The Return of the Player and the Man Beneath the Mask?

[Jack7]

Do you think that 5th Edition will herald the return of the player (the emphasis on the game returning to the Player) versus the majority of game emphasis being upon the Character?

I am very hopeful that the 5th Edition will lead to the return of the player and will mean a lessening of the importance of the Character.

Personally I think this is a major reason the game declined in popularity over time, the emphasis shifted from the (real, fluid, and adaptable) Player to (the very complicated, cumbersome, restricted, and entirely imaginary) Character.

This is my personal analysis: over time the game became ever more complicated in Character abilities and capabilities (attributes, skills, feats, powers, etc.) in order to provide a sort of artificial method of creating "Virtual Players" in the form of Characters. But of course no artificial or systematic method is capable of producing Virtualities that are an acceptable substitute for a Real, Actualized, Human Player. (This is an essential point in game theory, even if it is not often overtly acknowledged in RPG and PRG and ARG design.)

If the emphasis of the game swings away from the Character (I am not saying skeletonize the Character, I am saying make him subservient to the Player, rather than the Player the "mere mechanical controller" of the complicated, overly regulated Character) and back to the Player then I think the game will have much wider appeal again.

The game had become more and more mechanically calcified and restricted over time, effectively assuring, whether this was intentional or unintentional, that the Character rather than the Player became the central focus of the game, whereas so far I sense that the 5th Edition seems to be shooting for an emphasis upon the Human Player who is the Real Ghost in the Machine underneath the Character Persona.

I guess I'm saying will the 5th Edition move from Persona back to Person?

My supposition and suspicion is that, intentionally or unintentionally, it will. And that this will greatly improve the game in most respects.

Your hypothesis?

 

[TarionzCousin]

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

 

[Niccodaemus]

I like the way you are looking at this. A system of overly complicated rules could almost be thought of as a sophisticated marionette. In order to perform well, you have to be skilled at manipulating the marionette.

By focusing on the performer, rather than the "puppet", it is sort of like having a sock puppet. Even a novice can make a sock puppet grin, and it is far easier to communicate with it. That is because the sock takes on the contours of the human hand, which is infinitely more articulate than any marionette.

A master at marionette performing can put on an astounding show. But he is limited to the design of the marionette he is working with.

I don't know where 5e is going, but you very nicely defined my preference in playing.

 

[Cadfan]

I'm concerned that "emphasis on the player" will mean "emphasis on mother-may-I DMing." I am not a fan.

 

[Consonant Dude]

I think I get what the OP is saying but I see it a little differently. I find that immersion is extremely important for me.


"Player VS Persona" strikes me as a false dichotomy. The point for me is that roleplaying is a kickass medium where a bunch of folks interact in a shared imagined world (what people around here call "elf pretend", I believe ).

Ideally for me, neither the persona nor the player should take a backseat. On the contrary, they kinda make one, within reason. I enjoy playing the most when I care about my character, when I care about the PCs next to me, the NPCs, the world environment, the intrigues and so on. It is the connection to my character that makes things interesting. If that's not the case, well throwing dice means little more than playing Yahtzee.

Where I agree is that if the mechanical construct of a character is too complex, than I begin to see it as less a persona and more of a build. Ironically, I become both more aware of my character and myself, as a player. It's that dissociation that is the problem for me. I don't want to make builds, I want to make characters. And I don't want to look at long lists of skills, feats and powers to determine what I'll do next. I prefer the process be as intuitive as possible and just say what I want my character to accomplish.

That's how I see things.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I very much hope it marks the return of the player. I feel like the game has been moving the other way far too long.

 

[Incenjucar]

Older editions often actively punished you for playing yourself rather than your character, except usually when it comes to puzzles. One of the major differences between 4E and previous editions is that 4E almost exclusively lets you play whatever however, and the challenge was using that character to navigate the world - a story game.

In previous editions, part of the game was actually the challenge of playing the character. You were usually given a lot of heavy restrictions and made to deal with them in the game. Playing a dwarf? You get challenged by your limited access to magic, cultural stereotypes, and your limited range of class options. Playing a paladin? Oh man, you have a whole list of extra challenges you have to deal with in the game. Paladins are like hard mode.

In 4E, you have almost none of these challenges, and instead your character is mostly handed to you for you to do with as you will, and your challenges are strictly dealing with the world through that character. This can be terrible for people who enjoy the extra mini-games of portrayal, but for the people who only care about participating in the story, it's generally fantastic. Granted, people can challenge themselves or each other to the old mini-games, and divine characters are rarely entirely free of it, but it's not a default or even suggested aspect of 4E.

Personally, I don't care for the mini-games. I enjoy D&D as a storytelling game where I write my part of the script, rather than an extended Whose Line is it Anyway? game where I have to match my story to an outside declaration of what is correct. I do, however, think those mini-games are what a lot of people consider real role-playing, though I argue that it's specifically role-playing as a challenge. If this in fact the case, then it's understandable why some people consider each new edition to be further and further from "Real" D&D - the game has been more and more about role-playing as a choice and less and less about role-playing as a challenge.

 

[Jack7]

I think I get what the OP is saying but I see it a little differently. I find that immersion is extremely important for me.


"Player VS Persona" strikes me as a false dichotomy. The point for me is that roleplaying is a kickass medium where a bunch of folks interact in a shared imagined world (what people around here call "elf pretend", I believe ).

Ideally for me, neither the persona nor the player should take a backseat. On the contrary, they kinda make one, within reason. I enjoy playing the most when I care about my character, when I care about the PCs next to me, the NPCs, the world environment, the intrigues and so on. It is the connection to my character that makes things interesting. If that's not the case, well throwing dice means little more than playing Yahtzee.

Where I agree is that if the mechanical construct of a character is too complex, than I begin to see it as less a persona and more of a build. Ironically, I become both more aware of my character and myself, as a player. It's that dissociation that is the problem for me. I don't want to make builds, I want to make characters. And I don't want to look at long lists of skills, feats and powers to determine what I'll do next. I prefer the process be as intuitive as possible and just say what I want my character to accomplish.

That's how I see things.

I'm not against what you're saying CD. I'm saying the game went so far towards the Character it effectively swamped out the Player. I've personally got nothing against immersion or Characters. Both are good in my opinion, especially in Role Play Games. Because the point is to Role Play.

But in the end I see them as tools of the Player, the Player is not the tool of the Character. Or put another way, "Is the character (or game, or role) created for the Player, or the Player for the character?"

 

[Savage Wombat]

I think that a game that really required you to adopt a persona, instead of just running a character, would have a formalized system of psychological limitations a la Champions or GURPS. So that the character persona was formally a restriction on your actions.

4e does seem to strip what little D&D had of that away, I'll agree. But I'm one of those who has always insisted on the "Role-Playing" part of RPGs.

I would like to hear an earlier poster elaborate on how the "this is my character build" style discourages role-playing - I think there's a point to be made there.

 

[Snapdragyn]

I most sincerely hope not.

I abhorred 4e because it didn't feel like an RPG to me, but like a board game w/ story elements. I hope that 5e, or at least some portion of the modular, set-your-own-dial construction of it, will return the focus to the character, & the fun (IMO) of stepping into that persona at the game table. I'm not suggesting LARPing - while that might be fun (I've never tried it), I wouldn't consider it D&D - but something with enough of a character focus to enjoy exploring those aspects, while still leaving room for some good meta-humor around the interplay between the character(s) & the player(s).