Is there a Relationship between Game Lethality and Role Play?

[Hussar]

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?

[Korgoth]

Originally Posted by Hussar

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?

My Empire of the Petal Throne game is pretty deadly (OD&D rules, essentially)... this was discovered early on and since then the players have been cautious. They almost always try to parley with beings they encounter (except for obviously hostile stuff, like undead) and often will only go into combat when it is a necessity. So there's a lot more negotiation... even reaching deals with certain creatures. When combat does happen, it is often dramatic and memorable.

So, yes. It causes them to pick their battles, and to talk to a lot of things/people (snake dudes, slavers, evil spellcasters, etc.) that you might not talk to in other games. I like throwing strange propositions and moral dilemmas at my party, and they like charting their way through such things, so that works well for us.

[GregT_314]

From a game design perspective if you don't want combat you don't give it mechanics. Games that aren't about cookery don't have complex cooking rules; games that aren't about vehicles don't have complex driving rules. If you don't want your game to be about combat, you just reduce the rules down to, effectively, a coin toss with modifiers.

In essence, if you don't want players to do something, stop rewarding them for doing it by resolving it with well-realised and interesting mechanics.

From a single game perspective, if your game's a combat-critical game (be it D&D, Shadowrun, or what have you), and you're trying to dissuade your characters from engaging in combat, one has to wonder why you're bucking your system rather than playing something that better suits your gaming style. But even so, it's not an effective DMing style. Killing characters for non-plot reasons has two places in roleplaying: short games, and low-investment games. In neither place does it promote roleplaying; it is, at best, roleplaying-neutral.

Basically, if your main concern is to get players to stop solving their problems through violence, then stop having the violence solve their problems.

[Hussar]

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.

[Yesterday]

I've seen Game Lethality have this effect, in a group of players that otherwise tended to choose combat solutions when it wasn't necessary.

I would also say that it would inherently encourage roleplay. In high fantasy, the heroes might be fired up at the prospect of drawing weapons and giving evil the old what-for (Especially if there's a cleric around.)

But in some of the grittier systems, people probably wouldn't look forward to combat, and would avoid it if possible. (Like most real people).

And while I would agree with the the point made previously, that character death is typically a bad thing, a high-violence campaign where the players start to realize that they probably won't die, no matter how reckless they are, can quickly spiral out of control. It doesn't always work out that way, of course, but when it does, in can really derail a campaign.

EDIT: To try to answer your question about player lethality, Hussar:

You might end up having to restrict things from the players, depending on the system. (Something many are hesitant to do). You can also up the challenges, considerably.

In general, players will always have their combat abilities increase as their characters advance. Depending on the system, though, 5-10 typical goons might be able to give them serious trouble.

If power armor is enough to get that the players have it, some of the bad guys are probably sporting it, too.

I'll wrap it up here... Maybe an issue, too, is what players want out of the game. Some people don't dig negotiation and/or intrigue. If a game with less combat isn't something they're interested in, lethality alone probably won't change it.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Hussar

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.

Players in my group reported that this did happen in their CoC games. (That was before I even played RPGs, so I wasn't there. )

I suppose if you still set the game up to require combat, but make it deadly, that's the only thing you get. Also, often losing PCs (and in CoC, that happens not just through deadly combat, but also by insanity) might make you less able to come up with fresh characters and personalities, and less interested in exploring them.

That all seemed to happen with them.

[Cadfan]

1. There are two general issues. The first is that some people believe that its easier to invest in a character, and therefore to roleplay it, if that character has some staying power. If that character is likely to die easily, then it won't have staying power and you won't have time to grow attached, develop a rich personality, and roleplay well. The second issue is that some people believe that if you spend a lot of time fighting, you must not be spending a lot of time roleplaying. I generally believe the first assertion. The second is more questionable... to a certain extent I agree that there is perhaps more roleplaying when you do not have the pressure of making intelligent decisions with the aim of winning a battle. Without that pressure you can afford to goof off a bit more, with it your options are a little more constrained. So to that extent I agree, but I don't think that argument goes very far.

2. There's a difference between combat lethality and game lethality. D&D, for example, tends to assume cheap, easy resurrection. That gives you combat lethality without the game itself having lethality. In that environment you might die in a battle, but if you just pop back up afterwards it doesn't really matter in terms of preventing you from growing attached to your character.

3. Other games can have very lethal combat but plenty of roleplaying if the combat isn't a major focus of the gameplay. Og: Unearthed, for example, has extremely simple rules for combat. You basically just roll a d6, see if it beats a certain number, and start checking off hit points. You only have a few hit points. But combat isn't really the point of the game, its more a punishment for failing at the real purpose: communication of complex ideas through grunts, sign language, and two or three not particularly useful words.

[steenan]

Highly lethal combat may work both ways - it may encourage roleplaying, but it may also hurt it.

It encourages roleplaying because combat cannot be taken lightly. Players need a good motivation to enter combat, PCs will fight only for something that is important to them. More conflicts will be resolved in non-violent way. Strongly motivated characters will be roleplayed more consistently and intensely.

It hurts roleplaying, because the risk of PCs death forces players to think a lot about weapons, armors, effective builds and combat tactics, thus detracting from character development. If characters die often, it is hard to get attached to one and build up his personality.

