D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Aldarc]

Since it's all a preference and there are already other games that include additional rules, why do we need to add those rules to D&D?

Why not play those other games and let D&D be what it is and always has been? It's the most popular TTRPG ever, it obviously doesn't need the secret sauce to be successful. Yet time and time again when people say "I like it the way it is" the response is always "Why can't we fix it?"

I don't want to fix or add to something that, for me, is not broken. Which obviously means I'm attacking everyone who disagrees ... even though I try to go out of my way to say that it's just a preference.

Meanwhile whenever I suggest that people come up with concrete ideas on how to implement things in D&D that could actually receive feedback, that gets rejected as well. A plus thread on how to add things to the game may actually be useful to those who want it; repeating vague assertions and complaints? I don't see the point. Publishing a supplement to DmsGuild? If it's successful it may be adopted in some form in an official supplement. Complaining on a forum like this? Never goes anywhere.

In any case, this is pointless. If there's ever concrete rules that we could critique I may have something else to say. Until then, it's a free country and feel free to yell at the wind.

There's not too much to add to D&D, to be honest, when it comes to social rules that isn't already there in rudimentary form. The current and past two editions of D&D have social mechanics of some sort, with the skill challenges in 4e probably offering the most robust support. The new Ravenloft book also provides rules for non-magical fear (and stress) for when encountering frightful monsters and the like. It's not much of a stretch to expand those rules for other aspects of social/mental dynamics or encounters that could affect your character's mind.

Usually the people who don't like social mechanics in D&D are typically the ones who are more inclined to actively ignore the rules rather than use the rules. I think one of the bigger issues is that some character/social rules (e.g., Bonds, Ideals, etc.) aren't particularly well integrated with the play loop of the core system.

 

[Maxperson]

But, we've been over this so many times.

Why do you think that a social mechanic system would suddenly force you to commit suicide? Do you really have that little faith in game design? Or, to put it another way, can you point to an actual game where this is possible? Or, are you just pulling examples out of the air without any actual experience? Because, from what others have said in this thread, it sure looks like that.

The point is that it should be player choice. If the player can just ignore the mechanics if he decides his PC doesn't want to feel the way the mechanic wants him to, then I have no problem with that. Beyond the possibility of gaining inspiration, bonds, traits and ideals have no mechanics at all. They're just RP aids like alignment is.

Also, I was just pointing out with that example that the traits, bonds and ideals can't by RAW make the character feel any particular way, so they aren't examples of a mental mechanic. I wasn't suggesting that all mental mechanics will force players to do suicidal things.

This looks so much like the whole Exploration Pillar Sucks thread we just had. Any suggestion that the mechanics be changed to make exploration more robust is received with virtually the same reaction we're seeing here.

Just like this discussion, that one was also all about preferences. Not everyone is going to like every change. My position in that discussion was that exploration is already the biggest pillar with lots to it. I don't need anything else added. If exploration rules were created, I would look at them to see what I like and don't like and go from there.

 

[Hussar]

Since it's all a preference and there are already other games that include additional rules, why do we need to add those rules to D&D?
/snip

Because every time D&D has opened up to new rules, we've gained a much richer gaming experience.

For 20 years, D&D lacked a skill system. Then, 3e rolls along and adds one. Suddenly, all sorts of character concepts work right out of the box- the Batman character being a prime example - without either resorting to fiat all the time, or the game turning into Calvinball. Simply adding one system opened up a huge area of game design that was closed before. Every class now has something to contribute outside of combat and the rules support that.

So, why would this be different?

---------

/edit to add

I just wanted to expand on the point I was making above but, I ran out of time. 3e massively changed the mechanics of D&D. It added a complete skill system and the exact same arguments you see here about mental mechanics were, word for word, used to argue that D&D didn't need such a system for skills. We had been doing it without mechanics for years, why did we need them now?

But, look at what adding the skill system did to the game. It added so many elements that we take for granted now. I am pretty sure that adding things like mental and social mechanics would expand the game in the same way.

On a side note, I do see a bit of irony here. Apparently the mechanics tell you what your character feels is absolutely off the table. Must never be done. But, the mechanics telling you what your character knows is perfectly acceptable. We've had knowledge skills in the game since 3e and most tables make pretty good use of them.

So, again, what's the difference? Now, it's not a case of adjudicating some physical act. You are asking the DM, "Hey, my character is trained in Arcana, can I make a check to know stuff about this monster?" It just seems very strange to me that we accept mechanics determining nearly everything about your character - what he/she/it can do, think, even say (after all, what is a persuasion check if it's not telling you what your character says, or at least how well it is said) - but we absolutely cannot use mechanics to influence how our characters feel?

 

[Oofta]

Because every time D&D has opened up to new rules, we've gained a much richer gaming experience.

For 20 years, D&D lacked a skill system. Then, 3e rolls along and adds one. Suddenly, all sorts of character concepts work right out of the box- the Batman character being a prime example - without either resorting to fiat all the time, or the game turning into Calvinball. Simply adding one system opened up a huge area of game design that was closed before. Every class now has something to contribute outside of combat and the rules support that.

