D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[hawkeyefan]

Now, moving to your specific issue- people are describing, for other people, the "point" of a game (like D&D) and more particularly stating that the point is (paraphrasing here) "completing missions."

I don’t think that’s quite what was happening. It was more a case of, lacking any specific “point of play” one was suggested.

Completing the mission, getting the loot, killing the monster….these are all pretty common goals of play in D&D, though they’re certainly not specific. I don’t think using them in an example to explain how there are goals beside having fun is an attempt to define specifically what the point of play will be.

 

[Hussar]

Agreed.

Basically this whole dispute (or, really, all the various sub-disputes under this general topic) are resolved with the simple rule of "play with people who share your preferences".

I'm all for evangelizing one's favoured playstyle, and trying to convince people of why it's so awesome. I like hearing about approaches that I hadn't considered. But too often that slips into badwrongfun arguments.

And I too absolutely agree here.

My point is, "play with people who share your preferences" is aided by having a framework that helps to illuminate what those preferences are.

I could not care less what the actual terms of those preferences are. Let's use colors if that makes people happy. I'm a Chartreuse preference player, how about you?

 

[Hussar]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

In my games, there are no rules for personal interactions other than the standard "if uncertain roll for it". The majority of personal interactions, whether romantic or otherwise, are handled through role playing it.

Much like how I run my campaigns, I place opportunity for a variety of interactions in front of the PCs, it's up to them what they do with it. Sometimes I'll roll for NPC reaction, that's it.

It's not about rules, it's about deciding NPCs will act and respond based on my conception of who they are and the situation at hand

Correction. The majority of personal interactions at your table are handled through free form play.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Wow, that's not even remotely close to true. That's such a complete mischaracterization and shows a rather impressive lack of understanding of game design.

 

[Hussar]

Having been part of such tables for a very long time, and having seen them be successful far more often than not, I'll say that it can work just fine provided each player is willing and able to admit that (some of) the others don't play like they do.

Whereas I've rarely seen such a table survive for any real length of time. Funny how personal experience is like that. Such a table basically means that half the players are not having fun all the time. Not my recipe for a fun table.

 

[Oofta]

Correction. The majority of personal interactions at your table are handled through free form play.

If you say so. Since we don't have an agreed upon definition I don't see that it matters.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Note, that's not quite what I said. I said that in a role playing game, if someone refuses to actually play a role, as in portray a character, then they aren't playing an RPG. I'm shocked by how much pushback this gets. If you can play an RPG without any R, then it's just a game. It's no different than any other suitably complex board game. Hey, I adore complex board games. I've spent far, far too many hours playing Star Fleet Battles to not enjoy it.

But, at no point would I ever characterize playing Advanced Squad Leader, Star Fleet Battles, Eclipse or various other games as role playing. There probably isn't an RPG out there as complex as Stellaris, but, Stellaris is not an RPG. Could I role play during play? Sure? But, the system in no way rewards or expects it.

Saying an RPG expects players to play a role is kinda like saying rain is wet. It's right there in the name.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don’t think that’s quite what was happening. It was more a case of, lacking any specific “point of play” one was suggested.

Completing the mission, getting the loot, killing the monster….these are all pretty common goals of play in D&D, though they’re certainly not specific. I don’t think using them in an example to explain how there are goals beside having fun is an attempt to define specifically what the point of play will be.

I think it was more emphatic than that, but taking this- I still disagree.

A lot of D&D is similar to a pencil factory during a graphite shortage- pointless. And that's fine! There doesn't have to be a point, or a goal, to the play. It can satisfy a lot of different desires- it can be something as simple as "entertainment." In that manner, asking what the point of getting together with friends to play D&D (or other games) is similar to asking, "What's the goal of watching Sunday Night Football tonight?" I dunno? Because it's there? Because it's a pleasant use of my time?

I think a lot of this is from conflating different approaches to the hobby; to use a very simple example, I have a small group of adult friend I get together with occasionally and we play board games. The goal of it certainly isn't to win; in fact, while we have fun and try, I think anyone that was overly competitive wouldn't be welcomed back (trying too hard is gauche, you know?). Because there is a large component of the social activity that is orthogonal to what we are doing.

What some people try to do is assume that everyone has the same interests in terms of advancing specific play objectives. In other words, how do you play "better." How do you make the experience "better." How do you better align the rules and the RPG and the theory and the everything else to maximize the experience- to make it "better." There's nothing wrong with that!

...but that's also not why everyone is playing TTRPGs (I would go so far as to say that it not why the majority of people are playing TTRPGs).

And the friction occurs because of arguments over silly things, usually definitions. Usually jargon. But those silly arguments are just papering over the underlying disagreement that cannot, and will not, be resolved. Because different people get different things from the games we play.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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.

You keep wanting to turn this into a semantic debate. I do not give a fetid dingo's kidney what terms you use. Pick them, and I'll use them.

To me, it's perfectly clear what's being explained here. Yes, I prefer one to another. As @Oofta has repeated, why is that a problem? I've been pretty clear about saying that this is purely my own views.
So, pick terms that you like, and then move on. No one seems to have issues with the categories themselves, so, pick random words and move on.

 

[Hussar]

So unless you're trying to portray a character you're not playing a role-playing game. Great. What's portraying a character look like? Is it silly voices and cosplay? Is it making decisions based on separate criteria than what you would do, i.e. making decisions based on what the character would do? Or is it as simple as Grabthar attacks the orc with his hammer?

It is making decisions based on separate criteria than what you would do.

How is this even something that is up for debate?