D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Aldarc]

Warlord deja vu.

 

[Maxperson]

This Gandalf thing is a bit muddy given the nature of the character in the fiction. But just go to another example. I mean, pretty much any military-based story.

Can we all not picture a non-wizard walking the line and lifting the spirits of his troops? Or a coach or team captain giving a rousing speech? Is that something that we would consider a supernatural quality?

No, but in reality not all of the athletes might be inspired

Of course not. It happens in real life all the time. I’ve experienced it myself, and I imagine most of us have.

Yep. And other times I've been completely unaffected by the speech.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, but in reality not all of the athletes might be inspired

Yep. And other times I've been completely unaffected by the speech.

Sure, but so what? It can happen and it doesn’t require wizardry.

 

[chaochou]

Can we all not picture a non-wizard walking the line and lifting the spirits of his troops? Or a coach or team captain giving a rousing speech?

And here's an equally thorny problem with the 'I choose my own emotional state' game - I don't need the speech or the general. I can simply declare my spirits are lifted, my energy is roused, irrespective of circumstance.

What you get from it is a game of Mary Sue characters doing disjointed cosplay in individual bubbles.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, part of the problem with the discussion is that the way D&D works is framing how folks are viewing the very idea of mechanics that affect PC emotion/mental state. The vast majority of examples are magic, so that is accepted, even if there’s still an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with it.

And D&D has such a strong delineation between the responsibilities of the GM and the players that anything that crosses that line (at least from the GM side into the player side) is often met with strong resistance.

The idea of taking social mechanics as they exist in other games and just plopping them into D&D isn’t really feasible. It’s like saying “oh look how offsides works in soccer, that’s interesting…let’s put it in baseball”. It doesn’t really work.

That doesn’t mean that D&D can’t have these kinds of mechanics….cleary they already do. They’re painted with the magic brush or similar, and so they’re accepted. But could those rules and similar ones be reworked and reframed in such a way to make D&D more focused on this aspect?

I mean, I think that it’s possible. You’d have to rework things and more importantly, people would have to be willing to play this way.

The question then becomes is it worth the effort to try and do that work? My answer in the past few years is to simply play another game if I’m interested in exploring characters, and to play D&D when that’s not a concern.

I agree. For me, one of the reasons I don't use inspiration for adhering to TIBF is that it feels like a step in the wrong direction for D&D. It's a carrot to get people to play their characters the "right" way. I think D&D through the years has stepped further and further away from what's on the character sheet dictating behavior. At one point, alignment was a straightjacket that limited what a PC could or could not do with XP penalties for changing alignments or even losing class abilities. Now? Alignment is just a general RP aid that has no mechanical impact. TIBF kind of dipped it's toe into nudging specific behaviors, but we don't really use it any more.

So yeah, my preference is to leave me as the sole author of what my PC thinks and does. This preference extends beyond TTRPGs to video game RPGs as well. There are times when I get a bit frustrated there's a cut scene or no appropriate dialog choice for what my version of the game's protagonist would do. I accept it in video games because they all have limitations. I don't want it in a TTRPG. I kind of ignore inspiring leader because I don't see it used very often and temp HP are not really affecting what my PC does, it doesn't really affect my PC's emotional state directly unless I decide it does.

In other words, if I'm playing a Han Solo type character, I want it to be my decision as a player to go back to save the day. But it's just a personal preference.

I would be curious to see (possibly a different thread) on how to implement some of the ideas from other games in D&D. Might be inspirational for some.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Here's the problem:

Player A as Gandalf: I give a rousing speech
Other players: We control our characters and we're not inspired
GM: Nor are the NPCs
Player A: Don't I get a roll?
All: No. That would be mind control.

I personally have not (that I recall?) used the phrase 'mind control' once in this thread. I have said that I prefer to have complete authority over the thoughts, emotions, and action declarations of my character.

I have also said that mental mechanics do serve a useful role in determining NPC actions.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And here's an equally thorny problem with the 'I choose my own emotional state' game - I don't need the speech or the general. I can simply declare my spirits are lifted, my energy is roused, irrespective of circumstance.

Yes, you can! That's the whole point.

But if you want a mechanical benefit for that, you'll need a mechanic.

What you get from it is a game of Mary Sue characters doing disjointed cosplay in individual bubbles.

No, I don't. Maybe you should have written "What I get from it...etc."

