RPG Evolution: Playing Your PC Poorly

Dungeons & Dragons is often about the increasing power of heroes who start out capable and get stronger from there. But it wasn't always that way.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

Welcome to the Meat Grinder​

Characters in earlier versions of Dungeons & Dragons had ability scores that were rolled randomly. Players could select where the statistics went, but a poor score would inevitably bedevil starting characters, which certainly contributed to their likely death against frequently overwhelming odds.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons' restrictive requirements for certain classes like paladins required minimum ability scores, so if a player wanted to play a certain class they had to get lucky with their rolls. To get around this, players would roll over and over until they got the right combination of scores to succeed. Eventually, programs were created to mass generate these types of scores. And that led to point buy systems, where the player would just pick scores and not leave anything to chance.

This change meant that players started out more capable than they did in the past. And that changed how players role-played their characters.

Playing a Loser​

It was rare in the AD&D days to put too much effort into a new character who might die anyway. Instead, role-play emerged from characters as they leveled up. Once they reached a high enough level to be raised from the dead if they died, players got more comfortable investing in their characters by role-playing them. Additionally, role-play came about from the character's longevity. They didn't have in-depth backstories because the character wasn't fully formed until the player played them for a while.

This is where early Call of Cthulhu branched off from traditional D&D. Call of Cthulhu ability scores were originally similar to D&D's, but rather than fight the vulnerabilities of characters, Call of Cthulhu embraced them. Weakness was a virtue, and heroism was role-played rather than being built into the character. It's not uncommon to find characters with stats of 6 or lower in early adventures for the game.

My ill-fated D20 Modern/Call of Cthulhu game was a perfect example of the collision between expectations ("I'm a hero, I should feel like it!") vs. the game's setting ("you are insignificant and you can only hope to die heroically"). Of all my players in that game, only my brother ever role-played his character Hank as being actually frightened of things. He enjoyed role-playing Hank's terror, running screaming at the slightest provocation; the rest of the party would roll their eyes and have to rescue him. That vulnerability made for a great horror game.

But that's not typical D&D. At least not anymore. And for evidence of how gameplay has changed, we have a more recent example.

We Need to Talk About Keyleth​

Keyleth is a half-elf druid from Critical Role who has gotten even more publicity in Amazon's new animated series, The Legend of Vox Machina. There are several moments in the cartoon where Keyleth, a capable druid (and potentially the most powerful caster in the group), freezes up. She doesn't always cast the right spells or any spells at all. A little digging revealed that this is also true to the streaming series, as Polygon recounts:

According to an interview that Ray gave in 2018, Keyleth’s social awkwardness and uncertainty stemmed at least in part from Ray’s own nerves at joining a table full of established voice actors. But she took ownership of that early role-play decision and made it a core part of Keyleth’s character. Her play style allowed Keyleth to experience doubt in key moments, sometimes resulting in an in-game fumble or a moment of conflict ... Keyleth’s anxieties and self-doubt stem, at least in part, from her concerns about her ability to take on the role she is destined for later in life, as leader of the Air Ashari druids. Her fear of failure manifests itself in ways that often have direct negative consequences for the party.

This choice, to play a character who is complicated and uncomfortable with her powers, made her a less effective party member. She's doesn't enter the stage as a fully-formed hero, more a young character struggling to live up to the enormous expectations on her shoulders. It's a narrative choice, but not necessarily one optimized for party survival. In the cartoon, this makes for interesting in drama. But it frustrated critics of the streaming series, who were very harsh on Keyleth and her player, Marisha Ray. And in case it's not clear, Ray is quite capable as a cast member and the company's creative director:

Ray has been instrumental in making Critical Role into the sprawling multimedia company that it is today, contributing as the creative lead for shows like All Work No Play, Exandria Unlimited, and more. In interviews and media appearances, the persona she presents behind the scenes is distinctly different from Keyleth’s brand of awkward deference. Ray appears to command the room, regularly making difficult decisions that impact the entire organization. And yet a core group of toxic fans continue to hold a grudge against her portrayal of Keyleth.

New Players, New Play Styles​

In the continual push-pull between role-play and combat, squad-like efficiency are no longer a baseline assumption for all players. Traditional D&D came out of military historical roots, but new players without that background are bringing narrative-first characters, character who are flawed because it's fun to role-play and grow. And that's no less a valid choice than Hank's terror or Keyleth's insecurity. It's just different, and as new players join D&D, we're going to see a lot more of it.

Your Turn: Have you ever played a deeply flawed character who intentionally didn't use their abilities to the fullest?

 

[Blue]

Not in a bad way, but this is such a D&D-centric view on this topic. Many other RPG systems encourage or require you to play to your character's flaws as well as their strengths, with Fate (both Core and FAE) as the ur-example where you get additional meta-currency to use your strength by having your flaws appear.

