Combat RP'ing

[chrisnd]

Interesting thoughts

As a DM, I have always been of a mindset to "explain" what the PC's see in the middle of a battle. "The large, hairy orc, with nasty, pointy teeth, is sneering, holding a mace the size of which could knock down a small barn." I think quotes in the middle of combat work much better than "roll initiative" or "oh, I rolled a 16 to hit, take, um, 12 points of damage". Like swrushing said, playing to the players will make the players play to you. More RP'ing will occur if it starts at the head of the table.

The barbarian in my group tried to intimidate a dire weasel the other night. He had a great axe in his hand, but instead of rolling a d20 and swinging away, he screamed curses at the dire weasel and attempted to scare it away. Of course, a roll of "2" on an skill check won't get you very far, but he was rewarded nonetheless for his effort. The paladin managed to "scare" a kobold to the point of him wetting his robes, but not once did the paladin touch his sword to the kobold or even have to roll the combat dice. The theif in the group has yet to try a backstab against anyone or anything, and yet for a theif, that is one of their best combat abilities (that, and an automatic "weapon finesse" feat that I give them).

Encouraging the players to rollplay in combat situations starts at the "head of the table" and flows from there. If you encourage rollplaying by rollplaying the villians and monsters, then the party will respond. It may take a little longer than normal (it took 2 five-hour sessions to clear out a 9 room dungeon), but in the long run, everyone has more fun.

 

[Acid_crash]

I've noticed this propensity with players as well..and it does fall on the shoulders of the DM. However, there are some players that just get tactical no matter how well the DM tries to RP in combat.

It is for this reason I hate using miniatures in combat. I've see even the dumbest characters, those with a INT 6, perform perfect maneuvers to avoid the attack of opportunity or the flanking maneuvers...and I think that this game is missing an element of maneuvers a character should, and should not be able to perform, based on the character's INT or WIS scores.

Better yet, yank out those mini's and avoid using them. The only time I saw a D&D group actually roleplay in combat was the first game I joined (when I was a fresh newbie into D&D gaming). The DM would draw the combat maps on grid paper, show us the layout and had us put our character's initials on it. Then he would take it away during the combat round, and we had to tell him what our actions are. At the end of each round, he updated the map. Because he didn't let us just look at the map the entire time, we had to use our thinking caps (our imagination) and perform to the best of our ability. Even he did this, turning the map over when it was the NPC's turn in combat. He let us perform really cool cinematic maneuvers, and if someone described something too challenging (or something that a low INT person wanted to try doing) he would have us make an INT check to see if our character would come up with the concept. Then he described what the NPC's were doing, not just tell us. It was pretty damn sweet, and I have never been in a D&D group since that incorporated everything he was able to manage.

You could try doing what he tries. He even incorporated a house rule that inf someone tried to run by an adjacenet opponent, we had to make a Dex check to see of we could bypass the opponent. (This was 2AD&D at the time).

 

[Jolly Giant]

The players I DM are good in that they always strive to stay in character, even during combat. That doesn't mean there's a lot of RPing going on during fights, nor do we feel a need for any more. Sounds like I'm contradicting myself, but I'll try to explain:

I think we all feel combat takes up enough time without me telling them how ugly every orc is every round or the barbarian telling me how mighty his sword is before each attack roll. Nor do we go into detail about just how flashy it looks whenever someone casts a spell. To us RPing is pretty much what happens between fights.

However, we all try our best to figure out what our characters (NPCs for my part) would do in any given situation and act accordingly, and that's pretty much all the RPing we want in our combat...

How much is "right" for your group is something you should perhaps talk to the players about. Maybe they'll agree with you and you can all increase your combat RPing, or maybe they feel like my gang and they think there's enough already? It just a matter of taste, really.

 

[LostSoul]

I've also seen this problem. I get the feeling that I'm playing a wargame - which is good some of the time, but not all of the time.

Part of it, in my case, has to do with the rules. Exactly how far you can move and what you can do in 6 seconds can spoil your dramatic maneuvers. And then things get too abstract when you talk about attack roles, armour class, and hit points. I find that I can picture things much more clearly - and really get into combat - when I'm playing in a system that uses opposed rolls.

The best D&D combat I can remember running had two PCs locked in melee combat, in a darkened courtyard full of mud, rain pouring on their heads, blood mixing with water on the ground. I would stand up and act out each attack as I described what was happening. It was very cool.

