D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[pemerton]

Wow, why does EVERYONE get to say this except me?

Because you're the only person to actually assert that the original ToH tournament was not a RPG tournament!

 

[Xetheral]

Because the player is never objective.

No matter what the player decides, it will always come from the very subjective position of the player. Even players who delight in torturing their characters are still making choices based on that particular preference of play. IOW, the player will nearly always choose a response that the player thinks of. Obviously.

Take a DM's example. The monsters have downed a PC but there are still standing PC's around. The monster's turn comes up. Now, as the DM, you could instantly kill the downed PC - two automatic death fails kills the PC in this example (assume the character has already failed one death save). So, as the DM, do you whack the PC or attack someone else? Well, either way you decide is tainted by your awareness of the table. If you choose to kill Dave's character, he might be kinda pissed off. OTOH, if you choose not to kill Dave's character, are you making that choice because it makes sense in the fiction or because you just don't want to kill Dave's character? But, if you kill Dave's character, are you doing it to avoid looking like you are avoiding not killing a character - on and on and on, around in circles.

So, if you're me, you let the dice decide. 1-2, kill Dave's character, 3-6 move on to the next target. It's objective and fair and doesn't put me, as DM, square in the spotlight for whacking Dave's character.

The same goes for players. Players will never choose something that they don't think of themselves. They can't. Obviously. So, that's where mechanics come in.

I see the increased objectivity of relying on a game mechanic to determine the impact on the character as impeding the believability of the result, not as enhancing it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No one is confusing anything when an author says that it feels like a character is writing itself. It's a statement about feelings and perception.

It seems to me that it is being confused as coming from the character.

Bold emphasis added. Why does what explore "should" mean even enter the picture here? If we agree that we're using the word "explore" differently, then we're just discussing different concepts using the same terminology. We could discuss in more detail the concept each of us is describing, but I see no value in a discussion of which of our conflicting definitions of "explore" is superior. By what metric would we ever resolve that difference of opinion, and what would be the value even if we could?

Sure, okay, if you don't like the difference between exploring your character and expressing your character that started this side conversation, what terms would you like to use for the difference between the absolute control over character such that the character always does what you want it to (even if such wants may be surprising to you) and where the character can push back against your wants and do things that are things you've decided to have the character do? I mean, instead of discussing the intent here, you seem to be very interested in owning exploration.

Trying to address our underlying differences rather than focusing on our different usage of "explore", I have a substantive question regarding what you wrote in the quoted post. You object to the idea that surprise felt at one's unexpected choices for a character can be described as "being surprised by the character" on the grounds that doing so is problematically reifying the character. But doesn't describing surprise felt at the result of a game mechanic that tells you about your character as "being surprised by the character" require exactly the same degree of reification? In both cases the surprise originally results from something external to the character--why do you consider it ok to ascribe that surprise to the character in one case but not in the other?

No, because I'm not exchanging my thinking for the thinking of the character and then pretending it was the character's thinking. This is the problematic reification -- the statement that my thinking is really the character's thinking. This is an entirely internal process. The other is legitimately reacting to external inputs. The same reification is not being used.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I agree. The DM shouldn't have any control.

The mechanics on the other hand...

The 5e mechanics might provide boundaries or limits to what a PC can actually do. But they do not prescribe exactly what the PC can try to do. Short of some kind of severe magical compulsion, that is squarely up to the player. What the PC tries to do might automatically fail, might require a roll, or might automatically succeed. Am I missing something here?

 

[Desdichado]

No, because I'm not exchanging my thinking for the thinking of the character and then pretending it was the character's thinking. This is the problematic reification -- the statement that my thinking is really the character's thinking. This is an entirely internal process. The other is legitimately reacting to external inputs. The same reification is not being used.

You're right. DIFFERENT reification is being used. Either way, the character isn't "pushing back" against your control. It's mechanics. Rolling dice and consulting a rule. It's still equally abstract, and there's no "character exploration" involved. In fact, arguably it's quite a bit more abstract, because there's no subjective, personal touch to it.

In any case, it seems like all of these types of discussions end up becoming arguments over semantics and what word you used to describe something not fitting what someone else thinks of that phrase, etc. This is always how this goes in a place like this. It's probably unavoidable. Maybe if it had been expressed differently, it could have been avoided, but... probably not.

I think there's some value in a discussion about "I like games where there are actual systems that determine your character's reactions to certain types of stimuli, rather than simply player fiat. For example, look at how it works in XYZ." Maybe I missed it, because I don't pretend to have read the entire thread. But have there actually been (m)any examples about which such a discussion could be had other than one or two Burning Wheel references? Or has it always been just a debate about what it means to explore vs express character?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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?

