D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Oofta]

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?

My PC determines their thoughts and actions. If I'm playing basketball, I decide to take a shot or pass. Do I decide if the ball goes into the hoop? No. Do I decide if a defender blocks the shot or steals the ball? Of course not. Same as my PC deciding to attack but not hitting.

I'd call this the flimsiest of strawmen, but you seem to be sincere. I am in control of my PC's thoughts and actions. I am not in control of consequences, results of my PC's thoughts or actions. Nor do I control the consequences of other creatures actions.

Apples and oranges.

P.S. I don't use inspiration for adhering to TIBF, alignment, or anything else. If I'm telling a player what their PC's internal thoughts and feelings are it's because they've been supernaturally influenced.

 

[Maxperson]

From my standpoint I entirely agree that it is more believable that the character is impacted by events in the fiction rather than that the character has perfect control over their emotional responses.

I merely think that leaving it up to the player who best understands the character to decide how the character is impacted by events allows for more believable nuance than any game mechanic ever could.

I personally don't see any increase in believability from simulating the character's inability to control its responses to traumatic events by also mechanically preventing the player from controlling the character's response to those events.

I agree. The player should be the one to make that decision, because he has a FAR greater understanding of the character than the DM does. Perhaps I've decided that my PC just isn't attracted to people of any sort, so when the queen smiles at him he's just not going to react with anything other than a polite smile back. I don't tell the DM all of what's going on with my PC, because it's my business and he has enough to worry about of his own. If a DM tries to force that PC to blush and be embarrassed, I'm going to tell him no.

 

[Campbell]

Generally when I have a conversation with someone about their play it's not going to be about consistency. It's usually because I'm confused about an in character decision, think they might have either missed or filtered out an important part of the fiction, think they might not be expressing enough vulnerability in the moment or think they might be too attached to a particular conception of their character.

These are difficult conversations to have. I'm generally trying to understand what's going on, but I am generally having them because I am not getting what I need from them to do my thing. If I am going to be invested in play there are going to be expectations I expect people to live up to. I expect the same in kind. That if I get too locked in or I'm missing out on a crucial piece of fictional positioning I expect the other players to speak up (especially if I'm the GM).

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not arguing with you- explaining my answer in the context of the question.

If people volunteer, that's great. Honestly, it's my experience that you usually can't stop them from volunteering.

Sometimes, it's best to let the mystery linger. Most decisions seem a lot cooler until they're explained.

There's something to that, for sure. I think all of this coming up as part of a discussion about play is likely the best way, for me anyway, for this to happen. I don't know if a specific conversation about critiquing play and fictional positioning is necessary.

But I wouldn't be against it if my players said they wanted to do that, or any GM in a game I play in did.

 

[Ovinomancer]

On the whole "explore your character" thing I'm still not understanding the difference. Or, at least, why one is "explore" and the other is not. In one case you're making a choice and in the other a choice is being made for you, but if it's leading to something you weren't planning, it's still "exploring" new ideas. Sure, you may choose the well-worn path, but the dice might also choose it for you.

I can see how somebody who never explored new ideas might benefit from the dice (let's say 50% of the time), but somebody who always explore new things would be constrained by the dice (the other 50% of the time).

Ergo...
1) I will agree that exploring new character concepts can be fun (but is not mandatory for fun).
2) Two ways this can happen are by player choice, and by external imposition.

What exactly is the argument that one is substantively better, or even just different, than the other?

Again, the issue is one of volition. If you always choose the path of the character, then, yes, you may have an unexpected thought, but the character is still just you directing it. You can ignore that thought, use it now and refine it later, follow it, whatever, but this path is solely because you chose it for the character. You aren't engaged with the character, the character is just an expression of what you're thinking.

Here's an example: My current D&D character has a Flaw that they will abandon those that don't contribute. This is tied to backstory, party due to upbringing by a literal ice devil and also due to the outlander background after he ran away and lived with barbarian tribes in the frozen north -- if you don't pull your weight you're exiled. So, a situation came up in game where another character not only didn't pull weight, but made a choice that actively endangered everyone's lives. This should have been a pivotal moment for my character if I was interested in finding out who this character is -- are they the kind of character that will demand this other be exiled or take action against them or will they suppress this and go along because it's for the greater goal? Here's the choice, and it could be one where I get to learn this about my character. If I, like I do, retain 100% control, then I'm just going to pick one of these and express it through my character. I haven't learned anything about the character in this situation, I've instead decided who the character is and then apply that. I chose the latter, because 5e isn't a game where this kind of conflict actually works. Had I been playing a different game, then I might still have chosen but it would cause problems if I did so because my character would have to be working through this conflict -- perhaps I have a penalty or there's a new distinction that can be triggered. Dogs in the Vineyard works like this, in that I can choose to escalate or bail on a conflict, but I'll likely suffer various forms of fallout due to this that pose changes to my character (Dogs is all about this). Other games might make this kind of choice something that gets directly challenged and I don't necessarily have control over the outcome - my character's flaw may overwhelm them and I now have to deal with the fact that my character absolutely wants to toss the other character down an icy ravine to die from exposure.

The difference here is if I'm just picking the outcome myself and can justify it however I want, then I'm just expressing the character I'm choosing. I haven't learned anything new here, I've just decided something new. And, note, in none of the examples I've list above is a die just picked up and I'm told what my character things. These all come from things I've intentionally staked as conflict points for my character, so I've picked these. It's a big difference in how roleplaying can be approached. Although, I'm not terribly surprised at the resistance to the concept because, quite often, this difference gets viewed as one being somehow lesser than the other rather than different. They do different things.

Also note that I didn't once use "explore" in this response. "Explore" is not at all crucial to the point I'm making.

