D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

Status
Not open for further replies.

pemerton

Legend
Given how stridently and consistently you tend to bang the player-agency drum I'm really surprised you're cool with any of this, given that all of it represents players being given system-based means to deny the agency of other players over their PCs.
I don't like railroading - that is, someone else (typically the GM) deciding what play will be about, feeding up a pre-authored set of events and situations, having already decided what will happen if the players declare action X, etc.

Having a PC be subject to influence via some other participant's action is completely orthogonal to the above. For example, here are two episodes of play in Burning Wheel (reposted from upthread):

My group had a session scheduled for today, but due to various vicissitudes only two of us could make it. The other attendee suggested we start a BW game with the two of us making PCs and "round robinning" the GMing.

He burned up a Weather Witch (City Born, Arcane Devotee, Rogue Wizard, Weather Witch). I decided to make a Dark Elf (with his agreement, as per the rules) - Born Etharch, Spouse, Griever, Deceiver. To earn the Grief to make the move to Griever (3 minimum) I had no lamentations, was Born Etharch, and had a history that included tragedy - my spouse died.

I've attached my full PC sheet: some highlights are my gear (the tattered clothes I've worn for the past 39 years, since my spouse died; my black-metal long knife Heart-seeker); my hateful relationship with my father-in-law, the elven ambassador in a human port city whom I blame for my spouse's death; and what I hope will prove to be a suitably embittered suite of Beliefs and Instincts, except for my tendency to quietly sing the elven lays when my mind wanders. I also started barefoot, but didn't end the session that way!

We agreed that Aedhros had travelled on the same ship as Alicia had been working on as a weathermage. Like Aedhros, she started with zero resources and no shoes, and with only rags as clothes.

<snip>

We (the players) agreed the next scene was looking for a room for the two of us in a dodgy inn. (The standard resource obstacle for one person is Ob 1; we agreed that this would do for both of us at such a dodgy establishment.) Alicia offered to also work in the kitchens to help with board - and given her instinct, Don't ask, Persuade, where Persuade refers to the BW equivalent of D&D's Suggestion spell, this meant using her magic to get agreement. Alicia's player wanted to take time to prepare her spell, and as the GM for that purpose I thought that needed an Inconspicuous check. Unfortunately this failed, and so the innkeeper looked at her when she started muttering strange words, and so she just cast the spell. It succeeded (I set the innkeeper's Will, and hence the obstacle, at 3) and so he accepted her offer to work in the kitchen. The Tax for casting left her at Forte 1.

We agreed this gave me a bonus die for my Resources check, so I rolled two dice against Ob 1. This was a fail. We reviewed the Resources rules and had a bit of discussion and my co-GM decided that we didn't get a room and my cash die was gone (apparently the master's purse wasn't as full as we'd hoped). The innkeeper still insisted that Alicia work in the kitchen, though!

Taking back the GM's hat, I first adjudicated things for Alicia. I wanted an Ob Forte test to handle the heat and work in the kitchen; this succeeded (with Forte 1 the player was rolling 1 die; I think he must have rolled a 6 and then spent a Fate point to open-end this and get a second success). Then Aedhros re-entered the scene: with a successful Stealthy check I entered the kitchen unnoticed, and found Alicia. I proposed that we relieve the innkeeper of his cash-box (repay hurt for hurt) and Alicia agreed. Then we would take on the master of the ship. Alicia used her Weathersense to determine if a mist would be rolling in; her check succeeded, and so her prediction of mist was correct! (We'd agreed that a failed check mean clear skies and a bright moon.) She also rested (for about 6 hours) to regain one point of Tax, taking her Forte up to 2.

