"Roleplaying": Thank you, Mr. Baur

[seskis281]

Wow, I think some people are really missing the point.



This isn't saying "you should talk like your character in combat". This is saying that "even if you don't talk in a fight you are still roleplaying". Example:

Player A: My fighter hits the orc with a sword.
DM: How much damage?
Player A: 15 points, I used Power Attack.

That's still roleplaying (according the Baur's argument). Player A decided what action his character should take, and the best tactics for doing so, and that satisfies the dictionary-definition of "roleplaying". You don't need the play-acting to be roleplaying.

Agreed. As long as the actions taken are consistent with the character, which is the important 1st part of the statement. But sometimes the absolute best tactics to win an encounter aren't necessarily in keeping with an individual character, and too many players skip the question of "what actions my character would take" and move right to the best tactics. This is where "roleplaying" no longer occurs.

The barbarian, while well-versed in combat and skilled despite his low int, would not on first encountering a lich at higher levels, know all the dangers involved in getting right up onto it and attacking with fury. So the player who, as a player, says "My barbarian looks around to find his phylactery and I go to smash it" is employing the best tactical approach to the situation, but it's bad roleplaying. This is where is disagree with the article, because it's a slippery slope that says player knowledge as gamers trumps character play in game, and that eventually leads "roleplaying" to simply mean I have a character with a name. The barbarian would probably have experienced undead, and should play accordingly, but wouldn't know that simply hacking the lich to pieces won't kill it for good.


Is the following "roleplaying?"

A group about to fight a group of Ogres, led by an Ogre mage.

Player A: Ok, let's all hold actions until Player B (Wizard) can cast fireball. Then I (a Knight) and Grug (the Barbarian) will go after the Mage. Player D (Rogue) try to hang back, flank around them and use your bow.

Other players: Agreed.


So is it roleplaying? Absolutely - if the above is discussed in character as the group has spied this Ogre group and prepares to attack.

If, on the other hand, they have stumbled into this fight, combat and initiative have begun, and this discussion takes place between the players - then roleplaying is gone and it's just tactics. I run 10 second rounds.... and the monsters are attacking... so the group shouldn't be able, as characters, to stop and work out tactics. If this happens, I void all their initiatives and say "while you discuss the issue... the Ogre Mage casts chain lightning and his minions attack."

Tactics CAN be good roleplaying... a good group should and would apply good tactics according to their characters. But what I witness all too often are gamers that stop using the attributes, history and personality of their characters the moment combat starts and, simply looking at a mini on a board, apply in EVERY combat what they as an intelligent, modern and well-read (in terms of fantasy RPG lore) players know about the situation, making every combat move accordingly.

To me that's when RPG stops being "roleplaying" and becomes tactical wargaming. And I have nothing against wargaming - D&D owes its origins to Chainmail which was exactly that. I just think it's important to realize there are differences between the two. If you like running D&D combat that way, hey it's all good.... I will never say you can't.

But don't be surprised when some voice the opinion that you're not "roleplaying" anymore.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

It doesn't matter if my barb has Int 5. He's been a warrior, born and bred, all his life. He dang well knows something about tactics and the arts of war, and as a player, I'm dang well going to try and figure out the best amount to, e.g., Power Attack, because how else do I reflect that my PC is a competent warrior?

There's a time and place for enforcing in-character knowledge, but it's not 100% of the time in 100% of the places.

The thing is, even if you have that Int 5 barbarian, you have given solid, in chracter background reasons for him to fight tactically - and that mean that in character knowledge is being used.

 

[seskis281]

Player A: My fighter hits the orc with a sword.
DM: How much damage?
Player A: 15 points, I used Power Attack.

That's still roleplaying (according the Baur's argument).

I'd also add that while this one moment, by itself, shouldn't be misconstrued as not role-playing... I'd hate to see every battle and combat simply described this mechanically.

No "Grug lets out a tremendous roar and attacks the pitiful Orc!"?

I'd also have to argue that simply saying "player A attacks and uses Power Attack" EVERY time loses the roleplaying aspect. Not that I expect pithy and in character descriptions every time either, but a good healthy reminder once every couple of rounds that distinguishes the barbarian from the companion fighter.

