D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Charlaquin]

Let us take (c) and assume that you've got an idealized version of what you're describing.

After that, where does the conception of the PC come from? What does the "share breakdown" (lets call it) look like and who/what is responsible for it as play progresses?

I tried to explain that in my answer - the concept is fundamentally the players, but the demands of setting, scenario, and team play place some restrictions on that concept. I suppose the player is responsible for it as play progresses? But my statement about being a considerate roleolayer still applies.

Take Coleville's video on The Last of Us.

Not sure what the etiquette is on spoilers for an 8 year old game, but that’s a lot of detail about the end of a very plot-focused game.

What then? Did we (the table as a collective...including the player who is playing Joel) just learn something about Joel we didn't know before? Or is the player of Joel pissed off?

Well, given that the mechanic that would cause Joel to hesitate is part of the system being used in your example, I’d call that mechanic part of the buy-in that restricts the player’s character concept. In another system, that wouldn’t be part of the buy-in. Joel’s player might or might not be pissed off, but I would hope, given that they agreed to play a game using this system, they are at least understanding that this is part of how the game works, even if they’re a little bummed out about how it worked out in this moment.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But I don't think these are reasons not to engage in aesthetic judgement. Some movies are undoubtedly movies, yet aren't very good - they don't reveal or even really hint at the full aesthetic possibility of cinema. My own view is that, as soon as one is looking at RPGing through a lens other than that of board/wargaming - eg by starting to think about the quality of the fiction and the stories it generates - then it is reasonable to think about what sorts of approaches are better or worse for realising the aesthetic potential.

That's fair and makes sense, but (to extend your movie analogy) there's a difference between "I prefer documentaries, and for people who like making documentaries here are techniques that I think result in a superior film..." and "Documentaries are the highest form of filmmaking; action films and rom-coms aren't really cinema." I'm not sure what the latter accomplishes.

 

[Manbearcat]

I tried to explain that in my answer - the concept is fundamentally the players, but the demands of setting, scenario, and team play place some restrictions on that concept. I suppose the player is responsible for it as play progresses? But my statement about being a considerate roleolayer still applies.

Again, assume all of this is in play (the requisite considerations for the collective.

What is the proper noun for "it" in the bolded above? The conception of the character? And how is "responsible" here different than "nearly the exclusive shareholder (of the conception of the character)? Responsible to... (who/what)?

Not sure what the etiquette is on spoilers for an 8 year old game, but that’s a lot of detail about the end of a very plot-focused game.

Well, if someone were to watch the opening video, they basically get the thrust of the situation. Further, if someone is watching that long video, they've likely played the game (so the spoilers inherent to the lead post video aren't doing any spoiling)!

Well, given that the mechanic that would cause Joel to hesitate is part of the system being used in your example, I’d call that mechanic part of the buy-in that restricts the player’s character concept. In another system, that wouldn’t be part of the buy-in. Joel’s player might or might not be pissed off, but I would hope, given that they agreed to play a game using this system, they are at least understanding that this is part of how the game works, even if they’re a little bummed out about how it worked out in this moment.

Alright, so given what you've written above...a question:

How would you describe the difference in terms of roleplaying taxonomy (which is basically what Coleville's video was about) between the following two game dynamics (if you had to explain them to someone who had never played a TTRPG before):

* Players come into the game with high resolution backstories, fully-formed conception of the character, are (nearly) the exclusive shareholders of their PCing, and GMing Best Practices is to ensure that conception is encoded (as a through line) of play.

* Players come into the game with pithy backstory (perhaps 2-3 statements that encompass a thematic relationship/need/belief), a malleable conception of the character, are majority shareholders of the PC (but just barely...other participants and system each have a lot of "say"), and GMing Best Practices + system = "challenge this character relentlessly so play firms up that backstory and conception."

How you would you differentiate this (particularly in terms of roleplaying) to someone who you are going to run one of these games for (and they get to pick which based on your description)?

 

[Bill Zebub]

First question: how and why do you-as-player know there's a trap there when your PC doesn't?

I never answered this: I hadn't really thought about it, but maybe it's because I've DM'd that adventure? Or the DM slipped up with his layering in our VTT? Or I noticed that every square with a Fibonacci number is trapped but my 7 Int barbarian wouldn't know that? Does it matter?

But that got me thinking. Let's say it's the math answer: I, the player, have realized there's a pattern to the traps, and with two squares to choose from, I'm pretty sure one is trapped, but my thick-skulled barbarian probably wouldn't know that. How does one handle it? (Note: I really don't want to make this about which option is "true roleplaying" I just think it's interesting to discuss how different people would do it.)

Here are some options I can think of:
- Act on it or announce it because...why not? What's the problem here? 7 Int isn't a vegetable, and sometimes not-bright people have flashes of insight.
- Say nothing and let the rest of the party decide what to do.
- Let the dice decide for you with an ability check
- Choose the correct path, but give a roleplaying reason, e.g. mysterious sixth sense for traps, "damn the torpedoes", etc. (Note: this doesn't necessarily mean you are deceiving the rest of the table; they may be ok with this style of play.)
- Intentionally make the wrong choice

What else?

Oh, and the follow-up question is: let's say the player is right and there is a trap on square 55...or at least the DM has previously decided there is one there...but the DM has their own ideas about how this should unfold. Is it ok to change the location of the trap after the player has made their decision? With or without saying anything aloud?

