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

[Maxperson]

Well, as soon as you ask yourself “do I know this” then you are meta-gaming.

How is that a PC acting on knowledge your it doesn't have?

But if I were your DM and you paused the game to ask me what to do, I would just say, “Pick whatever you think makes the better story. You are all in deep fecal matter either way. Or, if you think it’s uncertain, give yourself a DC and roll the dice. But now that we’ve gone and made a big deal about this, if you (or the dice) decide that you do know, spin us a good story about how you learned it.”

You know, roleplaying.

Well, I like to only act on what my character would actually know.

You know, roleplaying.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No. We do not agree.

Metagaming isn't inherently good or bad depending on group preferences. I don't care for it as DM or player, metagaming can ruin the fun for everyone else in the group. Or not, if they don't care.

Stop telling me what I think.

I'm not telling you what you think. You've told me that you want to care about metagaming as a GM and how you do that and for what reasons. I'm just saying we agree, then, that if metagaming is a problem at the table (ie, you have to deal with metagaming as an issue) it's one you've created for yourself. If you don't care about metagaming, then it's not a problem.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But, that's very much like saying that cars have not improved. That a Model T is equal to a Prius. There are demonstrable improvements. Just like there are in RPG's. Things that were considered perfectly fine back in the day are now shown, pretty clearly, to be a bad idea. Again, look at the guidelines for listening at a door in the 1e DMG. Are you seriously claiming that there isn't room for improvement there?

Cars have improved. Cars improving have nothing to do with walking. If I was walking, but then got a car, that car improving did not improve my walking.

 

[GreyLord]

Not really a change of what roleplaying meant, was, or is, but I do see a change overall in what audiences it appeals to and what the aim of the game is.

I think originally it appealed to those who liked fantasy, but were also more in line with wargaming interests which meant they were more interested in recreating historical fantasies in either the mythological or legendary status for high fantasy meaning stories in the line of King Arthur or Charlemagne. Fantasy stories of what the Crusade legends were in line with.

Those who were for darker fare were more in line with tales that were in line with Conan and Lankhmar stories.

Overall it was more Human centric in focus with the ideas of chivalry, knights, sword and sorcery and man vs. mythical monsters and beasts at it core.

Those who were really into the far fantasy with radical races and such were more the Lord of the Rings fans.

Today, I see there are a few like this, but most are into a much different area of fantasy. They want to play the fantasy fairy tales where you can be a dragon child, or a creature that is from mythology more than a human of chivalry or sword and sorcery. They favor more the lines of Never ending story, fairy tales, Harry Potter, and other childhood fantasies where it is the fantastical of imagination rather than the grit of history that flavors it. They want more fantastical adventures than things that seem like history but are mixed with the mythical and magical.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

if metagaming is a problem at the table (ie, you have to deal with metagaming as an issue) it's one you've created for yourself.

The only way metagaming is a DM's fault is if they do not want it to be happening, yet don't kick out the players who refuse to stop. If a DM does not want players using Out-Of-Character knowledge to metagame, then that DM should only accept players who do not do it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The only way metagaming is a DM's fault is if they do not want it to be happening, yet don't kick out the players who refuse to stop. If a DM does not want players using Out-Of-Character knowledge to metagame, then that DM should only accept players who do not do it.

I do think there is a distinction between saying "a problem you have caused for yourself" (which is what you are replying to) and "is your fault" (which is how you interpreted it).

If you walk alone at night through Central Park and you get mugged, it is not "your fault"...that would excuse the mugger...but it is a "problem you have caused for yourself."

Likewise, if you think you should have control over what your players' characters do and don't know, and you don't want them using knowledge to make decisions unless you have approved of them having that knowledge, then you are causing problems for yourself if you base your world off of knowledge that the players are likely to have. It's still their "fault" if they break your rules, but why would you make it hard for them by tying their success to Forbidden Knowledge? Why not just make up stuff they don't actually know?

