D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Hussar]

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.

Well, that's because, to me, "Portrayal of character" is key to playing a ROLE playing game. WIthout portrayal of character, you're no longer playing an RPG. But, that's my personal bias there.

 

[Oofta]

Let me try this another way. I'm a player in your game and I'd like to engage in a social scene with an NPC. How do I know how this will work?

My understanding is that I will pretend to be my character and playact in that manner, putting my wants for this interaction into dialog. You will respond in kind as the NPC. A scene will play out, with you making decisions for the NPC and me for my character. You will determine what the NPC's responses and actions will be in response to me. As the player, I will retain full control over how my PC responds and reacts to you. You will decide the overall result of the interaction.

That close? Well, as the player, I would say the rules here are GM says.

You're describing pretty much every D&D game I've ever played, seen played, or seen streamed. Sometimes there's uncertainty and a roll with appropriate modifiers, sometimes not.

If you want to call that a ruleset, sure. Go for it.

 

[prabe]

Well, that's because, to me, "Portrayal of character" is key to playing a ROLE playing game. WIthout portrayal of character, you're no longer playing an RPG. But, that's my personal bias there.

And a difference between you and me is that I wouldn't say someone playing differently than me is "no longer playing an RPG." I guess that's my personal bias, there.

 

[Hussar]

Believe it or not, displaying your broad knowledge of games does no good if others have not played them.

In any case, I don't want or need a carrot or stick to influence or reward how people run their PCs. I make options available to the players for adventure, romance, personal relationships and heartbreak. Whether they do anything with it is totally up to them.

I don't want rules that directly influence what a PC thinks or feels. To me, it would taint those in character moments.

So I'm happy D&D doesn't "support" romance. I want the story to support it, not the rules.

You cannot ask for examples of what these mechanics would look like, declare your ignorance of said mechanics and then proclaim that you're "happy" with what you have without actually analyzing the mechanics in question. And it REALLY doesn't help when you have REPEATEDLY done this in every single thread related to the topic and then still absolutely REFUSE to learn anything about the mechanics.

In other words, you have found something that works for you, great. But, that doesn't help anyone else and no one is designing games for your table.

 

[Lanefan]

Maybe in your games lack romance, personal commitments and things other than the "mission". That's not the fault, nor responsibility of the game rules. My games have plenty.

We play a reasonably heavy RP game. That means relationships and personal interactions of all sorts happen organically based on what the player believes their PC would think and do. Having rules that dictate what a PC thinks or feels is the last thing I would want.

Ditto. And the missions still get accomplished as well...or at least attempted.

Heavy RP, romance, etc. can certainly occur within a mission-driven game; and I've about 40 years worth of experience to back that up.

That said, romance etc. sure as hell doesn't need codified rules!

So. Again. What would so called "support" look like?

At the table, that support would look like the DM allowing table time for the RP to play out and not rushing things. In the DMG, it would be the giving of this same advice; while in the PH it would be a few paragraphs devoted to outside-the-rules RP suggestions and ideas.

 

[Lanefan]

Because not everyone wants to try to make their PC come to life or makes decisions for their PC based on what their PC would do. Some people play D&D like it’s a boardgame. For some of them, rules for this kind of thing are necessary.

Romance: the Boardgame.

Coming soon to a gaming store near you!

 

[Oofta]

You cannot ask for examples of what these mechanics would look like, declare your ignorance of said mechanics and then proclaim that you're "happy" with what you have without actually analyzing the mechanics in question. And it REALLY doesn't help when you have REPEATEDLY done this in every single thread related to the topic and then still absolutely REFUSE to learn anything about the mechanics.

In other words, you have found something that works for you, great. But, that doesn't help anyone else and no one is designing games for your table.

I have no problem with the example given. In fact I gave a thumbs up a page or so back to @hawkeyefan because he actually gave me some insight, explanation and examples.. Most of the time all I get is "game X and Y". Difficult to learn about mechanics when people don't share them.

So why do you have an issue with me explaining what I do and why I prefer it? I have a hard time believing that the majority of people have no concept of how other people think (there are exceptions). Stating that I don't want or need more structure to social interactions is my opinion. If you have concrete examples, share! But all I ever seem to see (and I may have missed some) is "it should be better" or "it should be like [insert game I've never played]".

Or am I just not allowed to explain my style of roleplaying in a thread on roleplaying?

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, more just means more. Full stop. Doesn't mean better. Does mean different. That's a particular reading - that more=better - that is not present in the definition.

You've said before that 0d play is not roleplaying, and that roleplaying has "evolved" to now be roleplaying, so I'm having trouble reconciling these things. Any help?

Plus, you keep insisting that more dimensions means "playacting" which I reject flat out. It's not about funny voices and amateur thespianism. That's a definition that has been added by those that take exception to the notion of different dimensions at play.

I didn't equate the two at all. That was a separate point.

But, sure, if it floats your boat, let's reverse the numbers. Three Dimensional Role Play is pure pawn stance with all decisions being made in service to the resolution of the puzzles of the game. Zero Dimensional play ignores the in game puzzles in favor of portraying the character being played. I really could not care less.

Doesn't help me at all -- I find the distinction that these are more or less of the same thing to be inapt and useless. They are different things serving different goals of play. I'm certainly not enamored of it just because you changed the scale so the other end is bigger -- it's the more/less thing I have issue with.

 

[Malmuria]

Then maybe a different game would work better for them.

exactly!

 

[Ovinomancer]

You're describing pretty much every D&D game I've ever played, seen played, or seen streamed. Sometimes there's uncertainty and a roll with appropriate modifiers, sometimes not.

If you want to call that a ruleset, sure. Go for it.

It is -- otherwise you wouldn't still be using it because you'd have no methods for conflict resolution. Rules don't have to be hard and fast. Do what Bob says is definitely a rule.