Tell me what you think is iconic and necessary or just really cool
about Paladins, wizards, clerics, fighters,...
Tell me what you think is iconic and necessary or just really cool about Paladins, wizards, clerics, fighters, bards, thieves, rangers, barbarians, druids, and all the rest.
Cool, Robert Bohl . I like the idea of Paladins (though maybe not all paladins) getting a nice bonus for being religiously rigid. For being dogmatic. Hmmm.
Paladins - I like playing them as Superman/Captain America, do the right thing types. When you're slogging through dungeons and carving up monsters having one person there who wants to Do the Right Thing is really awesome and potent.
Wizards - I love wizards as alternate universe scientists. They're obsessed with magic, they read books all the time, they presumably do experiments.
Clerics - They can communicate directly with gods and get a response. How crazy is that??
Fighters - Oh, fighters. My favorite of all the classes. In a world of fireballs and miracles and monsters the size of hills they just wear big armor and walk forward swinging a weapon.
Bards - This one is hard because I think bards are very silly, unless you skew them over into war drums or Doof Warrior territory.
Thieves - They turn every dungeon crawl into a heist.
Rangers - I'm actually not sure I remember what they're about. They can have pets, right? A pet bear is cool.
Barbarians - Same as fighter but with less armor and even less restraint.
Druids - The oneness with nature thing is really cool. Shifting into animals, talking with trees, talking those trees into punching people.
They all have a lot of interesting, built in story stuff that I'd love to really dig into but there's so many dungeons to crawl.
Paladin: Turns out, so do I. I think that's super great! Wizards: And sometimes, those experiments blow up in their face and they summon a demon from the dungeon dimensions and oh knows! Cleric: i mean, right? Though, what is faith if you know God is listening? Fighters: Fighters have got to be the craziest, right. "Oh, that's a dragon? Cool, I'll walk up and hit it with this bit of steel." Bards: I like bards as the ultimate fifth agent, making sure everyone succeeds. what do you think of that? Thieves: ... You have no idea, but the idea that they fundamentally change what a dungeon crawl is might just trigger something important. Rangers: Also, maybe something about twin longswords? Nah, in my mind rangers are trackers -- they are the masters of getting places. Barbarians: "oh, that's the tarrasque? My berserker rage will hurt it, because i am good at getting ANGRY." Druids: "talking those trees into punching people" ... that's ... interesting.
So many dungeons to crawl: Is that a feature or a bug?
William Nichols Re: Clerics - Right? The fact that gods are real and if you meet whatever requirements makes you a cleric means you can call on them directly totally distorts the nature of religion and faith. Faith ends up no longer being, "I have faith in this idea as the truth," and instead becomes, "I have faith that my god is the STRONGEST."
Re: Bards - I shouldn't have said they're silly. I've played them before and had a lot of fun. In Dungeon World, I really like the social aspect of them (being able to have a conversation with literally anything) and being well-traveled and full of incidental knowledge. That shows up a little less in other games though. Being group cheerleader is hard for me to grasp onto as "this is COOL."
So many dungeon crawls is fine by me, but it makes me want to run a Burning Wheel game where we burn characters based on the classes and write up the beliefs that are written into them and play it out. I know other people have done it, but I'd love to have a game where a druid is pursuing balance in nature as a narrative arc or a cleric advancing the cause of their religion out in the world rather than just going out and whacking monsters.
* Paladins risk their lives for a cause or oath. * Wizards cross the border of reality to summon magical powers. * Clerics are vessels for their deities, spreading a message through their works. * Fighters are veterans of battle, coolly dispatching enemies by sword or spear, using specialized combat techniques. * Bards connect to the music of the world, using this intimacy as an advantage in every situation, including combat and parlay. * Thieves live outside the law. They take what they want, when they want it, by con or burglary. * Rangers explore and travel the wilderness, surviving by their wit and grit. * Barbarians are misplaced nomads, reacting to the world's technology and magic with wonderment and sometimes distaste. * Druids have deep and mystical ties to the land and live to protect the natural world.
Some others:
* Cavaliers and knights are the swornswords of their noble lords, extending political reach into the crooks and crannies of the realm. * Commanders are natural-born leaders who use their charisma and strategic bent to guide others to success. * Sorcerers make pacts with dangerous powers from beyond, making transgressive sacrifices to gain magical abilities.