Again, ok if you want to disagree... but we should probably call it TFGing (Tactical Fantasy Gaming) instead of RPGing.

 

[Gold Roger]

I'd also add that while this one moment, by itself, shouldn't be misconstrued as not role-playing... I'd hate to see every battle and combat simply described this mechanically.

No "Grug lets out a tremendous roar and attacks the pitiful Orc!"?

I'd also have to argue that simply saying "player A attacks and uses Power Attack" EVERY time loses the roleplaying aspect. Not that I expect pithy and in character descriptions every time either, but a good healthy reminder once every couple of rounds that distinguishes the barbarian from the companion fighter.

Again, ok if you want to disagree... but we should probably call it TFGing (Tactical Fantasy Gaming) instead of RPGing.

Um, no?

The 10th time grug lets out a tredemous roar it isn't rollplaying anymore either. We don't play out your 10nth time at a generic shop out either, but still buy stuff and don't call it Accounting Fantasy Gaming.

We cut the time on boring roleplaying to get to the juicy part we haven't got every session. When visiting town that's when Grug gets the message that his father has been poisoned or is wife is pregnant. When fighting we cut hand to hand descriptor to the point the orc warlord enters the combat at the refugee camp and Grug has to choose wether he confronts his sworn nemesis, the warchief, as honor dictates, or jumps to the defense of the orphans about to be slaughtered by grunts, as the goodness of his heart dictates.

Roleplaying isn't just one part of the game, it's the whole thing and that's just what I think is the message of Baur's statement. It isn't about the minitua of when somebody should be allowed to call his combats roleplaying. D&D as a whole is altogether a roleplaying game. Some may want more com,bat in it, some less. Some may want (or be able) to put less characterisation in it, but he's still playing a roleplaying game.

No matter how some may want to cover it up with nitpicks, minitua and vocabulary, in the end many just want to say, well it's a roleplaying game and we roleplay and others don't, so the game should cater more to us then others. It's the some old discussion, it just wears a hat this time around.

 

[Thomas Percy]

Mr. Baur is a guy behind Assassin Mountain (Al-Qadim). It was great, great module imho. It was in 1993.
But I don't like him for what he done with BIRTHRIGHT, I mean: Warlock of the Stonecrowns & Sword of Roele adventures.
He's dungeon crawls designer - nothing interesting for me.
So, his opinion is imho opinion from the dungeon point of view only.

 

[Mouseferatu]

He's dungeon crawls designer - nothing interesting for me.
So, his opinion is imho opinion from the dungeon point of view only.

Having just worked with him on a book that has almost nothing to do with dungeon crawling, and having really enjoyed his work on many non-dungeon-related books (such as Beyond Countless Doorways), I have to say that's certainly not an impression I've ever gotten from him.

 

[Quickleaf]

The "optimum tactical choice" comes into play because... okay, I admit it: I don't like to lose. Ever. Anything, to me, that forces me to make suboptimal choices for x number of rounds before I "figure it out" to me is stupidity, because it's deliberately putting my character into a bad situation, and that to me means there's a good chance I could end up dead and waste all the time and effort I put into the character. Maybe it's because I no longer equate playing a D&D character like acting in a play, so the old "the Audience [read: player] knows what the Hero [read: PC] doesn't" routine doesn't mean anything to me anymore. Perhaps I need some drama classes
To be fair, I see nothing wrong with doing this, and I probably would have more fun if I did it myself (Combat in D&D is boring to me.. basically Warhammer Lite with a few more flavourful descriptions of what goes on); I just cannot get into that mentality and know that since my character Thog has never fought a troll, he has to get smacked down for a few rounds (which, when facing a troll could easily result in death via Rending) first before I can chuck Alchemist's Fire at it and really start to damage it.. in short, I waste rounds attacking it because it'll heal most of that damage, while I have no such luxury.

So you'd enjoy playing a character's faults if (a) the GM wasn't going to kill your character and (b) you felt challenged and interested by combat? Perhaps something to bring up with the GM? Or trying an alternate set of rules?

