Roleplaying your character in combat

[shilsen]

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:

Combat is far from purely character-based. For one thing, only non-spellcasters even come close to character-based - when playing a spellcaster, correct spell choice/usage is primary.

Then even with non-spellcasters, positioning, correct weapon choice, and knowing when to charge in and when to wait are important. And for that matter, the combat stats of the character largely depend on their build choices. And the build choices are determined by - you guessed it - the player's skill.

Was it your character that decided to flank rather than grapple? Do our PC's make the decision during combat to take the full attack rather than a move & standard action? Nope, we perform those actions ourselves based on the best decisions we can think of.

In both cases I disagreed and argued that while that could be the case, it isn't necessarily so, and certainly not the case with all players. A player can certainly make tactical decisions in combat, and create the character build before combat, purely based on the player's skill in creating and running an effective character. But a player can also make tactical decisions in combat based on the personality and capabilities of the character, and build the character on the basis of the PC's personality. The assumption in the above quotations is that characters will always be played for maximum effectiveness in a fight and (to a slightly lesser extent) built accordingly, but again I don't think that's necessarily the case. And it's certainly not the case for myself or for a number of people I game with.

Personally, I can power-game with the best of them, but I don't think I've ever created a character who's mechanically as effective as could be. Partly because there are many things I won't introduce into a game since I think they're too powerful, and partly because my choices are always based on the character's background, experiences and personality. I'm currently in three tabletop games as a player and in 13 PbP games, and that's true of every PC.

For example, in one tabletop game (as I noted in the Puzzle thread) I'm playing a lying, womanizing, cheating, cowardly shugenja. He happens to have the Eschew Material Component, Still Spell and Silent Spell feats, even though they provide him essentially no help in combat. It's just that as a character being able to pour a woman a drink without lifting a finger or evidently casting a spell is really important to him, plus they're really handy for distracting an irate husband who catches him in flagrante delicto with his wife. Does my knowledge as a player tell me that'll make the PC significantly less effective in a fight than could be otherwise? Sure. But that doesn't stop me from making the choices.

The same goes for combat. What tactical choices I make are heavily dependent on the PC personality involved. The same shugenja will always make tactical choices that (in decreasing order of importance) keep him safe, conserve his resources, make him look useful, help the party. Whereas my warforged barbarian/cleric will always try to make himself the main target for the enemy and focus on keeping his allies safe, especially his best friend. And my 18th lvl crusader of the goddess of beauty will rush headfirst into a fight because she's convinced that nothing can stop her, and will completely flip out if someone musses up her hair. And my gnome beguiler will spend fights with a telepathic bond up and keep making exceptionally good tactical suggestions to his allies, because he is a genius. And even with him I don't use my tactical abilities to the full, the only character I've done that with being a middle-aged, high-level mage who had a 24 Int and an 18 Wis (so I felt justified in pulling all the stops out with him). Part of that may be a result of DMing too, since my NPC builds and tactics are also heavily mediated by their personalities.

And, as noted above, I'm hardly the only one. A number of people I play with both create their characters and run them in combat based heavily on personality, even if the choices may not be the expedient one.

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

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I could go either way on this, as I've seen both extremes of rp.... On one hand in terms of general tactics, I see that as very PC/rp based rather than player based. A character who is built as a charge monkey will charge, bluff/hide/SA rogues will do their routine even against blind sighted constructs, etc. Tactically unoptomised behaviour in favor of the fighting style the character prefers is something I've seen a lot.

One place I often fault players for combat RP is the backstabbing, constant interparty conflict teams which come together in a buffing, flanking, healing whole the moment initiative is rolled. While this may be realistic for some parties depending on how they are written, I'm talking about groups where the PCs have tried to kill each other in "downtime" but operate in perfect trust, perfect knowledge of the hiding rogue's location and perfect preference for PCs over npcs in combat. I try to play out my character's personal relationships and priorities in combat as well as out. On the other hand I'm not into interparty conflict as a rule, so this is more a matter of being oveprotective of certain PCs or npcs than friendly firing the guy who's been a problem.

 

[LostSoul]

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?

Combat doesn't have to be about tactical player skill.

A little aside:

I think it has to be about player choices - any interesting bit of RPGing has to be about choices interesting to the player. Maybe that's, "What would my dude do?" Maybe it's, "What is the best tactical move right now?"

Providing the kind of choice the player wants is the DM's job. Making a good choice is where player skill comes in. You want to portray your PC in a convincing manner, and not in some arbitrary fashion, right?

Good choices are subjective based on what you - and your group - want, of course.

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

Not at all.

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?

Don't make combats challenges to be overcome. Make combats about revealing aspects of a PC's personality (or whatever you like).

For example: Your shujenga is cowardly. As a DM, I'd create encounters where he'd have to risk his neck. Maybe at first he sees someone jumped in an alley by a couple of thugs. Does he stop it? No? Okay. Now we know he's cowardly.

