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

[Bill Zebub]

Let's be real - there was no consensus then. We didn't get together on the internet and argue about it to reach a 'majority view' because there was no internet. We just read the books and magazines, and we played the games. And, most people only skimmed the books.

Who…or what…are you refuting by saying “let’s be real”?

I think your observation about the Internet is spot on: in the absence of communication, play style emerged/evolved independently, and by the time Internet forums were a thing for the masses, many of us were set in our ways.

Purely as a thought experiment, I wonder if there would be more consensus had RPGs emerged 20 years later.

If so, I’m sure we would have found something else to argue about

 

[FriendlyFiend]

I've recently started DMing a 5e game with a group of middle-grade children's writers in their 40s and 50s who've never played before. I've been away from DMing (and TTRPGs) for a long while, but I love the idea of getting deep into roles and I've tried to build a living, breathing world and to give the group every tool possible to go just as deep into their characters as they want. Much to my surprise, they're playing exactly the way I did when I was a 12-year-old newbie back in the early 80's - killing monsters, prodding everything they can find to see if it does something special, looting anything that isn't tied down and constantly forgetting their characters' wants and needs. What's more, they're having a fantastic time of it. I almost feel like giving them all 10' poles and asking for some d6-based listen-at-doors rolls.

I guess, as time goes on, they may make the same journey I did, away from murder-hoboing and towards more emphasis on characterisation and emotional drama. But right now they've got a new toy and they want to prod it and poke it and see how it works - acting and characterising is pretty familiar to all of them, rolling a d20 to knock seven shades out of something isn't. And I wonder if that's one of the factors in any change in the meaning of 'roleplay' - not so much 'maturity' as becoming comfortable enough with the mechanics to then be able to concentrate on the characters themselves. (Though my experience this time also makes me think I might try the group with Beyond the Wall for their next game, as the mechanics are so simple and the roleplay is built into character generation.)

 

[jayoungr]

Anecdotal evidence: the friend who got me into roleplaying games has been playing D&D since the late 1970s or early 1980s. She told me many stories about her 1980s games that included tangled relationships and intricate storylines. I've also read some of the adventure write-ups she made for her group at the time. Character-based roleplaying was definitely a thing in the 1980s, at least at some tables.

 

[Lanefan]

Ok, but you're overlaying a personal expectation/opinion on other people, and trying to perceive motivation from action, which seems like a pointless thing to do.

In this case, the action points directly and doubtlessly to the motivation.

The fact remains that the only requirement you are offering is that people "make a decision as their character, not themselves". If the character I imagine knows all sorts of things about monsters in his world, then I'm doing exactly that.

And in effect giving your character an extra skill/ability along the lines of "Knowledge: Monsters" for free.

Which means if I, as another player, have put a feat or skill points or any other char-gen resource into giving my character that same ability I'd have every right to feel a bit pissed off.

If you also said, "Hey at our table we have this playstyle we prefer where all of our characters have a level of knowledge that is like that of the first D&D characters we ever had. And if you keep blurting out things like monster weaknesses it spoils it for us. Think you can play our way?" If I agreed to that, then I would be playing in bad faith to do otherwise.

In my view the bolded is and always has been the baseline default, not the exception.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In this case, the action points directly and doubtlessly to the motivation.

Well, if you want to assume that then yeah I can see why you have the view you do. I mean, it's false, and I can tell you that with certainty because I know what goes on in my brain and you don't. But if you want to assume you do know what goes on in other people's brains, and you want to assume that it's nothing other than to gain advantage, then I can see how the behavior would bother you.

And in effect giving your character an extra skill/ability along the lines of "Knowledge: Monsters" for free.

That depends on what you think the benefit of Knowledge: Monsters is. Just because I believe my conception of monster knowledge is accurate does not mean that it is. If the DM changes a monster, or introduces a new one, it does not necessarily follow that what I have decided my character thinks is accurate. If I decide to not trust my knowledge, and ask the DM if my character knows something, that's where the Knowledge: Monsters would come in.

I can decide my character believes he can fly, right? That doesn't mean that when I declare I jump from a cliff I actually fly.

Which means if I, as another player, have put a feat or skill points or any other char-gen resource into giving my character that same ability I'd have every right to feel a bit pissed off.

Why? That other player can actually ask the DM for information, and the DM may allow that person to roll with proficiency.

In my view the bolded is and always has been the baseline default, not the exception.

Yes, I understand that. I'm just pointing out that it's not in the game; it's your preference. Even if you take as gospel what Mentzer wrote in 1983 about character knowlege vs. player knowledge, he doesn't define where that line is. He may have simply been referring to the version of "metagaming" mentioned in 5e, where you think, "Well, I don't think the DM would give us this challenge unless...etc." That is also an example of using player knowledge rather than character knowledge.

But YOU have decided what in means for your games, which is great. I'm glad you like playing that way. But by no means is that an intrinsic part of the game. It's just the house rule that you (and presumably others) like.

 

[Maxperson]

Also, the reason I imagine my characters as knowing things like burning trolls is not "to give myself an unfair advantage" but because play-acting the re-discovery of this fact is just not very interesting (to me).

That's fair, but it falls into the, "You should find people who play like you do." mantra. For me, metagaming is tantamount to cheating, so I wouldn't do it and the players I play with are similar.

 

[Maxperson]

If you also said, "Hey at our table we have this playstyle we prefer where all of our characters have a level of knowledge that is like that of the first D&D characters we ever had. And if you keep blurting out things like monster weaknesses it spoils it for us. Think you can play our way?" If I agreed to that, then I would be playing in bad faith to do otherwise.

