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

[Geron Raveneye]

But there is nothing to stop you from being in character and making character driven choices and then using the tactical side to play THAT out.



The question is, do the rules FORCE this, and I still am unwavered from my position that the answer is "no".

I disagree that the rules assume this. The combat rules are just that, tactical rules for simulating the physical result of actions. This works whether you are trying to be optimal or not. And again, that was true in all editions. Was it ok to get killed or "lose" the fight in 1E?

You MAY stop roleplaying if you CHOOSE to. But that is the players choice. And, IMO, if they make that choice then they are losing out on some of the fun.


I disagree that this has in the past or will in the future have the result you are predicting.

You know, this is kinda funny...if we take it a little further, we'll end up in a discussion about how much "free will" is actually free, and how unsubtle an influence actually has to be before we can say it "forces" a behaviour or a decision from somebody.

My point of view is simple: D&D is two games in one by now...one is the roleplaying side (which has only gotten more detailed and quantified with 3.x, not necessarily better though), and the other is the tactical mini-game, which has also gotten much more detailed and prevalent, rules-wise and effect-wise, with 3.x when I compare it to either Basic D&D or AD&D 2E (which I came from).

Now we can argue up and down that it is the personal choice of every player to stop roleplaying when the tactical mini part comes up, and that they could roleplay that as well. One might also argue that one could easily roleplay through a game of Heroquest, despite the fact that it's basically a tabletop mini game, or that one could roleplay the parts of the wizards while lobbing spells at each other in a game of Magic - The Gathering. All possible, and not that far off. But most people I know and met (yeah yeah, anecdotal evidence and all that...like I'm going to create a valid statistics about that. ) simply didn't. Why? Because that's not how the game was played like.

And yes, the combat section of D&D 3.x especially has turned very much into a tabletop mini game, with very detailed accounts of what you can and cannot do, how to do it, what feats and abilities your character must have to do it, and with consequences built into those actions that are best portrayed by using a 5'x5' grid battlemat, minis and, if possible, wire shapes or cutouts for spell effects. Spells and abilities are mostly optimized for exactly those few combat rounds as well. And yes, I realize this can also be explained as trying to adequately portray the variables of fantasy battle...which is exactly what tabletop fantasy wargaming rules are there for. So the combat section of D&D simply is a tabletop mini game embedded in a roleplaying game. I'm not saying this is wrong, I'm not saying it should be different, I'm just saying that's the way I see it.

And many...not all, of course, but many...gamers will simply switch mental gears to mini-mode when that part of the game comes up. Does the rules force that to happen? How do you decide that? If you're at an empty intersection, with no car in sight, and the traffic lights go red, most people will stop, and wait for 2 minutes even if there's nothing to wait for. Nothing really stops you from driving on, nothing bad will happen if you do, and a few will probably do so, too, but the majority will stop. It's a habit. In normal traffic, if you don't stop at a traffic light, you cause accidents. If the context of normal traffic (and the bad consequences of not stopping) are removed, one would say people could ignore a lone traffic light. And yet, people stop.

Generalizing this is, of course, too dangerous, as behaviour is far more complex than that, but the basic principle seems to hold here, too. Gamers see a roleplaying game, they roleplay. You bring out a tabletop mini game, they play the mini game. Why? Because in the context of a normal tabletop game, roleplaying doesn't give you diddly squat, and isn't done. Taken out of the context of a normal tabletop game, one could ignore that, and continue roleplaying ones character while using minis. Yet it seems (as many stories here on ENWorld point to), that a lot of gamers switch gaming mode without thinking much about it.

So, I guess my question would be if a habit is "free will", or if it is some force on the behaviour of the gamer?

And how could D&D combat be modified to be less of a mini-game, while still retaining the functionality to keep combat varied and interesting.

 

[Mark CMG]

My point of view is simple: D&D is two games in one by now...one is the roleplaying side (. . .) and the other is the tactical mini-game (. . .)

