D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Oofta]

So if I said “I don’t like 5E because it requires that I punch my friends in the face” and then you followed up with “It doesn’t require you to punch anyone”, do you think it would be reasonable for me to say “I’m entitled to my opinion!”?

That’s more what’s happening here than anyone saying your opinion is wrong.

Right. Punching someone in the face is a perfect analogy for not having structured rules. Being told that things I say are incorrect when I'm just stating an opinion or use an imperfect example because people rarely actually share any concrete rules, that because I have a preference it means I'm criticizing people or games that are different. Of course I can't say "I wouldn't want that" because I haven't played a dozen other TTRPGs so I can't have an opinion. I get tired of repeating: this is my opinion and preference.

Some people want a metagame so they can make decisions based on that metagame knowledge, that D&D lacks support for that pillar of the game. Personally I think D&D is better off not trying to be something it's not. I don't want rules for romance or intrigue even though those things happen often in my games. I don't want "true love" to be some kind of supernatural power unless it makes sense for my specific plot and story arc.

P.S. if people want to give a concise overview of how other systems work - great! Maybe start a "plus" thread on how to implement them in D&D. Start a discussion, publish it to the DmsGuild.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right. Punching someone in the face is a perfect analogy for not having structured rules. Being told that things I say are incorrect when I'm just stating an opinion or use an imperfect example because people rarely actually share any concrete rules, that because I have a preference it means I'm criticizing people or games that are different. Of course I can't say "I wouldn't want that" because I haven't played a dozen other TTRPGs so I can't have an opinion. I get tired of repeating: this is my opinion and preference.

Some people want a metagame so they can make decisions based on that metagame knowledge, that D&D lacks support for that pillar of the game. Personally I think D&D is better off not trying to be something it's not. I don't want rules for romance or intrigue even though those things happen often in my games. I don't want "true love" to be some kind of supernatural power unless it makes sense for my specific plot and story arc.

P.S. if people want to give a concise overview of how other systems work - great! Maybe start a "plus" thread on how to implement them in D&D. Start a discussion, publish it to the DmsGuild.

"If people want to have other opinions, they should start special threads so I know not to post in them or just go somewhere else."

This is the level of twisting you routinely use, by the way.

 

[tetrasodium]

Which is fine, as it's a true statement.

Eviodence exists in D&D history. Pre late-2e (or 3e, for most) there was no codified skill system; players often just tried whatever they thought of and the DM came up with a ruling (often informed by some sort of die roll). Sure it revolved around DM fiat, but it was way more freeform and - for lack of a better term - natural.

Once 3e arrived with its hard-coded skill system, players changed their approach to suit the rules; they tried to shoehorn their actions into using those skills they had points in and tended not to try anything involving a skill they'd put no points into. Freeform went out the window.

Hard-coded social rules would inevitably give the same result: players would meta-adjust their in-character roleplaying in order to (usually) give themselves the best position (or best odds, for rolls) the rules allowed. I for one would see this as a large backward step away from freeform in-character roleplaying.

both 3.0 & 3.5 had gm's best friend & bonus types to give a rules framework players & gm's could agree on & negotiate freeform creative solutions over. Having that framework empowered players to confidently engage in proposing & making use of those creative/freeform solutions. They could absolutely use that framework in order to "try whatever they thought of" without needing to lead the GM's kid/GF/etc to propose the thing they had in mind.

It's completely reasonable for people to leverage their strengths for a given situation simply because they have a strength that can be used in a way that seems beneficial to a situation. Having a framework allows players to judge the value & odds of success with/without such things.

 

[Xetheral]

Sorry, I thinking the discussion as a whole is about how much we actually are engaged with the character's wants and desires when we make choices for them, and that this fit into this conception. I'm not arguing that you need to understand the character -- I don't, and it works just fine. But in the context that improv allows to you better understand the character's wants, desires, and drives and thereby provide a more "pure" representation of this character due to this easier ability to understand these, I'm not seeing it at all, for the reasons I post above.

So, curiously, if you do not mean understanding the character's wants, drives, and desires and how those direct actions, what do you mean by "understanding the character?"

To clarify, I certainly don't think that a GM making decisions on the fly in any way results in a better or purer representation of a character.

I do think that making a quick in-character decision for a sketched out NPC is easier than making a quick in-character decision for an established NPC, because consistency is simpler to maintain when there is less existing material to be faithful to. For a bare-bones NPC, almost any decision could be in-character so long as the GM is willing to simultaneously develop the character traits/backstory that lead to that decision. I don't see simultaneous development of traits and resulting actions as a post-hoc rationalization of an OOC GM choice. I see it as identical in process to fleshing out an NPC in prep and then making IC choices based on that prep, simply on a vastly compressed timeline. Sure, working so quickly the result might not be as rich, but I still view it as making an IC choice based on a (very recently expanded) understanding of the NPC's wants, needs, and desires.

Put another way, I find it faster as a GM to perspective-shift to a bare-bones NPC and author the details as I go than I find it to perspective-shift to an established NPC where I have to recall what I've already created about that character. So I find the bare-bones NPC easier to make IC decisions for, even though my decisions for the established NPCs are likely to be richer and more nuanced.

Expanding the scope to include other comparisons made in our discussion so far, I consider making on-the-fly IC decisions for both bare-bones and established NPCs easier than portraying an established character on stage or trying to predict what someone is thinking based on their mannerisms and expression. The authorial control the GM has over the NPCs (especially the barebones one) means the GM gets to decide what qualifies as true to the character of the NPC in a way not possible with a pre-written character, let alone a real person.

