D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[pemerton]

I never said anything about the player's feelings, not sure where you're getting that.

Probably from this, and similar posts by you:

I'm not going to be affected by a game rule telling me that my PC is anxious

<snip>

If I can't get into my player's head enough to figure that out I either don't care or the game telling me they're anxious isn't going to have any impact.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So I've been giving some thought about this topic, and an idea occurred to me. I think maybe it's about surprise.

Think of the movies and books and other forms of entertainment you've watched that feature fictional characters. You may decide you like or dislike a character based on how they're introduced and how they're portrayed. But in most cases, character defining moments...the ones that are the most important...are those moments where they surprise you. Where they do something different than what you thought they'd do.

So let's take Star Wars: A New Hope as an example. We have Luke Skywalker and we have Han Solo. There are reasons to like both of them. But does Luke ever do anything in the story that's surprising? Or are we pretty much certain what he'll do at any decision point he faces?

Han Solo, on the other hand, we're a little less certain about. His motivations are less pure, and his outlook is pessimistic and seemingly selfish. And yet what's the defining moment for him in the movie? No, not shooting Greedo. It's when he swoops in to save Luke despite having nothing to gain from the act.

That moment is not one that we expected (or, at least, it wasn't established as likely in any scene portraying Solo), but it's what happened, and it's one of the best moments of the movie, and redefines Han Solo's character going forward. He is changed.

Applying this to RPGs and the player-PC relationship....do you guys think that it's about not wanting to be surprised? That it's about wanting a Luke Skywalker character rather than a Han Solo character which may have the ability to surprise you?

Do you think that it's possible to wind up with a more Han Solo type of character in traditional D&D play? Does the game as written actively promote one over the other (generally speaking, accepting that there will be exceptions with some gaming groups)? If so, how does it promote that character type? If not, how do you tweak things to get it to do so?

 

[Oofta]

Probably from this, and similar posts by you:

I would find being told what my character decides (i.e. persuaded by another character) or feel either boring or likely nonsensical/irritating for my vision of the character. If it was something I agree with, I could have decided it myself.

I don't know how to state that any more clearly. Any emotion I feel as a player would either be neutral or negative.

 

[Hussar]

It's been said repeatedly that the rules don't tell me what my PC is thinking or feeling. That's contradicted by the statement. That's all.

As far as what my PC feels, I don't want to be told, unless it's supernatural. That's all.

There is no one true way.

See, this is why I see the argument as contradictory.

A. We need rules to determine the character's physical states. We all agree here. The amount of rules needed can vary wildly from game to game, but, by and large, we don't want the game to devolve into cops and robbers. So, fair enough.

B. Conversely, we do not need any rules to determine the character's mental states. That is 100% up to the player who apparently must be given absolute authority over the mental states of the character. Unless, of course, we add in handwavium in the form of magic. Or a few other corner case kinda/sorta magic effects. And alignment. And traits and bonds and ideals. And a few other things. But, by and large, we must not ever have rules to determine the character's mental state.

My issue here, and why I see this as contradictory, is that why is it true? If the player can be given 100% authority over the mental state of the character, and nothing must ever interfere with that, then why does that not apply to physical states? I envision my character as a great swordsman. You can't hit me with your sword because that counters my character concept.

What's the difference?

@Aldarc makes it perfectly clear. Having mechanics that determine a character's mental states is in no way any different than the physical ones. You incorporate all those physical states into your play do you not? If my character is physically weak (low Strength) then I'm not going to be doing any breaking down of doors, most likely. My play will be informed by the fact that I have a low Strength score. Conversely, if I've got bags of HP and a high Strength, then that will likely inform my play as well.

How is this any different?

"I don't like it" is a perfectly fine answer. But, let's not pretend that that's anything other than a personal preference. It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be in the game. It just means that if it's in the game, that person won't use those rules. Which is fine. Lots of people ignore lots of rules in D&D and many other RPG's. But, no, it's not "one true wayism" at all to say that these mechanics would open up all sorts of design features and add a huge number of elements to the game which can then be leveraged in further designs. D&D's utter lack of anything like a social mechanic has really handicapped what can be done in D&D for years.

To put it another way, the lack of social mechanics means that social characters - characters that excel at the talky bits - are never really a viable option in the game. At best they're support characters.

