D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Bill Zebub]

A game where my PC can do even the most horrific thing - murder in cold blood - as if it were no different from preparing a meal or mending some armour seems to be one in which I am just controlling the character like a piece moved around a board. That character has no inner life. No doubts or hesitations.

In my mind that's where roleplaying comes in. (And also the word "murderhobo".) I, for one, do feel hesitation (and remorse) with most of my characters for committing murder. I don't need dice to tell me to feel that way. But if my blood is up over something outrageous the NPCs have done, I feel less hesitation...although later I might feel just as much remorse. Depends on the circumstances.

And if I did use the dice to determine how my character felt, I don't think I would personally actually feel it anymore. Or perhaps the dice would tell me that I have no qualms about killing them, but I personally would still feel unsettled about it. Now I'm even more disassociated.

I'd much rather actually feel all this than just perform it. Even if that means I'm really roleplaying a character who is, to some extent, myself.

 

[darkbard]

Artificial or not it feels damn annoying to me in real life, and isn't something I want to replicate in the game if I don't have to.

I really don't understand your response. Don't you regularly argue for stalled, frustrating moments of play as they replicate real life? Why is this different?

 

[Manbearcat]

Artificial or not it feels damn annoying to me in real life, and isn't something I want to replicate in the game if I don't have to.

Exactly the answer I was looking for!

And totally legitimate position to take.

Thank you for your honesty.

 

[pemerton]

I don't want a metagame mechanic (steel) to affect my decision. That would feel artificial to me. I would rather make a decision base solely on the personality I had envisioned.

Steel isn't a metagame mechanic. It doesn't represent the operation of some extra-fictional concern (like eg how badly the player wants to succeed in the scene). It's a mechanic that does what it says on the tin: it represents the capacity of the character to steel themself against horrible or fearsome things, including committing murder.

It's no different, in that respect, from an INT check or saving throw to see through an illusion or escape a Maze spell.

IIRC you gave a long example of outcomes without describing what happened without explaining any mechanics except to refer to other game specific mechanics without explaining how they work.

<snip>

How do they get there? I have no clue because y'all talk around it using yet more game terms.

Here's one reposted. It's not wildly different, in its resolution structure, from the INT checks mentioned just above:

Here's an actual play example from my LotR game using a fantasy hack of Cortex+ Heroic, illustrating the use of a Scene Distinction to model uncertainty and debate:

In the session that we played I ran an action scene in which one of the Scene Distinctions was Uncertain Of What to do Next, and as the scene unfolded the player of the ranger declared actions that succeeded in eliminating that Distinction, meaning that he was then able to dictate to the table what the next step was. That was a nice alternative to (say) a BW Duel of Wits - the uncertainy being more about the situation than a disagreement between two characters - and I felt it emulated some of those parts of LotR where Aragorn in particular can see the range of options but is unsure what is the right choice of next action.

To the extent that that is not self-explanatory: a Scene Distinction is a descriptor that applies to the situation and is rated at a certain size (by default, D8). All action resolution in Cortex+ Heroic (which is the generic term for hacked versions of Marvel Heroic RP) consists in making checks that generate an effect rated by die size. The general rules is that (i) if an effect that is rated smaller than another trait is applied to eliminate that trait, that trait steps down one die size (eg D8 to D6, D6 to D4, D4 to eliminated), and (ii) if an effect that is rated equal or greater than another trait is applied to eliminate that trait, that trait is eliminated.

The actions that the players declared represented attempts to obtain information, persuade one another, etc. The thematic that was intended was similar to the debate between Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli at Parth Galen. I felt it worked.

 

[pemerton]

I'd much rather actually feel all this than just perform it. Even if that means I'm really roleplaying a character who is, to some extent, myself.

Re your first sentence: that's not a contrast that resonates with me. When I declare the action, and then the GM calls for a Steel check, and then I put together my dice pool and roll, I'm not performing. I'm feeling the anticipation and the weight of what I (as my character) may be about to do.

Re your second sentence: that brings us back full circle to Matt Colville's video.

 

[Oofta]

Steel isn't a metagame mechanic. It doesn't represent the operation of some extra-fictional concern (like eg how badly the player wants to succeed in the scene). It's a mechanic that does what it says on the tin: it represents the capacity of the character to steel themself against horrible or fearsome things, including committing murder.

It's no different, in that respect, from an INT check or saving throw to see through an illusion or escape a Maze spell.

Here's one reposted. It's not wildly different, in its resolution structure, from the INT checks mentioned just above:

Here's an actual play example from my LotR game using a fantasy hack of Cortex+ Heroic, illustrating the use of a Scene Distinction to model uncertainty and debate:
To the extent that that is not self-explanatory: a Scene Distinction is a descriptor that applies to the situation and is rated at a certain size (by default, D8). All action resolution in Cortex+ Heroic (which is the generic term for hacked versions of Marvel Heroic RP) consists in making checks that generate an effect rated by die size. The general rules is that (i) if an effect that is rated smaller than another trait is applied to eliminate that trait, that trait steps down one die size (eg D8 to D6, D6 to D4, D4 to eliminated), and (ii) if an effect that is rated equal or greater than another trait is applied to eliminate that trait, that trait is eliminated.

The actions that the players declared represented attempts to obtain information, persuade one another, etc. The thematic that was intended was similar to the debate between Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli at Parth Galen. I felt it worked.

When I say metagame, I'm simply referring to a set of rules in the game.

As far as your scene, I don't feel the need for game mechanics. Guess I'd have to see it in play to be sure I understand though. Thanks for trying to explain.

But it is really just a preference. I'd simply rather just run the scenario as a back and forth between PCs with no rules or game system involved.

But where I'm confused is when you talk about persuade one another. In D&D, the players talk it out. There may be a knowledge check here and there, but that's it. No player can influence another player's decision based on rules of the game barring magic. It sounds like that is not true for the scene you describe.

 

[Oofta]

As a side note, some others have alluded to the fact that decisions aren't always rational. All I can say is that my PCs aren't always rational either. I don't think that any rule system that would be useable as a game is going to be particularly realistic either. People are way too complex to really boil down to a set of rules. Anything we do is going to be a simplification.

Thank goodness there are multiple games out there to suit different styles.

 

[Umbran]

Toodles!

ETA: I feel your posts are harrassment as well -- they are mean spirited and intentionally insulting and show no attempt to understand. I guess, though, that only one person is privileged here, and that's who throws "harassment" out as a defense against argument first. Lesson learned.

Mod Note:
Commenting on moderation in-thread? After a thread ban?

Someone just earned themselves a week-long vacation from EN World, and a discussion among the moderators as to whether they'll ever be allowed back on the site.

Do not be this guy. Be respectful. Be more than respectful - be KIND to your fellow posters.

 

[Lanefan]

I really don't understand your response. Don't you regularly argue for stalled, frustrating moments of play as they replicate real life? Why is this different?

Frustration with external elements of the setting is fine.

Frustration with one's own character, not so much.

Just a personal preference, I suppose.

 

[darkbard]

Frustration with external elements of the setting is fine.

Frustration with one's own character, not so much.

Just a personal preference, I suppose.

It's more the cognitive dissonance of declaring one a quality of "reality" (and thus appealing) and the other distasteful for that very same reason that provoked my comment.