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

[pemerton]

I'm not looking for absolution as much as wondering how other people were playing back then, and if EGG and company meant the same thing by "roleplaying" as we do today.

I've not read the whole thread. But my answer to your question has a few parts.

(1) Gygax, by role, seems to have meant something like "function". So on p 18 of his PHB he says "The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges which it poses, and which role you desire to play are dictated by character class (or multi-class)." There is an implicit contrast here between the single-character approach of RPGing and the control of a whole army - and thus of all the roles/functions - in a wargame.

(2) From very early on in the hobby, there were players departing from this conception of "roleplaying" - ie who focused on the role not as just class/mechanical function but personality, characterisation etc. This comes through clearly in discussions on RPGing in the late 70s and earl 80s White Dwarfs (eg @lewpuls had very interesting discussions of these differences of approach).

(3) A further difference that is important to me is between role as characterisation and role as protagonism. I tend to find a lot of RPGing material and discussion tends to emphasise the former. Whereas I am more interested in the latter. In some ways this comes back to Gygax's idea, but instead of looking at the role/function through the lens of challenge it is looked at through the lens of theme and story.

Here is a thread I started some years ago now that deals with some similar issues to yours: D&D 5E - What is the "role" in roleplaying

 

[pemerton]

While this is indubitably true, although I never met EGG personally or had the chance to play with him, I have met friends who did, and I can assure you that the intention was there, and this is where the true genius was, as this was far more groundbreaking than moving from chainmail units to individual characters.

As proof, these words from two of the earliest and most iconic modules published by TSR, I'm sure you'll recognise which is which

The counter-example to this is the example of play in Gygax's DMG, which has no characterisation of note, and is entirely functional in its approach. (There is a marked contrast here with Moldvay's example in his Basic rulebook.)

By the time Gygax wrote the PHB it seems he was aware of departures from strict wargaming play, and was addressing them to some extent with the reference to "becoming" Falstaff the fighter etc. But that introductory remark doesn't change the overall tenor of the game in the way that, say, the AD&D 2nd ed discussion of building and playing a PC does.

 

[Hussar]

Well, like I said, that's pretty much what my first character was. And, yes, it was roleplaying.

As for today, if I played a long-term game with somebody who seemed to do the same thing, and their character never had any discernible depth or any personality, and just seemed like Blue Fighter or Red Wizard, but I still got the sense that they were emotionally invested in their character....yes, I'd still call it roleplaying.

I have to admit, I don't. At that point, they are playing a game, but, they aren't roleplaying. The game does actually expect you to develop that character with at least a minimum of depth and personality. But, there are two sort of related issues here. One is judging individual players, the other is judging games.

Frankly, I got tied up in the first and I shouldn't have. It's not about what this or that player does at the table. It's what the game expects. And, over time, role playing games have come more and more to expect a level of investment into that character that wasn't present in the early days of the hobby. That's how the meaning of roleplaying has changed, at least for me.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, this is along the lines of what I was trying to say earlier.

I can understand how maintaining a consistent persona and trying to express that persona might be a goal for some participants. That makes sense. But nowhere, in any form, is there a rule that this is required for the activity to count as "roleplaying".

Actually, I'm going to disagree here. There are a number of games that actively promote and push the character into playing a consistent persona or at least trying to explain why you aren't. FATE being a good example with its mechanics. Dogs in the Vineyard as well does this. I'd go so far to say that most later era RPG's do this. Heck, even D&D gives some lip service to playing a consistant persona with it's Inspiration mechanics.

 

[Bill Zebub]

.
Frankly, I got tied up in the first and I shouldn't have. It's not about what this or that player does at the table. It's what the game expects. And, over time, role playing games have come more and more to expect a level of investment into that character that wasn't present in the early days of the hobby. That's how the meaning of roleplaying has changed, at least for me.

