D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Aldarc]

Interesting! For me it's the opposite: when my character concept may change as a result of mechanics, my character feels disjointed, superficial, and artificial.

It's the push and pull of discovering my character through play. It sometimes leads to unexpected avenues as a result of these social mechanics and exertions. I got "taken out" in a social exchange in Fate. What does this mean for who my character is? I lost a social contest with my lover, and now I'm obligated to my lover who wants me to steal an artifact from the party. I'm not sure if I would have discovered such interesting paths purely through complete control over my character's mental space. There would be so many easy points for me to say "no" and shut down certain paths of play in favor of either the rationale of me projecting onto my character the rational choices that would lead to the optimal outcomes, which is IMHO all too easy to do even for those of us who love roleplaying characters, their motivations, desires, etc.

This is absolute lunacy.

Nonsense. Butter Pecan is amazing. It's not my favorite, but it's in my pantheon. It only makes me weep that it's not a readily available flavor here in Austria. The walnut and cream feels like a sad imitation.

 

[Xetheral]

It's fine you feel that way and prefer for the game to function that way...but why does it feel disjointed or artificial to have a character who is influenced by external factors? That's how actual people function.

Because in real life external influences (especially those of sufficient magnitude to change a person's character) don't come in discrete, easily described chunks. Such influences are complicated, nuanced, and messy, and will always be filtered through the lens of that person's previous experiences.

So when it comes to RPGs, rather than concretely describing an external influence's effect on the character, I'd much rather the external stimulus facing the character be described to the player, and allow the player to then make an informed decision regarding the impact on the character.

 

[Oofta]

Which game?

I'm assuming we're primarily discussing D&D since ... it's a D&D forum.

It seems like having "complete agency" in the way that it is often discussed in D&D is less about agency and more about conceptual authorship.


I think that external restrictions and pressures are precisely what let me explore different personalities because they may push me in mind spaces or situations that I would not necessarily have discovered or explored on my own through roleplaying, even if I claim to be in the head space of my character. When I accept that my character concept may change as a result of the mechanics, my character feels as if they become more fluid, dynamic, fleshed-out, and organic.


I don't see how there are some how less benefits for socialization simply because social mechanics exist in a game or even how this is somehow a unique phenomenon to D&D as opposed to roleplaying games in general.

In any case, I want to be in control of my PC. Is that realistic? Don't know, don't care. I can guarantee there have been times when I got into character that I did or said things I didn't really expect or had my PC do things I would never do. There have been many times when people are heavily emotionally invested in their PCs. For me, doing that, being in control, helped me understand better than if a rule told me I thought or did something. Being forced to do or think something would have less impact than reading a book. Most likely I'd say something along the lines of "this is ****, my PC wouldn't do that".

I don't want external rules telling me what my PC thinks or does. Period. If I did, I would play a different game. I don't think any style is better or worse, abdicating control of your PC may work for some people but I suspect you're in the minority. Since neither of us have access to clear polling data (if that's even accurate) we may never know. My experience? My suspicion based on discussions? You're in the minority. Doesn't make you wrong, just that I don't see a hue and cry for such a drastic change.

 

[Aldarc]

In any case, I want to be in control of my PC. Is that realistic? Don't know, don't care. I can guarantee there have been times when I got into character that I did or said things I didn't really expect or had my PC do things I would never do. There have been many times when people are heavily emotionally invested in their PCs. For me, doing that, being in control, helped me understand better than if a rule told me I thought or did something. Being forced to do or think something would have less impact than reading a book. Most likely I'd say something along the lines of "this is ****, my PC wouldn't do that".

I'm certainly sympathetic of your position. I suspect that other people just wish that you would show a similar courtesy regarding theirs and understanding the values that can be gained or explored through such approaches to social mechanics.

I don't want external rules telling me what my PC thinks or does. Period. If I did, I would play a different game. I don't think any style is better or worse, abdicating control of your PC may work for some people but I suspect you're in the minority. Since neither of us have access to clear polling data (if that's even accurate) we may never know. My experience? My suspicion based on discussions? You're in the minority. Doesn't make you wrong, just that I don't see a hue and cry for such a drastic change.

You don't have to tell me that my gaming views and preferences lie outside of the mainstream. It feels like people remind me of it nearly any chance that they can get here.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Nonsense. Butter Pecan is amazing. It's not my favorite, but it's in my pantheon. It only makes me weep that it's not a readily available flavor here in Austria. The walnut and cream feels like a sad imitation.