With the morning mist rolling in, it was time to clean out the innkeeper's cash box. We agreed that the day's takings would be 2D of cash. With successful checks, Alicia cast Cat's Eye so she could see in the dark; I succeeded at a straightforward Scavenging check so that Aedhros could find a burning brand (he can see in dim light or by starlight, but not in dark when the starts are obscured by mist). Alicia went first, in the dark but able to see, but failed an untrained Stealthy check despite a penalty to the innkeeper's Perception check for being asleep. So as she opened the door to the room where was sleeping on his feather-and-wool-stuffed mattress, he woke and stood up, moving his strongbox behind him. Alicia, being determined - as per one of her Beliefs - to meet any wrong to her with double in return, decided to tackle him physically. Of course she is trained in Martial Arts, as that's a favourite of her player! I proposed and he agreed that we resolve this via Bloody Versus (ie simple opposed checks) rather than fully scripting in Fight! I set the innkeeper's Brawling at 3, but he had significant penalties due to darkness, and so Alica - with 4 dice + 1 bonus die for superior Reflexes - won the fight easily. The injury inflicted was only superficial, but (as per the rules for Bloody Versus) Alicia had the innkeeper at her mercy - as we narrated it, thrown to the ground and held in a lock.

Aedhros entered the room at this point, with Heart-seeker drawn and ready for it to live up to its name. But Alicia thought that killing the innkeeper was a bit much. So first, she used her advantageous position to render the innkeeper unconscious (no check required, given the outcome of the Bloody Versus). Then her player, wearing the GM hat, insisted that I make a Steel check to commit cold-blooded murder. This failed, and so I hesitated for 4 actions. Handily, that is the casting time for Persuasion, and so Alicia "told" Aedhros not to kill the innkeeper. The casting check succeeded, but the Tax check was one success against an obstacle of 4. With only 1 Forte left, that was 3 Tax which would be 2 overtax, or an 8-point wound, which would be Traumatic for Alicia. But! - the Tax check also was the final check needed for her Forte 3 to step up to Forte 4 (wizard's get lots of juicy Forte checks because of all their Tax - in this case from the three spells cast), which made the overtax only 1, or a 4-point wound which was merely Superficial. Still, she collapsed unconscious.

Aedhros opened the strongbox and took the cash. We agreed that no check was required; and given his Belief that he can tolerate Alicia's company only because she's broken and poor, and given that it aggravates his Spite to suffer her incompetence in fainting, he kept all the money for himself. He then carried out the unconscious Alicia (again, no check required). He also took the innkeeper's boots, being sick of going about barefoot. But he will continue to wear his tattered clothes.
Today I played a 2 hour session of BW, played over Skype by me and the GM.

My PC is Thurgon, a warrior cleric type (heavy armour, Faithful to the Lord of Battle, Last Knight of the Iron Tower, etc). His companion is Aramina, a sorcerer. His ancestral estate, which he has not visited for 5 years, is Auxol.

At the start of the session, Thurgon had the following four Beliefs - The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory; I am a Knight of the Iron Tower, and by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory; Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more!; Aramina will need my protection - and three Instincts - When entering battle, always speak a prayer to the Lord of Battle; If an innocent is threatened, interpose myself; When camping, always ensure that the campfire is burning.

Aramina's had three Beliefs - I'm not going to finish my career with no spellbooks and an empty purse! - next, some coins!; I don't need Thurgon's pity; If in doubt, burn it! and three instincts - Never catch the glance or gaze of a stranger; Always wear my cloak; Always Assess before casting a spell.

<snip>

The characters continued on, and soon arrived at Auxol,. The GM narrated the estate still being worked, but looking somewhat run-down compared to Thrugon's memories of it. An old, bowed woman greeted us - Xanthippe, looking much more than her 61 years. She welcomed Thurgon back, but chided him for having been away. And asked him not to leave again. The GM was getting ready to force a Duel of Wits on the point - ie that Thurgon should not leave again - when I tried a different approach. I'd already made a point of Thurgon having his arms on clear display as he rode through the countryside and the estate; now he raised his mace and shield to the heavens, and called on the Lord of Battle to bring strength back to his mother so that Auxol might be restored to its former greatness. This was a prayer for a Minor Miracle, obstacle 5. Thurgon has Faith 5 and I burned his last point of Persona to take it to 6 dice (the significance of this being that, without 1 Persona, you can't stop the effect of a mortal wound should one be suffered). With 6s being open-ended (ie auto-rolls), the expected success rate is 3/5, so that's 3.6 successes there. And I had a Fate point to reroll one failure, for an overall expected 4-ish successes. Against an obstacle of 5.

