My post from yesterday was actually finished today (around 2:40 in the AM) so you'll have to forgive me for pretty much trailing off mid-sentence before I got to my point. Let's try to wind this up:
To say character exploration is somehow antithesis to role-playing...even old school D&D role-playing...is kind of missing the point of role-playing altogether.
Like reading a (poorly written and meandering) novel, playing a game of Dungeons & Dragons...at least with the older editions)...is opening a chapter and seeing what befalls our characters. If the characters develop specific personalities over time such that players can point to them, than your game IS exploring character.
And it's not an unusual phenomenon...hell, it is part of what sets role-playing as a game apart from so many adventure board games. My "elf" in Dungeon!, might have some back-and-forth banter (via me) with the other players, but within the limited scope of the game the only "character" you develop is one of cowardice or courage (and possibly, foolhardiness).
Old school D&D, with an emphasis on challenging the player rather than the stat block, ends up revealing a bit more about a character...especially in the long term (campaign-style) play. And that "revelation" is what I call (when observed), "character exploration."
It happens even in short-term play...over the course of my White Plume Mountain one-off adventure, several of the party members started exhibiting signs of character development. Gustav's antagonism with the polar bears comes to mind...as does, the party's maltreatment of Brian the halfling (and his eventual rebellion against it). I'm not just talking about "social interaction" between characters (at least some of which can be attributed to the constant power shifts in the social contract between real players at the table)...I'm talking about the decisions characters make within a game, often based on their (character's) past experiences within a game, as if they were real people!
Now THAT is something you don't see in other games...at least not the same way. If I'm playing the video game Mass Effect and find the one section is really only possible (or convenient) to complete using a shotgun, than I (as a player) may decided to deal with that section with a shotgun, regardless of the character I'm using. In RPGs, characters are far more unique...even "old school" characters with their minimal stat line (six ability scores, hit points and AC, a handful of spells and gear). Because each character's experience in the game world is unique based on a) its minimal stat line, b) the actions of the adventure/dungeon/DM, c) the random fall of the dice, and d) the reactions and interactions with fellow party members.
I've seen players say, "well, my guy doesn't want to get into THAT situation, because I always seem to get out-maneuvered in those types of encounters." Even though he's aware that it's a game, his character is perfectly capable, and he's not a complete tactical dunce. His character's history of failure builds an ingrained flaw in his psyche...that only seems to occur when using that particular character.
Another character (not player...the character!) had got into a habit of seducing bar maids in every town he visits. At some point, he gets into a committed relationship with a very talented, very cool, very attractive NPC adventurer. And then he blows it by jumping into bed with yet another wench down the road! For absolutely no "gain" in the game (no gold, no XP, no necessity within the objections/parameters of the adventure)...just allowing his character to be the dog he is...even though the character's personality in this regard is the opposite of the player's. In fact, the fall-out from the debacle ended in a LOSS for the PC...lost his love interest, lost an ally/adventurer, and ended up gaining multiple enemies because of the incident.
None of what I'm talking about requires any player to write up pages of "backstory" for their character. None of what I'm talking about requires elaborate character generation systems providing skills and feats and synergy bonuses and racial bonuses and dodge bonuses and exotic weapon proficiencies and blah-blah-blah. These kind of exercises may actually DISTRACT from the exploration of character in game. If you write it all up beforehand, what is there to discover? If you're too busy with optimizing your character for his next prestige class, who has time to observe what the characters are actually doing?
NOT that character exploration doesn't occur in both these instances. It can and does, especially depending on the effort of the individual player. But stat-building and historical narratives are NOT explorations of character. Character exploration is what occurs in-game.
Here's an example of what I mean: I sketched an idea for a sleazy toad cleric a while back for an on-line OLD SCHOOL game. I had a fairly elaborate idea of the kind of character I wanted him to be...cowardly, repugnant, slovenly, lustful. A scurrilous rogue, in other words...fit for tomb raiding and dungeon crawling, and possibly abandoning his buddies when things got inopportune.
IN PLAY, that's not what actually happened. He ended up leading the charge more often than not and in the end died (what I would consider) a bit of a hero's death, fighting a defensive withdrawal to keep a slavering pack of troglodytes from killing at least a couple of his buddies. THAT personality evolved over-play...based on the situation, based on the actions of the other characters, based in part on MY ridiculous personality. But none of that had been originally planned by me. One could look at his adventures over three or four game sessions and see how the character of the character developed. THAT's "character exploration."
All right, I think I'm done on the subject for now.
: )
> To say character exploration is somehow antithesis to role-playing...even old school D&D role-playing...is kind of missing the point of role-playing altogether.
ReplyDeleteEntirely so. One might as well be pushing pieces around a chessboard otherwise.
"Character exploration" in "role playing" games is a /fundamental/ part of the "role playing contract" regardless of whether or not you're "rewarded" for "playing to the character", IMHO.
