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

[Jfdlsjfd]

I distinctly remember being invited to join a new group in 2000 to play D&D 3e. I didn't know their playstyle and "assumed" they'd put more emphasis on role playing than I did in my former experience, which was when I was a teenager. I remember writing a backstory that was more than a paragraph long, tying it to the campaign setting and trying to provide some "hooks" f I can't or the GM to integrate the character into the world. I can't provide first-hand knowledge about any potential change of intent over the time, but I am pretty sure by the end of the 1990, the expectation of playing a part more than a collection of stat was firmly established. Around this time was the "gothic craze" with angsty Vampire players being an established trope. So I guess, the idea of roleplaying was common enough for a game published in 1991 to be associated with a particular style of roleplaying (and not just a roleplayer/rollplayer divide).

So, if there ever was a shift in meaning, it must have occurred earlier than the 90s. Possibly as soon as the games evolved and were defined, because it's a very short time. I also remember the space opera game Empire Galactique, published in 1985 (!) in which a lot of the supplements encouraged roleplaying -- even if they didn't write it explicitely (I woud have to dive deep into archives to find the books...) I distinctly remember a few adventures with an introductory short story concentrating on the feeling of characters... that were part of the story. It emphasized it for the GM, but why do that if players weren't expected to engage with the gameworld as we do today?

Probably it wasn't spelled out as clearly as it could nowadays, but we benefit from decades of game designe (and not everyone plays Dogs in the Vineyard).

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

On the original topic, I blame the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) for some views of role-playing. To some folks, D&D is just the SCA, but with dice and imaginary monsters to kill. They get just as into their D&D characters as they would their SCA personas. The founding of the SCA also predates the first publication of D&D by several years.

Also, any LARPing people have done will carry over to how they role-play and get into character at a table.

Also, for the folks in the 80's, as much bad press as people may think, Mazes and Monsters show the players getting into their characters and really acting them out, for good or bad.

And then in the 90's, the big boom of really playing a character that started with Vampire: the Masquerade and the other White Wolf games. Those majorly changed how people viewed being in character for a tabletop game.

And finally the current wave of streamed and podcast games where everyone is basically cosplaying and acting during the games.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

And I don't want the Fun Police to tell me when I yell "I think it's a troll! Burn it or it regenerates!" that I'm having BadWrongFun for acting in character with knowledge that I believe that I would have in character. I don't think anyone is defending your example of reading the stats out of the monster manual out loud as good practice.

On a tangent when it comes to "playing D&D like a boardgame", the idea that "push it into its own pit trap!" is less engaging with the setting than "keep hitting it with no meaningfully debilitiating effect until its hit points hit zero" is to me confusing. D&D started out as a hacked tabletop wargame and mechanically hasn't drifted far from those roots in many ways.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And then in the 90's, the big boom of really playing a character that started with Vampire: the Masquerade and the other White Wolf games. Those majorly changed how people viewed being in character for a tabletop game.

I'm surprised that more hasn't been said about the 90s wave with Vampire: the Masquerade and their writing rants about "Roleplaying not Rollplaying" rather than building a system that lead to the sort of playstyle they wanted rather than something more akin to Superheroes with Fangs.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't think anyone is defending your example of reading the stats out of the monster manual out loud as good practice.

But I bet that won’t keep people from continuing to rely on parade of horribles arguments for why their version of roleplaying is superior.

 

[Oofta]

And I don't want the Fun Police to tell me when I yell "I think it's a troll! Burn it or it regenerates!" that I'm having BadWrongFun for acting in character with knowledge that I believe that I would have in character. I don't think anyone is defending your example of reading the stats out of the monster manual out loud as good practice.

On a tangent when it comes to "playing D&D like a boardgame", the idea that "push it into its own pit trap!" is less engaging with the setting than "keep hitting it with no meaningfully debilitiating effect until its hit points hit zero" is to me confusing. D&D started out as a hacked tabletop wargame and mechanically hasn't drifted far from those roots in many ways.

Right. No one would respond to my post saying "That can absolutely happen for each and every player. You can have the book open. Don't care..."

Again, I don't care what people do or don't do in their games. Just stating my preferences and what it felt like when another player literally started reading out loud from the MM. Even if I have a pretty good idea of what the monster is.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Again, I don't care what people do or don't do in their games. Just stating my preferences and what it felt like when another player literally started reading out loud from the MM. Even if I have a pretty good idea of what the monster is.

Yes, I wouldn't like that either.

And I don't like it when somebody refuses to fight the axe-beaks attacking the party because they are roleplaying an animal lover, and then attack the party for fighting the axe-beaks "because that's what my character would do". But I don't use incidents like that as an argument that roleplaying should be banned because of what it can lead to when taken to an extreme.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Superheroes with Fangs.

That is what all the 2nd edition versions of the games seemed to become, the edition where they changed the descriptor. The 1st edition of each theme was not like that at all. 1st Edition was the game where you could go an entire session without having to touch the dice, while still being in character and advancing the plot of the adventure/story.

 

[Hussar]

I would say that the meaning of roleplaying has very much changed over the years.

Of course it has. We have 50 years and zillions of play hours to draw upon now. What was "roleplaying" in 1981 is not the same as today. It's a definition that has expanded, been expounded upon, been deconstructed and then put back together again a thousand times by all sorts of people.

It would be like asking if Fantasy as a genre, has changed in the last 50 years. Of course it has. Or have board games changed in the last 50 years. Radically would be the answer. Elements we draw upon today and very different than what we drew upon in 1981. Of course this is going to have massive changes in how we approach role playing.

Heck, just the notion of the extended game - the idea that we are going to play the same character for the next year and a half is a huge change. How we play has radically changed over the years, so, of course what roleplaying means has changed as well.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I would say that the meaning of roleplaying has very much changed over the years.

Of course it has. We have 50 years and zillions of play hours to draw upon now. What was "roleplaying" in 1981 is not the same as today. It's a definition that has expanded, been expounded upon, been deconstructed and then put back together again a thousand times by all sorts of people.

It would be like asking if Fantasy as a genre, has changed in the last 50 years. Of course it has. Or have board games changed in the last 50 years. Radically would be the answer. Elements we draw upon today and very different than what we drew upon in 1981. Of course this is going to have massive changes in how we approach role playing.

Heck, just the notion of the extended game - the idea that we are going to play the same character for the next year and a half is a huge change. How we play has radically changed over the years, so, of course what roleplaying means has changed as well.

I both agree with what you say here, and disagree that it answers the question. Boardgames have changed a lot in recent years, and maybe what we imagine when we hear the word "boardgame" has changed, too, but the word itself still means roughly the same thing.

So, yes, of course the way we roleplay has changed. But how radically (if at all?) has the word itself changed, when used to refer to games like Dungeons and Dragons?