Making the Character

If I could get myself back on track, then.  Looking at the whole of Moldvay's B5:

Accepting the rules as written, take a moment and parse what's here and why.  The ability scores are generated because they apply to what character class the player takes; the character class determines the character's skill set.  Both the abilities and this skill set are applied directly to actions taken in the campaign according to the rules of combat, physical actions, problem solving and so on.  The section for experience points will be filled as the player is rewarded for success.  Hit points give the character's resiliency, relating to chance of survival.  Alignment exists to limit the character's overall choice in future behaviour in the game setting.  The amount of gold generated determines what the player has and how much resources they can accumulate.  Weapons, armour and other equipment is purchased to enable the character against enemies and in response to nature.  Attacks and saving throws contribute to the character's effectiveness against these things.

Finally, a name is chose to discern this character from others, in game play.  It makes it easy for the DM to clarify if he's speaking to the player OR the player's character.

What's not here?

Specifically, what's not here that has become THE central tenet of the present-day game industry, none of which existed for the first two decades of the game's existence?

Everything that is here applies directly to the game's functionality.  Things will happen in the setting.  There must be some means of settling and resolving those things vs. the character's fortitude and cogency.  Since the character's skill set and resiliency improves as the game is played, through the acquisition of levels, the measurement of fortitude has to make itself felt ... and it does.  The characters are more effective in killing orcs, tougher and harder to kill, richer, better connected with forces in the game world and so on, as a result of what the character has done through game play.

So again.  What's not in Moldvay's list, that has no direct application to any rule in the game, which doesn't improve with game play and for which there isn't a die roll?

That's right.  The character's personality.  There isn't one.  There isn't so much the breath of asking for one.  Because it's not needed to play the game.  What the character feels, or hopes for, or what's happened to the character, or even where the character comes from, has NO RULE SET that gives that thing value.

And yet, like a kitchen sink that's been bolted onto a motorcycle, we've been saddled with back stories and character personalities and character aspirations ... when the player's personal reality is more than enough to satisfy those needs.

As a player, I want to beat the dragon, get it's treasure, use the money to build a castle and hire men-at-arms who will help me conquer the kingdom.  I don't give a good gawddamn what my "character" wants.  My character wants what I want.  That's what my character is for.  To exist as a tool that helps me get what I want.  This is how the game was built, this is how the original rules meant it to be and everything that's happened since some doofus decided the character was a separate entity from the player has been a complete sham.

Look at Moldvay's statement at the end of his example for creating the player character, on B13:

"The player is female and decides that her character will also be female.  Inspired by the name of Morgan le Fay from Arthurian legends, the player decides that the name of Morgan Ironwolf would be a good name for a fighter."

This is all the personality the character is granted.  A name.  Preferably a good one.  But the player is the one in the driver's seat.  Nothing else, whatsoever, is said about character personalities for the rest of the book.  Through the encounters passage, B23 and B24, it's made clear that the party decides what happens; no suggestion of any kind is made regarding what the characters may or may not want.  Combat follows and then we're into monsters.  No mention of character personality crops up during the treasure rules or the encounter tables after, whereupon we're into the example of the Haunted Keep on B55.

Finally, we get to a "sample dungeon encounter" on B59.  Here's a typical description of the player and DM speaking their parts (bold added by me):

(morgan speaking): Fred and Silverleaf will guard the secret door, and Black Dougal will open the box.  I'll search through the rags.  Anything that looks like a cloak or boots?

(DM speaking): Black Dougal, you find out that you missed a tiny discolored needle in the latch.

[black dougal blows a poison save and dies]

(fredrik speaking): I'm grabbing his pack to carry treasure in.

(rebecca speaking): I'm giving Black Dougal the last rites of my church.

First person.   All over.  None of this, "My character grabs his pack" or "does my character want to give last rights?"  This distancing nonsense between the player didn't exist for years and years, until some dick with a publishing credit decided we were going to divorce ourselves from direct involvement with the game by constantly interposing the character.  Or having the character ask permission to do something the PLAYER wants to do.

Next thing we had simple background stories about how, "My father was killed and now my character is hunting for the assassin," and that has led to, "When he died, my father bequeathed a +13 sword into my care, on the promise that I would find his assassin.  My father the king, that is; I'm heir to his throne, and when I'm recognised, I'll be emperor of the whole universe, whereupon I will regain my godlike powers and be able to shoot lightning from my hands, as my origin promises."  And so on.

I shut this nonsense down by pointing out that the character's father is an NPC, and I'm running this game, not the player.  The supposed assassin of the father is also an NPC; I decide who that assassin kills; I decide if the father's alive or not.  Because I'm in charge of the setting.  The player is not permitted to simply invent setting details to suit themselves ... nor are they permitted to give themselves objects out of the air, or confer lineages on themselves, or co-opt any part of the game for their own benefit simply because it pleases them.  They can lie about these things.  They can tell NPCs that they're the king of whatever or the god of Brobdingnang, but when the player starts to believe this nonsense, it's made clear that it's all a lie.  I'm not interested in running delusional people who are interested in their own games of nonsense; I'm here to run D&D.

Given the present climate, I'm finding it hard to concoct the words that a new DM needs to hear on this subject.  The character is a functional apparatus, designed to work in a functional setting.  Non-functional details aren't necessary and are, in fact, anathema to the appropriate details that should be acquired ONLY through game play.  If you succeed is usurping the kingdom, and name yourself king, then you've done it in game, through good play, according to the rules, and therefore you're OWED that position.  But you don't get a free lunch just because you want one.

Last night, I went searching for the meaning of playing a character in D&D and came up 100% empty.  There's advice for character builds, for step-by-step methodology, for why you absolutely need a character sheet if you're going to roll a character, what race you should be, what class you should play and so on.  There is a proliferation of 5e character generators, which pre-make backgrounds for you, in seconds.  Arguments are made that "a character is more than a stat block" ... and no.  No, a character isn't.  Because the character you make won't be around for dinner this week, or take your sister to the movies.  A character is a "stat block" because it's a set of rules for playing the legitimate game.

There is no sadder evidence of the utter failure of D&D as a game than the fetishism of character making over character running.

So.

Giving advice to a would-be DM on "how to keep players from pursuing an excessive and irrational commitment to an ideal that has no application inside the game's rules" has me a bit stumped.  I'm not ready to take a swing yet.  By tomorrow, I may have had a revelation, or I may move onto the next problem and shelve this for a while.