D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Hussar]

If you say so. Since we don't have an agreed upon definition I don't see that it matters.

Wait, what? You just agreed that this was a system. If it's not a free form play system, what mechanics are you using?

 

[prabe]

Note, that's not quite what I said. I said that in a role playing game, if someone refuses to actually play a role, as in portray a character, then they aren't playing an RPG. I'm shocked by how much pushback this gets. If you can play an RPG without any R, then it's just a game. It's no different than any other suitably complex board game. Hey, I adore complex board games. I've spent far, far too many hours playing Star Fleet Battles to not enjoy it.

But, at no point would I ever characterize playing Advanced Squad Leader, Star Fleet Battles, Eclipse or various other games as role playing. There probably isn't an RPG out there as complex as Stellaris, but, Stellaris is not an RPG. Could I role play during play? Sure? But, the system in no way rewards or expects it.

Saying an RPG expects players to play a role is kinda like saying rain is wet. It's right there in the name.

I think what's generated the pushback was when you said AD&D 1e was "barely a roleplaying game." The fact you've indicated that your idea of "playing a role" does not include what some people call "playing a roleplaying game" may also be partially responsible.

 

[Oofta]

Wait, what? You just agreed that this was a system. If it's not a free form play system, what mechanics are you using?

Don't mind me. Long day + shifting a couple time zones = poorly worded responses.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Who is the we you are referring to? There are plenty of us who a pretty cognisant of a range of RPGs, a range of approaches, a range of techniques, etc.

No single person in particular. There is a rather popular strain of thought right now, that can be summarized very loosely as, "D&D can and should embrace the entirety of these ranges." That one system not only can, but should, simultaneously serve the needs of neo-Gygaxian murder-hole delvers, "systems are toolkits" (or "we've got a binder of house-rules") hobbyist re-builders, hardcore "set the system running and find out what happens" simulationists, casual beer-and-pretzels dice-slingers, folks who love deep and balanced systems, etc. without any of them feeling left out or under-served.

But then again, I'm of the mind that a return to a two-system setup would be more beneficial than detrimental. Both using the same fundamental chassis, so there's interoperability and relatively easy translation between the two. One specifically geared for low mechanical engagement, extremely straightforward rules, maximal ease of inventing your own rules on the spot, a casual attitude toward any "official" patching of holes in the rules, etc. The other specifically geared for high mechanical engagement, strategic and tactical depth, a strong emphasis on innate balance, built-in support for "simulationism" (which, from multiple fans of the term, I find usually means "system maps pretty close to world" plus "player inputs lead to surprising, yet deterministic, results") and for narrative-driven play. I would not call them "Basic" and "Advanced" because those are super loaded terms, but the fundamental idea is similar. TBH I really don't know what I'd call the "modern day AD&D" because calling it "Modern D&D" is likely to cause confusion due to "Modern" being a term for settings or rules options where stuff like guns and telephones are in the rules, but I'm at a loss for a better alternative word ("Contemporary" would be a candidate...but it starts with the same letter as "Classic," unfortunately).

If you want to call that a ruleset, sure. Go for it.

I mean, how is that not a rule? (And therefore, trivially, a set made up of one rule.) It's literally the foundation of monarchy: "Do what the monarch says." Likewise for dictatorship and autocracy. And, historically speaking, those things remain the most commonly-used system (yes, it IS a system!) of humans organizing themselves. "Do whatever [X person] tells you to do" is, most certainly, the rock bottom most simplistic, primitive "rule" you can have, cutting things down so far that, if you removed literally anything else, it wouldn't be a rule anymore. But it does seem to fulfill the requirements: "a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc." It governs conduct, because it tells you what to do. And it is a principle, albeit one so simple it only barely avoids being vacuous.

To phrase this differently: Rules can also be understood as defining what you aren't permitted to do. In a situation where you have no system whatsoever, all behaviors are permitted, full stop. But, in the situation described, that's not the case. There are behaviors that are not permitted: precisely those behaviors that the DM disapproves of, whatever that may end up being. Is that unreliable and difficult to predict? Sure, because humans are both of those things. But a rule isn't required to be perfectly reliable and predictable; if it were, we couldn't use dice (or any other random resolution method).

