Any RPGs that focus on roleplaying instead of combat?

[Derren]

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.

And imo that hinders role playing as you can't play a role, you can only play yourself.
In such a system the shy introvert can never play the "ladies man" swashbuckler as he simply can't talk so freely and flamboyant as his role would require it. He has to depend on the DM to take pity on him and let the NPCs react differently than what they normally would considering what he said. All the while he is overshadowed by the gruff and technically uncharismatic mercenary because he is played by a veteran RPG player who has no trouble and inhibitions to speak like he is in his role.

You seem to think that having a skill system would prevent people who want to role play from role playing. I disagree. Someone who wants to role play would still role play. Just that the skill system now allows him to play someone he isn't. The same way a combat system allows us fat nerds play highly athletic and trained fighters.

 

[Balesir]

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.

My apologies - looking over your post again it's clear to me I took from it more than you intended or wrote. I now see what you were getting at - thanks for explaining it again.

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.

Does making the system "convincing the DM" really make players "step outside the system"? I don't think so - I think it just gets them to concentrate on the system - which is persuading the GM.

I think, to identify a system that "supports roleplaying" one needs to do two things:

1) Identify what exactly one means by "roleplaying", and

2) Consider what system elements would support that.

The first of these is probably the most tricky. My own answer - and there is no need it should be yours, necessarily - is as follows:

1) Roleplaying is the process of making decisions in the place of the character. The description you give of the actions that result from the decision might (or might not) have some colour description added to them - but that's not really the core of roleplaying - the core is making the decision in someone else's shoes.

2) Given (1), I find the system that best supports what I'm calling "roleplaying" (yes, those are quotes around "my idea" - I really don't think there's a grammatical problem with that) is one that (a) predicates success probabilities largely on the character's capabilities, not the players' and (b) allows some clear stakes and resources that can be spent on behalf of the character to improve or decrease the chances of success.

As already noted, FATE seems to do this very well. I think Burning Wheel would probably do so, as well, but I haven't had a chance to play it, yet. PrimeTime Adventures does, also, and I think Pendragon does in a fairly light and "traditional" way. HeroQuest is another "lite" version of this sort of thing, too.

I think one reason I get a little touchy around this topic - and I see that others do, too - is that the questions/assertions about "roleplaying" seem not infrequently to be used as a kind of cipher. What the coded message means is "I want to have a system where success is determined by persuading the GM I succeed, because I'm confident I can persuade my GM to let me have my way". I have come across this "system" in use from time to time, and I find it to be a deceptive and dysfunctional version of gamism that I don't like at all. Of course, this gives the potential for friction with (1) those who actually like this form of play - who I would ask to be plain in their preferences and politely disagree with - and (2) those who are trying to get a handle on this "roleplaying" business without meaning to get tripped up by such unfortunate double-meanings as I outline here - with whom I sympathise, but I still suggest that they need to be very clear about their thoughts and meanings in this area.

In other words, to discuss this topic I think one needs to (a) reflect deeply on ones own motivations, and (b) be as honest and clear as possible about what you're trying to find/achieve.

 

[Balesir]

And imo that hinders role playing as you can't play a role, you can only play yourself.
In such a system the shy introvert can never play the "ladies man" swashbuckler as he simply can't talk so freely and flamboyant as his role would require it. He has to depend on the DM to take pity on him and let the NPCs react differently than what they normally would considering what he said. All the while he is overshadowed by the gruff and technically uncharismatic mercenary because he is played by a veteran RPG player who has no trouble and inhibitions to speak like he is in his role.

OK, now I see what you were driving at, too - but I think you are missing by a small amount. Take a look at PrimeTime Adventures, sometime. It doesn't really have a skill system at all - certainly not a robust one - and yet it has clear, hard and fast rules for a character's capabilities in a situation and a nuanced and somewhat democratic system of resources that can be applied to any conflict. It absolutely supports roleplaying, in my experience.