 

[shilsen]

I suppose I wasn't clear enough...

In a purely role-play situation, the players think about what they should do and say from the point of view of their character. This often means doing things that are not necessarily the 'best' option available, but what fits their personality and the moment.

What I'm describing here is a complete reversal of that frame of mind, in which the players, once combat ensues, drop all pretense of playing a character. They only care about what would be the most perfect move to make, spell to cast, weapon to use etc. For example, a player that normally RPs a reckless, hard-noised maverick is suddenly more concerned with avoiding AoO's than staying in character.

While I agree that battle-hardened adventurers should have tactical savvy, I'm talking about every PC at the table suddenly becoming a chess piece, and little else...

Clear?

Yup. Much clearer.

It sounds like that's an issue with the players and maybe you should talk to them about it. As well as using some of the other suggestions in this thread, of course. In my experience, as soon as some players start RPing in combat, others will begin to do so. Not too long ago, I was running an orc barbarian with 6 in Int/Wis/Cha who tried to wrestle an allip and got into major trouble as a result. Sure, I as a player knew it was a really bad idea, but he couldn't hit it with a weapon and wasn't smart enough to consider running away (till everyone else had done so and were all screaming at him to follow suit), so he jumped on it. Couple sessions later, I noticed some other players doing similar stuff which wasn't tactically good but which fit their characters.

 

[hong]

One way to reduce the influence of the tactical mindset might be to use something like Storyteller's stunting mechanic, suitably modified. If a player describes a cool or flashy maneuver, or has their character act in a way that suits their personality but isn't tactically optimal, you award them a +2 to +6 circumstance bonus to their die roll. This way you can make combat more than just pushing minis around a battlemat.

There are potential downsides to consider, eg what happens if everyone starts stunting even when it gets boring, but these can be dealt with. The basic criterion is that the stunts should hold the interest of people around the table, so if people aren't interested any more, you would be justified in withholding the bonus.

This sort of rule also does require everyone to be on the same page in regards to what they consider interesting. There's more room for disagreement in what various people might consider deserves a bonus, as compared to the usual D&D rules.

 

[Greylock]

In our group, it's strange - we see more roleplaying in combat than outside of it...

Gotta agree with the admin. The group I play with has always rp'd better in combat than outside it. Every char seems to fully grasp his/her role, and runs with it. The low-INT Barbarian always rushes in, does the macho thang and deals tons of damage, and gets hurt. Usually a lot. The Rogue scouts and sneaks, and stays out the range of fire for the most part, and flings arrows at whatever threatens him the most. The Druid stays close to the fight, but tends to ruminate her moves, with some effect. My char, the trained militiaman Fighter, always keeps at the front of battle, but makes tactical decisions all the time, and shouts them to the others.

It works, and it's roleplaying.

 

[Jdvn1]

Have you tried mini-less combat?

That's the test of a GM, I think. Hard to pull off, but full of flavor. I'm not good at it myself, but one of my first GMs was great at it. Combats could turn into art.

I know this is, like, D&D blasphemy to some.

 

[Dancer]

Gotta agree with the admin. The group I play with has always rp'd better in combat than outside it. Every char seems to fully grasp his/her role, and runs with it. The low-INT Barbarian always rushes in, does the macho thang and deals tons of damage, and gets hurt. Usually a lot. The Rogue scouts and sneaks, and stays out the range of fire for the most part, and flings arrows at whatever threatens him the most. The Druid stays close to the fight, but tends to ruminate her moves, with some effect. My char, the trained militiaman Fighter, always keeps at the front of battle, but makes tactical decisions all the time, and shouts them to the others.

It works, and it's roleplaying.

I don't know that what you've described is role-playing. It actually sounds more like tactical maneuvering. Now if the barbarian screams curses as he attacks or the Druid actually calls for nature's blessing (or whoever delivers his power), that's what I consider role-playing. If the characters (not players) yell to each other during combat (perhaps giving their opponents an opportunity to react to their conversation), that's more role-playing. Playing towards your character's strength in combat is more tactical.

Don't get me wrong. I think a good combat will involve both. I just think that role-playing involves conversation between characters and/or actions which express the character's personality not just their tactical prowess.

 

[Greylock]

Your response confuses me.

The characters are true, and they are played not by stereotype, but by basic ability stats.