D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Campbell]

I think too much fuss gets made over the roleplaying word and its dictionary definition. We should look at the scope of the entire hobby and let that define what roleplaying means in the context of the hobby. The word used to describe it is mostly just an accident of a history. You needed something to describe what was a natural outgrowth of the historical war gaming hobby. Roleplaying was used, but it's not particularly meaningful characterization of what separates this hobby from say board games or improv acting.

Basically the unifying thing that separates roleplaying games from other sorts of games is that fictional positioning matters - that our ability to reason about the fictional scenario and setting has an impact on play. That's not the case for something like Resistance or Secret Hitler where you do take on roles, but fictional reasoning does not affect the play of the game in the same way it does in pawn stance D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

As others have said, there is no one true way to play the game. Some people play a game that rarely involves combat and hours spent on things that people would find mind-numbingly boring while others break out the beer and pretzels so Grognard the Barbarian can kick in the door and kick derrieres with nary a word said in character.

Ah, but Grognard is still saying a great deal in character - with his boots, and his axe, and his fists...

Characterization can come from many directions, vocal being but one.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

I claim red.

Blood red.

The-blood-of-my-defeated,-dying-foes red.

Anyone else?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

We've long, long since accepted as a fact of life that the game isn't going to be - and can't be - fun for everyone every minute of the time.

So be it.

 

[Lanefan]

No single person in particular. There is a rather popular strain of thought right now, that can be summarized very loosely as, "D&D can and should embrace the entirety of these ranges." That one system not only can, but should, simultaneously serve the needs of neo-Gygaxian murder-hole delvers, "systems are toolkits" (or "we've got a binder of house-rules") hobbyist re-builders, hardcore "set the system running and find out what happens" simulationists, casual beer-and-pretzels dice-slingers, folks who love deep and balanced systems, etc. without any of them feeling left out or under-served.

1e and early 2e, to some extent, had this vibe - or at least the clear potential for it - largely because those systems were so modular in design and thus easier to kitbash into what you wanted for your table. Since then, the game's been somewhat over-designed and some of those needs are by default prioritized over others.

But then again, I'm of the mind that a return to a two-system setup would be more beneficial than detrimental. Both using the same fundamental chassis, so there's interoperability and relatively easy translation between the two. One specifically geared for low mechanical engagement, extremely straightforward rules, maximal ease of inventing your own rules on the spot, a casual attitude toward any "official" patching of holes in the rules, etc. The other specifically geared for high mechanical engagement, strategic and tactical depth, a strong emphasis on innate balance, built-in support for "simulationism" (which, from multiple fans of the term, I find usually means "system maps pretty close to world" plus "player inputs lead to surprising, yet deterministic, results") and for narrative-driven play.

While I'd quibble about some of what you think each system would be best used for, I completely agree with the two-system principle and have been a proponent of the idea since 3e came out.

The one thing I'd really want is that the two systems be compatible enough that one could mix and match different elements if one wanted.

I would not call them "Basic" and "Advanced" because those are super loaded terms, but the fundamental idea is similar. TBH I really don't know what I'd call the "modern day AD&D" because calling it "Modern D&D" is likely to cause confusion due to "Modern" being a term for settings or rules options where stuff like guns and telephones are in the rules, but I'm at a loss for a better alternative word ("Contemporary" would be a candidate...but it starts with the same letter as "Classic," unfortunately).

How about Low-Mech[anics] and High-Mech[anics]?

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not sure why you are so hung up on the notion that more=better/less=worse. Perhaps it's a cultural thing?

Ayup, it is; starting with the Industrial Revolution and ever-more-deeply ingrained since.

To say more would get into politics...

 

[Hussar]

Dude, you realize that by saying low expression, high exploration is not roleplaying that you're cutting out games where you play characters to find out what happens to them and who they are but don't spend a lot of time at the table describing or playacting characterizations, right? I mean, I'm strongly questioning your definition of role at this point, because it's certainly not the one used by most people I discuss this with -- which is merely taking on the role of someone else to play the game but not necessarily the persona.

There is no role without persona in an RPG.

Role without persona is what you do during any game. In soccer, if I'm playing goalkeeper, I have that role. I have certain expectations and rules that govern my behaviour in that role during play. But, at no point would anyone characterize soccer as a role playing game.

The entire point of an RPG is to inhabit the persona of the character you create. Games where you play a character to find out what happens to them but without any actual persona, is the definition of any game. Chess becomes a role playing game under your definition. It's so broad as to be useless as a definition.

