D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Lanefan]

I find that some of these discussions end up butting into widely held assumptions that I (at least) hadn't noticed are there.

For instance, do we take it as given, or do we treat it as a big deal, that PCs might have opposing values, aspirations, plans, etc? And as a result might come into conflict?

Next time a PvP thread comes up keep an eye on it; no doubt you'll notice (as I have) a very strong underlying sense among many posters that parties are expected to be co-operative and not argue among themselves, nor be put (or put themselves) into conflicting positions or having seriously conflicting goals.

I dont buy this, myself, but it seems many do...and given the last few D&D editions have pushed harder in this direction than their forebears, it's hardly a surprise.

 

[Lanefan]

No, I'm really not.

Every single person who has said that you need to actually play a persona to role play (paraphrasing here) is saying EXACTLY the same thing.

Please elaborate.

I'm one who says playing a persona is key to roleplaying but what on earth does that have to do with whether or not ToH is/was a tournament module?

Also, keep in mind that tournament play of any kind is by its nature going to be different than normal home-based play; in that in a tournament everything other than solving the dungeon in the fastest and-or most efficient way possible is stripped away, including nearly every aspect of actual roleplaying. You're trying to get through a module in (usually four) hours that in a home game might take several sessions if not more (ToH took us six sessions, the one time I ever played it; and half the party survived all the way through).

What this means is that if you're using tournament play as your default while the rest of us aren't, it's no wonder there's a disconnect.

 

[Lanefan]

The exception would be if you are engaging in a game that explicitly makes that interference one of the thematic mechanics. So, yeah, in D&D 5e the mechanics SHOULD NOT be used to interfere in those ways. But that's probably not true about all RPGs. I probably wouldn't choose to play in such an RPG, but that doesn't mean such RPG shouldn't exist.

I will note that I think Lanefan's stance here seems to have some limits, based on previous statements about metagaming. For example, what if the DM suspects that the only reason the player wants to assassinate somebody, or the only reason the player declares their character to fall in love with somebody, is because player-knowledge is being used to gain an advantage. Is it still off-limits to interfere? Or maybe that's where they distinguish between the game interfering and the referee interfering.

Yeah, that's about right.

Actions driven by metagame motivations often end up needing resolution beyond what the game can provide. That's what the referee is for.

 

[pemerton]

Well, there was @pemerton's example upthread where a PC (one of his own, I think) was about to assassinate someone until the GM made him roll a (Steel?) check, the results of which changed the PC's mood significantly.

Actually: the result, as I've posted multiple times, was that Aedhros (my PC) hesitated.

Hesitation is the only result that flows from a failed Steel check. Normally (unless some special rule has been triggered) the character who hesitates can swoon, run screaming, fall to their knees and beg for mercy, or stand without acting. I chose the last of those for Aedhros.

The hesitation gave enough time for the other PC, Alicia, to cast a Persuasion spell to persuade Aedhros to not kill the innkeeper.

Anytime things get emotionally significant or whenever a moment of potential high drama arises, if a game and-or GM can force a check like that which can on a given result completely change a character's outlook, that's really not many steps removed from random mood generation.

I believe I've already posted the range of triggers for a Steel check in Burning Wheel: pain, ambush/surpise, gore and violence, and the supernatural.

It's nothing like random mood generation. Absolutely nothing like it. By choosing those things as the triggers for a Steel check, the game expresses its (or, I guess, its designer's) conception of what sorts of things require screwing up one's courage to get through. By varying the variety of Steel triggers, or permitted hesitation response, the game is able to foreground other orientations towards threat and opportunity: for instance, Dwarven Greed requires Dwarven characters to make a Steel check when confronted by things of great value; but they have an additional hesitation response, I must have it - ie trying to obtain the desired thing whether by trade or theft, like the Naugrim and the Silmaril, or Thorin and the Arkenstone.

 

[Hussar]

I don't view a random roll to decide among a few options as a mental mechanic. I sometimes do the same thing. It's the basic 5e principle of rolling when the outcome is in doubt. If you know it's a yes or no, no roll is needed. If you are unsure, then roll the die. That's a mechanic, but it's not specifically a mental mechanic.

