]

Suboptimal is such an interesting term here.

Because so many people wrongly conflate character success with player success. And in a game like D&D where character failure can lead to death which is most often the opposite of player success, it's easy to understand why.

But player success is having fun. So "suboptimal" for whom - the player or the character? If I'm making choices that will cause me to have less fun, that is suboptimal and I am loosing at the game. Even if those choices lead to power or character success. But so many players would mean suboptimal for the character.

In the context of most D&D play, the conflation is not wrong: the goal of play is to succeed at "the mission", whatever exactly that might be (acquiring loot from the dungeon or lairs; defeating the opponents; solving the mystery/plot the GM is presenting to the players).

In the context of this sort of play, subordinating pursuit of the mission to the presentation of one's character runs a real risk of being disruptive - as one sees frequently discussed on this and other forums.

 

[Manbearcat]

This thread is posted in the D&D sub-forum but seems to be talking about RPGing more generally.

D&D is in my view a somewhat unpropitious game for thinking about the portrayal of characters via roleplay, because (based on my knowledge of what is published, together with my sense of what play looks like based on encountering others' descriptions of it), D&D play seems to fall into a few main categories:

* Classic, Gygax-ish D&D where the goal of play is to advance your character by earning XP by successful extraction of the loot from the dungeons, lairs, etc the GM has created. In this sort of play there may be alignment rules, and racial preference charts and associated rules (eg hobgoblins prefer to attack elves because of the great hatred they bear them: MM p 53), and of course some or even much of the banter between players may be understood to be occurring between their PCs. But one the whole character does not loom large in this sort of play, because it simply doesn't fit with the goals of play.​

​

* More contemporary, challenge-focused D&D which differs from Gygaxian D&D in that the GM plays a more active role not only in designing the "setting" but also framing the scenes (eg deciding what encounter happens next), typically with a shift in XP rules from XP for loot (which shifts the onus onto the players to decide where they go next) to XP for combat (or near-combat) victory (which sits well with the GM deciding what the next challenge will be). Like Gygax-ish play this sort of D&D still assumes a team of PCs who work together, and it assumes a fairly generic set of motivations (such that it is easy for the GM to find "hooks" for the next encounter). As with Gygax-ish play, more than a very modest amount of character will interfere with the goals of this sort of play.​

​

* Probably sitting on something of a spectrum with the sort of play described in the previous paragraph, there is "story-driven" D&D play: the GM comes up with a basic conception of a mystery or some other sort of plot, and the players run their PCs through it. In 5e, this sort of play lends itself well to milestone XP rather than XP for victories. It makes sense for the PCs to have enough and the right sort of character to generate their entry into the story. But too much or too divergent character risks destabilising the whole set-up. Eg what if the PCs decide that they like the "big bad" and want to help in the nefarious scheme?​

A practical upshot of the intersection between these approaches to play, and aspiring to portrayal of characters, is that a lot of D&D advice (I'm thinking especially of 2nd ed AD&D, but also some of the discussion in the early part of the 4e D&D PHB) tends to focus on characterisation: what does the PC look like, what are their mannerisms and catch-phrases, etc. There is much less focus on what the PC wants and how they will go about getting it (4e D&D is an exception to this in the latter part of its PHB, where it talks about player-authored Quests).

RPGs that put character front-and-centre also tend to change assumptions about what the goal of play is - which then feeds into changes in the techniques used to determine what happens next, what challenges are confronted by the PCs, etc.

Regarding "styles of roleplaying", I think I'd like the following answered in this thread by as many respondents as possible (all related to conception of PC):

1) Should a conception of a PC be encoded prior to play? That is to say, is it a good thing to come into play with a high resolution backstory in mind or is it a good thing to come into play with a more malleable character (some rough ideas on backstory, present conception, and possible trajectories but letting play do much of the shaping)?

2) Who/what "owns the majority share" of the conception of a PC? Is it:

a) The premise of the scenario/adventure path.
b) The player who is playing the PC to the near exclusion of all other interested parties.
c) Some combination of player + table + system (action resolution and its attendant fallout changing characters as play evolves...perhaps fundamentally) with scenario/adventure path premise having an extremely minority claim.

3) If someone says (i) high resolution backstory/conception to (1) and their answer to (2) is (b), then what happens when your own input into action resolution and the related system-derived outcomes deeply challenges your granular conception of your PC that you feel is (nearly) exclusively yours? What happens then (meaning...are you deeply unhappy? Is this deemed a system problem...a GMing problem?)? Put another way, to this cross-section of the gaming community:

Are you responsible for bringing into play a highly granular, deeply conceived PC and is the system/GM then responsible (outside of your own responsibility) to ensure play encodes this conception into the story that emerges?

 

[Charlaquin]

Which is fine, but no longer really about RPGs.

You opened the door.

 

[prabe]

Regarding "styles of roleplaying", I think I'd like the following answered in this thread by as many respondents as possible (all related to conception of PC):

1) Should a conception of a PC be encoded prior to play? That is to say, is it a good thing to come into play with a high resolution backstory in mind or is it a good thing to come into play with a more malleable character (some rough ideas on backstory, present conception, and possible trajectories but letting play do much of the shaping)?