In general, risky combat helps roleplaying if there are interesting non-combat solutions available or if the game assumes that characters aren't always able to attain their goals. It discourages roleplaying in games that are risky, but combat-centered anyway.

[Lanefan]

With my crew, it sometimes doesn't seem to matter how lethal I make the combat - they still charge in headfirst regardless. (particularly in one recent case when a clearly superior opponent didn't want to fight and was trying to leave - the party chased him down! 3 PC deaths later...)

That said, they also seem to have a nigh-endless supply of new personalities and character traits to put into the replacements...

To answer the original question: I'm really not sure. As a player, I've found often enough that non-violent interaction with the opposition only tends to delay the inevitable...sooner or later, we're going to take the bad guy down anyway...so why not just get on with it. As a DM, I find the best role-play comes not when interacting with the bad guys, but instead with both a) the shades-of-gray guys who may or may not be on the party's side and b) within the party itself.

Lanefan

[Plane Sailing]

I notice that lethal combat makes PCs more likely to seek alternative means of progressing... combat becomes a last resort rather than a first alternative (I saw this most clearly in a sci-fi game, but it probably applies all over the place).

I quite like this, although I recognise that it doesn't appeal to everyone.

[Ginnel]

Originally Posted by Hussar

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?

Hmm I don't think your question is correct, what you seem to explain in your post is "Is there a Relationship between Game Lethality and non violent solutions?"

If you're roleplaying a group of hot headed aggressive types then going into combat is roleplaying.
Roleplaying to me is doing what your character would do, if that involves talking a lot fine, if it involves fighting a lot fine, although you should choose to play characters that fit the style of game that your DM is saying he's going to run.

But does a Highly Lethal game promote roleplaying as I define it, no I don't think so the only thing that helps that is a DM and other players who encourage it.
Does a highly lethal game promote non violent solutions, I don't think so unless the DM explains to the players that the system is a highly lethal one and they should probably choose to play characters who are less hot headed and more diplomatic.

[ExploderWizard]

It really all comes down to the desires of the players and what they want out of the whole experience. If players are looking for lighthearted mayhem without an undue amount of heavy lifting for the brain, then an overly lethal combat system defeats the entire purpose of playing (for this particular group).

If the players enjoy problem solving that requires thinking and planning, then a more lethal systems can work for them, provided the lethality cuts both ways. If the system rewards intelligent planning and rewards such activity with a swift decisive victory in combat then the players may not mind less overall combat in the game. The real victories in these games will be the formulation of winning strategies whether they are violent or not.

I think player satisfaction has more to do with roleplaying than lethality. A player in a game that requires a degree of effort to construct a character might become frustrated with a high mortality rate. If more time is spent preparing characters rather than playing them then player satisfaction might be rather low. Games that feature a much lower investment of time for character creation may be able to sustain a high mortality rate while maintaining player satisfaction.

[Leatherhead]

Originally Posted by Hussar

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?

Nope.

I find that making games more lethal encourages metagaming, and also promotes strategic combat instead of tactical combat. At a basic level, you are changing from wargaming to "puzzlegaming." Puzzlegaming is fun, but it arguably has even less RP than a hack-and-slash game, because it challenges the players ability to plan ahead rather than their characters ability to react.

If you are unsure of what I mean by "puzzlegaming," just think of 10' 12' collapsible poles.

[Jack7]

So, yes. It causes them to pick their battles, and to talk to a lot of things/people (snake dudes, slavers, evil spellcasters, etc.) that you might not talk to in other games. I like throwing strange propositions and moral dilemmas at my party, and they like charting their way through such things, so that works well for us.

I concur.

[Dyson Logos]

Edited for clarity:

Originally Posted by steenan

Highly lethal combat may work both ways - it may encourage roleplaying, but it may also hurt it.

It encourages roleplaying because combat cannot be taken lightly.

It hurts roleplaying, because the risk of PCs death forces players to think a lot about weapons, armors, effective builds and combat tactics

BINGO.

A deadly combat system can result in people spending way more time dealing with combat than they usually would. I'm looking at Cyberpunk as I say this.

[Piratecat]

I've seen deadly combat discourage people from roleplaying as well; the theory is "if I'm going to get killed, why build a character background and personality, and why get attached to him?"

My friend who had a beloved archer character in Warhammer comes to mind; he was pretty annoyed when the archer had his arm gnawed off on a crit. Funny, but also kind of sad.

[Crothian]

It is going to be hit and miss and I imagine drive people towards the extremes either direction. Or and I've seen this in CoC games, they just stop caring about the game because they know everyone is going to die.

[Clavis]

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.

[Particle_Man]

Would Paranoia be a counter-example?

[maddman75]

Depends what you mean by roleplay. I've seen people refer to basically everything that isn't combat as "roleplaying".

To me, lethality does not increase roleplay. It decreases cinematic play. That is, the players are not going to be likely to try crazy, dangerous stunts. They're going to be cautious and plan everything out carefully. If its less lethal they'll fly more by the seat of their pants.

To encourage roleplay, you need to push conflicts at them, whether the game is lethal or not.