D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Bill Zebub]

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

I don’t disagree with you. Note that I didn’t say combat is the primary activity; I just questioned the assertion that roleplaying is. And especially that one particular definition of “roleplaying” is.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

What? How does that happen?

In 5E D&D, if you’re speaking to common folk, it’s best to have a character with the Folk Hero Background speak to them. He can get shelter and safety from them and won’t even need to make a roll. It’s a feature of the ckground.

Almost every Background in 5E has a similar feature that gives the PC massive sway with a particular subset of people. It’s the most significant social mechanic the game has.

So to me, having the Folk Hero speak to the commoners is the smart thing to do. But I also don’t think it prevents anyone else from roleplayi

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.

But NPCs and PCs aren’t the same. You could have rules function the same for them, and you can have some rules not. There’s nothing that says you have to let the Bard talk the Fighter into doing something he doesn’t want to the same way the Bard was able to talk the Guard into letting them by.

Or you could, if you wanted. Horror would not ensue.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Who does the you refer to in your post? I can tell you it doesn't refer to me!, because as I've already posted about half-a-dozen times if I'm sitting down to play White Plume Mountain then I'm not interested in learning what the gnome thinks about fish! I do want to know what the player of the gnome thinks about making it down the frictionless corridor with the super-tetanus trapped pits, though.

I agree that it is in-principle possible to imagine RPGing in which character exposition takes place against the backdrop of White Plume Mountain. Similarly I can imagine a procedural cop show in which all the detectives go around dressed in clown costumes. Both ideas have the same degree of appeal to me.

Your own preferences are neither here nor there, my point is that a single game that has all of these elements can be a unique and interesting experiences relative to specialized games. There's a reason the movies we watch cover multiple things at once, like Marvel movies are often written to be funny, but they also have action scenes, and drama, and romance, seperating those into distinct movies doesn't intrinsically make them better. In fact arguably mixing them makes it better, so the comedy can break up the drama, or the action, or whatever. Similarly, character exposition makes us more invested in the derring do and problem solving.

 

[Oofta]

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.


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.

Thanks for the update. On the other hand, I really grew to dislike 4E's handling of social interactions as skill challenges. It wasn't the specific implementation so much as the mechanical nature of things. It just didn't work for me and I don't think that any system that has similar structure would.

Standard disclaimer: just relating my personal preference, there's nothing wrong with having different preferences, yada, yada.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because it's nonsensical in the social sphere.

How is it nonsensical?

Have none of the characters in your game ever turned to the others and said “Now let me do the talking”?

Why wouldn’t someone familiar with the area or people or situation take the lead?

Hell, what if bot everyone speaks the right language? If only one PC speaks Ignan, should everyone still be talking to the salamander ?

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.

They’re very often not.

We need to deal with this crime boss….rogue, you talk to him.

We need a place to stay. Hey Paladin, you have the Folk Hero background…go talk to the common folk and find us some shelter!

And so on.

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.

Everything you crafted about that scenario was done specifically to produce the outcome you wanted. It may happen, sure, but it’s certainly not guaranteed. None of it needs to work that way. It’s poor argumentation and it would be poorer GMing.

But let’s run with the scenario, as it could be the case that a local lord of some sort might question the party and might want to hear from each of them. So let’s say that’s the case….how does it play out in your game? Does everyone just take turns talking? Do you ask for rolls to be made? Perhaps they can determine one of the lord’s ideals or bonds? Do you allow relevant background features to be used? Do you have the lord consider backgrounds and classes of each PC? Are any of them detriments?

Or do you just hear what the players have to say, and then have the lord respond in some manner that you deem suitable?

 

[Oofta]

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!

I agree with @Lanefan. I don't want game rules that tell me what my PC thinks or feels outside of supernatural abilities.

When related questions have come up, my impression ( from both forums and personal) is that most people don't.

They may work for you, but they take away control of the PCs autonomy which seems to be pretty central to D&D's core.

 

[Maxperson]

How is it nonsensical?

Have none of the characters in your game ever turned to the others and said “Now let me do the talking”?

Why wouldn’t someone familiar with the area or people or situation take the lead?

Why would only one person be familiar with the people or situation? They've engaged those people and the situation as a group and would typically all be equally familiar.

Hell, what if bot everyone speaks the right language? If only one PC speaks Ignan, should everyone still be talking to the salamander ?

Now you're just moving the goal posts. If only one person speaks the language, yes that one person will have to do all the talking. Thing is, it's just as likely to be the guy with the -1 charisma modifier as it is the party face. This is not the same situation as you were describing above.

We need to deal with this crime boss….rogue, you talk to him.

We need a place to stay. Hey Paladin, you have the Folk Hero background…go talk to the common folk and find us some shelter!

And so on.

None of which are a "party face" situation.

We can come up with exceptions to the rule all day long. Those exceptions don't change into anything else but exceptions. Typically when the group is engaged socially, it's not going to make sense for only one person to do all the talking.

But let’s run with the scenario, as it could be the case that a local lord of some sort might question the party and might want to hear from each of them. So let’s say that’s the case….how does it play out in your game? Does everyone just take turns talking? Do you ask for rolls to be made? Perhaps they can determine one of the lord’s ideals or bonds? Do you allow relevant background features to be used? Do you have the lord consider backgrounds and classes of each PC? Are any of them detriments?