 

[overgeeked]

I do think there is a distinction between saying "a problem you have caused for yourself" (which is what you are replying to) and "is your fault" (which is how you interpreted it).

If you walk alone at night through Central Park and you get mugged, it is not "your fault"...that would excuse the mugger...but it is a "problem you have caused for yourself."

Likewise, if you think you should have control over what your players' characters do and don't know, and you don't want them using knowledge to make decisions unless you have approved of them having that knowledge, then you are causing problems for yourself if you base your world off of knowledge that the players are likely to have. It's still their "fault" if they break your rules, but why would you make it hard for them by tying their success to Forbidden Knowledge? Why not just make up stuff they don't actually know?

Literally victim blaming.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Literally victim blaming.

Ok, I guess we're done.

Happy gaming.

 

[teitan]

I am going to say it shifted not so much as changed. In 1974 and before I am sure it was very mechanical and exploratory though Rob Kuntz can comment on that if he hasn't already but it's obvious by the time the 3LB came out it was shifting, ever so slightly, to a more story oriented model but not quite there. Those early 1e modules were very role oriented in that they were your role in a party and the exploratory aspects of the game be it wilderness or dungeon. What was your role in that function was pretty important as it was a game of resource management then and shortly after, Hommlet I think personally, that the shift happened in 1e to more story oriented but sandbox story vs a pure sandbox.

This is the module with highly (for the time) developed NPCs that had stories to tell the players and a bigger story for the PCs to become embroiled in. It lays the foundation for the B series in how it approaches adventure (I will be first to say my timeline could be off but Hommlet was that influential). Not even the G series was like Hommlet. It was a tourney module so focused on those survival and resource management styles of play, the story came later in the GDQ compilation.

I think it was Cthulhu and Champions that really shifted that landscape over to story driven games but D&D was kinda slow with it, Ravenloft really being the first module, to my mind, that emphasized story and was so successful we got railroaded through the Dragonlance adventures and 2e really went whole hog into the RPG as a story game, trying to present AD&D as a generic fantasy toolbox and failing HARD at that.

 

[Hussar]

Well, as soon as you ask yourself “do I know this” then you are meta-gaming.

Unless you are narrowly restricting the definition to only apply when the role-playing decision you make is, on the surface, the more advantageous one. (For all you know, driving the Intellect Devourer from its host could leave you in a worse situation, for reasons unforeseen.)

But if I were your DM and you paused the game to ask me what to do, I would just say, “Pick whatever you think makes the better story. You are all in deep fecal matter either way. Or, if you think it’s uncertain, give yourself a DC and roll the dice. But now that we’ve gone and made a big deal about this, if you (or the dice) decide that you do know, spin us a good story about how you learned it.”

You know, roleplaying.

But, again, we're back to good faith. Just as I'm too close to the issue to be unbiased - obviously I want to be able to use this spell, it's a really good idea - the DM is also in the same position. Either way he rules, or, like you, just punts on the question and sends it back to me, the question is always out there as to why that particular determination was made. DId the DM allow it because he didn't want to start a fight with the player? Did he do it because it's a good story? Did he do it because he assumed that the players were going to do it? Conversely, did the DM say no because he wanted to protect his encounter from an ability and increase the "difficulty" as we've seen suggested repeatedly in the Exploration Pillar threads?

No matter what the answer we come up with here, it's going to have meta-gaming cooties all over it.

I mean, the fact that no one has actually given a straight answer here pretty much shows how nebulous the issue is. There's no significant difference between my example and the "Fire on a Troll" example that gets trotted out every time. It's pretty much word for word identical except that probably no one reading this knew that Protection from Evil/Good does that unless you happened to be recently reading the Intellect Devourer part of the Monster Manual.

But, your rather blithe answer of "You know, roleplaying" pretty much covers the ground doesn't it? I can 100% metagame, but, so long as I tell a good story, I'm not meta-gaming?