D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Malmuria]

So optimization is all that matters? PCs aren't allowed to have weaknesses or foibles?

I mean, I agree that it can be too much and be taken too far. But where's the line? I assume it's quite varied from one group to another.

The initial post referenced a video that made a distinction between 0d, 1d, and 3d characters. I think if you follow 5e rules/guidelines, you can end up with a 1d character via

• personality, bonds, flaws, ideals
• charisma skill tests
• background features and proficiencies
• fluff related to races, classes, and backgrounds
• some of the specific class features (paladin oaths, clerics choosing a god, sub class thematics)
• inspiration
• backstory tables in Xanathar's

Which is great - clearly the designers wanted to put in tools help people get from 0d characters to 1d characters. Instructive for me is that prime space that personality, bonds, ideals, flaws takes up at the top of the default character sheet (vs, say, equipment); that communicates what the designers thought was more and less important to your character.

So if 5e can create some tools to help create 1d characters, can a game do the same to help create 3d characters? @Oofta, in your games, how do you get from 1d-->3d characters? Is it just a matter of player skill and immersion?

 

[pemerton]

Some people have clearly stated that they want a structured rules around social interactions so they can metagame and judge risks and potential outcomes. Others have mentioned games where you discover that your PC is attracted to a member of the same sex.

I think the first risks putting the metagame ahead of the role playing, the latter is telling me what my character feels.

Your conjecture of a risk is an empirical conjecture. Do you have any evidence in its favour?

Upthread you ignored my detailed actual play examples from four different episodes of play. I'll re-post a fraction of one of them here:

My PC is Thurgon, a warrior cleric type (heavy armour, Faithful to the Lord of Battle, Last Knight of the Iron Tower, etc). His companion is Aramina, a sorcerer. His ancestral estate, which he has not visited for 5 years, is Auxol.

At the start of the session, Thurgon had the following four Beliefs - The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory; I am a Knight of the Iron Tower, and by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory; Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more!; Aramina will need my protection - and three Instincts - When entering battle, always speak a prayer to the Lord of Battle; If an innocent is threatened, interpose myself; When camping, always ensure that the campfire is burning.

Aramina's had three Beliefs - I'm not going to finish my career with no spellbooks and an empty purse! - next, some coins!; I don't need Thurgon's pity; If in doubt, burn it! and three instincts - Never catch the glance or gaze of a stranger; Always wear my cloak; Always Assess before casting a spell.

<snip>

Friedrich took them as far as the next tributary's inflow - at that point the river turns north-east, and the two character's wanted to continue more-or-less due east on the other side of both streams. This was heading into the neighbourhood of Auxol, and so Thurgon kept his eye out for friends and family. The Circles check (base 3 dice +1 for an Affiliation with the nobility and another +1 for an Affiliation with his family) succeeded again, and the two characters came upon Thurgon's older brother Rufus driving a horse and cart. (Thurgon has a Rationship with his mother Xanthippe but no other family members; hence the Circles check to meet his brother.)

There was a reunion between Rufus and Thurgon. But (as described by the GM) it was clear to Thurgon that Rufus was not who he had been, but seemed cowed - as Rufus explained when Thurgon asked after Auxol, he (Rufus) was on his way to collect wine for the master. Rufus mentioned that Thurgon's younger son had married not long ago - a bit of lore (like Rufus hmself) taken from the background I'd prepared for Thurgon as part of PC gen - and had headed south in search of glory (that was something new the GM introduced). I mentioned that Aramina was not meeting Rufus's gaze, and the GM picked up on this - Rufus asked Thurgon who this woman was who wouldn't look at him from beneath the hood of her cloak - was she a witch? Thurgon answered that she travelled with him and mended his armour. Then I switched to Aramina, and she looked Rufus directly in the eye and told him what she thought of him - "Thurgon has trained and is now seeking glory on his errantry, and his younger brother has gone too to seek glory, but your, Rufus . . ." I told the GM that I wanted to check Ugly Truth for Aramina, to cause a Steel check on Rufus's part. The GM decided that Rufus has Will 3, and then we quickly calculated his Steel which also came out at 3. My Ugly Truth check was a success, and the Steel check failed. Rufus looked at Aramina, shamed but unable to respond. Switching back to Thurgon, I tried to break Rufus out of it with a Command check: he should pull himself together and join in restoring Auxol to its former glory. But the check failed, and Rufus, broken, explained that he had to go and get the wine. Switching back to Aramina, I had a last go - she tried for untrained Command, saying that if he wasn't going to join with Thurgon he might at least give us some coin so that we might spend the night at an inn rather than camping. This was Will 5, with an advantage die for having cowed him the first time, against a double obstacle penalty for untrained (ie 6) +1 penalty because Rufus was very set in his way. It failed. and so Rufus rode on and now has animosity towards Aramina. As the GM said, she better not have her back to him while he has a knife ready to hand.

