D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Aldarc]

@Oofta and @Xetheral, I know that you have both bowed out of the conversation, but I have been thinking about your latest responses, and they've been kind of stuck in my brain. I've been mulling on them, and I hope you don't mind me addressing a few key points. I have moved quotes around a bit to group some similar ideas that pop up in both of your posts.

Because if there are mechanics for it, it would lessen the impact, potentially to nothing.

Ultimately the game telling me something wouldn't feel organic or "real". There's only so much a game, movie or novel can do for that.

But there's not really much more to say. If it works for you, great. I don't think either style is better or worse, I don't think a game can make me feel something I'm not going to and I think a lot of people just don't care. If it matters, if it's the type of campaign where it makes sense, reactions that I come up with will have more impact than ones determined by a game rule.

It also doesn't mean that for me that a game system is going to make me "feel" anything.

I can understand that for you, having social/mental mechanics in place would potentially lessen the impact of what you are feeling while roleplaying your character. I have no intention of invalidating your experiences there.

Where I take issue, however, is with the idea that keeps propping up here is the implication that these social/mental mechanics are about or needed to make either you or me feel anything. I think that misunderstands their purpose or function, and the analogy to other media doesn't quite hold up IMHO, but I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole. I don't think that is the underyling purpose of these mechanics or why people like me may enjoy them is about trying to make you (i.e., the participant) feel. These mechanics aren't needed for the player to feel anything nor do I think they are trying to make you feel. I would suggest that "making me feel" is not a helpful way of thinking about these discussed mechanics.

I think they help inform your roleplay of your character as a character in the fiction who can be affected by the game world, but I don't think that they are fundamentally about making you (i.e., the Player) feel anything. Does a "hit" in combat tell me that I am feeling pain or how my character feels about pain? Not really. It tells me about the state of the fiction. If my character is affected by fear, then it's not making me as the player feel fear, but I do discover that my character is feeling fear in this moment in the fiction. How does my character feel about it? Disappointed? Horrified and humiliated by their own fear? That's up for me to decide and roleplay. But as a player, am I afraid? Likely not. Did the game make @pemerton feel afraid when his character was frightened? I didn't get the impression that was the case. Is the game trying to make me feel anything? I don't think that it is.

My own feelings as a player are distinct from that of the PC's. My play goals as a player are distinct from the character's goals in the fiction. As a player, I may be quite exhilarated that my character is facing a challenge in the fiction that will test their mettle. My character may be extraordinarily anxious about the experience. In contrast, I may be excited by either their success or failure of this challenge by the character because it's naturally good to succeed, but the failure may push the fiction to interesting new places, which may be even more interesting for my character than if I had succeeded in full. But through this all, I am also gaining a better understanding of my character and constantly reevaluating who my character is and what drives them forward. I don't think that the game, however, is trying to make me feel anything here. I think it's there to help drive the fiction forward, create drama, and facilitate uncertainty in the states of the fiction, particularly as it relates to the characters.

TL;DR: the important takeaway from this conversation about these social/mental mechanics should NOT be that the game is trying to make you feel anything. I think that is a critical misunderstanding that fundamentally risks impairing your ability to understand and sympathize with those of us arguing in favor of these social/mental mechanics.

@Aldarc , I agree that the game doesn't care. That doesn't mean that the players and the DM can't care. Some people see growth, some don't. Sometimes I see growth and change in my PCs, sometimes I don't.

These comments about what the game has to say or what the game cares about suggest to me that there may be a deeper philosophical difference at play in terms of how we approach RPGs. From my perspective, my group has our own "game". Our choice of system is simply a question of what ruleset would be most helpful for running our game. Our games deeply care about who the characters are, and we deeply respect roleplaying, regardless of which system we happen to be using. Accordingly, a system designed to make our game care about the characters isn't helpful to us, because our game already does so. And a system designed to make our game care about characters differently than it already does would be actively unhelpful because it would create tension between the mechanics and our game.

Edit: Sorry, @Xetheral, but in the quote editing, the bottom quote got attributed to Oofta rather than you, and I'm too lazy to figure out how to fix it.

A pestering issue I have with this is the hidden implication that resides in this assertion: i.e., I don't care enough about who the characters are or do not deeply respect roleplaying enough, but if I truly did, then I could make it work for D&D. I will respect on good faith that you likely did not intend it to come across this way, and this reading may be a matter of me reading too much into it, but I do hope that you can see how this reading is possible in what you wrote. It's the implication that I or any of us could make it work - like it does at your table - if we truly cared enough to make it work regardless of system. It may not be what you intend, but that implication would not be the first time it was explicitly lobbed at some of us. So just marking that potential landmine with a flag and working around it.

