Is there a Relationship between Game Lethality and Role Play?

[kitsune9]

I've been diving into some new RPG's of late. Not playing them, yet, but reading them. One thing I've noticed is an underlying assumption (and sometimes not so underlying) that if you ramp up the lethality of combat, and make recovery from damage much more difficult, you will reduce the level of violence in your game. As a corollary of this, the presumption seems to be that players will role play more as they actively work to avoid combat.

Do you think this bears fruit in play? Can you push players to role play by simply making combat so unappealing that they won't have a choice?

I would agree with your observation. Another aspect is that combat can happen but depending upon the mechanics, it will come down to two factors--how much protection can you get and then get into a fight, or who can ambush who first. If players realize that the game's lethality can be bypassed by simply buying heavy armor or ambushing their enemies, then combat is still likely to occur.

Overall, if players know that combat is a lethal matter with little chance of recovery, then the odds that they'll be roleplaying more is in your favor. However, it then becomes a matter of taste for your players--are they the types who can go a four hour session without blasting something? I can't, I'm definitely need to roll dice and occasionally get in a fight. That's just what I look for in a game.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The old school, high lethality style of games also had a weird relationship with the combat/roleplaying access, in that the game focused more on challenging the player and the player coming up with solutions as opposed to the game challenging the character and the character coming up with solutions. Death has a different relationship with these two things, where the death of a character doesn't remove the player from the game, but it does remove that character from the game. Thus a game that focuses on players is less affected by character death, while in a game focused on the characters it has a bigger impact.

This affects RP as old school games focus on emergent roleplaying that comes out of the game's behavior, while character based games focus on starting the story in game 1 and continuing it. High lethality wouldn't necessarily impede roleplaying in the former, but a character created for an ongoing story would be hard to become invested in if it had a 1/3 chance of dying in any given fight.

 

[Korgoth]

Korgoth - do you find that sometimes it goes the other way though? That some players will simply ramp up their lethality to the point where they will always win every fight? If combat is lethal, they buy personal shields, powered armor and mini-guns, or whatever the equivalent is in whatever system you're playing.

I usually don't play in games where that's possible (not by choice; it just hasn't happened). In EPT (basically OD&D) the best you can do is buy the best possible armor and use good tactics.

Now, my group does employ good tactics. They use lots of flaming oil, force their enemies into choke points, employ thrown weapons, use spells at just the right time and aren't afraid to expend limited items. One of the warriors uses the second-best armor (chain rather than plate) because he prefers to be more mobile. Other than that, they tend to make optimal choices in combat. Which is fine.

Our last combat (a couple sessions ago) saw them get a bit sloppy (they were fighting to save a commoner from a giant three-headed snapping Ankylosaurus) but they killed the thing with a lucky crit anyway so they ended up looking like heroes (over 500 people were watching this go down). They're about to go into a very dangerous jungle to reclaim and resettle an old temple complex (think Angkor)... we'll see if they remember to be cautious!

 

[Ourph]

Can you push players to role play by simply making combat so unappealing that they won't have a choice?

For some players, yes. I don't think it's really about the players making the choice though. The DM has to provide scenarios where avoiding combat is possible, and then allow the player's efforts to do so to work at some reasonable level. I've played in AD&D games where the players were all about sneaking around and avoiding combat through intrigue and bribery. It doesn't work when the DM's first words are "Some guards come around the corner, roll for initiative!". If the DM isn't giving players opportunities to creatively avoid combat, no amount of lethality is going to prevent it.

 

[Hussar]

I can say that in my experience high-lethality systems (such as Classic D&D and Call of Chthulhu) do encourage role-playing because players must find non-combat solutions to problems. In Call of Cthulhu this seems intentional, while in Classic D&D I thinks it's an unintentional side-effect of low-level play. Of course, Classic D&D gets a lot less lethal past 4th level.

It might not be simply the lethality of a system that's the deciding factor, however. I also think complex, highly tactical combat systems discourage role-playing, because brainpower that might otherwise be devoted to role-playing must be diverted to considering combat options. Long combats also discourage role-playing, in my experience, because they leave less time available at the table for interaction with NPCs.

I'm not sure if I agree with this one. For example, GURPS has a combat system that is far and away more complex and tactical than D&D. Yet, every GURPS game I've played in has featured a great deal more role play than I generally see in D&D games.

And, GURPS does have a considerably more lethal combat system as well. Hrm...