Here are the key moments of resolution in this sequence of play:

* Thurgon and Aramina meet Rufus [result of successful Circles check];

* Rufus tells them he is collecting wine for the master, and mentions the news about the younger brother [GM narration, built upon but elaborating beyond the player-authored backstory for Thurgon];

* Aramina does not meet Rufus's gaze [player invocation of Aramina's Instinct];

* Rufus asks who Aramina is [GM decision in response to the invocation of the Instinct];

* Thurgon answers [free narration by the player];

* Aramina dresses down Rufus [Ugly Truth check initiated by the player - the check succeeds];

* Rufus is shamed and hesitates [failed Steel check following successful Ugly Truth check];

* Thurgon tries to break Rufus out of his cowed, shamed, state [Command check initiated by the player];

* Rufus, broken, explains that he has to go and get the wine [GM narrates the consequence of the failed Command check];

* Aramina demands coin from Rufus [untrained Command check initiated by the player];

* Rufus rides on, seething in his shame [GM narrates the consequence of the failed Command check];

* The scene is now over, consistently with Let it Ride - ie the outcomes of the failed checks stand.​

I think it's fairly obvious why someone might enjoy this sort of resolution process more than the GM just deciding whether or not Thurgon and Aramina meet Rufus, then deciding how he responds to Aramina's dressing down, then just deciding how he responds to Thurgon's attempt to provoke him out of his shame and Aramina's final attempt to demand coin from him. The "GM decides" approach is basically the GM telling the players a story about Rufus, or perhaps the GM presenting the players with a Rufus-puzzle. The actual approach that was adopted in this game, on the other hand, has nothing to do with either storytelling or puzzle-solving: it is as suspenseful and gut-wrenching a moment of RPGing as I've ever taken part in, as everyone - including the GM - can see what is at stake in each dice roll, and no one knows how it will turn out until the dice hit the table.

Notice how this has nothing to do with "metagaming". It's about drama and consequence.

 

[pemerton]

Sort of, you might want to do both in which case an argument can be made White Plume Mountain could absolutely serve as a backdrop for character exposition, like, why not, you could just do it.

Who does the you refer to in your post? I can tell you it doesn't refer to me!, because as I've already posted about half-a-dozen times if I'm sitting down to play White Plume Mountain then I'm not interested in learning what the gnome thinks about fish! I do want to know what the player of the gnome thinks about making it down the frictionless corridor with the super-tetanus trapped pits, though.

I agree that it is in-principle possible to imagine RPGing in which character exposition takes place against the backdrop of White Plume Mountain. Similarly I can imagine a procedural cop show in which all the detectives go around dressed in clown costumes. Both ideas have the same degree of appeal to me.

 

[pemerton]

if 5e can create some tools to help create 1d characters, can a game do the same to help create 3d characters?

Yes. I'd suggest looking at Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel for starters.

 

[Campbell]

@The-Magic-Sword

I also pretty much got my start with freeform online roleplaying before I started playing tabletop games. My experiences were somewhat different though. For my personal tastes there was too much negotiation, an aversion to meaningful conflict or changes to the status quo, and too much of a focus on staying true to character concepts. What initial drew me to roleplaying as a theater kid was the idea that plot could be secondary to character. That we could just enjoy playing our characters and see what path they would walk down.

I think that's a huge part of my set of my personal preferences. I love having shared experiences, but I have zero interest in storytelling from either side of the screen. I am not looking to tell or be told a story, design narrative arcs, or engage in world building unless it helps flesh out the scenario or provide context to the characters. I'm just here for the situation and the characters.

I tend to believe that for the sort of play I'm most interested in consensus pretty well for communication based on characters coming to well consensus. Tense moments and conflicts work better when there's real tension. It helps to make the scene feel more real to me.

I would still say a good portion of our social scenes do not involve invoking systems, but that's because we're trying to reach consensus, discuss information, etc.

 

[Maxperson]

As I replied just upthread to @Oofta, I encourage you to read the full post to which you're replying, including the context.

I am talking about sitting down to play a WPM-ish dungeon crawl. Just for starters, that game has basically nothing to dow with bashing open doors to get loot and fight monsters, which seems to be a 3E-D&D era conceit.

I played the original White Plume Mountain and we roleplayed our characters as we went through it. The roleplay wasn't as polished as it is these days since we were teenagers during the original, but we still did it. I see no reason why such a dungeon should be devoid of roleplaying character personality. There's nothing about such a dungeon crawl that says we should exclude that sort of thing.

