Class or Character, Two types of gaming

[Millface]

D&D is a fantastic game that can be played in many ways, but the I've seen two that are most distinguished. This happened when I was playing in a game on Tuesday nights with newer players and DMing a game on Wednesday night with my veterans.

Tuesday was all about the Class. What can my class do? how do I maximize it and get the most out of it? They always had to be DOING, fighting, puzzling, moving. Very little in the way of roleplay, as most of the players just played slightly altered versions of themselves.

Wednesday was all about the Character. Who am I? Where did I come from? What do I want. Classes were just a backdrop for these players, a tiny part of who they were as a whole.

The difference in play was astounding. On Tuesday balance issues shined bright as players struggled to constantly outdo each other in combat, tempers flared as player egos clashed. I'll admit though that even as a gamer of 15 years I got swept up in it. The competition was fun, min maxing was fun in its own way. Seeing who could figure out how to do the bigger damage and occasionally being the one to turn the tide.

Wednesday balance issues were completely unnoticeable. One player did clearly outshine the rest in combat, but none of the players were jealous or competitive. They weren't fighting to fight, they were fighting to reach a goal that their characters had decided was worthy of their time. How they got to that goal didn't matter nearly so much, so long as they did. Character progression was key here, completing goals and forging relationships meant far more than leveling up or finding a magical sword.

Players on Tuesday didn't stress about situations that would stress out their characters, weren't sad when they might be sad, didn't miss them when they were gone. And thats ok! Not everyone wants to experience the lows that occasionally happen when you truly connect to a character and fully immerse yourself in someone else.

Wednesday players, all but one, at some point came to tears over something that happened to their character or someone their character knew and cared for, even if it was just an NPC, the players felt right along with their characters.

It was interesting to note the differences, especially in back to back nightly sessions. Both groups ran for a long time, both looked forward to the night on which they played.

What do you guys prefer? If your table plays one way, have you tried the other?

[zinycor]

I would say it's the natural progression, as you said, newer groups focus more on RPGs as a game, but I have seen that more experienced players enjoy more to have a good narrative.

Both are fine in the end, and the good thing about DnD is that you can satisfy both groups.

[Ultimate_Coffee]

I have definitely noticed that this is the case. It is a classic case of role-play vs roll-play. My current group is a mixed bag. The group consists of myself as the DM, and 7 PCs. It gets very hectic at times, and forward momentum can be difficult. This is caused by a combination of playstyle differences, and too many people at the table.
Anyways, my point is that about half of my players are veterans that I have been playing with for many years, and the other half are fairly new to DnD (only a year or two of experience).
The newer players definitely care more about their ability to sway the battlefield than the veterans, and the veterans are much more active in roleplay situations.
I run a game that tries to cater to both worlds, but my combat can be somewhat scarce at times. Everybody seems to have fun regardless however.

[Millface]

I have definitely noticed that this is the case. It is a classic case of role-play vs roll-play. My current group is a mixed bag. The group consists of myself as the DM, and 7 PCs. It gets very hectic at times, and forward momentum can be difficult. This is caused by a combination of playstyle differences, and too many people at the table.
Anyways, my point is that about half of my players are veterans that I have been playing with for many years, and the other half are fairly new to DnD (only a year or two of experience).
The newer players definitely care more about their ability to sway the battlefield than the veterans, and the veterans are much more active in roleplay situations.
I run a game that tries to cater to both worlds, but my combat can be somewhat scarce at times. Everybody seems to have fun regardless however.

A couple of my Wednesday group were new, but I've noticed that as long as two or three players play the Character not just the Class the others will follow suit.

That works the other way around too, as the sole character player at a class play table I found myself role-playing less and enjoying the combat more. In the end though that group did come around a bit and we ended up with a mixed bag. Honestly those are the toughest, you have some people bored in combat and others bored out of it and its hard to find that balance.

[Eisenheim]

Personally, I've completely jumped ship for systems that don't include classes or the kind of optimization potential that drives the first style of play. Characters all the way for roleplaying.

Not that I don't enjoy the mechanical optimization, but I'd rather just play a strategy game when that's what I'm looking for.

[Z3ro]

As much as it's often coach in newbie/veteran terms, I gotta say, as a 20 year player, I still love roll-playing. I'm not a big fan of "getting into my character", I love kicking the door down, slamming an axe in someone's face, and blowing something up. I've never cried at a session, never truly felt the loss of any one of my characters, and never gotten into an overly-heated argument with another player (at least about in-game issues). We keep it light and fluffy, and if it's not, I'd rather walk.