I've been playing since 1974 {(O)D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2E, D&D 3E, 3.5} and it has always been like that, IMO. We played fantasy minis games (like Chainmail) before D&D came on the scene, so it was very natural for us to think of it as mostly a fantasy minis game and expand on the RPing as we went along.

 

[BryonD]

And yes, the combat section of D&D 3.x especially has turned very much into a tabletop mini game, with very detailed accounts of what you can and cannot do,

<snip>

So the combat section of D&D simply is a tabletop mini game embedded in a roleplaying game. I'm not saying this is wrong, I'm not saying it should be different, I'm just saying that's the way I see it.

Let me zero in on this. Because I think you were dead on when you said embedded, and then you go on to ignore the significance of that.

The game has an established track record well before the combat starts and continues well beyond the combat. This is a gigantic difference. The wider game can and, if the players allow, will frequently completely change the tone and feel of the tactical combat. Characters (should) have personal agendas, motivations, emotions, maybe vanities, vendettas, whatever that completely change the choices they make in a combat.

And I'm not looking for a count of how many people see it this way vs. that way.
Perception can be wrong.
If the rules and/or mini FORCE it, the it must impact everyone, including me.
That is not the case.
Say how you "see it" only describes the result, not the mechanism that produces that result.
The mechanism is the point I am getting at.


Try this thought experiment:
Take 100 random groups and have them play 3X D&D with minis.
A certain fraction will report that combat becomes non-RP and a fraction will report this to not be the case.
Now, lets start changing variables one at a time to see what has an impact.
Change editions and keep the minis. I don't believe you will see a significant change at all in the break down.
Stay 3X and remove the minis. You may see some change, but I seriosuly doubt it would be significant if you had a truly honest sample group. People who play for opitimal success will play for optimal success. They may be less openly aware of that, but it will still be there.
Now, remove the PEOPLE who go non-RP. Obviously, the fraction will change radically.
The people are the variable that make the difference.

 

[BryonD]

I've been playing since 1974 {(O)D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2E, D&D 3E, 3.5} and it has always been like that, IMO. We played fantasy minis games (like Chainmail) before D&D came on the scene, so it was very natural for us to think of it as mostly a fantasy minis game and expand on the RPing as we went along.

Exactly.


I had a stray thought today along this line. I wondered if anyone every complained to Gary way back in the day that all this roleplay stuff was taking away from their ability to focus on winning the battles.

 

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Hussar
But, in a combat, shouldn't ALL decisions be tactical?

Most, anyway. But rescuing the civilian might take precedence over smart tactics.

Smart tactics true, but, even bad tactics are still tactics. If you choose to get smacked to save the baby, that's a tactical decision. If you choose to great cleave your way through the orcs first, that's a tactical decision. In any case, it's still a tactical decision - weighing the chances of success vs the costs.

And it's pretty much how I define role play in any situation. The only difference is that combat has a lot more quantifiable variables than say, diplomacy. But, it's still a case of deciding on a particular goal and then deciding on a means to that goal.

This is where I disagree with Liberius:

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 )

The "board game" that you talk about has always existed in DnD. Whether the board is visually there or simply envisioned in your head, the board is still there. You have yourself here, your allies there, the bad guys over there. Whether you are simply keeping track in your head or you have a visual representation of this, it doesn't really matter. The situation is the same. All decisions come down to tactical considerations - good or bad. Just as when you are talking to the bartender and trying to get information means that your decisions will be constrained by the situation, so will combat.

You have the choice of sweet talking the bartender, beating him to a pulp to make him talk, using magic, intimidation, bribery and others. In combat you have the option of attacking, using magic, using skills, combining all of the above or others.

Think about it this way. If I showed you a picture of the floorplan of the bar, and placed minis on it, then had you move your mini over to talk to the bartender, would that somehow limit roleplay?

 

[Dorloran]

I've been gaming with the practically the same group since the White Box days, pre 1E. When we picked up 1E, we started using minis. As one poster said, we used them mainly to help us decide who was attacking Orc#1 and who was in the general vicinity of the fireball.

