D&D 5E Role playing and wargaming

[Cap'n Kobold]

"My character wouldn't do that" was a catchphrase much heard at my table for decades. It was often a game stopper for us, so I for one am glad to see it replaced in recent years with, "OK, so why would my character do that? ... I know! It's because of X, Y, and Z."

Hmmm. I generally don't see that as always a problem. I've certainly said the same thing: "I'm not doing that" - while speaking as my character.
It might close off some avenues, but unless the adventure is written that the only way to progress is a single, morally repugnant act, it shouldn't shut the game down.

 

[Warpiglet]

Hmmm. I generally don't see that as always a problem. I've certainly said the same thing: "I'm not doing that" - while speaking as my character.
It might close off some avenues, but unless the adventure is written that the only way to progress is a single, morally repugnant act, it shouldn't shut the game down.

I revised my character's action a week ago when I realized the character was not acting consistently with his traits bonds and flaws. Hell we would write back stories back in the AD&D days. My perception though is that the primacy of roleplay is more widespread now. I am thinking in averages or groups I have played in as opposed to absolutes. People's responses to this thread clearly show there has always been variety.

Even now now some people seem to take several character classes without much rationale (other than MOAR power). I have as well but try to merge it with a broader concept (as if that makes it "the one true way!). I think what was said earlier about emergent personality holds true for me. I spend more time front loading character development where before the story guided more of--not all!--of the personality choices.

 

[Rhenny]

This is a really interesting thread. Thanks for starting it [MENTION=6689161]Warpiglet[/MENTION].

I totally agree with balance in all aspects of the game. For my best games, and my total outlook, combat/mechanics (rollplaying) and roleplaying must be interwoven, just as I believe the best games I've run or played in balance the three pillars of combat, interaction and exploration.

As for my own development as a D&D player over the years and multiple editions since basic and 1e, I have to say that my desire to play in groups that focus more on the story telling, character developing, in-character "acting" kind of games has increased. I think this is because after a point when I gain rules mastery, there is less challenge in focusing primarily on achievement oriented optimized play. It has also taken me many, many years to become more comfortable and confident "acting" or taking on the persona of a fictional character.

Back in the late 70s and early 80s when I was a teen, most of the characters I played seemed to be alter-ego type characters that I played with much more of my own sense of self. I would at times experiment and try out different outlooks based on alignment and class, but most of the decision-making and very rare "acting" in character would be more about how "I" as a real person would navigate the situation.

After many years of play and DMing, I have been much more able to break away from self so that when I play characters now, the "I" is less a part of my character's decisions and "acting".

One of my favorite ways to build a character is to just plain old roll ability scores straight down from Strength to Charisma and assign values. Then begin to build from that adding a class, a background/backstory. I'm really happy that 5e included so much on character development/motivations in the rules with direct inclusion of personality traits, ideals, bonds, flaws. I think that has helped a lot of people think more creatively about their characters. When I develop my character, I make choices that satisfy both the rollplaying and roleplaying aspects of the game, but more importantly, I make choices that I think would give my PC something interesting to add to a party, something I'd really like to play with. 90% of the time that means I'll pick a skill or a feat because I feel I can use it effectively in the game, but 100% of the time I pick it because it helps me build the narrative/backstory of my character.

 

[abirdcall]

I too like to develop the character as the game progresses.

One of the reasons I didn't like 3.x was how it encouraged players to write their character's progression in stone through multiclassing prerequisites, feat chains, and magic item shops.

I want what happens in the game to change the character in unpredictable ways.

One thing I do notice from players, even starting at level 1, is that they often write such an extensive backstory that their characters are already mighty heroes ready to take on the most fearsome monsters. The problem is that their character's abilities don't reflect this and that often comes out in the game.

 

[SmokingSkull]

Edit: Did it wrong, nevermind this post

 

[SmokingSkull]

I too like to develop the character as the game progresses.

One of the reasons I didn't like 3.x was how it encouraged players to write their character's progression in stone through multiclassing prerequisites, feat chains, and magic item shops.

I want what happens in the game to change the character in unpredictable ways.

