D&D General IMO, Alignment should be "Fill in the blank"

[Charlaquin]

Losing in D&D is like the opposite of a winning move.

Many consider this one of the benefits of D&D over systems like FATE. If winning is winning and losing is losing, players have very easy to understand play incentives. They want to win, and to avoid losing, and that’s something a DM can easily use to create interesting narratives. Put obstacles in the way of them winning, create dangers that threaten to make them lose, and let them try to avoid those dangers and overcome those obstacles in any way they can.

It’s not the only way to play, but it is a good one, and one that seems to have a powerful and enduring appeal for many.

 

[loverdrive]

Many consider this one of the benefits of D&D over systems like FATE. If winning is winning and losing is losing, players have very easy to understand play incentives. They want to win, and to avoid losing, and that’s something a DM can easily use to create interesting narratives. Put obstacles in the way of them winning, create dangers that threaten to make them lose, and let them try to avoid those dangers and overcome those obstacles in any way they can.

It’s not the only way to play, but it is a good one, and one that seems to have a powerful and enduring appeal for many.

Absolutely not arguing with that.

I'm just saying, even if I have "No one should ever be caged" as an Ideal written down on my charsheet, I'll probably think twice before expressing that when meeting the Slaver-Queen of the Eastern Lands and her five hundred lovers, each armed to the teeth.

 

[overgeeked]

To lose is a winning move.

Losing in D&D is like the opposite of a winning move.

Playing D&D is the winning move. D&D isn’t a boardgame. You can only lose at D&D if you fail to engage with it on its own terms, try to make it something it’s not, or insist on playing it in a way that’s not supported.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm just saying, even if I have "No one should ever be caged" as an Ideal written down on my charsheet, I'll probably think twice before expressing that when meeting the Slaver-Queen of the Eastern Lands.

Right. Actively avoiding interesting RP opportunities and conflict to what end? Not have the hassle of the consequences of role playing your character? I really don’t get this. Why would you play a game to avoid playing the game? Playing the game is role-playing your character. Telling the Slaver-Queen off is what you should do with that Ideal. Why play a role-playing game if you don’t actually want to role play a character? Or why design a character with that Ideal if you don’t want to role play a character with that Ideal?

 

[Charlaquin]

Absolutely not arguing with that.

I'm just saying, even if I have "No one should ever be caged" as an Ideal written down on my charsheet, I'll probably think twice before expressing that when meeting the Slaver-Queen of the Eastern Lands and her five hundred lovers, each armed to the teeth.

Oh, for sure!

 

[Charlaquin]

Right. Actively avoiding interesting RP opportunities and conflict to what end? Not have the hassle of the consequences of role playing your character? I really don’t get this. Why would you play a game to avoid playing the game? Playing the game is role-playing your character. Telling the Slaver-Queen off is what you should do with that Ideal. Why play a role-playing game if you don’t actually want to role play a character? Or why design a character with that Ideal if you don’t want to role play a character with that Ideal?

Well, personally I don’t think it should be anyone’s business what a character “should” or “shouldn’t” do except that character’s player. If characteristics are going to be a tool for people to point at to tell other people they’re playing their characters wrong, I’d much rather be left out of the game. That said, if you want a justification for why a character with that ideal would decide not to voice it to the Slaver-Queen, that can easily be done. Real people’s actions aren’t 100% consist with their beliefs 100% of the time (heck, real people aren’t even consistent in what they believe a lot of the time.) Someone who holds the ideal that no one should ever be changed might stand resolute in that belief in the face of adversity, but on the other hand, self preservation might win out when the chips are down.

In my opinion the most rewarding kind of roleplay is when the character is put into internal conflict - when they are forced to choose between two or more equally desirable (or equally undesirable) outcomes. That’s the only way you learn who the character truly is, what they care about when it truly matters. When this character is put before the Slaver-Queen, they know that telling her what they think of her would put themselves and potentially their allies in danger. Are they willing to risk that to uphold their ideal, or do they sacrifice their ideal for their own safety? It should be up to the player to decide, and what they decide will reveal what the character is made of. That’s the good stuff!

EDIT: Of course, D&D strongly mechanically incentives players to choose their characters’ wellbeing over higher ideals whenever those things come into conflict. That’s why murderhoboism is so prevalent. Offering a Benny for choosing to stay true to the character’s personal characteristics can help players feel like portraying those characteristics isn’t just a sucker’s bet. It should be a difficult choice, and Inspiration can help make it feel that way.

