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

[Mannahnin]

Thanks for this, it had been a long time since I'd seen it, and it's as excellent as it ever was, including all the specific references to certain roleplaying games and even specific RQ III spells. And all the references to Munchkins are absolutely spot on.

The Munchkin thing is funny. Many of us knew the stereotype, and while there was indeed some misbehavior worth lampooning, in retrospect it was to some extent just dumping on the newer and younger players who didn't know any better.

They're all stereotypes, of course.

The whole categorization scheme got tweaked for an amusing quiz in Dragon 128 (December '87), which I read when I was a young player. And hey, someone's put a version of it on the web!

Rum and Monkey

rumandmonkey.com

 

[Bill Zebub]

So you presumably started playing after me or around the same time, if your games were a mish-mash of 1E and 2E? I started basically exactly when 2E came out, in 1989.

Oops this was a case of my fingers not typing what my brain was thinking. (I still think of AD&D as the "2nd" D&D). Mine was a mash-up of Original and AD&D, although very quickly (once I actually bought the books) it was straight AD&D.

Lots of interesting responses, and some of it is reminding me of things from those days, and bringing back memories. Clearly some people did far more roleplaying (of the play-acting sort) than we did in those days. And while we did do some things "in character", what that meant was also fairly fluid, and we certainly did not intentionally make bad decisions for the purpose of being in-character.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I've played two RPG video games recently, Mass Effect (Legendary Edition) and Cyberpunk 2077, the latter literally being based on a traditional tabletop RPG. In both cases, your characters gain level, get gear upgrades, and roleplay. I think roleplaying has a lot of disparate parts; you could explore your character without gaining levels, or you could gain levels without exploring your character.

Different groups have different views on "good" or "bad" roleplaying. Some want to explore PC personalities. Some want lots of combat and some want very little. Some want open world and some want to complete missions on a railroad. Some want "throwaway PCs" with quick character generation rules. Some want to challenge the players rather than the PCs. They are all fine. Unfortunately there's always some sort of "social war" going on over who is a good roleplayer and who isn't.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So, it pays to realize something when comparing older rules to newer ones. Gygax, et al, were visionary in their way. But they were new at this, because everyone was new at it. And by today's standards, their writing, even about basic mechanics, leaves a lot to be desired.

Newer writing has the benefit of years of looking at those old rules, and listening to and speaking with players, and watchng them learn, and watching what they did at the table, by the hundreds and thousands, and that leads to having better ways to talk about stuff. It isn't clear that the original authors really had the language to discuss character immersion clearly ready to hand, even if they played that way and intended others to as well.

I am not sure how much you can divine about how the definition of role playing has changed, when those original definitions... were not themselves well-written.

This is an interesting hypothesis.

Still, I find it curious how little of the books are dedicated to the topic. Even in AD&D, they include roleplaying as an item in a list of items that includes telling other players if you can't make a session. What does that say?

 

[GuyBoy]

I wasn't around at the time but I have interest in the history of Skirmish (Man-to-man) wargaming of this era and I have a copy of 'The Old West Skirmish Wargames, Wargaming Western Gunfights' which I believe to be the first man-to-man skirmish wargame and very influential on D&D.

This book has several passages that talks about the personalities that would develop for individual characters (miniatures) during a campaign. Either those that rose organically out of gameplay, ones that arose from their 'abilities and factors' (i.e that arose out of their associated rules mechanics), and then personalities determined by 'traits', (Bravery, Intelligence, Disposition, Reliability and Morals) - the later of which was a series of soft guidelines about how they would behave if they were real.

No matter what the origin of the fighters personality, the spirit of the game was to 'roleplay' (the term is used) their actions in accordance with their personality and the Umpire should prevent out-of-character decision making. In addition, you were to base your actions only on what information they would be aware of as if the situation were real (basically, don't meta-game).

I hope this is a useful addition to the thread, but here is an influential publication (the editions of which came out between 1970 to 1977), that clearly had the modern idea of roleplaying ingrained within it. I would think the same could be said of D&D at the time even if they lacked the modern vocabulary to express it in detail.

In similar vein, I had the book “Skirmish Wargaming” by Don Featherstone, which had short background stories for each of its scenarios. They all had named characters, motivations, worries etc.
As I recall, my friends and I enjoyed the games a lot.

