log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Words happen to mean what they mean, you know. You are free to ignore them, free to disagree with them, but nitpicking every single word to try to change the meaning is still nitpicking. These are not even my words, and I'm not even forcing an interpretation of them. But they just seem to offend you by simply being there, and for some reason it triggers your defensive mechanism. Why is the presence word "actor" in a text more than 40 years old such a problem to you that you have to go and pick up examples of the worst (non-)actors to justify something ?

Once more, I have just provided the text from the books that existed at the time. That's all, how does it offend you ?

After that, these words were guidelines to us, and we used them, and we have the feeling that the meaning has not changed much, and indeed the roleplaying in our groups has not changed that much either.

How exactly is this gatekeeping, how is it offending you ?



Again, where is my interpretation, where is the judgement ? You are the one working extremely hard to prove that it can mean that you were right to play Bob the Wizard. I don't care. I don't judge you for it. But you seem to be judging me only because we took the words to heart in their simplest interpretation. That is actually extremely judgemental of you.


I'm excluding no-one, never had. But you seem for some reason to want to justify yourself for the way you played. I don't care what you played, I don't judge you for it, so please don't do the same thing to me.
First, modules are not rules. Advice in modules is not the same as advice in the game rules. Second, you are loosely interpreting a lot of what you have been posting about the older game editions such as 1e, 2e etc. to match your preferred method of play. Third, you are blatantly ignoring the very specific definition in 5e that flat out goes against your personal method in favor of examples of types of roleplay that follow. All of that you are doing to show how you are right and others are "going against the books"(in quotes because they aren't.), implying with your tone that your way is the best way to roleplay. That's gatekeeping.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
You are forgetting the section on page 7 of the PH, or is it something that you call "half-baked" ?

As a role player, you become Falstaff the fighter. You know how strong, intelligent, wise, healthy, dexterous and, relatively speaking, how commanding a personality you have. Details as to your appearance, your body proportions, and your history can be produced by you or the Dungeon Master. You act out the game as this character, staying within your “god-given abilities”, and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment). You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Falstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic! The Dungeon Master will act the parts of “everyone else”, and will present to you a variety of new characters to talk with, drink with, gamble with, adventure with, and often fight with! Each of you will become an artful thespian as time goes by — and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown as you become Falstaff the Invincible!

So why I agree that there is that aspect of "playing a role in the party" according to class, there is also the part about acting in character, and this is reinforced by the descriptions from the modules that I have also provided.



The notion of party role was heavily reinforced in 4e, though, so it's not a general trend, more like specificities of editions, the way I see it.
You missed the part where it directs you to stay within your god given abilities. If someone is not an actor and his god given abilities are, "I am Joe the fighter," that's okay according to that section. You can roleplay like that.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
Wait. Putting everything else on hold, are you actually claiming the Owen Wilson is not an actor? That's pretty big, and it's awful late to just now be bringing that up, but man, does it explain quite a bit, here. Are you sure you know which Owen Wilson I'm referring to? Here's a link to his career, but you may remember him from Armageddon, Wedding Crashers, Loki, Cars, and a few other things. I mean, I fully expected someone to chastise me for being unfair to Owen, and pointing out that he's largely typecast and actually has some pretty good range (there are some smaller films he's really done a great job in), but not an actor?!

Whoa.

See here, your own words: "Owen Wilson is always Owen Wilson as the role." I must confess that I have seen very few movies with him, but I sort of agree with this, honestly, and for me, this is not the mark of a great actor, and not what I would use as an example of an actor. For my type of actor, see, I don't know, Daniel Day-Lewis, Dustin Hoffman, Jack Nicholson, Gary Oldman, people who can interpret almost any role and who are known for incarnating almost any type of character with convincing force, not only themselves with a different name and in a different situation. Persons who people think off when they are asked to name a good actor, archetypes of that kind if you want...

