"Combat Optimized" versus "Role-playing" -- One Dude's Perspective (looong)

First of all—I'm really just doing this as an exercise for my own benefit, so if no one really responds, I'm okay with that.

I think we all agree that no matter what RPG system is being used, the party style, character synergies, GM style, encounter design, and the inherent math and constructs of the rule set are all components of whether the shared activity of role-playing is (or is not) meeting the expectations of the game's participants. The choice of rule system is only one factor in a host of many that affects the overall "success" or "failure" of a role-playing session in producing the types of enjoyment most of the participants expect to receive.

Yet one question I continue to wrangle with is this: Does a rule system that enforces "highly balanced character combat options" really produce a better overall roleplaying experience than a rules system that does not enforce as rigid a balance?

The reason I ask this question is this: one of the most common responses I receive from 4e proponents when I voice objections to 4e's perceived lack of out-of-combat character development options is essentially, "Yes, but many of 3.x's out-of-combat character options are traps for making your character sub-optimal," with "sub-optimal" referring 99.9 percent of the time to a character's combat abilities.

And I think the problem I had with that response then, and still have with it now, is the assumption that underlies that statement, which is that any character which is sub-optimally built for combat is inherently less capable of producing a successful role-playing experience. To me, this response seems to deny a fundamental reason for participating in roleplaying games at all, which is to play a role of someone who is not you—and whether that character who is not you is a combat champion, or a bookworm of epic proportions doesn't make any difference as long as that's the character the player wants to role-play.

Now I realize this is far from the only reason to participate in a role-playing game, but it certainly is one valid reason. And the assumption of "necessary combat balance" seems to ignore that there are players who enjoy playing non-combat optimized characters because they like exploring aspects of their character's personality, or enjoy seeing the "game world" from that character's viewpoint. The underlying assumption that "sub-optimal combat equals a sub-optimal 'role-playing experience'" denies this basic impulse, and promotes the view that a player who is interested in role-playing a character that is not "combat optimized" is somehow playing the game wrong.

Now I don't think anyone here is interested in putting down anyone's style of play. I would hope that we're all open enough to varying play styles that we could recognize that a "role-playing" style of this nature isn't inherently better or worse than a "combat optimization style." And it is also important to recognize, as our friend Stormwind pointed out many moons ago on another forum, that these two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Effective role-playing and combat-optimization can absolutely exist hand-in-hand.

However, using the 4th Edition rule set as the backdrop for this discussion, I do want to point out that a rule set's inherent assumptions can, and does affect the range and limit of character "types" that can realistically be supported by that system. And ultimately, those effective limits can alter a player's enjoyment of the role-playing experience.

First of all, I do want to recognize that in some ways 4th Edition naturally negates the "sub-optimal combat character" assumption by putting forth its own, somewhat different underlying assumption, which is "All PCs are heroes." This doesn't mean that PCs don't have character backgrounds, or any out-of-combat characteristics, but this assumption puts forth the idea that one of, if not THE primary reason a PC is involved in the milieu of the game world AT ALL is because they are more capable in the area of combat and survivability than the top 99th percentile of the "game world" they inhabit.

As such, on some levels a complaint of "overly optimized combat" may actually be a "straw man" argument against 4th Edition's merits (which in the realm of combat balance and tactics are quite amazing). If I want to play a game that doesn't assume that the PCs are combat-optimized heroes, and want to play something that is less stringent on the expected "world view" and capabilities of the characters, one that might more accurately represent a broader range of character motivations, backgrounds, and proficiencies, then I probably shouldn't be playing 4th Edition at all.

However, the point of writing this isn't to determine that I shouldn't be playing 4th Edition (I've pretty much realized that already), but rather, the point is to demonstrate that a rule set's inherent assumptions absolutely have an affect on a player's character options, and as a result can affect that player's overall enjoyment of their RPG experience.

Let me also be clear that the point of this post is not to say that I couldn't play a non-combat-optimized character in a 4e campaign. In the right situation with a willing DM, there's nothing that says I can't successfully play a 4e gnomish fighter who's far more interested in collecting bits of junk than in swinging his short sword at orcs.

