He Ain't A Third-Level Fighter/Rogue, He's My Brother
My roleplaying group have just started a new Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) 5th Edition campaign with Tom(1) doing the GMing(2).
Notes:
If you're looking for Critical Miss style silly pseudonyms, sorry. That was then, and this was now, and I'm 54. So it's Tom, Jarek, Will... and me. Jonny Nexus. So okay, just the one silly pseudonym.
I know it should be DMing, given this is D&D, but I'm just used to it being GMing.
I'm playing Lord Foppish, a not-quite-as-pious and not-quite-as-serious as he should be paladin. (He was the spare fourth son, so the traditional route would be for his parents to send him into the priesthood of their chosen god, but since you really couldn't trust him with an actual congregation, a monastic military order seemed the best choice).
Fopp's currently wondering the world, testing himself and preparing for taking his final, binding oath (which in game terms, takes place when he hits third level). The campaign started with him on the way to a village he'd heard was in need of assistance. On the way he encountered a well-dressed elf (Valen, played by Will) who was heading in the same direction for the same reasons, so they decided to travel together. Reaching the village, they met a snake-like individual wearing a cowboy hat (Gorgon, played by Jarek), who told of being cursed into such a form by an evil mage.
That night, the three of them fought off two apparently possessed bears who attacked the village: Fopp with longsword and shield, Gorgon with some sort of magic sword he conjured up, and Valen firing his longbow from the watch tower. (There were also a bunch of bats, but perhaps the less said about them, the better).
It was a great session, and a good start to the campaign. But here's the thing: I have no idea what character classes Will and Jarek are playing. Valen might be a rogue, maybe? Gorgon - I have no bloody idea.
And I love, love, love that. Characters in fantasy novels don't introduce themselves by saying, "Hello! I'm a third-level fighter." ... "Pleased to meet you. I'm a second-level rogue. Bloke over there by the fireplace is a barbarian who's planning on taking the the path of the berserker when he hits third level."
Instead, the way this campaign's developing feels organic and story-based. But I probably would say that, because under the GNS theory that some people use to categorise roleplaying, I'm a narrativist, and I think it's both interesting and important here to recognise that people play games in different ways, and enjoy them in different ways.
What is GNS theory? Well it was developed by Ron Edwards and a bunch of people at the Forge website, but the core idea is that the ways in which players engage with a roleplaying game can involve three broad types of engagement: Gamism, Narrativism and Simulation.
Gamists are playing a game, and their satisfaction comes from playing the game well and skilfully.
Narrativists are telling a story, and their satisfaction comes from telling a satisfying and entertaining story.
Simulationists are simulating the reality of the setting (where that "reality" might be a fictional one), and their satisfaction comes from correctly simulating that reality.
A gamist will say that it's okay for a PC to evade a hail of bullets if the rules say he can. A narrativist will say it's okay for a PC to evade a hail of bullets if that makes sense from a story-telling point of view. A simulationist will say it's okay for a PC to evade a hail of bullets if that's how the physics of the setting works.
The guys at the Forge felt that no single rules system can fully address all three aspects. They coined the phrase "system matters" — which means that the game designers should work out what play style they want for their game, and then use or create a rules system that specifically supports that style. I do sort of agree with them, while pointing out that you can perfectly well use gamist rules to support narrativist play, and vice versa.
It's important to note that none of this is all or nothing. Most players will be a mix of elements. I'm a story telling role-player, who fancies himself as a bit of a method roleplayer, but equally I feel the need for rules to give that story a framework and a sense of meaning. I know there are people who engage in systemless roleplaying, but that just seems to me like a game of "let's pretend", like playing tennis without a net (to steal the poet Robert Frost's quote about writing free verse). I need rules, or at least enough rules to make my story feel real, and not made up.
But here's the thing: D&D is pretty gamist, not surprising that it has its roots in a miniatures war-game. When creating the Third Edition of D&D the designers explicitly built-in something they called "System Mastery", which was the concept that if you'd taken the time and trouble to really understand the rules, you should be rewarded by being able to create a better, more effective character than someone who hadn't.
A classic example of this would be feat combos; that is feats that individually were't particularly useful but which when combined were far more powerful. Another way of looking at it is that things that seemed like loop-hole, edge-case, exploits were actually deliberate "Easter eggs" left as gifts for expert players.
Of course, from a narrativist point of view, this makes no sense!
(Following feats made up!)
Gamist: Why did you take the two-weapon feat? It's useless unless you're playing a fighter or you've also got the multi-attacks feat, and you're not a fighter and your class isn't eligible for multi-attacks.
Narrativist: I want my character to fight with two identical swords, because I want him to be like a character in a fantasy film if it was directed by John Woo, and his backstory is that he's an orphan from the other side of the continent so I want him to fight in an obviously different way that will stand out to anyone observing him.
Gamist: But he won't do any more damage than he would if he was fighting with one sword, and then he could use a shield as well to increase his armour class.
Narrativist: But I want him to use two swords. He'll look really cool and it will fit the vision I have in my head.
Gamist: But if he fights one-handed you could have plus two on your armour class and still do the same damage! Why are you making him less effective for no benefit?
[Simulationist enters]
Simulationist: You shouldn't have two identical swords. Historically, people who fought with two weapons used a longer sword for attacking and a shorter blade for parrying, such as the longer Katana and the shorter wakizashi used in the Japanese Niten Ichi-ryū style.
Narrativist: [looks at Simulationist, confused]
Gamist: [looks at Simulationist, confused]
A lot of D&D players approach D&D from a gamist point of view, and that's fine. I'm a very strong believer that there's no wrong way to have fun, and I strongly dislike it when people try to police the way other people have fun. As long as you're consulting adults in private, go for it, not just in roleplaying but in anything. (I might not want to know, mind!)
Point is, if you want your D&D campaigns to start with the characters meeting in a tavern, introducing themselves by class and level, and then heading off to engage in a series of pitched skirmishes where absolutely no attempts are made to avoid violence (because where's the experience points in that?), then go for it. Have fun. Slaughter opponents to your hearts' contents, get those XPs, and upgrade your characters into ever more effective combat participants to fight ever more challenging combats.
But me, I'm in it for the story, and the story so far is I met two blokes, and I'm not quite sure who they are — but along the way we told a Goblin would-be-highwayman to sod off rather than killing him (because we're not psychotic killers), defended a village from possessed bears, and are now about to head off into an apparently pissed off forest in search of the missing road-building surveyors who we think pissed said forest off.
And I love that.
The Nexus Files is free to read. But if you subscribe you'll get new posts emailed to your inbox automatically, and I won't feel like I'm pointlessly screaming into the void.