D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Aldarc]

I strongly disagree.

What you are describing is no different than playing a board game, other than the board is an agreed upon construct of the collective group's imagination. In fact, you can actually directly plot every single element to a physical board and it would not change a single thing. In other words, you have played a game, certainly. But, without any actual attempt to decide your actions based on the persona of the created character, rather than pure pawn play, there is no role being played.

I know people REALLY want to insist that just because there are D&D books sitting on the table, we're role playing, but, frankly it's not true. As I said before, you can certainly inject role play into a board game. I'm sure most of us have done that. Well, the reverse is also 100% true. You can play D&D and, really, any RPG without any actual R. Congratulations, you've drifted a role playing game into a game. There's nothing wrong with playing that way, and, I think a lot of tables play that way, certainly in the early days of gaming anyway.

But, without the assumption of some sort of persona by the players, even if it's not backed up by mechanics, and purely free form, without that assumption of a persona, there is no role playing going on. You're playing a game. No different than being a full back on a soccer field. Yes, within the game, you have a role - full back - and that role has certain rules around it, but, there's no persona assumption going on there. No one is going to seriously claim soccer is an RPG. So, without the assumption of a persona, there is no role play.

See @Campbell's point on this matter here:

Basically the unifying thing that separates roleplaying games from other sorts of games is that fictional positioning matters - that our ability to reason about the fictional scenario and setting has an impact on play. That's not the case for something like Resistance or Secret Hitler where you do take on roles, but fictional reasoning does not affect the play of the game in the same way it does in pawn stance D&D.

So you definitely could play KotB as @pemerton describes while also it being different from playing a board game because the fictional positioning of the board game doesn't matter for the game, though it does for purposes of playing KotB using B/X, for example.

 

[Umbran]

I simply disagree. I understand how human interaction works with enough fidelity to resolve situations that come up in-game.

So, that was "your game" where "you" is a generic game designer, not you, Oofta, GM at his own table. If one is writing a game, one has mechanics for what you want that game to be about. I mean, if the game is named "Thirsty Sword Lesbians" maybe there need for some rules around romantic interactions, hey what?

To be frank, this isn't about "resolving situations". I'm talking about making romance a "pillar" of the game, to use the recent D&D parlance. Do you advocate having game pillars with no significant rules around them?

Reactions to getting romantic with someone (or any number of other concepts) is best dealt with by the person running the PC or NPC for me.But no one style works for everyone, D&D can't have a rule for everything. When it comes to social interactions, I don't want anything more than what we have now.

Fine. But, please do look back at the question you actually asked - you did NOT ask, "Why would I, personally, want such rules?"

Honestly, we don't know you that well to answer that question, so not a one among us has tried to! We can answer it only in the broad, generic sense of game design principles - one has rules for this for the exact same reasons one has rules for anything else! So there's a framework for both the player and GM to lean on, to enable tactical thinking, planning, resource spending and engagement, to give everyone some measure of being able to predict how likely success is, to set the resolution of matters a bit outside plain GM fiat, and to enforce some genre constraints, among other reasons.

 

[Umbran]

See @Campbell's point on this matter here:

So you definitely could play KotB as @pemerton describes while also it being different from playing a board game because the fictional positioning of the board game doesn't matter for the game, though it does for purposes of playing KotB using B/X, for example.

So, we should ask then, why the fictional positioning matters.

In a traditional board game, it doesn't matter because of the highly constrained action space. By prescribing a very limited set of actions to the player, all questions of fictional positioning can be baked into the abstraction of the game rules. When playing chess, maybe the knight is stabbing the opposing bishop with a sword, tilting at the rook/castle with a lance, and maybe they are wooing the pawn romantically until the pawn is convinced to leave the field - the abstraction makes such distinctions irrelevant.

We can then see that it entirely possible to play D&D in a simple squad-level tactical wargame mode, where the fictional positioning is merely dressing, if the player simply takes no actions in which the fictional positioning determines action resolution. If, in essence, the referee doesn't not have to consider the fiction to resolve action, it doesn't have to be a role playing game.

