Rules Never Prevent RPing? (But Minis Seem To Do So?)

[Quickleaf]

The current rules do not encourage excellent role-playing. It is possible, though more difficult, to role-play in spite of the rules because (a) it requires greater imagination, and (b) it requires greater independence from group-think if everyone else in the group has a tactical/gamist mindset. Keep reading to see what I mean.

As I understand it, there are dual purposes for things like "Gather Information" and "Bluff" checks:

1) Preventing "netrunning" scenarios (i.e. situations where one player gets all the DM's attention for a significant period of time, boring the others).
2) Divorcing the social skills of the player from those of the character.

I think that (1) is called for some of the time, but not all, and (2) is a bit of a handwave. As a thought experiment in removing (2), perhaps the game would improve if Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma were replaced with something like Magical Affinity, Divine Affinity and Karma (or Luck), remove all RP skills except Knowledge-type ones, and having the player's words stand for the character. I mean, you can't simulate 26 in a mental trait as a player except with a die roll anyway, because none of us are that witty, canny or sly....surely.

Actually, it's just the current d20 rules which discourage you from simulating a vastly high mental trait. To see an approach I'm developing (Based on Steve's "Skill Focus: Talking" pdf) which encourages you to play a character vastly different than yourself, check out this house rules thread.
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=170497

How do rules encourage role-playing

What if instead of being rewarded just for your successes you were rewarded for role-playing your character's weaknesses? Say you have an Intelligence -2. If you make a mistake reflecting your character's low intelligence (misinterpreting something somebody said, for example), you'd earn an action point.

 

[BryonD]

Certainly not. I think the difference lies in that it is a lot easier to make a sub-optimal choice in 3e than 1e. In other words, the chance of playing 'poorly' is greater. ( I use the word 'poorly' with reservation; I don't mean to imply that the game should be treated as a win/lose proposition. The only way I think you can lose is if you don't have fun.)

In 1e, combat boiled down to: choice of target, ranged vs. melee, cast a spell or not, and if so which spell. Maybe the occasional 'do I switch weapons' if you were using the weapon type vs armor rules. Even if you were using minis, it was largely for flavors sake and adjudicating positioning in situations where it mattered (eg marching order in tight corridors).

In 3e, throw in: power attack or not, AoOs, reach, move and attack, ready action, etc, etc, etc. These are rules complications, and don't preclude RPing in any way. But mini's feed those rules in a way that they didn't in 1e.

I think for some players, for a variety of reasons, the visual/tactile aspect that minis bring channels them into a tactical mindset at the expense of a role-playing mindset. I think there is an experience factor, as I've mentioned previously. I think there are probably some Pavlovian type responses formed by games played when we were kids, where understanding and following the rules was paramount and the goals were straightforward. "Roll the dice and move your piece" is the ringing bell.

Ok, but on the one hand you have said it is an edition thing and on the other a visual/tactile minis thing.
What about people who play 1E with minis?

And beyond that, I still agree that this DOES happen. I'm not trying to dispute the reality, just the cause. I just still say that it is the players. The Pavlov comment is consistent with this.

But 90% of my gaming experiences have involved mini's in some form or another, and I've seen a hell of a lot of great role-playing in the midst of all that, to buy into the 'mini's kill role-playing' argument. If a group wants both, they'll find a way to make it work.

Right. And that is the bottom line.

 

[BryonD]

I was thinking more along the lines of the big, stupid barbarian that conveniently 'forgets' that he can't read, or who wants to claim 'well, thats something my character would just know' instead of putting skills into Knowledge, or making Int checks.

Ok, I'll certainly agree that I do not like that.
But that is still a different point and if the group is having fun then it is nothing to me.

 

[Quasqueton]

What about people who play 1E with minis?

Raises hand. I've played D&D with minis for about 25 years (just short of my total time with D&D). AD&D1 was designed for using minis, and apparently assumed minis were used for playing.

I've used minis in almost every RPG I've ever played. I've seen people role play just fine with minis on the table, and I've seen people not role play in games with no minis in use.

As for the subtle edition war, D&D3 actually has more text on role playing a character than AD&D1 did.

Quasqueton

 

[genshou]

I read post after post after post in this thread, and I just don't get it. What do you people consider RPing to be within the context of combat?

When I get in a fight, I start attacking people and try to maximize my tactical advantages. I try to avoid letting the enemies gang up on me, and avoid doing things that leave an opening in my defenses for my enemies to take advantage of. In other words, as a real person I am doing things like taking 5-foot steps to avoid flanking, and not doing actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.

Now, who's going to tell me that I'm not acting in-character in the real world?



What would be in-character for our heroes in the midst of combat? Exactly what we're having them do while portraying them with miniatures. I just can't imagine a Shakespearean prose going on in the midst of a pitched battle. It's in-character for them to be hacking at each other and trying not to leave themselves open to getting skewered.

 

[librarius_arcana]

Ah. Well, not having seen the original context, the quote was all I had to go with.

