D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Lanefan]

Really interesting video and post @overgeeked

I think one of the unique joys of RPGs is that you could have a group of players in the same campaign who not only cover all three types discussed here, but each player can sort of shift between the types unexpectedly.

Further to that: IME many characters go through all three stages as they develop during the campaign.

A brand new character might be a zero-dimension to start with. Then as the campaign goes along and the player gives the character more thought it'll develop into a one-dimension character, and from there develop into a three-dimension character.

 

[Lanefan]

If my PC is engaged in the activity of itself playing a character, e.g. I'm roleplaying my PC who is acting in a play, does that make it a four-dimensional character?

 

[Bill Zebub]

If my PC is engaged in the activity of itself playing a character, e.g. I'm roleplaying my PC who is acting in a play, does that make it a four-dimensional character?

Depends on how dimensional the performed character is.

Unless the performed character is you, in which case your character is metagaming, even though you are not.

 

[pemerton]

This thread is posted in the D&D sub-forum but seems to be talking about RPGing more generally.

D&D is in my view a somewhat unpropitious game for thinking about the portrayal of characters via roleplay, because (based on my knowledge of what is published, together with my sense of what play looks like based on encountering others' descriptions of it), D&D play seems to fall into a few main categories:

* Classic, Gygax-ish D&D where the goal of play is to advance your character by earning XP by successful extraction of the loot from the dungeons, lairs, etc the GM has created. In this sort of play there may be alignment rules, and racial preference charts and associated rules (eg hobgoblins prefer to attack elves because of the great hatred they bear them: MM p 53), and of course some or even much of the banter between players may be understood to be occurring between their PCs. But one the whole character does not loom large in this sort of play, because it simply doesn't fit with the goals of play.

* More contemporary, challenge-focused D&D which differs from Gygaxian D&D in that the GM plays a more active role not only in designing the "setting" but also framing the scenes (eg deciding what encounter happens next), typically with a shift in XP rules from XP for loot (which shifts the onus onto the players to decide where they go next) to XP for combat (or near-combat) victory (which sits well with the GM deciding what the next challenge will be). Like Gygax-ish play this sort of D&D still assumes a team of PCs who work together, and it assumes a fairly generic set of motivations (such that it is easy for the GM to find "hooks" for the next encounter). As with Gygax-ish play, more than a very modest amount of character will interfere with the goals of this sort of play.

* Probably sitting on something of a spectrum with the sort of play described in the previous paragraph, there is "story-driven" D&D play: the GM comes up with a basic conception of a mystery or some other sort of plot, and the players run their PCs through it. In 5e, this sort of play lends itself well to milestone XP rather than XP for victories. It makes sense for the PCs to have enough and the right sort of character to generate their entry into the story. But too much or too divergent character risks destabilising the whole set-up. Eg what if the PCs decide that they like the "big bad" and want to help in the nefarious scheme?​

A practical upshot of the intersection between these approaches to play, and aspiring to portrayal of characters, is that a lot of D&D advice (I'm thinking especially of 2nd ed AD&D, but also some of the discussion in the early part of the 4e D&D PHB) tends to focus on characterisation: what does the PC look like, what are their mannerisms and catch-phrases, etc. There is much less focus on what the PC wants and how they will go about getting it (4e D&D is an exception to this in the latter part of its PHB, where it talks about player-authored Quests).

RPGs that put character front-and-centre also tend to change assumptions about what the goal of play is - which then feeds into changes in the techniques used to determine what happens next, what challenges are confronted by the PCs, etc.

 

[Charlaquin]

*There's some evidence that, in the long term, method acting causes psychological damage to the actor. By repeatedly reliving their own traumas to act, they do not resolve those traumas, and instead deepen their psychological wounds. The practice isn't very common any more, for that reason.

So, this is true of some, but not all, of the many techniques that are often referred to as “the method.” All of these techniques have their roots in Stanislavski’s system, but Stanislavski himself actually realized pretty quickly that his system had the potential to cause such issues and revised it to be much safer for actors to use. Unfortunately, by then his system in its original form had already been popularized worldwide. Suffice it to say, there isn’t truly one method - there are many systems which claim the title, many of which are safer than others, and none of which are an excuse to be a “wang rod” to your fellow performers or crew.

 

[Charlaquin]

A staggeringly huge number of playwrights, novelists, screen-writers, and so forth have shown us that it is very possible to write characters who seem different from both each other and from the choices you personally would make. Stop trying to gatekeep that Roleplaying (as defined in the video) doesn't exist.

