Do RPGs' Wargaming Aspects Overshadow RPing?

[Crothian]

Only if we let them. So no.

 

[diaglo]

What are "wargaming aspects"?

Do you mean miniatures gaming aspects? RPGs evolved out of miniatures games, not wargames. Avalon Hill and SPI style wargames are a wholly different beast than the games that D&D grew out of.

I'm not trying to be snarky. I really never understood what people meant by "wargaming roots", aside from a generic rubric applied to things they don't like about particular RPGs.

Chainmail (1971) is a wargame. it uses miniatures. but that is the point of wargames.

 

[takasi]

Isn't the fact that you didn't use any of the rules an indicator that they do overshadow "roleplaying"? I mean, you would have used them otherwise, right?

I've had sessions with no combat, but we always roll dice.

The game mechanics for skill checks and non-combat encounters encourages non-combat. Players are more likely to roleplay in non-combat encounters. Granted, the mechanics can curb roleplaying a bit. Instead of spending 10 minutes of dialogue between players and random tavern patrons, you can quickly do a gather information check and provide a more abstract description of the non-combat encounter. Still, these rules provide DMs with the feeling of greater power to resolve these encounters, and sometimes a safety net is all a DM needs to feel confident enough to run more games "outside of the dungeon".

In response to the OP, I think it's up to the DM and the table, but I think the rules and background of D&D heavily favor tactical dungeon crawling.

 

[Vargo]

Meh. Video games died when they were terminally infected with graphics. ZORK FOREVER!!!

I find that interesting given that one of the very first games was "Spacewar" - which relied on vector graphics.

 

[der_kluge]

I answered yes, but I don't necessarily think it has to.

That said, my experience has been that games that focus more on combat, tend to minimize role-playing.

That doesn't mean you can't role-play while still engaged in combat, but I do believe that it will be minimized. Yes.

 

[buzz]

Instead of spending 10 minutes of dialogue between players and random tavern patrons, you can quickly do a gather information check and provide a more abstract description of the non-combat encounter.

Why does it have to be either-or? If lots of in-character dialogue is what floats your group's boat, why can't you use the skill check to direct those ten minutes of dialogue? Rather than spend time acting things out and resolving by fiat, you can roll and then focus on that one scene where the roll's result takes place and act that out.

I guess this poll question points to a fundamental peeve of mine, which is the whole idea that playing out a combat is not "roleplaying". Honestly, I'd argue that never rolling dice and speaking in character all the time isn't roleplaying; it's dinner theater.

But that's just me.

 

[takasi]

Why does it have to be either-or? If lots of in-character dialogue is what floats your group's boat, why can't you use the skill check to direct those ten minutes of dialogue? Rather than spend time acting things out and resolving by fiat, you can roll and then focus on that one scene where the roll's result takes place and act that out.

I never said it was either-or. The skill check gives the DM an option to adjudicate the outcome at any time, whether the table wants to spend a half an hour doing impromptu improv or not. Rules introduce a more objective fairness to the game, and this may encourage DMs to introduce more non-combat encounters (where most roleplaying takes place).

 

[The_Gneech]

I'd like to see more "roleplaying" in the amatuer theatrical sense at my own table, but it doesn't have anything to do with the wargaming aspects of D&D -- it's because the rest of the group just isn't into that.

-The Gneech

 

[Insight]

Like a previous post stated, it really depends.

In terms of the game mechanics, wargaming completely overshadows roleplaying*. There are very few roleplaying related rules. If we are talking about 3.5D&D, the rule mechanics are completely (with the possible exception of Alignment and a Paladin's Code) based on crunch. Other gaming systems have more emphasis on roleplaying, even in the rules.

Outside of the rule mechanics, it really depends on your group. Some GMs are uncomfortable with a lot of roleplaying, especially in D&D where there is no incentive to roleplay - that said, some GMs encourage roleplaying and even reward players who are good roleplayers.

* and I define roleplay as 'do things other than fight and use skills to resolve situations.

 

[Elf Witch]

I voted yes but I think it has to do more with who the DM and players are. I have played in many a game where everyone like role playing and we were able to do it just fine using DnD rules but I have also played in a game where the DM made everything a roll and all we did was roll dice no matter the situation.

"I want to talk to the King" "Ok roll your diplomacy" So you rolled then told the DM what you wanted you never actually had to put anything into words. It was boring.