Any RPGs that focus on roleplaying instead of combat?

[ThirdWizard]

Character constraints are incredibly important to many roleplaying games, whether it be social, mental, or physical constraints. How much of a constraint is present upon the character is a matter of taste, but saying that a character's ability to aim a gun is fundamentally a different thing than a character's ability to woo a barmaid is not a hard fact but a matter of taste, seeing as many RPGs equate the two. Lots of people like to use those constraints in order to create a role for themselves, mechanically, that they can follow.

 

[Derren]

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

As FickleGM already pointed out you are wrong here and the rest of your post isn't much better. Your "examples" are downright silly.
So I do not think any further discussion with you about this is necessary or sensible.

You think a skill system turns people who want to role play into roll players who suddenly stop to role play and I think a skill system allows those role players to play more roles as they do not need to match their social skills while also allowing roll players to play the game as a side effect.
Thats the end of it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

DING! Fries are done.

The reward system can be a big influence after group preference of course. GURPS is completely roleplaying focused because character points are awarded solely on how well you roleplayed your character. It doesn't matter how much combat or action your preferred style includes.

 

[bert1000]

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.

Assuming the dice roll (modified by skills, etc.) is the mechanism that determines the reality of the in game fiction, then I actually prefer to let the dice influence what I say. I find this actually supports good roleplaying. Roleplaying defined as “making decisions, taking actions, saying things, etc. as if I had the characters abilities, personality, experience, history, etc.”

It certainly cuts down on your “freedom to play”, but in a good way I would argue. If you are playing a role, it’s nice to have some guidance that helps model that role (in this case the social skill check).

I generally prefer:

1) State intent (“I’d like to convince the landowner that the goblin threat is real and he should let us march through his lands”)
2) Roll to determine outcome (Failure)
3) DM / player jointly role-play description of outcome and dialogue (Player: “You have a wonderful heard of cattle, Lord Abernathy” DM: “I hate kiss ups. My cattle are the same cattle as my neighbors. Why are you here? Etc.”

This has several advantages. It rewards resources spent on character traits/abilities, it avoids awkward retcons after the roll is made, it removes Player and DM personal ability and preferences from the outcome (a feature in this case), and it allows the player and DM to create a description of the result together, which is fun and easier. If the player rolls a failure he has all kinds of creative leeway in figuring out how it ends of being a failure and the DM can help. Same with a success. In groups that enjoy roleplaying for roleplaying’s sake, I think this method works well. Not sure this would “incentive” those who don’t want to do so.

To me, this is more fun as well. I get to figure out how to lead the conversation, etc. toward the determined outcome and I get a partner to do so (the DM).

It’s not my favorite but I don’t hate a more player ability influenced game like you are describing, but I do want it to be spelled out clearly upfront that that is the way things work. And I don’t want any options for character resources to be spent on the mental/social etc. abilities that get overridden by player skill.

 

[Celebrim]

I generally prefer:

1) State intent (“I’d like to convince the landowner that the goblin threat is real and he should let us march through his lands”)
2) Roll to determine outcome (Failure)
3) DM / player jointly role-play description of outcome and dialogue (Player: “You have a wonderful heard of cattle, Lord Abernathy” DM: “I hate kiss ups. My cattle are the same cattle as my neighbors. Why are you here? Etc.”

I generally prefer:

1) Engage in dialogue.
2) If a debatable point arises, roll to determine outcome.
3) NPC becomes resolved to a position based on the outcome.

This has several advantages. First, it makes dialogue the natural means of interaction and not something that only occurs as a result of a fortune roll. After all, we never really know what sort of debatable propositions might arise spontaneously in a conversation. A player could naturalistically attempt to bluff, persuade, or bully an NPC without a lot of premeditation. This can be fun itself, like player realizing what he's just said comes off as a threat. Ooops. Secondly, humans are linear creatures. We don't like to know the outcome, and once we do know the outcome we often lose interest in the process. This is why most sporting events are live, and watching reruns of sporting events is a fairly rare activity. By placing the fortune as late as possible in the process, we increase interest in the process and make it as engrossing as possible. Thirdly, it means that role-playing dialogue is obligatory (a feature in this case). Under your construction, you can do away with step #3 altogether, and the DM can simply affirm or deny the proposition. Under my construction, it's necessary to at least attempt the dialogue. This ultimately results in more skillful and enjoyable play.

It’s not my favorite but I don’t hate a more player ability influenced game like you are describing, but I do want it to be spelled out clearly upfront that that is the way things work. And I don’t want any options for character resources to be spent on the mental/social etc. abilities that get overridden by player skill.

