Do RPGs' Wargaming Aspects Overshadow RPing?

[Carnivorous_Bean]

I'm going to say no because what divides an RPG from a wargame is that nothing EVER happens off the battlefield in a wargame. There's no conversation, no narration, usually nothing to tie one game together to the next. Furthermore, wargames usually (though not always) concentrate on large units of anonymous combatants, rather than tiny groups of individualized ones.

So unless you just run the game as a series of disjointed tactical encounters with unnamed characters, then IMO it can't be a wargame.

 

[CountPopeula]

I'm going to say no because what divides an RPG from a wargame is that nothing EVER happens off the battlefield in a wargame. There's no conversation, no narration, usually nothing to tie one game together to the next. Furthermore, wargames usually (though not always) concentrate on large units of anonymous combatants, rather than tiny groups of individualized ones.

So unless you just run the game as a series of disjointed tactical encounters with unnamed characters, then IMO it can't be a wargame.

You know Warmachine and Warhammer both have campaign rules where characters can grow in power and one game effects the next. It's possible to make Warhammer almost like risk, but with every clash being played out between 2000 point armies.

It's a small leap to assuming the role of the force commander, acting in character, and shouting out taunts and commands "in character," maybe even having in-character encounters between characters to hammer out treaties and such.

Just because there aren't rules for it doesn't mean it's not possible.

The more the rules encourage combat, the less they encourage non-combat. That said, I'd have to answer yes. Because while there's nothing saying you have to play D&D as a miniature wargame, there's really nothing saying you can't use Warmachine as the basis for an RPG if you wanted to.

On the other hand, games more suited to theatrical play like V:tM don't have the same kind of tactical miniature rules. You can still turn Vampire into a game that's 90% combat (and probably should at least once, it's fun that way), and you can run D&D as a game that's 10% combat, but it doesn't change the amount of space in the books devoted to one or the other.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm going to say no because what divides an RPG from a wargame is that nothing EVER happens off the battlefield in a wargame. There's no conversation, no narration, usually nothing to tie one game together to the next. Furthermore, wargames usually (though not always) concentrate on large units of anonymous combatants, rather than tiny groups of individualized ones.

So unless you just run the game as a series of disjointed tactical encounters with unnamed characters, then IMO it can't be a wargame.

You've never played a wargame at squad-level, eh?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'd say: The parts of the game that are fun are those that are used most. So, if role-playing is somehow overshadowed, then only because the role-playing part is not as much fun as the other part.

Is it bad when that happens?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Wise fwom your gwabe!

Also, I voted no.

 

[Jorunkun]

What is gained by drawing a line that separates tactical combat (wargaming) from roleplaying? I see the former as part of the latter. In some campaigns it's the predominant one, in some it doesn't matter much at all. To each his own, no?

My concern is that after setting up tactical combat and roleplaying as opposing poles, detrimental to one another, people then proceed to marginalise and discredit the playstyle they don't agree with. I.e., "powergamers aren't roleplaying properly", or "character development outside of mechanical builds is for sissies". What's the benefit of this?

Don't get me wrong; I think it's very important that before you commit to a group or campaign you make sure the game is played in a style that you agree with. But in my experience, most gamers actually prefer a game that has elements of both "roleplaying" (character portrayal, social interaction, joint plot-development) and tactical combat.

 

[AtomicPope]

Just because there aren't rules for it doesn't mean it's not possible.

The more the rules encourage combat, the less they encourage non-combat. That said, I'd have to answer yes. Because while there's nothing saying you have to play D&D as a miniature wargame, there's really nothing saying you can't use Warmachine as the basis for an RPG if you wanted to.

On the other hand, games more suited to theatrical play like V:tM don't have the same kind of tactical miniature rules. You can still turn Vampire into a game that's 90% combat (and probably should at least once, it's fun that way), and you can run D&D as a game that's 10% combat, but it doesn't change the amount of space in the books devoted to one or the other.

WM is the King of TTS's.


And you bring up an excent point concerning White Wolf games - players can alter the intention.

