Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 3950024" data-attributes="member: 386">I'm assuming you mean "acting in character" when you say role-playing.1) They are not mutually exclusive.However, if the game is about combat, don't expect to see people making poor tactical (or build) decisions based on role-playing their character.  They will be penalized by it.You can get around this by rewarding people for role-playing their character when they make poor combat choices.  This could increase the depth of tactical choices in combat, if done right.2) Have all sorts of rules that basically boil down to "you have to act in character in order to get this bonus/take this action/cast this spell/use this Feat/roll the dice."  That would annoy people who don't like to act in-character, though.Personally, I will role-play more in games where there is a resolution system beyond "the DM decides".  That's one method, but not everyone agrees.  (I personally find DM-only resolution is just playing to the DM, not actually playing out my PC.  Do what the DM thinks would work, not what the PC would do.)I think that if you had a resolution system that wasn't "DM decides" you would see a lot more non-combat encounters.  Non-combat encounters tend to allow more room to role-play, so that might help.  Wouldn't have anything to do with combat rules.</blockquote>