 

[Aldarc]

I never said anything about the player's feelings, not sure where you're getting that.

I'll show you:

@Aldarc, I agree that the game doesn't care. That doesn't mean that the players and the DM can't care. Some people see growth, some don't. Sometimes I see growth and change in my PCs, sometimes I don't. It also doesn't mean that for me that a game system is going to make me "feel" anything.

Ultimately the game telling me something wouldn't feel organic or "real". There's only so much a game, movie or novel can do for that.

But there's not really much more to say. If it works for you, great. I don't think either style is better or worse, I don't think a game can make me feel something I'm not going to and I think a lot of people just don't care. If it matters, if it's the type of campaign where it makes sense, reactions that I come up with will have more impact than ones determined by a game rule.

But I'm with @Bill Zebub. I think I'm done here. So long and thanks for all the fish.

You appear to be talking about yourself as a player in these instances rather than what the player character feels. Your uses of the pronoun "me" definitely lends to my reading that you are referring to the player. I probably wouldn't use "me" when talking about what my PC feels. Plus when you talk about media making you feel, that also would be about you the player/audience.

 

[Maxperson]

Conversely, we do not need any rules to determine the character's mental states. That is 100% up to the player who apparently must be given absolute authority over the mental states of the character. Unless, of course, we add in handwavium in the form of magic. Or a few other corner case kinda/sorta magic effects. And alignment. And traits and bonds and ideals. And a few other things. But, by and large, we must not ever have rules to determine the character's mental state.

This is how it is for me. First, half the rules there don't have authority over the mental state of a PC. Alignment, traits, bond and ideals can be ignored at the choice of the player. I might have a PC with the trait mouths off to authority, but if he's in front of the emperor who is known to have people beheaded on the spot if annoyed, you can bet that my guy is going to bite his tongue. It's my choice.

Magic has the nice ability to override choice with in a plausible way. That makes it palatable to me, though if it's used too much I would become really annoyed with that as well.

My issue here, and why I see this as contradictory, is that why is it true? If the player can be given 100% authority over the mental state of the character, and nothing must ever interfere with that, then why does that not apply to physical states? I envision my character as a great swordsman. You can't hit me with your sword because that counters my character concept.

What's the difference?

The difference is that mundane things can affect me physically and there's nothing I can do about it. If a spear hit my PC, he's taking damage and feeling pain. If he's pinched, it will hurt. Mental things don't have that same standing. Someone shouting boo at me isn't going to scare me unless he's got some mystical power to back up that attempt to frighten me.

That said, as DM I sometimes will describe things with feeling. If they walk into a mausoleum where powerful undead live, I might describe a feeling of oppressiveness in the air. Generally, my players go with it. Occasionally, if there's something about their character that would run counter to that feeling, they will say something like, "My character doesn't feel like that because..." At that point I will respond with the equivalent, "He feels however you want him to feel." The player knows his PC far better than I do and would know more accurately how he would feel.

"I don't like it" is a perfectly fine answer. But, let's not pretend that that's anything other than a personal preference. It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be in the game. It just means that if it's in the game, that person won't use those rules. Which is fine. Lots of people ignore lots of rules in D&D and many other RPG's.

This is absolutely true. It is all preference. I have nothing against games with mechanics to non-magically control what PCs feel, but I wouldn't play one.

 

[pemerton]

Do you think that it's possible to wind up with a more Han Solo type of character in traditional D&D play? Does the game as written actively promote one over the other (generally speaking, accepting that there will be exceptions with some gaming groups)?

I think there are challenges in this respect, once we consider (i) D&D's mechanics and (ii) the typical range of D&D play.

Historically, the emphasis in D&D has been on consistency of character. Alignment rules pushed towards consistency - eg in his DMG, Gygax says (p 25) "Changing of alignment is a serious matter, although some players would have their characters change alignment as often as they change socks. Not so!" Part of the rationale for this is a perception - an accurate one, I think, in classic D&D play - that changing one's character is exploitative or abusive, avoiding the obligation to engage the challenges of the game with the role one has chosen.

