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

[Maxperson]

OK guys, at this stage, I think I have clearly shown that all editions of the game since BECMI expected you to roleplay your character as if you were an actor improvising your role. I think it has also shown the length to which some people will go to pretend that they are "roleplaying", including making words blink in and out of sentences and ignoring all the rest of the text, since apparently it's cool to have the label even if you are not doing it. And anyway, it's fine as long as you are having fun. As for myself, I'll continue actual roleplaying in character like I've done for more than 40 years with my friends. Have fun gaming (I won't say to have fun roleplaying to a number of you, obviously).

Sure, sure. And 1e didn't talk about DMs being adversarial, either.

"As a DM you must live by the immortal words of the sage who said: “Never give a sucker an even break.” Also, don‘t be a sucker for your players, for you‘d better be sure they follow sage advice too. As the DM, you have to prove in every game that you are still the best."

 

[Aldarc]

It's interesting because you have to take out a single sentence, in isolation, and cutting out all the rest to try and make a point.

Following the quote trail, it's clear that @Ovinomancer used the quote that you gave him. As such, maybe it's not best to accuse people of acting in bad faith like taking a sentence in isolation and cutting things out.

Unfortunately, every single edition of the game ahs proven you wrong, and I've given you tons of examples. If it says that you are like an actor, then it requires a least a bit of acting.

"Like" an actor does not mean that you are one. If you determine how your character thinks, acts, and talks, then you the player are more than welcome to lean into this as much or as little as you like. If your character doesn't think, act, or talk differently than you or how you approach it, then that's fine too. Playacting is not required to assume a role.

I think that there is a danger here of equivocating on what it means to be "like an actor" as it seems that it is too easy to pivot the meaning of "like an actor" to "playacting is true roleplaying." There is a significant spectrum of understandings of playing a role that risk becoming lost in trying to push a singular view of roleplaying that excludes other valid forms of roleplay enjoyed in our hobby.

 

[Ovinomancer]

OK guys, at this stage, I think I have clearly shown that all editions of the game since BECMI expected you to roleplay your character as if you were an actor improvising your role. I think it has also shown the length to which some people will go to pretend that they are "roleplaying", including making words blink in and out of sentences and ignoring all the rest of the text, since apparently it's cool to have the label even if you are not doing it. And anyway, it's fine as long as you are having fun. As for myself, I'll continue actual roleplaying in character like I've done for more than 40 years with my friends. Have fun gaming (I won't say to have fun roleplaying to a number of you, obviously).

"Improvising" appears no where. This is the bit you add. Also, right after quoting the 5e PHB you go on to ignore the section in that same area where they describe an approach to roleplaying that isn't this. This is what I meant by having to engage in special pleading.

 

[Lyxen]

So, just a moment ago, I noted someone was engaging in OneTrueWayism. You are too.

The effort to define "role playing" to be something specific is, in effect and like it or not, an effort to define In-groups and Out-groups. We are doing it Right, and They are doing it Wrong!

This does not engender discussion about what methods of play generate what results - it creates arguments of one group trying to shove another out of the territory, and the resistance to that shove - it becomes about social positioning and ego more than it is about gaming. And that's a problem.

We've seen it again and again - pick any dichotomy in gaming you like, there's been such an argument. The "Edition Wars" being the most notable example (though, admittedly, while you style yourself as "Great Old One", your account is not old enough to have witnessed the conflicts around 4E).

While I agree that there can be lots of definitions for roleplaying, I at least abide by those found in the very rulebooks of the editions that I play, not ignoring the parts of the books that don't match my preferences. And it's not a question of right or wrong, it's just a question of "does it match that definition or not". The definitions are clear enough, and are usually followed by a number of paragraphs elaborating what the designers thought were on the subject. Reading only one word or even a short sentence out of context does seem to be a very limited way of proving that one matches the definition. Especially since there is no price to win here...

And I find it really the soul of irony that people who argue so strongly about a really weak definition of roleplaying also bring the Stormwind Fallacy on the table.

 

[Lyxen]

Playacting is not required to assume a role.

Sure, and the word actor is not in the sentence, right. Or maybe it is that behaving like an actor doesn't require playacting ? Come on...

 

[Maxperson]

it's just a question of "does it match that definition or not".

And the definition is...

"Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role."

That is the one and only definition given in 5e. The examples that follow are not a definition, but are just examples of a few ways to roleplay.

 

[Ovinomancer]

While I agree that there can be lots of definitions for roleplaying, I at least abide by those found in the very rulebooks of the editions that I play, not ignoring the parts of the books that don't match my preferences. And it's not a question of right or wrong, it's just a question of "does it match that definition or not". The definitions are clear enough, and are usually followed by a number of paragraphs elaborating what the designers thought were on the subject. Reading only one word or even a short sentence out of context does seem to be a very limited way of proving that one matches the definition. Especially since there is no price to win here...

And I find it really the soul of irony that people who argue so strongly about a really weak definition of roleplaying also bring the Stormwind Fallacy on the table.

Do you? And what conclusion do you bring? Because my definition of roleplaying is very broad, but my preferences are to playact and use funny voices and have very strong character goals that are not like my own. My characters are not fully optimized -- they are functional but not maximized for their shtick. I often enjoy playing off-type and finding a way to make it work well enough. I am tactically strong, but don't direct other players, and don't always make the best tactical moves, especially if it conflicts with a character goal or belief.

In short, whatever heuristic you're using is hopelessly broken because it's only tuned to "people that disagree with me must play terribly."

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure, and the word actor is not in the sentence, right. Or maybe it is that behaving like an actor doesn't require playacting ? Come on...

What does behaving like an actor entail. You've dismissed having lines, or following directions, but you haven't established what it does mean. How do you act without playacting, or how is playacting not acting? There appears to be some form of elevation of the word "actor" to mean a specific thing that you're not explaining to others, and that is, somehow, far too serious a concept to allow for "playacting."

 

[Bill Zebub]

Do you? And what conclusion do you bring? Because my definition of roleplaying is very broad, but my preferences are to playact and use funny voices and have very strong character goals that are not like my own. My characters are not fully optimized -- they are functional but not maximized for their shtick. I often enjoy playing off-type and finding a way to make it work well enough. I am tactically strong, but don't direct other players, and don't always make the best tactical moves, especially if it conflicts with a character goal or belief.

I was just starting to write that in my in-person group we have a range of players, from "funny voice and all" to simple declaration of actions. And they are all playing a role, in different ways.

 

[Aldarc]

Sure, and the word actor is not in the sentence, right. Or maybe it is that behaving like an actor doesn't require playacting ? Come on...

A dog is like a cat. 'Dog' is in the sentence. So is a 'dog' a 'cat'?

I'm not ignoring that the word 'actor' is in the sentence. I also happen not to be ignoring how the word "like" creates an intrinsic distinction between what an actor does and a roleplayer does in a game, especially in a game manual that is trying explain roleplaying to a young audience that may not be familiar with the idea in the '70s or '80s. I am also not ignoring how OneTrueWayism regarding what constitutes "roleplaying" can easily be a form of gatekeeping in regards to how players choose to engage this hobby.

Looking through the Moldvay B/X Box Set, which was the primary introduction to tabletop roleplaying games for many in our hobby, I'm not sure how I would get the impression that anything akin to pawn stance was somehow not true roleplaying or that roleplaying requires players to playact to wherever the goalposts of proper roleplay happen to shift.