 

[billd91]

The Munchkin thing is funny. Many of us knew the stereotype, and while there was indeed some misbehavior worth lampooning, in retrospect it was to some extent just dumping on the newer and younger players who didn't know any better.

There's a little bit of that - and munchkinism is usually considered a somewhat immature approach to RPGs since you always have to be WINNING rather than just having fun. But I've encountered people over the years who don't have the immature/new player excuse who will brag about how they keep Tiamat in a bottle. It was always easy to look down on them because they clearly aren't facing typical challenges and thus don't really deserve to brag about their character. Nowadays, though, I think a lot more people recognize that goal of RPGs isn't to be challenged or be proven worthy, per se, it's about having fun. And a somewhat more gonzo style may be what they find fun rather than engaging in a battle of wits against a GM, overcoming devilish puzzles, or defeating more powerful opponents.

I may respect that POV.
I might not respect the player who still brags about it though.

 

[Mannahnin]

This is an interesting hypothesis.

Still, I find it curious how little of the books are dedicated to the topic. Even in AD&D, they include roleplaying as an item in a list of items that includes telling other players if you can't make a session. What does that say?

I never read it, but as I recall Gygax published a book about RP mastery in '87. To my recollection, he was still advocating the "whole package"- character embodiment, skilled game-playing as measured by overcoming challenges, solving puzzles, and character survival, and player virtues like punctuality and communication.

Role-Playing Mastery: Gygax, Gary: 9780399512933: Amazon.com: Books

Role-Playing Mastery [Gygax, Gary] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Role-Playing Mastery

www.amazon.com

 

[Puddles]

In similar vein, I had the book “Skirmish Wargaming” by Don Featherstone, which had short background stories for each of its scenarios. They all had named characters, motivations, worries etc.
As I recall, my friends and I enjoyed the games a lot.

Indeed, my understanding is before they published the Western Gunfights rules in 1970/1971 they were contributing to Wargamer's Newsletter which brought the style of play to Don Featherstone's attention (and Gary Gygax's). Here is a informative blog I found on the subject that ties the movement around skirmish wargaming at the time of D&D's development too.

Western Gunfight (1970): the First RPG?

In 1970, a group of UK gamers located in Bristol published the first edition of their Western Gunfight rules, which recorded systems they ...

playingattheworld.blogspot.com

It's really interesting stuff in my opinion. This ruleset is also a massive influence for Games Workshop being inspirational for both Necromunda and Inquisitor - (in Inquisitor's case it often got lauded as a Skirmish/RPG hybrid, but in truth it was just tapping into an older style of Skirmish Wargaming that first introduced the elements that later developed into RPGs).

 

[Bill Zebub]

Indeed, my understanding is before they published the Western Gunfights rules in 1970/1971 they were contributing to Wargamer's Newsletter which brought the style of play to Don Featherstone's attention (and Gary Gygax's). Here is a informative blog I found on the subject that ties the movement around skirmish wargaming at the time of D&D's development too.

Western Gunfight (1970): the First RPG?

In 1970, a group of UK gamers located in Bristol published the first edition of their Western Gunfight rules, which recorded systems they ...

playingattheworld.blogspot.com

It's really interesting stuff in my opinion. This ruleset is also a massive influence for Games Workshop being inspirational for both Necromunda and Inquisitor - (in Inquisitor's case it often got lauded as a Skirmish/RPG hybrid, but in truth it was just tapping into an older style of Skirmish Wargaming that first introduced the elements that later developed into RPGs).

The most interesting part of that is "having characters with lives of their own who find themselves in situations and then behave in character rather than simply acting in their own best interests."

I think the idea of intentionally making a sub-optimal decision in order to tell a better story is the key innovation that never occurred to my group of junior high hack-and-slashers.

 

[GuyBoy]

Whether or not certain editions encourage roleplay more than hack/slash or not, might always be a moot point.
I always went for the roleplay, including sub-optimal decisions (caring for NPCs being the biggest, but not the only cause of this) but I’ve played with friends who wanted a different kind of fun from 1976 to today.
There have been moments when I’ve been frustrated by munchkinism and the attack NPCs on sight brigade, but I hope I’ve matured significantly over the years, and can now recognise and respect this type of play as equally valid.

That said, they’ll never know the roleplay pain of when Calanthia (NPC love interest) was killed by the Witches of Marmon (Wilderlands nasties)!