D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Ovinomancer]

Define "choice of game".

If I have a miserable time playing D&D, I don't necessarily need to revisit my choice to play D&D. There are many possible reasons for the miserable result, only one of which is the ruleset itself. I may need to revisit how I am playing D&D - it isn't like there's only one way to play.

I'm curious as to why you didn't apply your suggestion to @pemerton's statement but instead assumed that he must be speaking about switching systems?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I believe “it” in your question was referring to the “share breakdown,” though I believe I misread you and thought “it” referred to the conception of the character. I’m not entirely sure I follow what you are/were asking here.

I’d generally describe the former as creating a detailed character before play begins and playing to see how that character reacts to the events that arise during play, whereas the latter I would describe as developing or “discovering” a character through play.

I’m not sure they need to be two different kinds of game. I think players tend to have an inherent preference for one approach or the other, and as DM I am happy to accommodate both approaches in the same game.

I don't know that that latter is coherent, at least as I understand what @Manbearcat is getting to. I think that it could be coherent in the sense that a player in a D&D game can have a detailed backstory and another could not have anything at all and just 'wing it,' but this really isn't the concept being discussed. In both of these cases, the player is still the absolutely stakeholder in the character and it will be exactly as they say. MBC is driving more to contrast this with situations where the player isn't the absolute stakeholder, but perhaps, at best, the majority stakeholder -- they usually get the say about the character, but other things like other players or the system also have input that must be acknowledged. This is not saying the same thing as the player gets to decide how the character reacts to events (absolute shareholder) but rather that sometimes the player does not get this say and has to reconcile those results with the character being played. The LoU example where the character suddenly finds they cannot go through with the plan due is such an issue -- the player is not making this choice, the system did, and now the player has to accommodate that within the character.

In this conceptual space, it's not coherent to allow PCs with the player being the absolute stakeholder and PCs where they are not absolute stakeholders -- you will be making choices/applying mechanics differently here depending on which PC is resolving actions.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't know that that latter is coherent, at least as I understand what @Manbearcat is getting to. I think that it could be coherent in the sense that a player in a D&D game can have a detailed backstory and another could not have anything at all and just 'wing it,' but this really isn't the concept being discussed. In both of these cases, the player is still the absolutely stakeholder in the character and it will be exactly as they say. MBC is driving more to contrast this with situations where the player isn't the absolute stakeholder, but perhaps, at best, the majority stakeholder -- they usually get the say about the character, but other things like other players or the system also have input that must be acknowledged.

I believe the other players, the setting, and the system always have some input on the character that must be acknowledged. A player who wants to begin play with a highly developed character with a detailed backstory, etc., they still have to do so within the restrictions of the system, the setting, and the group. The setting may have restrictions around available types of characters (such as race and class). The scenario may demand that the characters be willing to take on a particular mission. The DM may have certain restrictions like “no evil PCs.” And of course, as RPGs are group activities, your character needs to be able to work with a group (unless PvP is part of the premise, but in that case that’s also a constraint that must be accounted for).

This is not saying the same thing as the player gets to decide how the character reacts to events (absolute shareholder) but rather that sometimes the player does not get this say and has to reconcile those results with the character being played. The LoU example where the character suddenly finds they cannot go through with the plan due is such an issue -- the player is not making this choice, the system did, and now the player has to accommodate that within the character.

Isn’t that a system question though? For example, in D&D, the player usually has full control over their character’s actions and reactions to events, but certain effects, especially enchantment magic, temporarily subvert that control. On the other hand, some systems, like in the LoU example, dictate or at least influence character actions and reactions to events quite regularly.

In this conceptual space, it's not coherent to allow PCs with the player being the absolute stakeholder and PCs where they are not absolute stakeholders -- you will be making choices/applying mechanics differently here depending on which PC is resolving actions.

I don’t think the player is ever absolute stakeholder of their PC. They are generally majority stakeholder, but various other demands such as setting, system, and group will affect it. The LoU example is a good one of a case where system can affect character.

 

[Umbran]

I'm curious as to why you didn't apply your suggestion to @pemerton's statement but instead assumed that he must be speaking about switching systems?

I didn't - thus the point that "choice of game" needs to be defined.

From there, I merely clarified that "choice of game" need not be (and, in this instance, should not be) equivalent to "ruleset".

 

[Ovinomancer]

I didn't - thus the point that "choice of game" needs to be defined.

From there, I merely clarified that "choice of game" need not be (and, in this instance, should not be) equivalent to "ruleset".