The "resources" bit is key - it allows for the concept of what situations are meaningful to a character. With skills alone you just roll the same skill number every time the "diplomacy" (or whatever) situation comes up - it says nothing about what the character would sacrifice for success. The GM can add an element of that with ad hoc systems, of course - but having such considerations hard-wired into the system itself is what I mean by "supporting roleplaying". As others have noted, nothing stops you roleplaying in, say, monopoly or risk, but supporting roleplaying means going beyond the basic, it seems to me.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I like to think of roleplaying as the fiction of the game. Roleplaying rules are, thus, those that deal with the fiction instead of being strictly action resolution rules or descriptive rules. Obviously there can be a lot of overlap and gray areas between the two, but that's what makes sense to me. For example, FATE's aspects are rules that benefit roleplaying because they reward creating and utilizing fiction rather than specific tasks.

Fate's character aspects mean something about how the character and others around him or her act in the game fiction as well as having both a dramatic influence on the direction that the story takes as well as be used for in game bonuses when it means the character is acting appropriate to their defined character. They're probably the best designed rule I can think of for this purpose.

But, what I don't like about the title, and I think is one of the biggest problems with how roleplaying is often approached, is this idea that roleplaying and combat are somehow opposites. Like you're roleplaying, and then suddenly you enter a Final Fantasy style encounter and suddenly its a fundamentally different game taking place. That's not true. My theory is that in many systems combat is handled so repetitively that after the third round of the fifth combat of the day you lose sight of the fiction. After months or years of this, as soon as its time to start hurting things, it becomes "I attack" roll "12 damage - next" because of this.

But, take something like Dungeon World. Classic dungeon crawling, lots of combat, very little rules for talking (which is what some people think of when they say "roleplaying"). However one of the most roleplaying intensive games I know of because of the fiction-first gameplay. In Dungeon World, you describe your in character action and moves trigger off of what you describe. So saying "I hack and slash" the monster doesn't work. You instead have to describe what you're doing and that might trigger one of several moves. Or it might not trigger a move at all. Or it might trigger a move you didn't expect. It's all dependent on the fiction of the game as it evolves. That's built into the rules of gameplay.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

And imo that hinders role playing as you can't play a role, you can only play yourself.

Totally false. Method-acting as roleplaying is very common.

In such a system the shy introvert can never play the "ladies man" swashbuckler as he simply can't talk so freely and flamboyant as his role would require it. He has to depend on the DM to take pity on him and let the NPCs react differently than what they normally would considering what he said. All the while he is overshadowed by the gruff and technically uncharismatic mercenary because he is played by a veteran RPG player who has no trouble and inhibitions to speak like he is in his role.

That's the argument that usually gets made, but I've always thought it's a lousy one. I find satisfaction in doing first-person social interaction roleplaying well. It's one of my main sources of enjoyment in RPGs. Persuading an NPC because I rolled well is empty. I get the objective but I lose the fun. RPGs are a social activity - I have no problem with folks who are good at social interaction doing well as a result. As an analogy, I'm pretty awful at basketball. When I play I don't expect the other players to give me an advantage to even things up. The onus is on me. If I want to do better I need to get better.

You seem to think that having a skill system would prevent people who want to role play from role playing. I disagree. Someone who wants to role play would still role play. Just that the skill system now allows him to play someone he isn't. The same way a combat system allows us fat nerds play highly athletic and trained fighters.

Theoretically you can have a system that substitutes for actual social interaction and still have the players talk it out. In practice I've never seen that happen. If players can get what they want just by rolling dice, there's no compelling reason to go to the effort of first-person roleplay.

When I play we usually just use DM judgement for NPC reactions. Works great. I'm interested in hybrid systems that use both interaction and mechanical element for resolution, but strictly mechanical resolution leaves me cold.

