Roleplaying Vs Combat: How do you weight them?

[The Ghost]

How does combat usually work into your games?

As in how combat applies to the larger story? Or how does combat come about? I guess I am a little unclear about where you are going with this question.

How much "roleplaying" is involved when combat is going on? Which I mean how much do you stay in character? Are there times when it is acceptable to go OOC and metagame during combat in your games, times when the abstract storytelling is over shadowed by the mechanical?

We generally take the attitude that the characters do not know what is written on the character sheet. We try hard to separate player knowledge from character knowledge. Generally, metagaming is frowned upon.

For example, early on in the campaign the party came across a couple of ghouls. Due to some unlucky die rolling we were forced to retreat. Sometime later the party came across another set of ghouls - again, we were unlucky rolling the dice and actually had one PC die during combat. The PCs are now about fifteenth level and avoid any and every ghoul they come across. This is 3.5 rules by-the-way so ghouls are only a CR1. Even though I, as a player, know that my character alone could beat the ghouls my "character" knows that ghouls are something not to be messed with.

So for both your groups time in combat and time spent "roleplaying" where it is more about the abstract storytelling than the mechanical part of the system you play both surface in the same amounts between your light and heavy RP groups. Is there any difference between the groups in concern to when and how combat comes up?

Yes, in the heavier game we know more about what is out there threatening our homeland. We often times have to choose were to go to attack and where to go to subvert or infiltrate. Whereas with the lighter game it comes about more sporadically.

I'm guessing your pretzel and beer group is more likely to actaully talk mechanics during combat rather than stay in character.

Actually, no. Tactics, mechanical or otherwise, are not really discussed during combat. This applies to both games. We all tend to act how we believe the character would act.

The difference between the games is more a difference in tone than anything else. I equate the Beer-and-Pretzels style game to an Arnold Schwarzenegger action movie whereas the other game would be like The Godfather.

 

[Irda Ranger]

the player (and by extension the character) has far more information about what is going to be effective in combat than in social encounters.

I wouldn't say that. I'd agree that "the books" have more to say about combat than roleplaying, but that doesn't automatically mean that the player has more combat info than roleplaying info. RP info must be generated internally by the player (with the partnership of the DM), so any RP vs. Combat deficits are his alone to take responsibility for. If my PC doesn't have any opinion or personality that's no one's fault but mine.

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.

Actually, it just might.

 

[Irda Ranger]

This first editorial will look at roleplaying vs combat.

Just out of curiosity, was defining this as a "versus" article conscious or subconscious on your part?

How do you weigh them? Which is more important in your campaign? Why is X more important than Y in Z campaign type? Etc...

What's more important to a rectangle, length or width?

In my readings ... there seems to be ... a very vocal set that says you can't roleplay in 4th edition.

Idiots.

As others have mentioned, you can roleplay during Chess if you had a mind to. Most "boardgame roleplaying" I've seen though happens during Monopoly. At least, I hope it's roleplaying; 'cause the alternative is that most of my friends are circumstantially Neutral Evil.

How does combat usually work into your games? How much "roleplaying" is involved when combat is going on? Which I mean how much do you stay in character?

Well, most of the "roleplaying" comes immediately before (Deciding to get into the fight) or after (Now what?), but occasionally there's the RP during combat, such as the decision as to ask for or accept surrender, or maybe a Diplo check to see if an arrangement (other than death) can be reached. During the combat RP can by subsumed by sound tactics, but "I don't want to die" is a reasonable motivation in my book.

 

[steenan]

When reading a thread like this one I get a strong feeling that many people unconsiously equate "roleplaying" with "social conflicts" - and that is the major reason for seeing combat and roleplaying as opposites.

"Social" versus "combat" IS a genuine opposition, though one may also add "exploration" and "puzzle" to the mix. They are mutually exclusive (i.e. at given point of game session players are doing only one of those) and we may measure how much time we spend on each of listed activities during play. From this point of view I favor social situations over combat ones (somewhere around 3:1 ratio), though it varies strongly between games.

"Roleplaying", on the other hand - at least how I understand this word - is about the portrayal of a character concept. It is possible to roleplay in combat and it is possible to roll-play a social conflict. Roleplaying does not opopose combat in any way. It may, however, suffer from focusing too much on metagame aspects. Neither tactical combat nor optimized characters break roleplaying, but forgetting about the game world in favor of purely mechanical solutions or creating weird, incoherent PCs does.

 

[op1983]

The balance depends on the climate of the group.

In general I think there's 3 levels.

The first level being the Book Level Balance. This balance only really uses combat when absolutely necessary and no other option is available to the heroes. It is full of detail and NPCs are fleshed out and more than just scenery.

The second is movie. This is the middle ground. There is almost the same amount of talking as there is sword swinging. This is probably where most groups are at. NPCs exist and are around they may provide a bit of information but are primarily tools to keep the story moving.

The last is the comic book. This is the most combat heavy. There is talking but usually the talking is what leads up to the fighting. And sometimes talking in combats is the most talking that happens at all during the game.


Just like with their parallels these play styles are interchangeable No one play style is better than any other. But one could be better for any particular group. It's important for the GM to know the players and know what they want and expect in a session.

My group very much likes combat so I am probably at a movie based on a comic book level.