 

[Malmuria]

There can be a lot of friction in dnd between the motivations of an individual character, the motivations of the party, and the "motivations" in a sense, of the adventure. So you can make a character in 3d, but there will also be advice to make that character someone who gets along with the party, has a reason to be friendly towards them (no pvp), and has a reason to go on adventures. There are further moments when the motivations of the group might misalign with the adventure--maybe the party doesn't want to help stop the hobgoblin army, they want to go to the plane of water, etc.

What holds the game together is what Colvile in other videos calls the "social contract" of the game, the implied assumption that people will make social characters who have an interest in going on the prepared adventure. In his railroad vs. linear video, I think he has an example of a player who asked if they could ditch their current mission and go to another area of the map (I don't watch the chain, so I don't get the references). Colvile's response was that they could, but that they would have to pause the game so that he could spend a few weeks prepping that area, and it was implied that he did not want that scenario to happen. He referred to himself saying this as "calling the player's bluff," in order to guide the party back to the "prepared content."

I don't know if that player in that instance wanted to go to a different part of the map because of some complex 3-d reason or for a 0-d reason. In the latter game, I think the question of "do you want to go on the adventure or not" is valid; that is, the dms world is as 'superficial' as the characters. But what if it was the former? What if one of your 3-d characters feels the need to travel back home to make sure their family was safe, while other members of the party want to continue on to the adventure site. Dnd doesn't have a good way of handling this kind of split-screening in general, but Colvile's soft railroading is probably the worst way of doing it? He's basically taking the character's dimensionality and saying no, you can't do that here. When this happens more than a few times, players stop trying, because they find themselves as 3d characters in a 1d world. And Colvile does this by forcing player dynamics (the "social contract" of the table) onto character dynamics ('make a character that wants to go on the adventure'), and does so in an implicit way ("calling his bluff" rather than talking through the motivations of the PCs).

 

[el-remmen]

Here are some options I can think of:
- Act on it or announce it because...why not? What's the problem here? 7 Int isn't a vegetable, and sometimes not-bright people have flashes of insight.
- Say nothing and let the rest of the party decide what to do.
- Let the dice decide for you with an ability check
- Choose the correct path, but give a roleplaying reason, e.g. mysterious sixth sense for traps, "damn the torpedoes", etc. (Note: this doesn't necessarily mean you are deceiving the rest of the table; they may be ok with this style of play.)
- Intentionally make the wrong choice

What else?

What I would do if playing that barbarian is mention it OOC to the player of the 18 INT Wizard, so he could announce he's figured it out. I have mentioned this in another thread - but I encourage players of high INT, WIS, or CHA characters (I figure 14 or higher is more than the any player would have ) to poll the group and make choices based on more opinions and POVs than any one person has access to as a way to represent that Intelligence or Wisdom or Charm. Ultimately, the player still makes the choice of what their character does (even smart people can make bad choices) but they "know more" before deciding.

 

[Aldarc]

2) Who/what "owns the majority share" of the conception of a PC? Is it:

The answer is "The GM who decides what the PC knows or doesn't know when it comes to trolls."

 

[Tallifer]

I think that a roleplayer's choice of literature influences his playstyle. More traditional fantasy like Tolkien, Lewis or Burroughs have almost no interior monologue or psychologically tortured backstories for the heroes; Malory has heroes succumb to vices but their inmost thoughts are not written out.

 

[Umbran]

If people are playing a game with the goal of succeeding at the mission, and they have a miserable time playing, then don't they need to revisit their choice of game?

I don't see that RPGs are very different from other games in this respect.

Define "choice of game".

If I have a miserable time playing D&D, I don't necessarily need to revisit my choice to play D&D. There are many possible reasons for the miserable result, only one of which is the ruleset itself. I may need to revisit how I am playing D&D - it isn't like there's only one way to play.

 

[Charlaquin]

Again, assume all of this is in play (the requisite considerations for the collective.

What is the proper noun for "it" in the bolded above? The conception of the character? And how is "responsible" here different than "nearly the exclusive shareholder (of the conception of the character)? Responsible to... (who/what)?

I believe “it” in your question was referring to the “share breakdown,” though I believe I misread you and thought “it” referred to the conception of the character. I’m not entirely sure I follow what you are/were asking here.

Alright, so given what you've written above...a question:

How would you describe the difference in terms of roleplaying taxonomy (which is basically what Coleville's video was about) between the following two game dynamics (if you had to explain them to someone who had never played a TTRPG before):

* Players come into the game with high resolution backstories, fully-formed conception of the character, are (nearly) the exclusive shareholders of their PCing, and GMing Best Practices is to ensure that conception is encoded (as a through line) of play.

* Players come into the game with pithy backstory (perhaps 2-3 statements that encompass a thematic relationship/need/belief), a malleable conception of the character, are majority shareholders of the PC (but just barely...other participants and system each have a lot of "say"), and GMing Best Practices + system = "challenge this character relentlessly so play firms up that backstory and conception."

I’d generally describe the former as creating a detailed character before play begins and playing to see how that character reacts to the events that arise during play, whereas the latter I would describe as developing or “discovering” a character through play.

How you would you differentiate this (particularly in terms of roleplaying) to someone who you are going to run one of these games for (and they get to pick which based on your description)?

I’m not sure they need to be two different kinds of game. I think players tend to have an inherent preference for one approach or the other, and as DM I am happy to accommodate both approaches in the same game.