Yeah, clerics are odd. Its not like "Guys, my god is super cool and here are three arguments for why ... ", its "Hey, god, do we have the cosmic canons online? Cool, roast this guy for me. Thanks!"
Bards: Agreed, the dungeon world bards are super great. I do wonder about other bards, and how to make group cheerleader cool.
I wrote a "Reimagining Bards" thing on my (dormant) blog a long time ago.
Basically, bards are attuned to the rhythm of the world. When they fight, it's music to them. They sense the patterns and rhythm of your attacks and respond with syncopated ripostes. They hear the music of the earth and work in harmony with it. The land gives them bounty in return (this looks like magic to some people).
Your visions of each are pretty cool. I don't know if I think Wizards have to cross the border, rather than exploiting loopholes. I like that version just as much.
My view on bards is shaped by their D&D3e powers and by a campaign I played in college. I remember a moment when a new character joined the group, a bard. The party had a secret agenda, and it was an open question what the in-fiction reason for us opening up and welcoming in a new PC would be. The bard just got our fighter alone and cast suggestion, and suddenly the fighter started babbling the truth - he didn't have a chance on his will save. We were all in shock. This wasn't the bard as goofy comic relief - this was a sinister, scary set of capabilities.
Bards have both incredibly high social skill bonuses and access to a lot of mind magic - charm, suggestion, etc. I think of them as master manipulators whose social role customarily gives them extensive access to important people and the freedom to speak their minds. Music and song often provide a way to perform magic without it being apparent to those watching. Bards thus can serve as D&D fantasy setting's diplomats, spies, and negotiators.
Sam Zeitlin Yeah, bards as scary motherfuckers is pretty great. With a little of the comic, they can be even scarier: manipulative scary bastards who no one ever suspects, because they great you with a smile, and a twinkle in the eye.
When you hug the bard, you never see the dagger. The knife point that ends your breath is held with compassion.
William Nichols I can't reach the site right now, but my old blog at http://adam.legendary.org/thoughts should bring up a couple posts about Reimagining... stuff. What might be useful is the method I use to deconstruct things and reassemble them in new ways. That can easily be repurposed into deconstruction to cut away the stuff that isn't essential to find the core of these classes, too.
I love when Bards increase the scope of the world through lore telling. DW nails this.
In my experience, Paladins are just an excuse for people to justify playing a self-righteous dick and saying "It's what my character would do" when people complain it's not fun playing with them. But that might just be my damage.
I have played with the Paladin who is there to argue about doing things his way constantly, and that is annoying. It is also a "feature" of never split the party games. I have also played with the antagonistic paladin, which is often annoying.
In general I find it more fun when playing them to set aside some of my cynicism and really try to focus on playing someone who is trying to do the right thing regardless of personal cost. I've never had this kind of paladin survive any appreciable amount of time.
Sean Leventhal But that's the fun of playing that kind of paladin.
Maybe a game with a "sacrificial paladin" needs a built-in safety valve. Basically, when a paladin sacrifices himself for his beliefs in pursuit of the Cause of Good, sometimes the gods smile upon you and save your bacon.
Not a big fan of making any of those things necessary, because they are actually limits placed on creating fiction, however, when I play a Paladin, or Cleric, I try not to be an antagonist.
I've played with many people who like to steer the game towards only their kind of fun by using those classes in that way.
I do make appeals to the party, both to do things in a way that would work within my dogma, and to consider abiding by my dogma, but to do that effectively, I need to be other than annoying, and it helps if the system supports me.
Hackmaster (sometimes seen as AD&D 2.5) actually grants that PCs who have the same patron as a healer will gain extra HP during healing attempts.
I also try, as I might, to convert NPCs. I am especially prone to do this with hostiles. If a GM will allow me to do a CHA check to make my pitch, I'll happily try to turn our foes into allies by sharing words, and a copy of my literature with them (yes, I usually have pamphlets if the GM will allow).
I've had success with intelligent species turning to our side, and becoming my acolytes. That makes the other Player's less likely to want to kill everything we meet. They at least wait to see if we can get another lackey.
To me, the core of D&D is Fighter, Thief, Mage though, and everything else is like "Religious Mage", "Woodsy Fighter", "Hitman Thief".
The classes, though, are only necessary if we're using the lump advancement system. In D&D, you typically get this huge bump, and everything jumps at the same time. Class was created as labels for the charts that map that.