My own sense is, that because the rules were less tactical back then, more of our character's character shown through during combat. I have hilarious memories of character interaction in some of our combats, as well as memories of noble sacrifice, bravery, etc.

I cannot say the same since we started 3.5. And even though the minis now more closely match the armor or cloak or weapon our characters wear and carry, the minis don't seem to reflect our characters' personalities in the way we play them.

DND 3.5 combat is too much, I think, like Magic: The Gathering. Is there roleplaying in a game of M:TG? Not IMHO. The options, tactics, strategies, etc. in 3.5 are all geared toward tactics and the application/use of powers/abilities ala M:TG. Deciding to use Power Attack instead of Fighting Defensively is not what I would consider role playing. It's sort of the same as deciding which card to play in M:TG.

Ironically, and paradoxically, the 3.5 system seems in some ways to have limited character choice by offering more character choice. Do I want to Disarm my opponent? No matter what you say you do, the mechanic has only one way to do it--AoO followed by opposed rolls. In another sense, I think it's also true that the more well-versed you are in the combat rules, the less likely you are to think outside-the-box, which is exactly what you had to do 1E. If you wanted to do something in 1E, you had to figure out your own way to accomplish it, and then describe it. In 3.5, you tend more to turn to the chapter on Combat and search for rules options, or read over your Feat description more closely, looking for some forgotten bonus or way to use the feat.

We do still have heroics in our game these days, though. Our 2nd level Knight (PHB II) had finally had enough with the Phase Spider our DM had thrown at us. We had run from it all night (probably a little too high CR for us, there!) and he finally had it, turned to fight it, and called out, "That's enough--it's you or me" and made his stand. Gutsy and worthy of tales.

But then, we drew the room on the battle board, placed our minis, and had the slug fest. Oh, there was strategy, or we wouldn't have lived to tell the tale of the brave Knight Brennan. But, the role playing pretty much stopped when the minis hit the board.

Now, where did I put that Flying monster card to get over that Wall of Thorns?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Ironically, and paradoxically, the 3.5 system seems in some ways to have limited character choice by offering more character choice.

I think so, too. By offering quantified rules for all these possible skills and feats, the system limits what your PC can do. If you don't have Power Attack, you can't "hit really hard, sacrificing accuracy for strength." Your character may be a noble fighter, but if you didn't spend the points to buy Knowledge (heraldry), you can't identify the coat-of-arms of that knight waiting at the bridge. Et cetera.

I think a lot of feats should be manuevers that could be attempted by just about anyone. I think skills are better handled with a coarse-grained approach, like the skill bundles in Lejendary Adventure (e.g. a broadly-defined skill bundle like "Chivalry" could cover horsemanship, courtly behavior, heraldry, etc), or the very flexible "SIEGE engine" approach used in Castles & Crusades (basically ability checks modified by level if the skill is central to the character concept/class, and given a bonus if the ability in question is a primary one for the PC).

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Let me zero in on this. Because I think you were dead on when you said embedded, and then you go on to ignore the significance of that.

The game has an established track record well before the combat starts and continues well beyond the combat. This is a gigantic difference. The wider game can and, if the players allow, will frequently completely change the tone and feel of the tactical combat. Characters (should) have personal agendas, motivations, emotions, maybe vanities, vendettas, whatever that completely change the choices they make in a combat.

Sure...people should have that for their characters. Should is, I think, the correct operative term in this.

And no, I do not ignore the significance of the embedding of the mini-component into a roleplaying game. I simply think (from personal experience) that humans are able to switch mental gears in a heartbeat if it suits them. And to play D&D combat to optimum efficiency, you better play it as a mini game. And a mini game does not encourage or inspire roleplaying out of itself. That's all.

And I'm not looking for a count of how many people see it this way vs. that way.
Perception can be wrong.
If the rules and/or mini FORCE it, the it must impact everyone, including me.
That is not the case.
Say how you "see it" only describes the result, not the mechanism that produces that result.
The mechanism is the point I am getting at.

