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

[overgeeked]

I've tried to avoid this metagaming wank, because I know it won't go anywhere, but, here's a shot.

I played a paladin in the Dungeons of the Mad Mage module. My paladin could cast protection from evil/good. I chose to have this spell prepared when I first made the character and had no knowledge of what we would face in the module. Now, a little ways in, we discover Intellect Devourers - because one of the creatures we fight and kill has a giant brain bug explode out of its cranium.

Now, in the description of Intellect Devourers, it tells me that Protection from Evil/Good will expel an Intellect Devourer from its victim, meaning that it becomes a very good way of testing for brain bugs - those that have an Intellect Devourer in their head are already dead anyway. Can my paladin cast this spell or not? The information is only found in the Monster Manual. It is not in the Player's Handbook. Does my paladin know that this will work or not?

I honestly didn't know. I knew the information because I DM quite a lot as well as play, so, I, the player knew it. But, I didn't know if my paladin knew it. And, asking my DM, he punted it back to me. So, am I meta-gaming or not to know the effect my spell will have on a given monster?

It’s a spell your character knows, so they can cast it, but what would make them think try to use it specifically. as an anti-intellect devourer ray? Answer that and there’s your answer.

 

[Hussar]

Not everyone played as if the DMG were dictates from on high. In fact, most games I played throughout the years were not.

Yes, but, when making claims like "3e is more adversarial than AD&D" one has to actually LOOK at the games, and not the specific interpretation of your individual table no?

Conversations like these would go a LOT easier if people would remember that their experiences are not universal and would stick to what's ACTUALLY written in the books instead of pretending like it didn't exist or condescending posts like this one pretending that somehow ignoring what was in the books proves that the books didn't say what they actually say.

Again, @Oofta, I'm sorry that I'm just not as gifted and intelligent as you. I really am. I needed help. And that help was not to be found. It certainly wasn't to be found in the books. Which brings me back to the point with @Ovinomancer - you cannot claim that the change in agenda wasn't an improvement when that agenda DID NOT EXIST TO BE FOUND ANYWHERE. Again, I'm really sorry that I wasn't smart enough to figure it out on my own and create my own agenda. Apparently, I'm just so unbelievably stupid. But, if we dial back on the condescension just a smidge and realize that yes, it is an improvement in the hobby where these agendas find formal expression after years of play where they were never supported and never even really talked about outside of some very, very small communities. Until the Internet, the notion of playing DND in anything other than full on adversarial as was defined in the books and periodicals, just never really occurred to me.

Like I said, those that started in the 90's or later don't understand just how isolated gaming was. Your only, as in sole, source of information on the hobby was probably AD&D/Basic D&D books (because, unless you lived in a major urban area in the US, you couldn't find anything else) and Dragon magazine. I'd never even heard of White Dwarf until years later. It was never available where I lived.

Those of you who managed to look at the books and then take a 90 degree turn? Fantastic. Like I said, I was just a poor, dumb, plodding schmuck trying to do what the game told me to do. And more often than not, failing spectacularly.

 

[Oofta]

Again, I am not as gifted as you. I'm sorry for being such a poor, unimaginative person, but, I needed help back then. And that help certainly wasn't there. We were expected to just "figure it out". Well, some of us didn't. And we had absolutely atrocious games because of it.

It has nothing to do with being unimaginative. Nor is role playing inherently better. If you had atrocious games I'm sorry, I've had a few myself. Mostly at the hands of adversarial killer DMs.

We just played what we enjoyed and didn't care if we were playing "right".

 

[Hussar]

It’s a spell your character knows, so they can cast it, but what would make them think try to use it specifically. as an anti-intellect devourer ray? Answer that and there’s your answer.

Thus my question. I'm too close to the issue to really make an objective judgement here. Would a character, who is trained in the use of spells and would obviously know quite a lot about how spells work, know this? I don't know. But, I, the player DO know. So, which is the right answer? Your answer is pretty much exactly the same as what the DM did. Punted it back to me with a non-answer.

 

[Hussar]

It has nothing to do with being unimaginative. Nor is role playing inherently better. If you had atrocious games I'm sorry, I've had a few myself. Mostly at the hands of adversarial killer DMs.

We just played what we enjoyed and didn't care if we were playing "right".

Ok, skipping my own snark, you are just repeating the same point. YOU figured it out. Fantastic. For YOU. I never did. It took reading and learning and a LOT of trial and error to figure it out. It's not about playing "right". It's about having absolutely no help when following the advice of the game gives poor results.

Now, there's all sorts of help and advice for how to do everything under the sun.

Like I said, you managed to figure it out right away, so, things never changed much for you. Me? Not so lucky.

 

[Oofta]

I've tried to avoid this metagaming wank, because I know it won't go anywhere, but, here's a shot.

I played a paladin in the Dungeons of the Mad Mage module. My paladin could cast protection from evil/good. I chose to have this spell prepared when I first made the character and had no knowledge of what we would face in the module. Now, a little ways in, we discover Intellect Devourers - because one of the creatures we fight and kill has a giant brain bug explode out of its cranium.

Now, in the description of Intellect Devourers, it tells me that Protection from Evil/Good will expel an Intellect Devourer from its victim, meaning that it becomes a very good way of testing for brain bugs - those that have an Intellect Devourer in their head are already dead anyway. Can my paladin cast this spell or not? The information is only found in the Monster Manual. It is not in the Player's Handbook. Does my paladin know that this will work or not?

I honestly didn't know. I knew the information because I DM quite a lot as well as play, so, I, the player knew it. But, I didn't know if my paladin knew it. And, asking my DM, he punted it back to me. So, am I meta-gaming or not to know the effect my spell will have on a given monster?

