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

[AbdulAlhazred]

Like I said, it has become religion.

Not really. You know, I've been DMing games since 1976 or so, and I've never had this come up in actual gaming. Not ever. It isn't just NOT religion, its a non-issue. I think maybe a few times we TALKED about it at the table, like when we weren't playing, but mostly it was in the vein of "well, there are obviously a 1000 monsters in D&D because players figure them out, so some GM makes up a new one!" Nobody ever complained, or suggested that Dave was a bad guy because his level 2 newbie fighter burned trolls.

Obviously, you can go too far when you have some module practically memorized and totally spoiler it for everyone else, but meh, that's just table etiquette. The whole "I'm making gunpowder/dynamite/nuclear bombs" is silly anyway, everyone knows gunpowder doesn't work in D&D worlds...

 

[Ovinomancer]

There are not my definitions, they are the definitions of the editions of the game that you say you have played, you know, the ones that the people who created this game have put in their work so that people understand what they meant.

No, they are your definitions, because you're bringing in something that isn't actually there and insisting this is the only way it can be. Like how you added "improvise" when I pointed out that actors have lines and directors. This isn't there -- you added it as special pleading to defend against the point I made.

Further, you've been asked multiple times to explicitly state what "like an actor" means, if it doesn't mean having lines or taking direction, but you haven't done so -- instead dodging these questions with various attempts to mock. Again, I ask because I don't see a way to put together a coherent explanation aside from again stomping your foot and insisting you know what it means but don't have to answer.

And since this thread is about the history of roleplaying since 1e, I think it has more relevance to the thread than your personal definition which, I must confess, I have absolutely no interest in, since the original ones from the various editions not only show that actual roleplaying was the basis for all these games, but also suit me perfectly.

My take on roleplaying is 100% coherent with the quote you've posted. An actor takes on a role, and I'm taking on a role like that when I pick my class and play as such in an imaginary world. There's nothing in there that requires my playacting, or using a silly voice, or even setting goals for my character (and, honestly, if the player is picking these, we are we reifying them as character goals instead of still being player goals for the character?).

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

I can see why it's not the kind of roleplaying you prefer, but I scratch my head at your insistence that it's not roleplaying.

Even if I agree with the definition, which I don't, that roleplaying is making decisions as if I were a character, then as long as I am making decision as "Bill Zebub the Blue Fighter" then I am playing a role.

So maybe you are adding a new requirement that roleplaying has to be that, plus the character has to be somebody other than you? That seems artificial to me, but even if we accept that additional requirement I have to ask how different? Because already "Bill Zebub the Blue Fighter" is not me. How much do I actually have to change the character until it meets your requirements? Does Bill Zebub the Blue Fighter with a Scottish Accent qualify? What if I add in a murdered family? Paranoid schizophrenia? An addiction to pistachio nuts?

Furthermore, I'll point out that even when one of us thinks we are roleplaying a character that is nothing like us, undoubtedly there are many, many facets that are, well, exactly like us.

Clearly the distance between player and character is a spectrum, and it's just downright silly to try to define a point on the spectrum and say that one side of that point is roleplaying, and the other isn't.

Now, it sounds like you prefer the kind of roleplaying that sits far out on one end of that spectrum. And that's cool! Sometimes I like that, too. But the claim that to be on the other end of the spectrum "is not roleplaying" doesn't really hold any water.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Not really. You know, I've been DMing games since 1976 or so, and I've never had this come up in actual gaming. Not ever. It isn't just NOT religion, its a non-issue. I think maybe a few times we TALKED about it at the table, like when we weren't playing, but mostly it was in the vein of "well, there are obviously a 1000 monsters in D&D because players figure them out, so some GM makes up a new one!" Nobody ever complained, or suggested that Dave was a bad guy because his level 2 newbie fighter burned trolls.

Obviously, you can go too far when you have some module practically memorized and totally spoiler it for everyone else, but meh, that's just table etiquette. The whole "I'm making gunpowder/dynamite/nuclear bombs" is silly anyway, everyone knows gunpowder doesn't work in D&D worlds...

I've never actually encountered the extreme form in person, either.

But while it's possible that this religion only exists in cyberspace, it sure sounds like there are some people here (and in other forums I've been in) that play the game that way.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I can see why it's not the kind of roleplaying you prefer, but I scratch my head at your insistence that it's not roleplaying.

Even if I agree with the definition, which I don't, that roleplaying is making decisions as if I were a character, then as long as I am making decision as "Bill Zebub the Blue Fighter" then I am playing a role.

So maybe you are adding a new requirement that roleplaying has to be that, plus the character has to be somebody other than you? That seems artificial to me, but even if we accept that additional requirement I have to ask how different? Because already "Bill Zebub the Blue Fighter" is not me. How much do I actually have to change the character until it meets your requirements? Does Bill Zebub the Blue Fighter with a Scottish Accent qualify? What if I add in a murdered family? Paranoid schizophrenia? An addiction to pistachio nuts?

Furthermore, I'll point out that even when one of us thinks we are roleplaying a character that is nothing like us, undoubtedly there are many, many facets that are, well, exactly like us.

Clearly the distance between player and character is a spectrum, and it's just downright silly to try to define a point on the spectrum and say that one side of that point is roleplaying, and the other isn't.

Now, it sounds like you prefer the kind of roleplaying that sits far out on one end of that spectrum. And that's cool! Sometimes I like that, too. But the claim that to be on the other end of the spectrum "is not roleplaying" doesn't really hold any water.

Here's a great article on the subject.

 

[Bill Zebub]

My take on roleplaying is 100% coherent with the quote you've posted. An actor takes on a role, and I'm taking on a role like that when I pick my class and play as such in an imaginary world. There's nothing in there that requires my playacting, or using a silly voice, or even setting goals for my character (and, honestly, if the player is picking these, we are we reifying them as character goals instead of still being player goals for the character?).

Aren't extras who do nothing but stand there (or get shot, or eaten by zombies, or laugh at the nerd, or whatever) called "actors"?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Aren't extras who do nothing but stand there (or get shot, or eaten by zombies, or laugh at the nerd, or whatever) called "actors"?

I don't know. I'll ask my son, who was an extra on Stranger Things season 3, what he thinks. He'll probably tell me he got robbed at the Oscars for "best 1/2 second on screen". That sounds pretty actorlike to me.

 

[Hussar]

Yep. Looks like you've got a hefty case of OneTrueWayism brewing there.

Call it what you like. In order for something to be actually roleplaying, you have to play a role. If the definition of role play includes Mario Kart, it is not a useful definition.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't know. I'll ask my son, who was an extra on Stranger Things season 3, what he thinks. He'll probably tell me he got robbed at the Oscars for "best 1/2 second on screen". That sounds pretty actorlike to me.

Was he pretending to be somebody very different from himself? How different? He may not actually have been acting.

That might explain the disappointment at the Oscars.

Tell him to think in a Scottish accent next time.

(Also, that's super cool that he got to be an extra on that show.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

Call it what you like. In order for something to be actually roleplaying, you have to play a role. If the definition of role play includes Mario Kart, it is not a useful definition.

It's not very useful to say that being the Blue Wizard isn't roleplaying, either.

But, hey, welcome to the muddy and murky edges of game concepts! Next up on the roster: define game.