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

[Neonchameleon]

But, your play isn't meant to be defined in any way by playing a "good guy" or "bad guy" driver in Mario Kart. You don't play Mario driving any differently than Wario. And the game certainly doesn't expect you to.

This isn't quite true. One of the Mario Kart stats is weight - and the heavier karts win collisions. Wario has a weight of 9 (and Bowser a 10) meaning he wins collisions most of the time, so you're encouraged to have a dirtier, more bullying playstyle, You also have a higher acceleration with lighter karts and a higher top speed with heavier ones, meaning that Wario and Bowser are better able to get to the front and pull away (until the blue shell) looking imposing, but get caught faster when taken down. It's subtle but it's there.

The next question is whether Smash is roleplaying...

I know I'm getting criticised for making broad brush statements here, but, come on, I can make a 1e character with zero background. Heck, Secondary Skills is an optional rule buried in the DMG. As a player, I don't even have access to that unless the DM allows it. Can someone show me how 1e or Basic D&D actually promotes playing a role?

XP for GP rule shows how you should behave.

Also your class and your class abilities pretty much lock you in to a function if you want to be effective.

 

[Lyxen]

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.

Nothing required it in any edition of D&D, even 5e actually. And it's one of the arguments of some people that, considering the mass of technical combat rules in the books, the part given to roleplaying is extremely small any way, and there are not even rules about it.

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.

If you look at the definition, I don't think that they are that far apart, honestly. In both cases, it's a few paragraphs with the basic principles of playing in character being there. And I think that Gygax was really a complex guy, with a large history of wargaming, and it can be felt in AD&D probably more than anywhere else, when you see the DMG in particular.

And at the same time, there was a lot about roleplaying NPCs, personality traits for them (DMG page 100-101), and advice about incarnating them in modules like T1. So many things in that DMG, so many inconsistencies, it's really a mish-mash...

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Look guys, at this stage,


And I find it really sad that you have to deform my thoughts like this. I really thought that it was possible to discuss openly about these subjects without that amount of nitpicking.

FYI:

• I never said that the natural language rules were crystal clear, I said that they are good enough for a DM to do his own rulings when necessary, therefore avoiding ruleslawyering.

OK. So, since by your estimation the level of ruleslaywering in this thread is high regarding the writing, and you say a good enough writing avoids ruleslawyering, therefore logically the writing was not good enough on this point?

• And I don't require anyone to use the definitions, it's just that apparently some people did not even know that they existed, and again, I find the level of ruleslawyering applied to these old definitions extremely sad.

So actually, both go exactly in the same direction, and I'm really happy that 5e went in a direction that confuses ruleslawyers. May it live long and prosper.

I think that, using the broad definition of role, personnality and actor (etc.), some posters determined that the original intent was to include roleplaying a sociopathic rock, or Bob the Wizard, and it seems that your views that the word implied a different personnality or significant acting, are perceived as ruleslawyering on your part, arguing about definition. Which isn't a fault on anyone's part.

 

[Lyxen]

OK. So, since by your estimation the level of ruleslaywering in this thread is high regarding the writing, and you say a good enough writing avoids ruleslawyering, therefore logically the writing was not good enough on this point?

Whoever pretended that the level of writing was stellar in these early editions, I really wonder. Still, it's what we had, and it not only did not prevent us from reading the book, but it started a passion for the hobby that has lasted since then, more than 40 years ago.

I think that, using the broad definition of role, personnality and actor (etc.), some posters determined that the original intent was to include roleplaying a sociopathic rock, or Bob the Wizard, and it seems that your views that the word implied a different personnality or significant acting, are perceived as ruleslawyering on your part, arguing about definition. Which isn't a fault on anyone's part.

A player at my table who argues about the word "actor" meaning "Owen Wilson" is probably the same one that is going to argue that he can use Suggestion as a Dominate person, and for exactly the same reason: Reading single words instead of the whole text, not caring about half what is written because it does not support his view, and taking the very extreme for those words, even if it obviously means a complete reverse intention of the way the word is used.

For myself, without requiring anything of anyone, I content myself by saying that since, at the time, and despite the fact that it's a really short paragraph, and not that well written, it still hints strongly as creating the personality of someone else and acting like that personality. To what extent, I don't care, and I don't care if you did it or not, and I'm not judging you for it.

And because it hinted at that, that's what we did, and we found it great, and had fun doing it. I'm not judging anyone else's fun.

And because it was fun, we have been doing it ever since, with variations, and in each edition we have found paragraphs, more or less well written, that hinted at the same thing, so we thought that it was great that the game was supporting it, amongst many other styles of play.

How this can offend you, I'm still wondering, just pointing out that Gygax, who probably fancied himself a writer compared to Moldway, used the word Thespian, and this one, for some reason, does not seem to evoke Owen Wilson...

 

[pemerton]

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.

I think that AD&D absolutely is a role-playing game. Just because it doesn't emphasise characterisation doesn't make it some other sort of game.

I love RPGing; but I generally find 2nd ed AD&D-style characterisation an uninspiring, even insipid, approach to the genre.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Whoever pretended that the level of writing was stellar in these early editions, I really wonder. Still, it's what we had, and it not only did not prevent us from reading the book, but it started a passion for the hobby that has lasted since then, more than 40 years ago.



