Rules Never Prevent RPing? (But Minis Seem To Do So?)

Crothian said:

However, there is a factor more important then rules and minis when it comes to getting people to role play: the DM. The DM sets the tone and should be able to get people to rolke play or not depending on what the DM wants.

Click to expand...

But is the DM given enough proper tools, through the rules and their explanation, to really influence style of play (leanings toward roleplay vs. tactical-minded) more than the rules given to the players? Do the players not, as much if not more so, take their cues from the rules as from the DM (if they are exposed to both, not if they are players exposed first and mostly to just one or the other influence, please)?

Mark CMG said:

Do the players not, as much if not more so, take their cues from the rules as from the DM (if they are exposed to both, not if they are players exposed first and mostly to just one or the other influence, please)?

Click to expand...

At first, probably. Like most ENWorlders (I imagine), I have played a large number of different systems. Inevitably, when the comfort level is lowest, the focus on the rules is greatest. DMs tend to be more by-the-book and there is less tinkering with house rules. Players concentrate more on playing 'right'. As that comfort level grows, its easier for the players (and DMs) natural tendencies to resurface. The munchkins and powergamers are going to use their mastery to wring every last advantage out of the system, and the RPers are going to feel less presssured to be rules-nazis.

If the DM is vastly more experienced with the system, the players are going to be influenced by him much more than the rules.

BryonD,

It sounds like you're advocating "make choices based upon character (*role*) independent of tactical consequences to determine what your character would do" as opposed to "use your knowledge of the game to make tactical choices (*roll*) to determine what your character would do."

And I agree and that's what I do when I play. But I find my choices more and more influenced by making good *roll* decisions...

I think mini's, and the extensive rules set that comes with them, make it harder for me to role-play because the rules determine character perhaps even more than role-playing does. Every character has a *roll* that must be assessed when role-playing. For instance, I only know that I'm a baddass and can run through a line of orc warriors because I'm 12th level *roll*.

If I try to *role* without the *roll* to back me up I'm just going to end up dead. And, generally, dead isn't fun.

To me, the minis (and the codified complexity resulting from them) bring the *roll* aspect of the game forward as the physical capabilites are clearly stated. The leads me to *roll* as much as I can to *role* as much as I can. If I knowingly make a choice that is *-roll* because it doesn't suit my *role* I risk the fun of the game for the other players with a sub-optimal *roll* decison.

And it is the threat of death that leads me to make more and more *roll* choices during combat than *role* choices. Because I'm not the only one playing the game, and other people have other goals than to see me make a *role* choice that decreases their fun.

joe b.

As a purely personal preference, I hate minis. It takes the game out of my head and puts it into little monopoly pieces on a board and ends up turning it into chess. They serve as a distraction to the game rather than an aid.

Miniatures in role playing games they take me right out of character. I have a very hard time reconciling the action I envision in my head with the small lumps of lead on the table.

Aaron L said:

Miniatures in role playing games they take me right out of character. I have a very hard time reconciling the action I envision in my head with the small lumps of lead on the table.

Click to expand...

Out of curiousity, how long have you been using minis for RPGs (or how long did you before you stopped)?

I wonder if there is a point at which they become such a familiar part of the experience that they stop being a distraction.

Mark CMG said:

But is the DM given enough proper tools, through the rules and their explanation, to really influence style of play (leanings toward roleplay vs. tactical-minded) more than the rules given to the players? Do the players not, as much if not more so, take their cues from the rules as from the DM (if they are exposed to both, not if they are players exposed first and mostly to just one or the other influence, please)?

Click to expand...

I see what you are saying and I just don't know. One of my problems with this is I've been gaming so damn long that it doesn't matter if games do or do not promote role playing. And everyone knew I introduce learns more from me then the books especially about role playing.

In that experience in the game, we as players would tend to be "forced" into the tactical decisions in combat

Click to expand...

But, in a combat, shouldn't ALL decisions be tactical? Call me strange here, but, we have characters fighting for their lives against opponents that are trying their best to do very bad things to them. Every decision during combat should, IMO, be centered on the idea of not having those bad things being done to me.

In other words, isn't tactical thinking during combat actually role playing combat? Sure, the language may be out of character since I doubt Thugdar the barbarian is thinking, "Gee, if I try to go around that guy, he'll get an AOO.". OTOH, I bet Thugdar is thinking, "Gee, if I try to go around that guy, he'll likely take a shot at me on the way by."*

Fair enough, the language may not be entirely in character, but, it's still role play. Combat is tactical. Or at least it should be. What kind of role play would be more in keeping with a role when someone is trying to eat my spleen?



