General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I've been diving into some new RPG's of late. Not playing them, yet, but reading them. One thing I've noticed is an underlying assumption (and sometimes not so underlying) that if you ramp up the lethality of combat, and make recovery from damage much more difficult, you will reduce the level of violence in your game. As a corollary of this, the presumption seems to be that players will role play more as they actively work to avoid combat.
Do you think this bears fruit in play? Can you push players to role play by simply making combat so unappealing that they won't have a choice?
I would agree with your observation. Another aspect is that combat can happen but depending upon the mechanics, it will come down to two factors--how much protection can you get and then get into a fight, or who can ambush who first. If players realize that the game's lethality can be bypassed by simply buying heavy armor or ambushing their enemies, then combat is still likely to occur.
Overall, if players know that combat is a lethal matter with little chance of recovery, then the odds that they'll be roleplaying more is in your favor. However, it then becomes a matter of taste for your players--are they the types who can go a four hour session without blasting something? I can't, I'm definitely need to roll dice and occasionally get in a fight. That's just what I look for in a game.
The old school, high lethality style of games also had a weird relationship with the combat/roleplaying access, in that the game focused more on challenging the player and the player coming up with solutions as opposed to the game challenging the character and the character coming up with solutions. Death has a different relationship with these two things, where the death of a character doesn't remove the player from the game, but it does remove that character from the game. Thus a game that focuses on players is less affected by character death, while in a game focused on the characters it has a bigger impact.
This affects RP as old school games focus on emergent roleplaying that comes out of the game's behavior, while character based games focus on starting the story in game 1 and continuing it. High lethality wouldn't necessarily impede roleplaying in the former, but a character created for an ongoing story would be hard to become invested in if it had a 1/3 chance of dying in any given fight.
Korgoth - do you find that sometimes it goes the other way though? That some players will simply ramp up their lethality to the point where they will always win every fight? If combat is lethal, they buy personal shields, powered armor and mini-guns, or whatever the equivalent is in whatever system you're playing.
I usually don't play in games where that's possible (not by choice; it just hasn't happened). In EPT (basically OD&D) the best you can do is buy the best possible armor and use good tactics.
Now, my group does employ good tactics. They use lots of flaming oil, force their enemies into choke points, employ thrown weapons, use spells at just the right time and aren't afraid to expend limited items. One of the warriors uses the second-best armor (chain rather than plate) because he prefers to be more mobile. Other than that, they tend to make optimal choices in combat. Which is fine.
Our last combat (a couple sessions ago) saw them get a bit sloppy (they were fighting to save a commoner from a giant three-headed snapping Ankylosaurus) but they killed the thing with a lucky crit anyway so they ended up looking like heroes (over 500 people were watching this go down). They're about to go into a very dangerous jungle to reclaim and resettle an old temple complex (think Angkor)... we'll see if they remember to be cautious!
__________________ "I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"
Can you push players to role play by simply making combat so unappealing that they won't have a choice?
For some players, yes. I don't think it's really about the players making the choice though. The DM has to provide scenarios where avoiding combat is possible, and then allow the player's efforts to do so to work at some reasonable level. I've played in AD&D games where the players were all about sneaking around and avoiding combat through intrigue and bribery. It doesn't work when the DM's first words are "Some guards come around the corner, roll for initiative!". If the DM isn't giving players opportunities to creatively avoid combat, no amount of lethality is going to prevent it.
I can say that in my experience high-lethality systems (such as Classic D&D and Call of Chthulhu) do encourage role-playing because players must find non-combat solutions to problems. In Call of Cthulhu this seems intentional, while in Classic D&D I thinks it's an unintentional side-effect of low-level play. Of course, Classic D&D gets a lot less lethal past 4th level.
It might not be simply the lethality of a system that's the deciding factor, however. I also think complex, highly tactical combat systems discourage role-playing, because brainpower that might otherwise be devoted to role-playing must be diverted to considering combat options. Long combats also discourage role-playing, in my experience, because they leave less time available at the table for interaction with NPCs.