A player at my table who argues about the word "actor" meaning "Owen Wilson" is probably the same one that is going to argue that he can use Suggestion as a Dominate person, and for exactly the same reason: Reading single words instead of the whole text, not caring about half what is written because it does not support his view, and taking the very extreme for those words, even if it obviously means a complete reverse intention of the way the word is used.

I think we found the judgement.

For myself, without requiring anything of anyone, I content myself by saying that since, at the time, and despite the fact that it's a really short paragraph, and not that well written, it still hints strongly as creating the personality of someone else and acting like that personality. To what extent, I don't care, and I don't care if you did it or not, and I'm not judging you for it.

And because it hinted at that, that's what we did, and we found it great, and had fun doing it. I'm not judging anyone else's fun.

And because it was fun, we have been doing it ever since, with variations, and in each edition we have found paragraphs, more or less well written, that hinted at the same thing, so we thought that it was great that the game was supporting it, amongst many other styles of play.

How this can offend you, I'm still wondering, just pointing out that Gygax, who probably fancied himself a writer compared to Moldway, used the word Thespian, and this one, for some reason, does not seem to evoke Owen Wilson...

Cool, you no longer assert that the rule specifically advanced how you were to roleplay, but instead that how you like to roleplay was just one interpretation of that rule and mine was another, equally valid one. Glad we agree.

 

[Lyxen]

I think we found the judgement.

Indeed, but about the way you conduct discussions, not about the game itself, or the way to play the game.

Cool, you no longer assert that the rule specifically advanced how you were to roleplay, but instead that how you like to roleplay was just one interpretation of that rule and mine was another, equally valid one. Glad we agree.

No, we still don't, sorry, when you need to be that far-fetched about your interpretation as to how to play the game (Example of actor = Owen Wilson). No one is accusing you of anything, but if you ask me whether, in my interpretation of BECMI, playing Bob the Wizard the way you want to play it, is roleplaying, the answer is still negative. It does not make my interpretation more valid than anyone, it doesn't mean I'm judging you, anyone else, or the way to play the game, it's purely mine, but I hope that I'm still allowed to have personal preferences and interpretations.

Exactly as if you're asking whether, in my interpretation of the Suggestion spell, one is allowed to dominate the target for 8 hours, I would tell you that, in my interpretation, is no, because - again in my interpretation - it's far fetched to call being enslaved "reasonable", just as it is far-fetched to call Owen Wilson an actor.

 

[Lyxen]

I think that AD&D absolutely is a role-playing game. Just because it doesn't emphasise characterisation doesn't make it some other sort of game.

My point of view exactly.

I love RPGing; but I generally find 2nd ed AD&D-style characterisation an uninspiring, even insipid, approach to the genre.

Hmm, for me it's also about the type of characters that you are playing. D&D is really designed to simulate high fantasy, with bigger than life heroes, epic challenges and over-the-top villains and situations. This in turn leads to that sort of characterisation.

Actually, we had a long argument within the French LARP society, between those of us who liked to create that kind of High Fantasy LARPs, and those who liked more subtle LARPs, usually historical, in which the motivations and characters were totally admittedly more subtle.

It's not that they were telling us that our roleplay was bad, it was that what the characters we where roleplaying were not subtle enough to their tastes, they wanted more nuanced motivations. A bit like, in Fantasy, you have books like The Wheel of Time and books like Tigana.

It's a question of style, of personal preferences, and as such require no justification, not one is superior to the other, we just have different tastes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Indeed, but about the way you conduct discussions, not about the game itself, or the way to play the game.



No, we still don't, sorry, when you need to be that far-fetched about your interpretation as to how to play the game (Example of actor = Owen Wilson). No one is accusing you of anything, but if you ask me whether, in my interpretation of BECMI, playing Bob the Wizard the way you want to play it, is roleplaying, the answer is still negative. It does not make my interpretation more valid than anyone, it doesn't mean I'm judging you, anyone else, or the way to play the game, it's purely mine, but I hope that I'm still allowed to have personal preferences and interpretations.

Exactly as if you're asking whether, in my interpretation of the Suggestion spell, one is allowed to dominate the target for 8 hours, I would tell you that, in my interpretation, is no, because - again in my interpretation - it's far fetched to call being enslaved "reasonable", just as it is far-fetched to call Owen Wilson an actor.

Wait. Putting everything else on hold, are you actually claiming the Owen Wilson is not an actor? That's pretty big, and it's awful late to just now be bringing that up, but man, does it explain quite a bit, here. Are you sure you know which Owen Wilson I'm referring to? Here's a link to his career, but you may remember him from Armageddon, Wedding Crashers, Loki, Cars, and a few other things. I mean, I fully expected someone to chastise me for being unfair to Owen, and pointing out that he's largely typecast and actually has some pretty good range (there are some smaller films he's really done a great job in), but not an actor?!

Whoa.

 

[Aldarc]

Wait. Putting everything else on hold, are you actually claiming the Owen Wilson is not an actor? That's pretty big, and it's awful late to just now be bringing that up, but man, does it explain quite a bit, here. Are you sure you know which Owen Wilson I'm referring to? Here's a link to his career, but you may remember him from Armageddon, Wedding Crashers, Loki, Cars, and a few other things. I mean, I fully expected someone to chastise me for being unfair to Owen, and pointing out that he's largely typecast and actually has some pretty good range (there are some smaller films he's really done a great job in), but not an actor?!

Whoa.

Maybe Owen Wilson is "like an actor"?