Also, a lot of this makes this incredibly GM/table dependent. Just because the players/GM can care, doesn't mean that they will. Moreover, just because your games care deep enough for your roleplaying needs doesn't mean that it will do the same for mine. Maybe your respective tables do care about who the characters are, but also maybe if I sat at your table with your group I would be just as disappointed as when I'm playing with my friends who I otherwise enjoy playing with. It may also be that there is a difference in what is meant or understood about caring about the characters. Often in D&D, caring about who the characters are feels more like a call to "play-act roleplay to your heart's content" rather than play really being about the characters.

I have sat at many tables over my years of roleplaying D&D where participants have promised the sort of experience that cared about engaging my character (much like you do here) but ultimately failed to deliver. How many times should I tolerate this disappointment before getting to this regularly promised roleplaying experience on Candy Mountain that cares deeply about who the characters are?

In my personal experience, other games have facilitated that promise of caring about characters better and more consistently than D&D from table to table. (And other games don't care at all about that, because they are upfront about promising something else, which is why I also play those games. I also don't play D&D if I want a game that cares deeply about who the characters are. IMHO, that's not what it's really designed to facilitate.) In contrast, some games require that I and others constantly engage who the characters are in the fiction as a fluid and organic part of play.

Please don't take any of this to be heated or hostile towards either of you. The tone is more about my personal frustration regarding my experiences.

If I'm understanding correctly, @pemerton and @Aldarc, you see the choice of system as defining the game you are playing, and thus if the system has nothing to say about who the characters are, then the game doesn't either. That makes perfect sense, and makes it easier to understand where your preferences are coming from. It's just so different from how I approach RPGs at a conceptual level that I can see why it makes understanding each other's preferences (and even just communicating them) so difficult.

That's pretty accurate. However, I likewise often approach RPGs in terms of "what ruleset would be most helpful for running our game," but I think that also comes with understanding the strengths and limitations of each game. This usually means that I probably won't be running D&D if I want to emphasize the protagonism/characterization of the PCs or want play to be about who they are because the game is not particularly helpful in running/playing such a game.

 

[pemerton]

If I'm understanding correctly, @pemerton and @Aldarc, you see the choice of system as defining the game you are playing, and thus if the system has nothing to say about who the characters are, then the game doesn't either. That makes perfect sense, and makes it easier to understand where your preferences are coming from. It's just so different from how I approach RPGs at a conceptual level that I can see why it makes understanding each other's preferences (and even just communicating them) so difficult.

It depends what you mean by system.

There are multiple RPGs that are much-the-same system, in the sense of having the same sort of approach to distribution of authority over various aspects of the fiction.

There are particular RPGs that can be used to play multiple systems, by changing the principles that the participants conform to. An example is Classic Traveller, which can be played in an "exploratory" way (this is implicit in the early modules, and in a good chunk of the core books) but also in a much more PbtA-ish way (this is implicit in some of the referee advice/direction and some of the skill descriptions in the core books). I approach it in that second way.

In this sense, I do see system as defining the game being played. And the system, whatever it is, will have some way of determining how the characters are established. Different ways of doing this produce different play experiences.

Where I take issue, however, is with the idea that keeps propping up here is the implication that these social/mental mechanics are about or needed to make either you or me feel anything. I think that misunderstands their purpose or function, and the analogy to other media doesn't quite hold up IMHO, but I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole. I don't think that is the underyling purpose of these mechanics or why people like me may enjoy them is about trying to make you (i.e., the participant) feel. These mechanics aren't needed for the player to feel anything nor do I think they are trying to make you feel. I would suggest that "making me feel" is not a helpful way of thinking about these discussed mechanics.

I think they help inform your roleplay of your character as a character in the fiction who can be affected by the game world, but I don't think that they are fundamentally about making you (i.e., the Player) feel anything. Does a "hit" in combat tell me that I am feeling pain or how my character feels about pain? Not really. It tells me about the state of the fiction. If my character is affected by fear, then it's not making me as the player feel fear, but I do discover that my character is feeling fear in this moment in the fiction. How does my character feel about it? Disappointed? Horrified and humiliated by their own fear? That's up for me to decide and roleplay. But as a player, am I afraid? Likely not. Did the game make @pemerton feel afraid when his character was frightened? I didn't get the impression that was the case. Is the game trying to make me feel anything? I don't think that it is.

My own feelings as a player are distinct from that of the PC's.

