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

[The-Magic-Sword]

Dice, or even randomization, is not necessary for a roleplaying game, or even a game, in general - see Chess as an example.

One fairly simple view of this is that if your play is structured by rules, then you are playing a game.

I actually really like this as a definition, coming from the ye olde forum roleplaying, although part of why I like it is that it produces an interesting gradiation of formality, eventually blurring 'rules' into the etiquette of those same freeform forum RPs, with something like Fizzy Bubbles having more rules and structure than a freeform RP but being much more in that vein.

 

[Lanefan]

So another fundamental difference here might be in how developed our starting characters are. I usually start with a build* that interests me, then come up with a one or two sentence story that both makes sense with the build and sounds fun to me. Everything else about the character I "discover" in play.

*And by "build" I usually just mean a race/class combination, with an intended sub-class, and maybe some signature spells or a feat I want.

Largely the same here, and the rest emerges through play.

Thing is, most of that emergence happens very quickly during the first few sessions the character's active; and sets up the character's personality, quirks, alignment, etc.; which can from there much more slowly morph or not as the campaign goes along.

 

[Lanefan]

If I sat down with my Fytor character, no back story, zero personality, absolutely no engagement with the setting, and during play, I barely interact with NPC's or even the other characters, am I actually role playing? I don't think so. Back then, that was the norm of play.

The bolded is where you're getting the pushback, as while it may have been the norm in your experience it seems not to have been in that of quite a few others.

Otherwise I agree.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Keep your head buried in the sand and deny facts if you want, but the definition in 5e is clear. You can be wrong, even if you don't think so.

I find it hilarious that Lyxen, after taking the stand that natural language is crystal clear for the purpose of a rulebook, is miffed that not everyone uses the same exact definition of actor or role (or, apparently the words "someone else") than he is.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The bolded is where you're getting the pushback, as while it may have been the norm in your experience it seems not to have been in that of quite a few others.

Otherwise I agree.

I do find it surprising when people make claims about the overall gaming community, since none of us see more than a tiny sliver of it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I want to go back and address something @Lanefan said earlier, to the effect that using player knowledge isn't fair to people who invest in those skills.

The corollary to my willingness to let players use whatever knowledge they have...or think they have (mwuhahahahaha)...is that I treat proficiencies as having more potency than the mere numerical bonus the skills are supposed to confer. If somebody has proficiency in Arcana/Nature/Medicine/Whatever, I will tend to just default to automatic success when that skill is applicable. Which is way better than just giving them an additional 10% or 15% on a roll. And this isn't (intentionally) to balance player knowledge, but because in both cases I would just rather that players have information and make decisions based on it, rather than gate challenges behind secrets.

So not only is there still value in knowledge skills, but I would argue there's even greater value to those skills than in games where DMs won't let players use their own knowledge, but do make them roll dice every time.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I want to go back and address something @Lanefan said earlier, to the effect that using player knowledge isn't fair to people who invest in those skills.

The corollary to my willingness to let players use whatever knowledge they have...or think they have (mwuhahahahaha)...is that I treat proficiencies as having more potency than the mere numerical bonus the skills are supposed to confer. If somebody has proficiency in Arcana/Nature/Medicine/Whatever, I will tend to just default to automatic success when that skill is applicable. Which is way better than just giving them an additional 10% or 15% on a roll. And this isn't (intentionally) to balance player knowledge, but because in both cases I would just rather that players have information and make decisions based on it, rather than gate challenges behind secrets.

So not only is there still value in knowledge skills, but I would argue there's even greater value to those skills than in games where DMs won't let players use their own knowledge, but do make them roll dice every time.

I like 4e's +5, and you can get +8 total with a feat (Skill Focus). This is of course on top of your ability bonus, which most PCs have a good one for trained skills. Also, with the general "knowledge check" framework, you will know a lot of basic stuff without any doubt. Backgrounds are also noted to provide related knowledge.

 

[Lyxen]

Look guys, at this stage,

I find it hilarious that Lyxen, after taking the stand that natural language is crystal clear for the purpose of a rulebook, is miffed that not everyone uses the same exact definition of actor or role (or, apparently the words "someone else") than he is.

And I find it really sad that you have to deform my thoughts like this. I really thought that it was possible to discuss openly about these subjects without that amount of nitpicking.

FYI:

• I never said that the natural language rules were crystal clear, I said that they are good enough for a DM to do his own rulings when necessary, therefore avoiding ruleslawyering.
• And I don't require anyone to use the definitions, it's just that apparently some people did not even know that they existed, and again, I find the level of ruleslawyering applied to these old definitions extremely sad.

So actually, both go exactly in the same direction, and I'm really happy that 5e went in a direction that confuses ruleslawyers. May it live long and prosper.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Look guys, at this stage,


And I find it really sad that you have to deform my thoughts like this. I really thought that it was possible to discuss openly about these subjects without that amount of nitpicking.

FYI:

• I never said that the natural language rules were crystal clear, I said that they are good enough for a DM to do his own rulings when necessary, therefore avoiding ruleslawyering.
• And I don't require anyone to use the definitions, it's just that apparently some people did not even know that they existed, and again, I find the level of ruleslawyering applied to these old definitions extremely sad.

So actually, both go exactly in the same direction, and I'm really happy that 5e went in a direction that confuses ruleslawyers. May it live long and prosper.

Dude, you're still saying that the words for roleplaying mean only what you deem them to mean, while allowing other words to retain ambiguity. This was the point made -- you're insistent that there's no other interpretation of the one while arguing for the openness of the other.

That trying to exclude the way other people played and play from the "correct" version of the hobby is exactly what garners the statements that this is gatekeeping -- you're insisting that your interpretation is the only correct one and others aren't even doing it right.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Twenty pages later, and who'd have ever guessed it, the debate has devolved into an entrenched argument between the inclusive definition of roleplaying that includes even (le gasp!) video games, and the narrow definition that only admits high roleplaying (read, amateur-hour improv thespianism) as real roleplaying. Shocker.

Needless to say, arguing for the narrow definition is textbook gatekeeping, and nobody gets to dodge around that fact by claiming only narrow definitions fit some arbitrary measure of "usefulness."