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

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Cool. I don't play D&D like a boardgame, so that's not a concern you should continue to harbor. And, if it's something that players don't like, that's absolutely something that should be discussed at the table and added to the social contract. I'm perfectly fine with someone not liking another player reading aloud from books during play because it's distracting. I said this above, even. My point isn't that you have to like this, or that it's something that's routine at my table (it pretty much doesn't exist at my table) but that the content read aloud doesn't matter. That I don't care that players know monster stats by any means -- this isn't an issue for me. You not liking another player reading aloud during play -- cool, let's take that to a table discussion and forge a way so everyone's having fun.

But, again, in no way does someone reading aloud at the table turn a game into a boardgame. I mean, I don't even get how that would work. Sure, annoying, but I'm not familiar with the same kinds of boardgames you are that feature reading aloud as a defining trait? Which games are these, so that I might avoid them?

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Let's be clear. I said that metagaming is always going to be the GM's fault. This, naturally, got pushback, and my play was questioned as to being bad if I allowed it. So, I explained it's not, and how and why. I mean, you just questioned my play, suggesting it was like playing a boardgame! But, at last we're in agreement -- if you are going to care about metagaming, it's because you prefer to, thereby taking on the fault for caring about it.

I'll continue to point out that most metagaming arguments are bunk and based on the assumption of badness and unrealized fears. That a small change to conception -- one that doesn't even disturb the game, just how the GM thinks about challenges and avoids relying on forcing players to pretend they don't know the gimmick, work very well and can even increase engagement with characters and the game.

I used to be adamant about metagaming. I made all the arguments that have been made in this thread. I know how my games were then, when I enforced how to roleplay on my players. And I can say, without a single doubt, that my games are waaaaaay better now that I've stopped doing that and, instead of finding ways to restrict my players, I've used those same things to enable them to connect to the gameworld and their characters.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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 don't find this to be true. There's no evolution of roleplaying, but a change in the zeitgeist. There were tables that played OD&D very much like you might play 5e today in terms of "roleplaying." What's changes isn't really that new ways have been discovered, but rather that what's common and popular has moved around. What I find really interesting is how this tracks with the way the game is approached from the agenda of play. You see a definite shift in common roleplaying practices when the "normal" game shifted from the dungeon delves and West Marches style of play to the proto-adventure path play, with a strong acceleration stated with the Dragonlance modules. This was picked up and run with by World of Darkness, which promised a better experience here than D&D offered, and largely failed to deliver it.

Instead, I think what's largely changed these days is that game designers are paying attention to how roleplay can be done and incorporating it into game design so it's not something that has to be intuited by players. Look at how a game like Apocalypse World does roleplaying and compare it to the average D&D table -- roleplaying in AW is vibrant and, frankly, a touch dangerous in ways that just do not exist in D&D. Your character is up for grabs, and play can change it in ways you might not want, but it's still your character. It's dynamic in a way that D&D isn't in this regard. But, this very thing can be highly offputting -- it certainly requires more work and risk from a player. So, the static characters, that only change how and when the player decides, is much a much more controlled approach to roleplay.

What roleplay isn't is silly voices and playacting at the table. This is a separate thing, quite enjoyable, but largely orthogonal to actually playing the role of a character in the game.

 

[jayoungr]

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.

"Blame"?

Are you saying you disapprove?

 

[Lanefan]

This is an assumption of bad faith.

Yep. An assumption that a) is IME nearly always borne out to be correct and b) for which I thus won't apologize.

Now this is fascinating. An old school DM who is saying that player skill should absolutely not be a thing.

Yeah - weird, huh?

And no knowing what monsters are and some of their weaknesses doesn't cover everything the knowledge skills do.

Obviously.

I'm not even sure there is an actual skill called "Knowledge: Monsters"; I made it up in order to make a point about a benefit being IMO unfairly gained.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yep. An assumption that a) is IME nearly always borne out to be correct and b) for which I thus won't apologize.

It sounds like you experience this a lot. Maybe the people you play with don't like your rules?

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Yes, with the only real difference being the scale of the offense and thus the degree to which people care about it.

It's like real-world crime. Most of the time no-one's going to care much if you go 5 mph over the speed limit or nick an apple from a street vendor yet everyone's going to care if you murder someone. These are all technically crimes, however; just on a different scale.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yes, with the only real difference being the scale of the offense and thus the degree to which people care about it.

It's like real-world crime. Most of the time no-one's going to care much if you go 5 mph over the speed limit or nick an apple from a street vendor yet everyone's going to care if you murder someone. These are all technically crimes, however; just on a different scale.

Wow.

Ok, then.

 

[Lanefan]

It sounds like you experience this a lot. Maybe the people you play with don't like your rules?

The second sentence is a category disconnect from the first.

Yes, in the past I've encountered this a lot; and still do to a fortunately-much-lesser extent today.

It has nothing to do with like-dislike of the rules, however. It's all about (certain) players trying to get an edge over others and-or over the game itself; perhaps following the pro-sports mantra: "if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying".

 

[Bill Zebub]

The second sentence is a category disconnect from the first.

How so? If you have a rule that people keep ignoring, isn't it likely they don't agree with the rule?