That also isn't the baseline.

Your 1st level character may well have knowledge of trolls. In my game if your character grew up in a town near the Troll Moors, I wouldn't even make you roll. You know what the weakness is. You and those other towns close to you have been dealing with trolls forever. If you had in your background that your Uncle Scrappy Doo was an adventurer and used to tell you tales, I'd give you a roll to see if he ever spoke about it. It wouldn't apply to all monsters, but trolls are common enough that he might have mentioned them. If you grew up in the middle of a desert where there have never been trolls, you just won't know.

There's no need to have the knowledge level be identical to your first D&D character. That wouldn't make sense, either.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Because metagaming like that is almost without exception done in bad faith in order to give the PCs an advantage they wouldn't otherwise have.

And metagaming by your definition is done by True Scotsmen. In my experience accusations of metagaming are mostly from entitled DMs.

What knowledge penalty are you giving your character elsewhere in order to claim this knowledge benefit?

The only "knowledge penalty" for what should be coommon knowledge about pretty common monsters (trolls suffer from fire) is that the character doesn't e.g. know anything about computer programming.

"Your character grew up in a world with monsters and hearing stories told by bards or by families. This should include knowing what relatively common local threats are - and trolls are pretty common as threats. It is actively harmful to worldbuilding for most settings to assume that almost all the people in it are both ignorant and stupid and don't want to share knowledge. It also actively forces the players to metagame to dance around what is pretty basic knowledge of the world and harms the players's connection to the world. The knowledge that fire cancels troll regeneration is in 2021 meme level information.

Does this mean that all trolls in all settings have to have their regeneration cancelled by fire (which is a pretty common way of cancelling regeneration in mythology, dating back at least to Hercules in the Greek myths)? No. But for a DM to call the assumption that that's how they work metagaming is a problem with the DM.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, if you want to assume that then yeah I can see why you have the view you do. I mean, it's false, and I can tell you that with certainty because I know what goes on in my brain and you don't. But if you want to assume you do know what goes on in other people's brains, and you want to assume that it's nothing other than to gain advantage, then I can see how the behavior would bother you.

Motivation isn't the issue. At-table results are.

That depends on what you think the benefit of Knowledge: Monsters is. Just because I believe my conception of monster knowledge is accurate does not mean that it is. If the DM changes a monster, or introduces a new one, it does not necessarily follow that what I have decided my character thinks is accurate.

Which simply forces the work over to the DM side, to make those changes; and after several campaigns it's only natural she's going to run out of new ideas.

If I decide to not trust my knowledge, and ask the DM if my character knows something, that's where the Knowledge: Monsters would come in.

I can decide my character believes he can fly, right? That doesn't mean that when I declare I jump from a cliff I actually fly.

Big difference; in that when trying to fly you're interacting with the setting's physics and thus open to game mechanics and-or DM rulings; while when just "knowing" something intrinsically you're not.

Why? That other player can actually ask the DM for information, and the DM may allow that person to roll with proficiency.

If I (the other player) have to roll to determine if my PC has knowledge that you've arbitrarily decided your PC has, that seems off somehow.

Yes, I understand that. I'm just pointing out that it's not in the game; it's your preference. Even if you take as gospel what Mentzer wrote in 1983 about character knowlege vs. player knowledge, he doesn't define where that line is. He may have simply been referring to the version of "metagaming" mentioned in 5e, where you think, "Well, I don't think the DM would give us this challenge unless...etc." That is also an example of using player knowledge rather than character knowledge.

Yes it is, and while to some extent this type of thinking is almost unavoidable it's not something I like.

 

[Lanefan]

And metagaming by your definition is done by True Scotsmen. In my experience accusations of metagaming are mostly from entitled DMs.

You've never met our non-DMing players. Some of them are far more adamant about this issue than I am.

The only "knowledge penalty" for what should be coommon knowledge about pretty common monsters (trolls suffer from fire) is that the character doesn't e.g. know anything about computer programming.

"Your character grew up in a world with monsters and hearing stories told by bards or by families. This should include knowing what relatively common local threats are - and trolls are pretty common as threats. It is actively harmful to worldbuilding for most settings to assume that almost all the people in it are both ignorant and stupid and don't want to share knowledge.

Thing is, there's also the question of how accurate that knowledge might be after numerous re-tellings.

It also actively forces the players to metagame to dance around what is pretty basic knowledge of the world and harms the players's connection to the world. The knowledge that fire cancels troll regeneration is in 2021 meme level information.

Not to a new player.

Does this mean that all trolls in all settings have to have their regeneration cancelled by fire (which is a pretty common way of cancelling regeneration in mythology, dating back at least to Hercules in the Greek myths)? No. But for a DM to call the assumption that that's how they work metagaming is a problem with the DM.

Trolls and fire is a pretty basic example, I'll agree there. But where do you draw the line?

If, say, I throw some unusual monster from the MM into the game that has a specific weakness - a monster that I know I've never run before in my life, never mind in that campaign - and a player who's read the MM knows exactly what to do and uses that knowledge, do I-as-DM have a right to call shenanigans? (hint: the answer is "hell, yeah"; even more so if that player is not also a DM)

And if I decide to cater to such a player* it means I might as well throw out my MM, as I now have to design every monster from scratch. To me, that's work I shouldn't have to do.

* - as opposed to simply tossing said player out of the game.