I'm not sure if I agree with this one. For example, GURPS has a combat system that is far and away more complex and tactical than D&D. Yet, every GURPS game I've played in has featured a great deal more role play than I generally see in D&D games.
And, GURPS does have a considerably more lethal combat system as well. Hrm...
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
For some players, yes. I don't think it's really about the players making the choice though. The DM has to provide scenarios where avoiding combat is possible, and then allow the player's efforts to do so to work at some reasonable level. I've played in AD&D games where the players were all about sneaking around and avoiding combat through intrigue and bribery. It doesn't work when the DM's first words are "Some guards come around the corner, roll for initiative!". If the DM isn't giving players opportunities to creatively avoid combat, no amount of lethality is going to prevent it.
Now this, I totally agree with.
I'm certainly not trying to say that lethality is the only factor affecting the amount of roleplay. The DM will most likely have a much larger impact.
I was more just wondering how much of an effect system had.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
For some players, yes. I don't think it's really about the players making the choice though. The DM has to provide scenarios where avoiding combat is possible, and then allow the player's efforts to do so to work at some reasonable level. I've played in AD&D games where the players were all about sneaking around and avoiding combat through intrigue and bribery. It doesn't work when the DM's first words are "Some guards come around the corner, roll for initiative!". If the DM isn't giving players opportunities to creatively avoid combat, no amount of lethality is going to prevent it.
Do you think this bears fruit in play? Can you push players to role play by simply making combat so unappealing that they won't have a choice?
Worded that way... no.
I think the increased lethality -> more roleplay idea is more a trend than a truism, and it isn't all that strong a trend.
Yes, if you increase lethality of combats, that increases the tactical benefit of talking one's way through a situation. However, not all player choices are based on tactical benefit, and GMs and players often have different perspectives on what the benefits are.
As a player, survival of my character is not sufficient - my play experience should be an entertainment. If the GM increases lethality, but does not actually provide good roleplay themselves (as the NPCs), there's little payoff for the player. I have met my share of GMs who provide great action sequences, great puzzles, and terrifically entertaining combats, but who cannot present a personality other than their own worth a good gosh darn.
I'll end with an analogy: Let's say I run a lunch stand. My hamburgers sell pretty well, but nobody seems to buy the hot dogs. Do I want to make my burgers taste bad in order to sell more hot dogs? Does that make sense? Shouldn't I just make sure that the hot dogs are also tasty, and then let my customers choose whichever they'd prefer?
Although I think I get what's intended, I would not consider a high-combat game to lack "roleplaying". Roleplaying, to my mind, is simply playing one's role. If that happens to be the role of a soldier on a battle front, then high-lethality combat and (with luck) a lot of it is likely. Even if the character's career is brief, one can play the role to the hilt.
Longer play, though, allows for more role complexity and player attachment to develop.
Old D&D has high lethality if characters start at low level (especially 1st). Raise Dead requires a cleric of at least 9th level. The game also tends to involve some combat even with good strategies to avoid pointless fights.
So, there is usually high turnover among characters as yet but little played. Gaining levels means (on average) more hit points, and also (more gradually) better saving throws.
The strategies learned in low-level play are even more effective as the role of chance is thereby reduced. That's one reason tournament scenarios tend to involve characters of at least 5th level, if not 10th or higher. There can be a clear distinction between good and bad choices, rather than outcomes often hinging on luck.
Combat in Traveller is less often lethal than in low-level old D&D, but can easily produce serious wounds that take a character out of action. The original rules set does not go into detail on how long, offering only that casualties are unconscious for three hours and that recuperation requires a medical facility and doctor. (Outcomes obviously are likely to vary with the tremendous variations in medical technology travellers may encounter among the far-flung stars.)
