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

[Lyxen]

And the definition is...

"Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role."

That is the one and only definition given in 5e. The examples that follow are not a definition, but are just examples of a few ways to roleplay.

Nope. Just read the section, but obviously you have not. You have not even read the following sentence, which is obviously part of the definition.

Do you? And what conclusion do you bring? Because my definition of roleplaying

I'll stop you right there, I'm not interested in YOUR definition. At least, I'm using a published one, in a rulebook that I've actually used to play, which can be some basis for common ground.

What does behaving like an actor entail.

If you need me to tell you...

A dog is like a cat.

What can I say after this, this is the killer argument, good bye.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nope. Just read the section, but obviously you have not. You have not even read the following sentence, which is obviously part of the definition.



I'll stop you right there, I'm not interested in YOUR definition. At least, I'm using a published one, in a rulebook that I've actually used to play, which can be some basis for common ground.

Ah, so you insult everyone by saying that if they don't use your definition, they must be playing powergaming, but when I refute it, you tell me you're uninterested in hearing how this assumption is wrong because my definition of roleplaying doesn't align with yours, which then triggers your prior accusation that I must be a powergamer. That's a nice circle you're built there of never ever having to engage with arguments to your statement because you can ignore it because it's not in lockstep.

If you need me to tell you...

I do need you to tell me. I don't think that you can.

What can I say after this, this is the killer argument, good bye.

A dog is like a cat. They are both mammals, both primarily carnivores (although cats are obligate while dogs are not), have 4 legs, a tail, and a head in the same format. They both have two eyes that function similarly, one nose each and one mouth each which serve exactly the same function. Cats and dogs are alike in terribly many ways, even outside biology. They are both domesticated pets. They both usually enjoy being groomed. When I say "like a dog" a cat can fit this description without further refinement of the criteria. Because, "like a dog" means things that are not dogs but are like them. So, like an actor means in someway like an actor, but not an actor. Or, it means that you engage in behavior like an actor, but this is already shown to be false because many behaviors of actors are not at all intended (having lines, taking direction, etc). So, there's some "like" that's unstated by the passage and is very open to interpretation. You've added additional assumptions that specific things, but seem strangely unwilling to explain these to anyone, instead preferring to treat people as if they are defective if they can't read your mind.

 

[Maxperson]

At least, I'm using a published one, in a rulebook that I've actually used to play, which can be some basis for common ground.

You are not. You are using your own private definition and not the one published in 5e.

 

[Aldarc]

Nope. Just read the section, but obviously you have not. You have not even read the following sentence, which is obviously part of the definition.

Again, maybe accusing people of not reading things shouldn't be how you go about polite conversation.

I'll stop you right there, I'm not interested in YOUR definition. At least, I'm using a published one, in a rulebook that I've actually used to play, which can be some basis for common ground.

I'll be perfectly honest, but there can never be "common ground" if one party is steadfast in adhering to a definition of roleplaying that serves a gatekeeping role in our hobby.

What can I say after this, this is the killer argument, good bye.

Do you really think that you are any position of moral high ground to criticize others about quoting isolated statements and ignoring arguments when you pretend that my argument somehow rests solely on what you have quoted?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think my next character concept is going to be somebody who is so argumentative and certain of his own beliefs that he alienates even the people who ostensibly agree with him. That should be some fun roleplaying. My group will love it. Really.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Nope. Just read the section, but obviously you have not. You have not even read the following sentence, which is obviously part of the definition.



I'll stop you right there, I'm not interested in YOUR definition. At least, I'm using a published one, in a rulebook that I've actually used to play, which can be some basis for common ground.



If you need me to tell you...



What can I say after this, this is the killer argument, good bye.

Ok so, to be clear, the problem is that "like an actor" can mean very different things, because the text does not elaborate on what it sees as the essence of the comparison:

If I put on a voice while talking to an NPC that is something an Actor also does.

If I consider my character's motivation to inform how I perform them that is another thing an actor does (and if I'm improvising my role I would also use that to make decisions.)

