Why are social encounters called "roleplaying encounters?"

I'm in the midst of desgining a new adventure, and slowly remembering all the "roleplaying" encounters I've seen through the years... Almost invariably, encounters where the PCs are supposed to chat with the critter (or perhaps use a Bluff/Diplomacy check) are called "roleplaying encounters." Despite the fact that chatting with a monster in the midst of a dungeon wouldn't be logical for many D&D characters.

For example, let's take Groog the half-orc barbarian. His player has assigned his worst scores to Intelligence and Charisma and his best to Strength, figuring that Groog is one to smash things. Groog has probably figured out that hitting things with a greataxe and a generous dose of Power Attack solves many of life's problems, rather than his wit and personality.

Or let's consider Alacrind the lawful neutral cleric of Saint Cuthbert, who has recently been involved in thwarting a devil corrupting the local nobles. For the time being, he's popping off detect evil and detect lies every time he engages in any conversation of importance, and keeping the holy mace close by. His trust level in regards to strangers (especially strangers in a dungeon or strangers that seem chatty) is close to nil.

Of course there's always more factors to consider in any specific situation, but in general terms... Given these reasonably typical D&D characters, why would they stop to chat with an orc in the middle of a dungeon? Wouldn't it be far more logical for the character to assume that it's about to hit the fan? In a situation like this, would it not be within a character's "role" to resort to violence?

Sure, in that circumstance, with those characters, violence is the most likely choice. But that's a fairly narrow sample space. Not all encounters are in a dungeon (and, in my games, it's a pretty small number that are). Not all characters use violence as their main method of communication, either.

Even in a dungeon setting, there are any number of reasons why violence wouldn't be the only solution to a problem. I've had numerous encounters, on both sides of the DM screen, where what I THOUGHT would likely be a combat encounter didn't go that way. Sometimes the orcs are just trying to eke out a living, and I've had PCs who busted in to kill things end up forming an alliance with the orcs against the giants that forced THEM out of their previous home. It was quite a bit more enjoyable than having them just kill everything, too.

I've also seen the 'captive of my enemy' circumstance as a fairly common roleplaying encounter in a dungeon. What do you do? Expect that they're there to infiltrate the group? Help them out? Either way, it's likely to involve some talking before you roll initiative.

I suppose I'm wondering what brought up the question. I've played characters who ranged from one end of the spectrum to the other, from a serial killer who'd just as soon kill people as look at them, to a war-weary soldier who didn't want to see any more people die. Playing a true pacifist in a D&D game is fairly silly, but playing someone who doesn't see violence as a desirable action is pretty normal.

It's a convention perpetuated by some people who believe talking is "roleplaying" and rolling dice is "not roleplaying." It's not a universal usage. Most gamers I know would say "social encounter," "talking encounter," or just "talking with NPCs." Obviously, you are roleplaying in the midst of any combat, unless you are really cleaving people with a greataxe.

The entire activity of playing D&D is role-playing, including combat.

Social or negotiation-based encounters are generally called "roleplaying encounters" because of the widespread misperception that equates "roleplaying" with thespianism (i.e. play-acting, speaking dialogue in your character's voice). The truth is, roleplaying is much more than that and a combat or puzzle-solving encounter involves just as much roleplaying (i.e. playing the role of your character, acting as you would were you this character in this situation) as a social or negotiation encounter.

As for the other implied question of why such social encounters are included in adventures, it's because it represents a different type of challenge to the players, requiring them to use a different set of skills to succeed (or at least to have the best chance of success) with the default assumption being that providing the widest variety of challenges to the players makes for the most entertaining game. As for why players should resort to talking and negotiation instead of combat, that's easy -- sometimes combat just isn't a good or viable option: an overwhelmingly powerful but not necessarily hostile monster, or a monster that isn't evil or that the players otherwise know that they shouldn't kill, blocks the path to the characters' goal. The players can attempt to avoid or circumvent the encounter (which may not be possible at all, or may involve a more difficult or circuitous path to their goal), they can go ahead and resort to violence anyway (which in the former case might get them killed, and in the latter might have negative social or alignment-based repercussions), or they can try to talk their way past the obstacle. It's not a matter of the players having a social encounter because it's the point in the adventure where custom and tradition mandate that they need to, it's the players judging their options and deciding that negotiation is likely to be the most effective way of dealing with this challenge.

SteelDraco said:

I suppose I'm wondering what brought up the question.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I suppose I'll vent a bit about what made me start thinking about this issue. Bit of a story here...

I was asked to run a campaign for a group, so I flat-out asked them what type of campaign they wanted to play. I was told they wanted to play important roles in the story (not observers), get the chance to do things that would have wide-ranging effects, and preferably urban-based. No problem.

I used the opportunity to detail a portion of my homebrew that I hadn't explored yet. The (very brief) basic situation was the characters were in a city-state where the chancellor was retiring. Various factions wanted to gain the chancellorship, the big conflict boiled down between the landed nobles and the wealthy merchants. The campaign basically focused on the characters deciding what side of the fight they wanted to be on, if any at all.