That's not necessary, but some people far prefer it, because you can see where you will be at X level, if the game were to continue that long, though it typically doesn't.
To me, things "feel" D&D when there are D&Dish ideas floating around, but often enough, other systems do those ideas more justice.
I'm a huge fan of limitations to the fiction. I want playbooks. I want prebuilt archetypes. I don't want free form like GURPS; that's not my jam at all.
I adore playbooks for a number of reasons, some of which is the inherent limitations. I make a single choice (playbook), and it greatly impacts my other choices. These are limitations on my other choices, sure, but it is also direction.
As for the antagonistic Paladin, there's a couple ways to do in my experience. There's being antagonistic to the players, then to the characters. It can absolutely work to have characters butt heads, and that can be a lot of fun.
Having characters who are effectively roadblocks is something else, and is not so good.
In my experience, being antagonistic to the goals of the PCs is often tantamount to being antagonistic to the goals of the players.
"I didn't stop you from killing that NPC, and ultimately end up tipping the first domino that would lead to a TPK, because I have a problem with you. I did that, because my PC has a problem with your PC."
... "I didn't stop you from stealing that magical item you really want, because I have a problem with you. My PC has a problem with your PC."
"I didn't interfere in that deal you were making with that demon, because I have a problem with you..."
I think the issue really comes down to how much the actions of the PC reflect the desires of the player in question, and usually characters that are absurdly good, or evil end up being obstructions to things that are both interesting, and player generated goals.
What's interesting to me is that few people play "evangelical" Fighters, Thieves, or Mages, out to convince all the other PCs they need to reconsider their beliefs, and direction in life.
It suggests that when certain people play Clerics, and Paladins, their play is informed by something different. They may play those classes to make a point.
There's a difference between player goals and character goals, T to the E to the O .
I've often played characters and wanted them to have the most miserable short existence. Part of doing that is setting them up to either make hard choices, or to take things on that they cannot.
The difficulty is, as all things, in communication. Clearly and effectively communicating that without ruining or detracting from the fun takes some skill.
I can agree that there can be seperation, but D&D is a game that very much brings the two things into alignment. Everyone who plays D&D, and really wants to be playing D&D more than other games, is playing to advance. D&D makes certain things advancing the PCs a matter of certainty.
Advancement in D&D is most reliably achieved via looting, and killing. Other forms are less reliable, because they depend upon GM fiat. GM fiat is variable from table to table, and even at the same table, depending upon who is running the game.
So, if I backstab an orc, I am guaranteed a certain number of XP. If instead, I listen to Robert's Paladin pontificate as to why I shouldn't, then comply. I get nothing. Not only that, however long it took Robert to RP that speech is time subtracted from us doing things that matter, systemically, in D&D.
D&D leans towards giving the authority to make such a call on each GM. So, I might grant someone the same XP as killing an orc, because they listened to Robert's Paladin, but not every GM would.
There are games that would provide a systemic reward for just that. Savage Worlds, Fate, and a few others come to mind.
To me, the best strategy in D&D for playing disruptive PCs in a non-disruptive way is to focus the point of their occupation outside of the party.
So, if I'm an assassin, I kill NPCs for money, try to hide that from the other PCs that might object, and try to target marks that the other PCs will be glad are dead (in case I am found out).
If I am a Paladin, my code is applied to me, and exemplified by me. I do not hold others to it, and by making others witness to my way of doing things, by having other bear witness to my successes, as I hold true to my faith, that is my testament. I will preach to NPCs, and try to convert them, but if the system itself offers no incentive to the players to convert their PCs, I don't even bother. We can just pretend that I pester them during those times that we aren't narrating, just as we skip over all the bathroom breaks our PCs take.
I don't disagree that PC, and player goals can be different, but I've played a lot of D&D, and most oft, they are not, because D&D is designed well, and makes you want to kill, and loot, because that's what it's about.
Huh. It's be interesting to see a different mechanical incentive in a murder hobo game. I've got some if those in the game I'm working on, but... hmmm.....
Right now, I'm handing out XP for: 1. Going on difficult combat missions. 2. Acting like your character. You check this before a mission starts, and mark xp. 3. A few moves, but those two will be the primary.
I'm a little concerned with the lack of need to act like your character during a mission, but the playbooks with the biggest role to play there (Paladin, I'm looking at you) have a secondary system in place.