The importance of consistency, and its relationship to "good roleplaying", is also suggested in other passages of Gygax's rulebooks:

Experience points are merely an indicator of the character's progress towards greater proficiency in his or her chosen profession. UPWARD PROGRESS IS NEVER AUTOMATIC. . . . Consider the natural functions of each class of character. Consider also the professed alignment of each character. (DMG p 86)​

​

You act out the game as this character, staying within your "god-given abilities", and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment). . . . While involuntary change of alignment is quite possible, it is very difficult​

for a character to voluntarily switch from one to another . . . {PHB pp 7, 34)​

A second factor is that D&D doesn't, by default, provide "hooks" that link the PC into the sorts of interactions that produce circumstances or pressure for change. The PC build is generally quite a bit less than a total picture of the character (this contrasts with fuller "skill system" builds, or Pendragon's traits, etc) and this means that the natural process of developing the PC over time, and bringing the PC's abilities to bear on situations in play, doesn't tend to reveal the character or changes in the character. (In my mind, a clear contrast here is with Rolemaster play, where every level involves a choice of skills to develop, which reveals something about how the PC is changing - or not - in response to the vicissitudes of the fiction.)

A third factor - related, to an extent, to the previous one - is the typical nature of D&D adventures/scenarios. They tend to be "external" problems that the PCs are recruited to resolve, and hence that don't implicate the PCs own concerns and relationships.

I think all these things push against the sort of "Han Solo" character transformation you describe.

 

[Hussar]

but if he's in front of the emperor who is known to have people beheaded on the spot if annoyed, you can bet that my guy is going to bite his tongue. It's my choice.

But, we've been over this so many times.

Why do you think that a social mechanic system would suddenly force you to commit suicide? Do you really have that little faith in game design? Or, to put it another way, can you point to an actual game where this is possible? Or, are you just pulling examples out of the air without any actual experience? Because, from what others have said in this thread, it sure looks like that.

It's like a bunch of people insisting that they hate something they've never tried, don't really know anything about and have just made up their minds that it must be a certain way without anything approaching actual reality. I hate ice cream because it's too spicy!!! seems to be the cry.

This looks so much like the whole Exploration Pillar Sucks thread we just had. Any suggestion that the mechanics be changed to make exploration more robust is received with virtually the same reaction we're seeing here.

 

[Oofta]

I'll show you:

You appear to be talking about yourself as a player in these instances rather than what the player character feels. Your uses of the pronoun "me" definitely lends to my reading that you are referring to the player. I probably wouldn't use "me" when talking about what my PC feels. Plus when you talk about media making you feel, that also would be about you the player/audience.

Maybe I could have worded it better but all I'm saying is that additional rules on this would have no positive impact on the enjoyment of the game for me.

 

[Oofta]

But, we've been over this so many times.

Why do you think that a social mechanic system would suddenly force you to commit suicide? Do you really have that little faith in game design? Or, to put it another way, can you point to an actual game where this is possible? Or, are you just pulling examples out of the air without any actual experience? Because, from what others have said in this thread, it sure looks like that.

It's like a bunch of people insisting that they hate something they've never tried, don't really know anything about and have just made up their minds that it must be a certain way without anything approaching actual reality. I hate ice cream because it's too spicy!!! seems to be the cry.

This looks so much like the whole Exploration Pillar Sucks thread we just had. Any suggestion that the mechanics be changed to make exploration more robust is received with virtually the same reaction we're seeing here.

Since it's all a preference and there are already other games that include additional rules, why do we need to add those rules to D&D?

Why not play those other games and let D&D be what it is and always has been? It's the most popular TTRPG ever, it obviously doesn't need the secret sauce to be successful. Yet time and time again when people say "I like it the way it is" the response is always "Why can't we fix it?"

I don't want to fix or add to something that, for me, is not broken. Which obviously means I'm attacking everyone who disagrees ... even though I try to go out of my way to say that it's just a preference.

Meanwhile whenever I suggest that people come up with concrete ideas on how to implement things in D&D that could actually receive feedback, that gets rejected as well. A plus thread on how to add things to the game may actually be useful to those who want it; repeating vague assertions and complaints? I don't see the point. Publishing a supplement to DmsGuild? If it's successful it may be adopted in some form in an official supplement. Complaining on a forum like this? Never goes anywhere.

In any case, this is pointless. If there's ever concrete rules that we could critique I may have something else to say. Until then, it's a free country and feel free to yell at the wind.