D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Aldarc]

From my standpoint I entirely agree that it is more believable that the character is impacted by events in the fiction rather than that the character has perfect control over their emotional responses.

I merely think that leaving it up to the player who best understands the character to decide how the character is impacted by events allows for more believable nuance than any game mechanic ever could.

I personally don't see any increase in believability from simulating the character's inability to control its responses to traumatic events by also mechanically preventing the player from controlling the character's response to those events.

Again, taking the example from the Turn Someone On move in Monsterhearts, the result of the PC being affected by it basically just says, "you're turned on by this person," and as well as an additional rider mechanical effect that's not worth going into. What that means for the PC and what the PC thinks about it is still left entirely up to the player to determine. The mechanics telling a character what they think or feel is pretty darn minimal and leaves a lot for the player to interpret and act upon as they wish. I'll post a bit more from it:

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.

When someone turns your character on, the emotional dynamic between them shifts. If a String is gained, the power dynamic shifts a little bit as well. How you react to that is up to you. What honesty demands is that you acknowledge the shift, imagine what your character might be feeling, and play from there. If Julia turns Monique on, it doesn’t mean Monique has to throw herself at her. Just play out how Monique would naturally respond. Maybe Monique blushes and turns to leave, or maybe she suddenly gets nervous and starts stammering.

With all of that said, it’s important to draw a line: you aren’t in control of what turns your character on, but you are in control of what they do with that information. If you’re playing Jackson, and Jackson just got a hard-on for another guy, you’re still in control of what he does with that feeling. Maybe Jackson is relatively chill about it, and it doesn’t throw his straight identity off the rails. Maybe he’s confused about it, and starts acting weird around this other guy for a couple weeks. Maybe he gets aggressive. Maybe he cheats on his girlfriend. Maybe he has a big gay awakening. You need to say what honesty demands, which is that Jackson gets this hard-on and thinks something of it. But you get to decide what happens next.

Asexuality is also addressed in this game too.

Keep in mind that Monsterhearts is a PbtA game. The GM doesn't roll. The GM is not actively putting the opposition in the way to turn the player on and casting some sort of Horny spell on them. The GM is not telling the players how they have to feel. Players roll when their actions in the fiction trigger an appropriate "move." The player may be trying to turn someone on and then failing (on results of 2-6 on a 2d6+mod), which may result in the GM switching the scenario (and the PC gets turned on instead), or it could be a case of PvP.

 

[Campbell]

I do not think you need any particular mechanics to have meaningful character exploration (although the right ones applied skillfully can help). In my experience you do need a genuine commitment to it and a strategy for dealing with a number of common pitfalls. First you have a strategy for avoiding becoming too attached to your personal conception of your character. Then you have to find a way to break past the what I call the improv wall - where we avoid meaningful conflict by utilizing improv comedy techniques like yes and. That's collaborative storytelling ,not character exploration, in my opinion. Finally we have to develop a way to set clear boundaries and expectations for each other. We all need to be socially free to play our characters with integrity and invested in each others' characters enough to let things play their course.

In my experience this stuff is not easy even with strong support. There's a whole host of behavioral conditioning most of us receive from playing roleplaying games that run counter to meaningful exploration of character. We're conditioned to not rock the boat too much, bite plot hooks, try to solve the mystery, work as a team. Often I find we need cover fire to overcome this conditioning. Social currency to act out without fear of reprisal. This can be negotiated in the absence of defined systems.

For me personally it's important to have tools to ease negotiation so gameplay does not become mired in meta commentary. I have a strong preference for tools that utilize a good amount of GM and player judgement because I want these sorts of things to be decided by the people at the table. I definitely understand these tools are not for everyone, but going it alone is still pretty damn fraught in my experience.

I know some people will make the argument that they are impervious to common play expectations. If it's true good for you. I don't think it's all that common to not be influenced by the dominant play culture. I know I struggle with it all the time.

 

[Maxperson]

I think, if someone questions your character's actions or your descriptions as the GM, then you've screwed up and there's some explaining to be done.

I don't. Not all aspects of my character's personality are going to be known and out in the open. Some will be deep and possibly dark, coming out at very specific times and in ways that might seem incongruous with what is known, but really isn't. I shouldn't have to justify my character's actions as if I'm on trial for roleplaying wrong.

 

[Desdichado]

I didn't miss those examples. I didn't see them presented in such a way that they were conducive to the discussion of "I like this kind of thing, here's how it works in XYZ" They were presented, rather, in the context of "I'm redefining a common phrase that has a common meaning, and here's an example to prove why I'm right and you're wrong for not accepting my more elevated use of the terms than the plebian use that you bitterly cling to."

Or at least it seems that the responses have generally been interpreting them that way, and that's the general tenor of the discussion overall. Semantical arguments that completely sideline the conversation that you're TRYING to have can probably be better read as a more articulate or defensive statement that boils down to "I don't like your tone!" Unless they really boil down to "I don't even understand what you're talking about because you're not using the words in the way that people usually use the words." And sometimes, it's "Yeah, yeah, I see that you're trying to define things using those terms, but that's not what that means, and I can't get over the fact that you're using the words in a way that is totally incongruent with how they are usually used. It's a major distraction. Try rephrasing."

