D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[Aldarc]

Thank you for calling this out. Of course, you are correct here.
I apologize for my rudeness - it really was unnecessary. Frustration over perceived illogic is no excuse.

In return, I only ask that you keep me humble and committed to do likewise.

I don't care about being realistic in gaming. I also don't think a game can ever be any more realistic than my own judgement calls.

I understand that you do not care about being realistic in gaming. Where I take issue is your assertion that these mundane things constitute "mind control" whether in real life or as simulated in gaming. I hope that distinction is clear to you.

 

[Oofta]

I understand that you do not care about being realistic in gaming. Where I take issue is your assertion that these mundane things constitute "mind control" whether in real life or as simulated in gaming. I hope that distinction is clear to you.

Some of the mechanisms to me do feel like mind control. If another character can convince my character through a contest of persuasion (I probably have the term wrong) then my character no longer has autonomy, as a player I'm no longer in total control of my character.

There's nothing wrong with game rules deciding for a character what they do or how they react. I understand that a player can justify everything after the fact. I just don't want to play a game that has that mechanism.

 

[Oofta]

What about the Background Features? Do you allow those to be used as written? I find they’re one of the most potent social mechanics in the game. They give the player the ability to locate and receive aid from specific types of NPCs, depending on the background.

So the Folk Hero can secure food and shelter from the common folk. Do you let the player use this Backgroun




Thanks for answering the question.

Do some of your players do more with their TIBFs than others? Do some of them allow these elements to create meaningful complications for them or for the group? Or is it always just flavor for things like in-character dialogue and portrayal, where they play it up, but if they didn’t nothing would go differently?

In my experience, many players will use those elements to help portray their character in that way, but as soon as a TIBF poses a possible problem, it quickly becomes meaningless, and the player discards it in favor of doing what’s best for the group.

Is that your experience? Do you find players take on those TIBFs as a more essential part of their character? In the same way that Attributes and Saving Throws form their ability to function in combat, do the TIBFs significantly shape their social performance?

How much people use TIBF really varies. Some lean into, but yeah, most just kind of ignore it. I know I use it for inspiration, but the fiction of my character, which often changes over time, matters more. Much like alignment, it's all just inspiration on who your PC is but is not prescriptive.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I really tried to like bonds ideals & flaws for years and eventually decided that the best solution was to ignore them to the level that I ask players not to fill them in. As a whole they are little more than a crutch to encourage bad & disruptive "roll playing"with an excuse to pointlessly invoke "I'm a roleplayer and my character would..." type silliness. They are a nice idea that play out like one person described fate style character aspects to a second sho promptly ignored how aspects themselves work and decided they knew enough to copy them with an entirely player decided version that was filled with a bunch if zany cliches and random (often npc) tropes.

I get that. My group has mixed feelings about the whole system, and it gets applied to varying degrees depending on who's in the GM seat. My current 5E game is one with rotating GMs, so it's been particularly obvious lately how different it can all be handled. Our current GM is using the TIBFs as a guideline to granting Inspiration, but he's also granting it for other actions, particularly bold or daring actions. Prior to that, we had a GM who said he wanted to run it as written, and it started off that way, but then we stopped really fishing for Inspiration, and he stopped dangling that carrot.

When I ran, I granted it solely on PCs choosing something I saw as less optimal for reasons related purely to character. Not exactly as written, but I wanted there to be more to it than simply "I'm angry....see how I yelled at that guy?" because, as you say, that seems like the pointless kind of "I'm roleplaying" decision. I wanted the decision to be more significant.

As has been said many times, the TIBF/Inspiration system is pretty flawed because its mechanical impact is minimal. You get Inspiration for playing your character, which is something most folks do anyway. To make that portrayal deeper or more meaningful, the system has to be more meaningful. I prefer when this type of stuff is tied to more long term goals like character advancement or leveling up. I like games that use these kinds of Traits in that way.

It's pretty hard to make the more difficult checks the game throws up without having Fate and Persona points; and so players have a reason to want them. My friend deliberately plays towards earning them. I tend to find that I accrue them without having to think too much about it, by following the leads I've set for myself in my character building, and leaning heavily on the mechanical aspects of the system (especially Circles and knowledge checks) that let me shape the framing of situations to make them bear immediately, and hard, upon my PC.

Interesting. The way you describe it is that you're playing your character largely as you intended based solely on your concept of him and not so much based on the Fate and Persona points....which when compared to 5E play would almost support the idea of abandoning the Traits/Inspiration system in favor of just freeform roleplay by the players. And yet I doubt that's a conclusion you would make.

 

[chaochou]

Some of the mechanisms to me do feel like mind control. If another character can convince my character through a contest of persuasion (I probably have the term wrong) then my character no longer has autonomy, as a player I'm no longer in total control of my character.

There's nothing wrong with game rules deciding for a character what they do or how they react. I understand that a player can justify everything after the fact. I just don't want to play a game that has that mechanism.

Why don't you just choose other preferences then?

Or are social mechanics exerting their mind control over you?

 

[Campbell]

Speaking honestly I would rather Ideals, Bonds, Traits and Flaws and the Inspiration system not exist than exist as they are implemented. I think they encourage a pretty static view of character that I am not really down for. More like story beats we expect the writers to hit for a given character than capturing anything about the characters' social environment or things that like really drive them. I get wanted to reward that sort of thing. It's just like not my thing.

