Setting the Dial: The Perfect Mix of Play and Roleplay

[CleverNickName]

I'm curious about the mixture of story vs. simulation dice in the new game system, so I put together a little exercise on the subject. Humor me if you like.

On the spectrum of "deep roleplay" (where the players spend almost all of the gaming session immersed in storytelling, and dice get rolled maybe every other hour) versus "combat simulation" (where dice are rolling almost constantly and dialogue is something that occurs maybe once every other hour), where would you like the developers to set the dial?

Imagine the D&D game is a paint mixing machine. You are standing in front of it with a bucket of base paint, and you have two pigments that you are going to mix into it to get the perfect color for your Saturday night gaming session. The base is the D&D Next gaming system. The first pigment is DEEP ROLEPLAY, and the second is COMBAT SIMULATION. You can turn the dial all the way to the left (for pure Deep Roleplay), or you can turn it all the way to the right (for pure Combat Simulation), or you can set it somewhere in between. So: where would you set the dial?

EDIT: I realize that the DM can also "set the dial" apart from the rules, by limiting the number of battles and/or NPC interactions in each game. But as we have all learned through the years, certain systems clearly favor one style over the other...and that is what I'm trying to measure here.

 

[CleverNickName]

I chose "3," btw. My favorite parts of the game are the storytelling aspects...world building, character development, plot twists, cliffhangers, red herrings, and all that. But I'm not sure I would enjoy the game without at least some simulation. Battles, skill challenges, etc. can really add excitement to the story when used properly. (They can really grind the story to a halt when overdone, too.) I hope that dice-throwing takes a backseat to the setting and story in D&D Next, but I don't exactly want it thrown in the trunk.

But that's just how I would paint MY game night.

 

[groklynn]

Completely fine with "3". I'll not miss 2 hour battles but I want my henchmen and castles back!

 

[GX.Sigma]

I like the exploration part the best. Roleplay is fine when the scenario is well designed, and combat is fun as long as it stays the hell out of the way.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

Are you asking how much of the session should be taken up by combat? My answer there is that it depends on the scenario.

Are you asking how "tactical" should combat be? My answer is very little.

Are you asking how simple combat should be? My answer is as much as possible.

Are you asking whether combat should be simulationist or narrativist? I believe it should be as gamist as it can get away with (which is not much), an the rest simulationist. I'm not sure what a narrativist combat system even looks like--Hero System? Yeah, I want the opposite of that.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking.
Are you asking ...
Are you asking...
Are you asking ...
Are you asking ...

Yeah, I know it's a complicated question...I think it is because "roleplay" and "simulation" mean different things to different people. I thought a simple binary scale would be easier to use than, say, a radar plot with six or seven different axes.

I deliberately left them as broad categories rather than specifics, too...because in my experience people tend to talk more about broad categories, but argue more over the specifics.

...how "tactical" should combat be? My answer is very little.

No argument here. This is why I hope they drop the combat grid altogether. One of my biggest gripes with 3.X was how everything had been force-fit to a sheet of graph paper.

Are you asking how simple combat should be? My answer is as much as possible.

I think everyone who plays the game would agree with you here. Being "high simulation" does not necessarily have to be "high complexity," though.

Are you asking whether combat should be simulationist or narrativist? I believe it should be as gamist as it can get away with (which is not much), an the rest simulationist. I'm not sure what a narrativist combat system even looks like--Hero System? Yeah, I want the opposite of that.

Yes. In a nutshell, this is what I am asking. The meter is intended to measure the "and the rest simulationist" part of your post. Where would you set that dial?

 

[BobTheNob]

The evolution of the game has been toward combat/simulationist, but I am happy to see it devolve back to a more rp/explorer type of game. Coming full cycle on this.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, accepting the conceit of this poll, I said 1. D&D is about the story. Combat serves the same role it does in most movies, except that what in a movie is eye candy becomes, in a roleplaying game, mind candy.

I also think that while rolling dice is a part of D&D, if you can go long periods of time without doing it, those periods are enjoyable, and the dice rolls become less rote and more meaningful.

***

Where the poll lost me though, was this idea of simulation. D&D never simulates combat particularly well. Simulating combat accurately helps you roleplay. Only the relative failure of D&D as a combat simulation sets up this dichotomy, and this is much bigger with the current version of published D&D than it was with earlier ones. The combat of D&D may be tactically interesting and provide an entertaining game experience for some, but it certainly is not much of a simulation.

 

[hafrogman]

EDIT: I realize that the DM can also "set the dial" apart from the rules, by limiting the number of battles and/or NPC interactions in each game. But as we have all learned through the years, certain systems clearly favor one style over the other...and that is what I'm trying to measure here.

I realize it's purely anecdotal, but I haven't found this to be the case. I find that the amount of roleplaying vs. combat that happens in a game is influenced mainly by WHO is playing, and little to none by the system. And thus I think there are two different questions here.

How much time do I want to play one way vs. the other is entirely different than how much time do I want the system to devote to rules for one type of play vs. the other. Specifically I think that the LESS the system concerns itself with roleplaying and social interaction, the more every player and character is free to act and react how they want in a social situation without concern for the system.

So I'd like roughly 5 in terms of the playtime, but the system should primarily concern itself with rules for combat (perhaps an 8), and leave the interaction to the minds and imagination of the players and DM.

 

[Raith5]

6

I love working with my friends to tactically defeat opponents - but I have to have to have story that makes the fights (and my enemies) make sense.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Neither. The focus should be on exploration.