 

[loverdrive]

Right. Actively avoiding interesting RP opportunities and conflict to what end? Not have the hassle of the consequences of role playing your character? I really don’t get this. Why would you play a game to avoid playing the game? Playing the game is role-playing your character. Telling the Slaver-Queen off is what you should do with that Ideal. Why play a role-playing game if you don’t actually want to role play a character? Or why design a character with that Ideal if you don’t want to role play a character with that Ideal?

Yeah, I'd prefer not to have the hassle of rolling a new character and then waiting for an opportunity to make them join the party. And not to have to deal with my fellow players pissed at me for getting their characters screwed.

I'll probably make my character hesitantly agree with the course everyone else wants and then complain that we should've kicked her ass.

And even if I don't, what such experience teaches me? That I should probably make characters with a bit more flexible morals in the future.

But if getting in trouble would lead to me having more influence on the course of the story and I was guaranteed to have a way out... Yeah, that's sounds like a better deal. I would happily raise the stakes and make my character suffer at every opportunity I get.

Playing D&D is the winning move. D&D isn’t a boardgame. You can only lose at D&D if you fail to engage with it on its own terms, try to make it something it’s not, or insist on playing it in a way that’s not supported.

If I'm not playing for some reason — I've effectively lost the game.

If my character is dead, or lying unconscious, or thrown to jail, or debilitated to the point they can't do anything — guess what, I can't influence the game world anymore. I'm sitting and watching everyone else play.

 

[overgeeked]

Yeah, I'd prefer not to have the hassle of rolling a new character and then waiting for an opportunity to make them join the party. And not to have to deal with my fellow players pissed at me for getting their characters screwed.

I'll probably make my character hesitantly agree with the course everyone else wants and then complain that we should've kicked her ass.

And even if I don't, what such experience teaches me? That I should probably make characters with a bit more flexible morals in the future.

But if getting in trouble would lead to me having more influence on the course of the story and I was guaranteed to have a way out... Yeah, that's sounds like a better deal. I would happily raise the stakes and make my character suffer at every opportunity I get.


If I'm not playing for some reason — I've effectively lost the game.

If my character is dead, or lying unconscious, or thrown to jail, or debilitated to the point they can't do anything — guess what, I can't influence the game world anymore. I'm sitting and watching everyone else play.

What’s the functional difference between: 1) being unconscious for one round, and; 2) not moving along with missing the attacks you would otherwise get in that round you were unconscious?

Because that sounds more like you don’t want to be hampered in any way. Like you don’t want to ever fail or lose. That sounds tedious. Failure and struggle and conflict and challenges are all part of the game. If you don’t want to deal with those things, why play?

Your character can be unconscious and your character can be in jail as part of the game. They are real possibilities. If you cannot abide those possibilities, why play a game where they are real possibilities?

You know perfection is impossible, right? You don’t need to optimize everything and make the perfect choice all the time every time. Things can be sloppy and imperfect and you can make choices based on drama and story instead of what’s safest. That sounds like a perpetual version of a reluctant adventurer. If you don’t want adventure, why go on an adventure?

Like I honestly don’t get what you’d find appealing about playing RPGs if you don’t want to deal with the potential hassles of actually playing an RPG. I’m honestly curious.

 

[Charlaquin]

What’s the functional difference between: 1) being unconscious for one round, and; 2) not moving along with missing the attacks you would otherwise get in that round you were unconscious?

Because that sounds more like you don’t want to be hampered in any way. Like you don’t want to ever fail or lose. That sounds tedious. Your character can be unconscious and your character can be in jail as part of the game. They are real possibilities. If you cannot abide those possibilities, why play a game where they are real possibilities?

You know perfection is impossible, right? You don’t need to optimize everything and make the perfect choice all the time every time. Things can be sloppy and imperfect and you can make choices based on drama and story instead of what’s safest. Like I honestly don’t get what you’d find appealing about playing RPGs if you don’t want to deal with the potential hassles of actually playing an RPG.

Just because someone accepts unconsciousness, imprisonment, or death as possible consequences of the game doesn’t mean they shouldn’t want to try and avoid those outcomes. On the contrary, they should want to avoid them! Otherwise there’s no tension in the possibility. We play games because we want to win, and we accept the possibility of loss because victory is meaningless without it, not because we actually want to lose.

 

[loverdrive]

Because that sounds more like you don’t want to be hampered in any way. Like you don’t want to ever fail or lose.

I, the player, don't want to lose. I, the player, don't want to build towers of dice. I, the player, want to have a say in what happens on screen.

I'm perfectly fine with my character losing everything they hold dear, as long as I am still in play.

But since in D&D my character is my only way to have a say in what happens on screen — if she's unable to act for any reason, that means I am unable to act too — well, protecting her is high on my priority list.

I'm also fine with with my character being unable to act sometimes — naughty word happens, but that doesn't mean I'll not try to avoid it when I can.