Any RPGs that focus on roleplaying instead of combat?

[Celebrim]

So, your conception of "roleplaying" is that the resolution system determines success or failure based on the GM's subjective judgement of the "quality" of the player's action description or IC conversation? Is that the substance of the suggestion, here?

What?

I'm reading back through what I wrote trying to figure out where you got that from, and I just don't see it.

The substance of my "suggestion" is that roleplaying and the resolution system for determining success or failure of a proposition are independent. This is pretty much explicitly stated in the first sentence of the quoted paragraph when I say: "what I have said and communicated IC probably doesn't determine or influence the mechanical outcome of the proposition on the orc." And before you attack the qualifier "probably", what I meant by that is that some systems - say Exalted - reward the player mechanically for describing combat actions in role-playing terms. In practice, I find such systems unsatisfying.

I would also note that "quality" that you put in quotes is not a word that is found in the piece you are quoting; you are the one that has introduced the notion of quality, so why are you putting scare quotes around your own idea?

But the quoted passage isn't even really about my conception of role-playing. It is in fact about the exact opposite of what you construe it to be about, and that is in my opinion plainly stated. How you go off on a tangent, I don't understand.

 

[Razjah]

I've never played Fate, but it appears to encourage roleplaying based upon what little knowledge I have of it.

It does in my experience. Any game that mechanically rewards building a character and using that character's traits to accomplish goals tends to encourage more roleplaying- at least from what I have seen. FATE does this with the aspects. Your high concept, trouble, and other aspects details things about your character and how he or she typically reacts to situations. Getting compelled by those aspects earns Fate Points to later spend on rolls.

So playing a brash, charge first type guy can be rewarded allowing more charging and strike-first type actions. While building a occult bookstore owning cowardly demonologist who gets "hired" by God to fight demons can earn lots of Fate Points from freaking out in situations, fighting demons while terrified, and being an occult know-it-all and playing to those roles can earn more FP to spend fighting demons and researching arcane lore [this is not at all based on my current character... nope... not one bit].

 

[TrippyHippy]

Doctor Who. Actively builds a non-violent theme into it's initiative rules.

 

[Bagpuss]

Pretty much any game with a well developed skill system are easy to role play with if the group wants it. The combat system not overshadowing everything and being levelless is a bonus.

FATE Accelerate has no skill system to speak of, but I would say it is easier to roleplay with than many other other games I could think of, including FATE Core itself.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It does in my experience. Any game that mechanically rewards building a character and using that character's traits to accomplish goals tends to encourage more roleplaying- at least from what I have seen. FATE does this with the aspects. Your high concept, trouble, and other aspects details things about your character and how he or she typically reacts to situations. Getting compelled by those aspects earns Fate Points to later spend on rolls.

This is the best thing about FATE. It actively rewards you for playing to character, whether its using a Fate Point to get a bonus because it falls in line with your character or getting a Fate Point when something bad happens to your character that fits the character. The give and take of what you're good at and what your problems are really helps to create a well rounded character. Other games might have "flaws" or whatever chosen at character generation, but the Fate Point economy pushes you to really want your Trouble to come into play as often as possible.

Aspects also make scenes really pop. You can use anything around you to interact with your environment in both an expected way while handling pretty much anything that the group can conceive. This leads to highly varied and easily adaptive situations that the players can really take advantage of for roleplaying purposes, both in combat and out of it.

 

[Derren]

FATE Accelerate has no skill system to speak of, but I would say it is easier to roleplay with than many other other games I could think of, including FATE Core itself.

You can also argue that it is even more easy to roleplay when you freeform with no rules at all.
But we are not talking about children playing make believe, but a RPG system. And a system which supports the characters doing pretty much anything they want through robust skills allows for a lot more role playing than a system which focuses only on combat for example. Because then the system does not offer much at all to support role playing and instead you have to go outside of the system.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

This is kind of a tough question. Even "roleplaying" can be a fuzzy term in this context. I'm going to assume you mean social interaction, but exploration and even combat can certainly include a lot of roleplay.

On the one hand, you probably need mechanics that focus on social interaction. Players use the mechanical tools in front of them, so if they bought 6 combat abilities which are detailed on their character sheet and no explicitly social abilities, guess what's going to happen? If all you have is a hammer, then everything is a nail.

On the other hand, I've seen games where the social interaction mechanics suck the actual social interaction and the fun right out of the game. "The guard stops you at the gate, 'Gates are closed for the night'" "I roll intimidate" "Okay, you're through" BOOOORING.

So I'd recommend a somewhat rules light game with mechanical support for social interaction that's more complex than "roll a check" and where the social interaction between players has mechanical consequences. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any games that exactly fit those criteria.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I am running a FATE campaign currently with a group that has a strong tactical history (D&D, RoleMaster) and I absolutely feel it strongly encourages roleplaying. My players do not first think "what powers / actions / skills will I use?" They think "what's in the area I can use" and "what aspects of the situation / personalities can I use".

