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

[Bill Zebub]

Why? Near as I can tell Angry never had anything to say beyond his schtick.

Dear GMs: Metagaming is YOUR Fault

Well, it happened again. Another week on Twitter, another fight about why metagaming is bulls&$%. But what is metagaming? And why is it a waste of time to worry about it? Well, I’ll f$&#…

theangrygm.com

Angry DM would reduce Mentzer to tears.

I think the absolutist stance on player/character knowledge is kinda silly, honestly. It strikes me as similar to how sensible advice gets turned into religious mandate. You know, some wise villager figures out that it's a bad idea to tug on Superman's cape, and 1,000 years later there's a major religion that thinks it's a sin for bare flesh to touch cloth that dangles freely.

Same thing with player/character knowledge. If you've read the module, don't spoil it for others. If there's a new player who doesn't know to burn trolls, pretend you don't know either. Etc. But somehow that sensible advice got turned into a religion, as if the point of playing D&D is not to kill monsters and take their stuff, but to pretend to not know stuff more diligently than the player next to you (even though everybody at the table has been playing since the 70's and knows perfectly well that you're supposed to burn trolls.)

 

[overgeeked]

Angry DM would reduce Mentzer to tears.

Likely because Angry’s so bad at making arguments for his positions.

Same thing with player/character knowledge. If you've read the module, don't spoil it for others. If there's a new player who doesn't know to burn trolls, pretend you don't know either. Etc. But somehow that sensible advice got turned into a religion, as if the point of playing D&D is not to kill monsters and take their stuff, but to pretend to not know stuff more diligently than the player next to you (even though everybody at the table has been playing since the 70's and knows perfectly well that you're supposed to burn trolls.)

The point is that the character you’re playing doesn’t have 40+ years of gaming experience and doesn’t know to burn the trolls. That’s literally the point of the game. To take on the role of someone who’s not you. To separate player from character knowledge. Next you’ll claim a physicist player should be able to leverage that knowledge to build rockets and bombs.

 

[J.Quondam]

Likely because Angry’s so bad at making arguments for his positions.

He really brings to life the old maxim, "Why say in 100 words what you can scream in 10,000?"

 

[Bill Zebub]

He really brings to life the old maxim, "Why say in 100 words what you can scream in 10,000?"

Yeah, it's true he wastes too many words with his particular brand of humor, which I honestly don't find all that humorous.

But he absolutely nails it on metagaming.

 

[overgeeked]

He really brings to life the old maxim, "Why say in 100 words what you can scream in 10,000?"

Exactly. His essays are shallow advice, at best, padded out with profanity. As someone who uses the f-word as a comma, I can tell when someone's using it for effect or they're covering for their lack of something to say. Angry is definitely in the latter category.

 

[overgeeked]

Yeah, it's true he wastes too many words with his particular brand of humor, which I honestly don't find all that humorous.

But he absolutely nails it on metagaming.

From the beginning of article you linked: "There’s a few fights I get into over and over and over. Admittedly, I like getting into fights. So, once I discover something that sets people off, I can’t help but bring it up every couple of months. But there’s also just some topics that really, REALLY piss people off."

He doesn't even pretend to be anything but troll. Don't treat him like a guru. He's not.

 

[Mallus]

The point is that the character you’re playing doesn’t have 40+ years of gaming experience and doesn’t know to burn the trolls. That’s literally the point of the game.

So the point of the game is to never learn how to play it? Even after 40 years?

Unless you’re willing to risk slipping down the slope that leads directly to PCs manufacturing quasi-Medieval nuclear weapons?

We can probably have a more nuanced discussion about how & when & how much we should pretend that player and character knowledge are separate. Or at least after all this time we should.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So the point of the game is to never learn how to play it? Even after 40 years?

Unless you’re willing to risk slipping down the slope that leads directly to PCs manufacturing quasi-Medieval nuclear weapons?

We can probably have a more nuanced discussion about how & when & how much we should pretend that player and character knowledge are separate. Or at least after all this time we should.

Like I said, it has become religion.

 

[overgeeked]

So the point of the game is to never learn how to play it? Even after 40 years?

You play an RPG by playing a role, hence the genre's name...role-playing game. The point of the game, the goal, the way you play it is by inhabiting the role of your character. By making choices based on what your character would do if the fictional world they inhabit were real and they were a real person in it. The rest is mechanics. You learning how to cross reference the rule book efficiently isn't a skill your character has, likewise, your knowledge of monster weaknesses isn't something your character knows. You might have memorized the spell section of the PHB, but your 1st-level fighter doesn't have a clue about magic.

We can probably have a more nuanced discussion about how & when & how much we should pretend that player and character knowledge are separate. Or at least after all this time we should.

Not much nuance to be had when you assume the contrary position to yours is inherently false.

It's make believe. That's literally the point of the game. To play pretend. It's not a boardgame where you master the rules and improve your play and win more. There's no win condition for RPGs beyond playing the game. You improve your play by trying to immerse yourself into the world and your character. The willing suspension of disbelief. If it's nothing more than a video game with a live programmer sitting in front of you when you play, fine. Don't assume everyone else is likewise limited.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You play an RPG by playing a role, hence the genre's name...role-playing game. The point of the game, the goal, the way you play it is by inhabiting the role of your character. By making choices based on what your character would do if the fictional world they inhabit were real and they were a real person in it. The rest is mechanics. You learning how to cross reference the rule book efficiently isn't a skill your character has, likewise, your knowledge of monster weaknesses isn't something your character knows. You might have memorized the spell section of the PHB, but your 1st-level fighter doesn't have a clue about magic.

Not much nuance to be had when you assume the contrary position to yours is inherently false.

It's make believe. That's literally the point of the game. To play pretend. It's not a boardgame where you master the rules and improve your play and win more. There's no win condition for RPGs beyond playing the game. You improve your play by trying to immerse yourself into the world and your character. The willing suspension of disbelief. If it's nothing more than a video game with a live programmer sitting in front of you when you play, fine. Don't assume everyone else is likewise limited.

Can I play a character who's Uncle Bob told him all about trolls, or is this a no-no? Do I need to write down everything Uncle Bob told me prior to play, or am I allow to extemporize on my character during play?