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

[Hussar]

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.

If you think walking hasn't changed in the past hundred years, I suggest you try wearing shoes that were made using technology a hundred years ago and then go for a ten k walk. Oh, and don't forget your fitbit. Oh, and you have to wear cotton or wool. Zero synthetics. On and on.

But that is torturing the analogy. I would say that "Transportation" has radically changed in the past 100 years. Roleplaying has changed quite a lot from the early days. What was considered perfectly acceptable is now not. Heck, right down to the notion that the players should not be privy to the rules of the game. That, right there, is probably the biggest change in role playing. Never minding the hugely altered view of what the DM/GM is supposed to do in an RPG. Do you seriously think that something like Blades in the Dark could have been created in 1981? Fiasco? Any of the pass-the-story-stick-hippy-dippy-Indie games of the past fifteen years?

Not a chance. Roleplaying just hadn't broadened to encompass those concepts yet. Sure, the seeds are there, I'll certainly grant that. But, if you look at the "what is an RPG" intro in virtually every RPG before, say, 1988, they are pretty much exactly the same. Now? Now we have arguments as to whether some games are even RPG's at all because they are so different from the mainstream.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

So, the way I see it, as soon as you stop playing your character and start worrying about the answer to your question, you are in the metagame. You are not being your character; you are thinking about the game itself, and how your actions bear on it.

Here's another example: imagine that you are playing in an adventure that you've run as the DM. This DM knows that, and said, "Cool, just don't give anything away. The other players don't have to know." So at some point you find yourself with a binary choice, between "good" and "bad" options. It's too late: you're already metagaming. Because even if you take the bad choice, to avoid giving anything away, you're making that decision not as your character, but as the player.

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?

So, I realize some people use "metagame" specifically and narrowly to mean "using knowledge the player has but the character doesn't (or wouldn't, whatever that means)" and sometimes even "...to gain advantage." But really it just means that you are using what you know about the game, not the story, to make decisions. (Which is why I claim you are, by definition, in the metagame if you are accusing other people of metagaming.). And it's unavoidable; we all do it.

So, no, I'm not saying you're not metagaming if you tell a good story. Face it: you're metagaming as soon as you start worrying about whether or not your paladin "would" know something. You're metagaming even if you intentionally choose the less-optimal answer. So you may as well just pick the thing that sounds the most fun and run with it.

Now, if you're at my table, I'll trust that whatever choice you made, it was for a good reason. If it's clever, I'd even like to hear that reason.

But it sounds like at some tables there would be immediate suspicion that you were just trying to "win" the game by "cheating." If you're at one of those tables, I would advise you use your player knowledge to choose the less optimal option (in this case, not casting the spell on the host of the Intellect Devourer). It will avoid a lot of problems.

 

[Aldarc]

Not really, no. My character wanting to survive, etc and overcome the obstacles in their path isn't me the player playing to win. It's me playing the character. Not many characters go into a dungeon to die. Most want to come back out again with some loot so they can retire from the absurdity that it adventuring. Deciding to metagame, optimize your character, making only optimal choices, having the orphaned edgelord background package, etc is playing to win.

Oh hey, look! It's the Stormwind Fallacy!

Playing competitively, playing to win, metagaming, pawn stance, playing like it's a boardgame or a wargame all come from a place of the player trying to win at a game rather than trying to play the role of their character.

IMHO, it would be erroneous, not that you care, to lump all of these together with the superificial explanation of the source of it being justrying to win the game rather than trying to play the role of their character.

But, again, I also distinguish "metagaming" from "cheating." I tend to treat "metagaming" more as "how the game is played outside of the rules," i.e., "the meta." For example, there are the (various) rules as written of poker, but there are also unwritten rules, etiquette, as well as general strategies for playing the game.

In the case of PC vs. Player knowledge, I think that there is in almost all cases bleed between character and player knowledge even if one claims to be playing the role. It's perfectly acceptable, IMHO, that a PC has knowledge of a troll's vulnerabilities. It's not acceptable that the player went ahead and looked in advance at the module I am running. The latter strikes me as cheating. The former does not.

