D&D General Has the meaning of "roleplaying" changed since 1e?

[Lanefan]

How so? If you have a rule that people keep ignoring, isn't it likely they don't agree with the rule?

In real life I don't agree with a lot of rules but I generally follow them anyway.

And in this particular case the disagreement with the rule is almost always being done in bad faith in order to gain undeserved advantages; in which case they can disagree till they're blue in the face and it won't do 'em a lick o' good.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In real life I don't agree with a lot of rules but I generally follow them anyway.

And in this particular case the disagreement with the rule is almost always being done in bad faith in order to gain undeserved advantages; in which case they can disagree till they're blue in the face and it won't do 'em a lick o' good.

Yeah, that'll learn 'em how to have proper fun, whether they like it or not.

Carry on, soldier.

 

[Maxperson]

Am I interpreting this correctly that you are saying these two things are fundamentally equivalent?
- You've fought trolls before on a different character, so when you encounter them with this character you know to use fire, and you do so
- You knew your group would be playing "The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief" so you went out and bought the module and studied it without telling anybody, and now you use that knowledge to avoid traps and find treasure

It seems like you are saying these amount to the same thing. Is that correct?

Let's tweak that a bit to this...

• You've fought trolls before on a different character, so when you encounter them with this character you know to use fire, and you do so
• You've played through "The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief" on a different character, so when you play through it again with this character you use that knowledge to avoid traps and find treasure.

Now it's the same, and yes, I personally consider both to be cheating.

 

[Lyxen]

I play online. There's absolutely no way I could even know if people don't have MM's open or a search window open or are just using the VTT's compendium. And do you know how much difference that makes in my games? None. Because it's a non-issue. The challenge in my game is not based on not knowing a given monster's gimmick.

You know what ? For once, I completely agree with you, it's not what my games are about either indeed.

The reason for me combatting it is however not about challenge (because my games are not about player challenges anyway, they are about challenges to the characters and the roleplaying of the way the character approach these challenges in the game world), it's about the effect on the other players, with two in particular that I don't appreciate:

• Breaking the immersion by using OOC knowledge and displaying it to other players, who in turn get the impression that it's not roleplaying anymore and that they don't recognise the other character.
• Getting technical advantage to dominate the battlefield, either to get the spotlight or out of fear for the character (exactly like powergaming), with the effect that some players will consistently be left in the shadow.

 

[Lyxen]

The DMG and MM are not player resources. Don't read them. Any knowledge you have of the game should be compartmentalized. Play your character, not your 40 years of gaming knowledge. If you insist on playing this RPG like it's a boardgame or a wargame, go find another table.

It's a bit hard when half of your table are DMs themselves, you know...

 

[Lyxen]

Just one thing about monster knowledge, don't discount the fact that characters could have heard about them before. When you really live in a fantasy world, there will be tales, and legends that even barbarians will have heard about. And there are some learned characters as well, libraries, sages, etc.

Moreover, when you are an adventurer, you will have listened to these things, because your life might depend on it. Just look at the sum of knowledge that you have accumulated when growing up, in general, but also in particular in your chosen field of activity.

This is why, in general, I don't make an issue about monster knowledge, which in particular can be checked through a simple knowledge roll (although you have to be a bit creative with these in 5e, at least it valorises Int a bit). And honestly, after being a DM for years and years, and playing characters for years and years as well, it becomes really hard to remember if that character in particular has already encountered that type of creature before.

Specific module/location knowledge, on the other hand, is really bad and not to be tolerated.

But still, it can be complicated, I'll give you an example, one friend, a bit pressed for time for a game, decided to recycle bits of White Plume Mountain for his adventure. We started the part, then had to break because it was really late. When we reconvened the following week, I had a strange impression of deja vu when playing that part, but I really could not remember if is was from descriptions at the end of the previous session, especially since it was late, so I had these sort of hunches, but could not decide whether they were legitimate or not.

So, in the end, I sent a PM to the DM asking him whether he had done some recycling, and he told me that he had, but it made me uncomfortable for the rest of the session because it sort of prevented me from having ideas, because I still could not decide whether they were legitimate new ideas of reminiscence from playing, then running that module a long time ago.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You know what ? For once, I completely agree with you, it's not what my games are about either indeed.

The reason for me combatting it is however not about challenge (because my games are not about player challenges anyway, they are about challenges to the characters and the roleplaying of the way the character approach these challenges in the game world), it's about the effect on the other players, with two in particular that I don't appreciate:

• Breaking the immersion by using OOC knowledge and displaying it to other players, who in turn get the impression that it's not roleplaying anymore and that they don't recognise the other character.

There are two issues here. The 1st isn't metagaming, it's the reading of books at the table and possibly being disruptive of the game as a whole. I've dealt with this above.