For the most part, I think it's context dependent, but as a general rule I tend to disfavor it.

I would view this question by turning it around- when do I critique the play (assumedly as in roleplay) or choose to critique why someone performed a particular action. When would I say something like, "Oh no, your character wouldn't do that. Why did you?"

And the answer is pretty much never. People may have reasons, some simple, some complicated, for playing a character in a way different than I would. There are times that might admire those choices because I couldn't come up with them, and times I might question why they are being made- but it's not my place to critique why the person is making them. If there was a magical "best" way to play a character, there wouldn't be many interesting choices. Some of the most interesting choices I have seen arose in a context where I was originally surprised by the choice, and only later did I understand it.

The exception is when a player is consistently making choices that are disruptive to the group; then, it's not about the choices, but about the effect on the table. That will involve a tactful conversation.

As always, YMMV.

 

[Desdichado]

You can always talk about character portrayal. If a character does something truly unexpected or shocking to the rest of the group, that's probably an interesting discussion.

I'd not have much patience or interest in a discussion along the lines of "Your character wouldn't do that. You're playing him wrong." I'd love to have a conversation about "Wow, what a shocking turn of character development for your character! Didn't see that coming at all. What led him to make that decision?"

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well... yeah. D&D and D&D-like games are fundamentally, unless you play in a pure, Talisman-like hack-n-slash format where characters are just game pieces, games about the exploration of character. I mean, obviously your example isn't likely to be one in which character exploration is very deep, complex, or likely to be further explored by any but the most petty of characters. But still.

No they aren't. I'm utterly confused by this.

This feels a bit like reducto ad absurdum, but maybe you don't see if that way unless I turn it the other direction. If exploration of character only involves you NOT making choice and then mapping it to the character, then the only valid exploration of character happens when you're completely passive and finding out about the character through decisions that you don't author. You have to essentially become a spectator watching SOMEONE ELSE author the character. Curiously, in a trad D&D game, EVERYONE ELSE at the table gets to explore your character except for you, because you aren't exploring him, you're AUTHORING him.

Better yet, it becomes very difficult to actually explore characters in a gaming set-up. If you want to explore characters, put down the dice and go read a book so you can explore the character that you are not in any way whatsoever authoring!

Yes, it is reductio ad absurdum -- this is a 100% valid way to show an argument has problems. It's often confused as a bad argument because it's used to expose a fallacy, but it is not a fallacy.

And, yes, if I'm discovering something unknown about the character, I cannot be the one inventing it. This seems fairly obvious to me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You're right. DIFFERENT reification is being used. Either way, the character isn't "pushing back" against your control. It's mechanics. Rolling dice and consulting a rule. It's still equally abstract, and there's no "character exploration" involved. In fact, arguably it's quite a bit more abstract, because there's no subjective, personal touch to it.

Again, this is arguing a false dichotomy, that the only two options are either a) I always pick it and b) it's a random dice roll with no regard to the situation. I've already covered this earlier in the thread, but it seems that it keeps cropping up.

In any case, it seems like all of these types of discussions end up becoming arguments over semantics and what word you used to describe something not fitting what someone else thinks of that phrase, etc. This is always how this goes in a place like this. It's probably unavoidable. Maybe if it had been expressed differently, it could have been avoided, but... probably not.

The only argument that's semantic is the one where I clearly established what I meant by exploration of character and the counter arguments aren't addressing the points I'm making but instead trying to reclaim the word exploration for their preferences. Fine, have it -- provide a different term that highlights the differences I'm discussing.

I think there's some value in a discussion about "I like games where there are actual systems that determine your character's reactions to certain types of stimuli, rather than simply player fiat. For example, look at how it works in XYZ." Maybe I missed it, because I don't pretend to have read the entire thread. But have there actually been (m)any examples about which such a discussion could be had other than one or two Burning Wheel references? Or has it always been just a debate about what it means to explore vs express character?

You did miss it, it's been covered rather recently in this side conversation -- I presented both an example of Duel of Wits from Burning Wheel and a personal experience from my current Blades in the Dark game involving traumas.

 

[pemerton]

I think there's some value in a discussion about "I like games where there are actual systems that determine your character's reactions to certain types of stimuli, rather than simply player fiat. For example, look at how it works in XYZ." Maybe I missed it, because I don't pretend to have read the entire thread. But have there actually been (m)any examples about which such a discussion could be had other than one or two Burning Wheel references?

I've posted multiple examples from Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant and Cortex+ Heroic play, and have provided links to 4e D&D actual play examples also.