There is also a tremendous amount of inconsistency to which the accusation of "metagaming" and "cheating" is applied, which has only increased through my conversations with Lanefan over the years. For example, is it "metagaming" when adventurers bring 10 ft poles for dungeon exploration? I would say yes, as this is a player tactic that formed around dungeon traps. However, some people have said that it's perfectly natural for adventurers to know this, so it's not "metagaming" in their sense of "cheating."* No checks. Is it "metagaming" to know that you have enough HP to survive the fall? For some people, this is not "metagaming," because its plausible for people in this world to know the physics of falling. No checks. But for some ungodly reason, these same people declare that it is "metagaming" (i.e., "cheating" in their parlance) that PCs would know that common trolls have fire/acid vulnerability.

* Please note the two different senses of metagaming here: i.e., (1) approaches to how the game is played, and (2) metagaming being equated to cheating. My understanding of "metagaming" is more about (1) rather than (2).

 

[turnip_farmer]

People always say Intelligence is the least important ability score in 5e. What they clearly overlooked was it's important role as defence against the kind of GM who would ask "would your character know to do that?"

 

[Lyxen]

Here's my problem with this "adversarial GM" business -- it's a farce both ways. Part of the GM's job is to be adversarial. It's a requirement. They have to create challenges and occasionally kill PCs and certainly hurt them all the time. It's very much GM vs PC.

No, it's not, it's never been ever since we started playing, at least in our groups. It's not more the GM than the players, it's at best, "the world that the DM has created" vs. "the characters that the PC have created" and even that is not true, not everything in the world is out to get the PCs. They have allies as well, and friendly places, etc.

The right view IMHO is the "DM with the PCs trying to create incredible stories" for the real world, and "The characters created by the players having incredible adventures - of course filled with drama and danger - in the world created by the DM" for the game world. Nothing more adversarial than this.

D&D is for me the ultimate collaborative game, not only between the players, but actually with everyone around the table including the DM. There is no winning or losing, just incredible stories being created together and the best part is that most of these stories can be about friendship, both in the real and the game world.

And this is what pisses me off mightily when jerks insist on disruptive behaviours, whether in or out of game.

What it shouldn't be is GM vs players.

I agree that it shouldn't, but the problem for me rose with 3e, not intentionally, but as a result of entitling the players to much, giving them too many rules to play with, too many things for the DM to respect, and that the players expected him to follow. And this continues even in 5e, with some entitled players still claiming that the DM should publish all the rules that he intends to use for his campaign in advance, so that the players can check that he is not screwing them somehow (and depriving them from their rights to create powerful builds). This has been parodied excellently in KotDT, with auditing of modules, etc.

This is purely adversarial in the real world, and creates situations in which the players really have the impression to beat the DM every time their characters survive, which is more or less all the time because the DM applies the rules and does not really try to kill them. And this in turn causes them to often mock their DM, saying that it's too easy, that they find no challenge, etc. I've seen this so much on DDB forums, it's painful.

That being said, it's not only the players's fault, it's also due to some DMs themselves saying "I run a tough campaign, only the best (understand the most minmaxed munchkined characters ever) can survive, etc.). It does not help.

This went down a bit with 4e, because it was so formal and with less of an entitlement of the players, although the really boargamy feel did really make (at least me) feel like you were pushing pawns on a game board against the DM's pawns.

And it's not totally over with 5e, as some people (see above) still insist on a 3e player entitlement feeling, always whining about player agency (and often using these words incorrectly).

And it rebounds on (you have guessed) powergaming, where the intent is clearly to mark one's character out, by competing, possibly for survival (see above), but certainly in terms of DPR or other spotlight hogging contest with the other players. Again, it's not always that strong, but it's this individualistic and competitive streak that can be really disruptive in a table where people just want to tell stories together.

Now, if all the people at your table want to play "competitively", against each other and against the DM, and that is the way you find your fun, good for you, have fun. But it's not the spirit of the game as I understand it and as our groups have been practicing for more than 30-40 years now.

By the way, that does not prevent us from being competitive in games in the same "setting", we have massive "play by mail" kingdom management games with about 20 players each one plays a ruler, and where the "best" man wins, with a referee, etc. In a sense, it's not that different from a TTRPG, because each player has a character, there is roleplaying of the relationships, etc. But the intent is not to tell a story, it's a fight, to the death. Very different despite some similarities.

 

[Aldarc]

I agree that it shouldn't, but the problem for me rose with 3e, not intentionally, but as a result of entitling the players to much, giving them too many rules to play with, too many things for the DM to respect, and that the players expected him to follow. And this continues even in 5e, with some entitled players still claiming that the DM should publish all the rules that he intends to use for his campaign in advance, so that the players can check that he is not screwing them somehow (and depriving them from their rights to create powerful builds). This has been parodied excellently in KotDT, with auditing of modules, etc.