One thing I quite enjoy is being a character I have never been before, and D&D's stereotyping is problematic for me, in that way.
Do all Paladin's need to act the same way? It seems unlikely that they did, do, or would.
The lack of concrete examples of character traits, the reliance upon stereotypes, and broad brushing really makes it tough to drill down into character in a meaningful way, and reward good RP.
Judgments about RP, in any D&Dish game, are probably going to be made based upon comparison to ideals, rather than adherence to the individual character's script.
For instance, a great trait to give a character might be that they are always late. Not only would that be pointless to pursue in D&D, because the GM is probably not going to award any XP for that, but many of the players are going to be annoyed that the PC is not properly positioned to be effective.
"So, I know you guys want me to heal the thief, but I'm late, so she dies. Don't worry though. I know a great cleric in the next town who just loves to Raise Dead. That's her thing."
I would love that kind of thing, and even allow the "dead" thief to have input, as a ghost. I'd grant XP to the thief, and the Paladin for doing that, and try to make the whole thing into another adventure hook, but a lot of GMs aren't quite on their feet, and/or plan so thoroughly that it's almost like they forget that other people are involved in "their game".
If you're working on awarding inventive RP choices, it might be best to think it terms of what is implicitly deterring people from making them. D&D doesn't say you can't do certain things, but neither does it have a framework there for support of some really fun sorts of RP.
I enjoy playing rigid religious extremists as quasi-antagonist protagonists, so I like paladins for that.
ReplyDeleteCool, Robert Bohl . I like the idea of Paladins (though maybe not all paladins) getting a nice bonus for being religiously rigid. For being dogmatic. Hmmm.
ReplyDeleteI'm going for what I think is really cool.
ReplyDeletePaladins - I like playing them as Superman/Captain America, do the right thing types. When you're slogging through dungeons and carving up monsters having one person there who wants to Do the Right Thing is really awesome and potent.
Wizards - I love wizards as alternate universe scientists. They're obsessed with magic, they read books all the time, they presumably do experiments.
Clerics - They can communicate directly with gods and get a response. How crazy is that??
Fighters - Oh, fighters. My favorite of all the classes. In a world of fireballs and miracles and monsters the size of hills they just wear big armor and walk forward swinging a weapon.
Bards - This one is hard because I think bards are very silly, unless you skew them over into war drums or Doof Warrior territory.
Thieves - They turn every dungeon crawl into a heist.
Rangers - I'm actually not sure I remember what they're about. They can have pets, right? A pet bear is cool.
Barbarians - Same as fighter but with less armor and even less restraint.
Druids - The oneness with nature thing is really cool. Shifting into animals, talking with trees, talking those trees into punching people.
They all have a lot of interesting, built in story stuff that I'd love to really dig into but there's so many dungeons to crawl.
Bret Gillan
ReplyDeletePaladin: Turns out, so do I. I think that's super great!
Wizards: And sometimes, those experiments blow up in their face and they summon a demon from the dungeon dimensions and oh knows!
Cleric: i mean, right? Though, what is faith if you know God is listening?
Fighters: Fighters have got to be the craziest, right. "Oh, that's a dragon? Cool, I'll walk up and hit it with this bit of steel."
Bards: I like bards as the ultimate fifth agent, making sure everyone succeeds. what do you think of that?
Thieves: ... You have no idea, but the idea that they fundamentally change what a dungeon crawl is might just trigger something important.
Rangers: Also, maybe something about twin longswords? Nah, in my mind rangers are trackers -- they are the masters of getting places.
Barbarians: "oh, that's the tarrasque? My berserker rage will hurt it, because i am good at getting ANGRY."
Druids: "talking those trees into punching people" ... that's ... interesting.
So many dungeons to crawl: Is that a feature or a bug?
William Nichols Re: Clerics - Right? The fact that gods are real and if you meet whatever requirements makes you a cleric means you can call on them directly totally distorts the nature of religion and faith. Faith ends up no longer being, "I have faith in this idea as the truth," and instead becomes, "I have faith that my god is the STRONGEST."
ReplyDeleteRe: Bards - I shouldn't have said they're silly. I've played them before and had a lot of fun. In Dungeon World, I really like the social aspect of them (being able to have a conversation with literally anything) and being well-traveled and full of incidental knowledge. That shows up a little less in other games though. Being group cheerleader is hard for me to grasp onto as "this is COOL."
