Category: rpg

D&D Fifth Edition

I’ve been playing Dungeons & Dragons in one form or another since the late 90s. Granted, this doesn’t give me the lengthy pedigree of a truly veteran grognard (look it up) but I’ve seen a few editions come and go. More importantly. I was playing regularly at a time when one edition (3.5) went out the door and the new one (4th) came in. And I played that new edition for the majority of its life cycle.

Many words have been written about why 4th edition isn’t good. It was deeply polarizing in the player base. It was too video game-esque, too much like World of WarCraft. On and on, the forum arguments go. I’ve come to realize that none of it matters.

The truth is that learning how to play 3.5 and earlier editions of D&D was a nightmare. I remember pouring over the books I had for hours, trying to reverse engineer how all the math worked out to understand how characters worked. Even after I created my own characters, it was a constant struggle to remember “okay, so I add this and this to that, and this condition applies so I get that, so I do . . . how much damage again?” It wasn’t until I’d played for a while, with an experienced group, that I finally saw how it all worked out.

To be honest, 4th edition isn’t that much easier to figure out, but at least they have a nifty program that does all the math for you and just tells you “roll this and add this number.”

But even that isn’t the real problem. The real problem is that the structure  of the tabletop RPG can’t do what everyone is trying to make it do. There will never be “one system to rule them all.” And even if there was, you know what? It has an incredibly finite lifespan.

Here’s how it works. The core books that you need to run the game are released. So you buy those. The first supplement books come out and add neat stuff like new classes, new archetypes, or whatever. Some more books come out, and those are cool too. But there’s a tipping point. There’s a peak level of purchase-interest in any game system and once you’ve passed it, new books become less appealing. Maybe it’s because you’re starting to resent the amount of money it’s costing or maybe you just have everything that you need.

My personal theory is that eventually, the books just start getting too weird. 4th edition had this problem in spades. You needed the first player’s handbook to play the game and it contained the basic classes. Okay, great. Players Handbook 2 contained a lot of well-liked stuff that was left out from the first one; classes like the barbarian, bad, druid, and sorcerer. Even the new classes still made sense and fit into the traditional swords-and-sorcery fantasy archetypes. Okay, cool.

But by the time the Player’s Handbook 3 rolled around, you’ve got a book filled with classes like the ardent and the battlemind. There is no one who can tell you what those are supposed to look like without refering to the book. There’s no fantasy archetype that’s being fulfilled here, which is what classes are supposed to do.

What happens from here? Honestly, I have three different sets of RPG on the bookshelf behind me that are some variation of the “Player’s Handbook, Gamemaster’s Guide, and Monster Manuel” trio. (D&D 3.5, D&D 4, and Pathfinder, if you’re curious). How many more times am I going to buy a Player’s Handbook and a Monster Manuel? It’s starting to feel a little old.

Let’s just say I don’t envy this particular business model too much.

Maybe when the books are finally released, I’ll be blown away and rush out and buy them. I remember when the 4th edition books were so new and shiny and I couldn’t wait to play them. That was a good feeling. I’d like to recapture it again . . . but at this point, I’m starting to think it’s all same dance, different song. Or maybe it’s the same sing, different dance. Whatever. You get my meaning.

Another Look At Myers-Briggs And RPG Classes

Back in October, I wrote a post in which I attempted to correlate different RPG classes with the various Myers-Briggs types. After some discussion in the comments, I decided that it was far too limiting to essentially argue that “all paladins are ENFP or all wizards are INTJ.” Even accounting for the variation within a particular type, it’s still too limiting, especially since one’s RPG class is really more like one’s fantasy career choice than a reflection of personality.

Nevertheless, likely due to some sort of accidental search engine optimization, that post continues to be the largest source of traffic for my site, bringing in a few hundred new viewers each week. Clearly, it’s a topic that people are interested in.

If it’s too restrictive in scope to say that one type correlates to each class, would it be possible to note larger trends? Keirsey considers the second letter continuum (S/N) to be the most important of the four, given that one’s preference for Sensing or iNtuition is what determines whether one is a Guardian (SJ), Artisan (SP), Idealist (NF), or Rational (NT). Thus, the S/N preference is that largest separating factor, at least according to Keirsey.

