D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[pemerton]

This isn't better than the above -- it's different, aimed at achieving a different objective.

It's not better in the sense that it doesn't better exemplify the activity of roleplaying.

But if we're talking about RPGing as aspiring to the portrayal of characters, we might say that one is better than the other: it has more depth, and more interest, is more visceral, etc.

(Maybe I'm not making enough allowance for the difference of objectives? That the characterisation approach is a compromise, like serial fiction. But then the flip side to that is that most serial fiction obviously is rather shallow!)

 

[prabe]

It's not better in the sense that it doesn't better exemplify the activity of roleplaying.

But if we're talking about RPGing as aspiring to the portrayal of characters, we might say that one is better than the other: it has more depth, and more interest, is more visceral, etc.

(Maybe I'm not making enough allowance for the difference of objectives? That the characterisation approach is a compromise, like serial fiction. But then the flip side to that is that most serial fiction obviously is rather shallow!)

With respect, you are treating "portrayal of characters" as a better objective of TRPG play. It's not the goal at every TRPG table, nor does "portrayal" necessitate "change" or "risk" (and the systems you prefer seem to have tendencies to put the character at risk of change, against the player's preferences). I don't think a table where the characters are very rarely (shading toward never) at risk that way is playing an inferior game than your table; nor do I think your table is playing an inferior game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's not better in the sense that it doesn't better exemplify the activity of roleplaying.

But if we're talking about RPGing as aspiring to the portrayal of characters, we might say that one is better than the other: it has more depth, and more interest, is more visceral, etc.

(Maybe I'm not making enough allowance for the difference of objectives? That the characterisation approach is a compromise, like serial fiction. But then the flip side to that is that most serial fiction obviously is rather shallow!)

Possibly, but this runs into the expression part -- can I express a simple character as well as a complex one? Does the complexity make any real difference to play, or just to my performance? If just my performance, am I actually roleplaying better, or am I better at performance?

This, to me, is another key distinguishing feature -- the difference between performance and roleplaying. These are too often intermingled such that a good performance is often mistaken for good roleplaying. I've done this myself when I've put on a fun silly voice and exaggerated a trait of mine to express a character that was highly entertaining but really not different from me at all.

 

[Campbell]

This is where the distinction between the player and the character is really important.

The character's goal is to succeed at "the mission".

The player's goal is to have fun playing the game.

Those don't always have to line up.

Death, dying, injury, and yes...even failure can all be fun and entertaining gaming experiences.

Conflating the two is also where you get a lot of disruptive behavior and problems in play. Players seeing the game as a competition that can be won. Players telling other players how to play their character. Players complaining about other players doing the "sub-optimal" thing. It's like they see the game itself as a sport they're competing in rather than a game they're playing. Adversarial DMing also seems to come from a similar place. The DM thinking they are in competition with the players and out to win.

Here you are defining fun in a way that includes things you personally find enjoyable, but excludes things you personally do not find enjoyable (even though other people do). The reason 'have fun' as the established goal of play does not make much sense is that we all can enjoy quite different things that might not be compatible. There is seldom one sort of thing that would be fun in any given moment. We have to choose what sort of fun to pursue and given a group pursuit we should do so as a group.

Depending on the game and group competitive behavior, caring about performance, celebrating POG (play of the game) moments, working together to beat challenges might be the objective and a player not being that sort of thing and fighting it against might be unacceptable.

Basically "fun" on it's own does no work. The second we agree to take part in a shared group activity we should be striving to have a particular sort of fun together because our individual fun is no longer primary. We have other people to consider.

 

[Manbearcat]

Limited time but a quick thought I wanted to insert into the conversation.

1d roleplaying vs 3d roleplaying (a taxonomy based on dimensions is helpful, but it needs a lot more work than we have here) does have a situation where 1d is fundamentally better than 3d:

If I'm running a Pawn Stance dungeon crawl (typically Moldvay...never Torchbearer), then someone "distracting/disrupting" the game with characterization or trying to imprint their conception on the PC onto a game (such that gamestate trajectory is influenced by it) which is exclusively about "defeat 3d obstacle course within constraints of system/loadout/guile" makes for an objectively worse game. The expectation is that they (more or less) fully reign in their 3d roleplaying.

 

[Umbran]

This is where the distinction between the player and the character is really important.

The character's goal is to succeed at "the mission".

The player's goal is to have fun playing the game.

Those don't always have to line up.

So, I chose the words "goal" and "purpose" separately for a reason - and that's to avoid certain questions of semantics that pemerton brings up.

