D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Xetheral]

I read your post as making some assertions:

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.

Then I apologize for not being clear: I was not intending to make a general assertion about "what defines character" for everyone. I was trying to assert what I feel defines a character as a person for me. I entirely agree that my idiosyncratic perspective on what defines a character is "not inherent to RPGing", and was not trying to suggest otherwise.

As a favor, I would ask that in the future when quoting me you not omit phrases such as "in my opinion". Although in this case my use of that phrase was evidently not enough to avoid the implication that I was making a general assertion, by omitting that phrase from your quote you still changed the meaning of my post.

 

[Xetheral]

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.

Because my point that you bolded is specific to my approach to defining a character as a person, I don't think it makes sense to apply it to the wider discourse. Everyone is going to have their own opinion on what defines a character as a person.

From my perspective, having the quality of being "a great swordsman" does not require connecting with every attack roll, just as having the quality of being "knowledgeable" doesn't require knowing every obscure fact. The game mechanics are simply used to determine which specific attacks hit and which specific obscure facts are known. By contrast, I see having the quality of being "cool under pressure" as requiring a fundamentally higher level of consistency that reliance on random resolution can't provide.

In other words, I see having the quality of being "cool under pressure" as implying a degree of dependability that is contradicted by the uncertainty involved when relying on a game mechanic for resolution. So if there's sufficient uncertainty that you need a game mechanic to determine whether a character stays cool in a particular situation, then, from my perspective, that character isn't cool under that type of pressure.

I understand the parallel that you see between hitting in combat and staying cool under pressure, and I respect it, even though they don't look parallel to me based on how I approach defining a character as a person. Do you understand the difference I see between hitting in combat and staying cool under pressure, even though they look parallel to you based on how you approach defining a character as a person?

If so, great! We've reached mutual understanding. If not, and you have follow-up questions to try to better understand the difference I see, I'll do my best to explain. If you don't understand the difference I see and don't want to continue discussing it, that's also fine with me, I just ask that you accept that the difference is real to me and informs my preferences with regards to game mechanics.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Sigh.

Can you show me an example of this? In any game mind you. An example where mental mechanics would have your PC be seduced, for example when the player has no options or choices going in?

It makes it really, really hard to have this conversation when you're not willing to actually look at the mechanics that actually exist.

Like I said, what do YOU think that mental mechanics look like? Because, while you blow it off as "meta gamey", Inspiring Leader is EXACTLY what mental mechanics look like. Since you apparently don't have an issue with Inspiring Leadership, then, perhaps your resistance to mental mechanics isn't actually due to what these types of mechanics actually are, but, instead you are arguing against something that only exists in potential.

 

[Hussar]

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.

No worries. I've a pretty thick skin and I'm more than guilty of being less than ahem errr shall we say kind to other people's points of view? From time to time. Err....

But, the thing is, there was actually two different conversations going on, and that's where you're seeing the contradiction. One conversation was that D&D does not have ANY mechanics that tell the player what the character is thinking. That's not true. There are a number of mechanics that very much DO tell the player what the character is thinking. Note, these mechanics don't actually force the player to act on that knowledge - Inspiring Leadership being a perfect example. The character is inspired by the other character's speech and can fight better. It's pretty obvious that something is happening here, although the exact details are pretty fuzzy. But, in any case, Character A has made a rousing speech and Character B is inspired by it.

So, yes, there are mechanics that tell you that your character is thinking or feeling something in the game.

However, as I said, those mechanics never cross the threshold of telling the player, "You must now do X because of this". Yup, you are inspired. Until your next long rest you have X Temp HP. Which, by and large, is exactly what mental mechanics look like, if a bit on the simplistic side. The idea that mental mechanics mean that there is a loss of player agency is simply not true. Or, at least, no more true than missing in combat is a loss of player agency over the character.

 

[Oofta]

Sigh.

Can you show me an example of this? In any game mind you. An example where mental mechanics would have your PC be seduced, for example when the player has no options or choices going in?

It makes it really, really hard to have this conversation when you're not willing to actually look at the mechanics that actually exist.