There are a few other differences but these two are the most relevant for the discussion of type as it relates to roleplaying.

In most fantasy roleplaying games, the largest divide between characters tends to be along the lines of whether or not the character has magical powers. Wizards, sorcerers, clerics, druids, etc. all have magic of various kinds while fighters, rogues, monks, etc. rely on physical ability. There are a few character classes that overlap, like paladins and rangers who are primarily martial characters but posses magical powers. This varies by setting and system, of course.

The question I’d like to pose is whether or not it makes sense to divide character classes along the S/N continuum. Does a preference for intuition indicate that intuitive types are natural magic-users?

Here is how Myers characterizes the preference for Sensing:

Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible, and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come “out of nowhere”. They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data.

Here is how Myers describes the preference for Intuition:

Those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. For them, the meaning is in the underlying theory and principles which are manifested in the data.

On the one hand, magic seems like the sort of thing that would make sense to someone with a natural inclination towards the abstract and the theoretical. Magic is abstract by its very nature . . . except when it isn’t. D&D shows this divide when it comes to the two primary arcane magic-users. The wizard approaches magic in a logical, rules-based way; spells are learned from books and cast through performing the proper incantations. Sorcerers, on the other hand, derive their magic from their own selves, whether through latent power in their blood or through inspiration or intuition or whatever other means. In other words, one could argue that wizards are Sensors while sorcerers are iNtuitives.

And that’s just between two arcane characters. What about somebody like the D&D druid? In Third Edition, the druid is a spellcaster, but instead of using arcane magic, they use divine magic like a cleric, but unlike the cleric (who draws that magic from a deity), the druid derives power from the natural world (which might be what led to the creation of primal magic in Fourth Edition). Regardless, the druid is a nature mage. But is nature-mage the preference of a Sensor or iNtuitive? Concrete or abstract?

What do you think? Does intuitive seem a characteristic for spellcasting character classes? Or do the different discrepancies and conflicts prove that it’s too varied to say for certain, and that mages are just like everybody else; some are intuitive, some are sensory?

The Psychology Of WoW Classes

I’ve been promising to write about this for a while, but I needed time to let the idea percolate in my head and even more time to write out this monster of a post (over 2,000 words). I’ve learned quite a bit reading the comments from my MBTI/RPG class post that caused me to revise my opinion quite a bit.

It was a mistake to try and correlate MBTI type and class preference with such specificity. While it was a fun exercise, it had no actual application to reality. Players are too diverse and tastes vary widely. It’s impossible to separate the reasons people play a particular class into purely aesthetic or mechanical considerations, not to mention the number of players for whom novelty and trying something different are the standards rather than the exceptions.

With that said, I’d like to take another look at MBTI and RPG correlation, but from a different perspective: that of the various kinds of classes in an MMO setting. The other major difference is I’m not going to try and pigeonhole one type or even one Keirsey temperament. Instead, I’m going to look at how the three primary roles of the different World of WarCraft classes and how each appeals to each temperament in different ways.

A Brief Overview of the Four Temperaments

SJ Guardians: ISFJ, ESFJ, ISTJ, ESTJ

Keirsey defines Guardians as having the following characteristics:

  • Guardians pride themselves on being dependable, helpful, and hard-working.
  • Guardians make loyal mates, responsible parents, and stabilizing leaders.
  • Guardians tend to be dutiful, cautious, humble, and focused on credentials and traditions.
  • Guardians are concerned citizens who trust authority, join groups, seek security, prize gratitude, and dream of meting out justice.

SP Artisans: ISFP, ESFP, ISTP, ESTP

Keirsey defines Artisans as having the following characteristics:

  • Artisans tend to be fun-loving, optimistic, realistic, and focused on the here and now.
  • Artisans pride themselves on being unconventional, bold, and spontaneous.
  • Artisans make playful mates, creative parents, and troubleshooting leaders.
  • Artisans are excitable, trust their impulses, want to make a splash, seek stimulation, prize freedom, and dream of mastering action skills.