I can see why other people enjoy this style, but for me, RPGs are a form of entertainment and stress relief. That level of immersion defeats those goals for me.

[Millface]

As much as it's often coach in newbie/veteran terms, I gotta say, as a 20 year player, I still love roll-playing. I'm not a big fan of "getting into my character", I love kicking the door down, slamming an axe in someone's face, and blowing something up. I've never cried at a session, never truly felt the loss of any one of my characters, and never gotten into an overly-heated argument with another player (at least about in-game issues). We keep it light and fluffy, and if it's not, I'd rather walk.

I can see why other people enjoy this style, but for me, RPGs are a form of entertainment and stress relief. That level of immersion defeats those goals for me.

This is exactly why I tried to avoid the accusation that new players are always Roll-Play until they get the hang of things. Many of my friends sit in on one of our sessions and, while they are impressed with the depth of our game, are not willing to emotionally invest.

They want to relief of smashing faces and being a hero, others want simulated immersion in a world we wish we could visit ourselves. There's no right or wrong way to do it.

I did notice 5e balance issues FAR more with the first group though. There, if you find some broken combo everyone at the table is jealous that THEY can't do that and harps about how "OP" you are. Whereas the Role-Players didn't really care if you could do something they can't, because combat prowess is such a small part of a whole, fleshed out personality.

[Z3ro]

I did notice 5e balance issues FAR more with the first group though. There, if you find some broken combo everyone at the table is jealous that THEY can't do that and harps about how "OP" you are. Whereas the Role-Players didn't really care if you could do something they can't, because combat prowess is such a small part of a whole, fleshed out personality.

Depending on how you handle combat, I find this to only partly be true. When it comes to balance, at all levels, combat is the part 5E did the best (not saying it's great, but it is the best within the system). At my tables, despite out attitude, we haven't run into too many problems of people outshining others, even between casters and non. We also, thankfully, prize group effort over individual accomplishments; killing that giant doesn't really matter if the rest of the party dies, after all. YMMV of course.

[EvanescentHero]

I vastly prefer what you've dubbed "character" RPing here, and the group I currently run is pretty good about that. My players tend to make in-character choices even if they adversely affect the situation, and we do have the occasional in-fight as everyone's personalities clash. Three of the group of five are new to D&D; one of the new players is an excellent "character" roleplayer, because she loves character building. The other two new ones aren't as good at the "character" stuff (their characters are less fleshed out and they don't participate as much in some of the conversations), but they're also not optimizers, or what you've termed "class" RPers. I chalk it up to the fact that it's their first time playing D&D. Either way, even if I prefer the type of game I'm running (and have a serious aversion to optimizers), I acknowledge that kick-in-the-door style games are fun from time to time!

[djreynolds]

I haven't played role-playing since the AD&D days, I use to play PC a lot. My kid went into check out magic and the kids were playing. She really likes and so do I. It's totally different feel. Levels are so far away that you just focus on the now. And we have experienced players but most are new to this style. Our monk got to jump down a sink hole using his monk fall and it was just fun.

[Xetheral]

I think the situation is far more complicated than the binary descriptions suggest (although that doesn't mean the binary division isn't a useful categorical tool). For one thing, they mean totally different things to different people:

Consider two gamers, both of who self-identify in the "character" camp. One hates multi-classing with a burning passion, thinking it the epitome of class-based thinking by those who would cherry-pick mechanical abilities. The other thinks the exact opposite, believing that slavish devotion to a single class is the epitome of class-based thinking, and that a single class can rarely capture the complexity of a fleshed-out concept.

Both players would disagree with the other's self-identification as belonging in the "character" camp, which precludes a neat-and-tidy division.

[Malifice]

A mix of column A and column B.

I could play a game with good peeps and bad characters; I couldn't do it the other way around though.

[EastbySoutheast]

Personally I really like mechanical optimisation but that play style is also worked into my roleplaying of that character. For example with a character that is multiclassing into fighter they may start trying to be much more melee focused or tactical during combat even if that's not what their previous classes archetype would do. Just so that the progression into it seems natural and like something the character would do rather than something which is happening because its mechanically "better".

