Combat RP'ing

[Talmun]

I have noticed a propensity in the players that I DM and play with that bothers me somewhat. All of these players are excellent, dedicated role-players, generating great character-concepts, spending large portions of the game in-character and e-mailing long in-character, RP-only discussions back and forth during the week(s) between sessions. It's great fun, but it contrasts sharply with what happens when the initiative is rolled and the minis hit the mat….

At that point, it seems like nearly all in-character thinking is dropped for purely tactical problem-solving. While this is not a bad thing necessarily, it is disturbing given the level of RP present otherwise...its like were playing two different games, one is an RPG, the other a minis war-game (that's probably an exaggeration, but you see my point).

I realize that this is an outgrowth of the more tactical 3.X rules, because if we run abstract combat (no minis, DM description only), then the RP factor during combat drops far less. Another problem might be that role-playing during 3.X combat might include doing things that are obviously wrong, and even suicidal, although that rarely stops any of these players at any other time...

Is this just something that must be endured? Is there any way to encourage RP in minis combat? Any other thoughts?

 

[ghettognome]

While it is a nice thought to have RP included in combat, it just doesn't seem to happen that way no matter how much effort is put into it. Combat puts one in a tactical mindset so to optimize the combat leaving the whole RP thing in the dust. I for one have been able to maintain RP in combat, but that was only with one character, all other characters I can't help but become tactical.

 

[Shallown]

Our group does much the same thing. I think once you start not looking at each other and looking at minis and dice you forget the Roleplaying part of the game. I mean when negotiating with an npc you might roll Diplomacy but that's one quick roll and your role playing again. In combat your rolling intitative, rolling to hit, rolling saves, looking at the mat, reading up on one of your spells checking character sheets etc. I think that if you want to inject more roleplaying in the combat someone has to start doing it and encourage others by leading by example. Start talking in character and announcing actions in more role playing ways. I mean before you roll to hit say "I step back hefting my great axe looking for that opening and".. rolla d20 and finish playing the swing out. Seems sort of goofy to some but you eventually find a level fo roleplaying interjection that makes the combat more interesting and still keeps it flowing.

Just a few thoughts.

later

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Personally, I don't think players thinking tactically during combat is a bad thing that must be "endured" at all. After all, it's life-or-death for the PCs, they should be thinking as tactically as they can. *shrug* Diff'rent folks, diff'rent strokes, I guess.

 

[shilsen]

Personally, I don't think players thinking tactically during combat is a bad thing that must be "endured" at all. After all, it's life-or-death for the PCs, they should be thinking as tactically as they can. *shrug* Diff'rent folks, diff'rent strokes, I guess.

What he said.

Is there any way to encourage RP in minis combat? Any other thoughts?

Question - What exactly do you have in mind when you talk about RP in minis combat? Do you want players to be more descriptive when they explain what their characters are doing? Do you want someone to yall "Aarrgh! I'm hit!" when his PC gets whacked by a greataxe? Do you want to see a reflection of the character's mental abilities in the tactics employed on the battlemat?

In short, I'm not really sure what your original conception of RP is, so I'm wondering if you could expand on it.

 

[swrushing]

IMX player will do two things... what their last Dm taught them to do and what you, now as their current GM, teach them to do.

You as Gm tell them what to do in combat two ways...

1. By how you run your NPCs. if your NPC move like minis on a map grid and you speak of them in wargame tactical mode- "he takes a 5' step and flanks you and swings"- they will pick that up. in instead you describe it as "The hulking brute moves closer, crowding you up against his comrade, and with a black toothed grin, he raises his axe..." then they will pick that up from you.

2. In what your system, mechanically speaking, rewards and punishes. if you use a rather complex system which puts much tactical emphasis on position (flanking, AoOs) and little on style, then expect your players to learn from that. After all, you, by the bonuses and penalties you hand out, are showing them what is important.

Say the barbarian gets hit and hit good. if the barbarian's player says "Leon runs his hand across the bleeding cut on his face, looks at the blood and licks it off with a smile before raoring back at the ogre..." do you charge the barbarian a half action for the blood schtick (hope not) or give him an intimidate roll as a free action and if he rolls good give him a +1 (or maybe +2) to hit the startled ogre? (Hope so, if thats the kind of stuff you want to encourage.)

if you show your players that "style matters", that "in character flourishes" inside of combat will earn as much or more of a practical bonus as the "precise movement of wargame minis" will, then you will get back what you sow, probably several times over.

Consider the rules you use, where you can tone down the tactical benefits and consider things you want to see done "as roleplaying" and start doing it yourself and ALSO start giving players at the table bonuses for doing it.

CAUTION: Do NOT under any circumstances get that order reversed. you do NOT want to start having your bad guys do the snarling overacting style bits and introduce the "bonuses for style" by giving your NPCs the benefits first. Once your players are into the style thing and reaping the benefits, they wont mind you giving the NPCs "their fare shake." But if the first time they hear about "style bonuses" is as a bonus the NPCs get, they will probably let you hear about it.



In a system

 

[Talmun]

Question - What exactly do you have in mind when you talk about RP in minis combat? Do you want players to be more descriptive when they explain what their characters are doing? Do you want someone to yall "Aarrgh! I'm hit!" when his PC gets whacked by a greataxe? Do you want to see a reflection of the character's mental abilities in the tactics employed on the battlemat?

In short, I'm not really sure what your original conception of RP is, so I'm wondering if you could expand on it.

I suppose I wasn't clear enough...

In a purely role-play situation, the players think about what they should do and say from the point of view of their character. This often means doing things that are not necessarily the 'best' option available, but what fits their personality and the moment.

What I'm describing here is a complete reversal of that frame of mind, in which the players, once combat ensues, drop all pretense of playing a character. They only care about what would be the most perfect move to make, spell to cast, weapon to use etc. For example, a player that normally RPs a reckless, hard-noised maverick is suddenly more concerned with avoiding AoO's than staying in character.

While I agree that battle-hardened adventurers should have tactical savvy, I'm talking about every PC at the table suddenly becoming a chess piece, and little else...

Clear?

 

[Talmun]

Excellent points, sw.

Some of your suggestions I do as a matter of course, when I can. Others certainly bare thinking on.

While I enjoy the tactical logic that aspects of the 3.X combat system promote, it does make it tempting to render descriptions down into dry game terms - thereby losing a large part of the flavor of crossing swords and bashing heads...

 

[Mallus]

One way to encourage comabt RP'ing is to use situational modifiers during combat. Reward players for extending their out-of-comabt character traits into combat.

This is going to annoy certain types of players mightily... because its totally subjective and sometimes rewards 'dumb but in-character' actions more than 'methodical like a chess-playing accountant' ones...

If you have players that say, decide to Power Attack because 'Strom the Aged is terribly angry that the Yankee Elf just hit him', I say go for it. If you're players base the decision to Power Attack on an Excel sheet, better not.

 

[Henry]

In our group, it's strange - we see more roleplaying in combat than outside of it; it's possibly because certain players are freer to act subconsciously while the action is going on, than if we're just sitting around the table with more sedate interaction.