So many dungeon crawls is fine by me, but it makes me want to run a Burning Wheel game where we burn characters based on the classes and write up the beliefs that are written into them and play it out. I know other people have done it, but I'd love to have a game where a druid is pursuing balance in nature as a narrative arc or a cleric advancing the cause of their religion out in the world rather than just going out and whacking monsters.
Before reading what other people wrote:
ReplyDelete* Paladins risk their lives for a cause or oath.
* Wizards cross the border of reality to summon magical powers.
* Clerics are vessels for their deities, spreading a message through their works.
* Fighters are veterans of battle, coolly dispatching enemies by sword or spear, using specialized combat techniques.
* Bards connect to the music of the world, using this intimacy as an advantage in every situation, including combat and parlay.
* Thieves live outside the law. They take what they want, when they want it, by con or burglary.
* Rangers explore and travel the wilderness, surviving by their wit and grit.
* Barbarians are misplaced nomads, reacting to the world's technology and magic with wonderment and sometimes distaste.
* Druids have deep and mystical ties to the land and live to protect the natural world.
Some others:
* Cavaliers and knights are the swornswords of their noble lords, extending political reach into the crooks and crannies of the realm.
* Commanders are natural-born leaders who use their charisma and strategic bent to guide others to success.
* Sorcerers make pacts with dangerous powers from beyond, making transgressive sacrifices to gain magical abilities.
All else is color.
Bret Gillan
ReplyDeleteYeah, clerics are odd. Its not like "Guys, my god is super cool and here are three arguments for why ... ", its "Hey, god, do we have the cosmic canons online? Cool, roast this guy for me. Thanks!"
Bards: Agreed, the dungeon world bards are super great. I do wonder about other bards, and how to make group cheerleader cool.
I wrote a "Reimagining Bards" thing on my (dormant) blog a long time ago.
ReplyDeleteBasically, bards are attuned to the rhythm of the world. When they fight, it's music to them. They sense the patterns and rhythm of your attacks and respond with syncopated ripostes. They hear the music of the earth and work in harmony with it. The land gives them bounty in return (this looks like magic to some people).
Adam Dray Those bards sound really cool.
ReplyDeleteYour visions of each are pretty cool. I don't know if I think Wizards have to cross the border, rather than exploiting loopholes. I like that version just as much.
This was actually really useful. It lead to a rewrite of my Ranger and Thief. Open to more!
ReplyDeleteMy view on bards is shaped by their D&D3e powers and by a campaign I played in college. I remember a moment when a new character joined the group, a bard. The party had a secret agenda, and it was an open question what the in-fiction reason for us opening up and welcoming in a new PC would be. The bard just got our fighter alone and cast suggestion, and suddenly the fighter started babbling the truth - he didn't have a chance on his will save. We were all in shock. This wasn't the bard as goofy comic relief - this was a sinister, scary set of capabilities.
ReplyDeleteBards have both incredibly high social skill bonuses and access to a lot of mind magic - charm, suggestion, etc. I think of them as master manipulators whose social role customarily gives them extensive access to important people and the freedom to speak their minds. Music and song often provide a way to perform magic without it being apparent to those watching. Bards thus can serve as D&D fantasy setting's diplomats, spies, and negotiators.
Sam Zeitlin Yeah, bards as scary motherfuckers is pretty great. With a little of the comic, they can be even scarier: manipulative scary bastards who no one ever suspects, because they great you with a smile, and a twinkle in the eye.
ReplyDeleteWhen you hug the bard, you never see the dagger. The knife point that ends your breath is held with compassion.
William Nichols I can't reach the site right now, but my old blog at http://adam.legendary.org/thoughts should bring up a couple posts about Reimagining... stuff. What might be useful is the method I use to deconstruct things and reassemble them in new ways. That can easily be repurposed into deconstruction to cut away the stuff that isn't essential to find the core of these classes, too.
ReplyDeleteI love when Bards increase the scope of the world through lore telling. DW nails this.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, Paladins are just an excuse for people to justify playing a self-righteous dick and saying "It's what my character would do" when people complain it's not fun playing with them. But that might just be my damage.
Keith Stetson Yes, you're right about paladins, but IMO they're doing it wrong.
