D&D 5E How do your roleplay?

[MostlyDm]

It's not as if I have a secret agenda here - there's an approach to "roleplaying" that I really don't enjoy, but that I think has enjoyed a wide degree of mainstream endorsement and promotion within the hobby. Within the context of D&D, I regard AD&D 2nd ed as the high watermark for that endorsement and promotion.

On this approach to "roleplaying", character action declaration is largely irrelevant (except perhaps in combat), because the resolution mechanics are so weak that most outcomes are determined by GM stipulation. And the dynamics of the narrative - what event follows what, leading from a start (perhaps a meeting in a tavern, or all the PCs walking down the street and stumbling upon an assault upon a stranger) to an end (the princess is rescued, the town is saved, or whatever) - are often largely settled in advance by the GM's adventure prep. What the players provide is simply the characterisation and colour of their PCs.

You can see this approach reflected in the AD&D 2nd ed PHB, where we get the example of Rath, who can be an excellent PC to play because the player provides colour and characterisation even though his stats are so low that - by the rules of AD&D as published - the player has relatively little chance of actually impacting the fiction via action declaration. (There is an almost contradictory tone to the whole discussion of PC building in this book, as - for instance - we are told that stats don't matter while also being told that a character with 18/00 STR who can therefore press slightly more than the then-current world record is "heroic".)

I don't see the connection between your description of the kind of thing you dislike (wherein the players have no ability to change the story? Is that your point?) and your example of 2e.

How does having crappy stats and a worse survival expectation mean that you have no ability to influence the dynamics of the narrative?

Worse chances of success does not mean *no* chance of success. The two are night and day. Everyone has worse chances of success than *someone* out there. And if the DM won't let you then it doesn't matter how good your chances would be, they're now zero.

I don't see those statements from the 2e PHB as at all contradictory. Could you clarify?

 

[pemerton]

I don't see the connection between your description of the kind of thing you dislike (wherein the players have no ability to change the story? Is that your point?) and your example of 2e.

<snip>

I don't see those statements from the 2e PHB as at all contradictory. Could you clarify?

Here is a passage from p 18 of the 2nd ed PHB:

In truth, Rath's survivability has a lot less to do with his ability scores that with your desire to role-play him. If you give up on him, of course he won't survive! But if you take an interest in the character and role-play him well, then even a character with the lowest possible scores can present a fun, challenging and all-around exciting time. Does he have a Charisma of 5? Why? Maybe he's got an ugly scar. His table manners could be atrocious. He might mean well but always manage to say the wrong thing at the wrong time. He could be bluntly honest to the point of rudeness . . . His Dexterity is 3? Why? Is he naturally clumsy or blind as a bat?

Don't give up on a character just because he [sic] has a low score. Instead view it as an opportunity to role-play, to create a unique and entertaining personality in the game. Not only will you have fun creating that personality, but other players and the DM will have fun reacting to him.​

There is nothing in there about Rath having goals, and the player having the mechanical capability and resource to pursue those goals, in play, via action declaration.

Rather, the "roleplaying" of Rath is confined to making the character memorable and entertainin in terms of bad manners or clumsiness or other elements of characterisation (indeed, comic relief in the examples given).

On the issue of contradiction in tone: at one-and-the-same time we are told that stats are irrelevant (with a side-helping of low stats being important for "roleplaying") and that good stats are a marker of heroism, in a game notionally at least about the exploits of heroes.

How does having crappy stats and a worse survival expectation mean that you have no ability to influence the dynamics of the narrative?

Worse chances of success does not mean *no* chance of success.

<snip>

And if the DM won't let you then it doesn't matter how good your chances would be, they're now zero.

Gygax, in his PHB (p 9), recognised the significance of stats to action resolution:

The premise of the game is that each player character is above average - at least in some respects - and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics. Each ability score is determined by random number generation. The referee has several methods of how this random number generation should be accomplished suggested to him or her in the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE.​

Ability scores don't have any special a priori importance: it's just that, in the context of AD&D, ability scores are at the core of action resolution. And so if players' PCs have low stats, they lack the ability - in AD&D - to impact the fiction via action resolution. (Except via spell-casting; but that's another, though related, matter.) Which also reduces the likelihood of conflict between GM and players over action resolution.

