Role playing is not the opposite of combat

[caudor]

The whole thing about RPing is that- if the GM wants more RPing then they should strive for it. If the Players want more RPing then they should seek it out, and use it to their advantage.

I think you make a good point. No matter what style of play is being used--if everyone at the table is having fun--then it was a successful game.

 

[Belen]

Well, I agree and disagree with you. I totally disagree that a barb looking for the next fight is a valid character. Why? Because it ruins the game for everyone else. If combat is a person's only joy, then play a computer game! I have seen intended RP encounters destroyed because people were too quick to rush into combat and this is no fun at all.

Now, can co,bat include RP? Yep. However, 3e limits a lot of cinematic moments by describing or having rules for every action under the sun. In fact, most players seem to say "I bull rush," rather than "I charge the villain, shoulder lowered, and ready to knock him away from my friend."

Combat can be a lot of fun and very cinematic, but it should not be an excuse for players to talk every now and again.

 

[Rel]

Now, can co,bat include RP? Yep. However, 3e limits a lot of cinematic moments by describing or having rules for every action under the sun. In fact, most players seem to say "I bull rush," rather than "I charge the villain, shoulder lowered, and ready to knock him away from my friend."

I think I'd draw a subtle distinction between what you're talking about above and "roleplaying" in combat. I'd call what you just described "flavor text" or "colorful description". I think it is related to but not equivalent to roleplaying during combat. To me, roleplaying is more about portraying the character's personality and getting across the "why" of his actions rather than the "how".

To cite one recent example of this, in Henry's AU game at the Game Day, my Mojh character is fighting something that at least looks like one of the Dramojh (evil race that once enslaved the whole continent). He looks at me during the fight and says, "I've not seen a SLAVE for some time..." On my next turn, I say to Henry "I swing my halberd at him and burn a Hero Point to stun him *rolls dice and is successful*. (note that all of that stuff so far was pure mechanics) Then I say to him in a cold voice, 'I'm nobody's slave.'" My character had a chip on his shoulder about the slave thing.

Another theoretical example I'll draw from Game Day since you were involved is in the Sky Galleons game. Your character (Gurkha bodyguard) didn't want Lizzie coming aboard the Bismarck when you went to scuttle her. Let's say she insisted on coming along. Suppose you'd said, "I Bull Rush her into the hold and take a move equivalent action to slam the hatch shut. Next round I'm taking a move equivalent to go over the side and making a climb check to slide down the rope and board the Bismarck." That would be all mechanics with no added flavor text. But I still think it is fantastic roleplaying.

If somebody wants to add flavorful description to their actions in combat, I'm all for it. But, in my opinion, it does not supplant the need for a PC to act in accordance with the overall personality of the character.

 

[Belen]

It's fine to stick with your character in combat and I agree that makes combat far more interesting.

I just do not think that combat should be the motivation for a game. Hack and slash can be fun at times, but if that is the only interest of a character, then why play in a social game that includes story and RP.

 

[ciaran00]

I've seen a few posts lately that mention a perceived seperation between role playing and combat. These posts have prompted me to rant on my oldest and deepest pet peeve: role playing and combat are not mutually exclusive.

...

A barbarian who does nothing but look for the next fight is just as legitimate a character to role play as the bard trying to entertain the tavern patrons.

That is incorrect. The idea of roleplaying, as many people refer to it as a counterpoint to combat, is one of executing character roles that are believeable, complex, and have depth. A barbarian who "looks for the next fight" isn't especially believeable or complex since even the barbarians of history most often choose the negotiating table first before trying to hack an enemy to bits. The idea of roleplaying can't simply be applied to "any role" because it inherently refers to a standard of play. Combat, and only combat, doesn't really meet this standard because it is often (and if exclusively pitched in a campaign) always brainless. Combat is difficult: it can be fatal, your limbs can be torn off, and you might never go back to fighting again in your life. If a character never seriously considers these options, ever, then it's not much of a character. Also, it's not a sign of inherent weakness... considering these options... even the "manliest" of combat men that we know of in the real world are harrowed by it.

So, no... I don't think every movie is a "good movie" or a "bad movie". "Roleplaying" is a adjective/descriptor... not a term you can tack on to anything and everything. I'm referring to the understood meaning of it here, not the dictionary definition.

ciaran

 

[hong]

That is incorrect. The idea of roleplaying, as many people refer to it as a counterpoint to combat, is one of executing character roles that are believeable, complex, and have depth.