ReplyDeleteAsk Sean Leventhal about playing a paladin in my Keep on the Border World DW game at Dreamation.
Agreed, William - the cover of the bard as funny, personable, nonthreatening, is definitely a key part of the archetype i'm describing.
ReplyDeleteI have played with the Paladin who is there to argue about doing things his way constantly, and that is annoying. It is also a "feature" of never split the party games. I have also played with the antagonistic paladin, which is often annoying.
ReplyDeleteIn general I find it more fun when playing them to set aside some of my cynicism and really try to focus on playing someone who is trying to do the right thing regardless of personal cost. I've never had this kind of paladin survive any appreciable amount of time.
Sean Leventhal But that's the fun of playing that kind of paladin.
ReplyDeleteMaybe a game with a "sacrificial paladin" needs a built-in safety valve. Basically, when a paladin sacrifices himself for his beliefs in pursuit of the Cause of Good, sometimes the gods smile upon you and save your bacon.
But sometimes not.
Not a big fan of making any of those things necessary, because they are actually limits placed on creating fiction, however, when I play a Paladin, or Cleric, I try not to be an antagonist.
ReplyDeleteI've played with many people who like to steer the game towards only their kind of fun by using those classes in that way.
I do make appeals to the party, both to do things in a way that would work within my dogma, and to consider abiding by my dogma, but to do that effectively, I need to be other than annoying, and it helps if the system supports me.
Hackmaster (sometimes seen as AD&D 2.5) actually grants that PCs who have the same patron as a healer will gain extra HP during healing attempts.
I also try, as I might, to convert NPCs. I am especially prone to do this with hostiles. If a GM will allow me to do a CHA check to make my pitch, I'll happily try to turn our foes into allies by sharing words, and a copy of my literature with them (yes, I usually have pamphlets if the GM will allow).
I've had success with intelligent species turning to our side, and becoming my acolytes. That makes the other Player's less likely to want to kill everything we meet. They at least wait to see if we can get another lackey.
To me, the core of D&D is Fighter, Thief, Mage though, and everything else is like "Religious Mage", "Woodsy Fighter", "Hitman Thief".
The classes, though, are only necessary if we're using the lump advancement system. In D&D, you typically get this huge bump, and everything jumps at the same time. Class was created as labels for the charts that map that.
That's not necessary, but some people far prefer it, because you can see where you will be at X level, if the game were to continue that long, though it typically doesn't.
To me, things "feel" D&D when there are D&Dish ideas floating around, but often enough, other systems do those ideas more justice.
I'm a huge fan of limitations to the fiction. I want playbooks. I want prebuilt archetypes. I don't want free form like GURPS; that's not my jam at all.
ReplyDeleteI adore playbooks for a number of reasons, some of which is the inherent limitations. I make a single choice (playbook), and it greatly impacts my other choices. These are limitations on my other choices, sure, but it is also direction.
As for the antagonistic Paladin, there's a couple ways to do in my experience. There's being antagonistic to the players, then to the characters. It can absolutely work to have characters butt heads, and that can be a lot of fun.
ReplyDeleteHaving characters who are effectively roadblocks is something else, and is not so good.
In my experience, being antagonistic to the goals of the PCs is often tantamount to being antagonistic to the goals of the players.
ReplyDelete"I didn't stop you from killing that NPC, and ultimately end up tipping the first domino that would lead to a TPK, because I have a problem with you. I did that, because my PC has a problem with your PC."
...
ReplyDelete"I didn't stop you from stealing that magical item you really want, because I have a problem with you. My PC has a problem with your PC."
"I didn't interfere in that deal you were making with that demon, because I have a problem with you..."
I think the issue really comes down to how much the actions of the PC reflect the desires of the player in question, and usually characters that are absurdly good, or evil end up being obstructions to things that are both interesting, and player generated goals.
What's interesting to me is that few people play "evangelical" Fighters, Thieves, or Mages, out to convince all the other PCs they need to reconsider their beliefs, and direction in life.
ReplyDeleteIt suggests that when certain people play Clerics, and Paladins, their play is informed by something different. They may play those classes to make a point.
There's a difference between player goals and character goals, T to the E to the O .
ReplyDeleteI've often played characters and wanted them to have the most miserable short existence. Part of doing that is setting them up to either make hard choices, or to take things on that they cannot.