As it turned out, I finished up with 7 successes. So a beam of light shot down from the sky, and Xanthippe straightened up and greeted Thurgon again, but this time with vigour and readiness to restore Auxol. The GM accepted my proposition that this played out Thurgon's Belief that Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more! (earning a Persona point). His new Belief is Xanthippe and I will liberate Auxol. He picked up a second Persona point for Embodiment ("Your roleplay (a performance or a decision) captures the mood of the table and drives the story onward").

Turning back to Aramina, I decided that this made an impact on her too: up until now she had been cynical and slightly bitter, but now she was genuinely inspired and determined: instead of never meeting the gaze of a stranger, her Instinct is to look strangers in the eyes and Assess. And rather than I don't need Thurgon's pity, her Belief is Thurgon and I will liberate Auxol.
In the first episode of play, Aedhros fails to persuade an innkeeper to offer cheap rooms; comes back in with the intention of killing and robbing him; and doesn't have the stomach for it - and his hesitation allows Alicia to Persuade him otherwise.

Nothing there changes the trajectory or focus of play to be about something other than what I've brought to the table with Aedhros. In fact it drives all of that home.

In the second episode, had my prayer failed I would most likely have found myself in a Duel of Wits with my mother, trying to persuade me to remain with her on Auxol. And maybe I would have lost - Thurgon is more valiant than he is rhetorically adept. But again, that would not have changed the focus of play to be something other than what I've brought to the table with Thurgon: Auxol, Xanthippe, his errantry and return - these are all aspects of the character and situation that I as a player have brought to the table.

To be honest I feel this is something that you and @Oofta are not having regard to in your reflections on social mechanics. In your imaginings of how they might work, and what sort of results they might lead to in play, you don't seem to be envisaging a game in which it is the players who are in the driving seat.

Here's another example of emotional compulsion of a PC, this time from Prince Valiant (also posted upthread):
My group's last session of Prince Valiant ended with the PCs, leading their religous order (the Knights of St Sigobert) and a peasant army, having conquered a Duke's castle in or about Bordeaux.

Today's session saw quite a bit of action. At the start of the session two of the PCs - the minstrel Twillany and Sir Morgath - took control of the peasant army as it looted the castle and broke into the keep, stopping them from killing the Lady Alia in revenge for the way they and their families had been treated by her father, the (now dead) Duke. The Lady tried to assert her pre-eminence in the situation - she was wearing the ducal coronet - but Twillany prevailed (in an extended contest of Courtesie vs Courtesie) and she retired to her room to wait for judgement as to her fate upon the morrow.

The other two PCs, Sir Gerran and Sir Justin - respectively father and son and Marshall and Master of the order of St Sigobert - followed up on the clue that had been overheard in the previous session, referring to "special duties" to be undertaken by a kitchen hand. While searching the dungeons - finding no nobles being held for ransom but various waifs to be sold into slavery - Justin (via a successful Presence check) noticed the kitchen hand down a side passage. Despite their armour penalites Gerran and Justin succeeded in contested Brawn + Agility checks to catch up with the kitchen hand as he went through a secret passage. He was quickly cowed (Presence check), and led the two knights down a 500 yard long tunnel which ended with a ladder leading up to an old hunting lodge in a woods on the slope below the castle.

In the lodge they found a teenage boy bricked up inside the chimney, who - it turned out - was the dead Duke's son Bryce, imprisoned by his sister Alia. They returned to the castle to acquire tools, and then broke down the wall trapping the boy. They provided him with some food and water, soothed some of his hurt (successful Healing check), and brought him back to the castle, making sure his sister didn't see him.

The players were conscious that Alia had been able to send a signal to a rider, and hence that a relieving force might arrive soon. Inquiries revealed that it was at least two days walk to the edge of the duchy - this didn't give them a lot of confidence as to their time available. And the peasants' looting of victuals from the castle didn't them a lot of confidence as to their ability to withstand a siege. But a speech from the Marshall of the order roused the morale of the men.

