Roleplaying your character in combat

[shilsen]

Interesting ideas and comments.

Admittedly, though, the character is always an extension of me, so he's probably going to do something close to what I would do in a similar situation, if I had his skills and abilities.

One thing that works well for me is to think when creating and developing a character of the places where I do want the PC to be an extension of me and where not, so I can use that even in combat situations.

I think it's easier for me to stop thinking strategically in combat, though, because I'm just not a tactical thinker. If you're really good at that then it's got to be a lot more difficult to turn it off and just think about what your character knows, I would expect.

That's a good point, but I think there's one way being a tactical thinker can be handy too. If you can think of a half dozen useful strategies for most situations and rank them by degree of usefulness, then you have a lot more material to assign to PCs with different levels of tactical acumen.

16 games?! shil, you need some new hobbies. Might I suggest the drinking of expensive booze? Harmful in both the physical and karmic senses. The next time you come over I'll pour you a glass of the lovely 16 year-old Islay Scotch I received from M. on Christmas.

Pearls. Swine. You know.

Personally, I think this is really a question of how individuals enjoy the game, and in what ways those loci of enjoyment (sometimes I love jargon!) might be, or at least seem, incompatible.

Absolutely. I know what works for me, but I wouldn't argue that's somehow a superior manner of gaming. It's just a playstyle preference.

Some players approach combat in D&D as if it were a game of chess/wargame. Their enjoyment of combat comes from achieving the victory conditions as quickly as possible with the least amount of resources spent. They might RP up a storm in other situations, but not in a fight. At that point role-playing becomes counterproductive to the way they get their kicks.

True. Of course, there's an interesting tactical component to roleplaying in combat, and a way one can combine the two. At least there is for me. One of the things I enjoy is making a PC a useful and effective member of the group in combat while approaching combat on the basis of the PC's personality. In a sense, I'm creating an added tactical challenge for myself than the DM and the situation already provide. I know that I can make an optimized character who'll be effective in a fight, especially if I throw personality out of the window. But taking a non-optimized character and making it effective while approaching combat on the basis of personality? Now that's a real challenge. It's like my DMing approach of preferring to challenge PCs with enemies who are lower level/CR than then. That makes for a more fun tactical challenge, at least for me.

Sure, for players who aren't wholly of the wargamer mindset --not that's there's anything wrong with that...

1) Make the campaign less lethal, or even non-lethal.

You know, I only started considering that after starting this thread, since it wasn't one of the reasons I did it, but taking death out of the campaign definitely helps in this area. Naturally, it's much easier for me to play up PC personality in character generation and combat if it doesn't mean that it'll automatically mean getting the PC and/or the other PCs killed.

2) Ensure that the PC's are resource-rich.

3) Say 'yes' as often as possible to actions that aren't explicitly supported.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Yup. And I'm still working on point 3, since I have a tendency to notice mechanical and other issues which actually aren't that big and say 'no', rather than saying 'yes.' But I'm getting better.

I think.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

You know, I only started considering that after starting this thread, since it wasn't one of the reasons I did it, but taking death out of the campaign definitely helps in this area. Naturally, it's much easier for me to play up PC personality in character generation and combat if it doesn't mean that it'll automatically mean getting the PC and/or the other PCs killed.

One thing to note, is that some people will automatically lose interest if death is off the table.

My game is very action-oriented, and my wife is the only one that likes the idea of death not being an option, or of it being something she decides. The guys in the group all like the idea of still having to be concerned/mindful of death.

The game by default has no option for any kind of Raise Dead or Resurrection or whatever. I told everyone this up front and said that if they wanted, it's certainly possible to add in, and the universal agreement was, "If we die, we'll just make new characters. No biggie."

I'll note that of the 4 (sometimes 5) of us that play together, my wife is the only "new" rpger. She played AD&D for a while back in the day with me, but never really "settled in" and got into rpgs back then. It's only been the last 2 years that she's started actively playing and being interested in rpgs on her own, and started developing a "style" and set of tastes for what she likes and dislikes in games.