NF Idealists: INFJ, ENFJ, INFP, ENFP

Keirsey defines Idealists as having the following characteristics:

  • Idealists are enthusiastic, they trust their intuition, yearn for romance, seek their true self, prize meaningful relationships, and dream of attaining wisdom.
  • Idealists pride themselves on being loving, kindhearted, and authentic.
  • Idealists tend to be giving, trusting, spiritual, and they are focused on personal journeys and human potentials.
  • Idealists make intense mates, nurturing parents, and inspirational leaders.

NT Rationals: INTJ, ENTJ, INTP, ENTP

Keirsey defines Rationals as having the following characteristics:

  • Rationals tend to be pragmatic, skeptical, self-contained, and focused on problem-solving and systems analysis.
  • Rationals pride themselves on being ingenious, independent, and strong willed.
  • Rationals make reasonable mates, individualizing parents, and strategic leaders.
  • Rationals are even-tempered, they trust logic, yearn for achievement, seek knowledge, prize technology, and dream of understanding how the world works.

Now that we’ve identified the main characteristics that are core to each temperament, let’s see how these translate into the different class roles in WoW.

Tanking

Classes: Blood Death Knight, Guardian Druid, Protection Paladin, Protection Warrior, Brewmaster Monk

It’s easy to see why the tanking role appeals to Guardians; it’s even in their temperament name! In WoW, the Tank is responsible for guiding his or her teammates safely through the dungeon. The Tank stands on the front line and takes the hits from the monsters that would drop a more fragile character. The well-being of the group depends on the Tank to perform his or her job well. Without a strong Tank, the group will fall apart. The Guardian thrives in a social environment where their natural dependability is a strong asset and the Tank role demands exactly that.

For an Artisan, I believe that tanking will appeal for a very different reason. Artisans will focus on the fact that tanking is one of the most exciting and dynamic roles. A Tank is right in the monster’s face and often has to react quickly to changing situations, lending itself to a high-adrenaline and exciting playing style. A good Tank needs to be quick on his or her feet and troubleshoot problems, which fits well with an Artisan’s preference for an intense, high-energy playing style.

Idealists are Tanks for reasons similar, at first glance, to those that motivate Guardians. Idealists are naturally cooperative and value the well-being of those they hold in their regard. The Guardian, however, will approach the Tanking role with the mindset of, well, a guardian. “The safety of the group is my responsibility.” An Idealist, on the other hand, will be more concerned with the well being of the group in an abstract sense. “If I do my job well, everybody is having more fun” is what guides an Idealist who has chosen to Tank.

Rationals, like their name suggests, are drawn to complexity and anything that stimulates their problem solving abilities. Although it might seem like the role of Tank requires nothing more than standing in front of a monster while it hits you over and over, in truth, Tanks often have the most complex job of any role. They must understand a particular encounter better than any other class and need to be able to know when to move, when to use special abilities, when to react, and many other intricacies. Although all roles are expected to know the details of an encounter in order to succeed, for tanks, understanding the encounter is essential. This natural complexity and the required understanding to succeed make tanking very appealing for the Rational.

Healing

Classes: Holy Priest, Holy Paladin, Restoration Shaman, Restoration Druid, Mistweaver Monk

Guardians who prefer a less intense, less in-your-face playing style (particularly those who are Introverts rather than Extroverts) may favor Healing instead of Tanking. Guardians prize gratitude and playing a Healer is often a rewarding experience for exactly that reason. Healers are always in demand and a good Healer will be valued and appreciated by the group. Healers provide stability and cohesion to a group, which are also valued traits to a Guardian. Again, the primary difference between the Guardian’s motivation and the Idealist’s is that for the Guardian, the task takes on the aspect of duty and responsibility. “I am the Healer. I’m responsible for keeping everybody alive.”

Although Healing is usually a more reactive than proactive role, there are moments of heart-stopping intensity that provide the thrill Artisans crave. Certain encounter will tax the Healer’s abilities or the Tank will take a beating and come within an inch of dropping and these scenarios provide adrenaline rushes as the Healer reacts quickly to resolve. There’s a visceral thrill in snapping off a large healing spell at just the right moment and Artisans can certainly appreciate that.