If you had stopped there, fine, but you went on to create a strawman position (one where you need to consider a different system) and then knocked it down by supplying the solution that D&D could have lots of "games' in it. I'm pointing out that you needed have created the strawman, nor implied that this was anything like @pemerton's argument.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I believe the other players, the setting, and the system always have some input on the character that must be acknowledged. A player who wants to begin play with a highly developed character with a detailed backstory, etc., they still have to do so within the restrictions of the system, the setting, and the group. The setting may have restrictions around available types of characters (such as race and class). The scenario may demand that the characters be willing to take on a particular mission. The DM may have certain restrictions like “no evil PCs.” And of course, as RPGs are group activities, your character needs to be able to work with a group (unless PvP is part of the premise, but in that case that’s also a constraint that must be accounted for).

I think you're making a distinction that isn't actually relevant. You seem to be pointing out that the game to be played may create some constraints, along with the players you're playing with. Sure, I can't make Zap Brannagan, clueless womanizer with lightning powers in a grim and gritty game were other players are going to be offended by this character (a very likely outcome, really). So, sure, some constraints, but so long as I'm within the social contract and genre, I have absolute control over my character in my D&D games. The second thing I think you might be referring to are the inputs caused by other players to my decision making process for my character, but this is a second order input at best -- it's the social pressure of the table to how I approach the game in general, not actual asserted control over my character.

So, yeah, in D&D, other players and the game system have, at best, an impact on the player's decision making process and thereby the character, but only through the player's choices. The PC is still under absolute control of the player.

Isn’t that a system question though? For example, in D&D, the player usually has full control over their character’s actions and reactions to events, but certain effects, especially enchantment magic, temporarily subvert that control. On the other hand, some systems, like in the LoU example, dictate or at least influence character actions and reactions to events quite regularly.

I don't think these are at all relevant -- these are all temporary powers, explicitly exceptions, and require no change to the character once completed. They are just transitory effect where the player is largely removed from PC control for a few moments of play before reverting back to the player's control with no lasting changes. The player is entirely in control over how the PC reacts to or even acknowledges the interruption.

I don’t think the player is ever absolute stakeholder of their PC. They are generally majority stakeholder, but various other demands such as setting, system, and group will affect it. The LoU example is a good one of a case where system can affect character.

Unless you're saying the GM is asserting fiat over the rules of the game or that the transitory magics above are being deployed, then no one else ever has the ability to gainsay the control of a PC the player has. You're quibbling around the edges by bringing in peer pressure or manipulation (positive or negative) on the player, which is not the character. You can alter the player, and then the player may make a different choice for the character, but you're not asserting control over that character -- it's control remains entirely with the player.

To revise the example, if I have decided my D&D PC is convinced of their own superiority, then I can maintain this for my PC indefinitely and nothing can ever alter it except briefly with specific magics. There's no one other than me, the owner of the PC, that can choose to have something different occur. I am the absolute stakeholder of this. The best another could do is attempt to change my mind as a player, because they cannot change my character.

 

[prabe]

To revise the example, if I have decided my D&D PC is convinced of their own superiority, then I can maintain this for my PC indefinitely and nothing can ever alter it except briefly with specific magics. There's no one other than me, the owner of the PC, that can choose to have something different occur. I am the absolute stakeholder of this. The best another could do is attempt to change my mind as a player, because they cannot change my character.

Gah. I hate to quibble like this, but ...

If your character is convinced of their own superiority, and they have their posterior handed to them several times in several ways, and you don't change their self-conception ... isn't there something more, or something else, going on at that point?

 

[Blue]

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.

A miserable table of players and DM that completes "the mission" has not satisfied the goal of having fun. A game where everything goes off the rails and the mission destructs seven ways to sunday but everyone had a great time and has fantastic stories from the session has succeeded at the goal of having fun.

Again, while played/DM goals of having fun may align with the character goal of "solving the mission", conflating them and saying that they is only one goal for both players and characters is false.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If your character is convinced of their own superiority, and they have their posterior handed to them several times in several ways, and you don't change their self-conception ... isn't there something more, or something else, going on at that point?

If that's actually how human brains worked, internet debates about RPGs would have a completely different tenor.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Gah. I hate to quibble like this, but ...

If your character is convinced of their own superiority, and they have their posterior handed to them several times in several ways, and you don't change their self-conception ... isn't there something more, or something else, going on at that point?

You can quibble, and question the motivation of the player, but, again, we're discussing the motivation of the player at this point, and why they've chosen to exercise their absolute control over the character in this way. However the player justifies, or doesn't deign to do so, this is just part and parcel of their control.