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

[S'mon]

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

Gygax later made derogatory comments indicating he was pretty hostile to "thespian" play, and very much expected players to have more of a pawn stance to their characters, as you note re White Plume Mountain. This fits with the general Wargame approach of D&D pre the Hickman Revolution.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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 am often in disagreement with Pemerton on issues like this surrounding the AD&D books, but here I have to say, playing characters as a self insert seems 1) Entirely feasible in AD&D and 2) a pretty typical playstyle that has been present in the hobby since at least my first session of play in '86 (and based on what I have read and heard from people common since the early days before that too).

On the 1E PHB and DMG, Gary isn't always consistent, so you can read that and come away with different ideas about RP. I think though that essentially playing as a self insert wouldn't be entirely out of line (I wouldn't go so far as to say it is what Gary is advocating, I just think that style very much fits with a lot of the approaches he lays out).

That said, I think people are off teh mark and building a bit of a straw man when they try to blur the line between what I would do, versus what my character would do. Clearly there is an approach to play where you attempt to make decisions based on character motivation, and this is what people mean when they talk about that. Trying to say that effectively doesn't exist because your character is still under your control and not a literal separate entity seems more like a linguistic argument to undermine a very common style of play

 

[Umbran]

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

Mod Note:

To call him disingenuous (a big word for "lying") you'd have to establish:
1) That he was factually incorrect. "Sure it does," is not sufficient support.
2) That he knew he was factually incorrect at the time it was said. For which you have also provided no evidence.

The next time you are so inspired to dismiss someone, we recommend you just walk away, 'cause this kind of thing can (and in this case, will) get you removed from a discussion.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

It is time to note to you all that two folks have been ejected from this thread for their behavior. Please check your own approach to discussion, lest you become the third. Thanks, all.

 

[SteveC]

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.

This is a really good point. Different games require different roleplaying approaches, don't they? You really need to meet both the GM and the game system where they expect you to be if you want to have a good time. I was just discussing Burning Wheel with a friend who had heard of it and wondered what was different. I've only played it a few times, but it really does depend on your definitions of who your character is, and proceeds to put them through a wringer. Everything you do is based on that character's beliefs (really their BITS if I'm remembering the term correctly).

And that's totally different from AD&D. Even though an adventure in Ravenloft leans into horror, it keeps that at arms length. There isn't the sense of existential dread that you get from a CoC game. At it's best, you get Gothic horror, which really is the goal, but I always associate that with things like the Hammer Films with over the top dramatic acting.

A GM sets the tone for the game, asks you engage with it, but the game does this as well (unless the GM fights against it). To have only one approach for roleplaying would be like playing as if you're in Burning Wheel with the Paranoia rules.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Twist the OP didn't survive AD&D and has been dead this whole time!!!!!

 

[pemerton]

I was just discussing Burning Wheel with a friend who had heard of it and wondered what was different.

I enjoy multiple FRPGs. But if I had to choose a favourite, it would be Burning Wheel.

I've only played it a few times, but it really does depend on your definitions of who your character is, and proceeds to put them through a wringer. Everything you do is based on that character's beliefs (really their BITS if I'm remembering the term correctly).

Also Relationships, at least when I'm GMing. Though these will often be bound up with Beliefs.

A GM sets the tone for the game, asks you engage with it, but the game does this as well (unless the GM fights against it).

The players too. My Torchbearer 2e has a comic aspect to it, and that has 100% come from the players, not me: the Elven Dreamwalker Fea-bella; the Dwarven Outcast Golin, who was raised in a cult dedicated to explosives; Telemere the Elven Ranger, who seemed serious at first but most recently was - as narrated by Telemere's player, to explain what had happened to him during a couple of missed sessions - capture by Gnolls, put into a barrel to be sold up-river as cured meat, but not fully pickled (insufficient salt in the brine) such that, when the Dwarves opened the barrel to get out their meat, out stepped Telemere.

Torchbearer does have something about it that invites this comedy - I've posted before that it can do The Hobbit, and probably also the Silmarillion, but not LotR - but I wouldn't have introduced it if left to my own devices. (I'm too po-faced!)

To have only one approach for roleplaying would be like playing as if you're in Burning Wheel with the Paranoia rules.

Or another analogy I've seen - it would be like turning up to a canasta game and starting to bid for tricks that one will take.

Rummy, whist, poker, etc - these are all card games, but how they are played, what counts as a good hand and good play, etc, varies between them.

The same for RPGs: Burning Wheel, Torchbearer and AD&D all use the core idea that one participant presents an imagined situation, and the other participants "navigate"/"resolve" the situation by saying things about what a particular protagonists in that situation does. But the rules and conventions around how situations are established, what the content of the situations is, what counts as appropriate action declaration by a player, etc - these are different from game to game.

 

[Emerikol]

I think to be honest a character is often a fusion of self and some other character precepts. Most characters are braver than their players. Not many of us would charge a dragon I can assure you. We also typically grow far more powerful in D&D than we ever are here in this life. That power may in fact shade our personalities in various ways. It's a game and I've seen characters do things I honestly doubt their players would do from a moral perspective.

So it is always a fusion. You can't escape the fact that even playing your character as a pawn will till be influenced by your judgement as the player. How far you go of course varies and some do better than others. I've rarely if ever though seen a character played completely against type with the player. The player always has a little of him or herself in the character.

 

[nevin]

W E had no "expected" playstyle back then. Then like now the proper playstyle was what the table wants. The ravenloft campign setting has always suffered from being the campaign setting preferred by those that like horror movies. Watch friday the 13th any one of them then read the modules and youll see why many horror centric DM's run them on the rails. That being said even as a sand box RavenLoft can be a very unsatisfying hero experience. Best case the lords of raven loft let you go and every thing resets. The only real reward in Ravenloft is freedom. The universe doesnt improve in any way if you win. SO I think many DM's just run those kinds of modules on the rails because thier players arent horror movie cast material and aren't going to make th appropriate decisions to move the game forward.

 

[Lanefan]

I think to be honest a character is often a fusion of self and some other character precepts. Most characters are braver than their players. Not many of us would charge a dragon I can assure you. We also typically grow far more powerful in D&D than we ever are here in this life. That power may in fact shade our personalities in various ways. It's a game and I've seen characters do things I honestly doubt their players would do from a moral perspective.

Oh, indeed, and that's a large part of the fun of playing: you can do (or try to do) all kinds of stuff you'd never dream of doing in real life.

I've rarely if ever though seen a character played completely against type with the player. The player always has a little of him or herself in the character.

T?o me, "it's what the character would do" is the whole of the law, and due to this I've had characters of my own who ended up developing goals etc. that I didn't want to roleplay. Result: I retired the character and rolled up another.