Combat vs. Role-playing

[apoptosis]

What's wrong with hamming it up? And why not reward whatever it is that the players enjoy?


Or remove it entirely, and not have to deal with privileging certain modes of play.

Absolutely nothing wrong with hamming it up. But usually when I mention rewarding roleplaying people associate it with amateur thespianism and I wanted to make sure that my statement was not misconstrued.

My feeling is when people mention roleplaying they really just mean playing in character and I think that is a limited definition of roleplaying. I think roleplaying is actions/scenes in the game that advance the characters goals, intrinsic story, personality, development.

This might be by acting in character, this might be by creating mechanical structures that reward character development or goals, it might be even dramatic mechanics to bring a scene to life. I dont want to limit the idea of roleplaying to just being an amateur actor.

You can reward whatever the players want, but the OP specifically asked how to tie in Roleplaying with mechanics and that was my suggestion.

As far as privileging certain modes of play, If you want mechanics tied to roleplaying (basically what the OP was asking for) then you will be rewarding some type of roleplaying by tying it to the mechanics.

Frankly most all games reward certain modes of play either by XP, resolution mechanics, character creation rules etc. Having tactical choices rewards people who enjoy tactics in combat. Games with strong narrative mechanics reward people are are trying to create a story from the outset.

Additionally I think games should reward the modes of play that the game emphasizes. I generally believe games are better off focusing on certain themes, genres and styles of play vs a game trying to be all things to all people.

I believe roleplaying can be a very substantial part of combat particularly if roleplaying, character goals etc. mechanically can impact the comat (eg. you get bonuses in conflicts that forward your vengenge against the killer of your parents if a character goal is to revenge your parents death.

Apoptosis

 

[Umbran]

This is where the problem is: you assume combat is about hacking orcs.

Yes. I think that any other definition of "combat" in this context is counterintuitive, muddles the water, and acts as an effective dodge rather than addressing the real question - how do you inject roleplay into the tactical wargame portion of the overall game? For purposes of this discussion, "combat" is what you do in a D&D game - hacking orcs and such.

Not all challenges are combat. Challenges that are not about hacking orcs or the like are darned important, but they aren't combat.

 

[apoptosis]

I'm assuming you mean "acting in character" when you say role-playing.

This is not to argue against your point (I pretty much agree with most all you said particuarly about resolution systems that can work outside of combat), but I really think (IMHO) that roleplaying should be broadened past "acting in character".

 

[Umbran]

But how you choose to hack up the orcs certainly involves a fair chunk of roleplaying.

It can, but if the rules favor one tactic over another, the player (and the sane character) is likely to lean strongly towards the favored tactic. This is not at all strange - in the real world, some tactics are favored over others, and those who try to swim against the current end up dead, and are thus strongly selected against.

This is one reason why game balance is important - if a game is not balanced, the rules will strongly favor some tactics. In a combat-oriented game, choosing unfavored tactics will be strongly penalized.

Role-playing does not end when initiative is rolled.

Yes, note that I did say they were not really mutually exclusive. Please don't treat my words as if I did. What I am saying is that in many cases, role-play is rather discouraged by the nature of combat, and the nature of the activity of playing a role playing game.

 

[JDJblatherings]

which is more impressive?

Scenario A, player is engaged with an orc while two more are advancing.
player- I attack with a 17 to hit , oh yeah ...(roll) for 11 points of damage

DM- you hit the orc and goes down.

player- cool


Scenario B, player is engaged with an orc while two more are advancing

Player - I let out a beefy grunt as i hack at the orc with my sword, I roll a 17 to hit, oh yeah...(roll) for 11 points of damage

DM- your blow sends the orc falling to the floor almost as if was propelled by the blood gushing from it's body.

player- I spit in it's eyes before it hits the floor, some spittle still hangs from my lip as I smile broadly at the orcs that are about to die.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

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?

In my experience, you can. Heck, I love to RP in combat. The only thing that inhibits RP out of combat are the DM and the players-it's a personal choice.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

which is more impressive?

