I wanted to do a follow-up from some of the comments I received on this topic for those who may have missed it.
hedgehobbit wrote:
Role-playing is about the experience and not "the character".
Role-playing is a tool that is used to allow the player to experience, as much as possible while sitting at a table in a basement, what it would be like to actually be a character in a dark dungeon surrounded by monsters. Today, there's the assumption that the player creates a character that has goals, likes/dislikes, and behaviors that are entirely separate and distinct from the player. That wasn't always the case. As a result OD&D doesn't have rules like personality mechanics, social skill, social "combat", etc as those things would distract from the player's ability to experience the world first hand.
+Gordon Cooper made this reply:
One of the things hedgehobbit has observed from reading about OD&D is that "Role-playing is about the experience and not 'the character,'" and that "As a result OD&D doesn't have personality mechanics, social skill, social 'combat...'"
I'd argue that role-playing has been about both from the beginning, and how much any individual player or referee is concerned about the virtual experience vs. faithfully portraying a character has always been a balance (or lack thereof) based on his or her preferences. Not everyone needs social interaction rules or role-playing compliance rules (I sure don't), but even OD&D had alignment rules, and you can bet the original players enjoyed hamming it up as their characters. Heck, they were inspired to do it in the first place from the proto-role-playing they did when they were playing miniature war games. As a war gamer, you might not even sympathize with your side, but it's often more fun to pretend you do and try to think and make decisions like the military leader you are representing. It's a purely voluntary form of playing "in character," with no codification necessary.
I find that I am in agreement with +Gordon Cooper on this particular point. I would be interested in more comments.
I don't see anything about hedgehobbit's comment that suggests players didn't act in character at all, though alignment's a good point (at least as it evolved). My understanding, though — and I wasn't there, so I could be wrong — is that this acting was almost purely superficial. One might speak in a funny voice, for instance, but you played to win. When you find yourself surrounded by orcs and needed to convince them to let you live (think that was my first D&D session), you tried your damnedest, not intentionally offending them because "it's what your character would do". It's not so much that role-playing compliance and social interaction were voluntary and without need for codification, but that people didn't play that way, at least initially. From what I've read, that changed rather quickly, with Alarums & Excursions propagating this new playstyle, which led to changes in alignment
ReplyDeleteAs Gordon Cooper mentioned, these guys were already adding role-playing elements to their wargames, and this is an excellent example. Someone might portray themselves as a character in their Opponents Wanted ad or play reports, but their actual decisions were made according to what they believed would lead them to victory. Early D&D, I believe, was played in much the same way
Over on my forum hedgehobbit replied:
ReplyDeleteI wasn't clear with what I was talking about. Many modern games require the player to describe the personality of the character in terms of Beliefs, Ideals or Flaws and then use mechanics to enforce this (either through awarding points for acting a certain way or actually forbidding not doing so). This creates a barrier between the player and the character and between the player and what is happening in the game.
It's the difference between making the player scared and having the player pretend his character is scared.
I see role-playing in RPGs as one of three types:
First Person Role-playing: "What would I do?"
Third Person Role-playing: "What would my character do?"
Mechanics-based Role-playing: "How should this character act based on his character sheet?"
D&D originally focused on first person role-playing (including elements that might seem like LARPing) early on but doesn't discourage or forbid third person role-playing. Even with the same character and even switching back and forth. However, once you start to add mechanics to the role-playing process you are effectively preventing first person role-playing entirely.
One example is morale checks. In early D&D, and most other games of the period, PCs are immune to them. If the player decides to flee from an encounter it's either because he thinks his character would be scared or, more likely, it's because the player is actual afraid of losing his precious character. Either way it's the players choice. Having PCs be subject to morale rules takes this choice away from the player.
In his 1974 version of Empire of the Petal Throne, MAR Barker talks about why he didn't like using Charisma as an ability score, saying he doesn't want to "limit the players to some kind of dice-determined behaviour." I agree.
Note that I'm only talking about what decisions the character makes during play and not really about using a different voice, vocabulary, or mannerisms in portraying a character as that's a separate issue.
You are all welcome to come join my forum for OD&D house rules and campaign discussions.
http://ruinsofmurkhill.proboards.com/
Curse my inability to properly articulate my thoughts!
DeleteThat First/Third Person distinction is what I was driving at. The game was originally about First Person (with in-character mannerisms thrown on top for fun), but didn't disallow Third, and I think the latter started growing in popularity shortly after the game spread beyond the wargaming community, in part due to A&E. Over time, this trend led to mechanics which barred the First Person approach
Regarding alignment. I've seen it played two different ways, as Descriptive or Restrictive. As in:
ReplyDeleteI do good deeds, therefore I'm Good
vs
I'm Good, therefore I have to do good deeds.
I would argue that alignment was initially more of a method of tracking player behavior than enforcing it (as a personality mechanic). So player can't walk around proclaiming to be Lawful (to get good reactions from villagers) while acting Chaotic whenever no ones watching. This changed in AD&D when Gygax introduced penalties for changing alignment which make "alignment violations" suddenly a thing (and a hammer to enforce behavior).
I completely agree that it was " initially more of a method of tracking player behavior than enforcing it". I think it begin to change when the paladin was introduced in Greyhawk (and then later with AD&D) and people started to make Lawful modern America restrictive instead of giving it a wider interpretation. There are a number of good fictional models for paladins that do not involve making them "holier than thou" types and avoids the worse aspects of the "required" Lawful behavior - i.e. IMO it requires good reffing and good role-playing which often fails on both points where paladins are concerned.
ReplyDelete