Which has always struck me as a bit of a disconnect, in that most typical D&D settings are based very heavily on what amounts to a medieval "every person for themself" ethos where the strong and-or rich win out and the weak and-or poor are cast aside.Nothing wrong with playing a character who is very different than yourself; although it will probably be more challenging than playing a character similar to yourself, it is often very fun and rewarding to do. But (and I know you’re never going to agree with me on this, that’s ok, you are welcome to your opinion), D&D is a cooperative game, and there should accordingly be an expectation of cooperation between players, and therefore between characters.
Absolutely. My point is that striving for character success can sometimes directly clash with striving for as-player enjoyment, as in the example I gave above; and in my view it's player enjoyment that must be sacrificed if one intends on remaining true to the character.This is another thing we just aren’t going to agree on. I mean, if that’s fun for you, knock yourself out. But personally I prefer as a player to strive for my character to succeed, and as a DM I want my players to do the same.
Impossible to avoid unless players put their own enjoyment ahead of just doing what the character would do; which while fine for the players plays hell with the integrity of the roleplay.I think with good game design, that clash can be avoided.
Strive for, yes. Expect, no. Demand, definitely not.From an abstract, narrative-focused perspective, yes, failure can absolutely be as interesting as success. But from a practical gameplay perspective, success is what you should strive for.
I'm not talking about specifically pursuing failure (though it might have seemed as if I was due to poor wording). I'm talking about failure simply being part of the game and, indirectly, taking a bit of a shot at players who are so conditioned to constant success that they complain about any failure.I don’t want my players striving to fail because they think it will be more interesting. Failure will come as a natural result of the difficulty of achieving success, and yes, it will be interesting when it happens. But pursuing it actively short-circuits the whole process.
I just can't reconcile such meta-mechanics with immersion.Again, we just aren’t going to agree on this. You don’t like such mechanics, and that’s fine. I do, when they are executed well. Or I’ll say “when they are executed in the ways I prefer,” since saying “well” implies that the quality of execution can be measured objectively.
Yet how else can one hope to reward a player for following (which in most cases means roleplaying) one's bonds, flaws, ideals, etc., which is what you seemed to be saying you wanted? Meta-mechanics are out. What's left?Oh, yeah, I find the practice of awarding XP for “good roleplaying” highly objectionable, to put it politely. That’s definitely not what I’m advocating for here.
This is why I say it's impossible to execute well.
Fair enough.You do you, but even in small amounts this practice is objectionable to me. Like, I actually find it worse than story-based character advancement. It has all the same problems and more for me.