The Player/Character Divide

This is probably the first of a few articles I want to write on this topic. 

I

I ran a campaign for the entirety of the 2014 summer where most the challenge came from physical puzzles, usually word or math, that the players solved. There would be chunks of the game where they would be sitting there at the table, while I prepped a combat encounter, just working on this puzzle.

They were a lot smarter than me, but with the help of the internet, I was able to push things for them into a difficult space. One puzzle took several sessions to solve, the two lead solvers passing the paper back and forth between each other as the group made their way through a dungeon.

It was one of the best campaigns I've ever run. Half the challenge was Player challenge, not Character challenge.

When I watch Critical Role, the best parts of it for me are the talking. Between characters, between the NPCs and a character, even between two NPCs. It's what makes CR special, and it's also what people point to as the biggest criticism. The Players' skills as actors are given value, instead of just the charisma of the Character.

People complain because not everyone is an actor and since CR is the "face of DnD" it creates an unfulfillable promise to new players that they will be able to act like this and be given NPCs who are well acted. But really they aren't criticizing the people playing CR, they are criticizing the Player/Character divide that CR uses.

I mention these because CR is the best place to start when discussing the ideas that *I* find fun in games, TTRPGs in particular but also videogames and boardgames. The Player/Character divide is the idea that a game can challenge the Player, the person sitting at the table, as well as the Character, the piece of paper that the Player has written.

Critical Role does this without much backlash (besides the criticism above) because it is perceived as part of Dungeons and Dragons already. In the Dungeon Masters Guide (and in the PHB) there are listed the Three Pillars of Play: Combat, Exploration, and Social. But Social does not equal acting. You do not need to be an actor to interact with the social pillar of DnD.

The social pillar in this theory is the Character interacting with NPCs. What they are saying with these three pillars is that, in a game of DnD, you should explore a place, talk to some stuff in that place, and fight some stuff in that place. That's is all they are saying. Thinking that acting is the social pillar would be equal to saying that being in shape is necessary to enjoy the combat pillar. Which as my chubby body shows, is not true.

There is something to say though about how many people are coming into DnD because of CR, and having this misconception about acting = social pillar, and that all tables *need* to have this in order to play the game the correct way.

It tells me that there are a lot of players who want this. There are people who have never played DnD who watched Critical Role, who say the Player/Character divide that exists at their table, and thought "That looks fun".

It tells me that there is a place for the ideas that I have. It tells me that the Player/Character divide can be used to create fun. At least in the way of acting. You can be goofy and silly and funny and serious and depressing and brooding as a Player, as a DM, and you can still have fun. Being sad or mad doesn't mean you aren't having fun.

And it tells me that you can maybe push it further. Beyond just acting. Beyond the social pillar.

II

Munchkin is a card game heavily inspired by old school Dungeons and Dragons, that features a lot of oddly fitting crossovers in the form of expansions, each with a plethora of cards that accentuate the Player/Character divide and make it a tool in your arsenal. Where you play a game of munchkin can come back to bite you in the ass or save you. Who you play it with will change the game dramatically. What fucking clothes you wear can have an effect on how strong you are on a given turn.

These kinds of ideas have existed in board and card games since their inception. Poker requires strategy, math, and ultimately the ability to lie. Monopoly requires money management and the cold-hearted, calculated eye of a banker. Risk requires charisma as well as military dominance. Games have always played on the Player/Character divide. They use it as part of the mechanics of the game. Anyone can play chess, but the smartest person wins.

These are analogous to physical games which are strongly tilted towards Player skill. In football, you play the quarterback, a role which has its own unique abilities and ways to interact with the game, but its the Player's strength, quickness, and intelligence that leads to victory. That coupled with the mastery of the quarterback role itself creates a legend on the field.

Munchkin creates a very tongue-in-cheek version of this that *I* find fun. Instead of a Player/Character divide, where the player and character can be challenged separately, there's a conversation between the Player and the Character, and it takes both of them to win the game.

An example, website on the card

The goal of Munchkin is to build a very powerful arsenal of armor, weapons, and items so that you can get to the 10th level of the dungeon and beat a final monster. Where the fun of the game comes is cheating, player cooperation and this player/character communication. If you're like me and you like to get drunk while you play games, then this card is going to be better for you than it will be for your sober friends, and it could mean the difference between all of your friends teaming up to beef up some low-level goon so it can stop you vs. you sneaking out victorious and taking all the glory. 

There's a monster that is Steve Jobs but as a goblin. He gets more powerful for every window that is in the room you are playing the game. There's a card that allows all cultists to go off into a corner and trade cards and plot the downfall of the rest of the table. The game plays off of which class you get, which gender your character is, what your marital status is, what color shirt you're wearing, and so many other factors. 

Every game is different, and every single one of them is so unpredictable. It never lets me down when I need a good, fun game. And the little stories that it makes at the table are hard to forget and even harder to write.

III

With the history of games having the player/character divide as a basis of them, I'm very curious as to *why* the current state of DnD is the way it is. I shouldn't just lump it as DnD either. TTRPGs in general have this (what I see as an) issue of trying to divorce the Player from the game as much as possible. Making the divide into a chasm. They just want to challenge the Character. 

You even see the same mindset in the original example I gave against it. Critical Role. A character says something convincing, something really fucking good, and they act it well. Turn to the DM. "Roll a persuasion check." And you can see it on their face. That expression of "but that was fucking awesome!"

That's a limitation of the game itself. Saying something persuasive tends to lead to the allowance of a role where there otherwise wouldn't be. I'm someone who believes in the dice. I think they are the perfect abstraction for factors beyond our control. In combat, rolling the dice is the game's way of saying "you are fighting living things in a living world and your skill won't always mean as much as it would in a training room". 

But when it comes to acting? When it comes to saying what would *actually* convince the NPC? I say don't roll. 

And I've seen the counter arguments. It's part of the reason I'm writing this now. They are counter-arguments that have kept me reigned in when writing adventures. "Just because I'm not charismatic doesn't mean I can't play a charismatic character." I don't really have an answer to that. Or, I don't have an answer that's going to make you feel better. What I want to say to that counter-argument is "why are you so boring?" But that's mean and not fair. It's cruel. 

The correct thing to say, which is less of an answer and more of a way to just stop the argument, is that we play different games. Fundamentally, what you find fun in a game is not what I find fun. I like to be challenged. Me, as the player. I don't want things to be fair, or based on what's on my character sheet. As a DM, you never roll to convince the players of what you're saying. You talk.

I think there's a hybrid though. Instead of the Player/Character divide, try to take from Munchkin. The idea of the Player/Character conversation. The marriage of both, and the skills of both, which opens a toolbox filled with fun odds and ends that can be used at the table to solve problems and tackle the odds. 

I think in a way, that's what the DM already does. I think there's something there to be mined.