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

[Aldarc]

This naturally raises the question though: why is play-to-win and play-for-fun, being treated as intrinsically different things? Like if a player who is enjoying the exercise of being faced with problems and overcoming them isn't having 'fun' what semantic understanding of fun are we slipping into and why? I'm trying to avoid the semantic argument in favor of what lies at the core of that-- having fun is nebulous, and I think everyone is playing for 'fun.' So the question is more about what kind of fun we should be having right?

Doing my best to overcome challenges is fun.
Giggling over funny stuff with my friends is fun.
Losing myself in the moment is fun.
Creating something new and exploring its ramifications is fun.
Seeing an interesting story play out is fun.
Being part of a team and feeling like I have 'place' on that team is fun.
Practicing hard and seeing my efforts pay off is fun.

Not an exhaustive list, but the point is, what defining not-fun would be a losing proposition, because we're really just all bickering over different kinds of fun and which we're trying to have at the table and how to best create it, and what fun can fit together in the same experience without diminishing the others.

This naturally has me regretting my choice of words because I’m not interested in arguing any of this.

 

[Maxperson]

But maybe they are the same. Maybe another player doesn't really want to create an inhabit a totally different persona, and their idea of roleplaying is, "I'm in Groo the Wanderer's body, but otherwise I'm basically me." And that's what they think is fun.

That's great if they get into a game that's into that sort of thing. It's not so great if they get into a game like mine where metagaming is cheating.

Does that bother you, or prevent you from playing in the way you prefer?

If someone enters my game, they need to play without any metagaming. If enter someone else's game and they metagame as a group, I'm not going to accuse anyone of cheating or try and talk them into playing my way. I won't personally metagame and if it bothers me enough to quit, I'll walk away(no idea if it would or not), and if my not metagaming bothers them enough to kick me out, they can.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think that whats interesting is that our use of the word 'story' often invokes an expectation that the goal of RPGs is interrelated with the goal of writing conventional stories (novels, serials, etc) and that we enjoy the same qualities and structures in those stories. In reality I think RPGs are better thought of as 'experiences' and the stories arise out of that. So I think of my favorite system (Pathfinder) as a game that gives me the experience of casting spells, fighting dragons, finding treasure, exploring interesting worlds, being a wandering adventurer, and I play it to have that experience.

I've always thought that traps are a great example of that difference. Traps are exciting in books/movies in a number of ways, but (in my opinion) just about all attempts to replicate the same excitement in RPGs fall flat. It's possible to use traps effectively in RPGs, but it ends up being very different from how they are used in stories.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I think where this analogy fails is that it assumes the game player and the player character are the same and have the same goals. They're not. In your anime example, the game player would be some combination of the writer penning the script and the voice actor playing the role with the anime character being the player character.

The game player wants to win. They make decisions based on player knowledge to avoid, minimize, or circumvent obstacles, i.e. what they see as the win condition. The writer/actor also wants to win, however, their win condition is literally the opposite of the game player's, so the writer/actor does literally the opposite. They want to have good scenes to show off their writing/acting talents. Drama, earned growth, difficult obstacles, story beats, etc.

There's an obvious tension between these two sides. What makes for a good game (risk-reward, challenges, discovery, immersive fantasy, etc) and what makes for a good story (tension and release, rising stakes, etc) vs what most gamers seem to want (easy tensionless wins that make them and/or their character look good).

If the game player "wins" and scenes are "written" to their liking they would be the flattest, dullest scenes they can possibly be. "Gee, we won again with practically zero effort, no real risk, and no appreciable loss of resources. Huzzah." It would be literally the most boring anime you've ever watched. In fan fiction the term for this is Mary Sue or Marty Stu. Pure, bland as can be power fantasy. "I am the best, I am awesome. Praise me."

The writer/actor wants there to be drama and tension, obstacles and betrayals, all so they have something interesting to do. The game player wants none of that.

But I think that the player having the same goals as their character is the desirable thing, we don't necessarily have to create the tension by acting badly, it can arise out of the world's response to our actions in pursuit of our goals. I'm saying this level of 'metagaming' is good and fine, because we're synchronized with the character, and that the act of averting problem solving by placing it at odds with character motivation is a 'problem' distorting the game, I guess you could say its a flaw I perceive in the current culture of roleplaying vs. metagaming. You want the roleplaying to reflect the metagame and vice versa.

This part specifically:

The writer/actor also wants to win, however, their win condition is literally the opposite of the game player's, so the writer/actor does literally the opposite. They want to have good scenes to show off their writing/acting talents. Drama, earned growth, difficult obstacles, story beats, etc.

I think that's the problem, because the game is a set of experiences, rather than scenes in a story that's being written, this makes it harder to roll with the punches because you're stepping into the role of the game mechanics sometimes and working against them. I think that at least for games like DND, this isn't the right 'roleplaying' framework, instead being synced in and not forcing the plot as a player, instead setting goals and navigating the world as the character-- trusting that the game world will present you with the need for effort, risk, and need to expend resources without you having to hold back.

In other words, the twists and complications, and conflicts are coming from the GM, whereas the players are trying to resolve those things. The interplay of the GM presenting and the players reacting is the core game play of the game, and it holds to this thematic level, where the good writing and acting take place at the push and pull of those forces. The GM complicates the situation, and the players try to resolve it, the events that take place as those two things happen emergently produce an interesting narrative.

 

[overgeeked]

I genuinely don't understand why it bothers you, or even why it's "trying" to play together. You play your character, he plays his. What's the problem? Why does he have to play your way? (As Yoda would say, "There is no try...")