The next morning, Sir Justin convened an assembly in the great hall. At that assembly, Lady Alia was confronted with the presence of her brother. At first she disputed his identity, and then she denied his fitness to rule, but the PCs insisted and Sir Justin, in the name of St Sigobert, placed the ducal coronet upon his head. The players had determined that the best way to stop Alia being an enduring enemy was to have her join them in the order, and Duke Bryce had been persuaded to accept this course of action. Now Duke Bryce made the declaration that - while he forgave her in his heart - she had to do appropriate penance, and that this could be done by joining the crusading order. I rolled the dice for him, and his roll was very successful. So she acquiesced, and was led by Sir Justin in reciting the oath of St Sigobert.

Next, warning came that a military force was approaching in the distance. The drawbridge was raised and the gates closed. But Sir Morgath, looking out from the battlements, could see that in front of the soldiers were two women riding hurriedly on ponies. (In the tram on the way to the session I had decided to use the second of the Woman in Distress episodes found in the main rulebook.) There was debate - should the drawbridge be lowered? - but Sir Morgath was against it, as too risky. The women arrived at the edge of the moat across from the drawbridge and called out for help to Sir Gerran, who as Marshall of the order was in command of the gates. Lady Lorette of Lothian explained that she was fleeing from her fiance, Sir Blackpool the Count of Toulouse, to whom she had been betrothed by her father and who had treated her cruelly. Would they not lower the drawbridge?

Although Prince Valiant is not technically a pulp it is from the same period - the 30s and 40s - and there is a degree of pulp-era stereotyping in Greg Stafford's presentation of women in his scenarios. In this case, Lady Lorette has Presence 4 and Glamourie 5. So as she pleaded to Gerran I rolled her 9 dice vs Gerran's Presence of 3. I allowed Gerran's player two bonus dice (the maximum morale bonus allowed for in the system) as a resolute Marshall defending his castle, so he had 5 dice in total. And rolled better than me! And so he didn't relent.

Meanwhile Sir Morgath had lowered a rope down the wall of the castle. He called out to the Lady and she leapt into the moat and swam to him, where he took hold of her and carried her up the wall. But the handmaiden accompanying her did not have the strength or courage to jump into the moat. So Morgath slid back down the rope and swang across the moat to rescue her. (At the start of the session I had handed out some fame (the "XP" of the system) that had been earned in the previous session. This had qualified Morgath for a new skill rank, which he had spent on Agility: his player felt he was repeatedly suffering for a lack of physical ability at key moments. It now served him well, as he got 3 successes on his 4 dice.)

In the scenario as written by Stafford, the Lady has the Incite Lust special effect which she will use against the strongest and most famous male adventurer, provided he is not married. Anticipating possible complications, Morgath - when asked by the Lady who her rescuer was - announced himself as Sir Morgath, husband of Lady Elizabeth of York. But being an unfair GM while also trying to run with the fiction, it seemed only to make sense that Morgath should fall for the Lady as he carried her in his arms into the castle. The player cursed me appropriately, but also had seen it coming. He took the Lady into the keep to ensure her safety.

Meanwhile the Count - Sir Blackpool - and his men had arrived and approached under a white flag of truce. The players had deciced that they would have Lady Alia explain that there was a new duke, Duke Bryce her brother, and that hence there was no need for relief after all. Suitable Presence rolls persuaded her to do as instructed. The Count was satisfied with this, but had one other request - his fiance had been taken into the castle, and he wanted her returned. Sir Justin tried to direct Sir Blackpool to leave in the name of the Duke, but he retorted that he had not yet sworn fealty to the new duke, and would not do so until his fiance was returned.

At this point the player of Morgath was laughing, and thinking that the Lady Alia must be feeling the same way. And as the other PCs decided they would fetch the lady from the keep, Sir Morgath decided that safety required sneaking out with her through the secret tunnel - which they did, and then - with a successful Stealth roll despite the 1-die penalty for having a non-stealthy companion - he led them without being noticed to the lighthouse on the coast which he knew to be abandoned, the PCs having beaten up its thug occupants a couple of sessions ago. So when Gerran and Justin searched the keep for the lady they couldn't find her, and hence reported to Sir Blackpool that "Upon my honour, your fiance is not in this castle!"