Although on the whole I believe character choices are always better than player choices so even if you as a player know that doing X would be better for your team/party/quest if that's not what your character would do then you do not do it. Even if its detrimental at some level.
Then again this is just me..

[KorvinStarmast]

A mix of column A and column B.
Reminds me of a song ...
I saw a werewolf with a Chinese menu in his hand

I approach multi-classing with mixed feelings. On the one hand, it's been in the game since its origin, when elves could progress up to 4 fighting Man and 8 magic user. This was a unique racial ability that was an exception. It also had level caps. You can't be good at everything.

What I see a lot of now is this whole "dip" into a class to get a special feature in the name of mechanical optimization. Unless a compelling story reason for this sort of multi talented person is developed, it strikes me as pointless.

I tend to create a character with "what does our group need to balance out the talent pool" since I am a hardcore "this is a team effort" D&D player and have been since I started. Far too often, the multi classing options come across as the offer for a character to be a one man show.

Of the two groups identified in the opening post, I tend more toward Wednesday than Tuesday, except that I really enjoy the tactical challenges of combat events. I also write a back story to every character I create before the first session, and discuss it with the DM. The only player I didn't do that with was the very first magic user I played in my first game, since I hadn't quite "grokked" what D&D was at that point in time.

[djreynolds]

I know its cliche example, but didn't Salvatore actually play Drizzt. I think if the DM can allow a situation where the character could multiclass because of the storyline would be cool. I can see someone beginning as a barbarian say, but multiclassing into one, you might need a significant reason to do so. A rogue getting lost in the dungeon or the wilds may have to resort to primal methods and if they survive could multiclass into a barbarian.

It's correct that good players really make the game. Instead of optimization, my fighter may pick up cleric out of necessity and learn from our cleric. It would be in the flavor of the game we are playing now.

[Millface]

A mix of column A and column B.

I could play a game with good peeps and bad characters; I couldn't do it the other way around though.

QFT, good people around the table ensure that you're having fun regardless of how much depth they decide to add to their characters. The two of seven at my table that didn't get emotionally invested didn't look down their noses or feel uncomfortable when the rest of them got angry/sad/excited about their characters in big ways, so it works!


I think the situation is far more complicated than the binary descriptions suggest (although that doesn't mean the binary division isn't a useful categorical tool). For one thing, they mean totally different things to different people:

Consider two gamers, both of who self-identify in the "character" camp. One hates multi-classing with a burning passion, thinking it the epitome of class-based thinking by those who would cherry-pick mechanical abilities. The other thinks the exact opposite, believing that slavish devotion to a single class is the epitome of class-based thinking, and that a single class can rarely capture the complexity of a fleshed-out concept.

Both players would disagree with the other's self-identification as belonging in the "character" camp, which precludes a neat-and-tidy division.

I've optimized and tried out mechanically awesome class combos and then added a personality to them, but my most interesting characters (and fun!) have always been the ones that I crafted their goals and personality first, and slapped a class that fit thematically after the fact. Optimizing from there is fine. It all comes down to what you prioritize. Who your PC is, or what your PC can do. Everyone cares about both to some degree, you have to, and while it's possible to prioritize both evenly I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually do that. Most people are clearly on one side of the fence or the other in my experience.

Edit, I'll expand:

I recently played a LN Halfling Bard with a GIANT scroll with lists of activities and things to do, his "Bucket List". There were heroic things on the list, there were evil things. Save a damsel, Kidnap a damsel. Help a shop owner, Steal from a shop owner. The concept of right and wrong eluded him at first, his goal was simply to experience everything life has to offer from every perspective so that he could craft the Greatest Tale Ever Told.

The first time he got the killing blow on a fleeing dragon with a lightning bolt I felt amazing, it was a truly BA moment for him, and it was exciting, but I still found far more satisfaction when I would get to cross something off my Bucket List, and no dungeon was as interesting to me as his experiences slowly teaching him the true meaning of good and evil, or the turning point where his best friend in the party sacrificed her life for the lives of many Citizens of Luskan during an adventure, leaving me a heartfelt note (that she wrote in calligraphy IRL, yellow stain, burned edges, super cool) calling me a hero and asking me to keep doing good for her.

He crossed everything bad off his list in that moment, teary eyed, and alignment changed to LG. Some play for moments like that Dragon, I play for moments like that note. Both are fun, but only one of them is a gaming moment I'll remember forever, and one that wouldn't be possible without some real and deep character thought and development.