For Idealists, the Healing role is a natural fit (one of the Idealist types, INFP, is even called the Healer). The act of restoring and supporting one’s party fits well with the Idealist’s motivating desire for harmony. Healers watch over their parties much like Tanks do, but they don’t take the center stage or have all the focus directly on them, which is appealing to the Introverted side of the Idealist Temperament. More than any other role, however, Healers represent the ability to increase the enjoyment of other party members. Finally, from an aesthetic perspective, Healing fits well with the Idealist’s tendency towards kindness more so than hitting something in the face with a hammer (like the Tank) or setting it on fire (like the DPS).

The Rational again finds complexity in the Healer role that stimulates his or her intellect. Healers cannot be measured by raw statistics the way a DPS can, but there are other considerations a Healer must juggle that creature interesting scenarios for the Rational. Triage is an important skill of a healer; knowing when and how to use one’s best resources can often be the difference between success and failure. Healers must also be wary of overhealing, which represents a loss of strategic resources and so must employ their abilities carefully.

The DPS (Damage Per Second)

Class: Hunter, Mage, Rogue, Warlock, Arms Warrior, Fury Warrior, Retribution Paladin, Feral Druid, Balance Druid, Frost Death Knight, Unholy Death Knight, Elemental Shaman, Enhancement Shaman, Shadow Priest, Windwalker Monk

A dead monster is one that can’t hurt anyone. The Guardian might favor DPS as an extension of the maxim, “the best defense is a good offense.” Whether it’s dropping monsters with a fireball or stopping them dead with an arrow shot, the Guardian DPS player can maintain his or her party by unleashing the greatest firepower possible. Alternatively, the Guardian might play DPS because of all the roles, as evidenced by the list of potential classes, it’s the largest. The Guardian DPS might enjoy staying out of the spotlight that Tanks and Healers experience and instead be able to focus on doing his or her job dutifully and reliably. Good DPS is the backbone of the team and the Guardian, who enjoys being exactly that, can find his or her niche in this role.

Artisans approach the DPS role with a completely different attitude. For an Artisan, the DPS represents the chance to engage in intense, exciting, action packed gameplay. Instead of getting bashed on by a monster or watching health bars, the DPS Artisan is flinging huge fireballs or spinning blades at foes. DPS Artisans appreciate the big numbers; there’s nothing more thrilling than a huge critical strike or seeing one’s performance at the top of the DPS meter. Even though the group is working together, among DPS there is often competition to do the most damage. A DPS who tops the charts with his or her performance is going to feel like a rock star. It’s easy to imagine the Artisan’s attraction.

The Idealist’s reason for choosing DPS may be more nebulous than other temperaments. An Idealist DPS player might choose the role because of the different class archetypes spark the Idealist’s imagination and allows him or her to step into the fantasy of being a powerful wizard or knight. Alternatively, the Idealist might enjoy the DPS role for reasons shared by the Guardian and dropping foes efficiently helps the party have more fun. Finally, the Idealist might enjoy the DPS because it represents a change of pace from how the Idealist might normally be in a group context.

The Rational’s desire for mastery can be satisfied by the DPS role, especially in a class that requires a high level of skill to play effectively. DPS classes are dependent on using skills and resources effectively to produce more damage; this is often referred to as the “rotation” and mastery of it is critical to be successful. A Rational will enjoy figuring out the optimal rotation and mastering its execution. Alternatively, a Rational might enjoy the optimization aspect of a DPS role and balance different stats and equipment to create a superior character build.

This brings us to the end of the psychology of MMO classes. Some of my comments have been based on my own experiences, although most are derived more from observation of other players. There are likely many things that I missed for each class, but I hope that this broader approach to the subject of type and class will succeed where the previous attempt failed.

Finally, in writing this post, while my thesis is that any type can enjoy and do well at any role, I found that some types were much easier to place than others. It is my assertion that some types lend themselves better to some roles than others; call it a better fit, if you will, though it is not a pigeon-holing. Some players will always defy the norm and choose something explicitly because it’s strange or unique.

Here are my suggestions for the “best fit” for each role:

Tank: Guardian, Artisan, Idealist, Rational

DPS: Artisan and Rational

Healer: Guardian, Idealist

You’ll notice that this distribution is not necessarily balanced; all four temperaments are “best fit” with the Tank, for example. There’s also an inverse in the number of temperaments vs. the number of classes. Although DPS is the largest percentage of any group and has the largest number of classes dedicated to it, it has fewer temperaments than the more rare Tanking role.