This is probably a matter in respect of which we differ.

For me, good social/emotional mechanics will create a type of change in my feelings that corresponds to what is happening to my PC. For me, this is part of the goal of inhabitation of my PC.

But I think it's fairly complicated and there are differences across the range of emotions and how they relate to the possible range of mechanics.

I think an important function of the Burning Wheel Steel mechanics is to make the player feel the same dread, and weight of decision, as the PC is feeling. In the case of the PC, this is because the PC is confronted by something shocking or frightening, be that external (eg seeing a walking corpse) or internal (eg contemplating murder). In the case of the player, this is because I have to pick up the dice and roll them to find out whether or not I (as my PC) hesitate.

(A parenthetical remark at this point may be helpful for some readers, though I think redundant for @Aldarc: to protest but perhaps my PC doesn't find these things dreadful is to miss the point - the Steel mechanic rests on a premise that they are. That is part of what you buy into when you use the mechanic, just as - in D&D - you buy into the notion that PCs are built out of race/heritage + class, and hence it would be just missing the point to insist that your PC has no race/heritage or no class.)

In other contexts, social mechanics may affect how I feel in a different fashion. For instance, if my PC is being persuaded towards a particular course of action, it makes sense that the system should make that course of action more appealing to me. There are various ways that can be done: the Cortex+ debuff-style is one; integrating the course of action into a bigger framework of PC commitments (eg Beliefs in Burning Wheel) is another. In either case, I will try and bring my thinking - in my imaginative inhabitation of my character - into line with my character's thinking

Another way a system can work is to generate momentum and consequence around something that is important to my PC, so even though there is no particular system element or component that directly speaks to the social/emotional issue, the most logical/natural way to think myself into the fictional situation is to adopt a certain outlook/perspective as my PC.

This requires the fiction, and the situations, to have a certain seriousness and intensity.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, @pemerton, we definitely differ in that regard.

 

[Oofta]

Do what works for you. D&D's lack of system works for me. While I appreciate the explanations that have been given, I don't want a game to tell me when my PC hesitates or that my PC is convinced by someone else's argument because of a contest.

It really is just as simple as that. I don't care if it's not "realistic" that I'm the sole author of my PC. I'm not going to be affected by a game rule telling me that my PC is anxious, nor do I think that it's any more realistic than me making my own judgement call. If I don't care whether my country bumpkin who's been thrown into the life of an adventurer would be nervous about facing a band of ogres that outnumber them should or should not be nervous. If it makes sense to me, the player, that the PC would be nervous then they are. If not, they are not. If I can't get into my player's head enough to figure that out I either don't care or the game telling me they're anxious isn't going to have any impact.


P.S. @Aldarc, one of the difficulties is the contradictions.

...mechanics are about or needed to make either you or me feel anything.

followed by

... My character may be extraordinarily anxious about the experience...

So is "anxious" not a feeling? Either the game system is informing you what your PC is feeling or it's not. Or I'm just misreading because I haven't had any caffeine yet.

 

[Aldarc]

P.S. @Aldarc, one of the difficulties is the contradictions.

followed by

So is "anxious" not a feeling? Either the game system is informing you what your PC is feeling or it's not. Or I'm just misreading because I haven't had any caffeine yet.

What contradiction? My character Tom the Fighter may feel something (e.g., anxious), whether as a result of a game mechanic or how I roleplay them in the fiction, but I as a player may feel something else (e.g., excited amusement) due to my own play goals. This is not to say that the mechanics make me feel anything or evoke in feelings in me. The mechanics don't necessarily make me (i.e., Aldarc the Player) feel anything because there is a distinction between player and character even when I am ideally in the headspace of the character.

 

[Oofta]

What contradiction? My character Tom the Fighter may feel something (e.g., anxious), whether as a result of a game mechanic or how I roleplay them in the fiction, but I as a player may feel something else (e.g., excited amusement) due to my own play goals. This is not to say that the mechanics make me feel anything or evoke in feelings in me. The mechanics don't necessarily make me (i.e., Aldarc the Player) feel anything because there is a distinction between player and character even when I am ideally in the headspace of the character.

It's been said repeatedly that the rules don't tell me what my PC is thinking or feeling. That's contradicted by the statement. That's all.

As far as what my PC feels, I don't want to be told, unless it's supernatural. That's all.

There is no one true way.

 

[Aldarc]

It's been said repeatedly that the rules don't tell me what my PC is thinking or feeling. That's contradicted by the statement. That's all.

As far as what my PC feels, I don't want to be told, unless it's supernatural. That's all.