However, even if the party and GM were inclined to allow a gnomish swashbuckler into their mix, there are definite reasons that a group playing 4e might support the "sub-optimal combat equals sub-optimal role-playing" premise—the biggest one being 4e's entire encounter design structure. It's clear that 4th Edition has a baseline level of party combat proficiency built into its very core, and if the party's level of combat proficiency drops below a certain threshold, then the game becomes extremely difficult to prepare acceptable encounters for. In this light, having a total party kill on the first encounter, because everyone wanted to try role-playing a "sub-optimal combat" character, certainly defeats the purpose of playing D&D—or any pen and paper RPG—at all.

Yet if this is in fact the case, then we also have to accept the fact that the very paradigms of the 4th Edition rule set inherently sets up a certain type of success--combat resolution--as being the primary mechanical factor for character design. As such, 4e inherently and naturally favors a party that optimizes its characters' abilities in relation to the construct of the combat rule system.

And really there's nothing wrong with this, it's the way the game was designed. But that realization also does not change the fact that if a player is forced to optimize certain character traits in relation to the rules construct, so that the party can maintain appropriate "combat balance," then the rules themselves can, in some instances, coerce a player to create and play a character that may not actually reflect his or her vision of what the character's "true identity" actually is.

In this instance, the imperative of "combat optimization" has in fact imposed a restriction on a player, forcing them to alter their view of the character they envision. Now some may say that this is not always entirely undesirable, nor is it impossible to "get over" such a restriction, and to simply enjoy playing the character they do have.

But on a fundamental level, this exigency has hypothetically forced a player into making a choice they did not want to make, and has altered the player's experience at the game table. While I know this is not applicable to everyone, for some players such a situation would be a source of considerable disappointment, and could realistically alter their ability to participate in and enjoy the the role-playing experience they would like to have.

What's the bottom line in saying this? I think more than anything it is to deter the thought process that "sub-optimal combat" character builds are somehow incapable of producing the type of role-playing experience that some players desire. And if nothing else, maybe this post may help produce a more healthy respect for all types of role-players, and to better appreciate the unique styles that makes this hobby fun.

innerdude said:

Yet one question I continue to wrangle with is this: Does a rule system that enforces "highly balanced character combat options" really produce a better overall roleplaying experience than a rules system that does not enforce as rigid a balance?

The reason I ask this question is this: one of the most common responses I receive from 4e proponents when I voice objections to 4e's perceived lack of out-of-combat character development options is essentially, "Yes, but many of 3.x's out-of-combat character options are traps for making your character sub-optimal," with "sub-optimal" referring 99.9 percent of the time to a character's combat abilities.

Click to expand...

1. Typically people are talking about siloing issues, and would prefer to have both combat prowess and non combat flavor, instead of just one or the other. This becomes quite an issue in 3e because you don't get very many feats, and they do double duty between combat and non combat issues. Personally, I don't think 4e went far enough with fixing this.

2. For what its worth, 3e makes the same promises about balance that 4e does. The 3e CR system fills exactly the same role as the 4e challenge level system. Absolutely nothing has changed on this score except your perceptions. This implies that the real issue isn't that one system is hyper focused on balanced combat and the other is more free form, but rather that you, and most 3e DMs, don't rely on the CR system very much. This has two further implications: first that you could do the same thing in 4e just fine, and second that the CR system probably isn't very good.

3e & 4e need combat balance because around 3/4 of a typical game's playing time can be spent on combat! In a game where combat is only occasional and/or is over quickly, there is no need for PCs to be combat balanced if they can shine in different, equally game-important areas.

innerdude said:

And I think the problem I had with that response then, and still have with it now, is the assumption that underlies that statement, which is that any character which is sub-optimally built for combat is inherently less capable of producing a successful role-playing experience.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I don't agree with that statement either. A character who is sub-optimally built for combat may have less survivability than other characters, and hence, may produce a shorter than average role-playing experience, but that does not, in itself, necessarily produce an inferior role-playing experience.