 

[Campbell]

I have noticed a tendency to depersonalize social mechanics. It's not really the mechanic doing it though. In the vast majority of cases social mechanics in game like Exalted, Legend of the 5 Rings, Vampire - The Requiem, Masks, Apocalypse World, Fate, etc. are applied by a GM who is using their understanding of the fiction to apply them. You don't roll on a random table and get Angry in Masks the GM is making a judgement call based on their understanding of your character and the situation. Same for compels in Fate, Strife in L5R, etc.

I do not expect that to make it more palatable, but I think it's important to reflect that we are talking about a hopefully skilled practitioner making a judgement call. Not random system artifacts.

 

[Oofta]

I wouldn't say that "exploration" is the best word, but.

The best ever explanation of what playing a TTRPG is like I've ever heard is “It's like watching and shooting a TV show at the same time”. Letting go, discovering new things about them, and playing to find out who they really are is fun.

There are times when I've decided that I'm uncertain what my PC (or NPC if I'm DMing) would do or how they would react and I will roll a die to make a determination. My current PC in my wife's campaign flips a coin but that's more of a character affectation and ... well it's a long story.

I'm with you, I'm not sure "exploration" is what I would call either option. I definitely don't consciously think through all of my PC's actions and they can kind of surprise me. Your games seem to lean more on a systematic approach to do that discovery. If it works for you, great. It's interesting to hear about other approaches even if it's not my cup of tea.

In any case, thanks for the explanation.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it isn't apples to oranges. The DM is telling you that your character is falling down (after being tripped by another character). Your DM is telling you that you cannot fight anymore.

In every case, the DM, through the mechanics, is telling you how your character is behaving, within the limits of the mechanics. You failed your check, so, you trip on the wire strung across the hallway and fall on your face, take D4 damage is the DM telling you how your character is behaving.

Those are consequences for failure or the actions of others, not behaviors. A behavior is how someone acts. If I'm being erratic, that's a behavior. If I'm angry towards ants, that's a behavior. If I trip over a crack in the sidewalk, that's a consequence for being clumsy.

Without magic or some equivalent, the DM should have no input at all over the behaviors of my character. Consequences for actions are a completely different beast.

Now, you are saying you don't use Sanity, or Piety rules. Do you similarly not use inspiration or Ideals? Again, my point is, where is your cut off line? Is it ANY mechanics which impact the mental/emotional state of your character (besides flat our mind control of course)? And, if that's true, why is it acceptable that the DM can dictate your physical state? The DM can declare that you are now Exhausted, for example. So, any physical changes is perfectly fine, but, all mental ones are not?

I think these are different as well. With inspiration and ideals(and I think piety. Not very familiar with that one), the DM isn't controlling the PC in any way. He's simply rewarding(or not) the actions that the player has his PC perform. With sanity the DM is imposing decreased sanity on the PC for game reasons via game mechanics and then the player ought to roleplay the results. It's similar to controlling a PC's actions with Domination or some other magic.

 

[Xetheral]

It seems to me that it is being confused as coming from the character.

From my standpoint you are misundstanding what the authors mean when they say it feels like a character was writing itself. And by asserting that such statements are false you are problematically substituting your own judgement for the authors' report of what the writing process feels like to them.

Sure, okay, if you don't like the difference between exploring your character and expressing your character that started this side conversation, what terms would you like to use for the difference between the absolute control over character such that the character always does what you want it to (even if such wants may be surprising to you) and where the character can push back against your wants and do things that are things you've decided to have the character do? I mean, instead of discussing the intent here, you seem to be very interested in owning exploration.

If you feel that our side conversation has been about what label to use to describe our approaches to roleplaying, then we have been talking past each other. I'd prefer to drop this side conversation rather than spend even more time trying to clarify to each other what we've each been trying to discuss.

 

[Ovinomancer]

From my standpoint you are misundstanding what the authors mean when they say it feels like a character was writing itself. And by asserting that such statements are false you are problematically substituting your own judgement for the authors' report of what the writing process feels like to them.

I don't think so. They're saying they were surprised by their own choices while writing -- that, in a given moment, they didn't expect to decide these things. This is still the author surprising the author, though. The character isn't doing anything at all, because they're 100% in the mind of the author. So, yes, the claim that the character wrote itself is one of those fun lies that has use -- it's figurative language that says the author was surprised by their own choices when writing the character. How this is an exploration of the character, I don't see -- it appears to me to be an exploration of the author's own thinking.

If you feel that our side conversation has been about what label to use to describe our approaches to roleplaying, then we have been talking past each other. I'd prefer to drop this side conversation rather than spend even more time trying to clarify to each other what we've each been trying to discuss.

I don't see how you've addressed my points except to say that it's not the right word. Did I miss it? Where did you discuss the fact that the character can push back while you retain full control over the character -- the initial question in this line, if you recall, asked because I don't see how that works. I still haven't been provided one, just things like authors being surprised by their own choices and a questioning of what exploration of character means, mostly to claim it means being surprised by your own choices or having to make hard choices for your character. Where are you finding out things about this character that you don't have full control over authoring?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would view this question by turning it around- when do I critique the play (assumedly as in roleplay) or choose to critique why someone performed a particular action. When would I say something like, "Oh no, your character wouldn't do that. Why did you?"

It doesn't have to be about challenging someone's decision so much as discussing the decision. Not "your character wouldn't do that" so much as "why did you decide your character would do that?" or maybe even "I was surprised that you had your character do X".

I think these kinds of conversations are interesting, and they can be helpful. They can also, of course, go wrong if people don't handle the situation properly. If it's an open session to question every other player's choices, then yeah, that's probably not productive.