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

[Oofta]

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?

For you it doesn't and that's fine. For me, it takes me out of the moment and pulls the focus from imagining a legendary fight to a pile of numbers and math. Then again, I don't like watching "how it was made" documentaries about movies either, I just want to enjoy the movie magic and be transported to a different world for 90 minutes or so.

So sure. For you it doesn't make it more like a boardgame. Never said it did. It does for me.

 

[Oofta]

When it comes to metagaming (which is really kind of a separate topic) I think it's something that may need to be discussed as a group. A lot of other people at my table are DMs and they will sometimes know the monster they're facing.

In addition, I've never personally run across a werewolf* but I still know you need silver to hurt it. Myths and legends of mystical creatures would probably be fairly common in a world where they are real. So while it's between someone's conscience, sense of verisimilitude, and how much they care whether or not they act on metagame knowledge I do ask that they not discuss it at the table unless they confirm it with me as the DM that they know the info.

Different people are going to have different tolerances, and that's fine. I think most people would draw the line at certain points. For example if someone started pulling out the adventure mod that the DM was running and correcting how many gnolls should be in room 2C and that they drew the room incorrectly I would assume most people would find that annoying. Or maybe not. There is no one true way.

*There was that guy that believed he was a werewolf, but I think he was just a bit loony toons.

 

[Oofta]

Right. At what point does this IC vs. OOC silliness result in a ruling that "No you may not move your figure to that square...your character wouldn't have the tactical acumen to know how effective that is."

(And then of course there's the extended conversation...
Player: "Is it? I was just trying to get close enough to attack the monster and picked that square."
DM: "No, you were clearly trying to gain an unfair advantage by preventing that other one from getting past you without triggering an opportunity attack."
Player: "What's an opportunity attack?"
DM: "Don't play dumb with me, you cheater!")

The real question is, are you fighting a strawman or just inventing one? It sure does sound like the latter to me.

The only time this could ever possibly be an issue for any DM I know is if they were maneuvering based on things they couldn't possibly detect. Sending a fireball into the darkness that just barely misses allies while hitting all the enemies, maneuvering to get into better position to attack a creature that is hidden from them that the only reason they know is there is because of the mini on the board and so on. Some of this is not intentional - playing on a VTT showed me some of this - but it can get to the point where I have said "you don't know that".

If that's never an issue for you, so be it. It can be for me if it's extreme.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The second is on topic -- if the PC is doing a thing then it's because the PC knows it. The question isn't one of OOC or IC knowledge. This is a prime opportunity to invite the player to tell the table how their PC knows things, which, last I checked, kinda falls into the usual definitions of roleplaying. Doing this cannot ever be a case of not "recognizing" other characters.

Very much this. When I create a character I usually have a one sentence idea of who they are. For example, I've been wanting to play a half-orc fighter who tries to mask his bitterness over being rejected from the paladin order by being the best lawful good "paladin" ever. That's all I got. No other backstory, relationships, etc.

The rest I figure out during play. Does my character "know" something? How would I possibly determine that objectively? And how badly would it yank me out of the fiction to stop and think through it each time? Instead I just go with whatever feels right in the moment, and often that leads to me inventing/discovering another facet of my character. Maybe he does know to burn trolls. Why? Maybe from all those nights studying for the paladin order entrance exam. Oooh....yeah. He aced the exam, and he's proud of that, maybe to the point of obsession. So from now on that's a "thing" with him.

Or maybe it seems more fun at that moment to pretend he doesn't know. It's an opportunity to charge recklessly back in, repeatedly, to prove he's a hero.

Different people are going to have different tolerances, and that's fine. I think most people would draw the line at certain points. For example if someone started pulling out the adventure mod that the DM was running and correcting how many gnolls should be in room 2C and that they drew the room incorrectly I would assume most people would find that annoying. Or maybe not. There is no one true way.

This is a great example of the difference between what a player believes they know and what they actually know. My take is that the room and the gnolls are exactly what the DM says/draws; the player just thinks they know better.

And if the player corrects the DM, and the DM acquiesces, then you've got a problem in your group dynamics, and it's not pronounced "metagaming".

 

[Oofta]

Very much this. When I create a character I usually have a one sentence idea of who they are. For example, I've been wanting to play a half-orc fighter who tries to mask his bitterness over being rejected from the paladin order by being the best lawful good "paladin" ever. That's all I got. No other backstory, relationships, etc.