I think calls for combat optimization tend to stem from the concern that characters who are not optimized for combat would tend to lower the party's chances of surviving combat encounters. The actual underlying issue, IMO, is a little murkier: what is the permissible trade-off between a player's vision for his character and how competent the other players expect his character to be? Different people will have different opinions on this, ranging from the view that a player's character is entirely his own, and the other players have no right to expect anything from him, to the view that a player is being irresponsible if he fails to bring anything but a completely optimized character to the table, and various other shades in between.

That said, I personally believe that the 4E game system is actually quite forgiving of unoptimized characters - to a certain extent. I think the single most significant determinant of character effectiveness is ability score allocation, not feat or power choices, and as long as the character has a decent ability score in his primary attribute (and to me, 14 is "decent"), he will be effective enough.

innerdude said:

Yet if this is in fact the case, then we also have to accept the fact that the very paradigms of the 4th Edition rule set inherently sets up a certain type of success--combat resolution--as being the primary mechanical factor for character design. As such, 4e inherently and naturally favors a party that optimizes its characters' abilities in relation to the construct of the combat rule system.

Click to expand...

Isn't this equally true of every previous D&D edition? D&D is, and always has been, a game that is mostly focused around killing big bad beasties and taking their stuff. Successive DMGs through the generations have had random encounter tables and a reward system which is explicitly focused on making your players better at killing stuff. Not to mention that every edition has rolled out hundreds or thousands of monster statblocks over its lifespan, which speaks of a real demand on the part of DMs everywhere for new and exciting varieties of goblins to throw at their players.

Before I ever opened a D&D book, my background was mostly in free-form RP and rules-lite systems. I had also spent some time with Deadlands, Call of Cthulhu, the Storyteller system and the Marvel SAGA system. I was certainly not inexperienced with RPGs. But in all of those, I had never seen anything remotely approaching the barrage of automatic combat-focused class abilities, encounter tables and magic swords +x that came along as standard with D&D.

In short: if I wasn't interested in tactical play and a combat-heavy playstyle, there's no earthly way I would play D&D. Not 4E, not 3E, and I daresay none of the previous incarnations either.

That said, it's really not so hard as all that to adjust your DMing style to cater for a less-than-optimized bunch of PCs. If they choose to play a bunch of paraplegic cryptographers with not a jot of weapon training or magic power between them, then admittedly you probably won't get a viable D&D game out of them. But as long as they're using real classes and putting medium-high numbers in their key stats, it should be entirely possible to tailor combat encounters for them no matter what wacky feat and power choices they make. Frankly, I don't think it'd be any harder than finding the right difficulty level to challenge a truly optimized group, since WotCs default system assumes something in the middle.

I completely agree with you, Antithetist, that some level of tactical combat play is basically one of the primary components of any D&D campaign. If you're not into moving a character around a battlefield and rolling d20s alot, then D&D isn't really the best game to be playing.

I don't know if my treatise/essay/insanely-long-whatever-the-heck-it-was (LOL) was written as a critique of DM styles so much as it was trying to lay bare an idea that extolling "extreme combat balance" in a given rule system--any rule system--in some ways creates an inverse number of viable, playable character types. The more a character is "forced" to fall into a specific range of actions/categories/variables, the less that character will have room for "play" within the realm of developing a more "real" mechanical representation of the player's vision.

The other reason I think I wrote what I did was because I've heard numerous times that a "balanced combat mechanic inherently promotes better roleplaying," and I'm not sure that's a true statement. To some degree, it's probably a losing battle of semantics, because what I consider to be "better roleplaying" is going to be considerably different than what someone else thinks it is.

So maybe that's the real question here--does a paradigm of "balanced combat" inherently create a better experience?

I think FireLance's comment is spot on as well--what is the "permissable range" of deviation from ultra min/maxing? Certainly it's a group-level decision, since every group dynamic will view this differently.....but to a certain degree, the fact that I feel the need to defend not min/maxing every ounce of my stat sheet, because maybe I want to try out a specific character concept, says something telling about the D&D system as a whole--across multiple editions.

I suppose I'm in the minority when I say that I find combat in pen-and-paper RPGs to be the least compelling aspect of gameplay. That's not to say that it's not compelling AT ALL, or that it doesn't involve interesting tactics, or that I don't derive some enjoyment from it, only that to me, it's the least compelling of all of the available potential actions a character can take.