 

[MostlyDm]

Ability scores don't have any special a priori importance: it's just that, in the context of AD&D, ability scores are at the core of action resolution. And so if players' PCs have low stats, they lack the ability - in AD&D - to impact the fiction via action resolution. (Except via spell-casting; but that's another, though related, matter.) Which also reduces the likelihood of conflict between GM and players over action resolution.

First bold: Again, it's important to distinguish between *lacking the ability* to do stuff (aka "impact the fiction via action resolution") and simply not being *great* at doing stuff.

There is a fundamental qualitative, not quantitative, difference between the two. You can absolutely still do stuff even if you're a poorly optimized character with junky stats.

Second bold: this is an odd place to focus. How often is conflict over action resolution occurring between the DM and the Players? This is a vanishingly rare issue in my experience.

It seems kind of like you're saying that players should want to have really good stats so that they can do whatever they want and not have to worry about the DM restricting them.

If so, that approach is very weird to me. Maybe I have misunderstood something, though.

 

[Rhenny]

"Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." (Basic Rules, page 66.)

For their part in the game, "The players describe what they want to do." (Basic Rules, page 3.) After that, the DM decides whether or not some kind of check is appropriate to determine an outcome, then narrates the result of the adventurers' actions. (Also on page 3 of the Basic Rules.)

So in my view you describe your action and wait for the DM to ask you to roll or not, then after the DM narrates a result and any change in the environment, you describe your action again (when appropriate). This loop continues throughout play. For example:

DM: The orc rushes down the hill toward you, raising its greataxe in preparation for a savage strike. What do you do?
Player: I raise my shield, grip the hilt of my sword, and meet him halfway with an attack of my own!
DM: Okay, let's see an attack roll against AC 13.
Player: *rolls* 18!
DM: Your attack is successful as you get past the orc's defenses - damage roll please.
Player: *rolls* 9.
DM: The orc's stops its charge and staggers for a moment before howling furiously. "Is that the best you can do?!" it shouts as it swings its axe in a wide arc...

Or

DM: The chamber appears to be empty except for broken furniture laying in a precarious wooden heap its center. Dust and cobwebs cover everything. You see no other doors. What do you do?
Player: I search the pile of broken furniture to see if there is anything of value hidden within.
DM: How long do you want to take doing that?
Player: It's a quick search. I know there are wandering monsters in this area, so I don't want to take a lot of time or make noise.
DM: Okay, let's see a Wisdom check.
Player: I'm trained in Perception. Does it apply?
DM: Yes.
Player: *rolls* 13.
DM: You spot something metallic under the pile of broken furniture, but it's hard to reach and wedged in there tight. What do you do?

And so on.

Oh, man. I love reading examples of play like this. I don't know why, but I never get tired of them going back even to the one written in the 1st edition DMs guide. Iserith, you should write a book of these.

 

[Hriston]

For me, roleplaying is mostly about action declaration. (Which I think is fairly close to [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] upthread.)

All the stuff that [MENTION=6790260]EzekielRaiden[/MENTION] said - about personality, values etc - I tend to feel either manifests itself in action delcaration, or else is mostly just some colour on the side.

Right, roleplaying is just making decisions about how your character thinks and acts, which necessarily includes combat. How you communicate those decisions (e.g. acting, flowery description, purely "gamespeak," etc.) is a separate issue.

I think Gygax addressed this well in his 1985 article "Realms of role playing; Let’s start pushing the pendulum the other way" in Dragon Magazine #102.

"Problem solving is the typical challenge in a role-playing game. Whether it is discovering a murderer, finding a magic sword, or seeking to expose a gang of criminals, this element is an integral part of such interactive gaming. And ‘note that problem solving, in this context, has to do with a problem to be solved by the character, not a problem (such as How do I role-play this situation?) to be solved by the player."

 

[pemerton]

First bold: Again, it's important to distinguish between *lacking the ability* to do stuff (aka "impact the fiction via action resolution") and simply not being *great* at doing stuff.

There is a fundamental qualitative, not quantitative, difference between the two. You can absolutely still do stuff even if you're a poorly optimized character with junky stats.

Second bold: this is an odd place to focus. How often is conflict over action resolution occurring between the DM and the Players? This is a vanishingly rare issue in my experience.

It seems kind of like you're saying that players should want to have really good stats so that they can do whatever they want and not have to worry about the DM restricting them.