One thing I do notice from players, even starting at level 1, is that they often write such an extensive backstory that their characters are already mighty heroes ready to take on the most fearsome monsters. The problem is that their character's abilities don't reflect this and that often comes out in the game.

Perhaps it's because some players don't want to be the average joe person with humble beginnings so they come up with a backstory more suited to their character? I will say as a guy who came up with a pretty extensive backstory for my character that while there was a bit of a disconnect at level one mechanically at the same time PC's are way above average by and large. Level one does not mean inexperienced, on the contrary with PC's starting with a prof bonus that implies they've experienced some things to have the skills they do. Although imo there is such a thing as going too far, but that is in the eye of the beholder. And moreso whatever a PC did before they became an adventurer, well, that didn't make them an adventurer. Something else does, usually a reason, event or something traumatic but YMMV.

 

[abirdcall]

Perhaps it's because some players don't want to be the average joe person with humble beginnings so they come up with a backstory more suited to their character? I will say as a guy who came up with a pretty extensive backstory for my character that while there was a bit of a disconnect at level one mechanically at the same time PC's are way above average by and large. Level one does not mean inexperienced, on the contrary with PC's starting with a prof bonus that implies they've experienced some things to have the skills they do. Although imo there is such a thing as going too far, but that is in the eye of the beholder. And moreso whatever a PC did before they became an adventurer, well, that didn't make them an adventurer. Something else does, usually a reason, event or something traumatic but YMMV.

It's not in the eye of the beholder.

It's very easy to see what the character can and cannot do.

If you play your character from level 1 as someone who slays adult dragons there is a problem.

I didn't say the character needs to start out a child. They just cannot be a mighty hero when starting at level 1.

 

[pemerton]

Looking back on the game’s roots, I am struck by how much the game was focused on surviving hazards and encounters via problem solving and dice rolling. It seems to me that the strong emphasis on deep roleplaying “my character would not do that even though it is optimal,” is a newer addition to the game. At the very least, its primacy would be a later addition.

Absolutely. I suspect the idea came about fairly early (ie sometime in the mid-to-late 70s), but its primacy didn't become official for D&D play until the 2nd ed AD&D PBH. You might be interested in some of the back-and-forth over this that occurred in this recent thread.

For anyone who likes to merge roleplaying and effectiveness, I would love to hear how you marry the two masters in a seamless whole

In my case, by using mechanics that make it effective to play the character as the character. (Sometimes this means having multiple dimensions of mechanics, where rewards are gained for playing character even if the character fails, and the penalties for failure aren't very severe.)

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's not in the eye of the beholder.

It's very easy to see what the character can and cannot do.

If you play your character from level 1 as someone who slays adult dragons there is a problem.

I didn't say the character needs to start out a child. They just cannot be a mighty hero when starting at level 1.

Sure, slaying dragons might be a bit much, but who says they can't be a "mighty hero"?

Is a small town sheriff a "mighty hero"? How about Wyatt Earp?

What constitutes a "mighty hero" is definitely in the eye of the beholder.


Again, people can take it too far. I had a player who wanted to play an immortal paladin who was cursed to consume the souls of the damned to power his abilities, at level 3.... Obviously I said no, but if he had come saying he was a local hero who had fought off orc raids, that sounds reasonable, and he could well be a "mighty hero"

 

[Ancalagon]

I could not agree more strongly with the idea of a continuum. In fact, being a behavioral scientist, I could not help but entertain the idea of making a questionnaire for describing playstyle which could be used to match up "perfect" groups (of players that is--characters are secondary).

I think it's not just about personal preference, but also how it's perceived. Some people don't bat an eye at some kind of 4-class monstrosity. But others are very ... touchy. I've been accused of being a power gamer because I had made a basic "dwarf tank" (heavy AC, good con kinda deal).

But not only is there a tolerance/intolerance to "cheese", there is also a tolerance/intolerance to sub-optimality. I posted in a previous thread and I used an example of a character who's only sub optimal choice was picking a d6 vs a d8 weapon, and some reacted as if I had designed a monstrosity, a character so weak it was bound to doom the entire party, out of sheer malice.