Combat vs. Role-playing

[xechnao]

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.




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.

This is where the problem is: you assume combat is about hacking orcs. Role playing assumes combat is something of a bigger scope, that perhaps can not fit in a dungeon room.
It assumes that combat is what ever challenge your character might be facing: for example it could very well be a strategical decision on a positive or negative answer that deals with a question regarding your responsabilities and future lifestyle.

As said above, role playing combat is simply setting dependent-

 

[Clavis]

My games tend to split about 50-50, roleplaying and combat/adventure. I don't think there's anything mutually contradictory about good roleplaying and exciting combat. In fact, IMHO combat is more exciting when it is a roleplaying experience, rather than just a tactical exercise.

Some rules changes I suggest that would encourage roleplaying:

Simplify the combat system so that it doesn't require miniatures. Eliminate AoO's first. The battlemat draws attention towards the center of the table, and away from the faces of the other players. In that way, it encourages players to disconnect from each other, and only think in a tactical manner. Without the subtle cues provided by body language and facial expression, communication suffers. That's one of the reasons why internet communications so often leads to angry misunderstandings: we can't hear the tone of each other's voices and see the expressions on each other's faces.

Instead of having numerous tactical feats, award bonuses for players colorfully describing their attacks. So, if a player says "I attack with my sword", they roll as normal. If they say "I swing at the creatures neck with my sword, trying to sever it's head", they get a +1 bonus. Only award a bonus for a single described attack once a combat, so the players will not just say the same thing over and over again. With spell-casters, award attack and damage bonuses if they describe what the spell looks like, and if they act out the casting.

Rather than making experience points an award for meeting certain goals, or defeating monsters, just award a flat amount per session. This allows players and DMs to explore roleplaying without the players worrying about whether their PCs will suffer because they haven't jumped through the DM's hoops, or haven't killed enough. In my experience players wlill more willingly play out an entire session of roleplaying when they know their characters will continue to get more powerful.

I often have large stretches in my games that focus on just one or two of the PCs. In cases like that, the other players take the roles of brothel patrons and whores, kobold raiders, dinner party guests, or whatever else is required. The players get a real kick out of it, and because their PCs are getting XP anyway, the players don't worry about their characters not advancing.

IMHO giving out "story awards" makes roleplaying into work, and the players will worry about whether they've pleased the DM, rather than just enjoying the a game.

 

[Sadrik]

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?

From original:

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.

 

[xechnao]

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?

\

Because people of a bigger scope are balanced in that "bigger" scope and not in the smaller scope of the dungeon room.

Especially in fantasy, where you have magic and the like. The more powerful the setting the harder to achieve what you are asking.

 

[JDJblatherings]

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.

EVERYONE could search. In the good old days turns were 10 minutes long.

Taking 20 down the hall is a great way to never finish an adventure. 2 minutes every five feet? A 100' Long 10' wide corridor would take 160 minutes of game time.Not many buff spells woudl last in that sort of situation. Also a reason why there should be some sort of wandering monsters in dungeons...to get folks moving.

 

[Emirikol]

Rem:

Excellent questions!

I think that de-rule-i-fying the the rules would be one. More obscure systems like Cthulhu or Vampire (original stuff..I dont' know how the new wod stuff is), have fewer rules with more flexibility. D&D on the otherhand appears to have been designed by the tech support staff for microsoft.

When there's a complex rule for every situation, role playing is deemphasized.

TOO MANY SPELLS AND MAGIC ITEMS also de-emphasizes magic items (rule-for every situation above). It doesn't eliminate "thinking" but it does eliminate having to figure out alternate ways and work in cooperative ways.

Overstressed DM's mvoe games away from role playing too. When a DM is constantly trying to come up with more and more difficult "technical" challenges to overcome magic-heavy PC's the same occurs.

jh

 

[Mallus]

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.

I noticed a lot more of that around here ever since 4e was announced...

BTW, my practical solution to the whole "role vs. roll", "we need/don't need social encounter rules" issue is simply to not adjudicate every social encounter the same way; sometimes you roll for success, sometimes you just talk, others times, you do a bit of both. That way, players with different preferences all get to have their fun.

The only people this doesn't work for are cranky continuity wonks, and frankly, they can take a hike. RPG's are built on compromise and successful negotiation. Rule 0.1 should be "don't begrudge other players their fun".

 

[outsider]

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?
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'm interested to hear exactly how D&D could emphasize role-playing in the rules and what effect that would have on the massive amount of combat rules?

1.) They aren't mutally exclusive. At all. Dungeons and Dragons is a game focused on going into dungeons and fighting the dragons within. That clearly involves alot of combat. The roleplaying should be intertwined with that playstyle. It should focus on why exactly you are going into that dungeon and fighting that dragon, and showing some personality as you do it.

2.) It's quite hard for rules to convince someone to roleplay. Generally, those that want to do it will do it, and those that don't want to won't. You have to make roleplaying look fun to do, and that's more up to the players and DM than the rules. The only mechanical rule that comes to mind that encourages roleplaying are the "stunt" rules you'd find in Exalted and some other games, rewarding players with in game bonuses for coming up with cool/unique descriptions of what they are doing.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

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.

But how you choose to hack up the orcs certainly involves a fair chunk of roleplaying. Do you charge through the center and try to barrel through to the leader? Do you stand still and unleash a swarm of arrows? Do you Prince-of-Persia your way around the walls to find a good position? Do you drop a Fireball or an Evard's Black Tentacles? Creating tactical abilities for PCs has done a lot to open up roleplaying space that "Make attack roll, hope monster bleeds" doesn't through the forced diversification of PCs, and even without those, there are plenty of in-character decisions to make during combat.

Role-playing does not end when initiative is rolled.

 

[Sadrik]

EVERYONE could search. In the good old days turns were 10 minutes long.

You are not making any sense. Are you saying that everyone can search but it took 1 turn to do it.

I only remember (geez its been a couple of years since 1st ed for me) characters being able to search for secret doors on a 1 in 6 elves could do this on a 2 in 6 or a 1 in 6 without searching and dwarves had a 3 in 6? when searching for traps made of stone or secret doors made of stone and finally thieves had a percentage chance based on their level to find traps anywhere but they searched for secret doors like anybody else.

It is like saying: EVERYONE could search. A round was 1 minute in the good old days and a segment was 10 seconds too.