D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Xetheral]

I'll put to one side possible counter-examples to your account of what defines a character (eg perhaps a character is defined as always knowing every last scrap of trivia).

As was posted way upthread, one function of a game system like Burning Wheel (or even Prince Valiant, though it's less intense) is to put pressure on who the character is, including in the sense you've defined that.

I quoted the relevant text from the Burning Wheel rulebook; here it is again (p 9 of Gold; Revised is the same):

In the game, players take on the roles of characters inspired by history and works of fantasy fiction. These characters are a list of abilities rated with numbers and a list of player-determined priorities [ie Relationships, Beliefs, Instincts, some traits, etc]. The synergy of inspiration, imagination, numbers and priorities is the most fundamental element of Burning Wheel. Expressing these numbers and priorities within situations presented by the game master (GM) is what the game is all about. . . .​

​

There are consequences to your choices in this game. They range from the very black and white, "If I engage in this duel, my character might die," to the more complex, "If my character undertakes this task, he'll be changed, and I don't know exactly how." Recognizing that the system enforces these choices will help you navigate play. I always encourage players to think before they test their characters. Are you prepared to accept the consequences of your actions?​

​

The in-game consequences of the players' decisions are described in this rulebook. The moral ramifications are left to you.​

I think it's obvious that this is presenting an approach to RPGing, to the place of the character in the fiction, and to the player's relationship to their PC, which is pretty different from default D&D. I posted this example/illustration not far upthread:

D&D characters are not expected to change. (I quoted some AD&D text upthread which emphasises the importance of not changing, especially in relation to alignment.)

In other RPGs this is not necessarily the case: characters are expected to change, or to be revealed, in ways that outstrip any single participant's authorial control. (Much as, in D&D, combat is normally expected to unfold in ways that outstrip any single participant's authorial control - hence controversies around "fudging".)

In aesthetic terms, this can be looked at both "internally" and "externally". Internally, it may help produce the type of emotionally laden play that @Campbell and I have tried to articulate upthread. Externally, it may produce a shared fiction that has a higher degree of drama and thematic content, compared to an adventure story in which the interest and excitement flows primarily from the thrilling action rather than the inner struggles of the protagonists.

Your reply seems to suggest that you interpreted my post as making a statement of fact with which you disagree. However, when quoting me you omitted the part of my post where I explicitly said that I was providing my opinion.... Did you misunderstand my post as making a broad claim regarding how character identity must be understood? Or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to communicate with your rebuttal?

To clarify: I understand and agree that different game systems have different mechanics with different goals. I was merely trying to answer @hawkeyefan's question by re-explaining what I personally see as the difference between using a mechanic to determine whether a character knows a particular fact and using a mechanic to determine how your character reacts or feels.

 

[Hussar]

So I have a question for the thread. Do you guys all use the Flaws that are part of the character details? Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws- as written, if the player uses these details in portraying their character, they get Inspiration, which can be used to make any roll with Advantage.

So my question is…what do you expect a player to do with a Flaw?

Do you expect it to be meaningful to play? Is it just window dressing? If they say that they’re filled with rage, does that mean they just yell at the innkeeper? Or does it cause complications for them and their friends?

If you feel something like a Flaw should matter…and I feel like nearly everyone who’s posted in this thread has talked in some way about the importance of portraying one’s character…then how do your games handle Flaws?

Do you ignore all the Traits and Bonds and Flaws in favor of just standard character portrayal without any carrots?

Do you reward someone who adds a bit of their Flaw as flavor when they portray their character, even if it ultimately has no real impact on the given scene?

Do you only reward Inspiration when the Flaw is portrayed in some meaningful way? Where the scene in question is largely about the Flaw? Or that the Flaw somehow complicates things for the PC and/or party?

Do you do something else?

I’m curious how different groups handle this.

In my current group, flaws come up all the time and are probably one of the most referenced ways to get Inspiration. ((Now, if I could just remember to remind players to USE those Inspiration points, so I could award them more often ))

Perfect example from last session. One of the characters has a hidden history (he doesn't even know what it is - the player left it up to me) and his flaw is "unlocking an ancient mystery is worht the price of a civilization". We're playing The Price of Beauty from Candlekeep Mysteries. I tempted him with the knowledge. The bad people (I'm trying to do this spoiler free) can essentially grant wishes for a price "to be named later". The player was right on board with it. Took one look at his flaws and said yup, sign me up. Now, in play it turned out that it didn't happen because other stuff wound up happening first, but, yup, the player was fully on board with it.