Like I said, what do YOU think that mental mechanics look like? Because, while you blow it off as "meta gamey", Inspiring Leader is EXACTLY what mental mechanics look like. Since you apparently don't have an issue with Inspiring Leadership, then, perhaps your resistance to mental mechanics isn't actually due to what these types of mechanics actually are, but, instead you are arguing against something that only exists in potential.

Entering a contest and if you lose you are convinced of someone else's argument or "Apocalypse World - the carrot and/or stick consequence for one player (in the play of their PC) when another player (via their PC) succeeds on Seduce/Manipulate vs them.". Another was hesitating at a critical moment.

I understand you can justify after the fact, but it is still a game mechanic deciding what my PC does and thinks. I don't want that type of of game element. Inspiring leader text is fluff, the only thing it does is a meta-game temp HP.

Feel free to disagree, I'm not going to respond any more to you.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I'm not sure what the it's is in your second sentence.

But I don't understand how you deny that getting temp hp from a rallying speech or supportive word is not affecting how your PC feels. In my mind, at least, the literary model for these sorts of things (in the FRPG context) is Gandalf providing support and leadership to the defenders of Minas Tirith during the siege, before the arrival of the Rohirrim. And the description of that is precisely in terms of generating feelings (of comfort, resolve, etc) in the defenders.

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.

It seems to me that sometimes, by control, you mean something like being free to declare actions for my PC (eg "in control of what my PC does, how they act". And I agree that getting temp hp doesn't affect that.

But I don't see how it doesn't affect what your PC thinks and feels. If nothing about your PC's mental state has changed, where do the temp hp come from?

 

[pemerton]

I was not intending to make a general assertion about "what defines character" for everyone. I was trying to assert what I feel defines a character as a person for me.

Do you extend this view beyond RPGing? Eg, and to pick up on @hawkeyefan's example from upthread, do you think that the character of Han Solo is "redefined", or handled inconsistently, in the original Star Wars movie (ie because he comes back without payment to save Luke and the Rebellion)?

 

[Oofta]

I'm not sure what the it's is in your second sentence.

But I don't understand how you deny that getting temp hp from a rallying speech or supportive word is not affecting how your PC feels. In my mind, at least, the literary model for these sorts of things (in the FRPG context) is Gandalf providing support and leadership to the defenders of Minas Tirith during the siege, before the arrival of the Rohirrim. And the description of that is precisely in terms of generating feelings (of comfort, resolve, etc) in the defenders.


It seems to me that sometimes, by control, you mean something like being free to declare actions for my PC (eg "in control of what my PC does, how they act". And I agree that getting temp hp doesn't affect that.

But I don't see how it doesn't affect what your PC thinks and feels. If nothing about your PC's mental state has changed, where do the temp hp come from?

I'm done with this. I've explained repeatedly and this is going nowhere.

 

[pemerton]

Can you show me an example of this? In any game mind you. An example where mental mechanics would have your PC be seduced, for example when the player has no options or choices going in?

I'm not sure whether you think Prince Valiant is an example of this.

I've posted upthread, multiple times, a couple of examples from Prince Valiant: the use of the Incite Lust special effect; and also opposed checks (Glamourie vs Presence). Two of those latter involved Lady Lorette of Lothian vs Sir Gerren. One he won, and as a result he (as determined by his player) did not open the gates for her; another he lost, and during a hunt Sir Gerrent and Lady Lorette went off from the main group and had a good time in the woods. A third of these checks involved Lady Lorette vs Sir Morgath (the "victim" of Incite Lust), who failed but not utterly - and so he kissed her passionately good bye but did not go any further. (The player had taken steps, in play and as his PC, to help shore up his resolve against his infatuation, including having his wife travel from Britain to France to join him. I don't know if that's what you have in mind by referring to "options or choices".)

 

[pemerton]

I'm done with this. I've explained repeatedly and this is going nowhere.

Well, taken at face value the explanation I read was that you ignore the fiction and treat the temp hp as purely metagame. I wasn't sure you really meant it as it seemed at face value, but apparently you did!

For my part, I don't find that sort of approach to be what I'm looking for in RPGing.