RP *versus* combat? Not when I play

[Thunderfoot]

What I think is funny is that I've had players that have complained about the RP part and can't wait until there is more combat.

I've never seen a total divide or wall as you describe, I guess I've been lucky; but I've complained about roll playing when I notice that more and more of the aspects of the game "hinge" on combat versus including it as an integral part of the game.

And like others I notice that as the combat wears on, the RP goes out of the window as the players either get into the combat via mechanics "the roll players" or get bored with the combat "the role players". (again these terms are generalizations, not truisms, please adjust fire for such)

 

[Umbran]

I guess my point is that it's just as easy NOT to do that. It just takes a little bit of effort to not fall into the all-mechanics trap.

With respect, maybe it is easy for you. That doesn't mean it is easy for others. Despite many people's personal claims otherwise, humans in general are demonstrably bad at multitasking - remembering to pay attention to other things while focused on complicated details of a game system isn't easy for everyone. So, the admonition to, "Just DO it!" seems to me to miss the meat of the issue.

There's a whole slew of things the players and GMs can do to help include more RP in combat, if they find this to be a problem - you can change your game system, change your adventure and encounter design, change the game's reward structure, and so on.

 

[Thasmodious]

With respect, maybe it is easy for you. That doesn't mean it is easy for others. Despite many people's personal claims otherwise, humans in general are demonstrably bad at multitasking - remembering to pay attention to other things while focused on complicated details of a game system isn't easy for everyone. So, the admonition to, "Just DO it!" seems to me to miss the meat of the issue.

I'm horrible at multi-tasking. Heck, I'm often terrible at single-tasking, especially on a computer where there's all this internet at my fingertips. But, that's beside the point. I get where your coming from, but I stand by what I said. It's easy to overcome this, if you want to in the first place, with just a little effort. I don't see it as multitasking, but just playing the game. You are always acting as your character, so its not really multitasking, anymore than managing to drive and shoot at the same time in an FPS is. You're playing the game - a single activity.

There's a whole slew of things the players and GMs can do to help include more RP in combat, if they find this to be a problem - you can change your game system, change your adventure and encounter design, change the game's reward structure, and so on.

Those are exactly some of the things I mean when I say it's easy to change. Back in 2e days, I jumped all over the optional XP awards, especially the RP award and I've used a variant of that in any game I've ran since. In Savage Worlds, the players know bennies will be coming their way for good RP and in-character moments.

Tweaking your encounters is another excellent way to do this. NewJeffCT gave some very entertaining sounding examples (on that subject, my response to 3 would be: "oh darn, WE were coming to kill the wizard too! Oh well, as long as he's dead. Cheerio!" ). Inserting planned (or winged) RP elements into encounters is an excellent way to get this going with a group.

I don't think system matters much here. Maybe a bit, if we're comparing something like Feng Shui to D&D. But ultimately, it's not a hard thing to push players who are already solid RPers into remaining solid RPers during combat, and it's rewarding as all get out.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't think system matters much here.

I do.

A system that works role-playing into the economy of the game is a lot more likely to see RP than one that does not.

 

[Thasmodious]

I do.

A system that works role-playing into the economy of the game is a lot more likely to see RP than one that does not.

If RAW was the only consideration, sure. But you can work in a reward or other encouragement yourself. XP awards in D&D editions that don't have such things built in, an action point or equivalent here and there, or something as simple as applying a circumstance bonus (following a taunt like that, you get a +1 to hit), would all encourage players to rock the RP in or out of combat.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Encouraging roleplay with mechanics is like tempting people with food--it depends on the person and the food. There are people allergic to peanuts. There are people that that can't stop eating them. Believe it or not, there are people not that wild about chocolate. There are others that if you offer, you better not stand between them and it.

On average, Lost Soul is correct. At any given table, Thasmodious may be correct--or may be terribly, horribly wrong.

 

[Thasmodious]

Encouraging roleplay with mechanics is like tempting people with food--it depends on the person and the food. There are people allergic to peanuts. There are people that that can't stop eating them. Believe it or not, there are people not that wild about chocolate. There are others that if you offer, you better not stand between them and it.

On average, Lost Soul is correct. At any given table, Thasmodious may be correct--or may be terribly, horribly wrong.

I have yet to meet the player whose throat will close up and who will expire in seconds if you offer them a chunk of bonus XP as a reward for good RP.

I didn't say system has no impact, I said this is a case where it doesn't much matter. Practically every RPG encourages roleplay in deed and/or word and practically every RPG has a rewards/advancement system that a GM could easily find room to offer such a reward whether the rules explicitly have such built in or not.

I would amend your statement to say - In a hypothetical game that only seems to exist on RPG message boards, Lost Soul is correct. But in the real world at real game tables with real players, not so much. That hypothetical game (usually RAW only) is a lot like a unicorn. It's not a stretch to imagine it exists (a horse with a horn? Why not, lots of hoofed animals grow horns), but no one's ever actually seen one.

 

[LostSoul]

If RAW was the only consideration, sure. But you can work in a reward or other encouragement yourself. XP awards in D&D editions that don't have such things built in, an action point or equivalent here and there, or something as simple as applying a circumstance bonus (following a taunt like that, you get a +1 to hit), would all encourage players to rock the RP in or out of combat.

I would call that part of the system.

Imagine a system that requires the player to describe his character's action in order to resolve said action. eg. A system where saying "I make a trip attack" does not give you enough information to proceed in resolution; you need to describe your character in motion to resolve the trip.

More RP? I think so.

 

[Thasmodious]

I would call that part of the system.

Imagine a system that requires the player to describe his character's action in order to resolve said action. eg. A system where saying "I make a trip attack" does not give you enough information to proceed in resolution; you need to describe your character in motion to resolve the trip.

More RP? I think so.

We're in danger of going in circles here. I said "doesn't matter much" not "doesn't matter at all". Yes, a system like that would do more to encourage RP during combat than a system that just helps you come up with your numbers and mentions RP elsewhere. My point is that if we pit such a system against a GM who offers his own incentives to do so, the end result is the same - the group doesn't turn off the RP because the dice start rolling.

Does our imaginary system of resolution have any basis in a real RPG?

 

[LostSoul]

We're in danger of going in circles here. I said "doesn't matter much" not "doesn't matter at all". Yes, a system like that would do more to encourage RP during combat than a system that just helps you come up with your numbers and mentions RP elsewhere. My point is that if we pit such a system against a GM who offers his own incentives to do so, the end result is the same - the group doesn't turn off the RP because the dice start rolling.

Yeah. I guess my point is that a group that doesn't normally RP in combat/whenever dice are called for is going to be forced to do it (or play another game). Groups who get lazy as the rounds progress are also going to be forced to do it.

Does our imaginary system of resolution have any basis in a real RPG?

Yeah, I can think of a bunch that work like that. My own hack of 4E works like this, but in practise there's a lot of shorthand going on (which is okay for other reasons). I find that, as combats play out, there's actually more RP going on.