I based this arrangement purely on my own opinion based on how easy or difficult it was to determine why a particular type might favor one role over another. It was easy for me to articulate why each temperament would have a best fit with the Tank role, but I had a difficult time determining the motivation for an Idealist to choose DPS.

I hope that you’ve enjoyed this completely non-scientific look at this topic. Please feel free to share your thoughts and feelings in the comments and let me know where you believe I got it right . . . or wrong. Thanks for reading.

In Defense Of True Neutral

I saw an article on IO9 about the best D&D alignments and even though it’s almost a year old, I wanted to respond. If you’re unfamiliar with the concept of alignment in D&D, the basic idea is that there is are two axes that govern your character’s behavior: good and evil is the first, and law and chaos is the second. This forms a 3 x 3 grid (neutral options exist between each extreme) and thus, all characters will fall into one of nine different alignments. Think of it like a personality test, but for sorcerers and paladins.

Like with anything, it’s common to discuss and argue the merits of these different alignments and the value of the alignment system itself. Some feel that it’s too limited to describe all fantasy characters in just nine categories, while others think that it’s a useful abstraction. For what it’s worth, I fall into the latter camp.

IO9 ranks the nine alignments as follows, from best to worst:

  1. Chaotic Neutral
  2. Neutral Good
  3. Lawful Evil
  4. Neutral Evil
  5. Lawful Neutral
  6. Lawful Good
  7. Chaotic Evil
  8. Chaotic Good
  9. True Neutral

The placement of Chaotic Neutral as the “best” alignment strikes me as fairly dubious, due to the number of players who use it as an excuse to be evil in games where the game master does not allow evil characters. This tendency is so common, in fact, that it’s a recurring joke in the movie Gamers: Dorkness Rising as one of the characters constantly exclaims “I’m not evil, I’m Chaotic Neutral” after doing something like setting a peasant on fire for no reason.

However, the low placement of True Neutral on the list is what really raises my eyebrow. Here’s what the author has to say about the True Neutral alignment:

There are only two alignments that cannot be trusted: Chaotic Evil and True Neutral. Chaotic Evil characters are crazy evil, so what’s True Neutral’s excuse? Only the dumb would be so invested in the balance between good, evil, law and chaos that they feel they have to maintain it, which is why True Neutral is the preferred alignment of Druids, a.k.a. dipshits. Look, if there’s a chance you may decide that letting bugbears kill everyone in the party is necessary in the natural order of things, then there’s a chance I’m going to slit your character’s throat in his sleep. Hell, at least with Chaotic Evil characters you know where you stand.

Let’s ignore the slur against druids for a moment. I’m going to assume it’s a comment made by a player who either prefers wizards or clerics, the druid’s main rivals for the title of “most powerful class ever” or comes from a player who prefers fighters or rogues and is still bitter about the fact that the 3.5 D&D druid has special abilities more powerful than the entire fighter and rogue classes.

And to be fair, let’s look at the D&D second edition for True Neutral (referred to as just Neutral here):

Some Neutral characters, rather than feeling undecided, are committed to a balance between the alignments. They may see good, evil, law and chaos as simply prejudices and dangerous extremes.

Druids frequently follow this True Neutral dedication to balance, and under Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rules were required to be this alignment. In an example given in the 2nd Edition Player’s Handbook, a typical druid might fight against a band of marauding gnolls, only to switch sides to save the gnolls’ clan from being totally exterminated.

Later editions steered away from this depiction of the True Neutral alignment, on the basis that it’s absolutely insane. Of course, Second Edition also described Chaotic Neutral as being the alignment of “lunatics and mad men” and that a Chaotic Neutral character was just as likely to jump off a bridge as cross it. If we’re going to laud Chaotic Neutral as the best alignment, we should do so under the same edition as we disparage True Neutral as the worst.

With that said, I’d like to argue for why I think True Neutral is one of the best alignments and it has nothing to do with some abstract “keeping the balance” or “not getting involved” justification.

