Combat vs. Role-playing

[infax]

Have it mentioned in the game that other challenges can be of interest is always a plus. In that regard, the hinted at inclusion of rules for social challenges can be good in the sense that they will remind players and GMs that there are other challenges.

Much of what is published by WotC every year are adventures, so having adventures with challenges described that do not necessarily involve combat (or that would be hindered or even made impossible to solve if combat was attempted) could greatly improve that perception in players.

If most classes gained abilities that were not directly related to combat could help in that perception too.

Finally, every book that comes out has feats and spells. The vast majority (90% perhaps?) of those are directly related to combat. Having more feats and spells that dealt with non-combat options could help to.

On the other hand, it is true that you don't need rules to role-play and you don't certainly can roleplay in combat. Good descriptions, interesting dialogues and even the description of the character's inner turmoils can help create a mood in combat. It is simply that when you get a book that is mostly dedicated to combat and tactics used in combat, it is natural that many readers will have games mostly involving combat and decisions mostly involving tactics.

Anyway, I liked the 3E design philosophy proposing that combat benefits not be balanced by non-combat benefits (things like "members of class/race X are stronger and faster but they have terrible table manners and are rarely invited to banquets"). I just find races/classes could benefit from the addition of some non-combat characteristics.

 

[Irda Ranger]

One of the big concerns I've seen bandied about (mostly by gnay-sayers) is that D&D/4e (and 3e before it) moved the game off "role-playing" and toward "videogame/mmorpg/hacker/anime/boardgame" (or a game that focuses on combat). This leads me to a couple questions...

1.) Why are the two mutually exclusive? Why can a game that focuses on combat and dungeons NOT have role-playing?

I don't think they are mutually exclusive. And I don't think anyone thinks that somehow having rules for critical hits makes RP impossible. If there are complaints I think it's two-fold:
1. Having a Diplomacy skill makes reduces the incentive to RP.
2. The extensive rules for combat so outweigh the rules provided for RP that you get the impression it's only a wargame.

Now, I don't hold to either of those (and they're in fact contradictory arguments, if you think about it); but I don't think anyone says they're "mutually exclusive."

2.) What SHOULD the game do to move toward being more role-playing oriented IN THE RULES (no campaign suggestions, just how should the RULES emphasize rping?

At this time my only concern is that not every class will have a "Role" out of combat. Ok, what I really mean is that I am concerned that the Fighter will not have a Role out of combat. Everyone else has "stuff to do" that doesn't involve killing things; I hope 4E has some ideas on how the Fighter can be useful in RP situations (ways that aren't automatically trumped by the other classes).

 

[JDJblatherings]

An example of relegating to a die role rather than forcing the player to describe the action. Search skill. Back in the day when a player wanted to search it was only limited to the rogue unless it was a secret door (bad game design) but the rogue had to describe where he was searching. "I search the statue". Now it is, "I search this square". It is broadening it so that it does not matter what is on the square- anyway rulesy approach vs. not rulesy approach.

"Back in the day" it took 10 minutes to search a 10' area and every one had a 1 in 6 chance of finding traps and such. Dwarves were pretty good at it if there was stonework involved (not very rare in dungeons). The thief /rogue simply got better at it.

 

[Mallus]

1. Having a Diplomacy skill makes reduces the incentive to RP.

Not in my group.

I've found that people who enjoy RP'ing (in the sense I think you mean it) will do it no matter what mechanical support or incentive exists for it (consider 1st ed.), while people you don't, won't. I don't think the issue should be incentivizing any particular style of play. Rather, we should focus on how to make the game work when people with different approaches to RP'ing are playing at the same table. Tips for negotiations between players, not their characters.

 

[HeinorNY]

Absolutely.

As Insight mentions above, in the absence of rules covering stuff like looking for traps, climbing over ledges and stuff, the players would 'role-play' (i.e. describe) what they wanted to do and the DM adjudicated it.

More rules decreases this 'role-play' space, although it does open up the possibility for people to play characters with greater social skills than they possess themselves, which can be a good thing IMO.

There is still a lot of room for 'general role play' i.e. talking in character with NPCs and between PCs anyway.

Cheers

Thanks for the insight.

I hope the current philosophy, "absence of rules encourages, or at least opens up spaces for roleplaying" keeps reigning over the "we need rules to emphasize roleplaying" philosophy, in the next edition.