The rest I figure out during play. Does my character "know" something? How would I possibly determine that objectively? And how badly would it yank me out of the fiction to stop and think through it each time? Instead I just go with whatever feels right in the moment, and often that leads to me inventing/discovering another facet of my character. Maybe he does know to burn trolls. Why? Maybe from all those nights studying for the paladin order entrance exam. Oooh....yeah. He aced the exam, and he's proud of that, maybe to the point of obsession. So from now on that's a "thing" with him.

Or maybe it seems more fun at that moment to pretend he doesn't know. It's an opportunity to charge recklessly back in, repeatedly, to prove he's a hero.

That's why we have knowledge checks and skill proficiencies if the group cares.

This is a great example of the difference between what a player believes they know and what they actually know. My take is that the room and the gnolls are exactly what the DM says/draws; the player just thinks they know better.

And if the player corrects the DM, and the DM acquiesces, then you've got a problem in your group dynamics, and it's not pronounced "metagaming".

One person's metagaming is another person's problem with group dynamics. We had an issue with the guy looking up monsters in the MM and reading it out loud. It was both a metagaming issue and a group issue that we dealt with. People do, sadly, read mods ahead and use that knowledge to avoid traps and maximize reward. I don't care what you label it or if it doesn't matter to you.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The real question is, are you fighting a strawman or just inventing one? It sure does sound like the latter to me.

The only time this could ever possibly be an issue for any DM I know is if they were maneuvering based on things they couldn't possibly detect. Sending a fireball into the darkness that just barely misses allies while hitting all the enemies, maneuvering to get into better position to attack a creature that is hidden from them that the only reason they know is there is because of the mini on the board and so on. Some of this is not intentional - playing on a VTT showed me some of this - but it can get to the point where I have said "you don't know that".

If that's never an issue for you, so be it. It can be for me if it's extreme.

So, wait, in pretty much every post you use an extreme example of OOC knowledge (e.g. pulling out the books and correcting the DM) but my example is an invented strawman?

 

[Oofta]

So, wait, in pretty much every post you use an extreme example of OOC knowledge (e.g. pulling out the books and correcting the DM) but my example is an invented strawman?

I related a real world example, why it was an issue for me and the rest of the group, and how we dealt with it. You made up something about using tactics that in no way any DM I've ever known would question.

 

[Bill Zebub]

One person's metagaming is another person's problem with group dynamics. We had an issue with the guy looking up monsters in the MM and reading it out loud. It was both a metagaming issue and a group issue that we dealt with. People do, sadly, read mods ahead and use that knowledge to avoid traps and maximize reward. I don't care what you label it or if it doesn't matter to you.

No, I'm saying the problem is the DM's acquiescence to the player's insistence on what the room looks like and how many gnolls there are. If the DM says it's a triangular room and has seven gnolls, then that's what it is, regardless of what it says in the book they're reading.

And, of course, if the DM does let the player boss them around, it makes metagaming seem like a problem, too.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I related a real world example, why it was an issue for me and the rest of the group, and how we dealt with it. You made up something about using tactics that in no way any DM I've ever known would question.

Ok, but you keep repeatedly bringing up this same example.

1) How many times has it actually happened in your years of gaming?
2) Hasn't the response been, every single time, "yeah, that's obnoxious". What more do you want?

How about if I retract the tactical movement example, but put back on the table my example of the animal lover who attacks the other PCs because they fought back against aggressive axe-beaks. Because "that's what my character would do." And then I'll keep bringing it up over and over as an example of what happens when you let people roleplay.

 

[Oofta]

No, I'm saying the problem is the DM's acquiescence to the player's insistence on what the room looks like and how many gnolls there are. If the DM says it's a triangular room and has seven gnolls, then that's what it is, regardless of what it says in the book they're reading.

And, of course, if the DM does let the player boss them around, it makes metagaming seem like a problem, too.

If a DM is running a mod (without modification) and the player consistently avoids specific traps, takes the optimal approach to every section, makes a beeline for the treasure every time, IMHO they're cheating. Sadly, I've seen people do this.

What I was calling out as a strawman was you saying that moving into a tactical position was somehow metagaming. Which, if the PC has no idea how to position and is only doing so because they are acting on what they can see on the battle mat I would agree. That was not what you said though.