 

[Hussar]

We've long, long since accepted as a fact of life that the game isn't going to be - and can't be - fun for everyone every minute of the time.

So be it.

Maybe not. But, if your table has an unhappy player or players 100% of the time, something is very, very wrong.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

I understand that you may prefer mechanics that affect a PC's mental space (e.g., thoughts, romance, etc.), this is neither an accurate nor a fair assessment of what people who like social mechanics are looking to get out of them, @overgeeked. Not at all. It's also worth noting that games where these sort of mechanics are found (e.g., PbtA, Fate, etc.) aren't really all that conducive to "play...like it's a boardgame." So the veiled accusation comes across as ignorant slander rather than any sort of valid observation.

You are playing a fictive role, but since you control (nearly) everything about the role, including the mental space and actions, there can also be a conflict of interest between you as a rational actor controlling the PC (with your own play goals) and the irrational/rational mind of the PC (with their "own" in-game goals, personality, and quirks). This can create a conflict of interest. Obviously some people believe that they don't need or want these sort of mechanics, and that they are above such conflicts of interest: i.e., if you are roleplaying "correctly," then you don't need them.

Additionally some games want roleplay to be about discovering things about your character and their mental space, and these games may use mechanics to cultivate that experience with its various twists and turns. This may be things like having a mental conception of your high school teenager character as straight, but then a heated encounter with somone of their same gender unexpectedly "turns them on." Now you have to roleplay that prompt given to you. What does being turned on by someone of the same gender mean for your character and their sexuality? It's up for you to decide, but it doesn't change that your "straight" character got turned on by someone of the same gender as per the game (i.e., Monsterhearts). But it's a game with clear allusions to teens discovering their sexuality. As Monsterhearts 2 writes:

This move is at the heart of how Monsterhearts understands sexuality, especially teen sexuality. We don’t get to decide what turns us on, or who. Part of your agenda is keeping the story feral, and that means letting your character’s sexuality emerge in all of its confusing and unexpected glory.

These mechanics in Monsterhearts are far less about being "like a boardgame" and far more about simulating the irrationality of the human psyche that may lie outside of our rational agency, self-interest, or self-conception.

I understand and sympathize that such mechanics are not for everyone, but I don't think that belittling them or people who like them as wanting to just play "D&D like it's a boardgame" does these games, your argument, or you any justice.

But then again, I'm of the mind that a return to a two-system setup would be more beneficial than detrimental. Both using the same fundamental chassis, so there's interoperability and relatively easy translation between the two. One specifically geared for low mechanical engagement, extremely straightforward rules, maximal ease of inventing your own rules on the spot, a casual attitude toward any "official" patching of holes in the rules, etc. The other specifically geared for high mechanical engagement, strategic and tactical depth, a strong emphasis on innate balance, built-in support for "simulationism" (which, from multiple fans of the term, I find usually means "system maps pretty close to world" plus "player inputs lead to surprising, yet deterministic, results") and for narrative-driven play. I would not call them "Basic" and "Advanced" because those are super loaded terms, but the fundamental idea is similar. TBH I really don't know what I'd call the "modern day AD&D" because calling it "Modern D&D" is likely to cause confusion due to "Modern" being a term for settings or rules options where stuff like guns and telephones are in the rules, but I'm at a loss for a better alternative word ("Contemporary" would be a candidate...but it starts with the same letter as "Classic," unfortunately).

In general, I tend to agree. A replacement term for "basic" might be something like "Heroic" or "Adventurer," while the more "mechanical engagement, strategic and tactical depth,..." could simply be "Tactical" or "Paragon."

 

[tetrasodium]

I agree with Matt Colville here and with whoever said that after a while 3D players can slip back down to 1D (or 2D depending on the terms you want to use) because playing at the 3D level of "complexity" can be exhausting both for the person playing it and everyone else at the table. It seems like a spectrum that any one player character may be at different points on during a campaign based on DM, game style, adventure, setting, fellow players, time of day, mood, etc . .

Personally, I find the "that's what my character would do" defense for obnoxious or disruptive behavior to be annoying AF. I also find that playing in one of these three approaches can all be fun in different ways and work for different games. I have have played in games with the majority of approach being one of all three and have had fun. The problem is when expectations among players or btwn players and DM do not align enough and it causes friction.

"It's what my character would do" along with "I'm a roleplayer and..." are the ttrpg equivalent of "No offense but..", with all three it's generally going to lead into or come just after some kind of very unacceptable behavior with an attempt to put up some veneer of acceptability as a shield in order to avoid the cross table consequences of that action.