Again, not claiming that this is the only way to roleplay, and that you must at all playact, just pointing out the fact that both BECMI and AD&D use words like "actor" or "thespian" in their description of roleplaying, and that there is some relation.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
See here, your own words: "Owen Wilson is always Owen Wilson as the role." I must confess that I have seen very few movies with him, but I sort of agree with this, honestly, and for me, this is not the mark of a great actor, and not what I would use as an example of an actor. For my type of actor, see, I don't know, Daniel Day-Lewis, Dustin Hoffman, Jack Nicholson, Gary Oldman, people who can interpret almost any role and who are known for incarnating almost any type of character with convincing force, not only themselves with a different name and in a different situation. Persons who people think off when they are asked to name a good actor, archetypes of that kind if you want...

Again, not claiming that this is the only way to roleplay, and that you must at all playact, just pointing out the fact that both BECMI and AD&D use words like "actor" or "thespian" in their description of roleplaying, and that there is some relation.
No judgement, though.
 

Lyxen

Great Old One
First, modules are not rules.

Does the thread mention specifically rules ? No. It only speaks about roleplaying in general, so if I find examples of roleplaying in the modules, it's valid to show what happened at the time in D&D.

The only reason you want to avoid modules is because they don't support YOUR interpretation. Been gatekeeping much these days ?

Second, you are loosely interpreting a lot of what you have been posting about the older game editions such as 1e, 2e etc. to match your preferred method of play.

So, basically, I'm not allowed to express my interpretation? Whereas you can, of course, say that your interpretation that playing yourself as Bob the Wizard is roleplay. Praytell what is the difference here ? You are allowed to provide your interpretation and I can't?

Moreover, yes, I happen to like the way I play. It's a hobby, I can do whatever I like. Or am I not allowed to because it does not match yours ?

And I'm not allowed to express my own preferences ?

Third, you are blatantly ignoring the very specific definition in 5e that flat out goes against your personal method in favor of examples of types of roleplay that follow.

No, I am trying to ignore the fact that you are cherrypicking ONE sentence out of the whole rulebook, thinking that it supports YOUR interpretation. Gatekeeping again. The whoe section is called Roleplaying, and gives much lengthier explanations.

So yes, I am doing my best to ignore the way you argue, but unfortunately, sometimes, my temper get the better of me.

All of that you are doing to show how you are right and others are "going against the books"(in quotes because they aren't.), implying with your tone that your way is the best way to roleplay. That's gatekeeping.

Yeah, right, see above.

The only thing I'm saying is that my way works best for me, and I like it best. Is that forbidden ?

But you seem extremely defensive about that, care to explain why ?
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
@Lyxen,

I'm going to disengage from you on this topic. You've deployed strawmen about me, made it personal, engaged in special pleading, and now have deployed a no-true-scotsman to maintain your position, which I can only charitably summarize as "I don't judge if you decide to not roleplay the correct way -- I'm okay with you being wrong." Given the defense of your position requires such strained stretches of logic and argumentation I don't see a way forward here.

Feel free to have the last word in this exchange. I reserve the right to engage on other issues as they come up.
 


Lyxen

Great Old One
You missed the part where it directs you to stay within your god given abilities. If someone is not an actor and his god given abilities are, "I am Joe the fighter," that's okay according to that section. You can roleplay like that.

And again, cherry-picking on one part of one sentence to try and make an argument, and doing it wrong.

If you read the entire paragraph, it's clear what the "god-given abilities" are:
  • The paragraph starts with: "You know how strong, intelligent, wise, healthy, dexterous and, relatively speaking, how commanding a personality you have". Does it not suggest that this refers directly to your stats ?
  • It then says: "You act out the game as this character, staying within your “god-given abilities” ", does it not simply say that you are supposed to act out your chaarcter, but taking into account your Str, Int, Wis, Con, Dex and Cha ?
  • And of course, with the quotation marks and Gygax style, the "God" refers to the Dungeon Master and the character creation process of the PH.
Is it not simple and logical ?

In MY interpretation (but feel free to propose yours if you disagree), it just means that when you act out your character, you have to stay within the limits of the stats of the character. If your character is dumb, act dumb. If the character is wise, act wise. If the character has the charisma of a cooked oyster, don't roleplay a commanding personality.
 



Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Mod Note:

Per my note yesterday, this thread has become, and remains, a forum for head-butting, rather than constructive discussion. Thread closed.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top