D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

Yes, exactly.

However, while just about all DMs (IME) have no problem separating the physical attributes of the player from those of their character, way too many can't seem to separate the mental attributes (INT, WIS, CHA) and expect the player to be charming, intelligent, etc. as opposed to treating what they say/do through the Lense of the character's stats.
True, and IMO it's a real shame.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Some kind of metacurrency or knowing that like with skill challenges you have to have X successes before Y failures. Perhaps some sort of influence or disregard points where you know what those points are like with many video games. Perhaps throw in knowing how many points you need for success or failure.

What kind of rules do you want?
For example: a solid set of reaction tables (perhaps based on the general aim one is trying to accomplish), with a wide variety of modifiers based on character and environmental factors to determine results. Beyond that you'd have to talk to the narrativist fans. Different rules for different folks.
 

According to them they're playing the game much like what they played before they ever started streaming. I don't see much difference between their earliest episodes when it was all just an experiment and later games. At least not outside of con event where they have an audience which would mess with anyone.
No one ever said the CR people haven't always played traditional games with a more thespian mind set than those games are particularly designed for. They definitely have. Turns out a bunch of voice actors playing an RPG is a good fit for streaming long-form entertainment for profit. Who knew?
 

Yes, exactly.

However, while just about all DMs (IME) have no problem separating the physical attributes of the player from those of their character, way too many can't seem to separate the mental attributes (INT, WIS, CHA) and expect the player to be charming, intelligent, etc. as opposed to treating what they say/do through the Lense of the character's stats.
This is a big Playstlye.

Some DMs have the playstyle of a RPG is a mechanical rule game, a lot like a board game. In this game the player of an intelligent character will just make mechanical game rule rolls and actions to play an intelligent character. Or a charming character will just roll a mechanical game rule check to so something social.

The Other Way is the Role Play Acting Way. Where the player will Role Play (Act) out their character, outside of the mechanical game rules. The player of the intelligent character role plays the character taking intelligent actions. Or the player role plays their character being charming.

Note, in the Role Play Acting Way the player is NOT doing or becoming any of those things. The player does not "become a genius", for example, they are just role playing...acting...like they are one in their character. It does not matter what a person really is, as nearly everyone can 'act'(aka role play).

Just as one example: in a D&D(esque) game where some characters need spellbooks to power up from time-to-time, is the GM at liberty to simply tell a player "When you wake up, you find your spellbook has been <stolen, burned, eaten by bookworms, etc>?" This is not in itself a question of mechanics - but the answer to it tells me a lot about the "playstyle" at a particular table!
It's close to mine. As my playstyle is more "Adventure is Life" and a lot less "Adventure is Hollywood". In my game world, NPCs and nature and everything act much more like "Life": That is to say anything can happen. And quite often foes will attack weak points. If you leave your mounts unguarded in a hostile area, well it would be expected that something might happen to them.

I draw the distinction between other playstlyes that are more Hollywood, were everything always works out for the heroes and they don't have to worry about ''real life'' sort of things.
 


The Other Way is the Role Play Acting Way. Where the player will Role Play (Act) out their character, outside of the mechanical game rules. The player of the intelligent character role plays the character taking intelligent actions. Or the player role plays their character being charming.

Note, in the Role Play Acting Way the player is NOT doing or becoming any of those things. The player does not "become a genius", for example, they are just role playing...acting...like they are one in their character. It does not matter what a person really is, as nearly everyone can 'act'(aka role play).
I certainly understand Roleplaying being smart - sure.

But how do you roleplay problem solving, without any system/dice assistance?

Lets say I introduce a puzzle that requires knowing how to manipulate an advanced mathematics formula (I wouldn't, for various reasons but let's say I do). The player of the "smart" character in the group (the character has the requisite knowledge skills) has an English background and avoids advanced math like the plague, how is he going to roleplay solving it?
 

I've never really agreed with that philosophy. Social situations in game can use rules just as much as combat does. The stakes certainly can be just as high. If you're going to gamify social skills (which I think a lot of us do) ending it there is confusing and unrealistic, especially if PCs and NPCs for some reason follow different rules.
For me the rules are there to help abstract those things we can't do for real at the table such as combat, exploration, and other in-character physical activities.

In-character social interaction, however, CAN be done for real at the table and thus needs minimal if any abstraction via rules; and in these situations play - in particular, immersive play - is best served by the rules getting right out of the way.
 

For me the rules are there to help abstract those things we can't do for real at the table such as combat, exploration, and other in-character physical activities.

In-character social interaction, however, CAN be done for real at the table and thus needs minimal if any abstraction via rules; and in these situations play - in particular, immersive play - is best served by the rules getting right out of the way.
What about the shy player who has no "real life" charisma or social acumen wanting to play the dashing and socially gifted bard?

Does that player have any less right to want to (and be able to) play that character than the player who can't even bench the bar without any weights on it gets to play the STR 20 barbarian who can kick down obstacles with ease?
 

Why would the rules of the game be metagame? This is a usage that I persistently fail to understand. The rules of the game seem pretty definitively to be game.
Because, and @Oofta already hit this upthread, if you're thinking as a player using rules rather than as your character in the situation you've veered into the metagame.

Thus, if I'm in-character thinking up ways of how best to persuade the Duke to finance our risky venture into the wilds, that's "game". But if I'm instead (or even side-along) thinking something like "I need to score six influence points on this guy before his finance minister scores three against me", that's meta all the way and is going to (almost for sure negatively) affect how I inhabit and roleplay my character.
 

What about the shy player who has no "real life" charisma or social acumen wanting to play the dashing and socially gifted bard?
Then that player has just found the perfect opportunity to get over that shyness or lack of social acumen.

The DM (and the rest of the table) can and certainly should cut some slack to said player to start with, but IMO it's on the player to at least make an effort.
 

Remove ads

Top