Any RPGs that focus on roleplaying instead of combat?

[Crusadius]

I disagree, if the robust skill system introduces skills like diplomacy, bluff, etiquette or fast talk for example players can reduce roleplaying to a simple dice roll, that's hardly supporting roleplaying. Where as actually having to step outside the system and really convince the DM by actually being diplomatic or bluffing them, that encourages roleplaying more.

If the "robust skill system" was as complete and detailed as a combat system then I think it could go far to support role-playing.

I mean, what would you think of a role-playing game where combat was reduced to "a simple dice roll" in the same way role-playing games (games that we would now consider "traditional") treated any non-combat action? Why must people think that a robust skill system can only mean "simple dice rolls" for actions such as diplomacy, etiquette or fast talk instead of a more complicated system?

I think the growing criticism people have with regards to games that had a few pages on how to adjudicate non-combat actions (i.e. a single roll of the dice) but many pages detailing the intricacies of combat has led to games introducing better systems for handling those types of actions, bringing those rules to be on par with combat.

 

[Libertad]

Has Golden Sky Stories been mentioned? It's a Japanese indie RPG (translated into English) where you play as animal spirits who go around helping people:

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/118784/Golden-Sky-Stories

 

[kobold]

You wan tto check out Robin Laws Hillfolk

I'd been following this game for awhile but when Robin Laws explained to my high school sons that the game was designed to mimic Sopranos, Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad they where sold.

http://www.pelgranepress.com/?cat=222

I'm not sure there is even a combat system in the rules, although it definitely allows for lots of bloodshed.

 

[Derren]

You can play a role within your own abilities to act one.
Yet in many introverts in real life, actually managed to be less so when playing the role of someone else as because they are being a character and not themselves they feel less self conscious.
I wouldn't say "take pity", more have the people skills to know when someone is making an effort, and reward that.
If the socially skilled player is actually playing a uncharismatic role correctly then really they should be making efforts to be antisocial. Otherwise they aren't playing the role, they are playing themselves.

There are two ways it can do this.

1) It becomes a crutch, it is quicker and easier to say "I roll 15 with +5 diplomacy that has to be a success."
2) It be counter to how the player acts, say you have a charismatic player, playing a diplomatic character who spends 5 minutes trying to persuade his way pass the guards, but then the DM asks for a check and he rolls a 1. If the DM listens to the system, then all his roleplaying was pointless, and how often does that need to happen before the player recognizes that what they do doesn't matter only the dice do.

But it is discouraged by a skill system that replaces actual social interaction with the results of dice rolls.

That's the argument that usually gets made, but I've always thought it's a lousy one. I find satisfaction in doing first-person social interaction roleplaying well. It's one of my main sources of enjoyment in RPGs. Persuading an NPC because I rolled well is empty. I get the objective but I lose the fun. RPGs are a social activity - I have no problem with folks who are good at social interaction doing well as a result. As an analogy, I'm pretty awful at basketball. When I play I don't expect the other players to give me an advantage to even things up. The onus is on me. If I want to do better I need to get better.

Theoretically you can have a system that substitutes for actual social interaction and still have the players talk it out. In practice I've never seen that happen. If players can get what they want just by rolling dice, there's no compelling reason to go to the effort of first-person roleplay.

When I play we usually just use DM judgement for NPC reactions. Works great. I'm interested in hybrid systems that use both interaction and mechanical element for resolution, but strictly mechanical resolution leaves me cold.

(Here's an example of a hybrid system, in case it's not clear what that might be. I've yet to find one I really like, but this would be about the shape of it)

• DM picks a target number for difficulty
• First-person social interaction roleplay
• Dm evaluates persuasiveness and assigns a score 1-10
• Player rolls d10 and DM adds result to score
• DM adds PC skill to score
• DM compares total score ro target. Margin of success or failure determines resolution

You both are somehow thinking that having a skill system prevents roleplaying which is totally false. It allows people who do not want to rp to also play the game by using dice rolls without any effort to play the scene out, but in a rules less game like you propose they simply would not play at all. Likewise, the RP players are still able to talk in character all the time. The only limitation is that to some extend what they say should match the die roll.

And "rewarding someone for making an effort" is still taking pity in him. This also leads to the player not knowing what his character can do as for many interactions only the mood of the DM matters and his personal skill.
I still think that when it comes to role play a robust skill system allows for a vastly better role play experience than a skill less/rules light system, provided the players want to RP, something you automatically assume in your examples of your rules light systems, as it opens up a lot more roles a player can play without always having to hope the DM is in a good mood and allows the character to work despite the players own shortcomings. And that doesn't only apply to social skills but also knowledge, etc.
It also lets the player play a character much more consistently as he knows what his character can reliably do. In a rules light/skill less system a player, especially when he has to depend on the DMs generosity to play his role never knows if the DM is in a good mood and lets you succeed despite your below average performance, even when your character actually should have failed (because the DM is a nice guy) or if the DM suddenly critically judges your performance.

I ask you the next time you play such a system, apply this sort of reasoning to every check, including physicals. Want to do a feat of strength? Arm wrestling with the DM (or his bodybuilder brother depending on the difficulty). Want to hit with a ranged attack? Throw a dart at a dart board.
Thats the kind of situation such system put people into when they do not provide skills. They limit the roles playable by a person by his personal, real world abilities and the generosity of the DM. And that is certainly not supporting role playing, at least not compared to a system with skills where everyone can play anything no matter who he are and what he is good at in real life.

