D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Oofta]

The initial post referenced a video that made a distinction between 0d, 1d, and 3d characters. I think if you follow 5e rules/guidelines, you can end up with a 1d character via

• personality, bonds, flaws, ideals
• charisma skill tests
• background features and proficiencies
• fluff related to races, classes, and backgrounds
• some of the specific class features (paladin oaths, clerics choosing a god, sub class thematics)
• inspiration
• backstory tables in Xanathar's

Which is great - clearly the designers wanted to put in tools help people get from 0d characters to 1d characters. Instructive for me is that prime space that personality, bonds, ideals, flaws takes up at the top of the default character sheet (vs, say, equipment); that communicates what the designers thought was more and less important to your character.

So if 5e can create some tools to help create 1d characters, can a game do the same to help create 3d characters? @Oofta, in your games, how do you get from 1d-->3d characters? Is it just a matter of player skill and immersion?

It depends on the player. TIBF can be inspiration, but honestly I generally ignore it. What I do ask from players is at least a bare-bones background. Where did they come from, what are their initial goals and, just as important, why those goals. I also highly encourage families or other loved ones. Even orphans have had friends or people that helped them along the way.

Depending on the player, I'll regularly have off-line conversations and a bit of back-and-forth on externals; how they feel about me introducing some things to the campaign that directly affect their PC, although some things will be revealed in-game. I even discuss broad outlines of possible character arcs, how does the player think the PC is growing and changing. If I have a thought on an arc that touches on things that may be uncomfortable I'll run it by them.

But a lot of it is simply RP at the table. Giving players the options for PCs to explore different aspects of their PC. Whether that's a disagreement with a parent or authority figure to potential romantic partners to potential business opportunities. A lot of this is just following the lead of the player and then giving them doors to go through. One of my player's PC is running a business that started as him just inquiring about what was going to happen to a business that had been destroyed in a previous session. That led into several other PCs helping him get the business started, then getting helpers and so on. More recently, one of the helpers has become a potential love interest.

I also encourage people to write stories about their PCs. It can be what they did during downtime, a story filling in details on their past, their perspective on what's been going on. It doesn't have to be incredibly in-depth.

Last, but not least, I ensure that the PC's stories matter to the campaign. That warlock? Their relationship to their patron and what the patron wants becomes important. That mention from the dwarf about how he used to make weapons with a certain symbol? Weapons with that symbol starts showing up in the hands of protagonists.

I don't think there's any one way of doing it though. For me, I usually have a pretty good idea of where my PC came from, but where they're going? How they get there? That's something that emerges from play. That, and I remind myself that even though Sarah is really into making her PC come to life and have depth, it's okay if Joe is just playing a standard ale-drinking barbarian. As long as the play styles are reasonably compatible, I make options available but don't push it. The major reward is the fun we have in game, with the exception being that I do reward inspiration for any stories the players post.

Hope that answers your question.

 

[Lanefan]

So what? Do you roll your eyes when the party encounters a trap and it’s the thief who steps forward to deal with it?

Leveraging strengths is a huge part of many games, including pretty much every edition of D&D. Why is it a problem in the social sphere?

Because "leveraging strengths" in the social sphere means some of the players don't get to participate in the core activity of the game: roleplaying the personae of their characters.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because "leveraging strengths" in the social sphere means some of the players don't get to participate in the core activity of the game: roleplaying the personae of their characters.

Why? You seem to think that this means that you get the highest bonus because everyone's always holding hands and no one is spoken to but the one pushed forward. Or that there's really such a thing as a highest bonus. I mean, if I have a tag that my character is charming, then I can leverage that strength, yes? Not everything is D&D, and even in D&D the biggest number isn't always best.

 

[Lanefan]

In my comment to @Lanefan I was thinking more about PCs influencing NPCs and leveraging strengths in that regard.

There's far more to the "social" side of RPGing than simply influencing NPCs, and the risk is that codifying just that one aspect will lead players to think (or worse, lead the game to state) that all aspects have been thus codified.

The worst-case end result arrives when hard-coded social rules allow PCs to influence other PCs*; a serious concern when one wants to view PCs and NPCs as being the same within the setting, as I do. The only way to avoid this is to not have those hard-coded social rules at all, and run it freeform: the players can have their PCs react as they normally would, and the DM can do likewise for the NPCs.

* - e.g. "if I succeed on this persuasion check your PC has to agree with my plan" type of stuff.

 

[pemerton]

As for your example, you may as well tell me that Thurgon and Aramina meet Rufus as the result of flamboozling the gragnatch. Then Aramina zorks the candolliper. The terms you use have no meaning to me. Are these just applications of the equivalent of skills in D&D? Are they earned or recharging resources? I have no clue.