If the DM left it up to you, then that's the DM's choice.

In my game I'd either give you a straight answer or have you make a check after deciding on an appropriate DC.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, but, when making claims like "3e is more adversarial than AD&D" one has to actually LOOK at the games, and not the specific interpretation of your individual table no?

Conversations like these would go a LOT easier if people would remember that their experiences are not universal and would stick to what's ACTUALLY written in the books instead of pretending like it didn't exist or condescending posts like this one pretending that somehow ignoring what was in the books proves that the books didn't say what they actually say.

Again, @Oofta, I'm sorry that I'm just not as gifted and intelligent as you. I really am. I needed help. And that help was not to be found. It certainly wasn't to be found in the books. Which brings me back to the point with @Ovinomancer - you cannot claim that the change in agenda wasn't an improvement when that agenda DID NOT EXIST TO BE FOUND ANYWHERE. Again, I'm really sorry that I wasn't smart enough to figure it out on my own and create my own agenda. Apparently, I'm just so unbelievably stupid. But, if we dial back on the condescension just a smidge and realize that yes, it is an improvement in the hobby where these agendas find formal expression after years of play where they were never supported and never even really talked about outside of some very, very small communities. Until the Internet, the notion of playing DND in anything other than full on adversarial as was defined in the books and periodicals, just never really occurred to me.

Like I said, those that started in the 90's or later don't understand just how isolated gaming was. Your only, as in sole, source of information on the hobby was probably AD&D/Basic D&D books (because, unless you lived in a major urban area in the US, you couldn't find anything else) and Dragon magazine. I'd never even heard of White Dwarf until years later. It was never available where I lived.

Those of you who managed to look at the books and then take a 90 degree turn? Fantastic. Like I said, I was just a poor, dumb, plodding schmuck trying to do what the game told me to do. And more often than not, failing spectacularly.

I can claim that it 1) did exist and 2) isn't an improvement. This would be saying that it's always better to play how you do now over how you did then. Perhaps true for you, but I'd never say that my play is a strict improvement over some play that flat out has a different point to playing. It's different.

What things like the Forge and ENW have done is to spread knowledge of different agendas and then also to improve understanding of these agendas. They didn't invent them. The narrativist style of play arguably exists with games like Pendragon in the mid-80's, and a few earlier than that clearly show proto-concepts.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Thus my question. I'm too close to the issue to really make an objective judgement here. Would a character, who is trained in the use of spells and would obviously know quite a lot about how spells work, know this? I don't know. But, I, the player DO know. So, which is the right answer? Your answer is pretty much exactly the same as what the DM did. Punted it back to me with a non-answer.

To be honest, your DM's answer wasn't great because you, the player, doesn't have the information to make this call.

These three scenarios are equally valid:

The rules says that spells only do what they say they do. So, working from that, being taught in Paladin School to cast Protection from Evil/Good would only teach you about the basic properties of the spell. I'd say, going from that, that no, you don't know the specific application mentionned in the MM, because they might be yet to discover in the game world.

On the other hand, if Paladin School had a professional Paladin hired to give a hand-on lesson on Protection against Good and Evil, he might have covered the topic of the side uses of the spell, mentionning the time he fought those brainbugs... so you'd know to use this spell, if only you passed a DC 15 Arcana check.

Or that Paladin School had a retired Paladin assisting teaching and Protection for Evil and Good was the favorite subject of the Defence professor, you even had a test on it, so of course you know it.

If the DM doesn't decide and let's you determine the result, it's his... choice. Odd, but his choice. Select a backstory that suit you. I'd say you can use the spell if you can weave that into your backstory: if it's mentionned in the MM, someone must have discovered it in the several thousands years gameworld history often spans, so you can assume a heroic, competent representative of a class knows everything about the power granted by his class... it's not abusive or powergaming to think that. Especially if the DM let you choose, that means he doesn' thave a strong feeling about this.

If I were to rule, I'd either decide that you can (because it would make your character be competently cool), unless I wanted to make it something that is not known in the world (only if it affected further plot point -- which doesn't seem to be the cast since your DM didn't say no). And I'd make it an opportunity for your character to find it and become the inventor of the "name-of-character trick" that helped fight against brainbugs ever since. Because, you know, characters exist to be cool (or die trying...)

 

[Maxperson]

Can I play?

Why are so many GMs and players so sure they know better than a player what that player's character "would do" in various situations?

I'm not concerned with what a character "would do." Metagaming involves what a character "would know." There's a significant difference there.

So why is it "cheating" to "gain advantage" if one of the players suddenly decides their character knows the answer? Is the problem just that they went off-script, like if the actor in the movie snipped the blue wire without agonizing over it?

Because if their character wouldn't know the answer, then having a character have knowledge that they don't have is cheating. They don't know the information. And there is no script to depart from, but you knew that when you typed it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Thus my question. I'm too close to the issue to really make an objective judgement here. Would a character, who is trained in the use of spells and would obviously know quite a lot about how spells work, know this? I don't know. But, I, the player DO know. So, which is the right answer? Your answer is pretty much exactly the same as what the DM did. Punted it back to me with a non-answer.

Great example of why I don't think this is worth spending any time on.

If you want to cast the spell, imagine that while you were being taught this spell your mentor mentioned in an off-hand way that it can drive out Intellect Devourers. Or maybe you and the other acolyltes were up late in the dorm and one of them claimed in heard this, and you didn't believe him at the time but now you want to try it. Or, duh, everybody knows this. Whatever.

Alternately, maybe you want to roleplay it that you don't know this fact. That's up to you.

What I personally wouldn't want to do is interrupt the game to have a discussion about it, and have the DM tell me to roll a knowledge skill. Talk about turning it into roll-playing!