*
"XPs for roleplaying" - in a EGG/RJK pre-1974 context were more "XPs for player smartness/problem solving" rather than realisation of character abilities or playing "as the character would"; albeit getting /somewhat/ closer to an appreciation of an exploration of "character motivation" through "role playing" than the simplistic goal-driven "XP for kills and loot" in OD&D /as published/.
(q.v. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/harami2000/rct_odnd.gif - with apologies for lack of context/further explanation since that was originally intended for a DF thread).
> THAT personality evolved over-play...based on the situation, based on the actions of the other characters, based in part on MY ridiculous personality. But none of that had been originally planned by me. One could look at his adventures over three or four game sessions and see how the character of the character developed. THAT's "character exploration."
Indeed! But from a role playing contract p.o.v. I'd still go one step further and suggest that rewards for exploring the /latent/ character are a nice touch, with penalties for those who would impose their own will/knowledge (metagaming) excessively upon their "character" or force them to act in an "erratic" manner within their own environment. (Admittedly that /is/ inevitable to a degree to begin with, whilst "getting a feel" for the character).
That we're having such a discussion the best part of 40 years "after the fact" is probably indicative of how severe a stranglehold OD&D/AD&D /as published/ ended up having upon the concept of "role playing games". If the intention had truly been "guidelines, not rules" then the whole concept of experience/rewards/development would have been left far more open than it actually was... Ironic indeed that one key reason the skirmish-level rules intended for "role playing" (as expounded in a whole series of articles prior to OD&D's publication) by Curtis, Colwill and Blake ended up being considered /not/ to be RPGs was because they did not follow such rigidly mechanistic reward systems, regardless of the amount of "character exploration" actually undertaken in game play!
Good posts, thank you!
David.
And that bulwark action allowed two of us to escape!
ReplyDelete--Thanks again! :D
Yeah, I better understand what you were getting at. Like Winston Wolf said in Pulp Fiction: "Just because you are a character doesn't mean you have character." -- No amount of maximising is a replacement for experience (not the same as an XP total), nor the number of Traits/Edges/Flaws the same as a developed interactive personality.
We ought to Skype game again, JB. :D
> Like Winston Wolf said in Pulp Fiction: "Just because you are a character doesn't mean you have character."
ReplyDelete@Timeshadows: next you'll be agreeing with my proposition that xD&D isn't /inherently/ a "role playing game", although it has the potential to be one. :p
Have fun, y'all! :)
Certainly, Old School D&D can be played as mindlessly as a video game, and those of us who started the game very young often played it that way until we began growing up.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the earlier versions of D&D *require* roleplaying much more than their more recent incarnations do.
For example: In the original game, there was a mechanic for resolving diplomatic efforts (NPC reaction rolls, adjusted by the diplomat's charisma modifier), but I never saw any player or DM try to use the mechanic without roleplaying or detailing the actual content of the diplomatic overture. I have, by contrast, seen d20 players roll Diplomacy checks and succeed because they have a dope modifier, despite the fact that they did not bother to articulate their character's approach. (Despite the best efforts of Mike Mearls, skill challenges continue to perplex many 4e players and DMs. Rather than draw them out into roleplaying, skill challenges degenerate into dice-fueled guessing games.
Part of the problem--as previous posters have implied--was WotC's decision to make D&D mimic WoW, so that a character is little more than a stat block. Instead, the sale pitch should have been, 'If you like WoW, you'll love D&D. D&D was the original inspiration behind WoW, and it's better because your character is more than a stat block; s/he can interact with the world in the same ways that you do with your world in real life. Also, instead of sitting alone in front of your computer imagining a connection with faceless ciphers, you'll be sitting at a table with verifiable humans, engaged in a compelling collective storytelling experience mediated by a lean rules set and some dice rolling.'
I think you get what I was trying to say and said it better than I.
ReplyDeleteI made a post about the subject or on my blog but from a point of boredom that made it a bit too rant-y and antagonistic I think.
To say you explore dungeons and not characters is too simplistic a statement when in true you do both. This is more than a board game. Very few players then, now or going forward are making characters for RPGs that are just stats they don't care about. As you mention very eloquently..."you'll be sitting at a table with verifiable humans, engaged in a compelling collective storytelling experience mediated by a lean rules set and some dice rolling." So well put.
Great post B/X.
Maybe a better term than "character exploration" would be "character revelation". That's what I see in my game, anyway. Over time, due to the decisions they make, character's personalities are revealed in the game. Not for the sake of having a "story" or anything, but just naturally. And it makes the experience cooler. For instance, one of the PCs was created as a Bounty Hunter, so we just sort of assumed (the player included) that he was a ruthless dude out for gold pieces. But over time he's shown himself to be a loyal friend, like when another PC was getting carried off by giant mutant ants, Bounty Hunter ended up risking all to retrieve the body, intent on getting him resurrected at all costs. The player wasn't playing him like that because he "was supposed to". He just wanted to. I'm starting to think that I might do away with alignment, as well. Why tell somebody how his character should act? He's going to show his character's "character" by the way he plays him.
ReplyDelete