Listen, I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm not gonna stand by while some put forth the cockamamie notion that butter pecan ice cream is even fit for human consumption, let alone the best flavor of ice cream. I have at least that much integrity!

Because in real life external influences (especially those of sufficient magnitude to change a person's character) don't come in discrete, easily described chunks. Such influences are complicated, nuanced, and messy, and will always be filtered through the lens of that person's previous experiences.

So when it comes to RPGs, rather than concretely describing an external influence's effect on the character, I'd much rather the external stimulus facing the character be described to the player, and allow the player to then make an informed decision regarding the impact on the character.

I don't see it as happening in discrete, easily described chunks. I see it as complicated and nuanced. Messy, too, in the sense that the response is not entirely up to me.

I don't play in a lot of games where this happens so overtly; the games I play tend to leave a lot of the characterization open, and we determine it through play, and then examine it and see if it matches what we thought going in, or if we've learned something new about a character. I don't think such mechanics are necessary, or that ever game needs them....but they do seem to kind of map to human emotion pretty well in regards to how we don't always have control of how we feel.

 

[Xetheral]

Listen, I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm not gonna stand by while some put forth the cockamamie notion that butter pecan ice cream is even fit for human consumption, let alone the best flavor of ice cream. I have at least that much integrity!



I don't see it as happening in discrete, easily described chunks. I see it as complicated and nuanced. Messy, too, in the sense that the response is not entirely up to me.

I don't play in a lot of games where this happens so overtly; the games I play tend to leave a lot of the characterization open, and we determine it through play, and then examine it and see if it matches what we thought going in, or if we've learned something new about a character. I don't think such mechanics are necessary, or that ever game needs them....but they do seem to kind of map to human emotion pretty well in regards to how we don't always have control of how we feel.

That's very reasonable. As you noted, our stylistic preferences simply happen to diverge. I simply find it fascinating that such preferences can be so diametrically opposed to each other to the extent that a mechanic that one person feels promotes fluid, in-depth, and organic characters another feels results in disjointed, superficial, and artifical characters. Stylistic differences abound when it comes to RPGs, but this one seems to be notably stark.

 

[Aldarc]

Listen, I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm not gonna stand by while some put forth the cockamamie notion that butter pecan ice cream is even fit for human consumption, let alone the best flavor of ice cream. I have at least that much integrity!

Maybe Butter Pecan isn't fit for human consumption, but that's only because we stole that divinity from the Gods what was once reserved only for them.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's very reasonable. As you noted, our stylistic preferences simply happen to diverge. I simply find it fascinating that such preferences can be so diametrically opposed to each other to the extent that a mechanic that one person feels promotes fluid, in-depth, and organic characters another feels results in disjointed, superficial, and artifical characters. Stylistic differences abound when it comes to RPGs, but this one seems to be notably stark.

I agree with you for the most part. All of that about preference and how seemingly disparate opinions can be.

My only nitpick is I wouldn’t say either method results in superficial or artificial characters.

I can absolutely see a very robust character being created and portrayed in entirely free form roleplaying with no input beyond what the player wants. I can also see a very robust character being crafted using lots of rules as input.

I don’t think either lends itself more to a fully fleshed out or realized character, except in how preference may make one more suitable than another.

Perhaps the difference would be in how integral such is to the actual game being played?

 

[Xetheral]

I agree with you for the most part. All of that about preference and how seemingly disparate opinions can be.

My only nitpick is I wouldn’t say either method results in superficial or artificial characters.

I can absolutely see a very robust character being created and portrayed in entirely free form roleplaying with no input beyond what the player wants. I can also see a very robust character being crafted using lots of rules as input.

I don’t think either lends itself more to a fully fleshed out or realized character, except in how preference may make one more suitable than another.

Perhaps the difference would be in how integral such is to the actual game being played?

I was specifically referring how such a character feels to me to play, as opposed to any sort of external view of that character. I'm confident that just about any system could lead to a character whose portrayal from the outside seems fluid, in-depth, and organic in the hands of a skilled player. If I was the player though, I wouldn't feel that way about my character, even if I managed to successfully portray the character as such from the perspective of the other players.

So I agree with you, but I think that's tangential to my original point.

 

[Umbran]

Doesn't make you wrong, just that I don't see a hue and cry for such a drastic change.

Interesting. Who actually suggested a change to D&D itself, explicitly?