The other question is--does excessive non-combat rules codification impinge on non-combat activity the same way? I know a lot of folks seemed to think that the 3.x skill system actually hindered real "role-playing," because it codified character actions to a die roll. I don't think I ever saw it that way, based on my play style, but I know a lot of people complain about the "I roll a diplomacy check, is the baron happy now?" type of actions.

Interesting stuff so far.

I also can't decide whether balancing players in respect to combat really improves play.
But I can say this: the more specific the goals of a designer are, and the more rigidly defined the objectives of play become- the less satisfying the game will be to people as a generality. Role playing games are by their nature very broad and expansive. Limiting the possibilities of play based on a misplaced sense of responsibility over the direction of play, constricts a game's ability to be molded and shaped toward fulfilling the desires of the player.
Of course some compromises have to be reached- but IMO the primary goal of a designer should be to bring as many satisfying and memorable experience to as many players as you can. If you do that, the game will sell itself, regardless of the imbalance or incongruity of the rules set.

innerdude said:

The other reason I think I wrote what I did was because I've heard numerous times that a "balanced combat mechanic inherently promotes better roleplaying," and I'm not sure that's a true statement. To some degree, it's probably a losing battle of semantics, because what I consider to be "better roleplaying" is going to be considerably different than what someone else thinks it is.

So maybe that's the real question here--does a paradigm of "balanced combat" inherently create a better experience?

Click to expand...

A paradigm of balanced combat inherently creates a better combat experience.

You may spend lots of time in combat or very little time in combat. That's up to you & your group. When you are in combat, you have a system that works pretty well.

It's been my experience that combat happens pretty often.

Cheers, -- N

Chrono22 said:

But I can say this: the more specific the goals of a designer are, and the more rigidly defined the objectives of play become- the less satisfying the game will be to people as a generality. Role playing games are by their nature very broad and expansive. Limiting the possibilities of play based on a misplaced sense of responsibility over the direction of play, constricts a game's ability to be molded and shaped toward fulfilling the desires of the player.

Click to expand...

If this was true, wouldn't GURPS be outselling D&D?

I think D&D has got as popular as it has by focusing on a hack-and-slash playstyle, and honing that. At various points it has opened up a little to include more rules-coverage of non-combat challenges and tasks, and that's cool and all, but there's still an inbuilt assumption that your characters' daily lives will include a healthy dose of monster-slaying. There are plenty of systems out there which don't include that assumption whatsoever.

In fact, I'd say that assumption has a lot to do with D&D's popularity. When new players sit down at the table, go through their character creation process, and ask 'what now?' the question is swiftly answered: kill some goblins, take their stuff. It practically runs itself. Compare that to, say, Vampire: the Masquerade. 'What now?'... uhh, I dunno. Let's sit around in Elysium preening and bitching at each other?

I'm not saying that D&D can't be used to run more complex and thoughtful games - any one of the classic Story Hours around here could prove me wrong on that count. But there's something all those D&D Story Hours have in common, and that's that no matter how epic and compelling the stories get, no matter how intelligent and thoughtful the themes are, they're still punctuated with sizeable chunks of tactical combat. 'Cos that's what D&D does.

Now, I wouldn't claim that you're playing D&D 'wrong' if you don't focus on combat - but I would suggest that other systems may be better suited to you.

Being largely popular and being very narrowly focused in terms of user experience aren't exclusive terms.
Unlike other hobbies, D&D's entertainment is in the experience. Every player has different experiences they are trying to get out of play. Of course, they'll gravitate to systems that match their own preferences. But a system that can compromise between the preferences of multiple types of players will get more players than a system that cannot... RPGs are largely played in groups, so the system should be as much about smoothing the bumps and conflicts in purpose as it is about providing a "pure experience".
I think D&D got where it is because it was first. D&D became synonymous with RPG. It can't rely on name recognition alone anymore... but I don't think becoming so narrowly focused on dungeon delving is the solution.

To sum up my thoughts- D&D can't maintain its position as the flagship RPG of the industry if it cannot grow out of preconceptions like yours. The OGL and d20 variants were a step in the right direction in my view- expanding the system to encompass many genres and styles of play kept D&D at the center of the gaming experience.