A mental mechanic would be the dominate spell or charm person, or the sanity rules. Those are mechanics that are specifically designed to affect an individual mentally.

An ad hoc mechanic is still a mechanic. The player is letting the mechanics make his decision for him and then proceeds from that point, incorporating that decision into the mental processes of the character.

It absolutely is a mental mechanic. It's a simple one, sure, but, that's exactly what mental mechanics do.

 

[Hussar]

Please elaborate.

I'm one who says playing a persona is key to roleplaying but what on earth does that have to do with whether or not ToH is/was a tournament module?

Also, keep in mind that tournament play of any kind is by its nature going to be different than normal home-based play; in that in a tournament everything other than solving the dungeon in the fastest and-or most efficient way possible is stripped away, including nearly every aspect of actual roleplaying. You're trying to get through a module in (usually four) hours that in a home game might take several sessions if not more (ToH took us six sessions, the one time I ever played it; and half the party survived all the way through).

What this means is that if you're using tournament play as your default while the rest of us aren't, it's no wonder there's a disconnect.

Really, really not worth sidetracking into. Trust me on this. It's a deep rabbit hole that is not going to go anywhere.

 

[Umbran]

An ad hoc mechanic is still a mechanic. The player is letting the mechanics make his decision for him and then proceeds from that point, incorporating that decision into the mental processes of the character.

It absolutely is a mental mechanic. It's a simple one, sure, but, that's exactly what mental mechanics do.

And, it does follow the basic premise of rolling the dice when there is some question as to the outcome, and not bothering to roll when there is not. Sounds very much like a game mechanic. It is just one the player adjudicates, rather than the GM, which pushes us back to the main issue being authorial control.

 

[Umbran]

People also have told me the world is flat, but that doesn't require me to accept this as truth.

Can folks here please avoid implying that people are Flat-Earthers (or similarly illogical) for simple disagreement about how to pretend to be elves? Thanks.

 

[Maxperson]

An ad hoc mechanic is still a mechanic. The player is letting the mechanics make his decision for him and then proceeds from that point, incorporating that decision into the mental processes of the character.

It absolutely is a mental mechanic. It's a simple one, sure, but, that's exactly what mental mechanics do.

It's a mechanic, but it's not explicitly a mental one. That same mechanic is used for every skill out there, physical or mental. It's just a mechanic.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, in that mass of bad takes overnight, I was quite surprised to see that @Oofta said this:

There are times when I've decided that I'm uncertain what my PC (or NPC if I'm DMing) would do or how they would react and I will roll a die to make a determination. My current PC in my wife's campaign flips a coin but that's more of a character affectation and ... well it's a long story.

Because this is the same conceptual thing as all of the mechanics being discussed, and which @Oofta strangely disclaims despite this statement. And here's why -- every one of the mechanics being cited for resolution of character points are invoked by the player. Every one. Sometimes this is explicit in the moment -- you explicitly state that you want to find this out about your character. And here, this is just like what @Oofta's die roll or his wife's coin flip are doing. You're saying that you do not want to decide this, you want to be prompted, so you explicitly engage a mechanical resolution. @Oofta's is adhoc, and the ones under discussion are much more formalized, but the conceptual parts are the same.

What gets lost in many of the responses that disclaim these kinds of mechanics is this player engagement with the concept. They treat them as forced upon the player unwanted, that there's just a die roll at random points or whenever the GM chooses, and disclaim this loss of agency. And I agree -- if this were the case it would be weird and I wouldn't like it at all. No, instead what's happening is that the player is asking for this to resolve something about their character that they want to find out but not decide -- just like when @Oofta rolls a die. Most often, though, this choice to put these aspects of character to the test are made either when you agree to play a certain game that has this as a major theme, or during character creation where you flag these parts of your character as things you want to find out. Sometimes it's explicit in the moment. But, at all times, it's the player putting these things forward as "let's test this in play and see what happens." These aren't things foisted upon them.

So, it seems that @Oofta does understand the appeal of using an outside method to determine what a character wants, feels, or does. They just haven't yet aligned this to the conception of doing so in a more formalized method that's still very much engaging what the player feels are those moments where the character should be so tested.