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

[The-Magic-Sword]

Have you ever played a game (sports, cards, pool, etc) with a kid? To them, they're mostly just goofing around and having fun enjoying spending time with an adult who will give them the time of day. Now imagine a hyper-competitive adult sitting down with that kid and playing to win. Crush the enemy, etc. The kid goes away crying and the hyper-competitive adult pats themselves on the back for a job well done. Now, a reasonable person would say that the hyper-competitive adult was an utter jerk. I'd say they misunderstood the conditions of the test. For the kid, the point was to hang out and play around. For the adult, the point was to win. At all costs. Regardless of the kid leaving the table in tears. The adult ruined the kids fun because, for the adult, the fun was the winning. They have opposed goals.

If the whole table is hyper-competitive adults out to win. It works because they're all there playing the same game for the same reasons. If there's some teenager there trying to learn the game, it suddenly falls apart. If there's a kid trying to just play, it really falls apart.

To switch analogies...have you ever tried to help a person older than you with technology? To them, they're at their wit's end and just need help figuring out how this damn thing works. So they reach out. To you. For whatever reason you help. Now in the process of helping you decide it's a perfect time to insult them, belittle them, and mock their intelligence all because you have a bit of information that they do not. Most reasonable people would recognize that the "helper" is really a jerk. They misunderstand what the situation is. An opportunity to help. But they read it as an opportunity to gloat and demean. The adult ruined the older person's day because, for the adult, the point was to gloat, demean, and show off. They have opposed goals.

What's this all have to do with your question? People in the same situation with wildly different expectations can drastically alter the outcome of that situation...especially when there are differing sets of mutually exclusive goals.

So, putting aside the emotionally load bearing nature of the person in this example being a child and an adult picking on them, the person sitting down and demanding the other player not be competitive and getting booty hurt about the other person try-harding when the object of the game is competitive is suffering from scrub mentality.

While DND isn't competitive and our ability to select for our groups means we can communicate expectations, absent those alterations, the object of the game does seem to be playing an adventurer who overcomes challenges, that's what the game's design points to anyway.

 

[overgeeked]

But I think that the player having the same goals as their character is the desirable thing...

That's not really possible. My goal as a player is to have fun playing a game. My character's goal is to survive, obtain loot, explore the unknown, etc. I can still have fun playing the game if my character doesn't achieve their goals. At no point will my character be having fun playing the game of D&D (unless we want to get really weird), likewise, at no point will my life as the player be in jeopardy, nor will I leave the game session with a fat sack of gold coins (unless they're props or chocolates).

we don't necessarily have to create the tension by acting badly

I think this is the hang up. It's not acting "badly" to act in character (i.e. sometimes doing the dreaded suboptimal thing). It's playing your character. Your character isn't a tactician with years of experience, nor are they a min-maxing optimizer out to wring the best possible set of bonuses out of the game mechanics.

I'm saying this level of 'metagaming' is good and fine, because we're synchronized with the character,

The only way those synch up is if you play in pawn stance, i.e. my character is nothing more than a game piece to be moved around a game board. That's treating the game as a boardgame or wargame. That's intrinsically unfun for me. To the point that it spoils what I consider to be fun about playing the game.

and that the act of averting problem solving by placing it at odds with character motivation is a 'problem' distorting the game

Misunderstanding what's going on is distorting the game. It's not "averting problem solving" to play your character instead of playing to win. It's having a different set of motivations and a different set of goals. Your motivation and goal are to win. My motivation and goal are to try to inhabit the character, hang out with friends, explore the unknown, overcome obstacles, etc. So our decision making processes are different. And, apparently, diametrically opposed. Clearly me playing my character would cause you to wince, "damn, dude, doing the suboptimal thing again!" and likewise you playing your character would cause me to wince, "damn, dude, could you at least try to pretend the world's more than an obstacle course."

I mean sure, but then that means we need to do different things to have fun, and things we use to have fun needs be designed differently right?

Yes, exactly. Which is why there's more than one game that everyone always plays. Card games, sports, dice games, video games, slots, mobile apps, D&D, Warhammer Fantasy Battles, Warhammer 40k, Napoleonics, Blades in the Dark, Fate, Star Trek 2d20, Star Wars d6, Conan 2d20, Risus, etc.

Your definition of fun doesn't preclude the fun of playing to win, it just means you might want to avoid things that utilize that as the source of fun.

It really does. Because sitting at a table with players who are playing to win destroys the fun of RPGs for me.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

How about you trust my good faith when I say that it was not my intent to debate the point you believe was naturally raised?

I didn't catch the implication that you were attempting to disengage, I honestly thought you were just suggesting you weren't correctly understood, and asking for clarification.

 

[overgeeked]

While DND isn't competitive

Oh, good. So why do so many people play it competitively, i.e. playing to win?

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Oh, good. So why do so many people play it competitively, i.e. playing to win?

I meant competitive in the 'player versus player' sense, but winning in the 'player versus environment' sense represents the entirety of the core game play.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

That's not really possible. My goal as a player is to have fun playing a game. My character's goal is to survive, obtain loot, explore the unknown, etc. I can still have fun playing the game if my character doesn't achieve their goals. At no point will my character be having fun playing the game of D&D (unless we want to get really weird), likewise, at no point will my life as the player be in jeopardy, nor will I leave the game session with a fat sack of gold coins (unless they're props or chocolates).