The second is on topic -- if the PC is doing a thing then it's because the PC knows it. The question isn't one of OOC or IC knowledge. This is a prime opportunity to invite the player to tell the table how their PC knows things, which, last I checked, kinda falls into the usual definitions of roleplaying. Doing this cannot ever be a case of not "recognizing" other characters.

• Getting technical advantage to dominate the battlefield, either to get the spotlight or out of fear for the character (exactly like powergaming), with the effect that some players will consistently be left in the shadow.

Oh, goodness. I mean, let's say I'm the most tactical minded player at my table -- how do I restrict this OOC knowledge from being powergaming?! This is one of those arguments that seems like it lands until you consider the host of other things that are perfectly acceptable that have larger impacts than knowing trolls are weak to fire. Skill at PC builds. Synergies with other characters. Tactical acumen. All of these things do exactly the same thing you're complaining about here, but somehow these all get a pass while you have to absolutely pretend you don't know about trolls (example) to prevent unfairness or unevenness in player performance.

 

[Lyxen]

There are two issues here. The 1st isn't metagaming, it's the reading of books at the table and possibly being disruptive of the game as a whole. I've dealt with this above.

I'm sorry but no, it's not necessarily reading book at the table, and I was specific about the type of disruption.

The second is on topic -- if the PC is doing a thing then it's because the PC knows it. The question isn't one of OOC or IC knowledge. This is a prime opportunity to invite the player to tell the table how their PC knows things, which, last I checked, kinda falls into the usual definitions of roleplaying. Doing this cannot ever be a case of not "recognizing" other characters.

It does, because the explanations - when they exist, usually it's a quick retractation based on "Oh, I shouldn't have said that" because the player realises that there is no way his character could have known something that specific - are usually really bland and leave everyone else at the table with their eyes rolling, which does not add to the game.

Oh, goodness. I mean, let's say I'm the most tactical minded player at my table -- how do I restrict this OOC knowledge from being powergaming?! This is one of those arguments that seems like it lands until you consider the host of other things that are perfectly acceptable that have larger impacts than knowing trolls are weak to fire. Skill at PC builds. Synergies with other characters. Tactical acumen. All of these things do exactly the same thing you're complaining about here, but somehow these all get a pass while you have to absolutely pretend you don't know about trolls (example) to prevent unfairness or unevenness in player performance.

And again you should know, from other discussions that all these others do NOT get a pass either (and in particular the horrid "skill at PC builds"), so that is a really weak argument.

But you are right, it's always the same type of people who claim that they are very clever at technical building of characters, technical synergies, monster knowledge to use with these builds and synergies, and who of course claim that they are masters at battlefield tactics, even if their character is just a youngster green around the ears. I don't need to spell it for you, do I ?

And it's funny how, in the end, the excuse for letting powergaming behaviour get a pass is everytime because there might be other ways for a powergamer to powergame. No, there is no "excuse" (and there should not be the need for one, if it's your preferred playstyle, it's fine as long as it's not imposed on others, in particular by stealth), and each of these points can be addressed on its own.

And this is why at our tables we act all across the board to limit these, the "monster knowledge" (although you might have seen from another post that we are pretty lenient about those) is just a facet of limiting these effects. No inconsistency there.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Oh, goodness. I mean, let's say I'm the most tactical minded player at my table -- how do I restrict this OOC knowledge from being powergaming?!

Right. At what point does this IC vs. OOC silliness result in a ruling that "No you may not move your figure to that square...your character wouldn't have the tactical acumen to know how effective that is."

(And then of course there's the extended conversation...
Player: "Is it? I was just trying to get close enough to attack the monster and picked that square."
DM: "No, you were clearly trying to gain an unfair advantage by preventing that other one from getting past you without triggering an opportunity attack."
Player: "What's an opportunity attack?"
DM: "Don't play dumb with me, you cheater!")

 

[Oofta]

I would say that the meaning of roleplaying has very much changed over the years.

Of course it has. We have 50 years and zillions of play hours to draw upon now. What was "roleplaying" in 1981 is not the same as today. It's a definition that has expanded, been expounded upon, been deconstructed and then put back together again a thousand times by all sorts of people.

It would be like asking if Fantasy as a genre, has changed in the last 50 years. Of course it has. Or have board games changed in the last 50 years. Radically would be the answer. Elements we draw upon today and very different than what we drew upon in 1981. Of course this is going to have massive changes in how we approach role playing.

Heck, just the notion of the extended game - the idea that we are going to play the same character for the next year and a half is a huge change. How we play has radically changed over the years, so, of course what roleplaying means has changed as well.

It may have changed for you, I don't see that much of a difference personally. Then again, it's not like we followed the books like a technical document. Not that you could with the earliest editions anyway. We just played the style of game that made sense to us and didn't pay much attention, or even know how, other groups played.