They are all checks, made on various abilities that in 5e D&D would be characterised as attributes (perhaps as modified by skills): Circles, Ugly Truth, Steel, Command.

An Instinct - in Aramina's case, to never catch the glance or gaze of a stranger - is comparable to a 5e D&D flaw or trait.

Which is why I think a separate thread would be more useful. Start with a link to an overview of some other game, give a brief overview, discuss how you could create rules to implement in D&D.

A bit like @Ovinomancer, I don't intend to do this. I'm not a player of 5e D&D; in 4e D&D this sort of thing is resolved via skill challenges. I don't have anything new to add to the skill challenge framework, but here are two threads where I have posted actual play examples of 4e social skill challenges.

It's less personally intense than Burning Wheel, but has the same dynamic of drama and consequence.

 

[Maxperson]

So what? Do you roll your eyes when the party encounters a trap and it’s the thief who steps forward to deal with it?

Leveraging strengths is a huge part of many games, including pretty much every edition of D&D. Why is it a problem in the social sphere?

Because it's nonsensical in the social sphere.

When the party encounters a trap, they know the rogue is the trap expert and the trap doesn't care who comes up to try and disarm it. Social situations are very different. If the lord asks the group what happened, he's not going to be satisfied if only the bard answers. He asked the group, not the bard. One person trying to answer for everyone is going to be insulting. It's also pretty rare for one person to want someone else to do all of their talking for them, let alone an entire group. It's just all around a different situation from traps when it comes to social encounters.

 

[Campbell]

There's far more to the "social" side of RPGing than simply influencing NPCs, and the risk is that codifying just that one aspect will lead players to think (or worse, lead the game to state) that all aspects have been thus codified.

The worst-case end result arrives when hard-coded social rules allow PCs to influence other PCs*; a serious concern when one wants to view PCs and NPCs as being the same within the setting, as I do. The only way to avoid this is to not have those hard-coded social rules at all, and run it freeform: the players can have their PCs react as they normally would, and the DM can do likewise for the NPCs.

* - e.g. "if I succeed on this persuasion check your PC has to agree with my plan" type of stuff.

I'm not sure why you consider this such an obvious failure state. I regularly play and run games where player characters can be socially influenced by both other player characters and NPCs.

• Sometimes this is implemented with a kiss-curse style mechanic like in Sorcerer where you get a bonus if you go along with the influence and penalty if you act against it.
• Sometimes it can take the form of status effects that represent some form of emotional state or social power over you.
  • Strings in Monsterhearts.
  • Influence and Conditions in Masks.
• Sometimes you get experience rewards or some other currency for going along with the influence.
• Sometimes you just let the dice decide if your convinced.

In almost every case there's a good amount of GM judgement involved in the process. In my experience as long as we all respect each other's boundaries and have a strong collaborative relationship with each other it can work rather well. I do it all the time.

It's not for everyone, but nothing is really.

 

[pemerton]

The worst-case end result arrives when hard-coded social rules allow PCs to influence other PCs*; a serious concern when one wants to view PCs and NPCs as being the same within the setting, as I do. The only way to avoid this is to not have those hard-coded social rules at all, and run it freeform: the players can have their PCs react as they normally would, and the DM can do likewise for the NPCs.

* - e.g. "if I succeed on this persuasion check your PC has to agree with my plan" type of stuff.

Worst-case here seems to mean something Lanefan doesn't enjoy.

In The Dying Earth, Burning Wheel and Prince Valiant - just to point to three systems I know and play - PCs can influence other PCs via the same mechanical framework that applies in PC-to-NPC interactions.

In Agon, there is a process undertaken during each Voyage to determine who will be the Leader of the PCs when they arrive at the next Island. When resolving the Strife on an Island, any dispute among the PCs is resolved by the Leader. But any non-leader player may spend one point of Bond with the Leader in order to have the Leader take their advice.

All these systems work fine, in my experience at least.

EDIT: Partially ninja'd by @Campbell!

 

[Bill Zebub]

Because "leveraging strengths" in the social sphere means some of the players don't get to participate in the core activity of the game: roleplaying the personae of their characters.

Interesting that by far the most words are dedicated to combat…by a huge margin…and yet you say the core activity is something else entirely.

 

[Malmuria]

Interesting that by far the most words are dedicated to combat…by a huge margin…and yet you say the core activity is something else entirely.

I don't disagree that dnd is a combat-focused game, but I often hear this line of reasoning and I don't get it. Like yes, the game is in many instances about fighting monsters, but most of the monster manual is flavor text--implicit world building that could lead to combat, exploration, or social. Same with spells and magic item descriptions