If so, that approach is very weird to me. Maybe I have misunderstood something, though.

Here's another way in:

When I read Gygax's PHB (and DMG too), I see roleplaying presented this way: the GM will draw up a dungeon (and perhaps a wilderness too); the players will try and "beat" it, using their PCs as the vehicles for that; those PCs have various sorts of mechanical options and constraints that matter at the table, that affect the "moves" that a player can make in trying to beat the dungeon; and most of those mechanical options and constraints also have some sort of in-fiction correlation, so that the player - in making the mechanically permitted moves - is also in some sense acting as his/her PC in the gameworld.

In this sort of play, being a good roleplayer means knowing how to make good "moves", in part by recognising, and trading on, the interaction/synergy between mechanics-at-the-table and events-in-the-fiction. Here's an extract from the Alarums & Excursions report of the original run of Tomb of Horrors at Origins, which illustrates what I mean (September 1975, authored by Mark Sawnson):

[T]here were no wandering monsters (damn few monsters at all, in fact), plenty of traps (too many) and very few experienced players. It was run by Gary's son, who devoted no effort to keeping the characters in character. . . .

Our elves reported no secret doors or traps. Ten more feet and out #2 and #3 fighters fell into a trap . . . We dragged them out. Should our Patriarch raise them from the dead? . . . With a hazy idea of saving the spell for later I ordered them dropped back into thee pit for later recovery. Neither the Paladin nor the Patriarch protested. The Dungeonmaster did not tell them they should have (both were neos.) No one suggested that we take their useful equipment along with us (one had a bag of holding.) At this point I ordered a Locate Traps spell used- a bit late- and we avoided two more pits on the way down to the end of the corridor . . .

We found ourselves inside a 10' square, 30' high room, without doors and possessed of 3 levers. At this point I announced that we were all driving spikes into the walls and standing on them. Various conditions of levers were tried. All three down resulted in the floor opening for a stimulating view of a 100' drop. . . .

. . . an orange mist door. Our sixth level cleric walked into it. A female anti-cleric promptly emerged and threw a curse. "I'm attacking her with my +3 mace" announced our sole living cleric operator. Gently the situation was explained to him. The Dmaster decided the curse had been hurled at the Paladin, Who picked the misguided female up and hurled her into the orange doorway; from which emerged our cleric with a sore jaw.​

What the experienced roleplayers know, in contrast to the "neos", are things like:

* how to make sensible moves within the fiction (eg using spikes to protect against floors that drop away);

* how to deploy player resources effectively (eg casting Find Traps spells);

* common tropes, like a "trick" in a room that reverses sex and alignment;

* that certain alignments/classes (eg paladins, clerics) bring with them restraints on permissible moves (this is the alignment system not as part of a system of characterisation, but rather as an additional constraint on valid moves);

* etc.​

As the mechanics of the game get more intricate, and more things are subject to mechanical resolution, stats and stat bonuses become more significant in being able to succesfully make moves. This is reflected in Gygax's comments about the importance of decent stats to a viable character. But the essence of good roleplaying remains the same: working with the interaction between mechanics and fiction in order to make good moves that will let you beat the dungeon. (I think the place where Gygax spells this out in the most detail is in the closing pages of his PHB, just before Appendix 1. That discussion ends with the words "If you believe that ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a game worth playing, you will certainly find it doubly so if you play well.")

Now, I don't run a Gygaxian game, and haven't tried to since the mid-80s. But I can recognise core elements of the sort of roleplaying that I enjoy in the model that he puts forward: in particular, the idea of using the PC to make moves in the fiction (ie action declaration), which is then resolved by an appropriate application of mechanical systems and GM judgment.

In the 2nd ed AD&D PHB, on the other hand, I don't see anything of that sort. The character is not presented as a vehicle whereby the player makes move within, and thereby impacts upon, the fiction. The character is presented almost as a self-contained thing, which the player "gives life to" by establishing a personality, mannerisms, quirks etc. But the idea that the player should actually be using the PC to drive play is, to my eye, quite absent.

And, for me, this is the significance of the comment about stats. Gygax recognised that, given the mechanical systems and typical situations that characterise a dungeon-crawling game, a player whose PC does not have some good stats will not be able to fully engage. The PC is too likely too die, and the player won't be able to really take hold of the ingame situation.