I have absolutely played characters who have made choices and done things that were not optimal. I endeavor as a player to make those fun for everyone else at the table, as that's one of the prime responsibilities of everyone playing, but that hasn't stopped moves of pathos, anger, passion, ignorance, or angst that provide a strong story while metaphorically or literally pulling the ceiling down about our ears.

It even can show up in the small things - my herald stepping in front of his king to protect him... even though my brave halfling bard has the lowest HP and AC in the group, and our barbarian king the most. Is it the smart move? No. Is it a move I've made several times, and made that character endeared to everyone else in the party and made good stories? Yes.

This question about playing your PC poorly focuses on playing them sub-optimally mechanically or tactically. But done right, playing a PC brilliantly in terms of narrative and fun at times can require that. And that's not doing it wrong, it's all right.

 

[Dragonsbane]

Personally, I love players who don't optimize or who play sub-par PCs, or who do actions that are not perfect. It shows they understand the game isn't about winning. A sure sign of a very mature RPer, always welcome at my table! (unlike min/maxers).

 

[payn]

Personally, I love players who don't optimize or who play sub-par PCs, or who do actions that are not perfect. It shows they understand the game isn't about winning. A sure sign of a very mature RPer, always welcome at my table! (unlike min/maxers).

I know min/maxers can sometimes make things tough at the table for a group, but I have had less issues with them than flaw type role players. I have had folks play it up too much so that their character actually becomes a caricature. Its like they are playing a flaw with a humanoid familiar instead. If they have low charisma they must burp and fart and just be a straight up a-hole every single chance they can get. Its just too much where I would rather they didnt take the flaw at all. Some folks even think the "take a flaw get a bonus mechanics" means they really must play up the flaw as the price of admission for the benny, which is like the worst of both worlds...

 

[edosan]

Not in a bad way, but this is such a D&D-centric view on this topic. Many other RPG systems encourage or require you to play to your character's flaws as well as their strengths, with Fate (both Core and FAE) as the ur-example where you get additional meta-currency to use your strength by having your flaws appear.

Which 5e uses in the form of traits/ideals/bonds/flaws. A lot of people ignore it either by habit or because they think it's too difficult, but it's right there.

Anecdotal, but while it seems to be style to say "kids these days, they all want to be anime superheroes" the newcomers I play with are quite happy to play something suboptimal if it fits their character ideas, it's the longtime players that want to do the extended theorycrafting to make the optimal character.

 

[kosmosis]

There are so many ways to play these games and I fall strongly in the sub-optimal camp. I've actually moved away from D&D due to the optimization culture that is so strong (see all of the class optimization guides inspired by WoW and now in D&D). I think everyone enjoys these games for different reasons and I can see the draw of optimized builds for people who came from MMORPGs and are really into tactics, but for me, heavy roleplay with characters that have flaws provides me with a story aspect that I can't get in video games or anywhere else.

My favorite characters have all been characters that would probably make optimizers cringe. I played a Wizard/Warlock/Ranger that was an absolute blast. I just enjoyed him because he was a socially awkward anthropologist obsessed with the Yuan-Ti. I recall my first session (it was a new group) using the character, a player said "you didn't take Mage Hand!?". I told him "No. I am an Enchantment wizard learning the enchantment abilities of the Yuan-Ti. Mage Hand is not an Enchantment spell. And I like to play sub-optimally". He understood and we moved on and had fun. In my eyes, if another player has a problem with a party member not maximizing their power, they want to play a different game than I do and it's likely not just a good fit.

I will never tell another player they should have made different character choices..even if it means the party could run into trouble. But then again, I think the DM has a large role in molding the adventure based on the characters in the group. If players don;t mike optimized combat builds and go skill-heavy, use less difficult combat scenarios.

 

[kosmosis]

Which 5e uses in the form of traits/ideals/bonds/flaws. A lot of people ignore it either by habit or because they think it's too difficult, but it's right there.

I think a lot of people ignore them because there is no real mechanic attached to it (or if there is one, nobody seems to use it). I think other games that attach certain rewards to those things can be a lot of fun, but even then it can be abused if people "spam" their flaws for gains.

 

[Blue]

Which 5e uses in the form of traits/ideals/bonds/flaws. A lot of people ignore it either by habit or because they think it's too difficult, but it's right there.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but Inspiration is not tightly coupled with the rest of the rules - there is nothing else interacting with it. So it is never required to play to your flaws, unlike in Fate. With the recommendation of once per character per session, and of the five many of them are not flaws and/or will come up in neutral or positive ways, so rewarding a flaw probably comes up once every couple of sessions. So one d20 roll every few sessions isn't a strong representation. But you are right, it is representation, and we can strengthen it.

In the 5e games I run and the games I play we've adopted alternate Inspiration rules to make it more prevalent. Players can nominate other players when they see it, so it comes up more often. It's grants a reroll instead of Advantage, so both it's avoids the "oh I forgot it" and also feels like it always has a chance to make a difference. And we the "once a session" we treat as a guideline and not a rule. We like having it mean more.

