"What" you are versus "who" you are.

[Crothian]

In D&D, the only mechanic that touches on "who" is Alignment

Why would one need mechanics to define who one is?

 

[Mark Plemmons]

I think that's sadly true more often than it's not. One example from the PHB II really sticks out in my mind: the expanded barbarian class now offers an automatically activated boost to combat prowess and durability, removing the need for "this often complicated tactical decision", i.e., rage.

Heaven forbid that players should have to consider tactics.

The option pushes barbarians to act according to their idiom: jump into the thick of things and soak up damage. It's akin to how berserkers in Iron Heroes get tokens for being hit.

I don't see how this obviates tactical thinking any more or less than any other class ability.

Well, it's an automatic action, not something that the player has to determine when to use, so it naturally eliminates a certain degree of tactical thinking.

Now, I've got no problem with having new options, or even this particular ability. But the text implies, to me, that tactical decisions (i.e., having to think) are too much for players to deal with. And I disagree strongly with that. I WANT players that carefully consider their options, not ones that just dive right in without thinking.

I brought it up because I feel that it ties in to the "who you are" (some have argued this as the "thinking person's choice") versus "what you are" (the "pick from a list" person).

 

[buzz]

Why would one need mechanics to define who one is?

It's not a matter of need. It's a matter of, if you want your game to be about the "who," then, ideally, that's backed up with "who" mechanics.

E.g., Burning Wheel is very much about "who," and it has mechanics (Beliefs, Instincts, Traits, and how they relate to Artha ["drama points," essentially]) that back that up.

Ergo, if you're looking for "who" in D&D, Alignment is one route.

 

[buzz]

Well, it's an automatic action, not something that the player has to determine when to use, so it naturally eliminates a certain degree of tactical thinking.

I don't agree. Besides supporting the Barb's idiom, it adds a new dimension to the already-tactical management of the the hit point resource. Now, instead of just tracking how many rages they have left for the day (which, at high levels, becomes near-meaningless, IME), the player needs to weigh whether they want to risk the hit point loss in exchange for getting their fury to activate. It's literally a class ability you have to risk death in order to use. That's pretty interesting.

I brought it up because I feel that it ties in to the "who you are" (some have argued this as the "thinking person's choice") versus "what you are" (the "pick from a list" person).

The impression I got from the thread was that one option being for "thinking people" and the other not is a totally bogus distinction. That's certainly the conclusion I support.

 

[Crothian]

It's not a matter of need. It's a matter of, if you want your game to be about the "who," then, ideally, that's backed up with "who" mechanics.

Again why? Is it because if it isn't there people forget about it ot tend to move away? Does everything need to have a mechanical representation to be part of the game? I guess that it can make it easier for people that don't always do the Who. I know and have plenty of games that deal with the Who through mechancis but growing up playing D&D I never found that we needed them.

 

[buzz]

Is it because if it isn't there people forget about it ot tend to move away?

It's not an issue of being there or not. It's focus. If you want your game to be about something, having the system support that something mechanically theoretically makes it easier.

D&D doesn't care about your PCs beliefs or childhood traumas. Nothing in the system allows them to directly impact the game (barring Alignment, to a degree). You have to go outside the ruleset in order to give them weight. Some people like doing it this way, some people like having mechanical support built-in.

 

[Glyfair]

It's not an issue of being there or not. It's focus. If you want your game to be about something, having the system support that something mechanically theoretically makes it easier.

IMO, having a mechanic for "who you are" to put the focus on that, is only good for enforcing that part for those indifferent or worse to that area. Those that are interested will focus on that regardless.

For example, Pendragon is a good example of a system that has a mechanical focus on "who you are." It has various opposing character traits that each character has values in. If you meet an encounter that deals with that, you might have to roll against that trait. For example, if an NPC tries to seduce you and you don't wish to be seduced, you might have to "save" against your Chaste/Lustful value to see if you resist.

Now, in my experience, many people who are very focused on character roles hate this sort of system. It limits their portrayal of a role and boils it down to a mechanic. Some of the fans like that it forces players who aren't interested in that sort of role to have to portray a character.

I think that a mechanic for this sort of thing at best helps move a group towards a happy medium when they have different interests in the game. Those who are interested will focus on that area anyway.

The exception might be a games mechanical reward system. In that case, D&D has flexibility to use this area in some way. The DMG even mentions rewarding players with exceptional roleplaying with more experience. Some game systems' reward areas might focus on this more, but D&D is middle of the road in the area, not the bottom of the barrel.

 

[buzz]

Glyfair, I think focusing on how Pendragon handles things is not a means to an accuate picture of the possibilities for "who" mechanics. There are plenty of systems that reward or reflect rather than enforce PC personalities, histories, and goals.

(That said, I've never understood why having constraints ruffles the feathers of so many "people who are very focused on character roles". For actors, playing a role is all about working within parameters. It's doesn't seem very "who" to me to demand that you can do whatever the heck you want, and it's "in character".)

As for "good roleplaying" XP awards, I consider it a basic and throwaway enough reward that I'd put D&D closer to "bottom of the barrel" than I would "middle of the road". I'm not entirely comfortable with the terminology, though, as I don't consider this a bad thing. It's just D&D's way. It's focused on other aspects of play.

 

[Thurbane]

Why would one need mechanics to define who one is?

I agree.

In terms of reward, I generally reward good backstory, persona and roleplaying with "in game" rewards like tailored story arcs, favourable NPC reaction etc. rather than "meta rewards" like XP. (Although truly outstanding RP, what I would call above and beyond the call of duty, I generally do give an XP award for).

 

[Crothian]

D&D doesn't care about your PCs beliefs or childhood traumas. Nothing in the system allows them to directly impact the game (barring Alignment, to a degree). You have to go outside the ruleset in order to give them weight. Some people like doing it this way, some people like having mechanical support built-in.

I'm saying you don't need rules to role play beliefs or childhood truamas. Or do people need them to do this? Role playing this stuff is certainly not outside D&D and there are rules for XP through role playing, story awards, and non combative things if the DM wants to use them.