D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Campbell]

Last night in the gym I basically failed a Steel roll. Barbell Overhead Press. A weight I normally can do about 8-10 reps of, but last night it felt too heavy because I let myself think too hard about how heavy it is. Barely managed 3 reps because of my hesitation. Fully intended to get at least 8 reps.

I have experienced something like that several times over the course of my life. Not something I decided, just nervous system feedback.

To me those sorts of things are experiential roleplaying to me. These mechanics help me feel the weight of the external pressures we all operate under. When my character is Angry in Masks they find it more difficult to Comfort or Support and Pierce The Veil until they lash out or receive the support of their team mates. That helps me feel the weight of that moment. In Legend of Five Rings Fifth Edition the Strife mechanics help me feel the tension of living in a world where everyone is carrying around razorblades and the slightest misstep can be taken as an insult.

The primary reason I play roleplaying games are these moments where I get to feel what my character is feeling. Experience what they are experiencing. I do not know what causes this difference in perception, but I am generally hyper aware of these unwelcome emotional states that regularly impact both my decision making process, but also involuntary reactions and personal performance. A lot of that awareness comes from my time on stage, my experience in combat sports, weight training, and my time serving in the Army.

I largely do not come at roleplaying from the perspective that I have intimate knowledge of my character. I want to get there, but in my mind it's a process. A process that takes a lot of energy, curiosity, and discipline. I do not and can not really know how a character will respond to a given situation until we play it out.

 

[Campbell]

One thing I will add is that in order for mechanics to feel real and help me inhabit that emotional space they have to do more than just say you feel angry or under stress. On it's own that is less than useful. They have to model those emotions in some way that feels real to me. Most social combat rules feel off to me personally because they do not really feel like trying to convince someone, but Exalted Third Edition social influence feels right because it makes sense that you need to appeal to something the other character cares about. Having to resist with an intimacy of equal or greater strength also feels right because it models that internal process of calling upon an internal source of strength.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But I keep telling you that it's about how I (the player) feel: the feeling of anticipation, the anxiety, the doubt - that's what the PC is feeling (the rules of the game tell us that, by requiring a Steel check) and that's what I feel (the process of play brings that about, by making me roll the dice and wait on the answer they provide).

I'm not performing anything: I declare an action, the GM calls for a Steel check, I roll the dice and fail the check, I choose my hesitation response, Alicia's player (who on this occasion is also the GM - we are both playing and co-GMing with each taking responsibility for managing the others' adversity) decides, as Alicia, to take advantage of that hesitation and use Persuasion.

What there is is intense inhabitation of the character.


I don't understand. What I've posted just above is a repetition of something I've already posted many times in this thread: I am feeling what my PC is feeling, namely, the weight and dread of this decision to murder the innkeeper, here and now.


There are RPGs that use "increased cost" as a method of enforcing emotional burdens or external influences. Apocalypse World is one of them. Sorcerer is another. Cortex+ Heroic is similar (the burden/influence is expressed as Stress or a Complication, which like all traits in that system is rated from d4 to d12, and the appropriate die is included in the opposed pool whenever the stress or complication would bear upon a declared action).

But Burning Wheel rests on a different premise. It rests on the premise that doing, and confronting, dreadful things is hard. That, by default, such doings or confrontations will cause hesitation unless a person has the Steel to press on. We could say that this premise is as central to BW as the premise, in classic D&D, that a warrior who is bold and lucky has a chance to survive even the most deadly poison or blast of dragon fire (see Gygax's discussion of saving throws in his DMG).

If you don't want to play a game in which that premise obtains, eg because you think it's unheroic, then you don't use the Steel subsystem from Burning Wheel. Likewise if you don't like the premise of saving throws, you don't use them (there have been innumerable house rules to saving throws for classic D&D, and systems like Rolemasater abandon that sort of approach altogether in favour of "realism"-oriented rules for crits and damage and so on).

A player who approaches BW and it Steel framework with the thought "My character will never feel the weight of dreadful things unless I choose that they do" is making the same sort of mistake as a player who approaches D&D thinking "My deadly poison can bring down any warrior, no matter how bold or lucky". Ie the player has a false premise.

That doesn't mean the D&D saving throw rules are an obstacle to inhabiting one's character; but they might be an obstacle to playing a certain sort of assassin. Just as the BW Steel rules are an obstacle to playing a certain sort of happy-go-lucky murderer.

Yup, you are 100% right. My bad. I kept reading past what you were saying and imagining how it would feel to me, but the thing about experiential roleplaying is that it's personal, and clearly you have a different experience.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think I misunderstood what you meant by "performative" vs "experiential" roleplaying when you first brought up the distinction. I interpreted "performative" roleplaying as concerning the performance at the table--the player showing the other participants what their character is thinking and feeling by emoting. In contrast I interpreted "experiential" roleplaying as concerning the subjective experience of the player making decisions while immersed in the persona of their character.

