Numbers vs. roleplaying

[der_kluge]

My belief is, that if you play D&D with RAW, then high level play is more likely to be RULES, and less likely to be role-playing.

It's the nature of the system.

Consider that as the complexity of the characters increase, upwards as levels rise, and as the number of spells and abilities increase exponentially as the numbers rise, players will find themselves increasingly turning more towards abilities, magic, and items to solve problems.

This doesn't occur as much at the lower levels because players have to rely on role-playing and problem-solving more at that level because their abilities are much more limited.

That's not to say that role-playing has to decrease at high levels, or that it does, however I believe that - in general, role-playing probably does decrease at high level, because there is a less of a need for it in terms of problem solving.


There. I've thrown the gauntlet down.

 

[Alloran]

My belief is, that if you play D&D with RAW, then high level play is more likely to be RULES, and less likely to be role-playing.

It's the nature of the system.

Consider that as the complexity of the characters increase, upwards as levels rise, and as the number of spells and abilities increase exponentially as the numbers rise, players will find themselves increasingly turning more towards abilities, magic, and items to solve problems.

This doesn't occur as much at the lower levels because players have to rely on role-playing and problem-solving more at that level because their abilities are much more limited.

That's not to say that role-playing has to decrease at high levels, or that it does, however I believe that - in general, role-playing probably does decrease at high level, because there is a less of a need for it in terms of problem solving.


There. I've thrown the gauntlet down.

You know, I hadn't thought about it before, but I'm inclined to agree with this. I remember some of my favourite campaigns, and when we were lowly-thrid level characters we had to rely on intuition, intelligence, and the DM fudging dice for us to survive. Up in the thirteen to fifteen range, though, it really got to the point that we could take on most anything the DM wanted to throw at us, getting so bad that our party of four destroyed an entire army. Hrm. But the thing is, whith my group anyway, there was still the roleplaying aspect (the bard who still calaimed to do things he'd never done, the drunken barbarian, and the evil death cleric.) So, while roleplaying was still around, it wasn't pertinant for our survival at that point.

~Alloran

 

[FireLance]

You know, I hadn't thought about it before, but I'm inclined to agree with this. I remember some of my favourite campaigns, and when we were lowly-thrid level characters we had to rely on intuition, intelligence, and the DM fudging dice for us to survive. Up in the thirteen to fifteen range, though, it really got to the point that we could take on most anything the DM wanted to throw at us, getting so bad that our party of four destroyed an entire army. Hrm. But the thing is, whith my group anyway, there was still the roleplaying aspect (the bard who still calaimed to do things he'd never done, the drunken barbarian, and the evil death cleric.) So, while roleplaying was still around, it wasn't pertinant for our survival at that point.

~Alloran

Funny, I would have thought that roleplaying had nothing to do with character level. In standard D&D, challenges are supposed to scale with character level, but if the campaign reaches a stage where the PCs are the most powerful people around and have the ability to level armies, combat may lose some of its thrill. If anything, role-playing may become more important because combat isn't as enjoyable anymore.

In any case, I don't see a dichotomy between combat and roleplaying. Not every non-combat scenario is a roleplaying scenario. Getting past a guard with a Bluff, Intimidate or Diplomacy check is not roleplaying. Solving a puzzle is not roleplaying. Deciding whether to go left or right at an intersection is not roleplaying. Using intution and intelligence, whether in a combat scenario or not, is not roleplaying.

On the other hand, roleplaying can occur during combat. The orc-hating dwarf who attacks them in preference to all other opponents (even to the point of making tactical errors) is roleplaying. The chivalric paladin who will chooses to deal only nonlethal damage to women (even if it puts him at a disadvantage) is roleplaying.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Why deride people at all?

Dude, that's what the internet is *for*.

 

[der_kluge]

No one is gonna challenge me on my comments?

Damn. I guess I win.

 

[Belen]

...Besides, he'd better not be burned out - he's gaming with me twice in late September!

I'm good. Game days are different that the regular group. It is a pleasure to get to game with different people.

 

[FireLance]

No one is gonna challenge me on my comments?

Damn. I guess I win.

I thought I did (see post #43). But, you can win if you want. If you want it, you can win.

 

[Zappo]

FireLance said that in a well-run campaign, characters have to "rely on roleplaying"* at high levels just as much as they had to at low levels.

I agree, and I can also add another point of view. I say that the problem of finding new ways to challenge powerful characters so that they have to "rely on roleplaying"* isn't limited to D&D. Further, it isn't limited to rules-heavy games. Not only, but it isn't limited to combat-heavy games. I've played in a Mage: the Ascension campaign where the storyteller was very hard pressed to find some problem that we couldn't solve with the right spell.

Not only that, but the "problem" isn't even limited to characters with great personal power. Exceedingly wealthy or politically powerful characters can pose the very same issue. I've played in a Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0 game where I had so much money that going on missions for corporations was simply a silly idea because I could myself hire characters much more powerful than us.

It isn't finished yet. You can make (in almost any system I know) a diplomacy munchkin. You know, +24 Bluff/Diplomacy/Sense motive at 10th level, or 5 dots in Manipulate and all social skills, that sort of stuff. I briefly did this in Vampire many years ago IIRC. So much for social encounters, a roll of the die and it's over unless your DM is of the kind that bans social mechanics in the name of "roleplaying" (a decision which solves an issue by creating several more).

The bottom line is: when you have a big enough hammer, you can treat most problems like nails. It doesn't matter whether your "hammer" is combat, magic, diplomacy, money, whatever; in most campaigns and most systems, sooner or later the PCs will have their "hammer": a mean of solving problems which is grounded in the game's mechanics and is therefore well-known and reliable. The DM will have to adapt.

D&D has nothing special in this regard. Hell, try high level Mage for something really challenging.

* I assume this means "rely on diplomacy"... "Roleplaying" means playing your character's role, which doesn't imply giving speeches. If a PC can end a problem quickly and easily by killing a monster or casting a spell, rather than spending months gathering allies and information, not doing so would be rather poor roleplaying.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

* I assume this means "rely on diplomacy"... "Roleplaying" means playing your character's role, which doesn't imply giving speeches. If a PC can end a problem quickly and easily by killing a monster or casting a spell, rather than spending months gathering allies and information, not doing so would be rather poor roleplaying.

And this is how I see it. Roleplaying is about interactions with your fellow PCs. It's about taking an interest in the NPC street urchin and perhaps teaching him to be a better person...or fostering his larcenous predisposition. It's about creating a personality that exists outside of numbers, that exists at all times--in combat and out of it.

At 1st-level, the ranger might have to lash together some logs to build a raft to get across the river. at 20th-level, he can summon a hippogriff to carry him across.

But in either circumstance he might hate getting wet, take great pains to avoid it, and wind up on the other side...only to have the gnome druid cast Create Water and dump several gallons over his head.

 

[Zappo]

Heh! Yes. Level has little to do with this. After all, characters don't become emotionless just because they're powerful.