Any RPGs that focus on roleplaying instead of combat?

[Evenglare]

Gotta throw in my lot for Dungeon World. There is no "combat" or out of combat sections. Dungeon World is truly the only game I personally know of that plays like reading a novel. That is to say, it begins and ends with the fiction, not with the mechanics. It's hard to explain.

 

[howandwhy99]

As all the others posters mentioned, you want a storygame then not something like D&D. Look for games advertising character portrayal and relationships to characters in social situations. There are other games that attempt to emulate the plot of novels, but that isn't actually going to support performing a fictional personality. You want game rules that support that, if that kind of role playing is your focus.

Fiasco isn't a bad suggestion, but it doesn't allow much depth into character in my experience. It's more like an action movie without the physical action. Instead social tensions are designed to red line in most every scene.

Dogs in the Vineyards presents moral quandaries that can be mulled over, but it is more about questioning the player's own moral understandings than exploring a character's make up.

The thing is, either of those could work great for you. Getting players to play a game while using a fictional persona instead of their own is sort of a game rule. You tell people to do it ...and it could be done in any game. Or at any moment for that matter. I think you should come up with more about what you mean by role playing and then folks might be able to help you better.

 

[Razjah]

Burning Wheel and Mouse Guard are both RPGs that don't focus on combat. They have combat rules, but talking your way out of something is very much preferred. Especially in Burning Wheel where a single good hit can end the fight.

 

[Celebrim]

I have played many RPGs and notice that most revolve around combat. With roleplaying coming in a distant 2nd.

I'm currently playing 3.X inspired D&D. In the past 5 sessions (20 hours) we've spent 15 minutes on combat.

There is exactly as much RP in an RPG as you have.

Now I have players that love to roleplay and do so...often. I understand that it is up to the DM and players to create the roleplaying experience no matter what game but are there certain games that REALLY push for active roleplaying?

There are games that push you away from combat and toward intellectual experiences, but nothing can make you actually role play.

Some RPGs that are heavily theatrical that I'd like to be a player in with a good storyteller are: Dogs in the Vineyard, Dread, My Life with Master, and Monsters and Other Childish Things

 

[Jhaelen]

I'd disagree with that statement, many of them have detailed combat rules, but that doesn't mean they revolve around combat.

Agreed. I'd actually say that most rpgs focus on roleplaying instead of combat - with the obvious exception of D&D, _if_ you are playing in a 'classical' campaign revolving around 'killing monsters and taking their stuff'. In many games combat is strongly discouraged simply because it is extremely lethal.

I think the best roleplaying experiences I've had were in Ars Magica. The suggested troupe-style of playing the game means you get to roleplay different characters, depending on the kind of story you're in, i.e. Magi, Companions or Grogs. Since it also features the 'meta-character' of the players' covenant it's also one of the few rpgs with excellent rules for campaign covering hundreds of years.

 

[fifty]

When I ran Amber Diceless we were also surprisingly combat light, and even when we did the lack of dice rolls meant fights were entirely narrative and thus felt like a smooth part of the ongoing story rather than a sudden interruption as can sometimes be the case.

...and yep, I had forgotten about ars Magica.. good game, not played it for years... hmm... now where is my copy?

 

[Umbran]

There are games that push you away from combat and toward intellectual experiences, but nothing can make you actually role play.

But nothing actually makes you engage in the tactical combat portion of the game, either, so I'm not sure what the statement gets you.

While individuals vary, I think it is reasonable to say that, when looking for what they can/will attempt to do in-game, players will usually look to their character sheets (or the game's equivalent) to see what their options may be.

If the sheet is mostly about their combat options, the players will naturally drawn to those options. Most games have a whole lot of combat options, which means the players can pick and choose from a variety of things that they feel improve their chances. If "talking" is one skill of many, and there are few or no solid options for making that skill more effective, it is apt to get short shrift in the player's attentions.

Thus, while you cannot *make* players do anything, it likely pays to pick a game that has more options for the play activities you want to see.

Some games are odd birds in this - FATE being an example. Depending on which FATE-derivative your playing, the same basic rules apply to physical combat, social conflicts, and mental challenges. The things most prevalent on the sheet are probably the character's Aspects, which can in theory be applied to any and all of these conflicts.

 

[Razjah]

Some games are odd birds in this - FATE being an example. Depending on which FATE-derivative your playing, the same basic rules apply to physical combat, social conflicts, and mental challenges. The things most prevalent on the sheet are probably the character's Aspects, which can in theory be applied to any and all of these conflicts.

Group dynamics matter a lot too. I'm currently playing in a Dresden Files game, and while my cowardly demonologist and occult bookstore owner is lacking in great social skills, he is very willing to try to talk his way out of stuff because fighting scares him. The one truly social character was built by the player who often runs a fighter/barbarian/paladin who charges the first enemy seen (a lot of the group is like this). That character has been slowly moving from diplomancer to amazon.