 

[pemerton]

I played the original White Plume Mountain and we roleplayed our characters as we went through it. The roleplay wasn't as polished as it is these days since we were teenagers during the original, but we still did it. I see no reason why such a dungeon should be devoid of roleplaying character personality. There's nothing about such a dungeon crawl that says we should exclude that sort of thing.

Maxperson, you can do whatever you want, in the past and in the future.

I am talking about what I want. That's why in all the posts I used the pronoun I. And if you've played WPM then you'll know that it's not kick-in-the-door, take-the-loot.

 

[Campbell]

For me personally when it comes to character exploration the juice needs to be worth the squeeze. Everyone at the table needs to be into it and putting substantial effort into it. My character also needs to be meaningfully connected to the scenario, other player characters and underlying setting. I am looking for a shared experience. Without it having this sort of fun can quickly become untenable.

I have pretty similar thoughts when it comes to challenge focused play and general sandbox gaming. I do not want to invest my time and energy into a project that is unlikely to result in a rewarding experience.

 

[pemerton]

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.

This tends to imply that mechanics for social resolution are well-suited to rules, stats, maths and optimising.

That will depend very heavily on the mechanics in question. It sounds like its true for 3E D&D's Diplomacy rules. It's not true for Prince Valiant.

 

[Oofta]

Your conjecture of a risk is an empirical conjecture. Do you have any evidence in its favour?

Upthread you ignored my detailed actual play examples from four different episodes of play. I'll re-post a fraction of one of them here:

Here are the key moments of resolution in this sequence of play:

* Thurgon and Aramina meet Rufus [result of successful Circles check];​

​

* Rufus tells them he is collecting wine for the master, and mentions the news about the younger brother [GM narration, built upon but elaborating beyond the player-authored backstory for Thurgon];​

​

* Aramina does not meet Rufus's gaze [player invocation of Aramina's Instinct];​

​

* Rufus asks who Aramina is [GM decision in response to the invocation of the Instinct];​

​

* Thurgon answers [free narration by the player];​

​

* Aramina dresses down Rufus [Ugly Truth check initiated by the player - the check succeeds];​

​

* Rufus is shamed and hesitates [failed Steel check following successful Ugly Truth check];​

​

* Thurgon tries to break Rufus out of his cowed, shamed, state [Command check initiated by the player];​

​

* Rufus, broken, explains that he has to go and get the wine [GM narrates the consequence of the failed Command check];​

​

* Aramina demands coin from Rufus [untrained Command check initiated by the player];​

​

* Rufus rides on, seething in his shame [GM narrates the consequence of the failed Command check];​

​

* The scene is now over, consistently with Let it Ride - ie the outcomes of the failed checks stand.​

I think it's fairly obvious why someone might enjoy this sort of resolution process more than the GM just deciding whether or not Thurgon and Aramina meet Rufus, then deciding how he responds to Aramina's dressing down, then just deciding how he responds to Thurgon's attempt to provoke him out of his shame and Aramina's final attempt to demand coin from him. The "GM decides" approach is basically the GM telling the players a story about Rufus, or perhaps the GM presenting the players with a Rufus-puzzle. The actual approach that was adopted in this game, on the other hand, has nothing to do with either storytelling or puzzle-solving: it is as suspenseful and gut-wrenching a moment of RPGing as I've ever taken part in, as everyone - including the GM - can see what is at stake in each dice roll, and no one knows how it will turn out until the dice hit the table.

Notice how this has nothing to do with "metagaming". It's about drama and consequence.

I never said you wanted metagaming benefits. That was @Umbran who, and correct me if I misunderstood, specifically wants social structure rules so that they can judge risk and chance of success. That, to me, is metagaming. There's nothing wrong with that. If my PC is fighting a monster I know how many HP I have left, I know it's approximate if not exact AC after a couple of rounds, I likely have an idea of how hurt it is. We may or may not have that with social encounters depending on the scenario and how the DM runs it. My understanding is that they also want more concrete rules for resolution so that there's more consistency.

As for your example, you may as well tell me that Thurgon and Aramina meet Rufus as the result of flamboozling the gragnatch. Then Aramina zorks the candolliper. The terms you use have no meaning to me. Are these just applications of the equivalent of skills in D&D? Are they earned or recharging resources? I have no clue.

Which is why I think a separate thread would be more useful. Start with a link to an overview of some other game, give a brief overview, discuss how you could create rules to implement in D&D. I'm not trying to duck, mislead, cajole, downplay, criticize or any of the other things you tend to accuse me of. I simply think a different thread dedicated to this sub-topic would help explain what it is you desire and potentially be useful instead of this meaningless and unproductive back-and-forth.