D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Aldarc]

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.

I suspect that there was a more polite way of framing this than your choice here of accusing Hussar of "serious doublespeak," which will undoubtedly poison the well of fruitful conversation going forward. (And I suspect that you and other posters with views you are sympathetic towards may also run the risk of throwing stones in glass houses in that regard.)

So let me present you with a more polite and less accusatory alternative:

How do you reconcile your comment that "mental mechanics tell me how to behave regardless of how I view my character," which you describe as a boogieman, and your statement here "Insight - tells you that you believe you are being told"?

These ideas seem diametrically opposed to me. Perhaps you can clarify your position here.

 

[Oofta]

Surely effects like Inspiring Leader and Rally, which are obviously non-magical, nevertheless affect the emotional state of those who are granted the temp hp?

What does being granted those temp hp mean otherwise, in the fiction?

Fluff on something as meta-gamey as temp HP does not cause my PC to agree with another PC, does not cause them to be seduced, does not cause them to hesitate.

It's affecting a game mechanic, not what my PC thinks, feels or reacts.

 

[Oofta]

How do you know if your character likes dogs?

That's the gist of the issue right there. How do you know that? Was it established during character generation? Did you just decide that your character likes dogs? Now, if your character has a flaw along the lines of "doesn't like dogs", aren't the mechanics now telling you the emotional state of your character?

Now, "I don't like dogs" doesn't force you to do anything. But, by and large, that information will be incorporated into play. And it will be rewarded through inspiration.

Again, for the umpteenth time, mental mechanics do not force you to do anything by and large. They aren't mind control. They simply inform you how the character works, same as any other mechanic.

Right. Being convinced that another PC is right because they make a persuasive argument, being seduced or manipulated, hesitating at a critical moment ... not mind control.

 

[Oofta]

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.

As a DM I do nothing with flaws. Or alignment or anything else descriptive about the PC. A background may mean that the odds are better they'll know someone or something. That's it.

TIBF and alignment are tools for the player to use if they want. I tried rewarding inspiration for a session or two but we discussed it and it felt artificial. I leave how the player runs what the PC thinks* or feels up to the player.

*Which again, thinking is not knowledge. I can think all I want about who the 13th president is but if I don't know I don't know.

 

[Aldarc]

Right. Being convinced that another PC is right because they make a persuasive argument, being seduced or manipulated, hesitating at a critical moment ... not mind control.

Do you believe that these are "mind control" when these things happen to you (or others) in real life?

 

[Oofta]

Do you believe that these are "mind control" when these things happen to you (or others) in real life?

Several games are described as "this is what your PC does based on a dice pool or other mechanics". Just because the player can justify it after the fact doesn't mean it's not the player abdicating control over their PC to the system.

I'm done with this conversation. I want to be in control of what my PC does, how they act and what they think. It's a preference. That's all.

 

[Aldarc]

Several games are described as "this is what your PC does based on a dice pool or other mechanics". Just because the player can justify it after the fact doesn't mean it's not the player abdicating control over their PC to the system.

I'm done with this conversation. I want to be in control of what my PC does, how they act and what they think. It's a preference. That's all.

I’m not questioning your preference for authorial control over your PC; I’m asking you whether you think the things that you list constitute “mind control” when they transpire in real life. That is all.

 

[Oofta]

I’m not questioning your preference for authorial control over your PC; I’m asking you whether you think the things that you list constitute “mind control” when they transpire in real life. That is all.

I don't care about being realistic in gaming. I also don't think a game can ever be any more realistic than my own judgement calls.

 

[hawkeyefan]

As a DM I do nothing with flaws. Or alignment or anything else descriptive about the PC. A background may mean that the odds are better they'll know someone or something. That's it.

What about the Background Features? Do you allow those to be used as written? I find they’re one of the most potent social mechanics in the game. They give the player the ability to locate and receive aid from specific types of NPCs, depending on the background.

So the Folk Hero can secure food and shelter from the common folk. Do you let the player use this Backgroun

TIBF and alignment are tools for the player to use if they want. I tried rewarding inspiration for a session or two but we discussed it and it felt artificial. I leave how the player runs what the PC thinks* or feels up to the player.

Thanks for answering the question.

Do some of your players do more with their TIBFs than others? Do some of them allow these elements to create meaningful complications for them or for the group? Or is it always just flavor for things like in-character dialogue and portrayal, where they play it up, but if they didn’t nothing would go differently?

In my experience, many players will use those elements to help portray their character in that way, but as soon as a TIBF poses a possible problem, it quickly becomes meaningless, and the player discards it in favor of doing what’s best for the group.

Is that your experience? Do you find players take on those TIBFs as a more essential part of their character? In the same way that Attributes and Saving Throws form their ability to function in combat, do the TIBFs significantly shape their social performance?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I suspect that there was a more polite way of framing this than your choice here of accusing Hussar of "serious doublespeak," which will undoubtedly poison the well of fruitful conversation going forward. (And I suspect that you and other posters with views you are sympathetic towards may also run the risk of throwing stones in glass houses in that regard.)

So let me present you with a more polite and less accusatory alternative:

Thank you for calling this out. Of course, you are correct here.
I apologize for my rudeness - it really was unnecessary. Frustration over perceived illogic is no excuse.