Scenario A, player is engaged with an orc while two more are advancing.
player- I attack with a 17 to hit , oh yeah ...(roll) for 11 points of damage

DM- you hit the orc and goes down.

player- cool


Scenario B, player is engaged with an orc while two more are advancing

Player - I let out a beefy grunt as i hack at the orc with my sword, I roll a 17 to hit, oh yeah...(roll) for 11 points of damage

DM- your blow sends the orc falling to the floor almost as if was propelled by the blood gushing from it's body.

player- I spit in it's eyes before it hits the floor, some spittle still hangs from my lip as I smile broadly at the orcs that are about to die.

That's what I'm talking about! That's good stuff!

 

[RigaMortus2]

You can roleplay out of combat and you can even roleplay IN combat! But you aren't forced to roleplay, and I think that's a good thing. Some people are better at the whole roleplaying part of the game, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to require something in which some players have an inherent advantage over others.

While I agree with you, I'll just play devil's advocate for a moment...

If you AREN'T into roleplaying, then why are you playing a roleplaying game? There are plenty of mini wargames out there that do not require roleplaying...

If you want to roleplay, but aren't as good as the guy next to you, shouldn't you at least TRY? I mean, how do you get better at roleplaying w/o doing it over and over again? That's something a die roll will not help you with. And let's face it, all roleplaying is is thinking on your feet, improvising. The only way to get better, is keep trying, not rolling die in lieu of.

 

[apoptosis]

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".

Frankly I would do the same for combat. Shadow of Yesterday has a great rule called "bringing down the pain" (this is for all conflicts in the game)

The GIST (sp?) of the system is that if there are no real stakes involved don't roll just say "Yes" as the DM to whatever the player wanted (this really came from Sorcerer)

If it is of minor importance there is just one roll and the winner gets his stakes (I want to kill that orc, the orc being relatively of minor impact with no real stake in the story or I want to bluff the guard into letting me in).

If the player loses a die roll they can "bring down the pain" which means the conflict becomes granularized (similar to classic RPG conflicts) and generally can take rounds to complete and in which damage is tracked (when you run your opponent out of his damage tracker you win the stakes you set...eg you kill the orc)

 

[Ranger REG]

Here's an inherent problem with D&D with 3.x and most likely with 4e as well. The game tries to emulate everything you can possibly do. While this is nice from a play balance point of view, being able to make rolls for just about every situation or challenge means it's easier to do so, and thus, people are more likely to do so.

For example, with the interaction skills, such as Bluff and Diplomacy in 3.x, it's far easier to just make a roll than to roleplay it out. Not only that, even if you do roleplay it out, some DMs make you roll anyway, so what's the point of doing the roleplaying? Some DMs will give a bonus to an interaction roll for good roleplaying, and that's a good middle ground.

You can roleplay out of combat and you can even roleplay IN combat! But you aren't forced to roleplay, and I think that's a good thing. Some people are better at the whole roleplaying part of the game, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to require something in which some players have an inherent advantage over others.

There's nothing in the rules that prevents you from roleplaying your character through every situation, combat or not. However, there's also nothing requiring you to roleplay. Add to that the fact that the vast majority of abilities that exist in the same are for the expressed purpose of engaging in combat. I think that's why people sometimes want to contravert combat with roleplaying (and vice versa).

One thing that can help encourage roleplaying is to change the XP reward model. Switching from a strictly kill based XP system to a more task/accomplishment based XP system, while adding optional components for ad-hoc roleplaying awards, I think that would be something you could do in the rules to encourage more roleplaying without strictly requiring it.

Wait, you say it's a problem with the rules (because it emulates everything and codify them in easier-to-use instruction to resolve them) yet it's a good thing?

I don't know which side you're on.

While I don't force my players to roleplay, I do encourage it, and it is the responsibility of the DM to set the example.

As for the content-heavy combat rules, they're just aids. Like condoms. They're there but it doesn't mean you should have sex when you're not ready to raise a baby.