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

[Ovinomancer]

Some players just want to win. They don't care about anything else. Any edge, any advantage, any thing is fair game. I don't get why you'd want to play an RPG like that, like a wargame or boardgame, but they do. And they'll argue about it until they're blue in the face.

The DMG and MM are not player resources. Don't read them. Any knowledge you have of the game should be compartmentalized. Play your character, not your 40 years of gaming knowledge. If you insist on playing this RPG like it's a boardgame or a wargame, go find another table.

Winning isn't an issue in my games. I do not care what you read, and I don't care about metagaming. It won't really help you because I've found it absolutely trivial to build encounters that rely on you not knowing monster gimmicks or how rules work. Not even work to do this, just a change of thinking that it's the monster that's the challenge rather than the monster being an obstacle that needs to be bypassed to solve a challenge. And, you know what? I have even better engagement with the players and the characters. It's this terrible unfounded fear that allowing "metagaming" will utterly destroy games that's doing damage, not "metagaming." And it's the assumption that unless the GM polices their players to prevent the dreaded "metagaming," that they will suddenly do less roleplaying. I don't know, maybe trust your players? If they want to pretend they don't know something, cool, that's their fun, no skin off my nose. If they don't, cool, that's their fun, no skin off my nose.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In the 1e era the MM and DMG were flat-out considered to be off limits to players (it even says so in the DMG!); and players reading those books and then using that info during play were almost universally frowned upon, or worse.

Now, it seems in some circles it's anything goes; that it's acceptable - or even expected - to use whatever info you-as-player have access to, regardless where it came from.

Am I interpreting this correctly that you are saying these two things are fundamentally equivalent?
- You've fought trolls before on a different character, so when you encounter them with this character you know to use fire, and you do so
- You knew your group would be playing "The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief" so you went out and bought the module and studied it without telling anybody, and now you use that knowledge to avoid traps and find treasure

It seems like you are saying these amount to the same thing. Is that correct?

 

[Oofta]

I play online. There's absolutely no way I could even know if people don't have MM's open or a search window open or are just using the VTT's compendium. And do you know how much difference that makes in my games? None. Because it's a non-issue. The challenge in my game is not based on not knowing a given monster's gimmick.

The guy literally said things like: we're facing monster X, he has AC Y, his saves are Z and he's resistant to these things. Oh, and his legendary actions are ...

If that's acceptable at your game, I wouldn't continue playing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The guy literally said things like: we're facing monster X, he has AC Y, his saves are Z and he's resistant to these things. Oh, and his legendary actions are ...

If that's acceptable at your game, I wouldn't continue playing.

Again, I play online. That can absolutely happen for each and every player. You can have the book open. Don't care, makes no difference. The only issue here is if he's bothering other players at the table. If so, cool, but this is a general thing -- it doesn't matter what the topic is. The fact that he was reading monster stats makes absolutely not difference for me.

Now, you might say you'd immediately get up and leave for this, but I'll tell you straight up that knowing monster stats doesn't help you in my game. Heck, if a monster has a special ability that I think people don't know about, I usually tell them by foreshadowing it or outright mentioning it. It doesn't make a difference if you know what the monster can do or what AC it has or how many hitpoints -- the situation you have to deal with it doesn't care about any of that, so knowing it won't help. If it does, cool, I don't care, I always have more dragons.

 

[ReshiIRE]

What? Knowing monster stats in particular really helps; knowing to target the weak save on a monster if available immediately makes a HUGE difference to strategy from the start. Ditto for knowing say, that it has high saves but it has lower AC, for spell-casters.

I think that information play and compartimentalisation is an important part of the game unless all players including DM are OK with blatant metagaming about what monsters can do (I, personally, would not be). I think there should be a certain acceptance that certain common or memtic creatures will be known by the players in a vague sense (though generally I think characters that aren't worldly shouldn't automatically know, say, what a mimic is), but as someone going into GMing who does also want to play I feel that it's important to take into account:

• what I know my character knows;
• what I know as a player;
• what my GM knows my character knows that I don't know my character knows (and call tell me that off the bat);
• what my GM and I think my character might know that calls for a role (Survival, Arcana, Animal Handling, Perception etc. depending on what's being looked for);
• what my GM knows my character definitely doesn't know;

So, despite a lack of experience, I do get why after a certain amount of time, the contradiction between what a player knows about a common creature versus what the character knows about the creature can get very grating. But I think that act should be worth doing to both enhance roleplaying and lead to some fascinating moments. Imagine the roleplay you can get out of characters after figuring out fire is what stops that troll... and you have someone like, say, Caleb from Critical Role or the Hound from A Song of Ice and Fire in your party. Imagine the roleplay and character moments you can get out of that?

 

[Ovinomancer]

What? Knowing monster stats in particular really helps; knowing to target the weak save on a monster if available immediately makes a HUGE difference to strategy from the start. Ditto for knowing say, that it has high saves but it has lower AC, for spell-casters.

Ok, sure, let's say this is true. So what? My challenge isn't built on you not knowing how to kill monsters, even efficiently. This doesn't derail my game at all. And, in 5e, this is rarely going to be a big deal -- most monsters aren't specially vulnerable to anything, so it doesn't really matter. At most it might prevent a spellcaster from burning a spell that invokes a particularly good saving throw, but, here's the thing, that actually helps the monster because those spells are usually going to have been the primary attack for that caster and now they're investigating secondary options. Sounds great to me!