All the other guys are old hands at D&D. These days they also play Mage, but that was a definite step out of their experience.

I'm kind of the odd one of the group having played for the last 20 years, but also enjoying small press games. I'm also the only one of the group that spends any time online related to rpgs.

I personally prefer the "player decides death" kind of option. I've never actually been able to play in that kind of game though.

If the possibility of dying is pulled off the table, a large portion of gamers immediately respond, "What's the point of playing then? You can't die, so eventually you'll win and do anything you want."

Of course there's all sorts of answers to that, "Why bother playing if you can't die?" question, but it's a rhetorical question. They don't want an actual answer or solution, they're just saying they like playing a game where death is a possibility and "matters".

And yes, I really would say that's a majority opinion. Just like the majority of gamers aren't interested in playing diceless games. Nothing wrong with either of those two approaches, it's gotten the hobby to where it is today. Just something to be aware of.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In the thread Why I hate puzzles, a couple of people made the following comments, asserting that roleplaying your character goes out the window when it comes to combat:

Someone's obviously never heard of FPAATT

-Hyp.

 

[roguerouge]

In my experience, it depends. Some players I've played with ALWAYS play deliberately weak classes with the mistaken idea that that's good role playing. Some players fall in love with a mechanic and want to play it, then struggle with the RPing of it. (I have that problem with Dragon Shamans and Druids.) Some players play it consistently in and out of combat, some don't. Some metagame relentlessly, making it so that it's like their first level characters have Rary's Telepathic Bond with the rest of the party. Some simply can't think tactically, but are brilliant socially.

To my mind, you can justify a character being more tactically savvy than he would ordinarily be. First, there really are some people who are at their absolute best in pressure situations and it's fair to argue that your PC's one of them. As one example, soldiers, firefighters and cops can have trouble balancing their heroic and personal lives. As another example, there are plenty of pro athletes who are absolute jokers and fools who become deadly serious when the game starts. They hide their intensity and will to win more successfully than others in their field, perhaps. Or perhaps their foolishness off the field blows off steam and allows them to focus when winning means everything.

For low level characters, I can definitely see starting to role play their inexpereince in combat. Later, when they become higher level characters, I think it's fair to argue that if they've lasted this long, player tactical expertise is a proxy for that experience.

 

[Oryan77]

a couple of people made the following comments, asserting that roleplaying your character goes out the window when it comes to combat:

Since I'm one of the people being quoted, I wanted to mention that I still don't think you understand what I'm referring to in that previous thread.

Your quote above is not what I was saying at all. I'm very much into roleplaying and encourage players to get heavily into character at all time. I try hard myself to roleplaying NPCs in combat and perform actions that I would think the NPC would do. For example, I've had an NPC throw a crossbow at a PC in frustration rather than reload and fire it again...even though that was a wasted action on my part.

What tactical choices I make are heavily dependent on the PC personality involved.

I will attempt to try and make my point again in regards to that thread.....

All of the "roleplaying" actions you are doing in combat, whether good or bad, are never the decision of your character (because it is not a real person with his own mind). It is you that is making those decisions for that character. You decided to make him tumble rather than full attack. Lard, the Half-Orc Barbarian (if he existed in real life), may have retreated for all I know. But because Larry, the player, announced that his PC Lard tumbles this round, then it was Larry that made Lard perform that action.

That whole thread was about players solving puzzles. My point was that I didn't find any difference between Larry announcing that Lard solves the puzzle, or Larry announcing that Lard makes a devistating tactical decision in combat. Either way, it was Larry that figured out what his character did that round. If Larry doesn't think Lard will solve a puzzle or perform a smart action in combat because it conflicts with his personality, than that's the players decision and it's neither right nor wrong. But I find it strange when people complain that his highly intelligent wizard should be able to solve a puzzle even though the player can't, or that a low intelligent barbarian shouldn't be able to solve a puzzle just because the player can. We don't complain when high level barbarians perform a stupid action because the player is a bad wargamer. And we don't complain when low level wizards that run out of spells performs a fantastic melee action because the player is a good wargamer.

do you think that combat and building a character in expectation of combat are necessarily all about player skill and not about the character?

