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

[Mannahnin]

My only intent was to show, in accordance with the subject of this thread, that I don't think that the meaning has substantially changed from 40 years ago. There have been refinements, corrections, better formulation, a lot of advice, but I don't think that the core concept has changed a lot.

I agree with this. I just think that the definition of Roleplaying (as I use it and as the D&D books use it) is broader than you've been claiming in this thread.

While I enjoy playacting as part of my RP, it's optional. Whereas unless I misread you, your opinion is that playacting is absolutely essential and that anyone who doesn't isn't actually roleplaying.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Next up: if you are just roleplaying acting and not rolling any dice using any of the rules, are you still playing a roleplaying game, or just...roleplaying? (edited)

Film at 11:00.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hey, whoa there. We're not allowed to say that. I've been told repeatedly that this isn't true and that there is absolutely no change in roleplaying over time.

LOL, well, I'm sure you and I agree that ROLE PLAYING has not changed, it is just a definition of a putative activity. OTOH the actual carrying out of that activity by people in typical RPGs has probably changed, at least some.

One thing I think your definition of role play does miss though is there's a fundamental difference between acting and playing a character in an RPG. Actors have scripts. Even if they improvise, they are still playing a role which has been defined in some fashion (yes, there is pure improv, but this is a very niche thing and my guess is few, if any, posters in this thread have seen it). OTOH RP of a character in a game is entirely improvised, free-form RP. If you decide your character is 'cowardly', well OK that's your choice. If you decide later your character is brave instead, nothing exists in most RPGs to gainsay that. You MIGHT feel a desire to explain the transition or reason for the difference (IE different situation) but you are not obliged to do so. Obviously if the motive is some sort of game-system reward, then it seems fair to say that RP took a backseat to G. Otherwise, its hard to say the player wasn't playing a role. Maybe it wasn't too consistent, maybe that makes it 'poor RP', but I'm not sure what else you could call it, so I gotta say "crappy role play is still role play."

 

[Umbran]

Next up: if you are just roleplaying and not rolling any dice, are you still playing a roleplaying game, or just...roleplaying?

Dice, or even randomization, is not necessary for a roleplaying game, or even a game, in general - see Chess as an example.

One fairly simple view of this is that if your play is structured by rules, then you are playing a game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If you decide your character is 'cowardly', well OK that's your choice. If you decide later your character is brave instead, nothing exists in most RPGs to gainsay that. You MIGHT feel a desire to explain the transition or reason for the difference (IE different situation) but you are not obliged to do so.

Yeah, this is along the lines of what I was trying to say earlier.

I can understand how maintaining a consistent persona and trying to express that persona might be a goal for some participants. That makes sense. But nowhere, in any form, is there a rule that this is required for the activity to count as "roleplaying".

 

[Umbran]

Hey, whoa there. We're not allowed to say that. I've been told repeatedly that this isn't true and that there is absolutely no change in roleplaying over time.

Would you please try to engage constructively? Your snark builds nothing useful.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Dice, or even randomization, is not necessary for a roleplaying game, or even a game, in general - see Chess as an example.

One fairly simple view of this is that if your play is structured by rules, then you are playing a game.

Agreed. (My comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek.)

And...as I think you yourself mentioned up-thread...the definition of "game" is quite slippery.

 

[Mannahnin]

Next up: if you are just roleplaying and not rolling any dice, are you still playing a roleplaying game, or just...roleplaying?

Film at 11:00.

Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Lyxen]

I agree with this. I just think that the definition of Roleplaying (as I use it and as the D&D books use it) is broader than you've been claiming in this thread. While I enjoy playacting as part of my RP, it's optional. Whereas unless I misread you, your opinion is that playacting is absolutely essential and that anyone who doesn't isn't actually roleplaying.

No, it's not, really. I was merely pointing out that this old definition, by using the word "actor", seemed to indicate that playacting was already considered as part of roleplaying, even at the time. My problem was more about people trying to cut that definition into small bits and even claim that the word was either not there or too imprecise or whatever to justify the way they had been playing, which I honestly don't care about.

After that, there are so many ways and levels of playacting, for one, and second hopefully no one is here to distribute points for playacting or not. It's just a definition, from the same book that gave the rules of the game, and it shows something of the thoughts about roleplaying at that time, nothing more.

 

[Lyxen]

Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Exactly, Amber DRPG, which we did a lot of, still has rules, although there is no randomness. As far as I know, chess is still a game too...