But from the quote above it sounds like you might be using "performative" quite differently than I'd thought. Are you instead using "performative" roleplaying only to refer to the player deciding what actions the character takes (i.e. what actions the character "peforms") in the game world?

If so it sounds like you may be focused on an actions/emotions distinction, rather than the internal/external distinction I thought you were making? (And in that case I think you need a different word than "performative" since performing in its "acting" sense is also discussed as part of roleplaying.)

No, the first version was (mostly) right. I don't think it has to be for the benefit of the other people, but the point is still to portray a character, regardless of what is going on in your own head. An actor who has the audience sobbing, but in their own head is thinking, "Ok, make that lower lip tremble...that always gets 'em" is being performative. And a gamer who makes a decision based on what they think that "character would do", but delivers it in a dry, 3rd-person monotone, is still roleplaying performatively, because the focus is on what the character does.

Experiential is when you, too, are feeling something of what your character is feeling. Scared that you're about to TPK, shocked that the NPC betrayed you, covetous of treasure, etc. I'm honestly not sure how one tries to roleplay experientially, other than to try to avoid the things that make you feel like you are not inhabiting your character...and those things are going to be different for everybody.

One major difference is that it's possible to assess (albeit subjectively) somebody else's performative roleplaying, but you just have to take their word for whether or not it's experiential for them. (I mean, I guess if you know somebody extremely well you might be able to tell when they're "in the zone".)

I think I made it confusing by talking about the decision-making. I probably shouldn't have gone there, because I can't know for sure what goes on in other people's hearts/minds when they make decisions.

 

[Bill Zebub]

One thing I will add is that in order for mechanics to feel real and help me inhabit that emotional space they have to do more than just say you feel angry or under stress. On it's own that is less than useful. They have to model those emotions in some way that feels real to me. Most social combat rules feel off to me personally because they do not really feel like trying to convince someone, but Exalted Third Edition social influence feels right because it makes sense that you need to appeal to something the other character cares about. Having to resist with an intimacy of equal or greater strength also feels right because it models that internal process of calling upon an internal source of strength.

I don't know that system, and am not sure I get what you're describing, but I'll agree that most (all?) social mechanics systems don't work for me. Pure roleplaying resolution works (or can work) but I have a game design philosophy issue with always doing it that way.

The thing I've almost never found to be experiential is traps. Sometimes worrying about them, and looking for them narratively, has felt experiential. Then as soon as we find them, and switch over to whatever rules are used for disarming traps, I get yanked out of my character and I'm just rolling dice.

I think back in the day (1e) when we were constantly rolling to detect traps it felt different, but somewhere along the line either the mechanical repetitiveness or my changing expectations about RPGs spoiled that for me.

 

[Oofta]

So you would count all the action resolution rules in D&D - combat, ability and skill checks, spells, etc - as metagame mechanics?

Just checking I'm understanding your usage, which is not the usage I'm familiar with.

Yes, I just mean the rules of the game that enforce, well, anything in the game world. It's not like there's a a dictionary somewhere with definitions.

Re mechanics: I think @Aldarc has already tackled this a couple of times, and @Umbran also. There are different variants of Cortex+ - it's a family of systems that are related like (say) 3E D&D, PF and StarFinder.

The version I play is a fantasy adaptation of Marvel Heroic RP. Everything that matters in the fiction - be that on a PC sheet, or in a scene - is rated by a die, from D4 to D12. Actions are opposed checks. Players build their pools out of the traits on their sheets; the opposed pool is either an opposing character (PC or NPC) or the Doom Pool, which is a separate pool of dice that grows and falls with the action and various decisions that participants (especially the GM) take and which serves as an all-purpose source of adversity, GM-side power ups, and pacing management tools.

Social/influence actions can be attempts to impose Emotional stress (eg Wolverine is good at this), Mental stress (eg a cursed Crystal Hypnosis ball would be good at this), or Complications (eg You Will Help Me Kill the X-Men!). Like everything else, these are rated with a die size. If a character has that sort of effect on them, then whenever it would hinder them (eg if they have that Complication, whenever they're not helping to kill the X-Men) the effect die is included in the opposing pool.

PCs can use these rules to try and persuade or bully or confuse one another. It's an expected part of the game.

In the situation I described, I (as GM) had also established a Scene Distinction - ie something that matters in the fiction, as I mentioned above - that was (from memory) rated at D8 (which is the default for a Scene Distinction): Uncertain of What to do Next. This was not a "material" or "physical" aspect of the scene - it was a "mental" or "emotional" aspect of the scene, that reflected the fact that it was (in my view) in fact uncertain among the players what they should do next, with each (as their character) having a different idea on that score. By framing the scene in that fashion, with that Distinction, I made the resolution of the doubt and debate a focus of the action. As I mentioned in my play report, it was the player of the Ranger who succeeded in eliminating the Distinction, which meant that - in the fiction - he was the one who was able to resolve upon a course of action and impress it upon his fellows.

