D&D 5E Role playing and wargaming

Sacrosanct

Legend
In fact, I'll even go one further. The whole Pat Pulling D&D scare of the 80s was predicated on the role-playing aspect of the game lol. They were so afraid we were actually casting spells and worshiping demons. For someone to say that there was no role-playing in the 70s and 80s is...well....one of the oddest things I've ever heard to be honest.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pdzoch

Explorer
I was a wargammer first before I became a rpger. My transition to D&D came through the advent of Chainmail. The transition from wargames, which had its leaders, but focused on command of units, to Chainmail, which focused on the heroes, was a pretty big shift at the time. However, even under Chainmail, the emphasis on the heroes still felt more like a wargame than a rpg. Heroes were optimized in the same way units were, and the heroes did not have much more personality than did the traditional wargame units. When we picked up D&D shortly afterwards, I recall that the heroes had much more personality as we had to interact with each other in the game. The role play was built in, even if it wasn't explicitly stated in the book. The structure of the rules just lent itself to that type of play. My friends who were NOT wargammers first did play a little more like min-maxers seeking a way to "win" but some of the DMs back then also tended to focus on destroying the characters also, so I suppose it was a trade off. 1st Edition character choices included playing an elf, a race as a character class, and was not used to maximized any character class choice until Advanced D&D a few years later. I remember all the racial limitations on class in 1st edition/AD&D, yet that still did not stop anyone from playing a class that would reach a limit. Although, I do recall that most our thieves were non-human because it was the only class that non-human races were not limited in. I do not think we "roleplayed" why our thieves were predominately non-human though. When the Greyhawk Campaign setting came out, there were plenty of Human racial stocks to select, and I do not recall any of them conferring any benefit other than local language. Our human characters were generally of the local racial stock, and if they were not, we simply accounted for them being a "traveler from afar." It may be easy to assume that the mechanic of the game focused on the optimization over the role play, but the horrible attack ability, sickly hit points, non-existence armor class, and limit spell use of the wizard did not stop anyone from playing a wizard. Although, our multi-classing back then was more a matter surviving a dungeon crawl and not wanting to manage many characters (or divide the loot up more than absolutely necessary). I doubt out multi-classing back then was very optimal either, and the role-play was not a consideration (other than survive-ability and limiting loot division). Back then, our role play decisions were based our our imagination, or what our imagination could justify. But there was role play and it did explain character choices. We did borrow from fantasy novels of the time (one friend always played an Elric of Melnibone clone in every game). Since then, there has been many publications to flesh out character concepts to fuel the imagination. My newer playgroup considers consistency of the race class role play more than we did back in 1ed. I never asked "would an elf do this?" but I get those questions from my younger players. Drizzt has replaced Elric, and some optimization still happens, but the roleplay or creation of a hero concept has not changed that much in my view. There is just that much more material to fuel the imagination and character creation concept for the game. [just a little jog down memory lane - but you did ask for personal experiences]
 
Last edited:


Sacrosanct

Legend
Another great example. Thanks!

Similar passages exist in both Moldvay's and Mentzer's basic books as well. Mentzer is way obvious and they have a whole page devoted to it on page 2. Moldvay says a couple times that you take the role of your PC to create the story, and in the example D&D session, it clearly has the role-playing aspect as important.

So the bottom line is that the importance of role playing not only existed, but every major book, and many of the most popular supplements, highlighted the importance of it. Saying that role playing didn't exist until 2e is like saying saving throws didn't exist until 2e.
 

Bawylie

A very OK person
In my old days of playing, I concerned myself with getting to 2nd or 3rd level prior to thinking about who the character was as a person.

A lot of my characters never climbed past 9th.

Nowadays my players spend a little bit of thought about making something fun they want to play 1st, before thinking about who the character is.

It's different now that 1st level characters are a bit sturdier. And low levels go quickly. And yes, I used to run into "my character wouldn't do that," but lately that's died way down in my circles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
In my old days of playing, I concerned myself with getting to 2nd or 3rd level prior to thinking about who the character was as a person.

I think that was pretty common. When 1st level PCs could die so easily, you waited a bit before putting in that time sink to flesh out their background lol. Also, it supports the playstyle of "I don't plan my character out 10-20 levels in advance, but let what happens in the game decide" that I see common in old school players.

It's different now that 1st level characters are a bit sturdier. And low levels go quickly. And yes, I used to run into "my character wouldn't do that," but lately that's died way down in my circles.

I still do it. THe other day playing Ravenloft, I had a fighter with an acolyte background and he died. The DM gave me an option of returning, but I had said, "My PC would never do that. It goes against his religious convictions."
 

Bawylie

A very OK person
I think that was pretty common. When 1st level PCs could die so easily, you waited a bit before putting in that time sink to flesh out their background lol. Also, it supports the playstyle of "I don't plan my character out 10-20 levels in advance, but let what happens in the game decide" that I see common in old school players.



I still do it. THe other day playing Ravenloft, I had a fighter with an acolyte background and he died. The DM gave me an option of returning, but I had said, "My PC would never do that. It goes against his religious convictions."

That's interesting.

I might've returned them despite their convictions, citing the machinations of the dark powers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

nexalis

Numinous Hierophant
And yes, I used to run into "my character wouldn't do that," but lately that's died way down in my circles.

"My character wouldn't do that" was a catchphrase much heard at my table for decades. It was often a game stopper for us, so I for one am glad to see it replaced in recent years with, "OK, so why would my character do that? ... I know! It's because of X, Y, and Z."
 

Bawylie

A very OK person
"My character wouldn't do that" was a catchphrase much heard at my table for decades. It was often a game stopper for us, so I for one am glad to see it replaced in recent years with "OK, so why would my character do that? ... I know! It's because of X, Y, and Z."

Yeah! For a long time I was very tired of players talking themselves out of doing things.

Got to the point where the action stopped. Just like you say - a game stopper.

I've instituted a rule against "defective adventurers" that covers this stuff, but I rarely have to bring it up past session zero anymore. People want to engage with and play the game now. As opposed to turtling through a session in the hopes of XP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

nexalis

Numinous Hierophant
Yeah! For a long time I was very tired of players talking themselves out of doing things.

Got to the point where the action stopped. Just like you say - a game stopper.

I've instituted a rule against "defective adventurers" that covers this stuff, but I rarely have to bring it up past session zero anymore. People want to engage with and play the game now. As opposed to turtling through a session in the hopes of XP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. I stumbled across an excellent article a few years ago which I've instituted as mandatory reading for all players who are new to my game: 11 Ways to Be A Better Roleplayer.
 

Remove ads

Top