 

[Campbell]

For my part I do not think other roleplaying games are better than D&D. Just in my experience more suited for particular sorts of experiences and games. I don't think it should be contentious that the fifth edition of Legend of the 5 Rings is more suited to samurai drama where there is a constant struggle to maintain face despite revenge plots, secret trysts, and tense exchanges. I don't think it should be all that contentious that Exalted Third Edition is more suited to playing out epic standoffs and emotional turmoil between tragic demigods. Games are generally better at bits they are designed to be good at (if they are worth the paper they are printed on).

I don't think D&D needs to change or should change. It's great at being D&D. Changes to it would make it less suited for what it's currently good at. If I did not like it I would not play it.

I also get that the tools that work one set of people might not work well for another set. Crucially that does not mean that using those tools makes you less skilled or less capable.

I would love to discuss any particular game in depth, but I am somewhat wary of getting drawn into a discussion that tries to treat social mechanics generally because there is a lot of diversity in how things get handled from game to game. Gaining a real understanding also usually involves some strong fundamental knowledge of the game in question and sometimes techniques that take awhile to really learn.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Right. Punching someone in the face is a perfect analogy for not having structured rules. Being told that things I say are incorrect when I'm just stating an opinion or use an imperfect example because people rarely actually share any concrete rules, that because I have a preference it means I'm criticizing people or games that are different. Of course I can't say "I wouldn't want that" because I haven't played a dozen other TTRPGs so I can't have an opinion. I get tired of repeating: this is my opinion and preference.

No man, I’m not saying your opinion is wrong. My analogy was intentionally over the top because it was about someone backing up their opinion about a game with something that was clearly incorrect to anyone familiar with the game.

So when you say things about other games that are as obviously wrong to people who know those games as D&D requiring punching people in the face would be to you, expect to be called out on it.

Not about liking D&D….that’s fine. But the part where you say that games that do something different must be doing it for X.

 

[hawkeyefan]

A. Tradition. Yes, we like to mock tradition, but it's a relevant factor. It was treated differently in the past, and people wanted it to continue to be treated differently.

But was it? I feel like in early D&D there were rules about this, even if they were rudimentary compared to other areas. NPC attitudes and Charisma checks and the like. Speaking with potential enemies was much more prevalent in early D&DI feel like these rules were replaced as the rules progressed to 2e AD&D.

Then 3E brought them back with a vengeance.

5E has some…but they’re minimal, and often ignored.

B. Player agency. This is slightly more subtle; but D&D has usually had a strict delineation between the player having complete control over the player's thought and actions, and the DM having control over describing the results. Implementation of social challenges (especially when it is reciprocal) can disturb that balance - while many other games consider it a normal thing for a player to do something based on a roll (even if it is considered a complication or adds to the story), in D&D that would be considered anathema.

Yeah, I know this is a thing even if I think it’s overstated. There are enough exceptions that I feel it’s not really that strong an argument.

But I do think this is likely the most cited reason for anything that influences the PC’s state of mind.

In my comment to @Lanefan I was thinking more about PCs influencing NPCs and leveraging strengths in that regard. I find it odd that leveraging a strength in a social encounter is some kind of metagame no-no, but in any other are of the game it would be considered skillful play.

C. The dichotomy of D&D. D&D has always been weird; to the extent that it is a big tent" game, it incorporates many influences. I think that there is value in having a hybrid game that includes both strongly codified combat, and more free-form roleplaying, for large numbers of groups for the reason that it appeals to more diverse groups of people.

That’s a fine opinion. But why?

What do you think is gained by an absence of rules in this area? What would be lost by introducing some rules?

Other than the reasons of tradition and agency you’ve already cited. If you have any more, of course.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But was it? I feel like in early D&D there were rules about this, even if they were rudimentary compared to other areas. NPC attitudes and Charisma checks and the like. Speaking with potential enemies was much more prevalent in early D&D

My only comment on this is that these rules were very combat-related. IIRC (and I don't feel like looking it up), they were all related to:
Initial encounters (parlay or fight).
Henchmen (how many cannon fodder can I bring in?)
Morale (run away, run away!)

Real social engagement was done through roleplaying ... of course, there's probably a Dragon Article with variant rules somewhere!

What do you think is gained by an absence of rules in this area? What would be lost by introducing some rules?

Other than the reasons of tradition and agency you’ve already cited. If you have any more, of course.

On this, I should say that I was just providing my impression of the reasons. I've been more interested in reducing, rather than adding, rules recently ... but that could change.

I do think that by continuing to have this disparate approach, it provides a TTRPG experience for more people- those who are into rules, stats, math, and optimizing find something to like, and those who are into acting and role-play find something as well; in short, by having the detailed rules for combat, and a more free-form social engagement, it allows for heteroglossia - a multiplicity of playing styles and preferences at the same table.

Which is a really fancy-shmancy way of saying that it's something people can agree on, sometimes, even if part of the group wants to get all into leveraging the rules and part of the group couldn't care less.

Maybe.

 

[pemerton]

Why not? There might be some deep pits or high walls to climb, or even some underwater sections with some piscine inhabitants. It would be both relevant and fun.

I explained why upthread. If I'm playing White Plume Mountain, with the goal being to extract the magic weapons from a complex dungeon with many tricks in it, having to hear about the gnomes fear of heights and hatred of fish is at best a tedious waste of time. If it means that PC doesn't pull their weight when it matters, it goes from being a waste of time to actively disruptive.

 

[pemerton]

Hard-coded social rules would inevitably give the same result: players would meta-adjust their in-character roleplaying in order to (usually) give themselves the best position (or best odds, for rolls) the rules allowed. I for one would see this as a large backward step away from freeform in-character roleplaying.

This is an empirical claim. My own experience does not bear it out.

In my experience, players have their character declare socially-oriented actions because there is something they want to achieve that requires their PC talk to someone else.