Later on, I'd escalate. Is he still a coward when it's an NPC that he likes? How about a PC?

 

[DaveyJones]

i'm all about my character when i'm playing.

combat is a part of the game.

so i roleplay combat too.

if my PC likes to take risks. he takes them in combat too.
if my PC likes to be tactical. he is tactical in combat too. even shouting out orders if needed.
if my PC is comical. well. he is in combat too. like pulling out taunts and bad puns.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

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

It _really_ depends on the game you're playing. Since this place is all about D&D/d20...

I think the majority of the time, yes. While there will be people to pop up and vehemently deny it and point to themselves as not falling into that group, most of what I see online talk about is focused on that. The character (in combat) is more of an extension of the player, as opposed to decisions/actions being taken based on the character.

In terms of personal experience with the different groups I've been in over the years, it varies a bit more. I'd still say that it tends to favor more "player" than "character", but there's a lot more "character" decisions happening.

That's at least in part based on playstyle, and group selection. I've moved around a lot in my life, and I'm careful about the groups that I "settle in" with. If they don't have a style similar to mine, then I usually leave politely and find people that are more similar to myself.

Some people either don't have that option, or aren't inclined to do so.

I don't think my experience is somehow "true" or the default that everyone else has experienced, it's just what I've seen.

And having said that, I'll point to myself as an example of someone that does make suboptimal choices in character build as well as combat situations, explicitly based on whether it makes sense for the character.

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'll explicitly point out to a player if there's a target that's more juicy from the character's perspective, I'll point out how some NPC or critter crossed/wronged/pissed off the character, I'll even give 'em a bit of a bonus to attack the thing in question.

Last game (it was in the middle of a combat), I told one of the players,"Oh man! That soldier just totally smoked your pet Tree Devil. It's lying there in a heap, with smoke curlying up from the blaze pistol hole in its chest, and you can smell the slightly cooked meat smell. So you're standing there behind these two guys as they blow away your Tree Devil, and you've got both your pistols drawn and pointed at their heads. What are you doing?"

The player seemed a bit torn (since he's playing a member of the City Watch), so I asked, "Hey, don't you have that Bloodthirsty weakness?"

The player nodded and said, "Yup. I pull the trigger. On both of 'em."

I said, "Now before you do that, you do know that there's a penalty for doing a double attack like that, right? You can do it, and I'll make it a bit easier since your character's pissed, but there's still going to be some penalties. If you want, you can just do it on the guy that actually managed to kill your pet. It'd be a left handed shot, but that wouldn't be a penalty at all and I'd even give you a bit of a bonus."

And he said, "Nah. They both shot at him, I'm going to try and put 'em down."

He did miss the the one guy, but hit on the left guy (who'd shot his pet) and got some impressive damage. I gave the player a nice and bloody description of the mook's death, and the player seemed happy.

I'll note that if the GM explicitly goes out of their way to point things out, and even gives a bit of a bonus for things like character based decisions, rather than tactical decisions, _many_ times the players pick up on it really fast, and start making decisions that way.

The thing is, most of the time a player/character is penalized for going with the character's impulses, rather than the game's combat resolution/tactical expectations. If you can show how not only will a character/player _not_ be screwed by going with the character's impluses, but they'll actually get a bit of a bonus for it, they'll be _much_ more likely to go that way. Even if it does make the metagame side of the combat a bit more difficult for the group, the player(s) will be more satisified with how it goes. Because they can always say, "Yeah, we did get beat up worse, but wasn't it cool when I [blah blah blah]?!?"

Again, just my experience and I don't claim that my approach will work for everyone.

 

[Umbran]

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?

I don't think that it is "all about" player skill. I think it is enough about player skill that issues can arise pretty easily. I don't think there is a way for the rules to address this, because it is the existence of, and not the details of, the rules that give rise to the issues.

 

[sniffles]

Like you, shilsen, I tend to try to roleplay my character in combat situations and do what I think that character would do, not what is necessarily the most tactically sound choice.

Naturally I can't separate myself from my character completely, nor can I turn off my knowledge of the game rules. But I try to keep in mind that my character doesn't know what I know; he can't see the table from overhead. And I don't know what he knows either.

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.

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.

 

[Mallus]

I'm currently in three tabletop games as a player and in 13 PbP games, and that's true of every PC.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

 

[TerraDave]

At our last session, a player was missing and someone else was playing his cohort. A few times in combat (just a few) I had to step in and say "he wouldn't do that".

You have a charecter concept, you make a build based on it, and then play it. Through that process there will be roleplaying, and it will show up in combat. Whether you play up strengths (the power attacking fighter barbarian who uses a great sword) or weaknesses (the wizard fighter who insists on meeleeing with a great sword).

And charecters do talk and otherwise have some personality in combat.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Really interesting thread.

My current thinking is that combat almost takes place in a different universe from the character acting parts of the session. For me combat decisions are gamist ie all about winning and player skill.