It just depends on the player. Some people like to perform actions based on their character personality, and some throw roleplaying out the window and get into wargaming mode. I think it's awesome when players perform actions in combat that are for roleplaying reasons and not just because the PHB has those actions listed as possible benefits in combat. But none of that changes the fact that the player is the one making those combat decisions in the same way that it's the player solving the puzzles.

 

[shilsen]

Since I'm one of the people being quoted, I wanted to mention that I still don't think you understand what I'm referring to in that previous thread.

Thanks for the clarifier. It didn't substantially change my understanding of your point, however. Especially since it seems to me that there's a small internal contradiction in your points. On one hand, you're saying that ... actually, let me just quote you:

All of the "roleplaying" actions you are doing in combat, whether good or bad, are never the decision of your character (because it is not a real person with his own mind). It is you that is making those decisions for that character.

No argument from me there. Obviously, since the character doesn't really exist, all decisions are made by the player. That said, I think that one can distinguish between decisions made primarily on the basis of character personality/ability and decisions made primarily on the basis of the player's personality/ability. Your post implies in places that it's always all about the player, since the PC doesn't exist and the player is making the decisions. But at other places you say that you are

very much into roleplaying and encourage players to get heavily into character at all time.

Which implies that players can also choose to not get into character, and that there's a significant difference between the two categories. Similarly, when you say that

It just depends on the player. Some people like to perform actions based on their character personality, and some throw roleplaying out the window and get into wargaming mode. I think it's awesome when players perform actions in combat that are for roleplaying reasons and not just because the PHB has those actions listed as possible benefits in combat.

you're drawing a distinction between certain decisions taken by a player and certain other decisions, on the basis of how closely they hew to the character being played. That's precisely what I'm doing here.

Which is why when you say that

none of that changes the fact that the player is the one making those combat decisions in the same way that it's the player solving the puzzles.

I think that's true but there can be a significant difference in the reasoning behind and manner of making the decisions (as your post notes in the sections quoted earlier).

In short, I don't think we're really disagreeing or misunderstanding each other, but simply looking at and emphasizing different elements of the same subject.

 

[Oryan77]

In short, I don't think we're really disagreeing or misunderstanding each other, but simply looking at and emphasizing different elements of the same subject.

Exactly! I completely agree with your whole thread here, so it's not like I'm debating your comments. I just felt I was being misquoted, probably because my opininons were in regards to a slightly different subject (solving puzzles). I would even love to have you as a player at my table since you like to roleplay your PC decisions even in combat. I love that type of gaming style and I think it makes the game funner when players play like you do.

Of course not all players stay in character during combat, but that's not a big problem to me as a DM since we can probably justify the characters actions with some sort of explanation; good wargamer player: "my wizard may not be a skilled fighter but he's an excellent strategist, which explains why he comes up with good ideas in melee combat". Or a bad wargamer player: "my fighter doesn't flank when he should or doesn't power attack when he should because he lets his emotions cloud his mind which causes him to make rash decisions in combat". If a good wargamer purposely performs bad decisions to stay in character, that's awesome! I think of it the same way for everything else in rpgs....puzzles, dialogue, & sometimes metagaming knowledge. It's just weird when I hear people use the "I'm not my character" excuse when it comes to solving puzzles, but they don't use that excuse for combat or roleplaying.

 

[shilsen]

Exactly! I completely agree with your whole thread here, so it's not like I'm debating your comments. I just felt I was being misquoted, probably because my opininons were in regards to a slightly different subject (solving puzzles).

Cool. I'm glad that we're on the same page here.

I would even love to have you as a player at my table since you like to roleplay your PC decisions even in combat. I love that type of gaming style and I think it makes the game funner when players play like you do.

Well, next time I'm wandering over to San Jose ...