I don't entirely want that either, but I do want to cultivate player skill. I have a player who is very awkward and introverted and lacks self-confidence. As it happens his character has become the party leader (through a series of circumstances), and his character is also supposed to be fairly charismatic and diplomatic. He stammers and stutters his way through scenes, and is sometimes embarrassed. But that doesn't stop his character from succeeding socially because well, +9 diplomacy check. As a DM I really only care about the content of his words. The dice determine the polish, magnetism, and nuance of the presentation. Sometimes the player in a fit of self-doubt apologizes to me after the session for role-playing so badly, and I tell him that the character is automatically better at these things than he is, or probably anyone at the table is. In the novelization of the game, his words get transformed into graceful and forceful phrases. The important thing is that he convey the content of the message and that he's getting better and better at this all the time, so that there are more and more moments where the character's dialogue is itself a shining moment of awesomeness.

The player gets a bonus or penalty if his content is especially appropriate or inappropriate, but these modifiers are generally small (normally -3 to +3) and knowledge of what content is appropriate is something that the players are expected to learn - for example, another NPC might tell them that this NPC is partial to fish and will look favorably on fish as a present, or they may learn that the NPC cares more about his daughter than anything in the world and may make the appeal on the basis of his concern for her, or that the NPC once committed a great crime and if the players deduce that offering him explicitly a chance to make restitution will make their case more strongly I will reward that with a bonus. Other bonuses can apply based on the NPCs biases. Most of the time the respected cleric of the sun deity is a better choice of negotiator than the hobgoblin outcast, but if you are negotiating with a goblin the playing field is more level. It's actually in my opinion unfair not to apply modifiers in these circumstances because the player - even if he's barely able to articulate - is behaving skillfully. Again, it's not possible to totally remove player skill from the equation - ultimately it the character is brought to life by an intelligence - and really, I don't see why you'd want to.

To me, this is more fun.

I was 12 when I was taught this, and I have been profoundly grateful on many levels ever since. I had been DMing since about 10 for other school kids, and we would say things like, "I introduce myself to the guard." and "The guard asks you what your business is in the town." We 'borrowed' an older DM for a game, and I role-played in my usual manner, "I introduce myself to the king." (or whatever NPC it was), and the DM said, "Yeah, but what do you say." I was immediately embarrassed, because suddenly my normal fear of social situations kicked in. But, also I was immediately thrilled, because I sensed a whole new level of possibilities. It is the level were an RPG begins to become an art form.

 

[Crusadius]

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.

I think its actually the dice determines the effectiveness of what you say.

A social encounter is still determined by what a character says. If a character (Player) is talking to the King and says "I want to kill you" instead of "Your majesty's wisdom has no match in the kingdom", rolling the dice is not going to turn the former into the latter and endear the character to the King (in the same manner a Player who says that their character swings their sword at the wall instead of a foe will not strike the foe).

The reason for social skills is the same reason why combat skills exist - they shape/limit the character's ability in those areas. If a Player is naturally capable at public speaking but creates a character who has no public speaking skills at all then their (the Player's) own natural talent should not translate into an advantage for the character.

I am not opposed to "free-form" role-play but ultimately, like combat, it is my opinion that rolling the dice should be the deciding factor regarding how well the character does (and not a determination by the Game Master that could be based on anything from how well the Player narrates to the fact that the Player chose to wear a blue shirt today).

Else a Game Master should advise Players that social skills are a waste of time for the game they are running and just to focus on skills/abilities/attributes that help characters to kill things.

 

[Celebrim]

I think its actually the dice determines the effectiveness of what you say...The reason for social skills is the same reason why combat skills exist - they shape/limit the character's ability in those areas. If a Player is naturally capable at public speaking but creates a character who has no public speaking skills at all then their (the Player's) own natural talent should not translate into an advantage for the character.

Well, I outlined my own take on this extensively in the post just prior to yours, but the question of whether a player's "own natural talent should not translate into an advantage for the character" depends on what you mean by that, precisely because of what you have just said:

A social encounter is still determined by what a character says.

Precisely. Any problem solving encounter - how to climb a slippery flowstone, how to open a trapped chest, who to navigate a mazelike dungeon - is ultimately dependent on what actions the character takes. Talking through a social dialogue is simply another series of choices. And what the character says is determined by what the player animates the character to say. Consider your example:

If a character (Player) is talking to the King and says "I want to kill you" instead of "Your majesty's wisdom has no match in the kingdom", rolling the dice is not going to turn the former into the latter and endear the character to the King (in the same manner a Player who says that their character swings their sword at the wall instead of a foe will not strike the foe).