Saying "It doesn't FORCE me, so it can't be forcing anybody" is equating the rules with a gun held to your head. If you define a force that modifies your behaviour and thoughts as something so narrow, then of course you are right. But, I'm sorry to say so because it always sounds so damn sarcastic, it doesn't take that much to "force" people into different kinds of behaviour. Countering it all with the "free will" argument is a very easy out, and completely ignores the fact that free will is not even clearly given. If I define free will as "the capacity to make a decision completely free and uinhibited from outside influence", it already does not apply to this discussion anymore, because the decision on how to play out D&D combat is influenced by the fact that the rules are more optimally adjudicated by playing it as a mini game, which in turn means a bigger advantage for my character and a faster procession in combats overall.
Do you really want to turn this into a discussion about "free will" and "forcing a behaviour"? Because then I'm simply out of here, no offense. But those discussions usually lead nowhere, and I study chemistry, not philosophy.

Try this thought experiment:
Take 100 random groups and have them play 3X D&D with minis.
A certain fraction will report that combat becomes non-RP and a fraction will report this to not be the case.
Now, lets start changing variables one at a time to see what has an impact.
Change editions and keep the minis. I don't believe you will see a significant change at all in the break down.

That's funny, because I agree on that...but in that cases not because combat turned into tabletop mini game, but because the combat rules (at least in the editions I experiencd before 3.x) turned it into an exercise of abstract addition and subtraction on your character sheet, without much influence of any of your cool ideas beyond what the DM could handle, which in turn made it highly variable in outcomes, compared with the very reproducible results of the 3.x tabletop rules.

Stay 3X and remove the minis. You may see some change, but I seriosuly doubt it would be significant if you had a truly honest sample group. People who play for opitimal success will play for optimal success. They may be less openly aware of that, but it will still be there.
Now, remove the PEOPLE who go non-RP. Obviously, the fraction will change radically.
The people are the variable that make the difference.

I believe what you will most likely get, if you remove the minis from those test groups, is a sizeable amount of groups complaining that they couldn't play combats out as fast and as effective as usual because you took away their tools to do that. A lot of people complaining that they couldn't see AoOs coming because they're not used to do it in their head, and DMs who weren't able to simply rule-of-thumb spell effects without the 5' grid and the minis to see where everybody was standing.
And the last example is like taking out the fraction of smokers from any given test group, and then test how many will grab a smoke every time you offer it. Skewing the sample is an easy way to produce a statistics that gives the result you'd like to have, but that doesn't prove it's "just people" that are the difference. Habit may not be the force you're looking for in this argument, but I doubt you can qualify it as free will either.

 

[librarius_arcana]

I only take exception to the word "makes".
That many do this does not establish that they are made to.

It does "make" them, if they are unaware of that effect of play

 

[librarius_arcana]

The "board game" that you talk about has always existed in DnD. Whether the board is visually there or simply envisioned in your head, the board is still there.

Not true, I never use a battle mat, so never picked up that bad habit of seeing combat that way, (combat in my games are all roleplayed, never board games)

You have yourself here, your allies there, the bad guys over there. Whether you are simply keeping track in your head or you have a visual representation of this, it doesn't really matter. The situation is the same. All decisions come down to tactical considerations - good or bad. Just as when you are talking to the bartender and trying to get information means that your decisions will be constrained by the situation, so will combat.

You don't need a board game for that, and would only become constrained if roleplayed it that manner,

You have the choice of sweet talking the bartender, beating him to a pulp to make him talk, using magic, intimidation, bribery and others. In combat you have the option of attacking, using magic, using skills, combining all of the above or others.

But again, it would be better without the board,

Think about it this way. If I showed you a picture of the floorplan of the bar, and placed minis on it, then had you move your mini over to talk to the bartender, would that somehow limit roleplay?

Even without any rules enforcement (as in combat etc) that scene would still cause a shift in perspective simple due to using minis, (look at it this way, In real life fights don't come with floorplans, so combat would end up being a different affair, rolplaying support this, where as the board game and minis doesn't, instead becoming a separate game in it's self)