I think this is the hang up. It's not acting "badly" to act in character (i.e. sometimes doing the dreaded suboptimal thing). It's playing your character. Your character isn't a tactician with years of experience, nor are they a min-maxing optimizer out to wring the best possible set of bonuses out of the game mechanics.

The only way those synch up is if you play in pawn stance, i.e. my character is nothing more than a game piece to be moved around a game board. That's treating the game as a boardgame or wargame. That's intrinsically unfun for me. To the point that it spoils what I consider to be fun about playing the game.

Misunderstanding what's going on is distorting the game. It's not "averting problem solving" to play your character instead of playing to win. It's having a different set of motivations and a different set of goals. Your motivation and goal are to win. My motivation and goal are to try to inhabit the character, hang out with friends, explore the unknown, overcome obstacles, etc. So our decision making processes are different. And, apparently, diametrically opposed. Clearly me playing my character would cause you to wince, "damn, dude, doing the suboptimal thing again!" and likewise you playing your character would cause me to wince, "damn, dude, could you at least try to pretend the world's more than an obstacle course."

Yes, exactly. Which is why there's more than one game that everyone always plays. Card games, sports, dice games, video games, slots, mobile apps, D&D, Warhammer Fantasy Battles, Warhammer 40k, Napoleonics, Blades in the Dark, Fate, Star Trek 2d20, Star Wars d6, Conan 2d20, Risus, etc.

It really does. Because sitting at a table with players who are playing to win destroys the fun of RPGs for me.

So i was about to just disengage but this bit here is kind of interesting:

"Your motivation and goal are to win. My motivation and goal are to try to inhabit the character, hang out with friends, explore the unknown, overcome obstacles, etc."

that last thing you mentioned is what I would characterize as 'the motivation and goal being to win,' because the conflict I'm highlighting is how the wrong roleplaying framework pits one's character choices against the choices they make when trying to overcome obstacles. So where's the conflict? I don't demand optimal play, I demand good faith problem-solving play, and I support individual goal setting as constraints that modify the goals in the situation.

 

[Lyxen]

Oh, good. So why do so many people play it competitively, i.e. playing to win?

Because they don't read the books, where it says, literally: "There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood." ?

Because they come from another mind set (in particular anything having to do with computer gaming) and try to replicate it in the game ?

None of this prevents them from having fun, and it's of course OK, still there are other ways to play.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Because they don't read the books, where it says, literally: "There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood." ?

Because they come from another mind set (in particular anything having to do with computer gaming) and try to replicate it in the game ?

None of this prevents them from having fun, and it's of course OK, still there are other ways to play.

You know thinking about how at odds that line is from the material design of the game I suspect the part after the hyphens is carrying a lot of weight. Wins and losses exist, but they aren't absolute due to the fiction providing a lot more outcomes and possible outcomes. Winning and losing is usually understood to end the game, whereas play typically continues in DND.

E.g. if you dont get to the prince in time and he gets sacrificed to summon a demon lord when saving him was your goal, that is a loss, but the failure state isnt absolute-- you can find another way to stop the demon lord. Meanwhile saving the prince is a win. But either way play continues and the consequences unfold.

The other interpretation is just that its an untrue statement when measured against the rules of the game, intentionally or otherwise.

Edit: or its a commentary on the mindset of "board games" a newbie might see as most comparable, where the players are trying to beat each other, and might look for a similarly individual and obvious win condition to end the game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh, good. So why do so many people play it competitively, i.e. playing to win?

Oh, can we all play this game and just make blanket statements about populations that confirm our arguments?

So why do so many GM's want to play their players' PCs? Or, why are so many game so good that don't care about metagaming? Or, why do?

This is fun. I like these games.

 

[overgeeked]

So i was about to just disengage but this bit here is kind of interesting:

"Your motivation and goal are to win. My motivation and goal are to try to inhabit the character, hang out with friends, explore the unknown, overcome obstacles, etc."

that last thing you mentioned is what I would characterize as 'the motivation and goal being to win,'

Not really, no. My character wanting to survive, etc and overcome the obstacles in their path isn't me the player playing to win. It's me playing the character. Not many characters go into a dungeon to die. Most want to come back out again with some loot so they can retire from the absurdity that it adventuring. Deciding to metagame, optimize your character, making only optimal choices, having the orphaned edgelord background package, etc is playing to win.

Playing competitively, playing to win, metagaming, pawn stance, playing like it's a boardgame or a wargame all come from a place of the player trying to win at a game rather than trying to play the role of their character. Swinging your sword in combat isn't necessarily roleplaying. It can be...if your character is trying to kill that particular creature for an in-fiction reason...like that gnome murdered your friend so you want revenge...that's roleplaying. If you as the player look at the battle map and decide that the optimal move is to kill that gnome, that's not roleplaying...that's wargaming. The difference is the decision making process. Is the decision coming from something the character thinks or would do or is it coming from what the player thinks or wants to do. Very rarely they can line up. But more often than not they don't.