Of course not all players stay in character during combat, but that's not a big problem to me as a DM since we can probably justify the characters actions with some sort of explanation; good wargamer player: "my wizard may not be a skilled fighter but he's an excellent strategist, which explains why he comes up with good ideas in melee combat". Or a bad wargamer player: "my fighter doesn't flank when he should or doesn't power attack when he should because he lets his emotions cloud his mind which causes him to make rash decisions in combat".

Agreed. I find a little creativity can justify all sorts of completely divergent actions and choices as being in-character. That's one reason why (to take the conversation in a slightly different direction) I have issues with people being disruptive and then justifying it as "I'm just playing my character." In most situations, it's easy enough to find some choice that's both in-character and non-disruptive.

If a good wargamer purposely performs bad decisions to stay in character, that's awesome! I think of it the same way for everything else in rpgs....puzzles, dialogue, & sometimes metagaming knowledge. It's just weird when I hear people use the "I'm not my character" excuse when it comes to solving puzzles, but they don't use that excuse for combat or roleplaying.

Fair enough. I do use the "I'm not my character" excuse for puzzles, but I think I get a pass because I use that for combat and roleplaying too.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, in short, do you think that combat and building a character in expectation of combat are necessarily all about player skill and not about the character?

No, with a caveat. in many game systems, the mechanics are clear enough that you can build a combat monster quite easily.

And sometimes its fun to build a PC with a "hole" in his game. After all, Shaq is one of the most dominant players in NBA history, but he can't shoot free throws to save his life. Similarly, I've seen great warrior PCs who suck when it comes to melee or ranged combat, or who are all Offense and no Defense (or vice versa) and the like.

The caveat is that sometimes a newbie might not quite understand the importance of one particular aspect of combat in actual play, and if he doesn't ask the more experienced players, he's in for some rude surprises.

In your experience, does roleplaying and character personality stop mattering when the dice are rolled?

Definitely not, at least not for the people I prefer to game with.

I just had my PC in RttToEE dropped in combat while bearing a weapon that was "dominating" his personality (and hating it, because he is one of the worst melee combatants in the party)- and the PC closest to him was bearing a similar but differently alligned weapon that was dominating his personality.

Instead of just stepping into the breach and beheading the foe standing over my PC- what his PC is built to do- the player's PC stabilized my PC in order to "continue the torment" that weapon was experiencing by being borne by an inferior bearer.

Classic!

And a bonus question - from a DM perspective, are there particular ways in which you can emphasize roleplaying during combat and encourage players to run their PCs (in combat) based on character personality and not only player skill?

I use carrot & stick, personally. Roleplay your PC well, you get bonuses. Roleplay poorly, you just get what you roll, or possibly get penalized if you REALLY forget the "role" aspect of the game.

I have found, however, that some players play the same way regardless of race, class, system or even genre. Those guys I try to funnel into things that suit them...though watching a guy who favors combat monsters trying out a spellslinging diplomat can be quite enjoyable! For everyone!

 

[Hypersmurf]

In your experience, does roleplaying and character personality stop mattering when the dice are rolled?

I just remembered a couple of examples from games I played at GenCon this year. (I can still say "This year" for another 13-and-a-bit hours!)

In barsoomcore's DPNI game, I was playing a ninja... my attack and damage bonuses were significantly better with my sword than empty-handed, but I didn't draw the sword until the last round of the last combat of the adventure, when we were fighting the Slave Queen herself. None of the opponents until that point were worthy of the blade, y'see. So I punched, I kicked, I tripped, I grappled, but I didn't cut until the BBEG showed up

In Alenda's Halfling Musketeers game, I was given a pregen swashbuckling halfling, and it said in his description that he fought with sword and dagger. "Question," I said. "It says sword and dagger, but there are no two-weapon fighting feats on here... is that right?" "Oh," I was told, "the dagger in the description is really just flavour. You don't have to stick to that." "Ha!" I ha'd. "TWF feats are for wimps!" And I spent the adventure taking a -4/-8 penalty to my two-weapon attack rolls, and nobody could have buckled more swashily!

-Hyp.