 

[Amrûnril]

Yeah, part of the problem with the discussion is that the way D&D works is framing how folks are viewing the very idea of mechanics that affect PC emotion/mental state. The vast majority of examples are magic, so that is accepted, even if there’s still an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with it.

And D&D has such a strong delineation between the responsibilities of the GM and the players that anything that crosses that line (at least from the GM side into the player side) is often met with strong resistance.

The idea of taking social mechanics as they exist in other games and just plopping them into D&D isn’t really feasible. It’s like saying “oh look how offsides works in soccer, that’s interesting…let’s put it in baseball”. It doesn’t really work.

That doesn’t mean that D&D can’t have these kinds of mechanics….cleary they already do. They’re painted with the magic brush or similar, and so they’re accepted. But could those rules and similar ones be reworked and reframed in such a way to make D&D more focused on this aspect?

I mean, I think that it’s possible. You’d have to rework things and more importantly, people would have to be willing to play this way.

The question then becomes is it worth the effort to try and do that work? My answer in the past few years is to simply play another game if I’m interested in exploring characters, and to play D&D when that’s not a concern.

I think I agree with most of this, but the last sentence highlights the main problem I'm having with the framing of this debate. To me, taking a character that I created and control and then having to consider how they'd respond to a scenario I didn't anticipate is exactly what exploring a character is about. Mental mechanics, depending on exactly how they're structured (and on player preferences), could be helpful in creating these scenarios or could step on the player's toes in determining responses, but the idea that they'd be necessary is a huge disconnect from the way that I think about exploring characters.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree. For me, one of the reasons I don't use inspiration for adhering to TIBF is that it feels like a step in the wrong direction for D&D. It's a carrot to get people to play their characters the "right" way. I think D&D through the years has stepped further and further away from what's on the character sheet dictating behavior. At one point, alignment was a straightjacket that limited what a PC could or could not do with XP penalties for changing alignments or even losing class abilities. Now? Alignment is just a general RP aid that has no mechanical impact. TIBF kind of dipped it's toe into nudging specific behaviors, but we don't really use it any more.

So yeah, my preference is to leave me as the sole author of what my PC thinks and does. This preference extends beyond TTRPGs to video game RPGs as well. There are times when I get a bit frustrated there's a cut scene or no appropriate dialog choice for what my version of the game's protagonist would do. I accept it in video games because they all have limitations. I don't want it in a TTRPG. I kind of ignore inspiring leader because I don't see it used very often and temp HP are not really affecting what my PC does, it doesn't really affect my PC's emotional state directly unless I decide it does.

In other words, if I'm playing a Han Solo type character, I want it to be my decision as a player to go back to save the day. But it's just a personal preference.

I would be curious to see (possibly a different thread) on how to implement some of the ideas from other games in D&D. Might be inspirational for some.

Yeah, I think that preference is absolutely fine. I'm currently playing in a 5E game and my character is pretty static. I use my BIFTs and alignment to help shape my portrayal, but here's the thing; virtually nothing about the game would change if I had different BIFTs. There is a little, yes.....the GMs (we're rotating GMs) have incorporated some of my characters details into the larger world and that has forced me to make some meaningful decisions. But it's minimal.

I think that is probably the major point of dislike that folks who are speaking in favor of games that do have these social/emotional elements. In those games, they are essential to what happens in play.

And to reframe my admittedly simple Han Solo analogy....who do you think was more surprised by Han Solo's decision to go and help the cause: George Lucas, or the audience?

Maybe looking at the analogy with that question in mind can help illuminate what I'm saying with that example.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think I agree with most of this, but the last sentence highlights the main problem I'm having with the framing of this debate. To me, taking a character that I created and control and then having to consider how they'd respond to a scenario I didn't anticipate is exactly what exploring a character is about. Mental mechanics, depending on exactly how they're structured (and on player preferences), could be helpful in creating these scenarios or could step on the player's toes in determining responses, but the idea that they'd be necessary is a huge disconnect from the way that I think about exploring characters.

I'm not saying that exploring character is impossible in D&D. I don't think it's impossible in any game, really. But I do think that some games make it integral to the game. They have rules and processes that actively promote it and make it come out in play.

D&D does not have those. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that is has elements that actively work against it. Doesn't make it impossible, no, but it does make it more difficult.

Also, see my post immediately above about Han Solo and Lucas or the Audience for clarification on discovery/exploration.