There can be a similar aspect to mid-level play in old D&D, as characters without the aid of magic take a long time to regain full strength (and are more vulnerable when short of hit points). However, an AD&D cleric able to cast Raise Dead can also cast at least 4 Cure Light Wounds, 2 Cure Serious Wounds and 1 Cure Critical Wounds per day (4.25 hours preparation time in 1st edition). One of only 5th level can cast as many Cure Light, and that alone can greatly speed the recovery of a whole team.
The ratio of risk to reward is a big factor in shaping strategies. If fights are the main source of experience points, then one might reasonably expect a lot of fights. If they are also low risk, then that merely reinforces the emphasis.
As Traveller has no XP or "leveling up" at all, choice of activity in which to engage depends on choice of objective to pursue. Wealth is a common goal, as it can be a means to many ends -- and getting into shootouts tends to fall in the expense column of a ledger. Even commanders of mercenary companies must consider the return on investment.
As others have noted, I think lethal combat encourages players to approach encounters differently, but not necessarily increase roleplay.
Traveller is my example of this: combat is incredibly deadly and destructive at higher tech levels, so often the best way to approach a potential fight is to avoid it. That may involve straight running away, or it may mean using alternate means to handle the conflict.
__________________ On weird fantasy: "The Otus/Elmore rule: When adding something new to the campaign, try and imagine how Erol Otus would depict it. If you can, that's far enough...it's a good idea. If you can picture a Larry Elmore version...it's far too mundane and boring, excise immediately." - Kellri, K&K Alehouse
Old D&D has high lethality if characters start at low level (especially 1st). Raise Dead requires a cleric of at least 9th level. The game also tends to involve some combat even with good strategies to avoid pointless fights.
Yep. And this holds true for all 'old D&D', right on up to (and including) v3.5 [and Pathfinder / 3.PF, for that matter]. Trial by fire, like it or lump it.
I'm certainly not trying to say that lethality is the only factor affecting the amount of roleplay. The DM will most likely have a much larger impact.
I was more just wondering how much of an effect system had.
System matters, but player psychology matters more. You can provide penalties for indulging in combat and rewards for avoiding combat, but if the rewards aren't as enjoyable to the players as indulging in a good solid combat with moderate penalties for failure, the players will probably not enjoy the game as much.
I've known players who wanted entirely different things out of a game depending on whether we were playing on a weekend or a weeknight. On a weekend, they were all for some exploration, intrigue, complicated interpersonal dynamics and tough intellectual challenges. On a weeknight, after a day's work and another to look forward to the next day, it was less about challenge and more about unwinding.
__________________ -------
Ethan Skemp
CCP NA/White Wolf Publishing
I don't think Lethality has a direct impact on roleplaying, but it does have a direct impact on the game experience. For example:
Gamist--In a exploration/problem solving oriented game, high lethality ups the stakes and the game just isn't as interesting without it, while in an action/combat focused game high lethality will lead to frustration and burnout.
Narrative--In a roleplaying focused game, high lethality encourages players to find non-violent(roleplaying) solutions, while in a story focused game high lethality, specifically high character turnover negatively impacts the story.
Simulationist--High lethality works well when simulatining real world physics, but works less well at simulating cinematics.
Character Creation--Quick and painless character creation goes well with high lethality, but complex and deep character creation combined with high lethality tends to end in frustration when you spend more time building characters than playing them.
I don't think high lethality is connected to better roleplaying independant of the system and what game you are trying to play.
I'm not sure what I think about the question. I think it can largely depend on the player's preferred play style.
However I think lethality adds something to the game.
I was challenged by one of my player's after their group made a fatal blunder and were on the verge of a TPK and I pulled a punch so they were able to scrape through and win in the end. (In my defence, I had just bought eveyone a mini of their characters as a gift, and spent 8 consecutive evenings preparing for what lay ahead of them)
His comment was basically: 'Love your game, but what it lacks is deadly consecuences'.
I have made an effort to not be so soft over the last three sessions. Noone has died, but the encounters have been epic. That same player survived instant death 3 times, and all i needed was 9 or more to drag his immobilized body off through a dark portal (instant death). I rolled 8, 4 and 7...