Here's one method to try to shift your thinking. Ask your GM to include these house rules:

Rewarding Failure
Anytime a player doesn't take the optimal course of action because it is clear they are role-playing their character's faults, they choose one of the following bonuses:
• Confidence despite adversity: You may take 10 the next time you are in a similar situation to the one you failed in, even if you normally could not. If you could normally take 10, then you may take 20.
• Learning from Your Mistakes: Gain an insight into the current situation, learning a vulnerability of your opponent or discovering what you did wrong for example.
• Redoubled Effort: You suffer no fatigue on any extra efforts you make next round.
• Piety in the Face of Suffering: Regain one action point.
• What Doesn’t Kill You: If you survive the failure, you gain a +2 bonus to all saves, AC, and Constitution checks for the rest of the scene.

This isn't saying "you should talk like your character in combat". This is saying that "even if you don't talk in a fight you are still roleplaying". Example:

Player A: My fighter hits the orc with a sword.
DM: How much damage?
Player A: 15 points, I used Power Attack.

That's still roleplaying (according the Baur's argument). Player A decided what action his character should take, and the best tactics for doing so, and that satisfies the dictionary-definition of "roleplaying". You don't need the play-acting to be roleplaying. [emphasis mine]

Well...I'm going to disagree because (as Baur made it pretty clear) "talking/acting" scenes are often called "role-playing." Talking/acting scenes are what separate RPGs from wargaming scenarios (though yes, some wargamers do roleplay).

So, it's really a matter of definition. You might expand the definition of "role-playing" to include anything that happens at the table involving dialogue between two players, but that's not a useful definition (except maybe when referring to the hobby of 'role-playing'). But, 'role-playing' is a loaded word, and can provoke conflict when really the problem is that it's not clearly defined.

Now, the example you gave definitely is a combat, but it's not a talking/acting scene. It might be enjoyable, but my guess is that many role-players would find it enjoyable (or more enjoyable) if the scene with power attacking the orc had been set up with talking/acting before hand.

 

[buzz]

That's still roleplaying (according the Baur's argument). Player A decided what action his character should take, and the best tactics for doing so, and that satisfies the dictionary-definition of "roleplaying". You don't need the play-acting to be roleplaying.

Exactamundo, Delta. Thank you.

Agreed. As long as the actions taken are consistent with the character, which is the important 1st part of the statement. But sometimes the absolute best tactics to win an encounter aren't necessarily in keeping with an individual character, and too many players skip the question of "what actions my character would take" and move right to the best tactics. This is where "roleplaying" no longer occurs.

The barbarian, while well-versed in combat and skilled despite his low int, would not on first encountering a lich at higher levels, know all the dangers involved in getting right up onto it and attacking with fury. So the player who, as a player, says "My barbarian looks around to find his phylactery and I go to smash it" is employing the best tactical approach to the situation, but it's bad roleplaying.

And this is EXACTLY where I totally disagree, and why I posted the quote in the first place. The players you describe are roleplaying. Roleplaying is not synonymous with immersion.

 

[buzz]

The thing is, even if you have that Int 5 barbarian, you have given solid, in chracter background reasons for him to fight tactically - and that mean that in character knowledge is being used.

In some sense, perhaps. But I'm not really creating a background. I'm simply looking at where it says "Barbarian" on the character sheet and (rightly, IMO) assuming that I don't have to play him as a tactical idiot just becuase he has a low Int.

 

[buzz]

So, it's really a matter of definition. You might expand the definition of "role-playing" to include anything that happens at the table involving dialogue between two players, but that's not a useful definition (except maybe when referring to the hobby of 'role-playing').

See, I think it is a useful defintion, because it doesn't involve inherrently belittling a given style of play. All of these arguments about how tactical combat play is not "roleplaying" are essentially saying "I don't like that way of playing, ergo it's not roleplaying." And, really, I find that bogus.

The nice thing about Baur's deifnition is that it assumes nothing more than the basic premise of RPGs, but doesn't pass judgement on the reasons behind it. Whether youre getting deep into character, just want to kill @#%$, or want to address some grand story, you're roleplaying.