 

[Xetheral]

I'm not sure if I really see this distinction as being one with much difference. Using myself as an example, my knowledge feels as much a part of me and who I am as a person as my emotions and temperament. Plus whether or not I remember an important factoid in a moment is as much the same to me as whether I am cool in the moment or if my temper flares, even if I am an overall cool, evenly-tempered person. Me being able to remember a fact or not may also say something about my temperament or emotions in a given moment: e.g., "I'm so mad that it's hard to think."

That's cool. There's a huge diversity of perspectives on what defines individual identity. It would not surprise me at all if differing philosophical approaches to the concept of self underlie our differing preferences for RPG mechanics.

As far as where we differ, I agree that knowledge is a part of who I am as person, but for me that's only at the general level--I don't consider myself to be a different person than I thought I was if I'm unable to recall a specific fact that I never learned or learned and forgot. By contrast, if I lose my cool in a situation where I expect myself to keep it, I infer that I'm evidently not quite who I understood myself to be.

 

[Aldarc]

That's cool. There's a huge diversity of perspectives on what defines individual identity. It would not surprise me at all if differing philosophical approaches to the concept of self underlie our differing preferences for RPG mechanics.

As far as where we differ, I agree that knowledge is a part of who I am as person, but for me that's only at the general level--I don't consider myself to be a different person than I thought I was if I'm unable to recall a specific fact that I never learned or learned and forgot. By contrast, if I lose my cool in a situation where I expect myself to keep it, I infer that I'm evidently not quite who I understood myself to be.

Rather, think about it more like being "knowledgeable." Whether I can remember a fact or not contributes to that overall sense of characterization of being "knowledgeable about X." If I can't remember, then that certainly challenges whether my character is as knowledgeable as they may claim or are built to be. Otherwise, failure may suggest that my character isn't knowledgeable, but, rather, forgetful or ignorant.

But we can also apply your point in bold to the wider discourse. For example, let's say that I am playing Tom the Fighter. If I miss an attack does it mean that I am not quite the Fighter I understood myself to be even if on average I am more likely to succeed than fail over the duration of an adventure? Well, not necessarily. It means that in that moment that I missed and/or failed. Maybe the circumstances weren't right.

I think that it's similar with mental/emotional mechanics. If you want your character to be good at staying calm under pressure, then you may try to build your character in a way that they will succeed at a higher rate. You may succeed more than you fail, but there will be moments that you will fail or have your characterization challenged.

 

[pemerton]

Your reply seems to suggest that you interpreted my post as making a statement of fact with which you disagree. However, when quoting me you omitted the part of my post where I explicitly said that I was providing my opinion.... Did you misunderstand my post as making a broad claim regarding how character identity must be understood? Or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to communicate with your rebuttal?

To clarify: I understand and agree that different game systems have different mechanics with different goals. I was merely trying to answer @hawkeyefan's question by re-explaining what I personally see as the difference between using a mechanic to determine whether a character knows a particular fact and using a mechanic to determine how your character reacts or feels.

I read your post as making some assertions:

Put succinctly, in my opinion, how a character feels or reacts to outside stimuli defines who that character is as a (fictional) person. By contrast, whether or not a character has been in a situation where they learned a particular factoid about the campaign setting (and/or whether or not they remember that factoid) does not define who that character is as a (fictional) person.

So a mechanic that tells you how your character feels or reacts I see as redefining a character in a way that a mechanic that tells you if your character knows a particular bit of lore does not.

There is an assertion about what defines character, namely, what the character feels and how they react. As I said in my first response, I'm setting possible quibbles with this to one side.

There is also an assertion that some process of deciding what the character feels or how they react other than player authorship is a re-defining of the character. This move from defining to re-defining seems to make sense only if one accepts as a premise that the player is the one who gets to define the character, by way of authorship, such that any other injection of feelings or actions to the character is not a contribution to the character's definition but rather a re-definition.

And my post was making the point that such a premise is not inherent to RPGing as such.

An additional (or perhaps) alternative way of making sense of the reference to re-defining is to equate any change in the character with a redefinition of the character. And my post also drew the contrast between D&D and other RPGs in respect of the importance placed on character change or character consistency.