(Here's an example of a hybrid system, in case it's not clear what that might be. I've yet to find one I really like, but this would be about the shape of it)

• DM picks a target number for difficulty
• First-person social interaction roleplay
• Dm evaluates persuasiveness and assigns a score 1-10
• Player rolls d10 and DM adds result to score
• DM adds PC skill to score
• DM compares total score ro target. Margin of success or failure determines resolution

 

[Mishihari Lord]

OK, now I see what you were driving at, too - but I think you are missing by a small amount. Take a look at PrimeTime Adventures, sometime. It doesn't really have a skill system at all - certainly not a robust one - and yet it has clear, hard and fast rules for a character's capabilities in a situation and a nuanced and somewhat democratic system of resources that can be applied to any conflict. It absolutely supports roleplaying, in my experience.

The "resources" bit is key - it allows for the concept of what situations are meaningful to a character. With skills alone you just roll the same skill number every time the "diplomacy" (or whatever) situation comes up - it says nothing about what the character would sacrifice for success. The GM can add an element of that with ad hoc systems, of course - but having such considerations hard-wired into the system itself is what I mean by "supporting roleplaying". As others have noted, nothing stops you roleplaying in, say, monopoly or risk, but supporting roleplaying means going beyond the basic, it seems to me.

Thanks, I'm going to have to check that out. Most of the mechanical social systems I've seen are awfully shallow, and I've been wanting to find something better.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I think one reason I get a little touchy around this topic - and I see that others do, too - is that the questions/assertions about "roleplaying" seem not infrequently to be used as a kind of cipher. What the coded message means is "I want to have a system where success is determined by persuading the GM I succeed, because I'm confident I can persuade my GM to let me have my way". I have come across this "system" in use from time to time, and I find it to be a deceptive and dysfunctional version of gamism that I don't like at all. Of course, this gives the potential for friction with (1) those who actually like this form of play - who I would ask to be plain in their preferences and politely disagree with - and (2) those who are trying to get a handle on this "roleplaying" business without meaning to get tripped up by such unfortunate double-meanings as I outline here - with whom I sympathise, but I still suggest that they need to be very clear about their thoughts and meanings in this area.

Agree that this is an area where one needs to be very clear to avoid unfortunate misunderstandings, but the bit about "because I'm confident I can persuade my GM to let me have my way" is very unfair. I prefer the "GM decides" system because I really enjoy trying to persuade the GM through first-person social interaction with both of us method-acting. Rolling the dice is just boring, by comparison.

 

[Bagpuss]

And imo that hinders role playing as you can't play a role, you can only play yourself.

The acting profession is screwed then.

In a more complete response....

Of course you can play a role, these are called roleplaying games after all, original D&D didn't have a skill system to deal with social interactions. If you wanted to act as a gruff dwarf then you acted (to the best of your ability) like a gruff dwarf, if you wanted to play a charismatic swashbuckler you acted (to the best of your ability) as a charismatic swashbuckler.

And imo that hinders role playing as you can't play a role, you can only play yourself.

You can play a role within your own abilities to act one.

In such a system the shy introvert can never play the "ladies man" swashbuckler as he simply can't talk so freely and flamboyant as his role would require it.

Yet in many introverts in real life, actually managed to be less so when playing the role of someone else as because they are being a character and not themselves they feel less self conscious.

He has to depend on the DM to take pity on him and let the NPCs react differently than what they normally would considering what he said.

I wouldn't say "take pity", more have the people skills to know when someone is making an effort, and reward that.

All the while he is overshadowed by the gruff and technically uncharismatic mercenary because he is played by a veteran RPG player who has no trouble and inhibitions to speak like he is in his role.

If the socially skilled player is actually playing a uncharismatic role correctly then really they should be making efforts to be antisocial. Otherwise they aren't playing the role, they are playing themselves.

You seem to think that having a skill system would prevent people who want to role play from role playing.

There are two ways it can do this.

1) It becomes a crutch, it is quicker and easier to say "I roll 15 with +5 diplomacy that has to be a success."
2) It be counter to how the player acts, say you have a charismatic player, playing a diplomatic character who spends 5 minutes trying to persuade his way pass the guards, but then the DM asks for a check and he rolls a 1. If the DM listens to the system, then all his roleplaying was pointless, and how often does that need to happen before the player recognizes that what they do doesn't matter only the dice do.

