Roleplaying Vs Combat: How do you weight them?

[PHBWil]

I'm beginning work on an editorial for a newly opened (actually site just went live today) roleplaying website. I am looking for honest, well worded answers from actual players and gamemasters across a multitude of sites.

This first editorial will look at roleplaying vs combat. How do you weigh them? Which is more important in your campaign? Why is X more important than Y in Z campaign type? Etc...

I could just write something up for next Monday and say that is that, but that would only be my opinion and as with any research the more sources the better. So please let me know what you think, what systems you play, and how you weigh these things within your games.

I will try to credit any users whose post significantly add to the article.

 

[Crothian]

It does not have to be one or the other;ers can have both. There is no reason why people cannot role play during combat. I think that the premise of the question is a little flawed.

 

[PHBWil]

I noticed after posting that things could be worded better. What I'm trying to look at is the focus of a gaming session. While for you, Crothian, it may be a simple answer, other may like combat heavy or roleplaying heavy sessions/games with little of the other. How do GMs plan in respect to roleplaying portions vs combat? Are there times when a game should be more about the combat and so weighted that way and vice-versa?

I ask you Crothian why is it important to have roleplaying in combat? Would you say that they should be weighted equally? Is roleplaying in combat describing what your PC is doing or is it more for you?

 

[Umbran]

It does not have to be one or the other;ers can have both. There is no reason why people cannot role play during combat. I think that the premise of the question is a little flawed.

But only a little flawed.

The rules for combat are far more detailed and comprehensive - the player (and by extension the character) has far more information about what is going to be effective in combat than in social encounters. That has multiple impacts on the nature and quality of role-play in combat, as opposed to other situations in the game.

When the Universe puts up a big sign pointing the direction to success, following that path doesn't say a whole lot about who you are.

 

[roguerouge]

I'd say that in the one player campaign I DM, I have combat kick down the door when the RP is flagging or when I'm out of the RPing mood. In the games that I'm currently playing in RP fits itself around combat.

 

[Thasmodious]

Combat and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive. You don't cease roleplaying when you enter combat, or shouldn't anyway. Assuming a role is the point of the game while combat is a part of the game. That said, the focus of rules in most systems is on combat, or more accurately - conflict resolution. Roleplaying doesn't need the heavy weight of rules. You don't need to roll on a table to see how your character responds when the ranger reveals he is really a glammered troglodyte.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I prefer investigations and puzzles over straight combat. It isn't that I don't like combat, but I like my battles to have significance, and I find I am that too many battles takes away from this. An adventure that involves mystery, exploration, research, sneaking around that culminates in a big final battle is much more my taste.

 

[Woas]

I prefer RPGs that make armed conflict just one possible extension of roleplaying. For me, I don't see combat vs. roleplaying as such a black/white clean cut duo like others have posted above me. I believe that combat should be an option (albeit a somewhat risky one, perhaps even a 'last resort') for my character (or NPC even) but in the end equally viable to any other option I could have used such as attempting stealth and deception, investigative skills, diplomacy, etc.
During a game either as a GM or player I want to present or be presented with the freedom to choose my course of action through roleplaying. Whether or not the situation 'devolves' into armed conflict the game should not require the players or GM to 'switch modes' and start speaking with numbers and game mechanics only, just like if a character chose to creep in the shadows to avoid being detected wouldn't be forced to speak only in game mechanics.

 

[S'mon]

But only a little flawed.

The rules for combat are far more detailed and comprehensive - the player (and by extension the character) has far more information about what is going to be effective in combat than in social encounters. That has multiple impacts on the nature and quality of role-play in combat, as opposed to other situations in the game.

When the Universe puts up a big sign pointing the direction to success, following that path doesn't say a whole lot about who you are.

For low level OD&D, that information is "Don't go there" - run away, or have your wardogs do your fighting for you. Having detailed rules on combat does not a combat-focused game make. Rulesless roleplaying may be much more likely to succeed than using the combat system.

 

[Crothian]

The rules for combat are far more detailed and comprehensive - the player (and by extension the character) has far more information about what is going to be effective in combat than in social encounters.

That depends on the game. Also, I've seen experienced players have figured it out and don't really need social rules to let them know when they can role play.