 

[Zhaleskra]

While there are systems that encourage socialization over combat, whether through rewarding non-violent solutions, punishing violent solutions, or both, ultimately it's really up to the group.

 

[GrimGent]

Has Golden Sky Stories been mentioned? It's a Japanese indie RPG (translated into English) where you play as animal spirits who go around helping people:

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/118784/Golden-Sky-Stories

The publisher has a demo download available at http://starlinepublishing.com/golden-sky-stories-tabletop-day-2013-demo/

Violence explicitly doesn't solve anything in GSS. In fact, engaging in any serious fighting will reset the character's connection to the local town, which (aside from any potential repercussions for reputation) may well limit their magical powers since those are fueled by points of Wonder earned by developing such social relationships. The system doesn't track damage at all, because while someone might be knocked over or sent running away, the game's simply isn't about the kind of scenarios where anyone ever ends up seriously injured.

Instead, it's about animals that have learned to take on human form helping out with little everyday problems. Even the monster supplement (which hasn't been published in English yet) introduces different friendly creatures to play, not opponents to battle.

 

[Celebrim]

You both are somehow thinking that having a skill system prevents roleplaying which is totally false.

No, it's not, because....

It allows people who do not want to rp to also play the game by using dice rolls without any effort to play the scene out...

So it's not 'totally false' then. It is apparently not a bug but a feature?

, but in a rules less game like you propose they simply would not play at all.

That's not a given.

Likewise, the RP players are still able to talk in character all the time.

That's not a given either.

The only limitation is that to some extend what they say should match the die roll.

What??? So I'm now letting the dice dictate what I say? That doesn't really sound like freedom to play. The way I integrate free form role play with mechanical resolution is exactly the opposite of that. I let the player determine what they say, and the content of their ideas, and to a limited extent the presentation of those ideas - deceptive, appealing, threatening, etc. Then I let the dice decide how the NPC responds to that content.

But there is something HUGE that is missing from your analysis and an area you are seemingly completely blind to.

The skill system does nothing at all for the most critical aspect of really good role play - intraparty play. If you don't have good intraparty play, you really don't have good RP at all. So your guy who is now playing because solely because he doesn't have to RP because he's got lovely dice resolution is still not really integrated in to the group, and is still missing basic skills that the mechanical resolution system is not going to be able to replace.

Moreover, your entire argument is predicated on the idea that the DM is an SOB and just wants to screw you over and is entirely biased and unpredictable and apparently also illogical. If that is the case, then your mechanical system is unlikely to help, since its the DM that sets the opportunities, the stakes, and the difficulties in most systems. You are still going to be reliant on the DM's judgment 95% of the time.

Moreover, your entire argument seems to be predicted on the idea that the reason your role play is to get NPCs to do what you want them to do. The reason you role play is that this is a role-playing game. That you get the NPCs to behave in a particular way some of the time is sorta irrelevant. Role play is the primary window into the world of the shared imagination, and particularly on to the most important things within that world - the NPCs. If all RP did was let you tell who the players on the stage where, and what their role was, it would be sufficiently worthy in and of itself. "See I smile and smile, but am a villain.", "a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave", "Before my body, I throw my warlike shield. Lay on, Macduff,And damn'd be him that first cries, "Hold, enough!" Role playing is there to make you really care about your defeats and triumphs. It's not some mere skill challenge to overcome.

There is a fundamental difference between physical and mental skills in an RPG - one that cannot be mitigated merely by providing mental skills. The body of the player may not be present within the game world so that they can use it in the game, but the mind of the game is unavoidably present in the game whether we like it or not. You focus on having the skill system provide skills to the character that the player doesn't have, but to a large extent it cannot do that. Even more so, the skill system is there to ensure that the character does not receive skills that the player has, but to a large extent it cannot prevent that. The problem with a stupid character in the hands of a smart player is regardless of what the numbers on the paper say, you can't remove the players judgment and problem solving skills completely. The problem with a high social skill character in the hands of a socially inept player is that you can't remove the poor social judgment from the play entirely.

If you were to try to do that, then you really would end up with a system where it didn't matter what the player said or did - the dice was dictating what the character did and the player was just acting out the will of the dice like some complex computer function receiving input.

Player: "I want to listen at the door."
DM: Make an intelligence check to see if you are smart enough to do that.

Player: "I slap the king."
DM: Make diplomacy check to see if he likes it.

Social and mental skills are inherently different than physical skills. Sorry to break it to you.

 

[FickleGM]

Actually, Derren's first statement is correct. It is a totally false claim that having skills prevents roleplaying.

 

[Celebrim]

Actually, Derren's first statement is correct. It is a totally false claim that having skills prevents roleplaying.

Be as that may, the provided evidence:

It allows people who do not want to rp to also play the game by using dice rolls without any effort to play the scene out...

Not only doesn't support that claim it flat out undermines it. Moreover, since it was provided as evidence, it very much makes the poster sound like he's saying 'not playing the scene out' is a good thing. Considering that he spends the rest of the essay arguing for the superiority of not playing things out, I find it hard to believe he's really advocating for role playing.

Exactly what I actually think can be teased out of my response, but never expect me to accept even a good thesis on the basis of poor evidence and bad logic. The poster I'm responding to filled almost his entire essay with evidence that supported in every detail the claims of the people he was supposedly contradicting.

 

[FickleGM]

Oh, I have no doubt that skills can, and in some cases do, facilitate the circumvention of roleplaying, but that does not equate to the prevention of roleplaying.