Example:

In our first session, the players fought some wild dogs. They used terrain for cover, growled at the animals and did a few RP things, but mostly it was "roll fight / shoot" -- mostly tactical play, but definitely more RP than in other systems. However, that was not the big fight. Oh no; the big fight was a social combat that started entirely by accident ...

So, Hunter is not a good rider, and so fails his riding check, so I state that the horse is slightly injured and will need walking for a while [GM is trying to slow them down so they get caught out at night ...]. Jemima complains at him and I, as GM, notice she has an aspect "Kids nowadays don't know s**t", which I compel and she starts provoking and insulting Hunter. Hunter I also compel ("Chip on his shoulder; no-one thinks he's good enough") and they start fighting, doing some nice stress damage to each other (more than the dogs ever managed). Our Mechanic stays out of it, just watching the fight, but then the Scrounger, looking at his own aspect "Your stuff is my stuff" decides to "borrow" our mechanic's pistol, and only JUST succeeds in evading notice, so I rule that in examining it he drops one of their only three bullets into the grass. He fails to find it. So when the first two stop fighting, the next thing he has to do is be diplomatic and ask for help finding the lost bullet ...

I also find that creatures are more interesting; the use of aspects makes every combat different. I'm running a "post-zombie-apocalypse" game, and so far they've run into two types of Zees:

YER BASIC ZEE:
* Fight +3, Notice +2, Everything else +1
* Can move real fast when it has to
* Not the brightest
* A two point stress box, and a mild consequence slot

ZEE THAT USED TO BE A HUNTER
* Fight +4, Sneak +4. Everything else +1
* Better to be safe than eat
* Sneaky SOB
* Brighter than a dog, but just as fast
* 3 and 4 point stress boxes, mild and medium consequence boxes

Against a mob of the first type, the players could depend on keeping out of close range (I'd have to spend a fate point to invoke their speed) and 2 decent hits takes one down, so one player distracted them and lured a group off, while the others shot them from range.

The second zee (a solo attacker) ran away from them after first contact, then stalked them and when a single player was alone-ish, attacked. I might have had a hand in the being alone thing, as I compelled her to go out wandering to get some parts for a repair job she was doing ("I can make it better than it was before!"). It ripped her up well (new consequence "missing bits of yer belly") and was driven off, but not killed by the others when they ran over. Very nasty encounter. Later it tried to sneak up on them at night, but they had managed to find its entry point, were waiting, and fired at it. Even when I invoked the "Sneaky SOB" AND the situational "dark night" aspect, the party's sharpshooter, with the help of one round of aiming, his shooting stunt and some good dice rolling did some serious damage, shooting half its head off. It ran off and there was a tense moment as the shooter decided whether to use his last rifle bullet on the fleeing Zee. He did, rolled well, and with the penalty for missing half its head counteracting the Sneaky and Dark aspects (I invoked them both again as it tried to escape) he took it out. Much rejoicing.

The use of aspects is a critical feature -- they have three uses:

* They define fact: Yer Basic Zee is stupid. That is a straight roleplaying thing. Will they keep following a target when others are shooting at them? Yes, because they are "not the brightest"
* They can be invoked for game effects. Is the ex-Hunter Zee sneaking poorly? Well, I have a limited number of times I can boost that result because he is a "Sneaky SOB"
* They can be invoked to influence narrative. That's most usually done TO players (e.g. the social conflict) but can also be used BY players. If the players were losing to a group of bandits, I'd allow them to invoke the campaign's aspect "There are Zombies everywhere" to have a gang of zombies turn up just then and make the combat a three way fight.

I think that multi-facted use is the genius of FATE -- lots of systems do one or the other of the above three uses. But in FATE, all I have write on my character sheet is "I am tougher than anyone" and I have a roleplaying description, an advantage I can invoke when needed and a hook for the GM to get me into exciting situations.

It really works.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

On the other hand, I've seen games where the social interaction mechanics suck the actual social interaction and the fun right out of the game. "The guard stops you at the gate, 'Gates are closed for the night'" "I roll intimidate" "Okay, you're through" BOOOORING.

So I'd recommend a somewhat rules light game with mechanical support for social interaction that's more complex than "roll a check" and where the social interaction between players has mechanical consequences. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any games that exactly fit those criteria.

In FATE, for my current set of characters:

Jack, the Hunter "needs to protect his new family" so might plead (using Rapport skill) and invoke that aspect if he needs to.
Trixie, the mechanic is "always mouthing". I might compel her into insulting the guard and starting a social conflict that would end in either a browbeaten guard or the party getting a mild "bunch of weenies" consequence
Jemima doesn't have anything special, so she'd just use Rapport or Provoke as per your example
Milton, the scrounger will "survive at all costs" so I might compel him to offer some party loot as a bribe to the guard.

Of course, I might also have given the guard some some aspects, but likely not.

 

[Bagpuss]

And a system which supports the characters doing pretty much anything they want through robust skills allows for a lot more role playing than a system which focuses only on combat for example. Because then the system does not offer much at all to support role playing and instead you have to go outside of the system.

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.