Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bill Zebub" data-source="post: 8383842" data-attributes="member: 7031982">I'm so excited I get to quote Ted Lasso.I'm thinking of the episode where Ted challenges Rupert to darts, with a bet.&nbsp; If you've seen it you know it, and you haven't I'm not going to write the whole synopsis.&nbsp; But the part I'm thinking of is how Ted describes his epiphany as a kid when he realizes that all the people he has trouble with in school share the common trait of not being curious.&nbsp; They label and condemn, but they never ask any questions.&nbsp; (This leads to the denouement that Rupert really should have asked Ted if he ever plays darts, instead of assuming he didn't.)Which leads to the point that although I don't really believe in Appeal to Authority arguments based on length of time gaming, and I also don't like to give specific personal information on the internet, your suspicion is incorrect.But really this is indicative of why having this discussion with you is really so very unsatisfying, and why, after this post, I think I will largely disengage: you keep telling other people what they think, and why they do things, but I don't really see you asking other people questions to understand their point of view.&nbsp; I genuinely am interested in what others have to think, but I'm far less interested in being preached at, let alone told what I think.This is from the beginning of the book from D&amp;D 1st edition:I bolded a key bit, but taken as a whole it's pretty clear that in 1st edition &quot;role&quot; meant &quot;job within the team&quot;.&nbsp; You &quot;play&quot; that &quot;role&quot;.&nbsp; Roleplaying.&nbsp; Q.E.F.D.And the rest of the book is entirely an enumeration of mechanics. Nowhere is there anything about backstory, motivation, personality, or all that modern &quot;roleplaying&quot; stuff.&nbsp; (It's possible I missed something; if so I would appreciate it being pointed out.)Now, you may have played in the modern style back then, and if so then you were ahead of your time.&nbsp; But the game itself doesn't suggest that, and among my gaming group (both my junior high friends and the local college kids we played with) that sort of roleplaying was limited to physical descriptions of characters and the occasional Dwarf calling for mead with a Scottish accent.I agree that later editions, especially 5e, added this stuff, and I think it's a change for the better.&nbsp; But that's my point: the game evolved that way, but wasn't originally that way.Again, I'm not claiming it's not a part of the game...I love the modern approach to roleplaying...just that this argument that &quot;It's called roleplaying therefore it's really about acting out your character's unique personality&quot; is completely false.&nbsp; That's not the origin of the term.&nbsp; It was first and foremost a game about overcoming monsters and traps using game mechanics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bill Zebub, post: 8383842, member: 7031982"] I'm so excited I get to quote Ted Lasso. I'm thinking of the episode where Ted challenges Rupert to darts, with a bet. If you've seen it you know it, and you haven't I'm not going to write the whole synopsis. But the part I'm thinking of is how Ted describes his epiphany as a kid when he realizes that all the people he has trouble with in school share the common trait of not being curious. They label and condemn, but they never ask any questions. (This leads to the denouement that Rupert really should have asked Ted if he ever plays darts, instead of assuming he didn't.) Which leads to the point that although I don't really believe in Appeal to Authority arguments based on length of time gaming, and I also don't like to give specific personal information on the internet, your suspicion is incorrect. But really this is indicative of why having this discussion with you is really so very unsatisfying, and why, after this post, I think I will largely disengage: you keep telling other people what they think, and why they do things, but I don't really see you asking other people questions to understand their point of view. I genuinely am interested in what others have to think, but I'm far less interested in being preached at, let alone told what I think. This is from the beginning of the book from D&D 1st edition: I bolded a key bit, but taken as a whole it's pretty clear that in 1st edition "role" meant "job within the team". You "play" that "role". Roleplaying. Q.E.F.D. And the rest of the book is entirely an enumeration of mechanics. Nowhere is there anything about backstory, motivation, personality, or all that modern "roleplaying" stuff. (It's possible I missed something; if so I would appreciate it being pointed out.) Now, [I]you[/I] may have played in the modern style back then, and if so then you were ahead of your time. But the game itself doesn't suggest that, and among my gaming group (both my junior high friends and the local college kids we played with) that sort of roleplaying was limited to physical descriptions of characters and the occasional Dwarf calling for mead with a Scottish accent. I agree that later editions, especially 5e, added this stuff, and I think it's a change for the better. But that's my point: the game evolved that way, but wasn't originally that way. Again, I'm not claiming it's not a part of the game...I love the modern approach to roleplaying...just that this argument that "It's called [I]roleplaying[/I] therefore it's really about acting out your character's unique personality" is completely false. That's not the origin of the term. It was first and foremost a game about overcoming monsters and traps using game mechanics. [/QUOTE]

Verification