It's possible to devise a game system where even a character with poor stats will be able to take hold of the ingame situation (eg by allowing metagame resources, or by adjudicating failure in a certain sort of way, or by being guided by player flags and signals in framing the ingame situation in the first place, etc). But 2nd ed AD&D isn't such a game any more than Gygax's AD&D is. It's not that the game envisages even weak characters nevertheless being effective vehicles for their players to engage the ingame situation and make their imprint upon the fiction.

Rather - and I think this is borne out by very many of the 2nd ed AD&d modules that I'm familiar with - the players are expected to provide characterisation and colour while the ingame situation is driven primarily, even overwhelmingly, by the GM.

And, as per my earlier post in this thread, that's the sort of conception of "good roleplaying" that I think is rather prevalent but that, for my own part, I don't really enjoy.

 

[MostlyDm]

As far as 2e modules... My experience with modules of any edition is vanishingly small, so I'll take your word for it. I agree, insofar as they do what you describe, that's a bad thing.

But as to the rest... I appreciate your breakdown of what player expertise means, and yet I see a whole list here of stuff that *is not actually tied to stats*... Or even tied to *how powerful your character is*.

Whatever 2e's philosophy might have been... I don't see how weak characters cease to be "effective vehicles for their players to engage the in game situation and make their imprint upon the fiction".

Again, being worse at performing an action is fundamentally *not at all the same* as being unable to perform that action.

Weak characters can absolutely still act. And, in point of fact, in e.g. A Gygaxian game you will need a lot more of every one of the items on your list in order to succeed with a weak character. Player skill, foresight, genre savvy... All of these things are doubly important if you're trying to beat a dungeon with a crappy character.

So it still seems like I'm missing a key point.

Also, I wouldn't characterize any of this as conflict between the DM and the players. Still not sure what you meant by that in your earlier post.

 

[pemerton]

I appreciate your breakdown of what player expertise means, and yet I see a whole list here of stuff that *is not actually tied to stats*... Or even tied to *how powerful your character is*.

Whatever 2e's philosophy might have been... I don't see how weak characters cease to be "effective vehicles for their players to engage the in game situation and make their imprint upon the fiction".

Again, being worse at performing an action is fundamentally *not at all the same* as being unable to perform that action.

Weak characters can absolutely still act.

A player whose character is weak is not able to impact the fiction in a reliable or consistent way. (I am assuming that the player is playing in a system, such as AD&D, which does not have the sorts of devices that I mentioned above. I am also ignoring spells in this context, which add a whole new dimension of player resources that are not stat-related, or at least not directly so.)

In some circumstances, the player may try and the character fail. So action declaration occurs, but because the PC is not an effective vehicle, the player does not make his/her impact upon the fiction.

In other circumstances, the player may hold back and weight for the GM to offer a way through. In this case, the ineffectiveness of the PC as vehicle leads the player to refrain from action declaration until cued by the GM. In my experience the 2nd ed AD&D style was particularly prone to producing this sort of player.

I wouldn't characterize any of this as conflict between the DM and the players. Still not sure what you meant by that in your earlier post.

The "conflict" is over who drives the fiction. Effective characters allows players to confidently declare actions for their PCs that will transform the shared fiction, taking it out of the hands of the GM.

In a system whose overall orientation is away from the players as drivers, and is towards the GM as driver while the players "bring their PCs to life", having the PCs be comparatively mechanically ineffective helps, for two reasons: (1) it reduces the likelihood of the players, either deliberately or inadvertently, taking over via effective action declarations; (2) it makes it easier for players to identify aspects of their PCs to bring to life as quirks or comic relief.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's not as if I have a secret agenda here - there's an approach to "roleplaying" that I really don't enjoy, but that I think has enjoyed a wide degree of mainstream endorsement and promotion within the hobby. Within the context of D&D, I regard AD&D 2nd ed as the high watermark for that endorsement and promotion.

On this approach to "roleplaying", character action declaration is largely irrelevant (except perhaps in combat), because the resolution mechanics are so weak that most outcomes are determined by GM stipulation. And the dynamics of the narrative - what event follows what, leading from a start (perhaps a meeting in a tavern, or all the PCs walking down the street and stumbling upon an assault upon a stranger) to an end (the princess is rescued, the town is saved, or whatever) - are often largely settled in advance by the GM's adventure prep. What the players provide is simply the characterisation and colour of their PCs.