I think that information play and compartimentalisation is an important part of the game unless all players including DM are OK with blatant metagaming about what monsters can do (I, personally, would not be). I think there should be a certain acceptance that certain common or memtic creatures will be known by the players in a vague sense (though generally I think characters that aren't worldly shouldn't automatically know, say, what a mimic is), but as someone going into GMing who does also want to play I feel that it's important to take into account:

• what I know my character knows;
• what I know as a player;
• what my GM knows my character knows that I don't know my character knows (and call tell me that off the bat);
• what my GM and I think my character might know that calls for a role (Survival, Arcana, Animal Handling, Perception etc. depending on what's being looked for);
• what my GM knows my character definitely doesn't know;

So, despite a lack of experience, I do get why after a certain amount of time, the contradiction between what a player knows about a common creature versus what the character knows about the creature can get very grating. But I think that act should be worth doing to both enhance roleplaying and lead to some fascinating moments. Imagine the roleplay you can get out of characters after figuring out fire is what stops that troll... and you have someone like, say, Caleb from Critical Role or the Hound from A Song of Ice and Fire in your party. Imagine the roleplay and character moments you can get out of that?

Here's a trick that ENHANCES roleplaying while ignoring metagaming. When, for example, a player deploys "metagaming" and attacks a troll with fire right off, ask them why their character does this. Heck, this is the question anti-"metagaming" GMs are going to ask anyway. The difference is that I'm not asking them to catch them in anything, I'm asking them because it's a great opportunity for them to tell the table something about their character -- maybe they just think it's a good idea, or maybe they have a voice in their head, or maybe we all get introduced to Uncle Bob. Thing is, now we know more about this character, and the player is tying what their character is doing to who their character is in a broader sense. Bam! Increased engagement and I still don't have to care a bit about metagaming.

 

[ReshiIRE]

I'm going to chaulk this one up to a major difference in style and preferences. I don't think you're wrong to run that way, I just think you were a bit too strong in saying it "doesn't help in anyway". I certainly thing all challenges shouldn't be based on killing monsters and beating them, though I would suggest knowing stats allows you to get a positive result on an encounter through peaceful means and depending on the scenario.

I would sometimes ask that question personally, about why a character would know to do this, but only in certain situations.

I might have been a bit strong in what I said because a lot of this comes down to context.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm going to chaulk this one up to a major difference in style and preferences. I don't think you're wrong to run that way, I just think you were a bit too strong in saying it "doesn't help in anyway". I certainly thing all challenges shouldn't be based on killing monsters and beating them, though I would suggest knowing stats allows you to get a positive result on an encounter through peaceful means and depending on the scenario.

I would sometimes ask that question personally, about why a character would know to do this, but only in certain situations.

I might have been a bit strong in what I said because a lot of this comes down to context.

Doesn't help you in my games. Seriously. Doesn't make a bit of difference in how I'm going to build challenges or how those will stress players over the long run. You're considering it from a point of view where you don't change anything else but let players have access to information. Well, sure, if your game is predicated on players not knowing these things and your challenges are built on using the gimmicks of monsters as a source of challenge, then you're right -- allowing players to have information is probably going to distort things. However, it's rather trivial to not use monster gimmicks as a source of challenge and instead structure your encounters so that player knowledge isn't a factor. Then, if they target weaknesses, that's fine -- accounted for. Sometimes the players surprise me and make short work of a challenge. Other times I they don't, and something I figure is pretty straightforward starts to spiral. Balances out, especially when no part of my challenge is built on players not knowing a gimmick.

Note that it's just about the players not knowing. Monster gimmicks are great fun, and I use them to brutal effect.

 

[CleverNickName]

I wouldn't be surprised. I mean, most things change after 40 years.

I can only speak from personal experience; I don't presume to speak for anyone else in general or in particular. But yes, absolutely, the way I roleplay has changed dramatically since the mid-1980s when I first started playing D&D.

Then: "Playing a role" meant emulating the characters and storylines of whatever books and comics my 13-year old self was reading at the time. I played countless Gandalf clones, King Arthur clones, Hercules clones, Elfquest clones, Shannara clones...I played D&D because I wanted to live in the world of my favorite fantasy fiction authors, if only for a few hours.

Now: "Playing a role" means having the power to actually change the world, if only pretending. I play D&D as a way to explore a life without consequence, and to imagine what the world might be like if there were real heroes. If evil could actually be defeated. If suffering could actually be relieved. If order could truly be restored, and everything stolen could be retrieved, and if everyone who is sick could be healed.

Maybe that means I'm more cynical or mindful now? Or maybe I'm just an old man, pining for a better world.

 

[Oofta]

I don't want to play D&D like a board game, discussing details like this takes me out of the moment. We're no longer fighting a gorilla like demon, we're fighting a pile of statistics that's resistant to cold, fire and lightning while being immune to poison.

But to each their own. There is no one true way, I just know that at a certain point my tolerance for metagaming will get exceeded.