Or do you just hear what the players have to say, and then have the lord respond in some manner that you deem suitable?

It's very situation dependent. Some of it will be just talking with no rolls. Other times there will be rolls made by different individuals. I will be roleplaying the lord and they can guess at the bonds, etc., but I'm not going to just tell the players what those are. Yes, I have my NPCs act in accordance to their beliefs. If the lord is talking to 5 PCs and one was a beggar and the lord knows it, he's probably going to avoid talking to that PC, even if it's the party face. There are tons of variables involved. Many more than the ones you just listed.

 

[pemerton]

I agree with @Lanefan. I don't want game rules that tell me what my PC thinks or feels outside of supernatural abilities.

When related questions have come up, my impression ( from both forums and personal) is that most people don't.

They may work for you, but they take away control of the PCs autonomy which seems to be pretty central to D&D's core.

For me, being always able to choose my character's emotional response is oddly dissociative.

In games where it doesn't come up much, or PCs are expected to be relatively emotionless (eg classic D&D) it's not a big deal. But in context where we're talking about (what Colville calls) 3D portrayals of character I find it pretty weird.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

@The-Magic-Sword

I also pretty much got my start with freeform online roleplaying before I started playing tabletop games. My experiences were somewhat different though. For my personal tastes there was too much negotiation, an aversion to meaningful conflict or changes to the status quo, and too much of a focus on staying true to character concepts. What initial drew me to roleplaying as a theater kid was the idea that plot could be secondary to character. That we could just enjoy playing our characters and see what path they would walk down.

I think that's a huge part of my set of my personal preferences. I love having shared experiences, but I have zero interest in storytelling from either side of the screen. I am not looking to tell or be told a story, design narrative arcs, or engage in world building unless it helps flesh out the scenario or provide context to the characters. I'm just here for the situation and the characters.

I tend to believe that for the sort of play I'm most interested in consensus pretty well for communication based on characters coming to well consensus. Tense moments and conflicts work better when there's real tension. It helps to make the scene feel more real to me.

I would still say a good portion of our social scenes do not involve invoking systems, but that's because we're trying to reach consensus, discuss information, etc.

Understandable, I was on the younger side and mainly RPed in fairly light places that didn't do crazy things with the status quo unless an inner circle did it while less committed members reacted, which was fun, but eventually I got involved with a particular group that didn't have problems with changing the status quo or exploring characters, and played with them from the time I was 10 until I was 15 (which was when I picked up 4e!)

Also, speaking of, were you posting on WOTC boards back around 2010-2012 in the DM forum, because if so, I read a huge amount of your posts when I was learning to Tabletop... along with @iserith but damn I really can't remember if it was you, Iserith was always talking to back then, but I have a sense they are also a regular here and now that I've been down memory lane it bothers me.)

I actually really like the idea of having plot be secondary to character as well (and setting, honestly, plots are like mannequins for the good stuff to me, though I love theme enough to have good plots.) Lately I've been more interested in Slice of Life though, usually in the context of "adventurer slice of life" where I've been dying to explore the tension, relationships, themes, and mentality surrounding every day treasure hunting dungeon crawlers.

I guess to me, everything is more connected, the world of the characters are all interconnected and I notice I get frustrated when the scenario is too focused and the characters don't get time to breathe. I have trouble getting invested in the characters if we just hammer the drama button and don't have a cooldown period between major actions, because otherwise I don't know how you changed, because there wasn't time to establish you.

Its a pet peeve of mine in fiction too, when I'm presented with people who a really interesting life, and the plot ramps so far away from that it almost performs a bait and switch, and it kinda loses impact because we didn't get to experience who they are and their relationships enough, I'm having this happen right now with Titans, which I like, but the characters don't breathe enough which makes them less likeable.

 

[pemerton]

Your own preferences are neither here nor there, my point is that a single game that has all of these elements can be a unique and interesting experiences relative to specialized games. There's a reason the movies we watch cover multiple things at once, like Marvel movies are often written to be funny, but they also have action scenes, and drama, and romance, seperating those into distinct movies doesn't intrinsically make them better. In fact arguably mixing them makes it better, so the comedy can break up the drama, or the action, or whatever. Similarly, character exposition makes us more invested in the derring do and problem solving.

I didn't make any claim about what is intrinsic. I identified a RPGing context in which I prefer zero-dimensional characters to one-dimensional ones. (Taking it for granted that, in a WPM-ish dungeon crawl, three-dimensional characters are out of the question for the reasons given by Christopher Kubasik.)

I'm not sure who the us is supposed to be in your post (other than you). My view is that (i) White Plume Mountain is a very un-promising context for meaningful or moving portrayals of character, and (ii) that if I sit down to play it - with the aim of beating the dungeon - then I am not interested in either fears of heights or derring-do. You don't win White Plume Mountain via derring-do; you win it via careful planning and problem solving, plus some good luck in the fights.

If I wanted a RPG to give me the feel of a Marvel movie I would not use White Plume Mountain (or any of its cousins) and classic D&D resolution: my go-to would be Marvel Heroic RP, but if someone could work out a suitably adapted version of Prince Valiant (ie how to get powers into the PC builds) I reckon that could do the job also.