If I deliberately do the thing that the audience will find most entertaining and base my decision making off what the audience will find most entertaining, that is another thing an actor does.

If I "yes and" another player that is something an improv actor does.

If I obey my director and do my best to bring their vision to life (in this case the GM I guess?) that would be something an actor does.

If I wear a costume to help other people see me as my character, that is something else an actor does.

But it doesn't specify which of these things we're doing, or to what degree, and different actors (which the writers of the statement likely were not, unless they maybe had community theater experience) see the role and craft of acting differently. The statement can't bear the load you're trying to make it bear because it isn't a sufficient explanation. In that context its clearly meant to be read in broad strokes as 'pretending to be, and to some extent, performing the actions of' the character. But obviously, not to the extreme, since DND has never been a LARP.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Ok so, to be clear, the problem is that "like an actor" can mean very different things, because the text does not elaborate on what it sees as the essence of the comparison:

If I put on a voice while talking to an NPC that is something an Actor also does.

If I consider my character's motivation to inform how I perform them that is another thing an actor does (and if I'm improvising my role I would also use that to make decisions.)

If I deliberately do the thing that the audience will find most entertaining and base my decision making off what the audience will find most entertaining, that is another thing an actor does.

If I "yes and" another player that is something an improv actor does.

If I obey my director and do my best to bring their vision to life (in this case the GM I guess?) that would be something an actor does.

If I wear a costume to help other people see me as my character, that is something else an actor does.

But it doesn't specify which of these things we're doing, or to what degree, and different actors (which the writers of the statement likely were not, unless they maybe had community theater experience) see the role and craft of acting differently. The statement can't bear the load you're trying to make it bear because it isn't a sufficient explanation. In that context its clearly meant to be read in broad strokes as 'pretending to be, and to some extent, performing the actions of' the character. But obviously, not to the extreme, since DND has never been a LARP.

If I struggle to handle fame at such a young age and get addicted to narcotics before having a very public melt-down as soon as I come of age, then hide at home for a decade before making a (frankly) pathetic attempt at a comeback...that is being "like" an actor, too.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

Now that I have caught upon the last three pages of this discussion and some people's narrow definitions of what roleplaying is...

I guess I have to break the news to my shy players, that are more comfortable describing from a third-person what their character is doing, thinking, that they're not roleplaying.

I guess I also have to break the news to my other group, that are choosing good feats that complements their character well and putting their ASI where it has the best impact, that they're dirty optimizers and are playing for winning and thus not really playing the game as they should.

 

[Lyxen]

Ah, so you insult everyone by saying that if they don't use your definition

There are not my definitions, they are the definitions of the editions of the game that you say you have played, you know, the ones that the people who created this game have put in their work so that people understand what they meant.

And since this thread is about the history of roleplaying since 1e, I think it has more relevance to the thread than your personal definition which, I must confess, I have absolutely no interest in, since the original ones from the various editions not only show that actual roleplaying was the basis for all these games, but also suit me perfectly.

I'll be perfectly honest, but there can never be "common ground" if one party is steadfast in adhering to a definition of roleplaying that serves a gatekeeping role in our hobby.

Where exactly is the gatekeeping ? Just read the definitions in the various editions, that's all what this thread is about. After that, as always, play as you will.

Do you really think that you are any position of moral high ground to criticize others about quoting isolated statements and ignoring arguments when you pretend that my argument somehow rests solely on what you have quoted?

At least I quoted the game, rather than myself...

You are not. You are using your own private definition and not the one published in 5e.

Please go and have a look at the definitions of the rulebooks for every edition. I have, and these are the ones I employ, since this thread is not only about 5e. None of these definitions are mine.

 

[Maxperson]

I think my next character concept is going to be somebody who is so argumentative and certain of his own beliefs that he alienates even the people who ostensibly agree with him. That should be some fun roleplaying. My group will love it. Really.

I tried something similar once with my longtime group of gaming friends. I tried playing a low charisma PC as really obnoxious. It worked! The other PCs thought he was so bad that they kicked him out of the party. The players all agreed that I did a great job.