Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seskis281" data-source="post: 3031076" data-attributes="member: 41593">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.</blockquote>

Verification