Do RPGs' Wargaming Aspects Overshadow RPing?

[Ranger REG]

Inhibit just means slow down... so sure... I think roleplaying is inhibited when you're trying to figure out whether or not you're about to provoke an attack of opportunity with what you're doing in a grapple. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen -- it just means it happens less... hence it's inhibited.

So, you need to role-play during combat as well as non-combat scenes? It can work. Again, it takes some effort from both GMs and players -- hence my "Let's Pretend" answer above -- to describe their actions without using metagaming terms.

 

[Mark]

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.

Miniatures are just a feature, perhaps with some of their own sub-features, of wargaming. Personally, I started off with wargames because there weren't any commercial RPGs available at that time (pre-1974), though we certainly added our own RPGing elements to our wargaming, loosely and improvisationally. I enjoy both equally and for varying reasons that sometimes overlap. I particularly enjoy a game that can allow for a mix of both with rules flexible enough to allow gameplay to influence which is more prominent and to what degree.

 

[kanithardm]

We've had quite a few sessions of pure role-playing without a single rolled die, so I'd say no.

I get these a lot. But thats mainly because i never remember to bring the dice.

 

[DragonLancer]

Do RPGs' Wargaming Aspects Overshadow RPing?

Absolutely. These days it seems that people can't play without mini's, SWAT tactics and so on.

 

[Cactot]

Absolutely. These days it seems that people can't play without mini's, SWAT tactics and so on.

After playing eons of 2nd ed AD&D, I have to say that tactical combat is one of my favorite parts of 3.0/3.5E D&D. I suppose some people who either do not like, or are very bad at tactical combat/wargames dislike the impact that that sort of style of combat has on the game. But as far as I can see, the tactical combat has zero effect on what happens outside of combat. It MAY bring players to the table who enjoy tactical combat more than amateur acting, whereas some games that do not support that sort of combat wouldnt draw those people. It does not inherently shift the focus, it just draws an extra crowd as well as the people who are drawn toward the amateur acting aspect as well. And of course if you take away the part that they like most (tactical combat) they would be as disenfranchised as those "actor" roleplayers would be if the game was entirely focused on the tactical combat.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

Absolutely. These days it seems that people can't play without mini's, SWAT tactics and so on, dangnabitt!

Fixed it for you.

Should we "Git off yer lawn too!"?

 

[Warbringer]

Here is a PITA response...

During combat, the miniatures aspect of the game has certainly distracted from the roleplay. Wizards measure exactly were on a grid to place a fireball, fighters precount squares to determine where they will land after the sping attack. It's all very "preplanned" in a wargame sense.

By this, I simply mean that some of the roleplay aspects of the game take a backseat to roleplay during the initial "combat calculation phase" that seems to take place before all combat rounds.

Outside of combat... roleplay has not been affected in the slightest... diplomacy and bluff checks notwithstanding...

FYI -- Still hate Tumble

 

[Jim Hague]

Absolutely. These days it seems that people can't play without mini's, SWAT tactics and so on.

This premise is, frankly, garbage. We just got done with a 9 1/2 hour session with 3 combats, including a harrowing mass battle in the middle of a slum, and not a single mini hit the table, nor were 'SWAT tactics' (whatever that means - it's obviously derogatory) employed. People played their characters and chose their tactics accordingly.

 

[Ranger REG]

This premise is, frankly, garbage. We just got done with a 9 1/2 hour session with 3 combats, including a harrowing mass battle in the middle of a slum, and not a single mini hit the table, nor were 'SWAT tactics' (whatever that means - it's obviously derogatory) employed. People played their characters and chose their tactics accordingly.

It also helps if your group consists of telepathic mind flayers.

While it is not mandatory you need minis and maps, it is helpful. Even more helpful if the game rules show you how to use them, as much as it shows how to resolve combat or other kinds of tests involving di(c)e rolls.

 

[Jim Hague]

It also helps if your group consists of telepathic mind flayers.

While it is not mandatory you need minis and maps, it is helpful. Even more helpful if the game rules show you how to use them, as much as it shows how to resolve combat or other kinds of tests involving di(c)e rolls.

Helpful, sure - but there's nothing in the poll question about it being solely confined to D&D, either. And there's very, very little evidence offered so far that combat does anything to adversely affect roleplaying. It's a jake question, frankly.