Sir Blackpool then demanded satisfaction, in the form of three lances. Sir Gerran accepated the challenge, and the drawbridge was lowered again. Sir Justin and the Duke came out with him. The opposing dice pools were 11 for the Count and 14 for the Marshall, and there were no unexpected results - by the third lance Blackpool had been reduced to 6 dice. But then - treacherously (and in accordance with the scenario description) he gave a signal to his men. In the context it mad the most sense for this to be a volley of arrows (rather than the charging forth of the scenario). Sir Gerran's armour protected him (I rolled poorly); but the Duke was struck!

In Mark Rein*Hagen's scenario description the young Bryce is given the "sacrifice self" special ability, to sacrifice himself to save another from harm. Rein*Hagen suggests that this might happen during the commotion around who is to succeed to the position of duke, but as that unfolded at our table it made no sense for their to be violence, and hence no need for the boyto sacrifice himself. And so I had assumed the ability would go unused. But now the moment presented itself, and he stepped in front of Sir Justin to take an arrow. Sir Justin's player was shocked; and Sir Justin picked him up and carried him into the castle. I invoked the "severely injured" rules (in the system, it is always the GM's call how severe an injury - represented by Brawn depletion - is within the fiction) - thus a Healing check would be needed to save the boy's life. And while normally 1 success would be enough, it had already been established that Duke Bryce was frail and weak, and so I set the difficulty at 2. Sir Justin has Healing 2, and so would have only a 1 in 4 chance of success. So his player asked if he could use the Dagger of St Sigobert - who was, after all, a healer - to help, and I suggested that if it was used to help cut out the arrow he could roll 3 dice (50% chance of success). But the roll was still a failure, and so the Duke passed away in his arms.

Meanwhile Sir Gerran rode down the retreating Sir Blackpool, reducing him to 4 dice. But then Sir Blackpool won an opposed Riding check and so was able to retreat behind the cover of his men. Sir Gerran would not relent, and Sir Justin ordered the men of the castle and the order to ride out to join Sir Gerran and avenge the Duke. And so another mass combat took place, this time with Sir Justin in command. I decided that it would be a single "round" of mass combat.

Sir Justin won the opposed command checks, reducing the Count to 1 die, and so I narrated his men as fleeing. Sir Justin lost a point of Brawnd and of Presence in his personal checks - meaning some exertion and some shaking of his morale. But Sir Gerran succeeded on both his personal checks, while on both checks - made against Sir Gerran's totals - Sir Blackpool was reduced to 1 die in Brawn and in Presence - so he was retreating with his men, failing badly. I let Sir Gerran's player decide what happened to him, and he declared him dead.

From their vantage point in the lighthouse Morgath and Lady Lorette could see the army of Toulouse retreating, and so they returned to the castle and re-entered through the secret tunnel. Lady Alia was the first to find them upon their return, and she spoke with Sir Morgath to discus the next steps - having already decided that he was more sensible than the Sigobertians.

They decided that they should present Lady Lorette as the (now widowed) Countess of Toulouse, which she was happy to go along with; and that she should come under the protection of the (newly ascended) Duchess of Bordeaux. Lady Lorette suggested that Sir Morgath should send for a regent from York, so that she could travel with him on his adventures; while Alia took the view that she should stay in the castle to manage it and rule the ducal lands. This suggestion was presented to Sir Gerran and Sir Justin, who agreed subject to two conditions: that the castle should fly the standard of St Sigobert as well as that of the duchy; and that Lady Alia should marry Sir Gerran to cement the alliance of the Duchy and the order. (It had already been established that the order did not require chastity of its members - Sir Justin is married to Violette of Warwick.)