So, why would this be different?

---------

/edit to add

I just wanted to expand on the point I was making above but, I ran out of time. 3e massively changed the mechanics of D&D. It added a complete skill system and the exact same arguments you see here about mental mechanics were, word for word, used to argue that D&D didn't need such a system for skills. We had been doing it without mechanics for years, why did we need them now?

But, look at what adding the skill system did to the game. It added so many elements that we take for granted now. I am pretty sure that adding things like mental and social mechanics would expand the game in the same way.

On a side note, I do see a bit of irony here. Apparently the mechanics tell you what your character feels is absolutely off the table. Must never be done. But, the mechanics telling you what your character knows is perfectly acceptable. We've had knowledge skills in the game since 3e and most tables make pretty good use of them.

So, again, what's the difference? Now, it's not a case of adjudicating some physical act. You are asking the DM, "Hey, my character is trained in Arcana, can I make a check to know stuff about this monster?" It just seems very strange to me that we accept mechanics determining nearly everything about your character - what he/she/it can do, think, even say (after all, what is a persuasion check if it's not telling you what your character says, or at least how well it is said) - but we absolutely cannot use mechanics to influence how our characters feel?

I know a lot of things. Lyrics to miscellaneous songs, the names of way to many vehicles, obscure facts related to my profession as someone who writes software. But would I recognize a 1930's Ford Coupe on sight? Maybe, maybe not. Kind of random depending on what "old car" books I happened to read or what car shows I went to.

Would I think it's a cool car whether or not I recognized that it was a Ford Coupe? Sure. I have a fondness for that era of vehicles. On the other hand I wouldn't actually want to own one because vehicle technology has come a long way and I'm not into maintaining a show car.

No matter how you conflate knowledge with mental state, it's apples and oranges to me. I never want a game to tell me my mental state unless it's supernatural. Knowledge? There are too many weird random things I happen to remember. Completely different.

 

[Hussar]

I know a lot of things. Lyrics to miscellaneous songs, the names of way to many vehicles, obscure facts related to my profession as someone who writes software. But would I recognize a 1930's Ford Coupe on sight? Maybe, maybe not. Kind of random depending on what "old car" books I happened to read or what car shows I went to.

Would I think it's a cool car whether or not I recognized that it was a Ford Coupe? Sure. I have a fondness for that era of vehicles. On the other hand I wouldn't actually want to own one because vehicle technology has come a long way and I'm not into maintaining a show car.

No matter how you conflate knowledge with mental state, it's apples and oranges to me. I never want a game to tell me my mental state unless it's supernatural. Knowledge? There are too many weird random things I happen to remember. Completely different.

Like I said, arbitrary and contradictory.

You insist on having 100% total control over something that no living being in history has ever had control over - emotional responses - but have zero problem with the game telling you whether or not you know what a particular car is. Which is it? Is your character your character or not? What happens when you know it, but your character doesn't? Do you get to over rule the mechanics? Oops, nope, that's meta-gaming by most accounts and a bad thing.

Reading the adventure is considered a pretty bad thing to do right? Yet, totally justifiable. My character just knows those things. You cannot tell me what goes on in the head of my character so how can you insist that I don't know something that I, the player, know? And, conversely, how can my character know something that I don't?

You keep calling everything apples and oranges. Only problem is, a lot of your apples are citrus fruits with orange skins, but, you insist on calling them apples. This is why everyone is arguing with you @Oofta. Your arguments don't make any sense. Sure, you don't like it. Fair enough. But, not liking it doesn't make it bad. It just means that you don't like it. So, why are you insisting that these things have no place in the game? Is it that you just think the game should be designed for you personally?

 

[Bill Zebub]

B. Conversely, we do not need any rules to determine the character's mental states. That is 100% up to the player who apparently must be given absolute authority over the mental states of the character. Unless, of course, we add in handwavium in the form of magic. Or a few other corner case kinda/sorta magic effects. And alignment. And traits and bonds and ideals. And a few other things. But, by and large, we must not ever have rules to determine the character's mental state.

This is exactly the sort of unnecessary hostility that caused me to bow out of this thread.

But, against my better judgment, I do want to respond to a couple of things that I think you're either not understanding or misconstruing:

To put it another way, the lack of social mechanics means that social characters - characters that excel at the talky bits - are never really a viable option in the game. At best they're support characters.

Here (I'm only quoting the final paragraph) you seem to be missing the point that social mechanics can be asymmetric. They can allow the DM to be a (more) neutral arbiter of social interactions: while players still get to decide what their reactions is, NPCs are influenced by the mechanics.

Games don't have to be designed or run this way, but they can be, and doing so addresses your concern in that post.

On a side note, I do see a bit of irony here. Apparently the mechanics tell you what your character feels is absolutely off the table. Must never be done. But, the mechanics telling you what your character knows is perfectly acceptable. We've had knowledge skills in the game since 3e and most tables make pretty good use of them.