[Millface]

I know its cliche example, but didn't Salvatore actually play Drizzt. I think if the DM can allow a situation where the character could multiclass because of the storyline would be cool. I can see someone beginning as a barbarian say, but multiclassing into one, you might need a significant reason to do so. A rogue getting lost in the dungeon or the wilds may have to resort to primal methods and if they survive could multiclass into a barbarian.

It's correct that good players really make the game. Instead of optimization, my fighter may pick up cleric out of necessity and learn from our cleric. It would be in the flavor of the game we are playing now.


This. To me multiclassing is something you do at creation if it fits the theme of your character's personality, and later if it makes sense for the development of your character as a person. If you multiclass paladin because "OMG SMITES SO GOOD" then that's Class playing. If you multiclass paladin because you met one and his faith and strength moved and changed you, that's Character playing.

[djreynolds]

This. To me multiclassing is something you do at creation if it fits the theme of your character's personality, and later if it makes sense for the development of your character as a person. If you multiclass paladin because "OMG SMITES SO GOOD" then that's Class playing. If you multiclass paladin because you met one and his faith and strength moved and changed you, that's Character playing.

Then I hope you will enjoy this one. I rolled a mountain dwarf champion. I got a 16 in strength and then the bonus. So at 4th, I had 20. Our cleric is leaving our party, college student. Now our DM will allow me to learn from him, but I chose the faith of our leader who is a monk of Silvanus because that is who I work with most. I'm not sure where this will lead to, but it seemed in spirit of the game that our friendship grew and out that following his faith.

[Millface]

Then I hope you will enjoy this one. I rolled a mountain dwarf champion. I got a 16 in strength and then the bonus. So at 4th, I had 20. Our cleric is leaving our party, college student. Now our DM will allow me to learn from him, but I chose the faith of our leader who is a monk of Silvanus because that is who I work with most. I'm not sure where this will lead to, but it seemed in spirit of the game that our friendship grew and out that following his faith.

I do enjoy stories like that! I love it when characters have a crisis/change of faith or morality because of how the other members of the party affect them.

Personalities are fluid, friendships change you and that should be reflected in play. I always kind of see myself as having little choice in my character's multiclassing or not, it's up to my character and how he is affected by the world around him. Unless the entire party is one set alignment I will often have a change in that at some point too.

Think about IRL how your coworkers and friends influence you... even for the strongest personalities these relationships can and do make BIG changes in us. It's really fun to see that play out :-)

[djreynolds]

Now for some advice. I will choose nature cleric, but I'm unsure of how to develop the character. Am I still tanking? It seems shillelagh is useless to me considering my strength. Any suggestions?

[Millface]

Now for some advice. I will choose nature cleric, but I'm unsure of how to develop the character. Am I still tanking? It seems shillelagh is useless to me considering my strength. Any suggestions?

Your knew-found religion and spirituality don't necessarily mean that you no longer care about perfecting your fighting technique. Far from it! It was important to you, and still is, you're just nudging it over a bit to make room for a newly acquired passion.

To me this means two things: You're going to treat combat the same way you always have. If you enjoyed being a tank before your character is still going to want to do that, its what he knows. Taking one more level in fighter before actually taking a cleric level would give you your second attack at least, which is invaluable from an optimization standpoint.

Call that time between when you knew you wanted to pursue your religion and when you actually take your Cleric level a time of reflection and seeking understanding in your new god and what he stands for. It would make sense that this isn't an instant thing. "Hey, Sylvanus, Cleric me bro!" isn't how I would picture the transition, lol.

That's my two cents on both the Role and Roll play of your situation.

[PoeticDwarf]

At our table, both are correct

[djreynolds]

I do enjoy stories like that! I love it when characters have a crisis/change of faith or morality because of how the other members of the party affect them.

Personalities are fluid, friendships change you and that should be reflected in play. I always kind of see myself as having little choice in my character's multiclassing or not, it's up to my character and how he is affected by the world around him. Unless the entire party is one set alignment I will often have a change in that at some point too.

Think about IRL how your coworkers and friends influence you... even for the strongest personalities these relationships can and do make BIG changes in us. It's really fun to see that play out :-)

Very true. A good party will influence each other and its actually fun because you find that other classes can take up any role, tank or striker say. Players will often care for the outcome of the group over themselves, and its fun to play when players are invested in total script and not just self-development. I also enjoy seeing how players use all aspects of their character in ways I would not have seen. As a grown-up I find I play more pragmatically, and its fun to see how the age dynamics of players and life experiences really come through.

