D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Ovinomancer]

Because not everyone wants to try to make their PC come to life or makes decisions for their PC based on what their PC would do. Some people play D&D like it’s a boardgame. For some of them, rules for this kind of thing are necessary.

Uhuh. I mean, I guess that's a take. "I don't understand something so I need to belittle it."

 

[Bill Zebub]

Some people play D&D like it’s a boardgame.

I don't hear anybody claiming they play D&D like it's a boardgame.

But I could be mistaken.

Hands up....who plays D&D like it's a boardgame?

Anybody?

...


Bueller?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Hands up....who plays D&D like it's a boardgame?

I have played D&D like a board game at times, sure. Plenty of people have, I’d say.

There’s nothing wrong with that.

Because not everyone wants to try to make their PC come to life or makes decisions for their PC based on what their PC would do. Some people play D&D like it’s a boardgame. For some of them, rules for this kind of thing are necessary.

I don’t think that’s even remotely what posters who’ve mentioned social mechanics are advocating for. It’s not about an inability to make their PC come to life or make decisions about what their PCs would do. Those things are generally pretty easy when it’s all up to the player to decide.

But if you place some constraints on how a player portrays a character…if you introduce some things that aren’t up to them…you open up some interesting avenues of play.

 

[Malmuria]

I don't think rpgs that have rules for various kinds of non-combat activities, especially social interaction, feel more like a boardgame when I play them; if anything, they are more explicitly "fiction-first." At the same time, I can see the value of more free-form roleplaying, and in many ways that's my preference.

 

[Oofta]

That's what I said! What I said what you're still using a system, it's just ad hoc and GM-says and this is your ruleset.

So ... a ruleset that explicitly has no predefined rules, where everything is a judgement call, is a ruleset?

Sure. Whatever you say. It's not worth arguing since by that definition everything and anything could be a ruleset.

 

[Oofta]

Because not everyone wants to try to make their PC come to life or makes decisions for their PC based on what their PC would do. Some people play D&D like it’s a boardgame. For some of them, rules for this kind of thing are necessary.

Then maybe a different game would work better for them. Just like pickup trucks are incredibly popular even though I would never own one.

I was just stating my opinion and preference.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So ... a ruleset that explicitly has no predefined rules, where everything is a judgement call, is a ruleset?

Sure. Whatever you say. It's not worth arguing since by that definition everything and anything could be a ruleset.

Yes. You've replaced a rule with "Bob says." It's still a conflict resolution process. When there's a conflict about which way the narration will go, you apply "Bob says" with you as Bob and that's what happens. I'm not sure how you don't see that you've just replaced one set of rules for conflict resolution with another, even if the other is just ad hoc Bob says.

 

[Lanefan]

And, just to add, when you have a mixed table with some people playing an RPG in Zero D mode and some players who try 3D play, the game is a complete train wreck and frustrating as all hell.

Having been part of such tables for a very long time, and having seen them be successful far more often than not, I'll say that it can work just fine provided each player is willing and able to admit that (some of) the others don't play like they do.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So ... a ruleset that explicitly has no predefined rules, where everything is a judgement call, is a ruleset?

Sure. Whatever you say. It's not worth arguing since by that definition everything and anything could be a ruleset.

Let me try this another way. I'm a player in your game and I'd like to engage in a social scene with an NPC. How do I know how this will work?

My understanding is that I will pretend to be my character and playact in that manner, putting my wants for this interaction into dialog. You will respond in kind as the NPC. A scene will play out, with you making decisions for the NPC and me for my character. You will determine what the NPC's responses and actions will be in response to me. As the player, I will retain full control over how my PC responds and reacts to you. You will decide the overall result of the interaction.

That close? Well, as the player, I would say the rules here are GM says.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is that you're looking for a terminology that says that one is a better form of the other -- that it is more. So, more dimensions is clearly better than fewer dimensions, so this terminology fits your conception that roleplaying has an arc of worse to better. I reject this concept outright. There are different ways to roleplay that achieve different goals. Playacting for entertainment purposes, for instance, is very valid and I engage in it often, but it's not superior to not playacting. It serves a different goal.
/snip

No, more just means more. Full stop. Doesn't mean better. Does mean different. That's a particular reading - that more=better - that is not present in the definition.

Plus, you keep insisting that more dimensions means "playacting" which I reject flat out. It's not about funny voices and amateur thespianism. That's a definition that has been added by those that take exception to the notion of different dimensions at play.

But, sure, if it floats your boat, let's reverse the numbers. Three Dimensional Role Play is pure pawn stance with all decisions being made in service to the resolution of the puzzles of the game. Zero Dimensional play ignores the in game puzzles in favor of portraying the character being played. I really could not care less.