D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Lanefan]

Do you react similarly to combat?

After all, the DM is telling you that you have lost HP. You have lost conciousness. Hell, you might even be dead, with zero input from you. Do you have a similar level of "I don't think Mr. B would really do that?"

Well, no; because by the time any of these things occur the point of decision has long since passed. You've already committed to combat, and in so doing have tacitly agreed to accept whatever outcome may emerge.

If the character makes the decision to commit to combat without any input from you-his-player then you saying "I don't think Mr. B would really do that" is valid if in your-as-his-player's eyes he wouldn't.

 

[Lanefan]

Question for everyone here : How would you feel if either the GM or the player of another player character wanted to have a conversation to critique your play or discuss why you performed a particular action? Would you be open to critiques around fictional positioning?

I'd engage but with internal red flags flying as to what the underlying motive behind said conversation might be.

Is the conversation being held to let me know I've been inconsistent in a PC's characterization; - or - is the conversation being held in order to legitimately give me some ideas or alternatives I just hadn't thought of? If yes, fine; if I've been inconsistent and haven't realized it I appreciate the heads-up; and I don't always think of everything.

Is the conversation being held so someone can tell me they don't like what my character does in the game (assuming I haven't gone beyond the bounds of what the table generally allows/accepts; - or - is the conversation being held out-of-character in an attempt to, for example, influence my character into a certain course of action in the fiction that it wouldn't otherwise take? If yes, not fine; and once I realize this is the underlying motive my response will be very blunt and probably not fit for Eric's Grandma.

 

[Lanefan]

This happened in one of the BW episodes I posted (a couple of times) upthread: Aedhros drew his black-metal knife Heartseeker, ready to murder the innkeeper for his gold. The GM called for a Steel check to perform this cold-blooded action, and I failed and so Aedhros hesitated.

I learned that Aedhros is not as ruthless as he aspires to be.

Your take is you learned this about Aedhros, and that's cool.

My take is that you were told this about Aedhros (by the dice) and the learning piece is your narrative rationale for what the dice did; but also that the game (via the GM) denied you your rightful agency over your character's actions.

I think there are moments of player decision that can also be experienced as exploration of the character: the situation in play calls for some sort of decision to be made, and that decision has to - in some fashion - encompass or reflect the weight of what has come before; and so while there may be indefinitely many ways of going forward, there are also constraints that mean not any way of going forward is possible.

Agreed. Further, there's going to be times when some or even all of the ways of going forward are going to be in some way disruptive to the party, if the decision's result is to "in some fashion - encompass or reflect the weight of what has come before", to use your terms. An example might be where a character has over the long run become so teed off with another character in the party that the decision* has come down to either a) duel with or kill the other character or b) leave the party or c) convince everyone else to drive the other character out of the party.

* - a decision I've been forced to make for a PC of mine once or twice.

 

[Hussar]

The DM never tells me what attack to use, what spell to cast, when my PC will run away. Apples to oranges.

As far as sanity rules go, they're optional rules that I don't use.

Beyond that, do you have a point?

No, it isn't apples to oranges. The DM is telling you that your character is falling down (after being tripped by another character). Your DM is telling you that you cannot fight anymore.

In every case, the DM, through the mechanics, is telling you how your character is behaving, within the limits of the mechanics. You failed your check, so, you trip on the wire strung across the hallway and fall on your face, take D4 damage is the DM telling you how your character is behaving.

Now, you are saying you don't use Sanity, or Piety rules. Do you similarly not use inspiration or Ideals? Again, my point is, where is your cut off line? Is it ANY mechanics which impact the mental/emotional state of your character (besides flat our mind control of course)? And, if that's true, why is it acceptable that the DM can dictate your physical state? The DM can declare that you are now Exhausted, for example. So, any physical changes is perfectly fine, but, all mental ones are not?

I guess I'm just having a tough time seeing the difference. Your character is a high dexterity acrobat Rogue who routinely walks on tightropes, can climb a waterfall and has the reflexes of a cat. And I just made him look like a Keystone Kop because you failed a Perception check. How is that not impacting the portrayal of that character?

 

[Aldarc]

My take is that you were told this about Aedhros (by the dice) and the learning piece is your narrative rationale for what the dice did; but also that the game (via the GM) denied you your rightful agency over your character's actions.

I too rant to the wind against the GM/system denying my character's proper agency over my character's actions every time that I miss on an attack roll.

 

[pemerton]

Your take is you learned this about Aedhros, and that's cool.

My take is that you were told this about Aedhros (by the dice)

So you're an adherent of telling isn't teaching?

 

[Hussar]

Funny. You keep telling people that what they can't do, despite people telling you that they do indeed find their PCs taking unexpected turns.

I'm not claiming people are channeling someone, but the decisions people make aren't always conscious ones. It may never be true for you, but it's part of the creative process for a lot of people.

Believe it or not, people aren't all like you. When I get into role playing, DMing or writing stories, there's times when it just flows out without conscious forethought. It doesn't really matter how you label it, but your "it's all you" only tells part of the story.

So, who else is there? Can you write something into your character that you don't know? How exactly do you do that?

The whole, "the character is writing itself" thing is all well and good and it sounds really profound, but, at the end of the day, it doesn't really mean anything. It's just a shorthand way of saying that the character was easy for the writer to wrap his or her head around.

 

[pemerton]

I too rant to the wind against the GM/system denying my character's proper agency over my character's actions every time that I miss on an attack roll.

Ah. But I rant to the wind against denials of your proper agency every time you and your fellow RPGers agree that your PC missed on an attack because of a failed roll.

Thus do I beat you in quixotic universalisation of my preferences.

 

[Hussar]

Well, no; because by the time any of these things occur the point of decision has long since passed. You've already committed to combat, and in so doing have tacitly agreed to accept whatever outcome may emerge.

If the character makes the decision to commit to combat without any input from you-his-player then you saying "I don't think Mr. B would really do that" is valid if in your-as-his-player's eyes he wouldn't.

You never have PC's surprised? Never use a pit trap in a hallway? No ambushes? That seems a bit doubtful.

Unless, your saying that just by sitting down, there is a tacit agreement that the DM can do bad things to your character, but, that's not what I think you mean.

 

[Aldarc]

Ah. But I rant to the wind against denials of your proper agency every time you and your fellow RPGers agree that your PC missed on an attack because of a failed roll.

Thus do I beat you in quixotic universalisation of my preferences.

My character would never miss on an attack roll, and I expect that my roleplay of my character be respected in that regard.