 

[Hussar]

For some players, yes. I don't think it's really about the players making the choice though. The DM has to provide scenarios where avoiding combat is possible, and then allow the player's efforts to do so to work at some reasonable level. I've played in AD&D games where the players were all about sneaking around and avoiding combat through intrigue and bribery. It doesn't work when the DM's first words are "Some guards come around the corner, roll for initiative!". If the DM isn't giving players opportunities to creatively avoid combat, no amount of lethality is going to prevent it.

Now this, I totally agree with.

I'm certainly not trying to say that lethality is the only factor affecting the amount of roleplay. The DM will most likely have a much larger impact.

I was more just wondering how much of an effect system had.

 

[Clavis]

For some players, yes. I don't think it's really about the players making the choice though. The DM has to provide scenarios where avoiding combat is possible, and then allow the player's efforts to do so to work at some reasonable level. I've played in AD&D games where the players were all about sneaking around and avoiding combat through intrigue and bribery. It doesn't work when the DM's first words are "Some guards come around the corner, roll for initiative!". If the DM isn't giving players opportunities to creatively avoid combat, no amount of lethality is going to prevent it.

Excellent point!

 

[Umbran]

Do you think this bears fruit in play? Can you push players to role play by simply making combat so unappealing that they won't have a choice?

Worded that way... no.

I think the increased lethality -> more roleplay idea is more a trend than a truism, and it isn't all that strong a trend.

Yes, if you increase lethality of combats, that increases the tactical benefit of talking one's way through a situation. However, not all player choices are based on tactical benefit, and GMs and players often have different perspectives on what the benefits are.

As a player, survival of my character is not sufficient - my play experience should be an entertainment. If the GM increases lethality, but does not actually provide good roleplay themselves (as the NPCs), there's little payoff for the player. I have met my share of GMs who provide great action sequences, great puzzles, and terrifically entertaining combats, but who cannot present a personality other than their own worth a good gosh darn.

I'll end with an analogy: Let's say I run a lunch stand. My hamburgers sell pretty well, but nobody seems to buy the hot dogs. Do I want to make my burgers taste bad in order to sell more hot dogs? Does that make sense? Shouldn't I just make sure that the hot dogs are also tasty, and then let my customers choose whichever they'd prefer?

 

[Ariosto]

Although I think I get what's intended, I would not consider a high-combat game to lack "roleplaying". Roleplaying, to my mind, is simply playing one's role. If that happens to be the role of a soldier on a battle front, then high-lethality combat and (with luck) a lot of it is likely. Even if the character's career is brief, one can play the role to the hilt.

Longer play, though, allows for more role complexity and player attachment to develop.

Old D&D has high lethality if characters start at low level (especially 1st). Raise Dead requires a cleric of at least 9th level. The game also tends to involve some combat even with good strategies to avoid pointless fights.

So, there is usually high turnover among characters as yet but little played. Gaining levels means (on average) more hit points, and also (more gradually) better saving throws.

The strategies learned in low-level play are even more effective as the role of chance is thereby reduced. That's one reason tournament scenarios tend to involve characters of at least 5th level, if not 10th or higher. There can be a clear distinction between good and bad choices, rather than outcomes often hinging on luck.

Combat in Traveller is less often lethal than in low-level old D&D, but can easily produce serious wounds that take a character out of action. The original rules set does not go into detail on how long, offering only that casualties are unconscious for three hours and that recuperation requires a medical facility and doctor. (Outcomes obviously are likely to vary with the tremendous variations in medical technology travellers may encounter among the far-flung stars.)

There can be a similar aspect to mid-level play in old D&D, as characters without the aid of magic take a long time to regain full strength (and are more vulnerable when short of hit points). However, an AD&D cleric able to cast Raise Dead can also cast at least 4 Cure Light Wounds, 2 Cure Serious Wounds and 1 Cure Critical Wounds per day (4.25 hours preparation time in 1st edition). One of only 5th level can cast as many Cure Light, and that alone can greatly speed the recovery of a whole team.

The ratio of risk to reward is a big factor in shaping strategies. If fights are the main source of experience points, then one might reasonably expect a lot of fights. If they are also low risk, then that merely reinforces the emphasis.

As Traveller has no XP or "leveling up" at all, choice of activity in which to engage depends on choice of objective to pursue. Wealth is a common goal, as it can be a means to many ends -- and getting into shootouts tends to fall in the expense column of a ledger. Even commanders of mercenary companies must consider the return on investment.

 

[The Shaman]

As others have noted, I think lethal combat encourages players to approach encounters differently, but not necessarily increase roleplay.

Traveller is my example of this: combat is incredibly deadly and destructive at higher tech levels, so often the best way to approach a potential fight is to avoid it. That may involve straight running away, or it may mean using alternate means to handle the conflict.