The goal of chess is pretty universally to manuver your opponent into checkmade. The purpose of playing may vary - you may play chess for intellectual stimulation, to learn, to gain prestige winning a tournament, or to have some pleasant alone-time with grandpa, for example. All these purposes can be met by the same game, with the same goal, but your approach to play may differ in each case.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I get that. And, I'm not unsympathetic. The only problem is, we all understand what is actually meant here, so, instead of quibbling over the words, either suggest a better terminology, or just let the terminology stand because it's right there in the definition that it's not supposed to be an elevation of one over the others but simply a spectrum of playstyles from simpler to more complicated. (Dammit, it really is HARD to find words that differentiate without sounding judgemental. )

Maybe the reason you have trouble finding unbiased language is that, well, you’re biased.

Other than his bias, the other problem with Colville’s terminology is that he uses the concept of dimensionality poorly. In his usage, if a one-dimensional geometric figure is a line, then a 3-dimensional figure would be a bunch of lines.

A better application would be to say that complexity of character concept is complexity in one dimension. Simple characters and complex characters are just different points in that dimension.

There may be multiple dimensions, but to keep it simple let’s assume the “other” dimension is tactical play. If you are roleplaying in the sense of “I am a Wizard”, then it becomes a question of how effectively you are using the wizard class.

So I’d rather use “high dimensionality play” to refer to games in which both (all) dimensions of the game are emphasized, and “low dimensionality play” to refer to games that focus on fewer, or one, facets.

In other words, a straight-up hack & slash with little character development and NPC interaction would be low-dimensionality, but a game that is all about character development and RP interaction and never required old-school “skilled play” would also be low-dimensionality.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Limited time but a quick thought I wanted to insert into the conversation.

1d roleplaying vs 3d roleplaying (a taxonomy based on dimensions is helpful, but it needs a lot more work than we have here) does have a situation where 1d is fundamentally better than 3d:

If I'm running a Pawn Stance dungeon crawl (typically Moldvay...never Torchbearer), then someone "distracting/disrupting" the game with characterization or trying to imprint their conception on the PC onto a game (such that gamestate trajectory is influenced by it) which is exclusively about "defeat 3d obstacle course within constraints of system/loadout/guile" makes for an objectively worse game. The expectation is that they (more or less) fully reign in their 3d roleplaying.

Another way of saying this (along the lines of my last point) is that if the game is complex along the dimension of tactical play, then somebody refusing to take a vital action "because my character wouldn't do that" is playing a less sophisticated game in that dimension.

 

[pemerton]

With respect, you are treating "portrayal of characters" as a better objective of TRPG play.

No I'm not. I framed my remark conditionally - if we're talking about RPGing as aspiring to the portrayal of characters - which I take to be the core topic of the thread.

If we're playing White Plume Mountain or Tomb of Horrors than (to use Colville's terminology) let's bring on the zero-dimensional characters!

nor does "portrayal" necessitate "change" or "risk" (and the systems you prefer seem to have tendencies to put the character at risk of change, against the player's preferences). I don't think a table where the characters are very rarely (shading toward never) at risk that way is playing an inferior game than your table

Again, I framed my remark conditionally. When we are looking at a medium through the lens of aspiration to portray character, then I think that what Colville calls "three dimensionality" is better (from an aesthetic point of view). It's why (for instance) Frozen is a better film than Frozen II.

 

[pemerton]

Possibly, but this runs into the expression part -- can I express a simple character as well as a complex one? Does the complexity make any real difference to play, or just to my performance? If just my performance, am I actually roleplaying better, or am I better at performance?

This, to me, is another key distinguishing feature -- the difference between performance and roleplaying. These are too often intermingled such that a good performance is often mistaken for good roleplaying. I've done this myself when I've put on a fun silly voice and exaggerated a trait of mine to express a character that was highly entertaining but really not different from me at all.

Well, I did once start a thread to explore the premise that RPGing is not a performative endeavour (I used the term "literarary" to convey the same idea) but found myself on the minority side of that proposition!

I think that complexity of character should make a difference to play - if it's just there in your backstory notes but never emerges in play, then what can I say: the backstory was a lie!, or at best a set of gears spinning idly.

In RPGing, given that most of us are not professionals, I would set the threshold for complexity pretty low. But at least a couple of potentially conflicting motivations can help: in the video Colville notes that Luke Skywalker both wants to do the right thing (so he won't break his promise and leave the farm) and wants to go off and be a hero (and hence wants to help the Princess). Colville notices how this conflict is resolved - the Stormtroopers kill Luke's aunt and uncle - but doesn't discussion how this could be done in a game (indeed, he seems to assume it would be a unilateral GM move to force the PC onto the quest). In a less railroad-y game, though, this looks like a failure narration that flows in some fashion out of the fact that Luke had to track down the droids and then wanted to learn where they came from.

And we can see how Luke gets a new second motivation once he sets off on his quest - he wants to learn how to use the force. And this again conflicts with his other motivation, because pride and the longing for glory lead to the dark side.

As may come through from the above, I quite liked the Colville video - especially its critical treatment of characterisation/"the voice" - but found it a bit disappointing in that it didn't engage with the techniques and authority-allocations that allows complex ("three dimensional") characters to emerge and matter in play.