Interesting. I would have readily agreed with a claim that large parts of the gaming community is expecting that investment. What do you mean that the game itself expects it? Wouldn’t 5e function perfectly well in a straightforward hack-and-slash with none of what you mean by “roleplaying”? I think I must be misunderstanding your point.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Actually, I'm going to disagree here. There are a number of games that actively promote and push the character into playing a consistent persona or at least trying to explain why you aren't. FATE being a good example with its mechanics. Dogs in the Vineyard as well does this. I'd go so far to say that most later era RPG's do this. Heck, even D&D gives some lip service to playing a consistant persona with it's Inspiration mechanics.

Yes, certainly. I was just speaking of D&D.

I would disagree slightly about Inspiration, though. It is there to encourage consistent characterization, but as a peripheral rule it serves only to incentivize not require.

And maybe it’s telling that we so often hear from the community that Inspiration doesn’t get used.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I give proficiency a boost as well. Some things will require proficiency to get a roll. Sometimes anyone can get a roll, but the person with proficiency will also have a lower DC, so essentially a back door expertise

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.

What about those games where the DM says that they can't metagame, but doesn't require die rolls every time?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Actually, I'm going to disagree here. There are a number of games that actively promote and push the character into playing a consistent persona or at least trying to explain why you aren't. FATE being a good example with its mechanics. Dogs in the Vineyard as well does this. I'd go so far to say that most later era RPG's do this. Heck, even D&D gives some lip service to playing a consistant persona with it's Inspiration mechanics.

I don't think this is at all true in Dogs. Here, character is consistently under threat and can drastically change during play due to the accumulation of fallout. FATE is weird, in that you can approach that game in many ways, some of which are diametrically opposite, so it's hard to say it does this thing. It might, but it also might not.

 

[Hussar]

Interesting. I would ups have readily agreed with a claim that large parts of the gaming community is expecting that investment. What do you mean that the game itself expects it? Wouldn’t 5e function perfectly well in a straightforward hack-and-slash with none of what you mean by “roleplaying”? I think I must be misunderstanding your point.

Well, again, D&D isn't perhaps the best example of promoting role play. But, as I said, you only have to look at the Inspiration mechanics to see how it is actually promoting role play in its own way. You gain inspiration by playing a role, by presenting your character in such a way that it impresses the group or the DM. IOW, role playing.

And, just to answer @Jack Daniel's criticism about gate keeping here. Umm, I'm sorry, I guess, that my definition of a role playing game includes the notion of actually playing a role? Is that seriously gate keeping? And, note, I'm really not trying to talk about individual players here. Yes, KNOW I failed at that. I know that I talked about individual players and that was a mistake.

I would rather focus on the games themselves. Do the games actually help define and promote role play? Is it rewarded in some fashion. I guess you could say that the lack of role play in AD&D was punished through the Training Rules. And the Alignment system is certainly an attempt at promoting role play. I leave the relative success of the attempt to the reader, but, the point being, it was at least making some effort in that direction.

Think about it, alignment is one of the few really distinct elements of a role playing game. I am not stating that RPG's must have alignment, please don't go there But, it's something that RPG's do have that you almost never see in any other type of game. And even RPG's that don't have alignment often give the players tools to create consistent characters that mirror what alignment attempts to do. If my Fate character has the characteristic of Valorous (I'm making this up), then it's not terribly different than writing Lawful Good on a D&D character sheet. Aspects aren't alignment, true, but, they do serve a similar function in pushing the players into creating consistent characters that are the lens through which we play. IOW, role play.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think this is at all true in Dogs. Here, character is consistently under threat and can drastically change during play due to the accumulation of fallout. FATE is weird, in that you can approach that game in many ways, some of which are diametrically opposite, so it's hard to say it does this thing. It might, but it also might not.

Yes, you're right. Consistant is the wrong word. But, the point is, those changes are mechanically promoting role playing that character. It would be really weird to play DitV without actually trying to act through the lens of the character.