Have you ever played a game (sports, cards, pool, etc) with a kid? To them, they're mostly just goofing around and having fun enjoying spending time with an adult who will give them the time of day. Now imagine a hyper-competitive adult sitting down with that kid and playing to win. Crush the enemy, etc. The kid goes away crying and the hyper-competitive adult pats themselves on the back for a job well done. Now, a reasonable person would say that the hyper-competitive adult was an utter jerk. I'd say they misunderstood the conditions of the test. For the kid, the point was to hang out and play around. For the adult, the point was to win. At all costs. Regardless of the kid leaving the table in tears. The adult ruined the kids fun because, for the adult, the fun was the winning. They have opposed goals.

If the whole table is hyper-competitive adults out to win. It works because they're all there playing the same game for the same reasons. If there's some teenager there trying to learn the game, it suddenly falls apart. If there's a kid trying to just play, it really falls apart.

To switch analogies...have you ever tried to help a person older than you with technology? To them, they're at their wit's end and just need help figuring out how this damn thing works. So they reach out. To you. For whatever reason you help. Now in the process of helping you decide it's a perfect time to insult them, belittle them, and mock their intelligence all because you have a bit of information that they do not. Most reasonable people would recognize that the "helper" is really a jerk. They misunderstand what the situation is. An opportunity to help. But they read it as an opportunity to gloat and demean. The adult ruined the older person's day because, for the adult, the point was to gloat, demean, and show off. They have opposed goals.

What's this all have to do with your question? People in the same situation with wildly different expectations can drastically alter the outcome of that situation...especially when there are differing sets of mutually exclusive goals.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Because different people have different win conditions and find different things fun. There's no one "win" and there's no one "fun". So, in a hobby like this, with many different kinds of games and playstyles, there's a very real chance that when you sit down with any random group of people your win/fun will be different than the win/fun of someone else at the table, and quite likely that they will be diametrically opposed. You win/fun ruins my win/fun. So you playing to win spoils my fun, and vice versa.

Yes, but there's no one answer. Again, what's fun for you can absolutely ruin what I think is fun.

For some, yes. For everyone, no. It depends on where the effort is placed and how it's done.

Right. What you find fun might spoil my fun. So we talk past each other. X is fun for me, Y destroys your fun. So we argue about how girls just wanna have fun.

I mean sure, but then that means we need to do different things to have fun, and things we use to have fun needs be designed differently right? Your definition of fun doesn't preclude the fun of playing to win, it just means you might want to avoid things that utilize that as the source of fun.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

This naturally has me regretting my choice of words because I’m not interested in arguing any of this.

Your choice of words seem pretty central to your thesis, so I'm not sure how your thesis constructs itself with different words? Like one where fun isn't load bearing on the one side of the dichotomy, but instead you meant to be talking about a distinction between two different kinds of fun?

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I've always thought that traps are a great example of that difference. Traps are exciting in books/movies in a number of ways, but (in my opinion) just about all attempts to replicate the same excitement in RPGs fall flat. It's possible to use traps effectively in RPGs, but it ends up being very different from how they are used in stories.

Yeah, they're usually most interesting in games either as a puzzle to solve to proceed, or as a hazardous obstacle in an encounter or something-- whereas in movies they can just be there and the cinematography, sound and special effects can just create the tension and make it into a pulse pounding action sequence. In books the imagery carries a lot of their weight (which RPGs can do too) but then they're usually valuable as a device to make something happen (someone dying to the trap) or as a means of demonstrating a character's skill, style, growth, or derring do.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Have you ever played a game (sports, cards, pool, etc) with a kid? To them, they're mostly just goofing around and having fun enjoying spending time with an adult who will give them the time of day. Now imagine a hyper-competitive adult sitting down with that kid and playing to win. Crush the enemy, etc. The kid goes away crying and the hyper-competitive adult pats themselves on the back for a job well done. Now, a reasonable person would say that the hyper-competitive adult was an utter jerk. I'd say they misunderstood the conditions of the test. For the kid, the point was to hang out and play around. For the adult, the point was to win. At all costs. Regardless of the kid leaving the table in tears. The adult ruined the kids fun because, for the adult, the fun was the winning. They have opposed goals.

If the whole table is hyper-competitive adults out to win. It works because they're all there playing the same game for the same reasons. If there's some teenager there trying to learn the game, it suddenly falls apart. If there's a kid trying to just play, it really falls apart.

To switch analogies...have you ever tried to help a person older than you with technology? To them, they're at their wit's end and just need help figuring out how this damn thing works. So they reach out. To you. For whatever reason you help. Now in the process of helping you decide it's a perfect time to insult them, belittle them, and mock their intelligence all because you have a bit of information that they do not. Most reasonable people would recognize that the "helper" is really a jerk. They misunderstand what the situation is. An opportunity to help. But they read it as an opportunity to gloat and demean. The adult ruined the older person's day because, for the adult, the point was to gloat, demean, and show off. They have opposed goals.

What's this all have to do with your question? People in the same situation with wildly different expectations can drastically alter the outcome of that situation...especially when there are differing sets of mutually exclusive goals.

Is there an implicit assumption in these examples that there are two kinds of RPGing: yours, and “hyper competitive, out to win at all costs, even if other people cry”? Or were you just picking extreme examples for illustrative reasons?

Because when I was imagining the player who thinks of his character as himself but in a warrior’s body, I wasn’t also imagining all that baggage. Just somebody who isn’t so into your style of role-playing.

 

[Aldarc]

Your choice of words seem pretty central to your thesis, so I'm not sure how your thesis constructs itself with different words? Like one where fun isn't load bearing on the one side of the dichotomy, but instead you meant to be talking about a distinction between two different kinds of fun?

How about you trust my good faith when I say that it was not my intent to debate the point you believe was naturally raised?