[ImSAMazing]

At our table, both are correct

Since when? Nobody roll plays in our campaign...

[Kurt Kurageous]

IMHO it's up to the DM to figure his players wants out and deliver.

I was taught three questions, "What do you want, what do you want more of, what do you not want?" And listen to what they say.

And of course, I use the X card even with folks I've been playing with for months.

[WampDiesel]

I have always been a mechanics first player. Some would call me a rules lawyer. I used to always say things like "why didn't you do this? It would have been much more effective." When this group started out over 5 years ago (under 3,5) it was much more needed and wanted advice as everyone didn't have as good of a grasp on the rules as I did. I am also one of the more vocal members of our group (and play very vocal characters) in general my character always has something to say about my allies and the situation. However as our group has matured together I have tried to do it less and less because I have realized the rest of the group doesn't need the advice.

Recently I played with another group comprised mostly of new players. I intentionally made a utility wizard that does little to no damage in combat and I made him be not talkative. This has made me realize how rude critiquing others play is at the gaming table. It doesn't matter at all if someone didn't use their abilities in the most optimal fashion to do the most damage. Are they having fun? Then let it go. The easiest way to ruin someone else's gaming experience is to tell them they are having fun incorrectly.

Our main group has a player who just doesn't like to roleplay. He creates one dimensional characters with one dimensional motives. His idea of character development is having a silly quirk that he keeps bringing up as a running gag. As the rest of the group matured as role-players together he is still a roll-player. A year ago this kinda worried me but I have realized that it doesn't matter at all.

Our table is a mix of players who are varying degrees of class and character players. Nobody is a "character player purist" as we all definitely celebrate when people do the most damage. However we all try to have motives and interparty relationships. The line from last sessions boss battle?

"Hooray! The dwarf stopped being a coward and finally remembered how to fighter!"

[Susano-wo]

I will chime in that it is definitely a continuum, and that very rarely do you have someone who is total 'class' (tactical gamer), or total 'character' (total actor), [not to mention possibly very different preferences on what kind of story one wants] but I am heavily on the 'character' side, though the mechanics are fun at times too. As far as what kinds of tables I can play at, the characters need to be actual characters, not just walking stat blocks. I can handle light-hearted, or fairly escapist, kick in the door type games, though I really prefer more social, RP heavy campaigns, but I play the game to role play, and that means character interactions. :smallbiggrin:

[Millface]

I will chime in that it is definitely a continuum, and that very rarely do you have someone who is total 'class' (tactical gamer), or total 'character' (total actor), [not to mention possibly very different preferences on what kind of story one wants] but I am heavily on the 'character' side, though the mechanics are fun at times too. As far as what kinds of tables I can play at, the characters need to be actual characters, not just walking stat blocks. I can handle light-hearted, or fairly escapist, kick in the door type games, though I really prefer more social, RP heavy campaigns, but I play the game to role play, and that means character interactions. :smallbiggrin:

Definitely, every table will see a little of both. When I'm DMing I try to gauge what people prioritize and go from there. I certainly hope for role over roll, but I don't punish anyone for playing differently as long as they aren't disruptive about it.

I definitely have more intense scenarios character-wise in my dungeons than some people care for though, so its good when the whole group is on that same page. For example: Around level 7, when I was getting to know the characters and they started forming bonds with one another they were in castle that was trapped inside the nightmare of a long-dead King who sold out his people. In the kings bedchamber a magical sleep overtook the group.

I wrote up descriptive nightmares for each member of the party that seemed in every way like they were real, targeting the things I knew they cared about, making them question their path and reality, their alignment if I saw they were on the fence, just whatever would make the most impact for each character individually. (This villain was pretty twisted, his goal was to make them stray from their path) My girlfriend who also plays watched this and she was really impressed, but decided then that she didn't want to play with this group because it was too emotionally intense. Two players cried and the Warlock set down his weapon and walked out of the dungeon, he almost gave up his pact altogether. Not one character was completely unchanged by the experience.

Could they have just ignored all of that? Sure. It only has an impact on your character if you play it that way, but having players that will really get into their characters shoes allows for some really, really fun scenarios on the DM side. The looks on their faces as they read these and their reactions after might mark my favorite moment as a DM.