So the session ended with the wedding being agreed to and preparations having to be made. With discussions of how much crusade might be financed by mortgaging a duchy and a county. And with Sir Morgath's player lamenting that they could have had the company of a battle-maiden and now have an ingenue (or seductress?) instead. He did have the sense, in character, to make sure that the messengers sent to York to discuss the matter of the regency should also bring him back a token of his wife Elizabeth, which he hopes will help him remain faithful despite his feelings of attraction to Lady Lorette.
Deeming that Sir Morgath is attracted to Lady Lorette of Lothian, by the use of the Incite Lust effect, does not require that Sir Morgath's play declare any particular sort of action. Nor does it mean that his PC or his PC's concerns do not remain central to play - in fact it foregrounds his marriage and relationship with his wife Elizabeth, and has continued to do so for many sessions.

Seems to me like a recipe for arguments unless players are actively willing to give up their agency
None of the situations I've described have caused argument.

To me its dissociative to not have control over my character's emotions, unless some sort of mind-control magic is in play.
Well, most people in real life - even me! - don't have control over their emotions. We feel fear, or anxiety, or hatred, or sometimes love or mirth, unbidden and often unwanted.

Hence the dissociation if the only emotions my character feels are the ones I choose.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Aldarc

Legend
Having a PC be subject to influence via some other participant's action is completely orthogonal to the above. For example, here are two episodes of play in Burning Wheel (reposted from upthread):

...

To be honest I feel this is something that you and @Oofta are not having regard to in your reflections on social mechanics. In your imaginings of how they might work, and what sort of results they might lead to in play, you don't seem to be envisaging a game in which it is the players who are in the driving seat.

Here's another example of emotional compulsion of a PC, this time from Prince Valiant (also posted upthread):
Deeming that Sir Morgath is attracted to Lady Lorette of Lothian, by the use of the Incite Lust effect, does not require that Sir Morgath's play declare any particular sort of action. Nor does it mean that his PC or his PC's concerns do not remain central to play - in fact it foregrounds his marriage and relationship with his wife Elizabeth, and has continued to do so for many sessions.

I also like "social combat" in Cortex Prime, namely Contests, which was first designed for simulating the social drama of Smallville. It's not strictly social, but it is its common useage:
When you engage in a contest, you’re the one initiating it, so you pick up the dice and roll first, adding together two results for a total. If your opposition decides against opposing you after seeing what you rolled, you automatically get what you want. If your opposition decides to stop you, they assemble a dice pool and try to beat the difficulty you just set.

If your opposition doesn’t beat your difficulty, you’ve won the contest and you get what you want. If they beat your difficulty, the ball’s back in your court. You can choose to Give In, in which case you define the failure on your own terms, you cannot immediately initiate another contest with your opponent, and you get a Plot Point. Otherwise, your opposition’s total becomes the new difficulty, and you must roll again to try to beat it. Failing to beat your opposition means your opponent gets to define how they stopped you.

Contests go back and forth until one side gives in or fails to beat the difficulty. The losing side picks up a complication or, if it’s a high stakes scene, is taken out of the scene—they’re beaten, knocked down, or possibly even on their last breath. Players can spend Plot Points to avoid being taken out, but they still take a complication.
One can easily see how this would lend itself to social dramatic conflict and negotiations either between PCs or PCs and NPCs. It doesn't stop you from roleplaying, but it frames the action in terms of stakes, and either you or the opposition has the opportunity to push back, though this comes with the risk of less favorable concessions in the outcomes. I will probably use this mechanic for the "Pseudo-Renaissance Venice Fantasy" side project that I have for Cortex Prime.

Alternatively, social combat in Cortex Prime and similarly Fate may also simply be about rolling well enough to "take out" the opposition vis a vis the appropriate Stress track.

Or some versions of Fate like Jadepunk, for example, may use a duel mechanic similar to a skill challenge for tense social encounters between two characters as a sort of "sidebar" encounter.

Well, most people in real life - even me! - don't have control over their emotions. We feel fear, or anxiety, or hatred, or sometimes love or mirth, unbidden and often unwanted.