There is no one true way.

I feel as if you are talking past me, Oofta. I repeatedly said that the rules don't tell you, OOFTA, what YOU are feeling and that the rules can't make YOU (OOFTA) feel.

 

[Lanefan]

I think they help inform your roleplay of your character as a character in the fiction who can be affected by the game world, but I don't think that they are fundamentally about making you (i.e., the Player) feel anything. Does a "hit" in combat tell me that I am feeling pain or how my character feels about pain? Not really. It tells me about the state of the fiction. If my character is affected by fear, then it's not making me as the player feel fear,

The question is, should it be trying to? Should having your-as-player's emotions match your character's be an end goal of either design or play? And if yes, should that end goal be blared from the rooftops or more subtly woven into the game?

In sequence, my own answers to those would be "yes, where it can", "yes, though with ample wiggle room to allow tables that don't go for such things to strip this aspect out", and "subtly woven in where possible".

Obviously we-as-players can't literally feel the pain our characters feel on getting hit in combat, because combat is by necessity completely abstracted. This if nothing else keeps the game legal in most jurisdictions.

Emotions, however, are not abstracted - or at least don't have to be - meaning that if your character is feeling afraid there's nothing stopping you-the-player from mirroring that at the table, be it internally in your own mind or externally through your roleplay; and IMO doing just this helps with immersion and roleplay. Ditto if your character is excited, or angry, or maudlin, or just havin' a normal day - be the character.

And sure there's going to be times when our-as-player's emotions don't match those of our characters - e.g. times when the characters are at each others' throats but the players just can't stop laughing at the goings-on - and that's great. But overall I don't think discouraging the idea of emotional parallel between player and character is the way to go.

but I do discover that my character is feeling fear in this moment in the fiction. How does my character feel about it? Disappointed? Horrified and humiliated by their own fear? That's up for me to decide and roleplay.

After the fact, yes; just like anyone might reflect later on a bad moment. But right in the moment, not so much I don't think.

Also, a lot of this makes this incredibly GM/table dependent. Just because the players/GM can care, doesn't mean that they will.

This, to me, is obvious. No two tables are going to take the same approach; and there may even be wide variance within a table.

That said, why not give a gentle design-level or advice-level nudge now and then in the direction of caring and leave it at that?

 

[Aldarc]

The question is, should it be trying to? Should having your-as-player's emotions match your character's be an end goal of either design or play? And if yes, should that end goal be blared from the rooftops or more subtly woven into the game?

In sequence, my own answers to those would be "yes, where it can", "yes, though with ample wiggle room to allow tables that don't go for such things to strip this aspect out", and "subtly woven in where possible".

I think that you are begging the question here.

Obviously we-as-players can't literally feel the pain our characters feel on getting hit in combat, because combat is by necessity completely abstracted. This if nothing else keeps the game legal in most jurisdictions.

Emotions, however, are not abstracted - or at least don't have to be - meaning that if your character is feeling afraid there's nothing stopping you-the-player from mirroring that at the table, be it internally in your own mind or externally through your roleplay; and IMO doing just this helps with immersion and roleplay. Ditto if your character is excited, or angry, or maudlin, or just havin' a normal day - be the character.

Emotions are heavily abstracted, and I think that it's safer for all to create emotional distance between yourself and the characters. I have witnessed emotional damage done to others in the name of being "in-character."

And sure there's going to be times when our-as-player's emotions don't match those of our characters - e.g. times when the characters are at each others' throats but the players just can't stop laughing at the goings-on - and that's great. But overall I don't think discouraging the idea of emotional parallel between player and character is the way to go.

After the fact, yes; just like anyone might reflect later on a bad moment. But right in the moment, not so much I don't think.

I am not discouraging an emotional parallel. I drawing awareness to the distinction that intrinsically exists between that of the player and that which is projected onto the character regardless of emotional parallels. I do think that saying that the character has an emotion risks reifying the character.

That said, why not give a gentle design-level or advice-level nudge now and then in the direction of caring and leave it at that?

Because that doesn't work for everyone.

 

[Oofta]

I feel as if you are talking past me, Oofta. I repeatedly said that the rules don't tell you, OOFTA, what YOU are feeling and that the rules can't make YOU (OOFTA) feel.

I never said anything about the player's feelings, not sure where you're getting that.

On the other hand, the game is dictating emotions and decisions at least some of the time. I don't want that and never have.

It's fine if you do, but it wouldn't enhance the game for me. But that's really all ... I have nothing else to say. You want different things than I do.