Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2897516" data-attributes="member: 18280">I believe that we are using &quot;roleplaying&quot; to mean &quot;playing a role&quot;, i.e., a role within the game world which is informed by, but distinct from, metagaming concerns.&quot;As for the second part, I can't think of many games I've read, lite or no, that address social contract directly at all (which is part of the problem with many RPGs).&quot;Although the words &quot;Social Contract&quot; are not used, the 1st Edition books address it fairly rigorously IMHO.&nbsp; At one point (pre-crash) I quoted several paragraphs from the 1st Ed PHB that specifically addressed this sort of thing.....what one might think of as meta-metagame issues.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />The closest that 3.0 came to a social contract is the inclusion of Rule 0, and that was pushed farther into the background with 3.5 (I believe you once challenged me to find Rule 0 in 3.5), making this edition the most challenged in that aspect.&nbsp; As a result, I'm not surprised that you are not sure what social contract is being &quot;packaged&quot; with the current ruleset.Now, this I agree with.&nbsp; Every rpg (and every GM, and every campaign), knowingly or unknowingly, rewards certain types of behaviour.&nbsp; If you are playing checkers, you can hardly fault someone for taking your men and getting a king.&nbsp; If you are playing Monopoly, you can hardly fault someone for collecting rent on Boardwalk.&nbsp; The same applies equally to D&amp;D.&nbsp; The rules set the conditions by which victory is met, and hence how the game is played.&nbsp; If you only give XP for opponents slain, be certain that there will be few (if any) prisoners taken!&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />As I said earlier, dealing with metagame issues does not preclude roleplaying in any sense, but mistaking metagame issues for in-character issues might well inhibit roleplaying.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2897516, member: 18280"] I believe that we are using "roleplaying" to mean "playing a role", i.e., a role within the game world which is informed by, but distinct from, metagaming concerns. "As for the second part, I can't think of many games I've read, lite or no, that address social contract directly at all (which is part of the problem with many RPGs)." Although the words "Social Contract" are not used, the 1st Edition books address it fairly rigorously IMHO. At one point (pre-crash) I quoted several paragraphs from the 1st Ed PHB that specifically addressed this sort of thing.....what one might think of as meta-metagame issues. :D The closest that 3.0 came to a social contract is the inclusion of Rule 0, and that was pushed farther into the background with 3.5 (I believe you once challenged me to find Rule 0 in 3.5), making this edition the most challenged in that aspect. As a result, I'm not surprised that you are not sure what social contract is being "packaged" with the current ruleset. Now, this I agree with. Every rpg (and every GM, and every campaign), knowingly or unknowingly, rewards certain types of behaviour. If you are playing checkers, you can hardly fault someone for taking your men and getting a king. If you are playing Monopoly, you can hardly fault someone for collecting rent on Boardwalk. The same applies equally to D&D. The rules set the conditions by which victory is met, and hence how the game is played. If you only give XP for opponents slain, be certain that there will be few (if any) prisoners taken! ;) As I said earlier, dealing with metagame issues does not preclude roleplaying in any sense, but mistaking metagame issues for in-character issues might well inhibit roleplaying. [/QUOTE]

Verification