Thing is, though, I've seen the "RP stops when minis hit the board" phenomenon. There are gamers--a lot of them, IME--who seem to go from "role-playing" to "tactical," and never the twain shall meet.

Whether that's primarily the fault of the minis, the rules, these particular gamers, or a combination thereof, I wouldn't dare hazard a guess. But it does happen, and it seems to happen a lot less--IME, again--without minis than with them.

Thats very true, it creates a shift in perspective that makes them (only) focus on the so called "tactical", these are two diffrent forms of thinking, one Roleplay, one board game,
it's oil and water due to the difference in gaming focus paradigm.

A board game and Roleplaying game are two very different things,
(and people who say you can Roleplay anything, well I'd really like to see a good snakes and ladders campaign )

 

[BryonD]

Thats very true, it creates a shift in perspective that makes them (only) focus on the so called "tactical", these are two diffrent forms of thinking, one Roleplay, one board game, it's oil and water due to the difference in gaming focus paradigm.

I only take exception to the word "makes".
That many do this does not establish that they are made to.
That many others don't feel the slightest pull does establish that it isn't the rules or the minis themselves inherently causing this.

A board game and Roleplaying game are two very different things,

Well, that reference started in the prior thread with someone proclaiming that minis inhibit roleplaying and saying that there was no significant difference (re: roleplaying) between D&D and Descent. I disagree with him and agree with you.

(and people who say you can Roleplay anything, well I'd really like to see a good snakes and ladders campaign )

It's a pretty rules heavy games that constrains one's options. But "Weeeee!!!!!" would play a big part.

 

[tzor]

I've been playing D&D since first edition AD&D in 1980 and I started out using figures. I've never seen how figures prevent RPing because I've always viewed them in the abstract, as in a visual aide to get the feeling of what is going on. In my mind the difference between a role playing game and a war game is that you often take a longer time looking at every possible option, where in role playing you try to go with the flow.

When I first started playing my fig was an abstract visual aide. Of course the character probably wasn't wearing that armor the fig had, or even the weapon, but more or less, this was an abstract visual aide that one used to place the character within the fantasy world, if only to remember what the heck the marching order was.

I remember Vampire the Masquerade which never used minis or figs. I have many complaints about combat in general but the biggest problem I had was that no matter how well described once people started moving, I got lost real fast. Sure it was good roleplaying ... roleplaying a blind vampire because I had no idea who was where after a few rounds of movement. I have a left brain and a right brain and both want to contribute to the game. So I need visual information as much as verbal information.

"I move to orc number ... er 1" I said moving my fig towards the D6 that had the one pip on the top. Yes that was how we played back in 1980, before there was any fancy combat maneuvers, flanking rules, attacks of opportunity, but when we had facing rules, speed factors and weapon verses armor tables. Didn't hurt my role playing in the least. The rules, not the figs or minis tend to have the strongest impact for or against role playing.

 

[Mad Mac]

I like using Mini's, and I don't find that they pull me "out of the game" at all. Then again, my "minis" used to be various stolen game pieces and lego men, so It always took a lot of imagination to get around the fact that so many exotic monsters happen to look like little plastic dinosaurs.

That said, I don't use mini's all the time. I find they work great for important battles, and elaborate set piece battles are especially fun to set up. If it's just a quick skirmish against a few goblins or something, though, I won't usually bother using them. Or I'll just throw them down on a blank map and not worry about setting up the room. Lot less hassle that way.

 

[wingsandsword]

This interaction went very, very differently in 1st edition.

Yes, there were no rules for it, so you couldn't really play a character that was more convincing, charming, or sly than the player.

If the player can't tell a believable lie to save his life, should his character be unable to lie too?

The Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate/Sense Motive skills are there to let a character be better socially than the people who play them, just like Base Attack Bonus and Hit Points let them be better at fighting than the people who play them.

A DM who turns an entire interaction into "You walk up to the guard, roll bluff while I roll an opposed sense motive" isn't likely to magically suddenly become a big roleplayer and turn it into a big scene just beause he's playing 1st edition without any rules for it. Maybe he'll ask for a Charisma check to see if it's a believable lie, or he'll just arbitrarily decide that it succeeds or fails, or maybe he'll make it a saving throw, or base it on the NPC's reaction roll, who knows, because it wasn't consistent.

In the games I've seen it goes more like the PC's play out a short interaction with the guard for a few moments, the dice roll, and the GM is likely to give a bonus to the die roll for good roleplaying, or a penalty if they weren't even really trying and just wanted to throw dice, and go from there.

As for miniatures, they might not help roleplaying, in the "getting into character" sense, but I've seen them really help enjoyment of the game in the "really can visualize it and imagine what is happening sense", with some good minis and halfway decent scenery and maps, it's lot easier to imagine a big fantasy battle going on than the DM saying you encounter 12 orcs and a bugbear in the clearing, and it becoming a hazy morass of no two people having the same mental image of the layout of the battle.