Any RPGs that focus on roleplaying instead of combat?

[Derren]

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.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

I must disagree. Where the anecdote-game take is the expectation that there is not one true way, one true result, and one true expectation. Different groups will approach the same game from entirely different directions. This is a fact that isn't entirely obvious without the anecdote game, and without the anecdote game you are likely to believe something that sounds good on the surface but is in fact ridiculous - like the system is singularly important in determining how a group plays a game.

So I don't disagree with your anecdote and the fact that you have an entirely different experience is entirely the point. If you feel that some aspect of role playing is missing from your game, changing systems in and of itself probably won't fix the problem. By Celebrim's Second Law of RPGs, what you must change is how you prepare to play and how you think about about playing. Sometimes system changes can induce that shift, and other times it requires the storyteller lead by example.

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.

Well, sure, broadly speaking any IC action you take while playing a RPG is 'role-playing', and rules can facilitate the experience of being in that role. But I think you are going to head for a contradiction here.

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".

Yes, but from the perspective that the impatient barbarian when he solves problems with combat is role-playing, and from the perspective that any in character action we take is also role-playing, then surely the OP should have titled the thread as you say without any irony, since otherwise the proper retort is "But combat is role-playing." I think we can understand the "role-playing instead of combat" in context to mean "IC dialog and social interaction instead of combat", because in the context of a RP game (and even outside of it) that's what 'role-playing' usually means.

By saying that the RPing is separate from the tactical combat game, I don't mean that the actions you choose to take in combat are unaffected by your character's personality much less your character's role. That at some level is ridiculous, since having more BAB as a fighter than a wizard would by that standard 'encourage playing your role' and 'encourage role playing'. At some level that is true, but then we could have a game that was exclusively tactical combat and claim it 'pushes the game toward role-playing' despite the only actions occurring being the management of the tactical combat game. What I mean by saying RPing is separate from the tactical combat game is that if I roll a d20 and say "I grip my battle axe in two hands and yell, "Taste my steel, green skinned vermin!", what I have said and communicated IC probably doesn't determine or influence the mechanical outcome of the attack proposition on the orc. I'm not more or less likely to hit the orc because I've imagined the action in IC terms. Simply saying, "I attack with my battle axe. 17, is that a hit?" is the same proposition. There are of course some exceptions where the designers were trying to push you to role play out that combat scene, but we can recognize that 'role-playing' is the something missing in that second naked metagame proposition and know that a rule is pushing toward 'role-playing' precisely because we generally equate role-playing with IC dialogue and interaction.

 

[Stormonu]

When I started playing RPGs other than D&D, I had some real problems with understanding that in a lot of those games going for your weapons first was often a bad idea.

Some of the games that I enjoy that I feel encourage RP more than D&D include Vampire, Legend of the Five Rings and Call of Cthulhu. In Vampire and Five Rings, it is fairly easy to build combat machines, but such characters tend to die very gruesomely as well. Especially in Five Rings, where anyone who takes even one hit is probably dead by the next round. Our group had often explained it as, "if you have to draw your sword, you've failed" kind of game.

In Cthulhu, combat just gets you dead - the monster is probably immune or will act before you do. Either use your brain or avoid the situation in the first place - which the latter is often the smarter thing to do in the first place.

 

[am181d]

I've talked about this on other threads, but as someone who's mostly played D&D and mostly played in RP-heavy, combat-light campaigns, I'm always a bit leery of games that claim to emphasize role-playing, as I find that they tend to add rules that take role-playing decisions out of the hands of the players. (In situation X, your character must do Z.) One of the joys of role-playing in D&D is that (aside from the occasional spell or skill check) it's relatively free form.

I do work with my players on assembling story hooks (goals/motivations, background elements, important NPCs and locations, etc.) but I find that it works best (for me) if these don't have direct mechanical significance.

 

[Celebrim]

I've talked about this on other threads, but as someone who's mostly played D&D and mostly played in RP-heavy, combat-light campaigns, I'm always a bit leery of games that claim to emphasize role-playing, as I find that they tend to add rules that take role-playing decisions out of the hands of the players.

Or even, just as bad in my opinion, they tend to interrupt the flow of natural RP with a bunch of fiddly rules and resolution mechanics so that on average players are no more in character than they are in combat.

I do work with my players on assembling story hooks (goals/motivations, background elements, important NPCs's and locations, etc.) but I find that it works best (for me) if these don't have direct mechanical significance.

If a player wants their background to provide a specific advantage or disadvantage, I have rules that provide for that. This accomplishes two things. First, it allows players to create PC's that I would never otherwise approve, because they've spent character building resources to acquire those advantages. Secondly, it means that if a player does suggest that their background should result in X material advantage, that I can point at the rules and say, "Did you take the Mentor Trait? If you wanted your wealthy father to materially support you and give you gifts, you should have taken the appropriate traits." Conversely, if the player does take the trait, then they know that it isn't up to my judgment really whether they get the advantage.

So, for example, this has allowed players to enter my campaign as true royal princesses, by taking 'High Noble Rank' as a starting trait, something I would have never dreamed of allowing or approving as a background without rules explicitly outlining what the benefits and drawbacks of that would be rather than the player having nebulous ideas of virtually unlimited political power, influence, and wealth.

 

[Evenglare]

I came in here expecting arguments about what roleplaying is and what games emphasize them or combat and people disagreeing about what games do what and how to play these games and how anecdotal evidence is not evidence. I was not disappointed.

 

[questkick]

Not to sound like a broken record, but Shadows of Esteren is focused on role-playing. Their character ability system focuses more on who the character is, not what they can do.

 

[Argyle King]

I feel that Star Wars: Edge of The Empire is built in such a way to encourage roleplaying and setting the scene. Part of character creation is figuring out what motivates your character and what responsibilities they have.

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

I've had pretty good luck with GURPS 4th Edition. Many if the advantages and disadvantage which can be chosen during character creation act like built in plot hooks and scene setters for a particular character. Also, I believe that the system places combat options and non-combat options on even footing; to me, that allows for both to be on par with each other when it comes to problem solving. Obviously, as a modular system, this is going to vary with both group and game style, but I feel it encourages rp right out of the box more than most D&D editions I'm familiar with.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

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.

The whole "world" system of books encourage roleplaying pretty well. It started with Apocalypse Word, and more games like Dungeon World, Monster Hearts, and Monster of the Week. I'm playing in a game of Monster Hearts right now, and it's the most emotionally involved I've been in a character to date.

 

[Balesir]

What I mean by saying RPing is separate from the tactical combat game is that if I roll a d20 and say "I grip my battle axe in two hands and yell, "Taste my steel, green skinned vermin!", what I have said and communicated IC probably doesn't determine or influence the mechanical outcome of the attack proposition on the orc. I'm not more or less likely to hit the orc because I've imagined the action in IC terms. Simply saying, "I attack with my battle axe. 17, is that a hit?" is the same proposition. There are of course some exceptions where the designers were trying to push you to role play out that combat scene, but we can recognize that 'role-playing' is the something missing in that second naked metagame proposition and know that a rule is pushing toward 'role-playing' precisely because we generally equate role-playing with IC dialogue and interaction.

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?