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

[Oofta]

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.

At a certain point, does it matter or is this just academic debate on what the definition details? I personally prefer speaking in person, frequently with a "funny voice" or mannerisms. But while I encourage it I don't expect it of anyone else. Occasionally as a DM I'll prompt people to speak in person, but not everybody is okay with it and that's perfectly fine.

I don't personally think you're role playing if you only look at your PC as an avatar that has no goals or opinions based on the character instead of the player. That doesn't make it bad-wrong-fun any more than playing a Tomb of Horrors type module that's designed to test player skill.

I mean, back to the OP. Long ago in a post far far away, I wrote that we role played our PCs going back to 1st edition. I was told, basically, that it was hard to believe that we did that without guidance from a book which is a big part of what I've been pushing back on. Then there's the segue into the idea that as long as your avatar is a PC with specific rules that you're role playing. To me that definition means that every wargamer is actually role playing because their tokens have in-game roles. I wouldn't call that role playing personally.

But it also doesn't matter. The only goal of the game is to have fun and enjoy the company of your fellow gamers.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And unless the PCs were in a situation where they could reasonably have been given such advice in the fiction...

The thing that keeps raising a red flag for me is the use of the word "reasonably" because everybody has a different threshold. Reasonable to who?

 

[Maxperson]

The thing that keeps raising a red flag for me is the use of the word "reasonably" because everybody has a different threshold. Reasonable to who?

The answer to that is the average person.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

That only happens to the best roleplayers, and don't forget about suicide thats another thing some actors do, and apparently a big part of the Jack Chick school of roleplaying-- poor sweet Blackleaf...

Lol...

More seriously, I distinctly remember some introductory sections of rpg book where they often have those mock sessions where I remember seeing an example of "third person roleplaying". As I've more often than not just skimmes over them I don't remember if d&d had them at one point... is someone remebering a specific example of third person being used or mentionned in a official publication ? Just curious.

It's not really active vs descriptive roleplaying because I xas under the impression that descriptive roleplaying didn't apply to social interactions. (But maybe that's my personal preferenxe speaking)

 

[prabe]

More seriously, I distinctly remember some introductory sections of rpg book where they often have those mock sessions where I remember seeing an example of "third person roleplaying". As I've more often than not just skimmes over them I don't remember if d&d had them at one point... is someone remebering a specific example of third person being used or mentionned in a official publication ? Just curious.

The 5E PHB mentions it as "Descriptive Approach to Roleplaying." I don't have the page to hand, but I found it on D&D Beyond.

 

[Hussar]

To repeat what I said before: the DM should have made a call. Yes, no, it's uncertain to resolve it using a standard check.



I don't think understanding how the game mechanics work is metagaming. I don't remember anyone making anything like "knowing initiative order is metagaming" on this thread. If they did, please point it out because I would disagree. If not, stop constructing strawmen.

Raises hand

Umm, I said that.

 

[Hussar]

There are many games that are considered "roleplaying games," whether that is a TTRPG or a Video Game RPG, that do not necessarily involve "play-acting" as the character or even require being "in-character" when playing it. I also know a number of people, whether longtime players or newcomers to the hobby, who aren't necessarily comfortable with "play-acting" and prefer approaching the game primarily from the Pawn Stance. Likewise, there is a subset of OSR that values skilled play and creative player solutions rather than in-character play-acting. I'm not comfortable with gatekeeping anyone with accusations of not engaging in "proper roleplaying." So I think think that whatever notion of "roleplaying" we adhere to has to include these different approaches without relying on purity tests.

I understand the argument. I just don't agree.

If your definition of role playing does not actually include playing a role - as in making decisions based on the in game fiction based on the character concepts created for play - then it's not role playing. It's certainly play. And it's fun for those who enjoy it. But, it's not role playing. Which is why I thing older versions of D&D barely qualify. Sure, they pay lip service to the notion of playing a role, but, there's nothing in the game that actually addresses it. There's no benefit in 1e D&D to being more than Fytor, which is just a pawn I'm using as a place marker while I, Hussar, engage with the game without any filter of a character.

To me, that's where the definition of role playing has changed. Back in the day, that style of play was pretty much it. That's how you played an RPG. Now, it's generally not. And the game now actually has elements that directly reward you for engaging with the game through the lens of your character. The whole Inspiration mechanic in 5e is a (minimal) expression of this.

However, I do realize that my own definition of RPG's is my own. I am certainly not trying to claim that it is universal. But, it does go a long ways towards explaining why I don't agree.

 

[Hussar]

It is recognizably roleplaying. You are taking on a role in the game. If I'm a wizard, that comes with lots of role-based abilities and ways to interact with the game that differ significantly from the fighter role.

The issue here is that there's been decades of inserted assumptions that have narrowed the definition of roleplaying and a confederation of playstyle approaches has coopted the word.

Recognizable to you, you mean. To me, no, it's not roleplaying to simply choose Blue Wizard instead of Red Fighter. If that's your definition of role playing, then virtually any video game qualifies. Good grief, Mario Kart qualifies as role playing under this definition. It's so broad, it's meaningless.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I don't love the idea of a filter between me and my characters that changes my decision making, I prefer to embody them and sync my strategic game playing mind with their in-universe one, for me metagame considerations typically emulate elided in-universe considerations. That synchronization is an important part of roleplaying for me, because the act of say-- dropping into problem solving mode or coming with a cool plan for a fight actually immerses me in my character, because we have a unity of purpose, my actions at the gaming table are a proxy for Emrys the Wizard's thoughts and actions in the game world.

Then again I'm sort of a Method Actor myself, inhabiting my character is less about how they would act differently than I would, and more about finding a balance that lets me immerse myself in the role-- if there's too much of a separation where I have to 'hold back' on my planning and such, the character becomes less real to me because I have to run my decision making through an abstraction. If Emrys makes a bad decision, even he's aware on some level its a bad decision, but feels that its important anyway, and if I make a plan based off game mechanics its because its a reflection of the in-universe planning Emrys is doing. My planning is then tinted by Emrys's personality as I'm doing it-- I lean according to his preferences, which match how I built him anyway.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Recognizable to you, you mean. To me, no, it's not roleplaying to simply choose Blue Wizard instead of Red Fighter. If that's your definition of role playing, then virtually any video game qualifies. Good grief, Mario Kart qualifies as role playing under this definition. It's so broad, it's meaningless.

Sure. If you consider your driver to be part of a fictional world and your selection of driver affects how you interact with that world, you're good to go in my book. I don't play Mario Kart that way, but I'm not going to yuk someone else's yum on that either.

To me, I'd rather argue something like roleplaying is very broad so it encompasses quite a lot of things rather than see it become a term used to say what "real" roleplaying is. To me, both are largely not very useful, but one is permissive and the other is just gatekeeping. Now, if you'd like to talk about various approaches to roleplaying, there's plenty of room for discussion. I'm just not going to support moving a preference for approach to roleplaying into the definition of roleplaying so we can all point at how other people might play and say they are outgroup and to be shunned.