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

[Lyxen]

Well, if by playing a role one means having a particular suite of capabilities to bring to bear on the ingame situation, then classic D&D promotes playing a role through its relatively tight class system. This is what Gygax points to on p 18 of his PHB.

This conception of playing a role is reinforced by other passages in the PHB and DMG, though these are a bit half-baked. The PHB entry on Experience (p 106) identifies "aims" for each class, and says, "If characters gain treasure by pursuit of their major aims, then they are generally entitled to a full share of earned experience points awarded by the DM." The DMG does not develop this notion, but instead (p 86) has a rule for training time (and hence amount of expenditure required) to gain a level: that time is based on a the DM's rating of the player's play, having regard (to among other matters) whether the player "perform[ed] basically in the character of his or her class".

This is very different from characterising a PC. Page 86 of Gygax's DMG does mention another factor - "Were his or her actions in keeping with his or her professed alignment?" - but I think that is much more about limits on behaviour that flow from being lawful and/or good rather than presenting a fully-realised character.

But while different from characterising a PC, it is the playing of a role.

You are forgetting the section on page 7 of the PH, or is it something that you call "half-baked" ?

As a role player, you become Falstaff the fighter. You know how strong, intelligent, wise, healthy, dexterous and, relatively speaking, how commanding a personality you have. Details as to your appearance, your body proportions, and your history can be produced by you or the Dungeon Master. You act out the game as this character, staying within your “god-given abilities”, and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment). You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Falstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic! The Dungeon Master will act the parts of “everyone else”, and will present to you a variety of new characters to talk with, drink with, gamble with, adventure with, and often fight with! Each of you will become an artful thespian as time goes by — and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown as you become Falstaff the Invincible!

So why I agree that there is that aspect of "playing a role in the party" according to class, there is also the part about acting in character, and this is reinforced by the descriptions from the modules that I have also provided.

The loosening of class boundaries in 3E and 5e D&D reduces the scope to play a role in this sense, I think.

The notion of party role was heavily reinforced in 4e, though, so it's not a general trend, more like specificities of editions, the way I see it.

 

[Aldarc]

The counter-example to this is the example of play in Gygax's DMG, which has no characterisation of note, and is entirely functional in its approach. (There is a marked contrast here with Moldvay's example in his Basic rulebook.)

By the time Gygax wrote the PHB it seems he was aware of departures from strict wargaming play, and was addressing them to some extent with the reference to "becoming" Falstaff the fighter etc. But that introductory remark doesn't change the overall tenor of the game in the way that, say, the AD&D 2nd ed discussion of building and playing a PC does.

There's hardly anything, if at all, about the sort of play-acting that people regard as "proper roleplaying" in the Moldvay B/X box set, which was a major introduction and primer to roleplaying games for many (older) people in our hobby.

 

[Aldarc]

If "like an actor" means that you are meant to be an actor as part of roleplaying, how does this change our understanding of 'like'?

When Madonna sings "Like a Virgin," does this mean that she is a virgin?

When Jason Biggs's character in American Pie asks, "Guys uh, what does third base feel like?" and they respond with "Like warm apple pie," does this mean that we need to rethink female anatomy?

 

[pemerton]

You are forgetting the section on page 7 of the PH

No I'm not. I mentioned it in a reply to you not very far upthread:

The counter-example to this is the example of play in Gygax's DMG, which has no characterisation of note, and is entirely functional in its approach. (There is a marked contrast here with Moldvay's example in his Basic rulebook.)

By the time Gygax wrote the PHB it seems he was aware of departures from strict wargaming play, and was addressing them to some extent with the reference to "becoming" Falstaff the fighter etc. But that introductory remark doesn't change the overall tenor of the game in the way that, say, the AD&D 2nd ed discussion of building and playing a PC does.

 

[pemerton]

There's hardly anything, if at all, about the sort of play-acting that people regard as "proper roleplaying" in the Moldvay B/X box set, which was the introduction and primer for roleplaying games in our hobby.

True. But in Moldvay's play example, a slightly greater sense of personality emerges than in Gygax's.

 

[pemerton]

Think about it, alignment is one of the few really distinct elements of a role playing game. I am not stating that RPG's must have alignment, please don't go there But, it's something that RPG's do have that you almost never see in any other type of game. And even RPG's that don't have alignment often give the players tools to create consistent characters that mirror what alignment attempts to do. If my Fate character has the characteristic of Valorous (I'm making this up), then it's not terribly different than writing Lawful Good on a D&D character sheet. Aspects aren't alignment, true, but, they do serve a similar function in pushing the players into creating consistent characters that are the lens through which we play. IOW, role play.