Given these guidelines and the requested campaign style, the party created included two elves and a dwarf. The elves were a wizard obsessed with arcane power and a rogue sneak-thief, the dwarf was a cleric representing the interests of the dwarven guilds. The two elves both used Charisma as their dump stat, and with the point buy I was doing, their Charismas both ended up being 8. Fortunately, the dwarf actually pumped his Charisma to 12, reasoning that it affects his turning attempts and he wanted his character to be a labor-leader type. An interesting party for a intrigue-based campaign: a pair of surly elves working with a gregarious dwarf.

The wizard and the cleric both found niches. The dwarves grumbled that their cleric was entangling himself in human politics, where the elves didn't really care but thought the rogue and wizard were stupid for getting involved. The party became attached to one of the candidates, running investigations, working security at fundraisers, and other legwork. Lots of social interaction... The rogue's player spent the first five sessions staring at his dice, doodling on his character sheet, and generally bored out of his mind. I put in several skill-based challenges specifically designed for the character, many of which were cheerlessly ignored in favor of fiddling with dice while the other players had a blast.

Finally, in the sixth session, he flat-out shoots one of the city guards with his bow. When all eyes turned on him, he stated, "I'm tired of all this talking b***s***. I'm just gonna kill stuff until I gain a level." Fine, I figured. I gave the group some good old-fashioned dungeon crawling action, figuring that six sessions of political legwork might merit a change of pace. Then it was back to the main campaign story arc.

At the conclusion of the campaign, this same player complained that the biggest thing he disliked was all the violence and dungeon-crawling, that he wanted to see some roleplaying in the next campaign. I had some rather direct words with him about what he was asking for since this confused the hell out of me.

And now, this player is going to be involved in my next campaign. We're on good terms and all that, but I just don't know how to hook his interest. He's not happy unless he's rolling dice and killing things, but at the same time, complains about wanting "roleplaying" encounters that he can schmooze with a Charisma of 8. I'm at a bit of a loss right now.

Sounds like you'll have to calrify his defintions.
ASk him to define what he means by role playing. Get him to be very specific, including examples of gaming situations he has been in that he would say qualify as 'roleplaying.'

And if he really wants social situations that he can schmooze through with a CHA of 8 then set up some situations with Orcs and Ogres. He'll mix in just fine there.

Dykstrav said:

We're on good terms and all that, but I just don't know how to hook his interest. He's not happy unless he's rolling dice and killing things, but at the same time, complains about wanting "roleplaying" encounters that he can schmooze with a Charisma of 8. I'm at a bit of a loss right now.

Click to expand...

Barbarian needs attention, badly!

He sees the other guys having fun doing stuff and he wants to do that same stuff. But he's optimized his PC to do completely other stuff, and he may not actually enjoy doing that RP stuff. He might just want attention.

See if you can arrange for out-of-combat "spotlight time" for his PC in some way each session. Then he may be less disruptive during other people's spotlight time.

Cheers, -- N

I'm going to assume that this guy is not just wishy-washy or just doesn't want to play in your game and has a hard time telling you the truth.

Dykstrav said:

And now, this player is going to be involved in my next campaign. We're on good terms and all that, but I just don't know how to hook his interest. He's not happy unless he's rolling dice and killing things, but at the same time, complains about wanting "roleplaying" encounters that he can schmooze with a Charisma of 8. I'm at a bit of a loss right now.

Click to expand...

When this guys says "he wants more roleplaying," get him to specify whether he means "I want more sessions where we hardly roll dice and talk in character all night" or "I want to do more than just a series of combats."

See, I've played with people who've acted somewhat similarly. I may even be one of those people. Thing is, they (we) are often happy rolling dice and killing things because that actually involves playing the game, whereas sitting around all night talking in character usually doesn't (in D&D).

When I sit down to play any RPG, I want to engage the rules. I want the effort I invested in creating my PC to pay off; I want that data on my sheet to come into play, and I want to roll the bones. Thing is, I also want chances for my PC to shine, and I want to be able to make meaningful choices for them and see a story unfold.

Sitting around watching dinner theater all night doesn't count, IMO. Neither does an endless series of meaningless, uninteresting combats.

Ergo, I can see this guy getting bored of six sessions of political machinations. Heck, I can see anyone getting bored of six sessions of politics; that's just not D&D's raison d'etre. I can also see him then piping up when a combat ensues. "Hey, I finally get to roll some dice!" Likewise, if the combat then gets repetitive or is unchallenging, I can see him tiring of that, too.

So, talk to the guy. Ask what he wants to see happen in a typical session. Ask him to define what he means by "more roleplaying." Ask him if he wants to be in a campaign where it's common for six sessions to go by dealing with politics. If his answers are at odds with what you and the rest of the group are happy with, then maybe this just ain't the game for him.

Aside: As I intimate above, I'd highly suggest ditching D&D in favor of games like Burning Wheel or The Shadow of Yesterday if multiple sessions of political drama are your bag. That, or take a look at the d20 supplement Dynasties & Demagogues. Straight-up D&D just ain't the game for this.*

* Which may very well be your friend's problem.

In contrast to buzz, I firmly believe that if dice are being rolled, you have failed at whatever situation is at hand, in general.