There is no competition for most games. The PCs may win the day or they may go down in ignominious defeat. They may be heroes that stop the apocalypse of the week or build up the local thieves guild. How is anyone going to come up with what it means as successful play with all the possible options other than ... wait for it ... having fun.

But isn't that exactly the problem? You can't design a game with only the goal of "have fun." Because, for some group in some context, literally ANY activity you can define can be "fun." To design a game "for fun" is like saying you design a dish for "tastiness." Some people find durian tasty; I think it tastes literally the way garbage smells on a hot summer day. I find cilantro delicious; others think it tastes like soap. Every ingredient that won't outright kill the person who eats it can be tasty to someone, somewhere. This particular design rule is useless for actually limiting behavior relative to the design of games (or food, or anything else) because it is identical to saying, "Just do good things and not bad things, 4head!"

The rule "design a game so that it is fun" only becomes useful when you start picking specific people (or groups of people), specific situations, specific methods/tools/styles/ideas. Once you have that, you can start narrowing down. Just like, for example, if you narrow "food" down to "Italian-inspired pasta dish," the rule "design a dish that is tasty" actually becomes a useful guide, because you have a context within which to work. Devoid of that context, there is no value to "design a [X] so that it is [good]."

This is exactly where the assertions that seem to trouble you so much come into play: they are not about "design a [X] so that it is [good,]" but rather about choosing your audience and situation. It's also where my above comments are centered. I think it does a disservice to the TTRPG community that D&D is trying to be everything for everyone (or, rather, that it pretends to be trying to be everything for everyone, while still actually being only for a selective subset.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think a lot of this is from conflating different approaches to the hobby; to use a very simple example, I have a small group of adult friend I get together with occasionally and we play board games. The goal of it certainly isn't to win; in fact, while we have fun and try, I think anyone that was overly competitive wouldn't be welcomed back (trying too hard is gauche, you know?). Because there is a large component of the social activity that is orthogonal to what we are doing.

Sure, this relates to what I was saying. You're getting together with friends to have a good time. But, you're also playing a game, and almost always, a game will have some kind of point to it. It'll often even say it right in the rules. Now, the fact that you place the social element above the competitive one is not a problem, of course, but it doesn't eliminate that there is some kind of competitive goal. There may be other goals as well.

If someone asked you what's the point of the chosen game, you'd have an answer besides "have fun". Like in Trivial Pursuit, the point is to fill your little pie thing with the little wedge things by answering questions in different categories. Describing that goal doesn't mean you're not playing to have fun.

What some people try to do is assume that everyone has the same interests in terms of advancing specific play objectives. In other words, how do you play "better." How do you make the experience "better." How do you better align the rules and the RPG and the theory and the everything else to maximize the experience- to make it "better." There's nothing wrong with that!

That may be true that some people assume the same interests. I don't see that being the case here, though. I don't see, in the absence of understanding a given poster's specific goals of play for a specific game, how offering some that are common is an attempt to determine for any and all what the point of play may be.

If I said that a common reason for playing Monopoly is to win, no one would bat an eye. I mean, you said the same about chess, right? But if someone suggests there may be a goal to RPG play beyond having fun, then that means that they're trying to insist everyone has the same goal?

I don't think that's the case. Yes, there may be many different reasons for playing an RPG. But there do also tend to be some common ones, and I don't think mentioning them is problematic. What I'd prefer to see happen is that folks explain why they play the games they do, and where their enjoyment comes from. Creative expression, playacting, skilled play, collaborative storytelling, exploring a shared imagined space......all of these may be valid reasons for playing. It'd be cool if folks who seem to want to discuss games would consider these things and share them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You keep wanting to turn this into a semantic debate. I do not give a fetid dingo's kidney what terms you use. Pick them, and I'll use them.

To me, it's perfectly clear what's being explained here. Yes, I prefer one to another. As @Oofta has repeated, why is that a problem? I've been pretty clear about saying that this is purely my own views.
So, pick terms that you like, and then move on. No one seems to have issues with the categories themselves, so, pick random words and move on.

