Impact of mechanics on roleplay

[Voadam]

If you want to have a Gambling Womanizer, in most editions of D&D, you go for a Rogue. In 4th, you can do so much easier, though it may cost some feats to make a skill trainable.

That's not my experience at all. I played a 2e character who womanized and gambled, he was an elven transmuter. He went to casinos, played cards, and hit on women.

Being a rogue instead of a wizard would have been no help at all in basic, 1e, or 2e unless you convinced the DM that cheating at cards is a pick pocket roll instead of dex. Womanizing was not a thief skill. Its not until 3e that you have any class based mechanics for success at womanizing. Previously if the DM wanted to incorporate mechanics for such things (and not all did) he generally called for a charisma check.

I prefer to generally not have mechanics for non-combat/powers character concept things and just leave them to roleplaying and ad hoc DM adjudication.

 

[Runestar]

It is a little of a circular cycle for me.

Back in 3e, after conceptualizing a PC, I would really go out of my way to mix and match material from various assorted splatbooks to create said custom character, such that he would possess the exact (or as close as I can get) abilities that he is supposed to have, and as such be capable to accomplishing what he ought to be able to.

However, I cannot be sure which came first, as there are times where I profess to having been inspired to play a certain PC after seeing some cool/powerful feature somewhere and thinking..."Wow, XXX sure would rock...". For example, I believe my decision to play a conjurer in a previous game had been deeply influenced by the focused specialist variant, master specialist prc, reserve feats in complete mage and treatmonk's treatise on the efficacy of GOD wizards. But then again, I had been wanting to play a specialist caster for quite some time, and maybe the release of CM simply made it a prime moment to commence.

It doesn't occur in a vacuum for me. I may see the warblade and think "Say, diamond mind seems like a useful discipline for a swash-buckling type character". I then start envisioning how I would like said PC to be like, and then start constructing him from scratch.

 

[brehobit]

What was your pacifist's motivation for undertaking an occupation that revolves around killing people and taking their stuff, out of curiosity?

-Hyp.

Don't you know never to ask a roleplayer to talk about their characters?

In the D&D game our party was assembled by a sponsor. We were told to create "highly unusual" characters and we'd have quite a bit of freedom with the rule set. The goal, of course, was to save the world (there had been a prophesy, which the DM made up when he saw our characters, about a group that would save the world. He made it fit our "odd" 1st level characters.) So we had a ranger who treated short range as long range and via-versa, a dwarf wizard (big deal in 2e), and my pacifist orc cleric/bard among others. Over the course of about 20 sessions she killed one person and helped kill another (the one she held and the dwarf killed). Undead/demons/devils/constructs didn't count.

In Shadowrun my character, a Catholic Priest shaman, was a former "suit". His homeless shelter was being forclosed on. Whenever the run called for it, I played him rather than my psycho physical adept chick (the two hated each other and wouldn't go on runs together). Any cult-based adventure as well as a few pure B&Es against "bad people" that made a lot of money were where he'd show. Plus he'd be the plot hook on occasion (street people are disappearing kind of thing). Again, killing spirits was generally acceptable to him (viewed it as if killing a dog: something to be avoided, but not a mortal sin if justified).

My 3e pacifist character never saw the light of a real game, but was based on the book of exulted deeds. His motivation was to be the protection of "his" lands. Not a pure pacifist (didn't have the peace feat) but preferred to be darn sure he was doing a good thing before he killed anyone.

And yes I do play normal characters too. My current two are 4e fighter who's fairly 3e paladin like (but not too much) and a 14-year old tech wiz (based of a character from PS238) for over the edge. Believe me, for that game, she's normal.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

It matters alot, cause I dont want to take the time to make something up on the spot. If Joe wants to play a Sculpter the rules need to be there to do it. If there arent craft skills or some weak peasant or craftsman class or something similar Joe has to be something else and "Pretend." He is a sculpter when everything he has says "Fighter."
I want to play the game when I sit down. Not discover I must make up something new cause the game didnt support it and a player didnt know that.

 

[korjik]

Well, I have had a concept that I enjoy enough that he has been my character in GURPS, 2e, 3e, and 3.5e.

I like a Wizard. Before someone calls me a muchkin, I have always played elemental damage spells type Wizard. Dosent work so well in 3.xe.

My Wizard, oddly enough named Korjik, has always had a fascination with magic and wants to collect every bit of magic he can. In D&D this means every spell possible in his spellbooks. You could kill his family, destroy his home, and he wouldnt take it really personal. Tear a page out of his spellbook, and he will hunt you down to the very end of time and space and make sure your fate is sung about in horror across all the dimensions.

So, when 4e came around, and the game mechanics would remove spells from my spellbook, I got a little annoyed. Having the rules of the game interfere with my roleplaying is not a good thing.

But, while we were BSing about 4e after our second play session, I came up with a good concept for a tiefling warlock, so I am good on the roleplay side with 4e.

I do think that the role play aspect is far more important that the ruleset. It just seems to me that the 4e ruleset tends to interfere with that in some ways. My group and I are planning to play 4e for a while, so I will see if that is 3e thinking in a 4e world, or a fundamental dislike of 4e

 

[BryonD]

I was playing pretend long before I ever heard of "role playing games".
So, obviously, the rules are completely irrelevant to the ability to role play.

However, the better the mechanics do at modeling the activity I am roleplaying, the more satisfied I am with the game. That is why the "we roleplay the same no matter what the rules are" position always seemed dumb to me. To me it is stating an absurdly obvious point while missing the real issue.

I can roleplay superheroes in the front yard with my kids with no rules whatsoever. I can roleplay Descent. I can roleplay Dungeons and Dragons. I can roleplay most anything. But the experience I want when I am goofing around with my kids is greatly different than the experience I want when I play an RPG. And a game that mechanically does nothing to enhance the richness of my roleplaying is going to be a game I drop quickly when it comes to RPGs.

Great level of RP + crappy mechanical representation is <<< Great level of RP + detailed and rich mechanical representation.

3X gives the level of detail I am looking for. There are other games that also meet this standard. 4E is not one of them.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I view rules as something to support roleplaying, and not overpower them. So for example, a diplomatic Skill Challenge in my games would be done with roleplaying with the rolls being used to give hints and knowledge to the players, ie: "you notice, mentioning the dungeon has made the Baron sweating".

So while their actual success is determined by their roleplaying the rules can hinder or help their ability to succedd.

Things though that are harder to determine with roleplaying, ie: combat is more heavily mandated by rules. Though even then the rules are viewed as very loose, so if a shift to rules here and there to suit roleplaying is needed then it happens.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Of course mechanics can have an effect on roleplaying! How could I justify breaking out into song during a session if I wasn't a Bard?

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

For me, Roleplaying game rules are good for two things only:

1- Character creation and advancement (if only, for balance reasons. Me and my group refluff and kitbash races and classes with wild abandon, in order to make things fit our concepts)

2- Conflict resolution (combat, life-or-death skill checks and not much else)


Everything else can be handled by roleplaying it, specially if it doesn´t involve narrative conflict.

You want to be a sculptor? Done! your character is a mildly-famous sculptor.

Now, why is a sculptor down at a dungeon fighting monsters? That´s up to you to decide!

Maybe you are a pretty mundane guy who is trying to rescue his sister, or something and your character sheet would say you are a Fighter with a (war)hammer and a chisel (with dagger stats)

...or maybe your sculptures were stolen and your muse has inspired you with temporary Feylock powers to recover them!

Whatever works for the story!

 

[GnomeWorks]

...or maybe your sculptures were stolen and your muse has inspired you with temporary Feylock powers to recover them!

That's actually a pretty neat idea.