2nd edition was IMHO, the edition that promoted railroading more than any other. This has little or nothing to do with the resolution mechanics of the system. I did not care for the tone or attitude of 2E but the mechanics were more or less perfectly playable, and could result in an enjoyable game if run by a DM who didn't buy in to the railroading propaganda.

You can see this approach reflected in the AD&D 2nd ed PHB, where we get the example of Rath, who can be an excellent PC to play because the player provides colour and characterisation even though his stats are so low that - by the rules of AD&D as published - the player has relatively little chance of actually impacting the fiction via action declaration. (There is an almost contradictory tone to the whole discussion of PC building in this book, as - for instance - we are told that stats don't matter while also being told that a character with 18/00 STR who can therefore press slightly more than the then-current world record is "heroic".)

I think action declaration is key.

But whether or not action declaration demonstrates values will depend upon the framework within which the GM is (i) setting the scene for action declarations, and (ii) adjudicating them.

In Moldvay Basic, for instance, of similar Gygaxian dungeon-crawlilng, action declaration isn't about values at all. The game starts from the premise that what the PCs value is exploring dungeons and extracting loot. (There is scope for a superficial story overlay - "We're also in the dungeon to rescue the prisoners" - but it's obviously pretty superficial. The real motivation is collecting gold for XP while not getting killed in the (hyper-dangerous at low levels) combat.)

In this sort of game, then, "playing your role" is about using the resources the game permits you to use, given the character you are playing (eg you are playing a fighter, not a MU, and so your role permits you to use physical prowess rather than magic and (perhaps) learning to overcome the challenges of the game). Your "role" - dictated, as Gygax tells us in his PHB, primarily by choice of class - is about a suite of player resources that have in-fiction as well as at-the-table meaning. And playing that role is using those resources, which requires in-fiction as well as at-the-table moves.

There are other systems and GMing approaches which do permit action declaration to display values or commitments. Some of them were discussed in the recent "fail forward" thread.

Action declaration is extremely important but this importance has less to with stat values than you might think. What one chooses to do in a given situation is essentially the heart of playing the game. It makes sense then, that the game should reward smart choices and punish unwise ones. Here is a key tidbit that is often missed; as the importance of mechanical stat values rises, the importance of player input declines.

If a game features a given statistical range, say 3-18 for example, and players can only "meaningfully" affect outcomes if their characters have stats in the upper part of that range then I say its a crap system full stop. Why bother even having such a range if the lower part of it is that unplayable?

Here is a passage from p 18 of the 2nd ed PHB:

In truth, Rath's survivability has a lot less to do with his ability scores that with your desire to role-play him. If you give up on him, of course he won't survive! But if you take an interest in the character and role-play him well, then even a character with the lowest possible scores can present a fun, challenging and all-around exciting time. Does he have a Charisma of 5? Why? Maybe he's got an ugly scar. His table manners could be atrocious. He might mean well but always manage to say the wrong thing at the wrong time. He could be bluntly honest to the point of rudeness . . . His Dexterity is 3? Why? Is he naturally clumsy or blind as a bat?

Don't give up on a character just because he [sic] has a low score. Instead view it as an opportunity to role-play, to create a unique and entertaining personality in the game. Not only will you have fun creating that personality, but other players and the DM will have fun reacting to him.​

There is nothing in there about Rath having goals, and the player having the mechanical capability and resource to pursue those goals, in play, via action declaration.

I think this example is at odds with rules presented in 2E. It would not be at odds with OD&D. Since the release of the Greyhawk supplement in 1975 the importance of high stats and stat creep have steadily risen in the game. A core OD&D fighter was competent in battle with a 10 STR. A higher STR fighter earned more bonus XP, could carry more stuff, and perform feats of strength easier, but in battle was not mechanically "better" than the fighter with STR 10. With this parity of effectiveness between a 10 and an 18 we can see that player decisions are the key factor in the determination of success or failure.

Enter the Greyhawk supplement in 1975. With this supplement in play we now have great disparity between our fighters. The 10 STR fighter isn't changed but the 18 STR fighter now suddenly has +2 to hit and +3 to damage! This is insane considering an ogre in the core rules only receives a +2 to damage due to great size and strength.

