TSR How Did I Survive AD&D? Fudging and Railroads, Apparently

[pemerton]

Sure it does. You're being disingenuous here to make your point, clearly.

I'm not being disingenuous. I'm making a sincere post based on my reasonably extensive play of OA in the mid-to-late 1980s.

 

[Theory of Games]

Since we're talking about AD&D in this thread, here is how Gygax characterises roleplaying in his PHB (p 18):

Character class refers to the profession of the player character. The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges which it poses, and which role you desire to play are dictated by character class (or multi-class).​

Taking on a role, in the game, means taking on a particular suite of capabilities and functions, determined primarily by class, and using them to meet the challenges that the game poses.

This is quite compatible with self-insert of personality, or with adopting a motivation that - subject to alignment considerations - is aimed overwhelmingly at the play of the game (ie exploring dungeons and acquiring the loot therein).

A focus on depicting a particular distinct personality is not essential to that. And once a player does decide to engage in such activity, the play of the classic game will come under pressure (eg suppose I sacrifice the loot to rescue the noble and take their hand in marriage, do I lose out on XP and hence level gain and hence getting a castle and followers? or have I discovered a different pathway to social progress that the game rules don't themselves set out?).

Hence the fudging, railroading etc that - as per the OP and as discussed in this thread - becomes fairly central (not necessarily universal) in later AD&D play.

But anyway, all this being said, I think thay @EzekielRaiden's point was a different one - namely, that the behaviour of an authored character always, in some literal sense, reflects the desires and personality of the author. Though the desires that will be reflected are desires for this fiction I wish to depict, which may not be the same as desires for how I would act were I in this fictional situation.

Playing a role in AD&D is simple: it's Race, Class and Alignment. Those are the factors that most influence the PC's decisions. To, as you call it, "Self-Insert" your personality as player into how the PC makes decisions is counter-roleplay. You're not playing a character, you're playing YOU (which is weird and incorrect for AD&D).

This looks as if several of you have no real idea what roleplaying IS.

 

[SteveC]

Playing a role in AD&D is simple: it's Race, Class and Alignment. Those are the factors that most influence the PC's decisions. To, as you call it, "Self-Insert" your personality as player into how the PC makes decisions is counter-roleplay. You're not playing a character, you're playing YOU (which is weird and incorrect for AD&D).

This looks as if several of you have no real idea what roleplaying IS.

I guess I will be the one to say it. Even at the point in time we're talking about in this thread, which is a reminiscence about AD&D 2E days, there were many approaches to roleplaying, from glorified wargame pieces to deep character immersion. We've only gotten more involved since then. I feel blessed to have gamed with people with a lot of different styles, and I've learned from all of them. I would never presume to tell any of them they were doing it wrong.

The true test of roleplaying is whether you laugh and joke and say, "Remember when..." when you're out with your friends from the game. Do you annoy people who don't roleplay by telling them a little too much about your character? Do you remember a moment in a game a decade later? If so, you're doing it right. And there are a lot of different ways to generate all of those things.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Then you are not roleplaying. Simple.

Really now. Really.

Because I say a character is literally words on a page and thus does not have the capability of making choices, I'm not roleplaying?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But anyway, all this being said, I think thay @EzekielRaiden's point was a different one - namely, that the behaviour of an authored character always, in some literal sense, reflects the desires and personality of the author. Though the desires that will be reflected are desires for this fiction I wish to depict, which may not be the same as desires for how I would act were I in this fictional situation.

Precisely.

Just because "this isn't what would instantly give me personal gratification based on what I, personally, would do in this situation" is true, does not in any way mean that the character can somehow make choices despite the player saying that that isn't what happens.

And, as noted, when roleplaying you have the choice of all sorts of things. You can choose whether a character responds by breaking down or steeling themselves (even if they've always done one, you can decide that this is the moment they change.) You can choose whether a character cracks a joke or keeps it to themselves. Long term, you choose whether a character actually does care about something or not, even if their prior behavior has been entirely the opposite.

Characters can have goals that a player would not personally choose for their IRL self. But characters cannot have goals that the player is actively unwilling to roleplay. Characters can make choices that are naughty word--because the player thinks that that choice would be interesting or appropriate or whatever. A choice that the player genuinely couldn't accept won't happen, because even if it's a choice the character could reasonably make if they were an actual thinking person, it's not a choice the player will permit.

Like...at any time any character COULD choose to just shank their allies in their sleep. I'd even say there's a fair few PCs out there for whom that wouldn't be all that unusual of a choice for them. But the vast, vast, vast majority of players won't permit that choice, because it wouldn't be entertaining. It would be annoying and frustrating and sour the experience.

 

[S'mon]

But characters cannot have goals that the player is actively unwilling to roleplay.

This reminds me of the player who told me they wanted romance (with the beautiful Elf Paladin NPC) but forbade me from roleplaying it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This reminds me of the player who told me they wanted romance (with the beautiful Elf Paladin NPC) but forbade me from roleplaying it.

I mean, I would say that that character still has the goals, and the player wants them to happen. The player just wants to skip the work and get straight to the skoodilypooping, which is a crappy player behavior.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The last character I played was a ruin dwarf aberrant mind sorcerer. He was a smuggler involved in organised crime. Pretty much Han Solo with an evil symbiont in his left eye socket. But, although I played him as avaricious, devious and criminal (and his symbiont may have murdered his parents), he always worked along side the heroically inclined party to save the city from destruction. There is a difference between playing a flawed/anti-heroic character and a villainous character.

 

[pemerton]

To, as you call it, "Self-Insert" your personality as player into how the PC makes decisions is counter-roleplay. You're not playing a character, you're playing YOU (which is weird and incorrect for AD&D).

Where is that rule stated in Gygax's AD&D rulebooks?

 

[pemerton]

I guess I will be the one to say it. Even at the point in time we're talking about in this thread, which is a reminiscence about AD&D 2E days, there were many approaches to roleplaying, from glorified wargame pieces to deep character immersion. We've only gotten more involved since then. I feel blessed to have gamed with people with a lot of different styles

Speaking for myself, I try to approach play in the spirit that the game demands.

When I play a CoC scenario, I do my best to engage with the material the GM presents, and to emote my character as they descend into madness.

If I'm playing an essentially tactical or puzzle-solving D&D scenario, then I will do my best to use my PC's abilities to defeat the opposition and solve the puzzles.

If I'm playing Burning Wheel, I try to conceive of an interesting character, and then try to play them as fully and sincerely as I can.

Bringing my Burning Wheel approach to (say) a session where we're sitting down to beat White Plume Mountain would just be a mistake.