 

[Oofta]

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.

So everyone who has ever claimed this is just lying?

Because the option is that the author is not making decisions consciously. So not lying, just expressing a process we don't fully understand. Like, I don't know, not being in control of emotional responses.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Generally when I have a conversation with someone about their play it's not going to be about consistency. It's usually because I'm confused about an in character decision, think they might have either missed or filtered out an important part of the fiction, think they might not be expressing enough vulnerability in the moment or think they might be too attached to a particular conception of their character.

I'll just throw out there that this is a whole pile of red flags, from my point of view. It sounds to me like you have aesthetic preferences for the fiction, and they aren't shared by the player. It may be that we just have a different sense for how these things work: I see the players as full contributors to that fiction, and if we don't share the same values...well, it's their game, too. If they are attached to their conception of their character, or don't want their character to be vulnerable, that is 100.0% their choice. I either roll with it, or find a different group.

There's one guy in my group who bases all of his characters on modern media characters. (Inigo Montoya, etc.). Some of them are totally silly (e.g. Jessica Rabbit). Not my preference. But, hey, it's his game, too. I would never, ever, ever "take him aside" and try to persuade him about (let alone lecture him on) "fictional positioning".

 

[Ovinomancer]

I keep seeing the difference as between analogous to the difference in character creation between D&D 5e and, say, Traveler. In D&D you choose basically everything about your character you want to play, and in Traveler you roll a bunch of dice and then play the character the game gives you.

Both are cool. Both are fun.

But I'm struggling to see why there needs to be a huge philosophical debate about that difference. What exactly are people disagreeing about? (Sorry, sometimes I can be really slow on the uptake.). Is it just because if this happens during play it's crossing (or can cross) the line into internal mental state, and some folks (e.g. me) think this is the exclusive domain of the player?

If so, then, yeah, it does.

No, actually. I find the random elements of character creation in Traveler to be boring and annoying. Just like I usually find most lifepath character creation systems. The points I'm addressing are things that happen in play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I keep seeing the difference as between analogous to the difference in character creation between D&D 5e and, say, Traveler. In D&D you choose basically everything about your character you want to play, and in Traveler you roll a bunch of dice and then play the character the game gives you.

Both are cool. Both are fun.

But I'm struggling to see why there needs to be a huge philosophical debate about that difference. What exactly are people disagreeing about? (Sorry, sometimes I can be really slow on the uptake.). Is it just because if this happens during play it's crossing (or can cross) the line into internal mental state, and some folks (e.g. me) think this is the exclusive domain of the player?

If so, then, yeah, it does.

Yeah, I think most of this is just about preference. Or about the perceived pros and cons of each.

So what makes combat in RPGs exciting....or at least one of the things....is that it's dangerous. We don't know what will happen to our characters. They may get hurt or die. It's uncertain. We will make decisions that will determine how dangerous it may be, but there will be decisions made by others, and there will be chance, that will also be factors.

Some folks like that kind of excitement when applied not just to the state of our PCs during combat or other physical activities, but also their mental state in more social based interactions.

Others really hate it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Again, the issue is one of volition. If you always choose the path of the character, then, yes, you may have an unexpected thought, but the character is still just you directing it. You can ignore that thought, use it now and refine it later, follow it, whatever, but this path is solely because you chose it for the character. You aren't engaged with the character, the character is just an expression of what you're thinking.

Here's an example: My current D&D character has a Flaw that they will abandon those that don't contribute. This is tied to backstory, party due to upbringing by a literal ice devil and also due to the outlander background after he ran away and lived with barbarian tribes in the frozen north -- if you don't pull your weight you're exiled. So, a situation came up in game where another character not only didn't pull weight, but made a choice that actively endangered everyone's lives. This should have been a pivotal moment for my character if I was interested in finding out who this character is -- are they the kind of character that will demand this other be exiled or take action against them or will they suppress this and go along because it's for the greater goal? Here's the choice, and it could be one where I get to learn this about my character. If I, like I do, retain 100% control, then I'm just going to pick one of these and express it through my character. I haven't learned anything about the character in this situation, I've instead decided who the character is and then apply that. I chose the latter, because 5e isn't a game where this kind of conflict actually works. Had I been playing a different game, then I might still have chosen but it would cause problems if I did so because my character would have to be working through this conflict -- perhaps I have a penalty or there's a new distinction that can be triggered. Dogs in the Vineyard works like this, in that I can choose to escalate or bail on a conflict, but I'll likely suffer various forms of fallout due to this that pose changes to my character (Dogs is all about this). Other games might make this kind of choice something that gets directly challenged and I don't necessarily have control over the outcome - my character's flaw may overwhelm them and I now have to deal with the fact that my character absolutely wants to toss the other character down an icy ravine to die from exposure.

The difference here is if I'm just picking the outcome myself and can justify it however I want, then I'm just expressing the character I'm choosing. I haven't learned anything new here, I've just decided something new. And, note, in none of the examples I've list above is a die just picked up and I'm told what my character things. These all come from things I've intentionally staked as conflict points for my character, so I've picked these. It's a big difference in how roleplaying can be approached. Although, I'm not terribly surprised at the resistance to the concept because, quite often, this difference gets viewed as one being somehow lesser than the other rather than different. They do different things.

Also note that I didn't once use "explore" in this response. "Explore" is not at all crucial to the point I'm making.

Ok, so I think what you mean by "learn about this character" is "what happens if I follow the path this concept is leading and find out happens, even if those consequences seem undesirable"?

I thought you were about to answer that in the long paragraph, but you kind of changed tack before telling me how the story unfolded. Was the denouement that you played out that flaw and "abandoned" another PC, rather than deciding to mitigate/change the flaw?