In the last session, the completely erroneous instructions given by the group's dwarven cleric (third critical failure during an important skill challenge) lead to infuriating the semi-summoned manifestation of a demi-god who is now hell bent on bringing his temple down upon their heads. (The same thing that almost dragged the player's barbarian off to instant death - reskinned Thing in the Portal from KotS if anyone is curious)
The player's couldn't believe they had failed so irrevocably. That their options seemed to be flee or die. They haven't stopped talking about it. The Dwarf's player came to me today and informed me she plans to stay and try and redeem herself, even if it means certain death! he said she hadn't been able to sleep all night, running it all over in her head again and again. That's awesome! (not that she hadn't sleep, but that it had made such an impact on her)
I guess the neutrality combined with the complete disposition to kill adds something to the experience. I haven't killed anyone but the players perceive the change in disposition. It has them jumpy, nervous, excited. There is a buzz.
I have no interest in making combat so lethal it disuades players from engaging in it. I have several players that love combat. But it should be a risky and deadly enterprise. I love my players to resolve things outside of combat. But I like a mix of both. Puts spice in the blood. The threat should be a real threat. I'm not sure if this adds to roleplaying (my group varies from those that love it to those that dread it), but it adds something. It just shouldn't be sooooo lethal that it's not fun.
Anyway, just my two cents
__________________ 'I am a predator...the predator improves the race...I kill but not out of hate.' Frank Herbert: Emperor God of Dune
Last edited by jbear; 23rd June 2009 at 10:50 PM..
Keep in mind that the effect lethality will have on RP despends not only on the game and system, but the individual player.
Some players will seek non-combat alternatives and develop PCs less geared toward combat and more toward stealth/speaking, etc. Some will jack their PCs up to inhuman levels in order to "win" combat. Some will stop caring and start "tooning" their PCs, and when they die they up the Roman numeral after their PC's name and continue.
Keep in mind not everyone comes to the game table for the same effect. Some like deep immersion in storylines and talking with NPCs. Some like to solve puzzles and match wits with the DM (or module writers). Some like to explore the DMs campaign world, and some like to blow off steam and roll d20's in melee. None of these are bad, and you're likely to tick somebody off if you decide to reward one and punish another. But if your group tends to lean on one style or another, its certainly desirable to move the game in that direction.
Just don't expect it to work in every campaign or with every player...
Some very interesting conversation here. Currently one of the 4E games I am a DM for involves only two players. The lethality question is much more of a concern than normal. I adjusted rules for henchmen/hirelings for one PC, and tweaked Arcane Familiars for another. They both only wanted to run one character, and the tweaks are working nicely so far.
So far the challenge has been adjusting scenarios so that many options are available, but I try not to water things down combat wise. It really creates a tense atmosphere but it does slow down pre combat roleplay because they discuss in detail what they are going to do (when I rule time allows for them to do so).
Yep. And this holds true for all 'old D&D', right on up to (and including) v3.5 [and Pathfinder / 3.PF, for that matter]. Trial by fire, like it or lump it.
Oh please. Let's not turn this into an edition thing. For one, it's already been abundantly shown that 4e combat is pretty darn lethal. Easily as lethal as 3e, so, come on, leave the edition warz crap at the door.
Bumbles - I think you have it right. You definitely need the carrot. I was looking more at the mechanics end of things, which usually only includes the stick.
Reading through the answers, I'm thinking that the answer is not a simple yes or no, but rather a maybe, which also depends on a number of other factors.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Sorry if I jumped in there a bit quick, but the fact that you deliberately excluded 4e from the idea of higher lethality kinda led me to think that. There is an implication in your post that 4e leads to the opposite of "some combat even with good strategies to avoid pointless fights." which, I took to mean that 4e is nothing but a string of poor strategy and pointless fights.
Out of curiousity, why did you exclude 4e?
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