Anecdotal, but while it seems to be style to say "kids these days, they all want to be anime superheroes" the newcomers I play with are quite happy to play something suboptimal if it fits their character ideas, it's the longtime players that want to do the extended theorycrafting to make the optimal character.

Agreeing with you: One of the 5e games I run is for my kids and my niece and nephew. They are quite happy making sub-optimal characters and having others play "true" even if it's sub-optimally. I've had a complaint once with rolled scores that they had no penalties and that didn't fit the concept they envisioned.

Though the game with veteran players I run ranging form 30s to 50s for the most part aren't concerned enough with system mastery to effectively optimize mechanically. They try to make reasonable choices, but I think the only one that theorycrafts is me, and I don't do that for characters I play (who grow more organically to fit the party) but just as a "solo minigame" when new character options come out.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, something that is often overlooked or intentionally (and IMO wrongly) ignored about "play weak characters!" is the official and unofficial incentives. Which is a drum I've beaten so many times I'll have to replace the head soon, but I'm not gonna stop!

Games like Fate reward the player for choosing to play out the negative facets of their Aspects, and make it costly to choose not to play out those things. That creates a play space where, yes, accepting a Compel means you suffer some kind of problem or setback, but there is both the intangible reward of "this enriches the experience and makes it more interesting," and the tangible reward of "you now have another Fate point that can turn a critical moment into success." Further, the player's agency is respected up to a point: the system doesn't allow players to ignore every Compel forever, but it does give players the option of spending their resources if they really, truly cannot accept the consequences of a particular Compel. Doing so can also enrich the story, by presenting a moment when a character is tempted or struggles against their own nature and exhibits uncommon virtue in the process.

More importantly, by having things codified in this way, the DM is encouraged to think in terms of what incentives they provide and to offer Compels that players will actually be comfortable (maybe even enthusiastic) about accepting. These faults, flaws, and failings then cease to be "look at how much you suck," and instead become "look at the struggle you're going through." They cease to be poor play, and instead become fun opportunities.

5e, and D&D more broadly, has unfortunately always been very bad at both of these things. I think 4e actually made some small strides in this department that were sadly completely ignored in 5e (specifically, the "quest experience" stuff and the Skill Challenge rules), but even in the edition I love best, the incentive structures and DM tools to make them cool and fun instead of punitive and frustrating are extremely thin. 5e's use of Inspiration, or rather the really really noteworthy lack of use in most groups, and the fact that Advantage is a poor tool for the intended function, leave it dangling by a thread of "well you should just WANT to roleplay characters that err and fail, because that's more interesting!" That line of thinking has the eternal problem: telling people that they should be just intrinsically motivated to do something that is extrinsically very discouraging is simply going to fail a lot of the time.

If D&D wants people to play flawed characters, or as I would prefer to phrase it, if D&D wants people to play grounded and relatable characters, it needs to offer actual (not just theoretical) incentives to do so, and it needs to give DMs both high quality advice on how to do that well, and well-made and flexible tools for making it happen. 5e as it stands does not do either of those things, and even my edition heartthrob is only a small step up.

 

[payn]

If D&D wants people to play flawed characters, or as I would prefer to phrase it, if D&D wants people to play grounded and relatable characters, it needs to offer actual (not just theoretical) incentives to do so, and it needs to give DMs both high quality advice on how to do that well, and well-made and flexible tools for making it happen. 5e as it stands does not do either of those things, and even my edition heartthrob is only a small step up.

Thats a huge uphill fight I think. Some folks love 5E bonds flaws and whatever. My experience has been its so flimsy and underused its like a bolt on. However, a lot of folks dont play D&D to role play a relatable and grounded character, they play it for adventure and tactically crunchy combat. So, a simple bolt on in this case is a gentle reminder with no teeth, and likely for the best.

Thats not to say that games that do this better, like the mentioned Fate, dont have their own problems. Folks often look at the character sheet and just use whats on it. So, you might have a strength and a weakness and just apply that same idea to every situation. It can pump out caricatures just like D&D. A lot of it will come down to playstyle of the folks involved. You can do your best to encourage RP relatable and grounded characters, but folks are going to play how they want to play. I'm not a believer that mechanical systems can achieve this. You can lead gamers to Mountain Dew, but you cant make them drink. YMMV.

 

[thom_likes_gaming]

I have done that, and to a degree I (try to) do it with all my chars. In one group I'm playing a human wizard that I designed as a full-on book-lover. His selection of spells at 1st contains exactly zero spells useful in combat. He was quite in awe of the other wizard in the group, an elven blade singer, and her selection of combat spells. He's fun to play, especially since he has a world of growth available to him, unlike a character that's already optimized when "born".