There is no contradiction if the player is allowed to decide what their character believes to be true. That is, if they have player knowledge they can decide whether or not their character also has that knowledge (which, as has been pointed out many times, might turn out to be erroneous). If they don't have player knowledge they can either:
a) Make something up and decide their character believes it
b) Perhaps make a knowledge check, if the rules/DM allow it.

Either way, the player is in control.

 

[Umbran]

You insist on having 100% total control over something that no living being in history has ever had control over - emotional responses

This is why everyone is arguing with you. Your arguments don't make any sense.

Please stop for a moment. Now is the time to think about what you've said, and what that implies for how you are approaching this discussion (and really, any discussion around here).

So - people are not in control of their emotional reactions. You assert that yourself.

Then, what do you think happens when you aggressively press, and make discussions personal? You elicit emotional responses... which the people are not in control of. And you then want them to "make sense"?

Your own manner of engagement here runs contrary to what you say you want from people. You are actively working against people making sense!

So how about you back off, and think about how to constructively engage without the confrontation.

 

[Maxperson]

You insist on having 100% total control over something that no living being in history has ever had control over - emotional responses - but have zero problem with the game telling you whether or not you know what a particular car is. Which is it? Is your character your character or not? What happens when you know it, but your character doesn't? Do you get to over rule the mechanics? Oops, nope, that's meta-gaming by most accounts and a bad thing.

Knowledge is not the same as emotional response and neither is the same as what you are thinking. Do we have full control in real life over emotional response, what you remember(knowledge) or what you are thinking? No. I don't play D&D as an effort to mirror real life, though. And even in real life I have some measure of control over all of those things.

In D&D(or any other RPG) I don't want any rules telling me what my PC is thinking or feeling unless there's something supernatural going on that can exert control over my PC. Knowledge is a bit different. I can't know for sure everything the PC knows, so rules for helping me to figure that out are helpful and appreciated.

Reading the adventure is considered a pretty bad thing to do right? Yet, totally justifiable. My character just knows those things. You cannot tell me what goes on in the head of my character so how can you insist that I don't know something that I, the player, know?

No, your character does not just know everything that you know. He has no idea who first made it to the moon in real life, nor has he ever heard about WWII. If you read an adventure and try to use that knowledge, you are cheating. You've broken the social contract pretty badly.

And, conversely, how can my character know something that I don't?

That one is easy. HE grew up in a fantasy land and knows or might know many details that you the player who did not grow up there probably do not.

 

[Amrûnril]

Like I said, arbitrary and contradictory.

You insist on having 100% total control over something that no living being in history has ever had control over - emotional responses - but have zero problem with the game telling you whether or not you know what a particular car is. Which is it? Is your character your character or not? What happens when you know it, but your character doesn't? Do you get to over rule the mechanics? Oops, nope, that's meta-gaming by most accounts and a bad thing.

If no one has total control over their emotional responses, that's true of the player as well as the character. If the goal is to simulate a human mind responding to unanticipated scenarios, then I think the best approximation is going to be a human mind responding to unanticipated scenarios.

I'm not convinced realism should be the goal here, though. A real person doesn't choose how their "ability scores" are organized or the setting they grew up in. But most tables let players determine those things for their PCs, because creating those parts of a character is part of what makes the game enjoyable. Similarly, I think having control over a character's personality and decision making is an important part of what makes the game fun, regardless of whether that level of control makes sense philisophically or psychologically.

With that said, I'm not opposed to specific exceptions, like those that already exist for magical control or fear effects. I just think player control over character behavior should be the default, and any exceptions to that need to be justified on a case by case basis.

 

[Campbell]

Speaking personally the desire to feel what my character feels is not due to a desire for realism, but because feeling like I am there in the moment is what makes roleplaying games fun for me. That meaningful sense of being present, feeling the tension, grasping against difficulties is fun for me. Not having to choose between what I know is good for team success and playing my character with integrity feels really good.

That last bit is pretty important to me personally. Part of the reason I sit down to play a roleplaying game is that I like games and I want to be playing a game, not telling a story. If I am always in complete control of my characters thoughts and emotions then those moments where core emotional beats are at stake than I stop playing a game and start telling a story.

In my personal experience the social and emotional environment at the table often does a fairly poor job of mimicking the social and emotional environment between characters. Not for lack of trying. The social context is just incredibly different. We can get somewhat close with deliberate effort and the right GM techniques and play principles if we cannot find the right mechanical tools for our group, but it's much harder.

I guess I would ask those who eschew mechanical tools what sort of techniques do you use to keep players focused in the moment? How do you create a social environment where players feel free to play against group interests when it's in character? How do you handle emotional stakes in a way that feels right?

Overall I don't think we should expect logical consistency or judge anyone for the sort of play experience they want. Not a big fan of should or should not being applied globally when it comes to gaming. I have all sorts of stuff in gaming I am not logically consistent about. We're dealing with aesthetic judgements here. Being overly concerned with the logical consistency of other people's aesthetic values is not aesthetic.

Once again I'm only speaking for my personal preferences for games that are fundamentally about finding out who these characters are. Not looking for any sort of change. I think creative decisions should be left to creatives, but that is another topic altogether.