D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Malmuria]

Romance: the Boardgame.

Coming soon to a gaming store near you!

 

[pemerton]

But, does everything we talk about HAVE TO BE specifically about RPGs?

I mean, we are engaged in gameplay. So, it seems to me that discussion of gameplay, in general, is still going to be useful to folks.

My point was that no one would try to explain what counts as successful play of chess by saying there is nothing more to be said than "If you had fun, you played right." So why do so many people say that for RPGing?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

My point was that no one would try to explain what counts as successful play of chess by saying there is nothing more to be said than "If you had fun, you played right." So why do so many people say that for RPGing?

You know why for that specific example- because chess is a game with a binary win condition. You win, or you lose. To play chess necessarily implies that you are trying to fulfill that condition. You can play it "better" or "worse."

On the other hand, TTRPGs notoriously had the issue of trying to explain to people that they were not, in fact, about "winning," (or in the parlance of this thread, now, "completing the missions.")

In a certain sense. the attempt to define for others what counts as successful play in TTRPGs causes unnecessary conflict, simply because there is no specific win condition for most TTRPGs, and what people enjoy and get out of TTRPGs varies from person to person and group to group.

YMMV.

Edit- I should add that you can also draw in chess before someone chimes in!

 

[overgeeked]

Well, that's because, to me, "Portrayal of character" is key to playing a ROLE playing game. WIthout portrayal of character, you're no longer playing an RPG. But, that's my personal bias there.

So unless you're trying to portray a character you're not playing a role-playing game. Great. What's portraying a character look like? Is it silly voices and cosplay? Is it making decisions based on separate criteria than what you would do, i.e. making decisions based on what the character would do? Or is it as simple as Grabthar attacks the orc with his hammer?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well, that's because, to me, "Portrayal of character" is key to playing a ROLE playing game. WIthout portrayal of character, you're no longer playing an RPG. But, that's my personal bias there.

Not just personal bias but personal opinion.

My definition of a role-playing game is that you, the player, feel like you are in the role of your character, and not just controlling units or pawns that aren’t part of yourself. How you achieve that state is up to you.

 

[overgeeked]

My point was that no one would try to explain what counts as successful play of chess by saying there is nothing more to be said than "If you had fun, you played right." So why do so many people say that for RPGing?

Because RPGs aren't chess. They're fundamentally a different kind of game. There's very few ways to play them wrong and a whole lot of ways to play them right.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You know why for that specific example- because chess is a game with a binary win condition. You win, or you lose. To play chess necessarily implies that you are trying to fulfill that condition. You can play it "better" or "worse."

I don’t agree with that. Yes, chess may have a binary win condition, but playing does not necessarily mean that’s your sole reason for playing.

You could be playing for fun, whether you win or lose.

You could be playing knowing you’re going to lose, but hoping that you’ll learn something from your opponent and become a better player.

You could be playing just to spend some time with the other player.

The point is that saying any game is about having fun is kind of pointless. It’s true, but it doesn't really reveal anything about the game or about the participants.

What else do we get from games? What other goals do they have? These are the questions that will have different answers. Where we actually share and learn.

Saying that there is something beyond fun isn’t an attempt to define successful play for anyone else so much as it’s an invitation for others to share what that may be. Until we do that, no one can understand how play may be successful or unsuccessful for anyone else beyond the very basic “it was fun”.

 

[Malmuria]

We've recently had a couple of (very long) threads related to importance or not of racial ASI. For some people, it seemed, racial ASI was a necessary mechanic for races to feel distinct and for the world to have verisimilitude; without it, races were just "humans in funny hats." Others (myself included) felt that most of the work done to make races feel distinct was happening in the fiction, that is, in the world, not in the rules.

 

[Oofta]

My point was that no one would try to explain what counts as successful play of chess by saying there is nothing more to be said than "If you had fun, you played right." So why do so many people say that for RPGing?

As others have said, there is no one true way to play the game. Some people play a game that rarely involves combat and hours spent on things that people would find mind-numbingly boring while others break out the beer and pretzels so Grognard the Barbarian can kick in the door and kick derrieres with nary a word said in character.

There is no competition for most games. The PCs may win the day or they may go down in ignominious defeat. They may be heroes that stop the apocalypse of the week or build up the local thieves guild. How is anyone going to come up with what it means as successful play with all the possible options other than ... wait for it ... having fun.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don’t agree with that. Yes, chess may have a binary win condition, but playing does not necessarily mean that’s your sole reason for playing.

You could be playing for fun, whether you win or lose.

You could be playing knowing you’re going to lose, but hoping that you’ll learn something from your opponent and become a better player.

You could be playing just to spend some time with the other player.

The point is that saying any game is about having fun is kind of pointless. It’s true, but it doesn't really reveal anything about the game or about the participants.

What else do we get from games? What other goals do they have? These are the questions that will have different answers. Where we actually share and learn.

Saying that there is something beyond fun isn’t an attempt to define successful play for anyone else so much as it’s an invitation for others to share what that may be. Until we do that, no one can understand how play may be successful or unsuccessful for anyone else beyond the very basic “it was fun”.

You can disagree all you want! No worries there.

That said, the specific example was chess. And I was explaining what I assumed was self-evident; chess (and other, similar, games) are not TTRPGs. In fact, this is such a well-known issue that it is a primary problem that has been experienced since the beginning of TTRPGs when it comes to explaining how they work to people who are used to more traditional styles of play.

Now, moving to your specific issue- people are describing, for other people, the "point" of a game (like D&D) and more particularly stating that the point is (paraphrasing here) "completing missions."

But that's not it. If, instead, it was a practice to speak to the people who are playing the games in question and determining what they are getting from the game ... as opposed to telling them what the point of their game should be, then it would be more likely that there would be a receptive understanding.

Reiterated another way- yes, people can get "enjoyment" from TTRPGs in multiple ways. There are different methods to enhance their enjoyment that can be discussed. But I have rarely seen people say, "You know what? You're right! I shouldn't pay attention to my own goals, and instead listen to what other people define as successful play for me. Because that ... sounds like fun."

But I could be wrong on that. I often am! If it's super-important to you, you can discount fun when it comes to TTRPGs as much as you want. As for me, I tend to elevate fun over high-falutin' concepts and words that I don't understand and can't spell.