 

[Umbran]

There is no role without persona in an RPG.

Role without persona is what you do during any game.

This looks like it becomes a "no true Scotsman" argument, though. You can always label any particular game or playstyle as "not an RPG" by claiming that there's no (or too little) persona involved in play. And since "persona" is an ill-defined, subjective thing, you wind up with no agreement.

 

[Umbran]

Any value judgement there is likely due to the observer.

Indeed. We can cake a cue from other realms, and note that there's a difference between "cost", "price" and "value" - the latter typically being subjective... but folks trying to sell you something will tell you it is objective.

 

[Aldarc]

So, we should ask then, why the fictional positioning matters.

In a traditional board game, it doesn't matter because of the highly constrained action space. By prescribing a very limited set of actions to the player, all questions of fictional positioning can be baked into the abstraction of the game rules. When playing chess, maybe the knight is stabbing the opposing bishop with a sword, tilting at the rook/castle with a lance, and maybe they are wooing the pawn romantically until the pawn is convinced to leave the field - the abstraction makes such distinctions irrelevant.

We can then see that it entirely possible to play D&D in a simple squad-level tactical wargame mode, where the fictional positioning is merely dressing, if the player simply takes no actions in which the fictional positioning determines action resolution. If, in essence, the referee doesn't not have to consider the fiction to resolve action, it doesn't have to be a role playing game.

My own preferences when it comes determining what constitutes a roleplaying game leans towards broad, descriptive approaches rather than ascribing normative definitions. There are a wide variety of games that are called "roleplaying games" (e.g., TTRPGs, CRPGs, ARPGs, MMORPGs, LARPs, etc.) and in various ways recognized as such. It's less about hardline boundaries and more about common features that may or may not always be present in these various games. IMO, and you may be of a similar mind, but attempts to make hardline bounaries for what is or is not an RPG often do not hold up to much scrutiny because counter-examples generally exist that defy the definition.

 

[Umbran]

IMO, and you may be of a similar mind, but attempts to make hardline bounaries for what is or is not an RPG often hold up to much scrutiny because counter-examples generally exist that defy the definition.

Indeed. I generally hold that "role playing game" is a genre of games, and best approached using the same inclusive method of definition as best suits defining fictional genres - you list a whole mess of tropes, and if any particular item has enough of them, you consider them in-genre. I have little interest in trying to draw hard lines of "Us" and "Them"/

In mathematics terms, genres are "open sets", not closed sets.

 

[Oofta]

But wouldn't you need to have some familiarity with how other systems do things before you post this:

Anyway, I can do combat by "following the logic of the story". That's how I played soldiers with my school friends when I was a kid. At the table rather than in the school yard, I could describe my blow and the GM decide whether or not what I've described seems like it would hurt my foe.

But there are reasons for using dice-based approaches to combat resolution: it creates uncertainty, stakes, constraint, etc. The exact same reasons can apply to other fields of heroic endeavour. Sometimes I might learn that my PC has died although I didn't want or expect him to. Likewise, sometimes I might learn that my PC has had an emotional response that I didn't want or expect him to.

If you want a mechanical influence on your PC, that's fine. I understand why some people might like that, 5E does a little of it with traits/bonds/etc. It doesn't mean that I would. I knew a guy once who was a complete and total a**hole. He kept insisting that if people just got to know him they'd like him. I got to know him. He was still an a**hole.

This thread has had some actual examples and explanations beyond just "you would agree with me if you just played [insert other game]". Which I appreciate. That doesn't mean I find the core concepts to a conflict between what I think my PC should be and what they actually are particularly appealing.

Again, why is this a problem? I've never told anyone they're wrong for wanting something I do not or for wanting D&D to be something it is not. No game can be everything for everyone. I appreciate it when people give explanations and examples, even if it doesn't change my opinion. But just telling me that "if you only expanded your horizons ..." comes off to me as "I'm superior because I play other games". I'm happy for you that you have the time and opportunity to play a variety of games. Some of us don't have that opportunity. It does not mean that our opinions are invalid.