So, are the categories related to each other in a "more/less" way? If so, I have an issue with the category.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Re: Chess -- this is a red herring. The point of a game of chess is usually to win or lose, or it might be to enjoy the game (chess is often described as beautiful and I've certainly found beauty in it), or maybe just to learn to play better (most of my recent games are this). But, the point of chess is what, exactly? It can't be to win, because you can't win chess. You may win a game of chess, but chess remains. It's not an RPG but it is a game, and RPGs don't get out of being games by the addition of roleplaying -- there's still a point or goal being strived for that isn't just "fun."

And it can't be just "fun" because, as noted, this is far to amorphous a concept. One of the things that differentiates games from play is the concept of constraints -- games introduce some constraint on play to channel it and focus it. Saying that the point of an RPG is fun is utterly ignoring how different games constrain and channel play and what affect that has on what fun can be had and how you can have that fun. Just stating "fun" is the objective of RPGs is shallow analysis. It's very different from saying "if you're having fun, you're doing it at least okay." This statement acknowledges that there's a game and that you're enjoying how you've set up the constraints and goals of that game to achieve fun for you, but that fun is not the same fun as the next table over, so "fun" isn't the actual goal. Instead, the actual goal is building and understanding the constraints and goals you want in play and how they can operationalize fun for you. Which is why, frankly, I find the continued refusal to examine play baffling -- it can only increase the odds that you find fun in play.

I mean, I clearly have a strong disagreement with @Hussar on the conception of what roleplaying is, but I don't doubt his approach is based entirely on the necessary constraints on play he enjoys -- he appears to prefer high expression of character RP and has worked his arguments around this preference. I enjoy it as well, but then I also enjoy low characterization, high exploration, and even low, low (I groove on Gloomhaven, which is for all intents and purposes an RPG). I'm actually happy he's got his understanding in place even while I argue about how I think he needs to lay off the dismissal of other approaches.

 

[Hussar]

So, are the categories related to each other in a "more/less" way? If so, I have an issue with the category.

I'm not sure why you are so hung up on the notion that more=better/less=worse. Perhaps it's a cultural thing?

More just means there is an increase in number. What they are calling 3D play is more complex than 0D play because 3D play encompasses 0D play while adding additional elements. That doesn't mean 3D play is better and 0D play is worse. ((Ok, for ME it might be better or worse, but, that's just because of my personal tastes - there's nothing inherent in that)) Just that 3D play requires additional elements that 0D play does not, but, the reverse is not true. 3D play can be identical in result to 0D play.

Any value judgement there is likely due to the observer.

 

[Hussar]

I'm actually happy he's got his understanding in place even while I argue about how I think he needs to lay off the dismissal of other approaches.

Whereas I have zero problems with saying that just because you have D&D books on the table does not mean you're roleplaying. Just like you can add role play to any game, you can also remove it as well. Playing, "low characterization, high exploration, and even low, low" games is just drifting a roleplaying game into playing a game. If you remove the role, then there is no roleplay.

I frankly find it rather baffling that people want to insist that so long as you happen to have some RPG books on your table, no matter what, you are role playing. I have no problem having some level of requirement in order to differentiate an RPG from other forms of games. To me, it's adopting a role, as in playing the game through the lens of the character that is created for that game.

I don't understand why people feel the need to include every single game on the planet under the umbrella of roleplaying game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Whereas I have zero problems with saying that just because you have D&D books on the table does not mean you're roleplaying. Just like you can add role play to any game, you can also remove it as well. Playing, "low characterization, high exploration, and even low, low" games is just drifting a roleplaying game into playing a game. If you remove the role, then there is no roleplay.

I frankly find it rather baffling that people want to insist that so long as you happen to have some RPG books on your table, no matter what, you are role playing. I have no problem having some level of requirement in order to differentiate an RPG from other forms of games. To me, it's adopting a role, as in playing the game through the lens of the character that is created for that game.

I don't understand why people feel the need to include every single game on the planet under the umbrella of roleplaying game.

Dude, you realize that by saying low expression, high exploration is not roleplaying that you're cutting out games where you play characters to find out what happens to them and who they are but don't spend a lot of time at the table describing or playacting characterizations, right? I mean, I'm strongly questioning your definition of role at this point, because it's certainly not the one used by most people I discuss this with -- which is merely taking on the role of someone else to play the game but not necessarily the persona.