Hence the dissociation if the only emotions my character feels are the ones I choose.
Moreover, our unwanted or uncontrollable human emotions are not magically induced.
 

pemerton

Legend
Alternatively, social combat in Cortex Prime and similarly Fate may also simply be about rolling well enough to "take out" the opposition vis a vis the appropriate Stress track.
This is what I'm used to in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic. Also, in that system to get someone to do what you want requires imposing a complication, which goes into the opposing pool for any action where they're not doing what you want them to.

This sort of thing is commonplace in our MHRP and Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy games, and has never caused any issues or arguments. Some of the characters have Milestones that involve giving or receiving emotional or mental stress as a result of intra-team squabbling.
 

Panzeh

Explorer
I the context of d&d dungeon crawls, i definitely prefer very 'pawn stance' style play, with just a tease of character(i'm actually playing a GURPS game like that right now). I think, as others have said, the system and its benefits are a lot more suited to making strong archetypes to do very specific kinds of things in a fantasy world than handling anything. I'd never use d&d to run a game where the characters were anything other than rough-and-tumble mercenaries of various archetypes who really like to spelunk for treasure.

If I want to play a game where the character of the characters matter a lot more, i'd want something with a more robust allowance for what you can make. A military officer with soldiers at his command, a priest who has knowledge and social skills rather than casting divine spells, a scholar, etc. There's a lot of systems that do that, but d&d isn't really about that, it's made a sacrifice(and i think is better tuned to that past 3rd ed) to make character creation easy, and you don't need a guide if you want to be like this strong fantasy archetype, but the sacrifice is other kinds of characters without a lot of shoehorning.

There are significant advantages to d&d pawn stance or very light characterization games- they can handle more players a lot more easily, it's also much easier to handle absenteeism when characters are largely interchangable in terms of the game. You can kill characters more comfortably without much bad blood, nobody's too invested in things, you don't really have to worry so much about giving people chances as a DM. If I had a game where the cleric and her faith were a super important part of the plot and her player missed a session, either that player is going to be unsatisfied that their cleric's spotlight time was missed or the DM is going to have to cancel due to one absence.

On the other hand, if i'm playing a more intricate game, i really do want to know what esoteric things your character knows about, what they can speak intelligently about, and i'd like that on a sheet. In a sense, the D&D skill system seems vestigial, it's a weird list that seems oddly narrow but I do accept that it's replacing a lot of funky subsystems that would otherwise have to be there a la percentile stuff in 2e. Burning Wheel, for example, has a robust skill list, as does GURPS and many other games, and the skill system is central and core, your characters are, functionally very much defined by them, though not entirely so.(I find it awkward that when i was playing BW, their starter adventure, The Sword was trying to mix BW's mechanics with a d&d type situation and I think it's just not suited. I don't think cave spelunking leads to interesting Beliefs or really uses that game's systems well.)
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
The PCs, the ones doing the talking, aren't going to know -1 or +3. They will simply know that one of them is a better speaker than the other. I don't know about you, but there have been many times in my life where someone on my side of a discussion has said something stupid or just the the wrong thing to say and it made me cringe. People who don't speak well generally don't sit back and let others do the talking for them unless it's one of those exceptional circumstances you brought up.

Yes, the -1 and +3 indicate who is the better communicator. The characters know it, even if they are unaware of the scores. But they know who’s better suited to negotiation.

Now, this in no way precludes another character who is ill-suited for negotiation, from jumping in with their two cents. There may be plenty of reasons for that to happen. But this doesn’t invalidate my point any more than a Fighter charging down a hall before it’s swept for traps invalidates general trap protocol. Or an angry Wizard engaging with enemies before the Barbarian has gotten into position.

Also, the idea that one PC might take the lead in speaking with one NPC (the lord, or the merchant, or whomever) means that the other players won’t have the chance to engage in roleplaying seems to imply a lack of opportunity taken by the players or offered by the GM. There are multiple ways PCs can engage in social interactions that don’t all have to

This is what it says in the 5e PHB on page 186 about social interactions.

"When interacting with an NPC, pay close attention to the DM's portrayal of the NPC's mood, dialogue, and personality. You might be able to determine an NPC's personality traits, ideals, flaws, and bonds, then play on them to influence the NPC's attitude."