But wait theres more!! If this weren't off kilter enough, we have a chance to roll percentile in the bonus round! So we spin the wheel and could possibly get a 00 giving our fighter a +4 to hit and a +6 to damage! This is mechanically BETTER damage wise than a girdle of giant strength. All of a sudden our 10 STR fighter isn't looking so competent. Now, if a fighter doesn't have an 18 STR he or she is at a severe disadvantage. This madness would go on to become a core part of the AD&D ruleset.

Bonus bloat is one of the worse things to afflict the game but by itself isn't the worst offender. That distinction belongs to the reversal of possibilities syndrome which came later.

Here's another way in:

When I read Gygax's PHB (and DMG too), I see roleplaying presented this way: the GM will draw up a dungeon (and perhaps a wilderness too); the players will try and "beat" it, using their PCs as the vehicles for that; those PCs have various sorts of mechanical options and constraints that matter at the table, that affect the "moves" that a player can make in trying to beat the dungeon; and most of those mechanical options and constraints also have some sort of in-fiction correlation, so that the player - in making the mechanically permitted moves - is also in some sense acting as his/her PC in the gameworld.

It is important to define the meaning of what it means to "beat" a dungeon or wilderness adventure. The expectations of what this actually means has changed somewhat over time. Originally, this meant that players would explore the area, extract the treasures, and survive the dangers presented therein by any means they could devise.

Flash forward to current era D&D thinking and what is meant by "beating" the dungeon. These days beating the dungeon means surviving the specific challenges the DM has prepared. Most challenges feature proscribed mechanical methods required to beat them. A combat encounter of X difficulty, an exploration or negotiation challenge of X DC.

There has been a shift in the philosophy of permissions for quite some time now. The original game espoused the philosophy that anything not forbidden was possible. Clerics couldn't use edged or pointed weapons, magic users couldn't wear armor, etc. Beyond the forbidden moves, anything was possible. With more sophisticated mechanics cam a reversal of this philosophy- Anything not permitted by the rules was forbidden by default. Now the list of mechanically proscribed moves was expanded but tagged with all sorts of qualifiers that essentially functioned as "you must be this tall to ride" signs.

This reversal of permissiveness was the single greatest detriment to role playing to happen to the game.

This change, along with the switch to challenges for the character's number to beat instead of the player's decisions results in games in which either luck or player choice prior to play has a more significant impact on play than decisions made during actual play.

The ever increasing importance of having high stats to have an effect on outcomes is an example of this. What if we decided that being the car in a game of Monopoly meant that you started play with an additional $2000 and got to roll twice and take whichever result you choose each time you move? We roll randomly to decide who gets to be the car for each game. This is what its like to randomly determine stats in a system where having higher numbers decides how much impact you can have on the outcome.

Well that sucks so we move to point buy, deciding that no one gets to be the car. That provides parity between players but doesn't change the fact that numbers assigned before play begins matter a lot more to the outcome than choices made in game. Artificial mechanical formulas restrict and constrain play. How many times as a player have you had the feeling that something wasn't worth trying because your bonus wasn't up to par? In a lot of modern day systems this happens quite a bit. The mechanical meta-game creeps in and owns your actions. Think about how these rules impact role playing? In reality would your character actually do nothing because your your bonus wasn't that high? In some cases the mechanics actually make attempting to do something and not rolling high enough much worse than sitting there with your hands in your pockets, so logically as players that is what we do. It makes no sense for the character in the imagined scenario to that though.

And, for me, this is the significance of the comment about stats. Gygax recognised that, given the mechanical systems and typical situations that characterise a dungeon-crawling game, a player whose PC does not have some good stats will not be able to fully engage. The PC is too likely too die, and the player won't be able to really take hold of the ingame situation.

It's possible to devise a game system where even a character with poor stats will be able to take hold of the ingame situation (eg by allowing metagame resources, or by adjudicating failure in a certain sort of way, or by being guided by player flags and signals in framing the ingame situation in the first place, etc). But 2nd ed AD&D isn't such a game any more than Gygax's AD&D is. It's not that the game envisages even weak characters nevertheless being effective vehicles for their players to engage the ingame situation and make their imprint upon the fiction.