Not all characters have to be complex. Samwise Gamgee, for instance, is not a complex character at all. Sam is interesting because he's straightforward, knows what he wants, and says what's on his mind, not because he's full of conflicting motivations or allegiances. He's a classic "salt of the earth" character, and people love him for it.

A barbarian who "looks for the next fight" isn't especially believeable or complex since even the barbarians of history most often choose the negotiating table first before trying to hack an enemy to bits.

It's truly amazing the number of people who believe the only opportunities for roleplay exist in confrontational situations. I can only conclude that their campaigns must be nothing more than combat.

The idea of roleplaying can't simply be applied to "any role" because it inherently refers to a standard of play. Combat, and only combat, doesn't really meet this standard because it is often (and if exclusively pitched in a campaign) always brainless.

This comment is mind-bogglingly silly. Please to stop.

 

[Dogbrain]

I kind of agree... but its more of a "technical" difficulty.

- Talking is mostly restricted to short bursts as a free action
- Combat needs to flow well... RPing slows down combat too much ?
- Besides battle cries and "non regular" combat decisions what would you call RPing during combat ?

That is why I suppose most mentally separate combat from roleplaying.

Me: The three guys in the alley start to pull out weapons, roll initiative. Looks like Melanchthon goes first, what do you do?
Mel's player: I hide beyond Zeke.
Okay, two of the bad guys circle towards you two on either side, cautiously. The third one finishes unlimbering a BIG axe. Zeke, your initiative.
Zeke's player: ZEKE CHARGE AXE MAN!
Mel's player: I start to cry for my mommy.

Melanchthon and Zeke were "Best buddies", at least according to Zeke. Unfortunately, Zeke was convinced that Melanchthon was every bit as brave and tough as he was, and nothing Melanchthon did could change his mind. Eventually in the campaign, Melanchthon outsmarted himself with one of his schemes and got slated for execution. Zeke was sad, but the king was a good and honorable man, so Zeke pled for Melanchthon's sake. Zeke won his plea, and Melanchthon was permitted to be slain in free combat against five of the king's best warriors--thus going to the Land of the Valiant Dead.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Not all characters have to be complex. Samwise Gamgee, for instance, is not a complex character at all. Sam is interesting because he's straightforward, knows what he wants, and says what's on his mind, not because he's full of conflicting motivations or allegiances. He's a classic "salt of the earth" character, and people love him for it.

Exactly. I'll take simple, straightforward characters like Samwise or Conan over angsty and brooding characters like Elric any day of the week.

Few things are more irritating than players who want to make their character's inner turmoil the focus of the campaign.

 

[Umbran]

It's truly amazing the number of people who believe the only opportunities for roleplay exist in confrontational situations. I can only conclude that their campaigns must be nothing more than combat.

Well, hong, there's a difference between "confrontational" and "violent".

It has been said, by wiser folks than we, that good RPGs (and novels, and TV shows, and movies) are primarily about dysfunctional relationships. If everyone is getting along swimmingly, there is no tension, no drama, no reason for action. While that's not so shabby for your home life, it isn't particularly engaging in a work of fiction.

And, when there's lots of tension, drama, and reason for action, and you happen to carry a sword or have the ability to make explosive balls of fire, well, stuff happens

 

[ciaran00]

Not all characters have to be complex. Samwise Gamgee, for instance, is not a complex character at all. Sam is

Sorry, "Samwise" is not only a terrible name, it's a terrible character. Nothing interesting or unique about him, except maybe that he's not really unique or interesting at all.

interesting because he's straightforward, knows what he wants, and says what's on his mind, not because he's full of conflicting motivations or allegiances. He's a classic "salt of the earth" character, and people love him for it.

Note that he's also not hacking people to bits, which was the original point of the post. That I refer to confrontational situations is because the original post refers to combat. Maybe you read everything out of context.

It's truly amazing the number of people who believe the only opportunities for roleplay exist in confrontational situations. I can only conclude that their campaigns must be nothing more than combat.

Perhaps more truly amazing is the number of people who end with a conclusion based on invisible or nonexistent reasoning.

This comment is mind-bogglingly silly. Please to stop.

Oh yeah. I forgot that connotations are irrelevant to the meaning of a word. My bad!


Because when I say "intercourse" it's really got nothing to do with sex.
ciaran