 

[Umbran]

1.) Why are the two mutually exclusive? Why can a game that focuses on combat and dungeons NOT have role-playing?

Well, they aren't strictly exclusive.

However, surviving combat isn't much about personality - good tactics are based primarily upon the realities of the situation, the mechanics of reality. Who you are doesn't matter so much in a fight as how well you can hack up orcs. And in the long run, it doesn't usually matter how the orcs get hacked up, so long as they end up dead.

And the players have limits to their scope of attention - if they are busy dealing with the rules of the tactical game before them, they will pay less attention to the personality of the character they are playing.

And, honestly, when you're busy hacking up orcs, there isn't a whole lot of time for talk - and talk is the human's primary mode of expression. If you cannot express who the character is, your role-playing options are limited.

2.) What SHOULD the game do to move toward being more role-playing oriented IN THE RULES (no campaign suggestions, just how should the RULES emphasize rping?

I don't think the combat rules should emphasize role-playing. I think the GM should be given ample advice on how to create interesting situations that don't necessarily involve combat, so that the GM may present the mix of combat and non-combat that his players like.

 

[JDJblatherings]

WHowever, surviving combat isn't much about personality - good tactics are based primarily upon the realities of the situation, the mechanics of reality. Who you are doesn't matter so much in a fight as how well you can hack up orcs. .

Hand to hand combat surpsingly enough has a lot to do with personality.

Ones bearing and attitude has a heck of a lot to do with survivng a fight or gaining more then simple victory. Some folks will shrink from the big bold fellow that laughs and struts as he chops away at his foes and other will be drawn to him like a magnet.

The meek archer tryign to stay away from the brunt of the fight will be totally ignored by some folks becasue they arent' projectign much of a threat, others will see the advantage of taking out the archer and other will see a hopefully easy kill.

You can win a fight in the second or so before you come into contact. foightign is a projection or presence. Folks acknowledging your presence and yielding to it lose the fight.
Those drawn to the challenge of the presence one projects is where the real contest is. Some folks can move through big meleesseemingly going ignored by most foes and picking out targets becasue they haven't let their presence be noted (notrhign supernatural is required to do that in real life).


A lot of this should really be role-played . with the DM giving pluses and minuses as they apply to the situtation at hand.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Not in my group.

I've found that people who enjoy RP'ing (in the sense I think you mean it) will do it no matter what mechanical support or incentive exists for it (consider 1st ed.), while people you don't, won't. I don't think the issue should be incentivizing any particular style of play. Rather, we should focus on how to make the game work when people with different approaches to RP'ing are playing at the same table. Tips for negotiations between players, not their characters.

This has been my experience as well. From reading SOME of these posts I almost get the feeling that people are going out of their way to NOT make the game work them. To me it's small thing to say that search covers an area than just a square, especially if there's no mat for that specific encounter. My players usually tell me where theyre searching and how detailed of search. I add or subtract modifiers as needed. If theyre doing a detailed search I assume that theyre taking ten, if they just want to do a quick toss in half the time of a normal search it's a -2. Bottom line, for me anyway, once you buy the book and get it at your table it's your game to do with it as you see fit...

 

[Sadrik]

"Back in the day" it took 10 minutes to search a 10' area and every one had a 1 in 6 chance of finding traps and such. Dwarves were pretty good at it if there was stonework involved (not very rare in dungeons). The thief /rogue simply got better at it.

I assume you are talking about real time? And no it didn't the DM made a couple of rolls and said yes you found something or no you found nothing.

And yes having only the thief and dwarf be able to search was bad rules like I said. But search in a 5' x 5' box with one roll with no regard as to what is inside that box except for what the DC is, is far to rulesy. It ruins puzzle games like tomb of horrors and many of those classic modules. Now characters just take 20 down the hall with no regard as to interacting to what is on the hall until the DM inevitable tells them they found something. A place where the rule book dampens the game enjoyment.

 

[Fifth Element]

Being almost forced to play on a battle map. Other lighter games don't have that stipulation. And from my experience the lighter the game the more players are able to describe what they do rather than have the rules describe what they do.

So there you have it, thats why.

But that only applies in combat. Why can't you have a detailed combat system, but also have a lot of good role-playing outside of combat?