That game was OD&D and it was actually released. Check out the bonuses and penalties to advancement due to abilities table on page 11 of Men and Magic. A character with only average or slightly below average ability scores didn't suffer from an inability to affect outcomes during play. Likewise, a character with high stats didn't dominate outcomes during play. The player's decisions were the primary factor in successful play, not what bonus they happened to have on the character sheet.

Rather - and I think this is borne out by very many of the 2nd ed AD&d modules that I'm familiar with - the players are expected to provide characterisation and colour while the ingame situation is driven primarily, even overwhelmingly, by the GM.

And, as per my earlier post in this thread, that's the sort of conception of "good roleplaying" that I think is rather prevalent but that, for my own part, I don't really enjoy.

Again, I agree on the railroading nature of such adventures. If the end result is predetermined then there really isn'y any reason to play anything out. The mechanics used in such a game are of little importance.

 

[MostlyDm]

A player whose character is weak is not able to impact the fiction in a reliable or consistent way. (I am assuming that the player is playing in a system, such as AD&D, which does not have the sorts of devices that I mentioned above. I am also ignoring spells in this context, which add a whole new dimension of player resources that are not stat-related, or at least not directly so.)

In some circumstances, the player may try and the character fail. So action declaration occurs, but because the PC is not an effective vehicle, the player does not make his/her impact upon the fiction.

I'm not so sure. Given that... depending on AD&D vs 5e, stat checks vs attack rolls, etc... Stats provide anywhere from 5% success per point (AD&D roll under stat resolution), to 5% per 2 points (everything in 5e), to considerably less than either of those (attack bonuses in AD&D).

The difference between, say, 11 and 15 Strength is not nearly enough to mark one character as a totally ineffective driver of action.

In other circumstances, the player may hold back and weight for the GM to offer a way through. In this case, the ineffectiveness of the PC as vehicle leads the player to refrain from action declaration until cued by the GM. In my experience the 2nd ed AD&D style was particularly prone to producing this sort of player.

In your Tomb of Horrors play through summary you gave a series of examples of player skill. Spiking walls, recognizing a curse that inverted alignment and gender, etc.

None of these are especially tied to stats. Creative players, prepared players, genre savvy players... These are all ways player skill can help a character to survive, and are independent of stats.

Sure, better stats will make someone do better. That's tautologically true of course. But that also goes to infinity. If 18 strength is desirable, so is 18 in all stats, so is 30 in all stats, etc.

At some point one decides they are interested in playing the best game they can with the hand they have been dealt, and they find the fun in that.

The "conflict" is over who drives the fiction. Effective characters allows players to confidently declare actions for their PCs that will transform the shared fiction, taking it out of the hands of the GM..

I've very rarely, if ever, encountered conflict over who drives the fiction in any game I have played.

I've played with perhaps two GMs with even mild railroad tendencies, and frankly have not had any difficulty in doing one or both of the following:

1. Straightforwardly confronting the GM and providing advice on how to avoid railroads

2. Used my character, regardless of ability, to thwart the railroad.

The latter is much easier done outside the scope of ability scores anyway, and is primarily done via creative problem solving and Roleplaying out those character quirks you seem oddly derisive of.

Best example I recall was actually experienced by a friend of mine: obvious railroad pushing the players towards some epic world threatening quest in the forgotten realms.

PCs were far too low level for the job, from their perspective. So they took the upfront cash, donned a mysterious black cloak, and sat in the corner of an inn until they spotted a group of adventurers upon which they would impart the quest.

Funny reversal of expectation. GM didn't know how to handle it, really, and I think the game sort of collapsed.

I've never once personally experienced a game even close to that, though.

In a system whose overall orientation is away from the players as drivers, and is towards the GM as driver while the players "bring their PCs to life", having the PCs be comparatively mechanically ineffective helps, for two reasons: (1) it reduces the likelihood of the players, either deliberately or inadvertently, taking over via effective action declarations; (2) it makes it easier for players to identify aspects of their PCs to bring to life as quirks or comic relief.

I just don't get this, I suppose.

What would a game even look like, where the players are not the drivers of action that happens to the PCs? Where PCs are comic relief in their own game?

Do you just mean passive players? I've seen them before, of course. But have always had active players to keep things moving, and failing that it's usually pretty easy as DM to prompt them into action.

I played a fair amount of 2e, but never a module. Should I go pick one up and read it to see this phenomenon for myself? Any suggestions?