Role playing does not mean, or does not mean only, playing a consistent character. As I've already posted, nothing in the play of AD&D requires me to play a consistent character beyond adhering to the "do nots" of my alignment.

Does my PC have friends? Family? Culture? The game is all silent on that.

The first version of D&D I can think of that actually answers some of these questions, and hence tends to give rise to genuine characters, is the original OA.

Of the RPGs that I know and play, the one that generates the most vivid PCs with deep familial and other relational connections to the world they inhabit, and with deep passions and emotional vulnerabilities, is Burning Wheel. And if you right Valorous down as a trait of your PC in BW, that does not have to mean pushing the player into creating a consistent character. Artha (roughly, fate points) is earned in BW not just for leaning into a trait in play, but for pushing against it when it comes into conflict with other traits and/or Beliefs and/or Instincts. In other words, BW characters are often inconsistent, conflicted and as a result undergo transformations. And the design and play of the game virtually guarantee that such events will take place.

It's roleplaying at its most intense, and has very little to do with characterisation.

 

[Lyxen]

True. But in Moldvay's play example, a slightly greater sense of personality emerges than in Gygax's.

I agree, I had to read it again as the example of play in Moldway is far down the book, but it's true that there is some personality there. That being said (and hoping that we are speaking about the same thing), it says "example of combat" but goes beyond that, where as Gygax is really "example of melee" and at least conforms to its statement of intent.

Hoping that i's the same thing that we are speaking of and trying to dispel the doubt, here is the section: " Before the party leaves they gag the hobgoblins, to make sure that no alarm will be raised. Morgan is Neutral in alignment, and argues that it is not safe to leave a sure enemy behind them, even if that enemy is temporarily helpless. Silverleaf is also Neutral, but he believes that the hobgoblins are too terrified to be of any further threat. If Morgan wants to kill the prisoners he won't help her, but he won't stop her, either. Sister Rebecca, a Lawful cleric, is shocked by Morgan's suggestion. She tells Morgan that a Lawful person keeps her word, and that she promised the hobgoblins that they would be spared. Her god would never allow her to heal someone who killed helpless prisoners. Morgan agrees that killing captives is wrong, and that it was only the great pain from her wound which caused her to say such things. Sister Rebecca casts her cure light wounds spell on Morgan. It does 5 points of healing, bringing Morgan back to her normal 6 hit points."

It's heavily alignment based, but it's honestly quite interesting too.

 

[pemerton]

I agree, I had to read it again as the example of play in Moldway is far down the book, but it's true that there is some personality there. That being said (and hoping that we are speaking about the same thing), it says "example of combat" but goes beyond that, where as Gygax is really "example of melee" and at least conforms to its statement of intent.

Hoping that i's the same thing that we are speaking of and trying to dispel the doubt, here is the section: " Before the party leaves they gag the hobgoblins, to make sure that no alarm will be raised. Morgan is Neutral in alignment, and argues that it is not safe to leave a sure enemy behind them, even if that enemy is temporarily helpless. Silverleaf is also Neutral, but he believes that the hobgoblins are too terrified to be of any further threat. If Morgan wants to kill the prisoners he won't help her, but he won't stop her, either. Sister Rebecca, a Lawful cleric, is shocked by Morgan's suggestion. She tells Morgan that a Lawful person keeps her word, and that she promised the hobgoblins that they would be spared. Her god would never allow her to heal someone who killed helpless prisoners. Morgan agrees that killing captives is wrong, and that it was only the great pain from her wound which caused her to say such things. Sister Rebecca casts her cure light wounds spell on Morgan. It does 5 points of healing, bringing Morgan back to her normal 6 hit points."

It's heavily alignment based, but it's honestly quite interesting too.

I had in mind not the examples of combat, but the example of exploration in Moldvay, on pp B57f, and Gygax's example of exploration in his DMG, on pp 97ff.

 

[Lyxen]

I had in mind not the examples of combat, but the example of exploration in Moldvay, on pp B57f, and Gygax's example of exploration in his DMG, on pp 97ff.

True, the difference is even greater, not only do the Moldway characters have names, but the behaviour and the speech is fairly well in character. I did not remember the DMG example to be so bland in comparison.

The thing I did remember was the quick and gruesome deaths, though, it was a brutal era...

 

[Hussar]

As I've already posted, nothing in the play of AD&D requires me to play a consistent character beyond adhering to the "do nots" of my alignment.

That is not terribly surprising. AD&D is barely a role playing game. The basic ideas are there, but, like I said, it's very basic and barely even acknowledged. Telling me that nothing in AD&D requires characterizing a character does not surprise me at all.

Then again, I think you're essentially agreeing with me anyway by saying that AD&D defines role playing differently than we generally see role playing defined today.

Which makes sense considering the topic of the thread.