 

[Aldarc]

Some of the mechanisms to me do feel like mind control. If another character can convince my character through a contest of persuasion (I probably have the term wrong) then my character no longer has autonomy, as a player I'm no longer in total control of my character.

IMHO, the very nature of playing a roleplaying game entails the system placing restrictions on how fiction of the player character is resolved. I don't feel, for example, that my character has lost autonomy when they fail a climb check or a weapon attack. Failure restricts what the resulting fiction looks like or can be. It may entail who gets to authorize the fiction for the scene: the player or the GM. In D&D, the GM (per the rules) narrates the results of the character's actions regardless of success or failure. Contrast this with Cortex Prime (see below), where PCs can narrate their successes and failures.

I will post the rules for Contests in Cortex Prime. Please note that there are a number of points in the rules where the player has the option to give in or escalate the Contest or spend PP to continue. It's really a matter of who gets what they want out of the Contest, and who gets to determine the restrictions on the fiction looks like. There are also potentially different outcomes depending on how Contests go (e.g., victory, giving in, being taken out, gaining complications that can be used against you or PP that you can use, etc.).

CONTESTS: THE STRUGGLE​

When you engage in a contest, you’re the one initiating it, so you pick up the dice and roll first, adding together two results for a total. If your opposition decides against opposing you after seeing what you rolled, you automatically get what you want. If your opposition decides to stop you, they assemble a dice pool and try to beat the difficulty you just set.

If your opposition doesn’t beat your difficulty, you’ve won the contest and you get what you want. If they beat your difficulty, the ball’s back in your court. You can choose to Give In, in which case you define the failure on your own terms, you cannot immediately initiate another contest with your opponent, and you get a . Otherwise, your opposition’s total becomes the new difficulty, and you must roll again to try to beat it. Failing to beat your opposition means your opponent gets to define how they stopped you.

Contests go back and forth until one side gives in or fails to beat the difficulty. The losing side picks up a complication or, if it’s a high stakes scene, is taken out of the scene—they’re beaten, knocked down, or possibly even on their last breath. Players can spend to avoid being taken out, but they still take a complication.

Sometimes the GM may initiate a contest when a GMC chooses to do a thing; the GM is essentially asking the players, “What are you going to do about it?” However, because Cortex Prime games are about the PCs more than the GMCs, this shouldn’t happen very often in any given session.

OUTCOMES​

When you win a test or contest, you get what you want, and you can narrate the outcome. What this means usually depends on what you said you were trying to do. Was your character trying to hack the mainframe? It’s done. Knock out the bad guy? They did that, too. The player describes it and then the story moves on. If the player can’t think of what might happen if they succeed, the GM can do the honors, and remind the player to think about what the consequences of success are before they roll the dice next time.

When you fail, however, try to be entertaining in how you describe your failure. The only lasting effect is the story heading in a different direction than you wanted, unless you picked up a complication or you rolled all hitches and came up with a total botch.

I understand your preference, Oofta. But if you are entering a Contest of persuasion knowing the stakes, then I don't think it's mind control when you lose. To me - and I understand that you have a different perspective and preference - it feels like the player trying to avoid the consequences of their character's failure and loss. It feels like refusing to accept that you failed a climb check, that you didn't hit the ogre with your weapon attack, or that the ogre hit you in return and you were knocked to 0 HP. That's effectively what "being taken out" is equivalent to. Your Social or Mental HP just got taken down to 0 HP, but instead of deciding what happens to your body, they may take you out of the social scene. You try to get back in, then they may use a complication from their victory against you. Your agency is still there, but it can also bite you in the butt for your character. You lost social combat. Pony up, so to speak.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Speaking honestly I would rather Traits, Instincts, Flaws, and Beliefs andf the Inspiration system not exist than exist as they are implemented. I think they encourage a pretty static view of character that I am not really down for. More like story beats we expect the writers to hit for a given character than capturing anything about the characters' social environment or things that like really drive them. I get wanted to reward that sort of thing. It's just like not my thing.

Yeah, I absolutely get this. And I think it's a pretty common take. The fact that folks at either end of the debate will agree on this is, to me, pretty damning. It's a half measure, and pretty obviously such.

I've tried to adapt it a bit or alter how it works or fits into the game, but no matter what, it ultimately feels very tacked on. It doesn't have any grip to it at all, it seems.

 

[Aldarc]

Yeah, I absolutely get this. And I think it's a pretty common take. The fact that folks at either end of the debate will agree on this is, to me, pretty damning. It's a half measure, and pretty obviously such.

I've tried to adapt it a bit or alter how it works or fits into the game, but no matter what, it ultimately feels very tacked on. It doesn't have any grip to it at all, it seems.

BITFs are not particularly well integrated to the core game or its play loop. I think it's pretty half-baked. It seems to peeve off both people who hate meta-game currencies and those who like them. There have been a number of suggestions on how to fix it, but the need or desire for fixes further implies that it's not working as written.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, I absolutely get this. And I think it's a pretty common take. The fact that folks at either end of the debate will agree on this is, to me, pretty damning. It's a half measure, and pretty obviously such.

I've tried to adapt it a bit or alter how it works or fits into the game, but no matter what, it ultimately feels very tacked on. It doesn't have any grip to it at all, it seems.

Even the best basketball players miss a shot now and then. My PC doesn't always win arguments in terms of what the group decides.

I simply disagree with the idea that agreeing with someone else because of a contest is the same as making that basket or hitting that orc.

Different strokes and all.