In the context of the thread, it seemed to me potentially useful to bring out those premises and make them - and also departures from them - explicit.

 

[tetrasodium]

So I have a question for the thread. Do you guys all use the Flaws that are part of the character details? Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws- as written, if the player uses these details in portraying their character, they get Inspiration, which can be used to make any roll with Advantage.

So my question is…what do you expect a player to do with a Flaw?

Do you expect it to be meaningful to play? Is it just window dressing? If they say that they’re filled with rage, does that mean they just yell at the innkeeper? Or does it cause complications for them and their friends?

If you feel something like a Flaw should matter…and I feel like nearly everyone who’s posted in this thread has talked in some way about the importance of portraying one’s character…then how do your games handle Flaws?

Do you ignore all the Traits and Bonds and Flaws in favor of just standard character portrayal without any carrots?

Do you reward someone who adds a bit of their Flaw as flavor when they portray their character, even if it ultimately has no real impact on the given scene?

Do you only reward Inspiration when the Flaw is portrayed in some meaningful way? Where the scene in question is largely about the Flaw? Or that the Flaw somehow complicates things for the PC and/or party?

Do you do something else?

I’m curious how different groups handle this.

I really tried to like bonds ideals & flaws for years and eventually decided that the best solution was to ignore them to the level that I ask players not to fill them in. As a whole they are little more than a crutch to encourage bad & disruptive "roll playing"with an excuse to pointlessly invoke "I'm a roleplayer and my character would..." type silliness. They are a nice idea that play out like one person described fate style character aspects to a second sho promptly ignored how aspects themselves work and decided they knew enough to copy them with an entirely player decided version that was filled with a bunch if zany cliches and random (often npc) tropes.

 

[pemerton]

Rather, think about it more like being "knowledgeable." Whether I can remember a fact or not contributes to that overall sense of characterization of being "knowledgeable about X." If I can't remember, then that certainly challenges whether my character is as knowledgeable as they may claim or are built to be. Otherwise, failure may suggest that my character isn't knowledgeable, but, rather, forgetful or ignorant.

Or bombastic. Or self-deluded.

Which also tends to wear down the boundary, as far as character identity is concerned, between mental/"inner" and physical/"outer".

For example, let's say that I am playing Tom the Fighter. If I miss an attack does it mean that I am not quite the Fighter I understood myself to be even if on average I am more likely to succeed than fail over the duration of an adventure? Well, not necessarily. It means that in that moment that I missed and/or failed. Maybe the circumstances weren't right.

I think that it's similar with mental/emotional mechanics. If you want your character to be good at staying calm under pressure, then you may try to build your character in a way that they will succeed at a higher rate. You may succeed more than you fail, but there will be moments that you will fail or have your characterization challenged.

Right. It's typical to build your PC to where you want them to be strong/effective.

If your PC is, in your conception of them, cool under fire, build to that!

Conversely, in a system which puts limits on builds (eg Classic Traveller) then part of what the random build system tells you is whether or not you're cool under fire! (Ie do you have Leader and/or Tactics skills?).

 

[Aldarc]

Right. It's typical to build your PC to where you want them to be strong/effective.

If your PC is, in your conception of them, cool under fire, build to that!

Conversely, in a system which puts limits on builds (eg Classic Traveller) than part of what the random build system tells you is whether or not you're cool under fire! (Ie do you have Leader and/or Tactics skills?).

Yes, it's important to remember that for a number of these systems, the character's build will also be a factor in their success or failure. It's not as if it's a straight-up 50-50 flip of the coin that changes your character's personality 180 degrees.

If we were playing Tales of Xadia using Cortex Prime, and I felt that my character's temperament was an important aspect of their personality, then I may build them to reflect as such. I may make one of my character Distinctions (d8) reflect their temperament: e.g., "Cool Under Fire." Under my attributes, I may choose to rate my Spirit with a d8 or d10 die. One of my Values (e.g., Devotion, Glory, or Mastery) and associated Value Statements may reflect my character's courage: e.g., Devotion (d10) - "My friends count on my courage in a fight."

This does not mean that my character will keep their cool at all times or occasions anymore than a Fighter will hit with their sword at all times. But hopefully I should have a higher long-term success rate at keeping an even-temperament than a character who is not built for it.