With this group, it rarely matters what the character sheet says- they grab weapons and fight their way out.

 

[Celebrim]

But nothing actually makes you engage in the tactical combat portion of the game, either, so I'm not sure what the statement gets you.

The same thing you are getting at from the opposite direction.

Ironically, games that have extremely detailed combat rules are notorious for pushing players (in the long run) away from combat. Combat resolution in such games may be so lengthy, tedious, fiddly, and often lethal, that players are discouraged from running games with frequent combats and instead may spend a lot of time on melodrama to make the few times they do engage in combat more worth while. Conversely, rules light systems with simple fast combat rules may in fact end up being mostly about combat, since there is no great burden on the players in resolving many such small combats.

If the sheet is mostly about their combat options, the players will naturally drawn to those options.

I guess that's where I'm disagreeing then. I've played 8 hour sessions of 1e AD&D where no dice where thrown the entire session. Yet, arguably in 1e AD&D there is nothing on the average character sheet that isn't a combat option. So what happened? Why were we playing a game not supported by the rules? Arguably, because it wasn't supported by the rules.

RPing isn't really about the rules. RPing is generally a improvisational theater game that seldom and usually doesn't intersect with the wargaming inspired tactical combat game that is the modern RPG's other parent. RPing is about acting out in character in a natural manner. It's about a fantasy dialog. In fact, arguably, systems that provide heavy support for social interaction end up undermining their own intention to encourage role playing, because the resolution mechanics for the social interaction can then effectively replace the role playing. If there are detailed social interaction rules, the tendency is for the player to make a rules proposition rather than role play: "I make a Cutting Remark social attack on Sir Badwell.... 17... And that's a hit, so you temporarily reduce his reputation by 5. The Young Admirers titter in delight and now move closer to you. Sir Badwell tries respond with Cool Indifference in order to avoid improve his reputation save." That sort of rules resolution tends to turn opportunities for role play into just another sort of tactical war game.

Now, it certainly doesn't make the characters not role play. But it gives them to the option to not do so should they want to. But players and DMs that expect theatrics are going to do them regardless of what the rules support for them is.

It's funny, but the last 20 hours of my campaign the most common dice roll by far has been 'Sense Motive'. The players regularly throw Sense Motive checks to get some insight about the NPCs they are speaking to. We've spent probably 16 of the last 20 hours in theatrical RP and only 15 minutes in combat (the rest in exploration). But I've been chuckling about the fact that 95% of the time, they don't actually need to make the checks - the answers they are getting are just validating what's obvious to them from the role play. They only ask for checks when it's obvious to the player that I'm role playing the NPC as lying, and so of course, the cleric asks, "Sense Motive, is he lying?", and the answer come back, "Yes.", and the response is, "I knew it!" So they did.

 

[Umbran]

I guess that's where I'm disagreeing then. I've played 8 hour sessions of 1e AD&D where no dice where thrown the entire session. Yet, arguably in 1e AD&D there is nothing on the average character sheet that isn't a combat option. So what happened? Why were we playing a game not supported by the rules? Arguably, because it wasn't supported by the rules.

Yes. Of course, YMMV. There will be groups and times that differ in just about any aspect of gameplay. For every time you can raise for your group not playing by the supported rules, I can raise an anecdote about how I saw a player staring at their sheet or flipping through a rulebook to find out what relevant action they could take in the situation. The anecdote-game takes us nowhere, mighty fast.

RPing isn't really about the rules. RPing is generally a improvisational theater game that seldom and usually doesn't intersect with the wargaming inspired tactical combat game that is the modern RPG's other parent.

Except, of course, when it does. My FATE example comes up here - in the Spirit of the Century game I played in Tuesday, I was performing miserably in a combat, specifically because I was playing against type - I had a character whose personality and concept were about taking support actions. That's who he was. I was busy trying to directly harm the foe, and did poorly. As soon as I stopped, and started setting up other PCs for big strikes, I did swimmingly. In game terms, I started playing to my aspects, which help define the role you are playing.

It is only in games where the role and the combat options are separated can you say that combat and role-playing don't intersect. But even in D&D - if you build a sneaky rogue type, he's going to do poorly if you just walk up and go toe-to-toe with a big brute. The system enforces the role.

RPing is about acting out in character in a natural manner. It's about a fantasy dialog.

RPing is not limited to dialog. It is about the sum total of activity - it is about how the character approaches the world. The impatient barbarian who gets tired of all the talky-talk and starts the fight when he feels insulted is still role-playing. The steampunk mechanic who solves all problems with a gizmo, and doesn't talk for fight, is still role-playing.

If we want to talk about dialog alone, that's fine. But then the title of the thread should be "RPGs that focus on verbal interaction or social interaction between characters instead of combat".