Before going further, it’s important to point out that understanding of the alignments is necessarily subjective. What’s Evil in one game or story might be Neutral in another. It all depends on the morality of the storyteller, since we’re talking about fictional worlds. In a fictional roleplaying world, God is literally available to make moral judgments.

With that in mind, I’m basing my argument on the alignment depictions put forth by the core D&D 3.5 rulebooks. For a more detailed analysis of what these alignments represent and the ethics implied by them, visit this page and get ready for an in-depth, scholarly discussion of some D&D ethics. It could be argued that some of the examples here don’t fall into the particular moral classifications I’ve attributed them, but keep in mind that, in the core D&D setting, torture is considered an Evil act, in all instances. Real world morality doesn’t apply here.

To me, there are three types of True Neutral characters. “Undecided” are those that don’t commit to a side. They don’t feel strongly about law vs. chaos or good vs. evil. These characters are generally less interesting as protagonists in a fantasy game due to their overall lack of motivation. Characters of this alignment tend to be villagers or townsfolk, those more interested in living out their lives than getting involved.

The second kind of True Neutral is the aforementioned “Balanced” individual, which we’ve already described. With a few exceptions, I’m not overly fond of this character.

The third True Neutral type is the Pragmatist. This is where the alignment has the most interesting opportunities. Before describing how the Pragmatist True Neutral operates, we have to look at how other alignments operate and what it means to be Good or Evil.

Generally speaking, Good aligned characters will never commit evil acts. A Good character will not torture a villain. They won’t betray others. They try to keep their word (except to villains). Generally, however, they’re idealistic in their motivations and actions. A Good character who does something like murder a villain who has surrendered has stopped being Good.

Consequently, although Evil characters might seem like the ultimate pragmatists who are willing to do anything, my general feeling is that this is not true. An Evil character will never commit Good actions. They might appear to do so as part of a ploy or gambit, but their motivations are still ultimately for some Evil cause and even then, there are limits on the Good they’re willing to do. They won’t sacrifice themselves for a goal or another person, for instance. They’re incapable of actual Good, even when Good would lead to a preferable outcome. In fiction, we see this often: a villain who betrays the protagonist even though it’s ultimately counterproductive to do so.

While Evil characters are willing to stop at nothing to achieve their goals, that’s not quite the same as “being willing to do anything.” There might be no limit to the depths an Evil character might sink, but there are absolutely limits on how high an Evil character might climb in terms of Good. If they do, they stop being Evil.

Enter the True Neutral, who is the ultimate pragmatist. This is the character who is willing to walk in a world of grey. The character who can’t be considered Good, because he or she is willing to do things Good can’t or won’t. Here’s a powerful example from an episode of Castle.

That is what True Neutral looks like to me. It’s the willingness to do what needs to be done. Tell the truth, tell a lie, show mercy, torture, obey the law, break the law. Whatever needs to be done. A Good character can’t go to this length. A Good character is the one for whom torture will always be wrong, no matter the circumstances. “We have to find another way” is the mantra of the Good character.

True Neutrals have one foot in the dark, one in the light, and not because it’s important to remain “balanced” between the two, but because sometimes, the ends do justify the means. Not always; a character for whom the ends always justify the means is probably going to be Evil.

But isn’t this “at any costs” mentality a powerful narrative motivation to justify Evil? The difference between this kind of Neutral and Evil is that “whatever it takes” goes both ways. What separates the Neutral Pragmatist from an Evil Villain is that the villain won’t self-sacrifice for his goal. The Neutral will, just as a Good character will.

And that is why True Neutral characters can be awesome. Not because of some “balance” or because of some wishy-washy non-commitment. Because True Neutral is the expression on Castle’s face. It’s this exchange, in all its spine chilling menace:

Stevens: [Castle closes and locks the door to the room] I just said I don’t wanna talk, so you can’t question me. I have rights. I’m not going to say anything without a lawyer.

Castle: I’m not a cop.

Stevens: Then who are you?

Castle: You remember the girl with the red hair? I’m her father. Please know, I will do whatever it takes to get her back. The police outside are my friends… my daughters’ friends too. So it’s just you and me.

Stevens: If you touch me, I’ll press charges…

Castle: I don’t care.