Why are social encounters called "roleplaying encounters?"
I really make no distinction, referring to both as a scene. The scene could be a fight, it could be some talking, it could be whatever. Heck, most of the time I don't know what it'll be until it happens.
But the point is well made that such encounters aren't really helped by the system much. I do a lot of non-combat encounters, but then I'm not running D&D right now either. I'm running a Buffy game, where those kinds of encounters *do* engage the system in a couple of different ways. For instance, if a character is playing a scene where one of their disadvantages comes into play, they can earn drama points for, well, causing drama. Those are quite powerful, most important resource in the game. This makes these scenes not feel like a waste.
The other part is that if you want your players to enjoy noncombat encounters, you have to make them interesting. What makes things interesting is conflict. That's why combats are popular. The bad guys want to kill the PCs. The PCs want to not die. Thus, conflict. The trick to running a successful, interesting noncombat encounter is to have a conflict inherent to the situation. For instance, if the DM set a scene where the PCs have an audience with the Prince, but nothing in paticular they want or need, then no one cares. On the other hand, if the Prince is about to start a war against a PC's homeland over a misunderstanding, or they have a PC's sibling imprisoned, or they need to convince him not to have his magi try to open the Portal Thing of McGuffin, the encounter becomes important and interesting. They want something from the Prince, or want him to not do something. If this can engage the system as well, even better.
I'm convinced that most players who insist they only want combat have had bad experinces with 'roleplay' encounters in which they are expected to monolouge over stuff they don't care about and doesn't matter. Or GMs who try to use this for leverage. "Oh, this is your sister that got turned into a vampire, you can't attack her". I prefer to try and offer a bribe if they go along with this. Once offered a PC several Drama Points if he would be unable to attack his vamped girlfriend. He didn't go for it, which was cool. You have to make these things matter, or they aren't going to be any fun.
But the point is well made that such encounters aren't really helped by the system much. I do a lot of non-combat encounters, but then I'm not running D&D right now either. I'm running a Buffy game, where those kinds of encounters *do* engage the system in a couple of different ways. For instance, if a character is playing a scene where one of their disadvantages comes into play, they can earn drama points for, well, causing drama. Those are quite powerful, most important resource in the game. This makes these scenes not feel like a waste.
The other part is that if you want your players to enjoy noncombat encounters, you have to make them interesting. What makes things interesting is conflict. That's why combats are popular. The bad guys want to kill the PCs. The PCs want to not die. Thus, conflict. The trick to running a successful, interesting noncombat encounter is to have a conflict inherent to the situation. For instance, if the DM set a scene where the PCs have an audience with the Prince, but nothing in paticular they want or need, then no one cares. On the other hand, if the Prince is about to start a war against a PC's homeland over a misunderstanding, or they have a PC's sibling imprisoned, or they need to convince him not to have his magi try to open the Portal Thing of McGuffin, the encounter becomes important and interesting. They want something from the Prince, or want him to not do something. If this can engage the system as well, even better.
I'm convinced that most players who insist they only want combat have had bad experinces with 'roleplay' encounters in which they are expected to monolouge over stuff they don't care about and doesn't matter. Or GMs who try to use this for leverage. "Oh, this is your sister that got turned into a vampire, you can't attack her". I prefer to try and offer a bribe if they go along with this. Once offered a PC several Drama Points if he would be unable to attack his vamped girlfriend. He didn't go for it, which was cool. You have to make these things matter, or they aren't going to be any fun.
Doug McCrae
Legend
It's very common down my way to use 'roleplaying' to mean acting. It doesn't signify an attack on anyone's style of play. Likewise we could use the term to mean the totality of what goes on during in a session as in "I was roleplaying on Thursday night."
So the word definitely has two separate meanings. I'd say the former is a bit more common. To refuse to acknowledge one sense altogether is pointless, the meaning is out there and in use.
You're right to want to refute the 'roleplaying vs rollplaying' cr@p but you're going about it the wrong way.
So the word definitely has two separate meanings. I'd say the former is a bit more common. To refuse to acknowledge one sense altogether is pointless, the meaning is out there and in use.
You're right to want to refute the 'roleplaying vs rollplaying' cr@p but you're going about it the wrong way.
Last edited:
jmucchiello
Hero
In most of the groups I've ever played with, this would not produce anything I would call entertaining play.Nifft said:
howandwhy99
Adventurer
Maybe they are called this because speaking in character is considered roleplaying?
I don't think this is true, but I don't know how else to explain it. Just because Conan kills the zebra-headed tiger instead of talking to it doesn't mean he was not playing in character.
How does one design a "roleplaying" encounter anyways? Make the NPC unkillable? It's not like you can make the players respond.
I don't dictate what encounters are combats and which are not. Neither do I dictate topics of conversation. Or yell out important IC information to them lest they miss it. They do what they want to do.
"I lightning bolt the stripes off 'im".
I don't think this is true, but I don't know how else to explain it. Just because Conan kills the zebra-headed tiger instead of talking to it doesn't mean he was not playing in character.
How does one design a "roleplaying" encounter anyways? Make the NPC unkillable? It's not like you can make the players respond.
I don't dictate what encounters are combats and which are not. Neither do I dictate topics of conversation. Or yell out important IC information to them lest they miss it. They do what they want to do.
"I lightning bolt the stripes off 'im".