Why did I say intention?

First, let's consider what Gygax said, "Look at the reward system and it will tell you the focus of the game." He was, of course, referring to D&D. The roots of Dungeons and Dragons are deeply embedded in the soil of historic miniatures combat games (Table-Top Strategy). Until 4th edition core rules, there were no role playing rewards. The standard system of rewards existed only in combat - loot and experience points. That's it. Example:

Roleplaying XP awards are purely ad hoc. That is, there is no system for assigning Challenge Ratings to bits of roleplaying.

The only approved reward system in 3rd Edition was combat. Third Edition only rewarded roll-playing

But I highly doubt that stopped anyone from Roleplaying. I started with the Basic Red box and we roleplayed the hell out of it. It was so much fun that as soon as my dwarf (dwarf was a class) hit 3rd Level I went out and stole some 1st Edition books (hey I was poor, sue me ).

I've also played in White Wolf games that were Dungeon Crawls - literally. We were Vampires crawling around in Sewers, fighting monsters, and finding artifacts. So when the DM hands out EXP at the end we received Roleplaying Experience. Huh? His idea of Roleplaying was fighting in character. In White Wolf you can only receive one experience point for combat, out of up to 15 if you're playing MtA or Promethean. It's a Narrative system first and combat system second. Hence Storyteller System.

But that didn't stop someone from creating - Vampire: The World's Largest Dungeon

Or as we say VtWLD for short

 

[Adrift]

I think the wargaming aspects only overshadow the roleplaying elements if we allow them. I believe that like most things this is a choice of the group, and it is up to the group to maintain a healthy roleplay dynamic.

My group enjoys the 'wargaming' rules in DnD but we do not neglect to add roleplaying flair every time one of our PCs takes their turn. Adding a little warcry to 'diety' before striking, or summoning the ancestral fires of old to conjure your wizard's spell are fun ways to make it all work together.

 

[CountPopeula]

And you bring up an excent point concerning White Wolf games - players can alter the intention.

Why did I say intention?

First, let's consider what Gygax said, "Look at the reward system and it will tell you the focus of the game."

Yeah, this is just it. I don't think 4e is going to have an role-playing intensive products. In fact, there was only really ever one role-play heavy D&D campaign, in my eyes, Birthright, and it was a massive failure.

I mean, I've run D&D campaigns that turned into dinner theater before. Great fun. But the fact that it can be done doesn't mean that role-playing isn't being over-shadowed by tactical miniature gaming. I mean, it may not happen at the table, but it COULDN'T happen at the table. People are going to play the game they want to play no matter what the system is. But the system can definitely overshadow one aspect of the game for the other.

I think people miss that when they say they can still role-play perfectly well with the new rules or any rules. It can be done, but it's not really built to be done.

 

[WizarDru]

I think people miss that when they say they can still role-play perfectly well with the new rules or any rules. It can be done, but it's not really built to be done.

But that's usually BY DESIGN. For a very long time, social interaction and role-playing were assumed to be outside the scope of the rules. You didn't make a roll to see if you convince the inn-keeper to share some information with you, you just played the dialogue out. There were no rules because it wasn't perceived as really being necessary. Even when such systems were added, it still wasn't (and arguably still isn't) the core focus of the game, especially depending on the DM and group's style.

D&D lacked such RPing systems for the same reason that it lacked a fully developed economic model simulation: the greater majority of players didn't feel it was necessary. I don't perceive a lack of equality between the combat rules and the non-combat rules to be a weakness. To the contrary, I view it as a logical design choice. While some fringe games like 'My Life With Master' may take another approach, generally most rp-ers want someone to have done the hard math for them. A Charisma check with modifiers was the default skill roll for over a decade with my group. It was clumsy and inelegant, but satisfactory for the time.

Simply put, if you remove the combat simulation part of D&D and similar such games...well, you get a system that most people probably feel the could improvise themselves, I'd bet. Most indie RPGs are like that, to me. A great idea, but really nothing I couldn't have thought up on a couple of sheets of paper.