That’s not gatekeeping. At all.

 

[Malmuria]

This thread is posted in the D&D sub-forum but seems to be talking about RPGing more generally.

D&D is in my view a somewhat unpropitious game for thinking about the portrayal of characters via roleplay, because (based on my knowledge of what is published, together with my sense of what play looks like based on encountering others' descriptions of it), D&D play seems to fall into a few main categories:

​

* Probably sitting on something of a spectrum with the sort of play described in the previous paragraph, there is "story-driven" D&D play: the GM comes up with a basic conception of a mystery or some other sort of plot, and the players run their PCs through it. In 5e, this sort of play lends itself well to milestone XP rather than XP for victories. It makes sense for the PCs to have enough and the right sort of character to generate their entry into the story. But too much or too divergent character risks destabilising the whole set-up. Eg what if the PCs decide that they like the "big bad" and want to help in the nefarious scheme?​

I would guess that, in dnd, acquiring more power (as usual) but making suboptimal decisions counts as capital-R Roleplaying. Whereas the opposite--characters who acquire mechanically important flaws--is not in the rules and would be considered unfun.

What's interesting is that you could play Call of Cthulhu, a similar style of game, and there not only would the acquisition of flaws be acceptable, it's sort of the point. That is, the change in genre, and to some extent ruleset, enables characters with more developed interiority.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

Alright, third page and the jokes have started flying--it's time to change the subject.

I swing both ways myself. I want to play three-dimensional characters and have that deep experience, indeed I greatly desire it, but when the "deep" dirty words hit the fan my palms get all clammy, I can't think straight, and I grow afraid people will laugh at me. I feel silly. Yet, that don't stop me. I keep on reaching for that brass ring. And sometimes, I snatch it, and it feels good. (I know, it's a contradiction.)

On another note, there is a third way to play our characters. The first way is what we would do if we were wizards, or warriors, or wendigos (Dungeon Masters roleplay/Roleplay/rollplay too). The second way is what our characters would do because they are wizards, warriors, and wendigos. The third way is what should our characters do regardless of who or what they are. We could call this the cinematic way, or the cool way, or Rollplaying (with a big R).

So often we complain that certain scenarios are unplayable because of what our characters can do. Take wilderness survival scenarios for instance. So hard to play because we have umpteen ways to circumvent such a scenario. However, we could just choose not to circumvent the scenario, even though our characters could do it, or we ourselves would choose to circumvent it because we don't like being outside and uncomfortable. Or consider the lowly torch. They don't see much daylight because they're not cool or particularly useful compared to dancing lights and darkvision (well, also because they're torches and not needed in daylight).

I once delivered a message from the local Thieves Guild via a parchment attached to a crossbow bolt, This crossbow bolt embedded itself into a tree right next to our fighter's head. I was shocked when we proceeded to hunt down the messenger with vigor, or rather vengeance, because he obviously attacked us. What if his aim had been off? Our fighter could have been hurt! Don't mess with us because we are badasses!

On the other end of the spectrum, I've seen Players refuse to do dangerous things with their characters because it's too scary, or they don't want their characters to die. What?! That's almost like saying I don't want to play Monopoly because I don't want to risk going into debt.

 

[Maxperson]

Interesting use of “gatekeep”.

In any event, I don’t think we are disagreeing. To me, the key word in what you wrote is “seem”. If what we are talking about is a character that seems outwardly interesting and coherent and driven by it’s own motivations, then I think we are successful.

But, in my opinion, what the actual motivations are, inside the players head, is entirely separate.

Pick a favorite character from a movie or book. Would it lessen your enjoyment to know that essential parts of that character were really the writer expressing their own self? And without knowing a lot about that person, how could you even tell?

You're right and wrong. It's true that we cannot divorce ourselves from the character when we roleplay. We use our personal understanding of things to envision what the character would do based on traits and circumstances different than our own. That said, the result of such an attempt is something different than what we would do, so the motivation is not entirely my own.

When I am playing Gorzan the Barbarian who hates magic and magic items, it's not what I personally want to do when he breaks a magic item that he finds. I personally love magic items would want to keep it. Gorzan on the other hand does not and would smash it against the nearest boulder. I'm certainly not expressing my own self there.

 

[Lanefan]

Depends on how dimensional the performed character is.

Unless the performed character is you, in which case your character is metagaming, even though you are not.

And therein begins a potentially endless loop where I'm playing a character who is playing me playing a character playing me playing ... [etc.]