 

[Oofta]

So, that was "your game" where "you" is a generic game designer, not you, Oofta, GM at his own table. If one is writing a game, one has mechanics for what you want that game to be about. I mean, if the game is named "Thirsty Sword Lesbians" maybe there need for some rules around romantic interactions, hey what?

To be frank, this isn't about "resolving situations". I'm talking about making romance a "pillar" of the game, to use the recent D&D parlance. Do you advocate having game pillars with no significant rules around them?

I don't think we need significant rules around social interactions beyond what we already have. I personally would not want them. I know several of my players well enough that they would not want them either. We have alignment along with traits/ideals/bonds/flaws to give me some general ideas of who my character is. I can either use them or ignore them as I wish.

At times when it comes to NPCs, we use the standard persuasion or intimidate. Insight and deception can come into play for either PCs or NPCs. But having a rule or die roll influence (or dictate) what my PC thinks or feels does not appeal to me. I know several of my players well enough to know they would not care for it either.

Fine. But, please do look back at the question you actually asked - you did NOT ask, "Why would I, personally, want such rules?"

Honestly, we don't know you that well to answer that question, so not a one among us has tried to! We can answer it only in the broad, generic sense of game design principles - one has rules for this for the exact same reasons one has rules for anything else! So there's a framework for both the player and GM to lean on, to enable tactical thinking, planning, resource spending and engagement, to give everyone some measure of being able to predict how likely success is, to set the resolution of matters a bit outside plain GM fiat, and to enforce some genre constraints, among other reasons.

So I'm not allowed to express a personal opinion? Because that's what it sounds like. As far as design principles, I like what D&D does. Gives you some ideas to hang your hat on if you want but leaves the inner thoughts of the character up to the person controlling the character. If there's uncertainty we have rules for resolving it.

What can I say? There is tactical thinking when it comes to some interactions. However the moment you set up a framework for people to lean on, for me it would break immersion and limits options. If I know I have X influence points which exceeds the threshold to get jiggy with the barmaid or gain the approval of the king then it breaks immersion for me. It becomes a mechanical resolution that I don't want for that aspect of the game.

On the other hand I can let the players know (directly or indirectly) that doing X will influence the DC of an upcoming negotiation, potentially to a point where there is no uncertainty. I want that flexibility in my game even if some people do not. No game game can be perfect or provide the tools that everyone may desire.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If you want a mechanical influence on your PC, that's fine. I understand why some people might like that, 5E does a little of it with traits/bonds/etc. It doesn't mean that I would. I knew a guy once who was a complete and total a**hole. He kept insisting that if people just got to know him they'd like him. I got to know him. He was still an a**hole.

This thread has had some actual examples and explanations beyond just "you would agree with me if you just played [insert other game]". Which I appreciate. That doesn't mean I find the core concepts to a conflict between what I think my PC should be and what they actually are particularly appealing.

No one says this, though. How other games do things has been explained to you multiple times -- I know, I've done it. No one ever says you'd agree if you played them, they say that your arguments against them show a deep ignorance of what's actually going on and that you should get some experience if you want to talk about those things. I doesn't harm me if you never learn anything about these games, although I would encourage it as it will help sharpen how you think about what you like. If you've only ever had sweet treats, having a savory or sour one might never be your style but then you could actually say what the difference is. If you don't, though, okay, you do you, it won't hurt me. But when you make sweeping statement about things for which you clearly have no experience based on your assumptions that are obviously incorrect to anyone that does have experience, you shouldn't be upset that it gets challenged.

Again, why is this a problem? I've never told anyone they're wrong for wanting something I do not or for wanting D&D to be something it is not. No game can be everything for everyone. I appreciate it when people give explanations and examples, even if it doesn't change my opinion. But just telling me that "if you only expanded your horizons ..." comes off to me as "I'm superior because I play other games". I'm happy for you that you have the time and opportunity to play a variety of games. Some of us don't have that opportunity. It does not mean that our opinions are invalid.

It does, though, when your opinions are based on false assumptions that have actually been explained to you multiple times and yet you persist, both in intentional ignorance and in proclaiming your opinion as perfectly valid. At this point, the problem isn't other people, man.