 

[pemerton]

So I have a question for the thread. Do you guys all use the Flaws that are part of the character details?

<snip>

I’m curious how different groups handle this.

In Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic, each PC has three Distinctions. (NPCs may have fewer depending on their GM-assigned status in terms of "story" significance.) Scenes also have Distinctions, representing "story"-relevant elements of the situation (this could be anything like Moonless Night, or - in a fantasy/dungeon context - Vile Runes, or a goal - Get Them All on the Plane Right Quick, or - as in my LotR game - something even more "internal" like Uncertain What to do Next).

Every dice pool (whether acting or reacting - all checks in MHRP are opposed) contains one of these Distinctions, either Character or Scene. And it can be put into the pool either at d8 or d4. In the latter case, the player earns a Plot Point. (If it's the GM, instead the Doom Pool grows.) Particularly when the Distinction goes in at d4, it is expected that the player will provide a narration that makes sense of that, and the GM should factor this into consequence narration (though this won't be as rich as in, say, a PbtA game, because in MHRP fictional positioning tends not to be a thing unless brought in via a mechanical element like a Distinction or a mechanically-imposed Complication or Stress).

Now to Burning Wheel (my favourite!).

BW has lots of moving parts. For present purposes, characters have Beliefs (typically three, unless some other build element affects this), Instincts and Traits. A Belief is a statement of a character's goal or conviction or "motto" or anything similar. It signals what a character aspires to. An Instinct is a statement like Never meet the gaze of a stranger or Always keep the campfire burning or Draw my sword when startled: a character can trigger an Instinct whenever the condition is met, and thereby circumvent the standard action economy or establish a "retcon" - you can probably see how the first example Instinct would be relevant in a Medusa encounter; and how the second Instinct means that, when the PCs are camping, the PC is always free to treat the fire as part of the fiction even if no one has declared an action to light or maintain it. Traits cover a fair bit of territory, but some are analogous to D&D feats (ie special abilities), some establish significant physical or mental distinctions (eg Long-limbed, or Tongueless, or Eidetic Memory, or Deep Sleeper), and some are more like D&D 5e Flaws or Traits - labels for dispositions or inclinations, like Extremely Respectful of My Betters, or Disciplined, or Thunderous Snoring.

BW also has multiple sorts of "fate" points - Fate, Persona and Deeds. There are multiple ways of earning these points. Earning Deeds points is not connected to PC build elements, so I'll leave them alone for the rest of this post. Fate points are earned (among other ways) by manifesting a Belief in play, in an entertaining or dramatic fashion, so as to drive play forward; when a player invokes an Instinct and thereby gets into trouble or creates a difficult or awkward situation; and when a trait that is not its own reward (ie not a feat-like or similar buffing trait) is manifested in a way that makes life difficult for the character, or sends the game in an unexpected direction. Persona points are earned (among other ways) by achieving a goal stated in a Belief, or similarly closing of a Belief; and, in circumstances where Beliefs, Instincts and/or Traits into conflict with a decision the character must make, by playing out that inner turmoil in a believable and engaging manner (this is the "mouldbreaker" award, and is expressly subject to a majority table vote).

It's pretty hard to make the more difficult checks the game throws up without having Fate and Persona points; and so players have a reason to want them. My friend deliberately plays towards earning them. I tend to find that I accrue them without having to think too much about it, by following the leads I've set for myself in my character building, and leaning heavily on the mechanical aspects of the system (especially Circles and knowledge checks) that let me shape the framing of situations to make them bear immediately, and hard, upon my PC.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Because there's no contradiction? Or, I'm sorry, but, I'm not seeing one. I roll a Knowledge check of some sort, the mechanics tell me that I know X. That information is going to be used in how I resolve Y. How is that not telling me exactly what I think? Insight tells you that your character believes what he or she is being told (or, conversely disbelieves). Again, how is that not being told what you think?

But, in any case, since we actually agree, then let's move on from there. Since you now agree that, for example, Flaws are a mental mechanic, do you still have issues with mental mechanics?

There seems to be some serious doublespeak going on here from you.

In one breath you say that this is a non-existent boogieman: "mental mechanics tell me how to behave regardless of how I view my character".

In another you say: "Insight - tells you that you believe what you are being told."

Those statements are diametrically opposed. Full stop.