So just like I said. I roleplay it out and if they pay attention, they might be able to figure them out and use them to influence the NPC.

I think you should check out what it says in the DMs Guide, too. It offers more about that process.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Huh, that really hasn't been my experience-- I've never really known anyone who needed the rules system to point them at the kinds of stories they want to tell, usually they have the fantasy of what they want in their heads and get frustrated when the mechanics don't happen to take them there.

So, that's great. Except it has nothing to do with what I wrote.

We are not making any constructive progress, so thanks, but I'm done.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Equating word count with importance-to-game is a category error.

Hmmm, I think the category error is you calling that a category error.

You may think it's a poor metric, but that's something else.

Sure, combat's important. But without in-character roleplaying to tie it together, what's the point of calling it an RPG?

Is the most important thing about a "board game" the fact that it's played on a board? "What's this game about?" "Well, you play it on a board."

Or do we use the term "board game" to give people a general sense of what type of game it is?

Yes, combat abstraction takes a lot of words to explain. Spells take a lot of words to explain. Character generation takes a lot of words to explain. In-character roleplaying doesn't take nearly as many words to explain as any of those other things yet is at least as important to game play as any of them.

Seriously? I think just this thread already has more words than the PHB.
 
Last edited:

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
When it comes to simulating reality: human beings do not have full control over their emotions. Scientific studies show this time and time again. Our increased scientific understanding of human cognition has done a pretty marvelous job at deconstructing the presumed "human rationalism" of the Enlightenment. Economics and Law, whose theories have been fairly undergirded by Enlightement rationalism, has also had to make adjustments in accordance with our new understandings as well. We do not have full control over our emotions, so why would players have full control over their PC's emotions? A lack of complete control helps simulate that realism and playing a role. Having complete control over the character's emotions, dare I say, arguably ventures roleplaying more towards the "author" or "pawn" stance where the player has complete authorship over everything about the character. I find it disassociative when we make exceptions for these things only for magic. It would be fine if magic in D&D was some sort of metaphor for our uncontrollable emotions, but it's clearly not. It's usually more akin to roofies and other less desirable human behaviors.

Not only do we not have full control over our emotions, but we are often unaware of our subconscious decision-making, and we invent "rational" explanations for our choices after the fact.

Which is why I keep scratching my head over this "what the character would do" thing. Basically any behavior could qualify, and if we're telling an adventure story often the highly improbable options can be the most interesting ones.
 

Oofta

Legend
You keep using "it's only your opinion" as a shield for making some pretty falsifiable or unreasonable assertions about other games, mechanics, and even about other people that lie outside of simply expressing your preferences. When you get called out on them or people have the audacity to call you out to back those opinions up, then you retreat behind simply having an opinion as if it were somehow unassailable position, which it's not. So from my own observations, you really are doing a lot of "bait and switch" in your argument, Oofta. Simply having an opinion doesn't necessarily mean that it's a valid one or that it's well reasoned or substantiated from the evidence. It's one thing to have a preference but what you prefer doesn't give you unchallenged license to make unsubstantiated claims about other games, mechanics, or even about the people who prefer them. If you get tired of repeating the bold, then maybe don't keep repeating and blundering your errors. Take time to understand the criticism of the argument and why people are having a difficult time with the mixed message you are making.


Your assertion is pretty easy to disprove by the actual evidence of many other people and their games accumulated over decades of game experience.
If you ever want to discuss the actual game, let me know. Buh-bye.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Is the most important thing about a "board game" the fact that it's played on a board? "What's this game about?" "Well, you play it on a board."

Or do we use the term "board game" to give people a general sense of what type of game it is?
If you remove the board, it is no longer a board game. You can change or remove anything else without affecting the game in that way. So yes, the board is the single most important thing about a board game.
Which is why I keep scratching my head over this "what the character would do" thing. Basically any behavior could qualify, and if we're telling an adventure story often the highly improbable options can be the most interesting ones.
That's simply not true. When you've established the personality of the PC, there are many behaviors that would fail to qualify. While there will generally be multiple ways to resolve the "what would the character do" question, the vast majority of ways would not qualify.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top