There's some loaded language there, and it certainly says a lot about how you view players as a DM.

And it rebounds on (you have guessed) powergaming, where the intent is clearly to mark one's character out, by competing, possibly for survival (see above), but certainly in terms of DPR or other spotlight hogging contest with the other players. Again, it's not always that strong, but it's this individualistic and competitive streak that can be really disruptive in a table where people just want to tell stories together.

Are you familiar with the Stormwind fallacy?

 

[Hussar]

Face it: you're metagaming as soon as you start worrying about whether or not your paladin "would" know something.

Now, I do think I disagree here. My character can reasonably know all sorts of things that I don't know. I have no idea how to put on armor, for example. But, the rules tell me that my character does because I have armor proficiency. Conversely, I know all sorts of things that my character couldn't possibly know.

But, where it gets a lot stickier is when it's impossible to make an unbiased call. That's more or less where people start making accusations of meta-gaming as a bad thing. Sure, we meta-game all the time during the game. Totally agree that that's unavoidable. I roll a 15 for my initiative. That's pure meta-game right there. Knowing that I act before Dave in the round is pure meta-gaming. But, by and large, it's considered acceptable because, well, it's completely unavoidable, but also, it's not being done in bad faith. There's no bias here.

When people get up in arms about the meta-game though, they are talking about situations like I outlined. A situation where it's impossible to make a call that is unbiased. Even if it's done 100% in good faith, there is still that quite justifiable level of doubt. Did that little girl wander away from our Leomund's Hut because it made sense in the game or because the DM is trying to screw over the players? Well, even if the DM is 100% acting in good faith, it still has a seriously bad stench of DM force about it.

Determining whether it is reasonable for a character to know something is something that comes up very often, and, frankly, is something DnD could use some mechanics to cover. Sure, Knowledge Checks might work, but, skills are so rare that it's entirely possible that any a character might not have those skills, meaning, for that character, the answer to "Do I know this" is always "No." Which can make for a very frustrating game.

Inspiration here might be a good tool though. Burn an Inspiration point and you can declare that you know something. And, yes, I am aware of the irony of using a meta-game resource to solve a meta-game issue.

 

[Lyxen]

There's some loaded language there, and it certainly says a lot about how you view players as a DM.

Well it so happens that I'm a player too, and in our groups, half the players are DMs as well, and we view each other with so much respect that we have been playing together for 35 years, as friends and DMs. And I am still fast friends with people I started DMing for 44 years ago.

Being friend and respecting people has NOTHING to do with entitling the players, creating conflicts and empowering ruleslawyers. The game, on the other hand had EVERYTHING to do with the players trusting their GM so that they have a good time. It was the worst mistake of 3e, worse even than uncontrolled power options that made each subversion of the game explode in less than 4 years, to think that every player was worthy of the trust of making rulings benefitting the whole table as a DM does. Instead, it created entitled mini-DMs who thought it was their right to argue for hours about their own personal benefit.

So if that's the best you can do in terms of discussion, honestly, it's a bit sad,

Are you familiar with the Stormwind fallacy?

Oh yes indeed. But you know that it's also a fallacy to believe that the more or less thin veneer of justification that a powergamer provides on top of his build is anything else but that, a veneer. It does not prevent these people from roleplaying, it does not prevent them from doing much, in fact, except for the fact that when a decision must be made, it's always going to be the individual one, for the power of it. And this has consequences in how one approaches the game.

By the way, you are probably not familiar about the fallacy yourself, because it's not even what I was speaking about, it was not even about roleplaying, and even Tempest Stormwind only said that roleplaying and optimisation are not mutually exclusive, which is not the same thing as saying that powergaming has an influence on tension at the table.

 

[Aldarc]

So if that's the best you can do in terms of discussion, honestly, it's a bit sad,

By the way, you are probably not familiar about the fallacy yourself, because it's not even what I was speaking about, it was not even about roleplaying, and even Tempest Stormwind only said that roleplaying and optimisation are not mutually exclusive, which is not the same thing as saying that powergaming has an influence on tension at the table.

Do you make it a regular habit to belittle people?

 

[Lyxen]

Do you make it a regular habit to belittle people?

Can you please offer some arguments stronger than "no, it's not" ? And arguments that actually answer the post that you are responding to ?

Also, please have a look in the mirror, and see how you first responded to my post: "it certainly says a lot about how you view players as a DM." How belittling do you think that is, honestly ?