Exactly. This is the heart of the matter. You will have players that are so socially ineffectual that they continually say things like, "I want to kill you." to the king and who are abrasive, offensive, and insulting when they mean to be otherwise. Such players will have difficulty running socially effective characters not because of their own lack of charisma, but because of their own anti-social choices they are making when they animate their character. Likewise, you could have a player whose character is on paper a tremendous combatant, but I can't stop such a player from making massively ineffectual and rash tactical decisions, or simply from being tactically passive. I've had players who repeatedly essentially skip combat rounds, taking no action or no action of consequence because they are too afraid of making a mistake. On paper the character is effective. In practice the character is not nearly as effective as it could be. If the player lacks tactical skill, and charges into ambushes, allows himself to become surrounded, is passive when he should be active and active when he should be passive, hides when he should attack and attacks when he should flee, what am I the DM to do - point out that his character is supposed to be a great tactician and play the character for him? Or make an intelligence check before each combat round and give advice on the results of that, which amounts to much the same thing? No amount of on paper intelligence and wisdom can turn a character into an intelligent and wise character if the player animating the character makes foolish decisions. It can make a character knowledgeable and perceptive despite the player's lack of knowledge and perceptiveness, but it can't keep the player from doing entirely stupid things. High combat skills can allow a character to succeed despite tactical understanding by the player, but it can't replace it.

In the same manner, no amount of diplomacy or savoir-faire skill on a character sheet can make a tactless, aggressive player who prefers to solve problems with a battle axe diplomatic.

So, when we say that a character's charisma can replace a player's charisma, it depends entirely on what you mean by that. A character can be magnetic, attractive, and desirable even if the player is unattractive and has odious personal habits. A character can be smooth, confident, and to some extent glib even if the player panics, is awkward and stutters. Diplomacy skill on the character sheet can do all these things. But it can't make the character make good choices. To a certain extent, a character's high social skills and likeability can mitigate the effect of those bad choices - an NPC may tolerate frankness, nosiness, rudeness, and tactlessness from a high charisma PC in a way they never would from a low charisma PC. But at some point, the player's decisions simply overrule any thing that is on the character sheet.

The reverse is also true. While a highly intelligent and perceptive individual may have an easier time playing someone clueless and stupid than the reverse, it's still ultimately impossible for a smart player to play a truly stupid character because that awareness is always there biasing the choices.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think folks are raising some interesting points here. This is something i have been thinking about an awful lot lately, and been having pretty extensive discussions with my group about. I see a few different positions emerging here, and i really do think the whole social skill thin and their impact upon is very much a matter of personal experience and taste. I get where the folks are coming from who see social skills as enabling roleplay and making for more accurate characterizations of pCsand i would concede those things can be true for many. But it also depends on what roleplaying means to to you. For me, roleplaying isnt about simulating a character or portraying it accuratey like an actor might. For me roleplay is really just speaking in character, feeling like i am making decisions that matter, etc. So i do find social skills can interefere with that for me. I do realize social skills are widley used, i use them in my own games because players like them, but i have always had this tension with them. I really like puzzle solving and mystery adventures, so i tend to feel their intrusion there. I want to feel like i am the one solving the mystery, or solving the puzzle, not like i made a bunch of rolls to find clues and ask the right questions. Again, good gm can wield a skill system and still give me that feeling, but alot of times social skills make me feel like i am a step removed from what is going on in the game world.

 

[Derren]

I want to feel like i am the one solving the mystery, or solving the puzzle, not like i made a bunch of rolls to find clues and ask the right questions

So when you want to solve the puzzles instead of your character why are you playing a role playing game and not a puzzle game?

 

[Bedrockgames]

So when you want to solve the puzzles instead of your character why are you playing a role playing game and not a puzzle game?

Because I like roleplaying games more than puzzles. I enjoy acting through my PC in a fictional world. I just prefer to interface with things like puzzle solving, socializing, etc directly, rather than through a skill system. I am not saying this is the only way to do it, or that people who like social skills in games are wrong. I am just saying what I find fun. And for me, social skills sometimes get in the way of the parts of the game I enjoy (for instance questioning an NPC during an investigation, or tracking down clues). If I am rolling for these things, it just feels less immersive to me. YMMV. If you like social skills, that is great. I am not here to knock them, or say they everyone will have the same experience with them as I do (and as I stated before I do use them in games, I just find them a bit frustrating). Nor am I trying to define roleplaying for everyone. I am just pointing out, that it isn't necessarily about characterization for everyone. For some people its more like playing a character but also playing yourself a bit, in that the goal is to just feel like you are in the character's shoes and not worry so much about how the PCs problem solving or socializing skills differ from your own.