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

[Bill Zebub]

Now that I have caught upon the last three pages of this discussion and some people's narrow definitions of what roleplaying is...

I guess I have to break the news to my shy players, that are more comfortable describing from a third-person what their character is doing, thinking, that they're not roleplaying.

My advice is to shame them into compliance, or drive them from the hobby. Must maintain purity.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

If I struggle to handle fame at such a young age and get addicted to narcotics before having a very public melt-down as soon as I come of age, then hide at home for a decade before making a (frankly) pathetic attempt at a comeback...that is being "like" an actor, too.

That only happens to the best roleplayers, and don't forget about suicide thats another thing some actors do, and apparently a big part of the Jack Chick school of roleplaying-- poor sweet Blackleaf...

 

[Maxperson]

Please go and have a look at the definitions of the rulebooks for every edition. I have, and these are the ones I employ, since this thread is not only about 5e. None of these definitions are mine.

So long as you acknowledge the other D&D definitions and use, that's fine. You are free to use the definitions you like for your game. It's when you come here telling us that we are having big bad wrong fun for using some of the other definitions, such as the 5e definition which is also the general definition of roleplaying, that you get this kind of pushback.

 

[Aldarc]

Now that I have caught upon the last three pages of this discussion and some people's narrow definitions of what roleplaying is...

I guess I have to break the news to my shy players, that are more comfortable describing from a third-person what their character is doing, thinking, that they're not roleplaying.

I guess I also have to break the news to my other group, that are choosing good feats that complements their character well and putting their ASI where it has the best impact, that they're dirty optimizers and are playing for winning and thus not really playing the game as they should.

Thankfully, the 5e PHB validates "descriptive roleplaying" (185-186) and does not claim that roleplaying "like an actor" is the sole way to do it. I somehow doubt that the writers at WotC are anywhere as dogmatic as some people when it comes to what constitutes roleplaying, especially when the intent of the game is supposed to be about "Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils." The sort of playacting roleplaying of the game isn't even part of what some people believe is the writers' explicit intent of the game.

Where exactly is the gatekeeping ? Just read the definitions in the various editions, that's all what this thread is about. After that, as always, play as you will.

Here.

At least I quoted the game, rather than myself...

I'm honestly not sure what you are talking about here.

Please go and have a look at the definitions of the rulebooks for every edition. I have, and these are the ones I employ, since this thread is not only about 5e. None of these definitions are mine.

I am, but I'm not sure how the sort of playacting advocated by some is required when several of these definitions are pretty clear that speaking or acting in-character is entirely optional.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That only happens to the best roleplayers,

Yes, it is beyond my skill. I tried it once, but while I was in the "hide from the public for 10 years" phase I couldn't resist taking advantage of the Adventurer's League rule that let's me completely redo my character before 5th level, and I emerged after only 7 months as a fully optimized Yuan-ti SorLock. Thank god for floating ASIs!

 

[Umbran]

While I agree that there can be lots of definitions for roleplaying, I at least abide by those found in the very rulebooks of the editions that I play...

As if that's... superior, or something?

You're talking about a hobby with a very long tradition of homebrewing - deviating from the published work - when it suits a need or fancy. Indeed, the entire hobby started with hombrewing off of miniature wargames rules. So, I don't think you'll find much strength of argument in declaring adherence to the ruleset.

Some folks don't like the acting part. And that's okay. We are talking about leisure activity, after all.

 

[Mannahnin]

--------------------------
(*And it's always been that way! Look at how Lee Gold and her crew in Los Angeles were writing about their characters in '75 or '76. The two big streams of players Peterson talks about in The Elusive Shift (and in Playing at the World) are the wargamers and the sci-fi/fantasy fans. And the folks coming into it primarily from a background in fandom almost inevitably started getting their characters "involved in death feuds and love affairs", as Sandy Peterson and friends called out as "Real Roleplayers" going back to '83, though that was just one example of a conversation which had been going for years already.)

Real Men, Real Rôle-Players, Loonies and Munchkins

www.firedrake.org

I was ruminating on this a bit more and I don't think it's a coincidence that the FIRST two categories that Peterson & friends identified are "Real Men" and "Real Roleplayers", which, especially if you read through the quiz/document almost EXACTLY map onto the wargamer/problem-solver type player (albeit through a somewhat sexist, macho 70s/80s cultural lens) and the amateur thespian/character-focused player.

"Loonies" are the folks who can't take the game at all seriously and derive most of their enjoyment from absurdity and acting out. "Munchkins" are a stereotype of ignorant kid powergamers.

But the two "real" types of roleplaying gamers exemplify this same distinction some of us are arguing over today. Between folks for whom character is a secondary consideration to the game and adventure, and "Real Roleplayers", for whom character is paramount and acting out the role is the central activity.

I'll bet it's also no coincidence that "Real Men" are identified as men, as wargamers were overwhelmingly male, but "Real Roleplayers" are of unspecified gender, as sci-fi and fantasy fandom had a much larger percentage of women, and the story-focused and character-centered players largely came from that community.

 

[Lanefan]

There is also a tremendous amount of inconsistency to which the accusation of "metagaming" and "cheating" is applied, which has only increased through my conversations with Lanefan over the years. For example, is it "metagaming" when adventurers bring 10 ft poles for dungeon exploration? I would say yes, as this is a player tactic that formed around dungeon traps.

And unless the PCs were in a situation where they could reasonably have been given such advice in the fiction (e.g. recruited by an established Adventuring Company who could have given some basic pointers) I would agree. Once they've learned by trial and error, all is good.

Is it "metagaming" to know that you have enough HP to survive the fall?

Very much yes; but falling rules in D&D have always been a mess anyway.

* Please note the two different senses of metagaming here: i.e., (1) approaches to how the game is played, and (2) metagaming being equated to cheating. My understanding of "metagaming" is more about (1) rather than (2).

However, if some versions of (1) are defined as being (2), then what?

 

[Lanefan]

There's no way your character could know what the initiative order is, but unless we do before-initiative action declaration, there's no way for the players to avoid using metagame knowledge in planning their turn & actions.

Which is an excellent argument for declaring actions before initiative. That said, with cyclic initiative it only helps for the first round, after which you'll know the init. order and can plan accordingly.

The counter-argument (and it's also a good one) to pre-declaring actions is that far too often a pre-declared action doesn't make sense any more by the time that init. comes up.

A partial fix is to re-roll init. every round, which while it still means you'll know the action order this round you can't plan ahead for future rounds, which is something.

 

[Umbran]

Where exactly is the gatekeeping ?

The gatekeeping is in the distinct implication that people that are not, in fact, role playing.

Please go and have a look at the definitions of the rulebooks for every edition. I have, and these are the ones I employ, since this thread is not only about 5e. None of these definitions are mine.

You specifically said you use the ones in the book - you adopt them as the ones you are using, so they are yours at least to that degree.

But, honestly, what definitions you use for yourself are irrelevant. You are totally in your rights (indeed, in your responsibilities) to set expectations for your own table. That should not be a point of argument here. The issue is the pressure/judgement that somehow these are the correct definitions, and others are lacking.

The OP, in fact, doesn't go into what the definitions should be. This is smart. We should be able to go back and look at the books, and see what the definitions were there, and speak also about what the actual definitions used in practice were - we always note how a great many original rules were ignored at the table, after all. One of the big takeaways from the discussion here is that the practical definition differed from the printed one. We could (and have somewhat) engage in discussion of why there's a difference.

We should not feel a need to tell anyone, "Well, what you are doing now is not even roleplaying - look at this definition and tell me I'm wrong!"