The difficulty is, as all things, in communication. Clearly and effectively communicating that without ruining or detracting from the fun takes some skill.
I can agree that there can be seperation, but D&D is a game that very much brings the two things into alignment. Everyone who plays D&D, and really wants to be playing D&D more than other games, is playing to advance. D&D makes certain things advancing the PCs a matter of certainty.
ReplyDeleteAdvancement in D&D is most reliably achieved via looting, and killing. Other forms are less reliable, because they depend upon GM fiat. GM fiat is variable from table to table, and even at the same table, depending upon who is running the game.
So, if I backstab an orc, I am guaranteed a certain number of XP. If instead, I listen to Robert's Paladin pontificate as to why I shouldn't, then comply. I get nothing. Not only that, however long it took Robert to RP that speech is time subtracted from us doing things that matter, systemically, in D&D.
D&D leans towards giving the authority to make such a call on each GM. So, I might grant someone the same XP as killing an orc, because they listened to Robert's Paladin, but not every GM would.
There are games that would provide a systemic reward for just that. Savage Worlds, Fate, and a few others come to mind.
To me, the best strategy in D&D for playing disruptive PCs in a non-disruptive way is to focus the point of their occupation outside of the party.
So, if I'm an assassin, I kill NPCs for money, try to hide that from the other PCs that might object, and try to target marks that the other PCs will be glad are dead (in case I am found out).
If I am a Paladin, my code is applied to me, and exemplified by me. I do not hold others to it, and by making others witness to my way of doing things, by having other bear witness to my successes, as I hold true to my faith, that is my testament. I will preach to NPCs, and try to convert them, but if the system itself offers no incentive to the players to convert their PCs, I don't even bother. We can just pretend that I pester them during those times that we aren't narrating, just as we skip over all the bathroom breaks our PCs take.
I don't disagree that PC, and player goals can be different, but I've played a lot of D&D, and most oft, they are not, because D&D is designed well, and makes you want to kill, and loot, because that's what it's about.
Huh. It's be interesting to see a different mechanical incentive in a murder hobo game. I've got some if those in the game I'm working on, but... hmmm.....
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what alignment does in Dungeon World; gives everyone a different incentive. Now to strengthen that ...
ReplyDeleteI think that the Law/Chaos axis is much more fertile area to explore. Good/Evil very much becomes personal.
ReplyDeleteRight now, I'm handing out XP for:
ReplyDelete1. Going on difficult combat missions.
2. Acting like your character. You check this before a mission starts, and mark xp.
3. A few moves, but those two will be the primary.
I'm a little concerned with the lack of need to act like your character during a mission, but the playbooks with the biggest role to play there (Paladin, I'm looking at you) have a secondary system in place.
One thing I quite enjoy is being a character I have never been before, and D&D's stereotyping is problematic for me, in that way.
ReplyDeleteDo all Paladin's need to act the same way? It seems unlikely that they did, do, or would.
The lack of concrete examples of character traits, the reliance upon stereotypes, and broad brushing really makes it tough to drill down into character in a meaningful way, and reward good RP.
Judgments about RP, in any D&Dish game, are probably going to be made based upon comparison to ideals, rather than adherence to the individual character's script.
For instance, a great trait to give a character might be that they are always late. Not only would that be pointless to pursue in D&D, because the GM is probably not going to award any XP for that, but many of the players are going to be annoyed that the PC is not properly positioned to be effective.
"So, I know you guys want me to heal the thief, but I'm late, so she dies. Don't worry though. I know a great cleric in the next town who just loves to Raise Dead. That's her thing."
I would love that kind of thing, and even allow the "dead" thief to have input, as a ghost. I'd grant XP to the thief, and the Paladin for doing that, and try to make the whole thing into another adventure hook, but a lot of GMs aren't quite on their feet, and/or plan so thoroughly that it's almost like they forget that other people are involved in "their game".
If you're working on awarding inventive RP choices, it might be best to think it terms of what is implicitly deterring people from making them. D&D doesn't say you can't do certain things, but neither does it have a framework there for support of some really fun sorts of RP.
William Nichols Perhaps mine The Shadow of Yesterday for ideas. Keys really might work well here.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Nichols Are you a member of Story Games? You'd get a different cross-section of game design folks if you posted there.
ReplyDeletehttp://story-games.com/forums/discussions
ohhh. Thanks Adam Dray
ReplyDelete