*Actually, Thugdar's thought process would be something more like, "Durr, him got sword. Is there any more squirrel jerky?" But you get my point.

Rodrigo Istalindir said:

Out of curiousity, how long have you been using minis for RPGs (or how long did you before you stopped)?

I wonder if there is a point at which they become such a familiar part of the experience that they stop being a distraction.

Click to expand...

Used them briefly as an experiment and found we didnt like them at all. Lots of experience using them in Battletech (but usually just used paper markers because we werent about to spend money on miniatures)

Part of my objection to mins is that I dont want to spend money on them.

Mark CMG said:

But is the DM given enough proper tools, through the rules and their explanation, to really influence style of play (leanings toward roleplay vs. tactical-minded) more than the rules given to the players? Do the players not, as much if not more so, take their cues from the rules as from the DM (if they are exposed to both, not if they are players exposed first and mostly to just one or the other influence, please)?

Click to expand...

DM1: The NPC moves up to you and swings his sword. *rolls* Take 3 damage. Your turn.

DM2: The highwayman weaves beside you, his sword a flash as he swings it at your throat. *rolls* You barely move back, feeling a sting as it scratches across your throat. The briggand curses at you as he regains his footing and readies himself against your retalliation. Redgar's action is now.


DM1: The NPC fires at you with his bow. *rolls* And misses. He moves back, moving over the table, so he has to make a jump check... *rolls* okay, he makes it and ducks behind the table, giving him cover.

DM2: You spot the orcish archer drawing his bow back, his gaze directly at Redgar. The arrow flies at him just as Redgar catches the enemy's actions out of the corner of his eye. *rolls* Just in time! Redgar moves to the left, foiling the shot. The orc looks around quickly and decides to leap over the table for cover! *rolls* He jumps head first and rolls as he lands, kneeling behind it, and watching for anyone who might take a shot at him as he reaches for another arrow.


Which DM is more likely to get descriptions of PC actions in combat. Which is more likely to get PCs to do interesting things? There are a few important things. First of all, if the PCs see NPCs doing cool things like jumping over tables, swinging on chandelliers, using improvised weapons, and other such things successfully, then they're more likely to try it themselves. Secondly, Players who are engaged by the combat are more likely feel like its alive and to get into the roleplaying portion of it.

It's one thing for a DM to say before the game that he rewards the PCs doing cool and interesting things during combat. It's a totally different thing for him to actually do that. The best way to encourage it is through example. When the DM starts making NPCs do these things, and it actually works against the PCs, then they can see that they really are worth it.

Likewise, when the NPCs aren't all amazing tacticians that always do the best action and never make mistakes, then it encourages the PCs to do the same. NPCs never run through AoO to get somewhere? PCs won't do it. NPCs never take an AoO? PCs won't do it. NPCs never use skills in combat? Neither will PCs.

It's lead by example, or the DM is a part of the problem. Iron Heroes has all kinds of rules for stuff like that. But, if the DM doesn't encourage it during gameplay, do you think those rules will make a lick of difference? I'm of the oppinion that no, they won't make any difference at all. If the PCs see the NPCs never using cool options, then the PCs will figure that the DM doesn't want them done. They might be right.

The first step to getting good roleplay during combat is description, description, description. It allows you to move into other areas of roleplay once you're doing that as second nature. Witty retorts, teamwork, etc, then you can move onto what I have written above, a mere 11 ways to encourage complex roleplay during combat, not the simple stuff everyone should do that's in this post.

I often use minis (and have since the late 70s), but I think the emphasis on minis in the rules, and their use for every combat, does change the game a lot. Say I describe a vaulted, mould-encrusted chamber where the air reeks with corruption, the cold leeches into your bones and makes your breath come out in ghostly puffs, and the only light is the dim flicker of your torch. Then a gibbering and mewling humanoid form scuttles forward out of the shadows, with eyes gleaming and slaver dripping from its chin...

Hopefully, you have a moody and vivid picture in your head.

Then I bust out the ghoul mini, draw a 20 x 20 chamber on the well-lit battlemat, and we start examining the situation for optimal tactical movement, attacks of opportunity, etc. Your entire focus has changed from that vivid image in your head to the plastic, lead, and lines on the battlemat. And the battlemat, no matter what is on it (e.g. figures, lines, etc), is always kinda the same. I think you lose some immersion.

Again, I like minis. I like tactical mini battles. But I don't like them all the time. Is it possible to still hold that imaginative and immersive scene in your head while using minis? Sure. Is it easier without them? Yes, IMO. I pick and choose when to use the battlemat.