I think it depends. If the GM is threading stuff into the adventure/s based on what the character/s have in their past/s, I think something more than "some rough ideas" will be helpful. That doesn't mean the character needs to be fully worked out, and wanting play to shape/define the character is neither unreasonable nor uncommon. What I think is plausibly less than ideal in that instance is a character that is either static or has a planned evolution; either of those will leave that player less able to be surprised by their character.

2) Who/what "owns the majority share" of the conception of a PC? Is it:

a) The premise of the scenario/adventure path.
b) The player who is playing the PC to the near exclusion of all other interested parties.
c) Some combination of player + table + system (action resolution and its attendant fallout changing characters as play evolves...perhaps fundamentally) with scenario/adventure path premise having an extremely minority claim.

My first instinct is that the player owns the majority share of their character. I'm willing to allow that the other people at the table might have an interest, and while it's possible for a game to be designed to change characters, I am inclined to say it's primarily up to the player to handle that. I'd say that while the events of a scenario might change a character, or a campaign premise might place limits on available character ideas, neither of those really changes my thinking that the player has primary responsibility for handling and operating their character and accounting for the scenario and/or premise.

3) If someone says (i) high resolution backstory/conception to (1) and their answer to (2) is (b), then what happens when your own input into action resolution and the related system-derived outcomes deeply challenges your granular conception of your PC that you feel is (nearly) exclusively yours? What happens then (meaning...are you deeply unhappy? Is this deemed a system problem...a GMing problem?)?

I don't think that's really a problem, or it doesn't have to be. I mean, it can be, if the changes end up in a character you don't want to play, for whatever reason, but the risks of that can be moderated. Or maybe you just make a new character. This sort of a thing can be bad GMing, but it doesn't have to be that, either; and if it's a matter that the system ... feels as though it's hijacking your character, that may well be a system-player mismatch, but that doesn't mean either the system or the player is bad.

Put another way, to this cross-section of the gaming community:

Are you responsible for bringing into play a highly granular, deeply conceived PC and is the system/GM then responsible (outside of your own responsibility) to ensure play encodes this conception into the story that emerges?

I think a player is responsible for bringing a character appropriate to the game that will be played around the table. What that means will, of course, vary. If your GM wants some backstory, maybe work some stuff out; if they want it to emerge from play, leave whatever you don't need to figure out beforehand blank; if the GM wants to write your backstory, run away.

 

[Charlaquin]

1) Should a conception of a PC be encoded prior to play? That is to say, is it a good thing to come into play with a high resolution backstory in mind or is it a good thing to come into play with a more malleable character (some rough ideas on backstory, present conception, and possible trajectories but letting play do much of the shaping)?

There is no “should.” Both are valid approaches to playing a character; with the caveat that if you plan to come into play with a high resolution backstory, you should check with the rest of the group if they agree it fits the game you all want to play together. Be a considerate roleplayer.

2) Who/what "owns the majority share" of the conception of a PC? Is it:

a) The premise of the scenario/adventure path.
b) The player who is playing the PC to the near exclusion of all other interested parties.
c) Some combination of player + table + system (action resolution and its attendant fallout changing characters as play evolves...perhaps fundamentally) with scenario/adventure path premise having an extremely minority claim.

C. It’s fundamentally the player’s concept, but they also need to work within the parameters of a cooperative game, as well as setting-based restrictions and any necessary buy-in for the scenario.

 

[Manbearcat]

There is no “should.” Both are valid approaches to playing a character; with the caveat that if you plan to come into play with a high resolution backstory, you should check with the rest of the group if they agree it fits the game you all want to play together. Be a considerate roleplayer.

C. It’s fundamentally the player’s concept, but they also need to work within the parameters of a cooperative game, as well as setting-based restrictions and any necessary buy-in for the scenario.

Let us take (c) and assume that you've got an idealized version of what you're describing.

After that, where does the conception of the PC come from? What does the "share breakdown" (lets call it) look like and who/what is responsible for it as play progresses?

Take Coleville's video on The Last of Us.

Matt is playing Joel in the final conflict. The new Aliens TTRPG has some mechanics that would push back against Joel killing his way to rescue Elle off the operation table and cutting a path through Firefly personnel as he cuts a bloody egress with the unconscious Elle.

What if Matt's conception of Joel wasn't solidified until this final conflict. It was unclear to Matt (a) just how deeply he felt about Elle, (b) just how little salvation he felt was available for the human race, and (c) that Joel was capable of the kind of bloodbath that he wrought to get her off that operating table. However, now that he's "in it", its becoming clear to him. His focus narrows to nothing but Elle.

However...

the game's mechanics cause him to flinch and his knees to buckle when he's about to put a knife into the surgeons/staff in the operating room. The player cannot make this move to kill the staff and now there is a much increased likelihood that (a) Elle isn't getting off of that table and (b) he's going to be overrun by Firefly staff and killed himself.

What then? Did we (the table as a collective...including the player who is playing Joel) just learn something about Joel we didn't know before? Or is the player of Joel pissed off?