Obviously I'm aware that there are other possibilities, like - as you say - "talking it out".

There are several reasons why I decided to substitute a resolution framework for talking it out. (1) It's quicker. (2) It's more fun, in the sense that instead of back-and-forth bickering or disagreement with no guarantee of a resolution, it's a process that leads directly to an outcome via the procedures of the game. (3) It makes the issue of leadership something to be settled by application of the mechanics, where everyone is - subject to their PC build - on an even footing, rather than something determined by out-of-game social realities at the table. (4) As I posted upthread, it produced a scene that was reminiscent of Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas at Parth Galen, or even - at least a bit - of the Council of Elrond. Which is fitting for a MERP/LotR game.

In other systems, when debate at the table has dragged I've used different approaches: in Burning Wheel it's a Duel of Wits; in Traveller, it's opposed throws with bonuses to the side that has nobles and/or Leadership expertise; in Prince Valiant it's opposed Presence checks (perhaps influenced by significant differences of Fame or other modifiers to prestige); in 4e D&D I used opposed checks once but can't remember now how the modifiers were handled.

In the Cortex+ LotR game I had little hesitation in framing it as I did, because the system made it easy the 4 reaasons above applied.

EDITed to add:
"Talking it out" is a lot like this. Because at the table, unlike in an actual debate, no one has any reason to yield because there is nothing actually at stake other than the passage of time in the session. This is related to my reasons (1) and (3) above.

There are too many times when people inadvertently skip details without meaning to do so or explain just using more game terms so it's not always as clear as they believe. In any case, thanks.

All I can say is: different strokes for different folks. If it works for you and your group, great. It wouldn't be my style. While it may be quicker it would feel very mechanical and would not be as fun. Which, again, is not a criticism of the game or your preferences.

 

[Oofta]

,,,
Sidebar: I will also note that if we were playing 3.5 or Pathfinder 1, then the game could absolutely tell you how your character felt in a number of non-magical occasions. For example, dragons had Frightful Presence, which was an Extraordinary Ability, which is explicitly non-magical. You fail your save, and your character becomes afraid.

Not to go too far off topic, but I always considered dragon's frightful presence to be explicitly supernatural, just like their ability to fly and breath fire. Not all things supernatural are magic in the sense of spells.

 

[Aldarc]

Not to go too far off topic, but I always considered dragon's frightful presence to be explicitly supernatural, just like their ability to fly and breath fire. Not all things supernatural are magic in the sense of spells.

It's explicitly Extraordinary and nonmagical in 3e. Explicitly nonmagical.

 

[Bill Zebub]

With all this debate "are social/mental/whatever mechanics are needed?" there's a very important question.

How often do such situations happen without such rules?

How often do characters hesitate when it comes to a killing blow, even if the poor bastard has forced their hand? How often do characters fall in love? How often do they actually show their scars, instead of merely talking about them?

In my personal experience, not that often.

I guess this is where experiences differ. In my group this comes up a lot. We're always having debates about whether we really need to fight (some of us more bloodthirsty than others) and we frequently use non-lethal damage...and then have more debates about how to handle captives.

And sometimes how we handled previous situations comes up later as a point of contention, with accusations and recriminations and even remorse. (All in good fun...not genuine animosity between players.)

 

[Oofta]

In my first Rolemaster campaign, one of the PCs was a paladin. Because of the RM crit system, it is quite common to defeat foes in combat without killing them.

The first time the paladin killed an enemy was when he had reached 5th level - he rolled a fatal crit result (decapitation, from memory). He took himself into the wilderness to repent and mourn. I rolled a random encounter, with a demon. The paladin took the demon as a punishment sent to him for killing, and didn't resist as the demon beat him to a pulp while mocking him.

I don't think I've ever seen something like this in a D&D game; perhaps because D&D generally doesn't have the same scope for victory via non-fatal violence.

If you grew up on sanitized comic books (Batman doesn't kill, he just ... fries them to a crisp with the jets of his car which is totally not lethal) along with a healthy dose of 1st world modern "killing is wrong" then I can see where you're coming from. Most of history hasn't been like that. I'm not saying killing is ever good, that's a debate for a different forum, but in my campaigns the PCs are regularly at war for all practical purposes. My campaign world is not kind nor gentle. On the other hand, knocking enemies out is always an option.

Different systems for different genres, of course. While it sounds like your paladin story worked for you (and that's awesome) for a lot of people it would be the equivalent of failing a saving throw in D&D.

There are times when at least some of my players feel real emotion from empathizing or visualizing the world their PCs inhabit same as if watching a movie or reading a book. It has nothing with the rules of the game.