I disagree. Someone who wants to role play would still role play.

But it is discouraged by a skill system that replaces actual social interaction with the results of dice rolls.

 

[fifty]

I'm sort of with you Mishihari, I've always thought that players should at least attempt to do the talky bit themselves first before going to dice rolls in any system. If they are particularly convincing then the GM can give them a bonus to any dice rolls, and if they're not just let the characters skills do the talking.

My point would be this, speaking in character as your character is for me a huge part of what RP is, and whilst I agree with some of the statements above about not penalising a shy player who wants to play a eloquent character I personally think such players should be encouraged to have a go anyway.

Role players are in my experience the most tolerant and encouraging folk you could meet, and practice makes perfect.. you never know after a bit of successful banter that shy player might just find he can be talkey after all and even translate those skills to RL.

 

[Balesir]

Agree that this is an area where one needs to be very clear to avoid unfortunate misunderstandings, but the bit about "because I'm confident I can persuade my GM to let me have my way" is very unfair.

Yeah, that's probably a shred of my bias showing through

How about "...because I prefer trying to get what I want through persuasion to trying to manipulate a mechanical system or gambling on random outcomes"?

I prefer the "GM decides" system because I really enjoy trying to persuade the GM through first-person social interaction with both of us method-acting. Rolling the dice is just boring, by comparison.

I can see that - for a limited time, at least. I used to engage in this style of play, but when I started to see it as plays and ploys and gambits being finagled instead of as proxy-character conversation it got to be as boring as simple skill checks pretty quickly. It just came down to a player skill check instead of a character one - yawn.

I agree that a simple die roll is boring. I was hoping that 4E might at some point get a system for social challenges that did what I saw the combat system as doing for combat - taking out all the "bad" uncertainties while leaving in all the "good" ones. What I mean here is that, when a player considers what their character's actions will be they have a proxy in their head for what the character knows about the world they grew up in. A resolution system forms a substantial part of that world model. As a result I think the resolution system should give the player roughly as much information about their chances of success as the character would have in the game world, and the knowledge should have similar or analogous limitations. The "single roll" paradigm I think is "bad" because:

- It makes the main uncertainty "will my character screw up", which is often one of the least uncertain things out there.

- It makes no allowance for the fact that one of the biggest advantages of being highly skilled is what I've seen called "locus of control". What this means is the degree to which the actor (as in person taking action, not thespian) can control the outcome of either success or failure mid-action.

This latter one is really interesting. Theatrix was a system predicated on the idea that success or failure were determined by whatever would make the story "more interesting" (this has flaws of its own, but it's not the interesting part), but what skill did was give players more "locus of control". Example: the character is driving a car at speed approaching a bend in the road on a cold night. Then...

1) The player of an unskilled character is told (success) "Whoa - that bend was slick with ice! You sure hope that guy coming the other way got back off the verge OK, 'cos he was only on it because you were technically in his lane..." OR (failure) "Yikes! There's ice on the bend! You clip the guy coming the other way as you spin onto the verge and flip onto the roof..."

2) The player of the skilled character is told (success) "Whoa - the bend ahead is slick with ice! You can see the tell-tale glimmer and, what's more, there's a car coming the other way. You can slow down a little, and you're confident you can get round OK, or you can slow right down in case the guy coming the other way goes out of control - what do you want to do?" OR (failure) "Yikes! There's ice on the bend ahead! At this speed you're pretty sure you won't make it, and there's another car coming the other way. You could try to cut inside the other guy, and probably stay on the road but also probably hit him, or you can head for the grass verge and risk flipping onto the roof - what do you want to do?"

Basically, skilled characters give the player options to choose how they succeed or fail but most of the factors that determine actual success or failure are beyond the character's control. I don't think it fits all situations, and alone it's not enough, but it's an interesting angle to add to a resolution system. It lets highly skilled characters show priorities and character traits through choices in play rather than through random determination - which is where I think the crux of roleplaying lies.