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

[librarius_arcana]

Erm, in the first round of combat, that seems kinda... Odd.

No not at all odd, in real life it can happen at anytime,

Or do all mages with 15+ Intelligence have horrible depth perception?

Maybe, but I doubt "all"

 

[Markn]

This post isn't so much about the minis portion as it is more about the rules portion.

My group, who have played D&D together for about 12 years now (and each of us has played longer than that with other groups prior to that) has the general feeling that roleplaying has been reduced in 3/3.5. Up until recently, I have never been able to put my finger on why that is. In fact, for the most part, I had always argued the opposite. I would argue that D&D in 3/3.5 is about options. Do you want an armor wearing mage? Go for it. Couldn't do that in previous editions. Want to be a dwarven wizard? Go for it. Couldn't do that in previous editions. Etc, etc. I always argued that you could pretty much play what ever you dreamed up. The current version of D&D doesn't prevent anything like previous editions did. In my opinion this should increase roleplaying just due to sheer number of options.

However, as time went on, I noticed several things that led to reduced roleplaying. First and foremost, I believe those same options that I argued would increase roleplaying actually helped reduce it. Let me explain. In earlier editions, if one played a fighter (short of playing a kit or some such), a fighter was a fighter was a fighter. That is, the only way to make your fighter different from someone elses fighter was in how you played it. Thus character concept in rolepaying style in large part determined the fun and style of the class you played. It's what gave your characte life and in fact if you continued to play fighter classes in future campaigns you would design a different roleplaying feel to your fighter to make it feel new again. In the current incarnation of the game, there are so many options that by choosing different feats you have designed a different fighter from your last one and it is also different than your friend Bob's. Roleplaying is no longer the differing factor anymore, the feats and rules are.

Next, those same said feats that allow you to make different fighters can be combined in endless ways. I have noticed in our group that as we design new characters we are excited to see how those characters power develop as the campaign continues. No one has thought of the concept before so in some sense the whole group is eager to see what can be done with that concept. What new powers will he gain? How can the use of those powers affect the game? Etc, etc. In short, the mechanical design becomes more important than the roleplaying design (and while these are tied together somewhat I would say that you can have mechanics designed without any roleplaying thought tied to it whatsoever). In other words, it becomes more difficult to become bored with the same old same old when there is always a new design right around the corner using the existing rules in the PHB alone! Basically, as the game becomes more stale roleplaying takes a higher precedent to help keep it fresh. After 6 years in 3/3.5 this hasn't happened/been needed.

The last point I would make is Magic the Gathering/Online games. In the current age, most games people play, and in my groups case - Magic the Gathering - has had a profound effect on D&D. MtG, in particular is something our group got into about 5 years ago. Some of us were hit harder than others as we went to qualifiers and other tournaments of that nature. MtG unfortunately, trains the brain to look for ways to combine things, to make two seemingly unrelated rules work well together. Now that our group only plays the game casually, it still has a profound effect. We have become game mechanic junkies. What can I combine to make a cool concept? What if I mix rule A with rule B? The options with 3/3.5 can be endlessly mixed and thus now we are more predisposed to this type of thinking more than ever. I would also argue that video games whether online or not predispose people in similar ways although to a lesser effect.

Ironically, while I believe that options in 3/3.5 hinder roleplaying it is also one of the strongest points of the system too! Options do allow roleplaying in ways never before seen. I just think you have to be more conscious about roleplaying as the mechanics make it possible to tune out the roleplaying more than ever before!

 

[Olaf the Stout]

And I find myself HIGHLY skeptical that these same players would be any less driven to "win" in a non-mini set-up.

I think that this is a good point. It is probably the case that people who are more inclined to go into tactical mode when combat hits are more likely to use a battle mat and minis. Those people who are more inclined to "roleplay" combat are less likely to use a battle mat and minis.

This then gives the appearance that battle mats and minis are causing people to "roleplay" combat less. People are getting the cause and effect the wrong way around. Battle mats and minis aren't causing people to roleplay combat less. It is just that those people that prefer to play out combat as a tactical game prefer to use battle mats and minis. If battle mats and minis didn't exist then these people still probably wouldn't roleplay combat any more that they do now. They like the tactical combats as a game in and of itself.

The same goes for those players that prefer to "roleplay" the combat. Forcing them to use the minis wouldn't necessarily cause them to change how the did combat. They would still probably make choices based on "what their character would do", even if it is not the most optimal option. The minis don't really add enough to their gaming experience to be worth using them, so they don't.

In summary, in my opinion it is the players, not the equipment that they are using that determines how combat plays out.

Please note that I am not saying that this is true in all cases. It probably doesn't hold in many cases. I am just suggesting what people are more or less likely to do.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Agent Oracle]

I think it's fair to say that, for instance, the current edition of the World of Darkness encourages IC roleplay more than the current edition of D&D. I'm not saying you can't role-play in D&D--I do twice a week--nor am I saying that one is a better game than the other. But the two rules sets very clearly have different objectives, and one focuses more on encouraging RP than the other.

Now, I would not argue that WoD encourages Roleplay, so much as it discourages combat!

Please pause, and consider the structure of power in the White Wolf games. Starting characters posses a cheerleader's chance in a slasher film of surviving ANY kind of combat which is even marginally challenging.

Furthermore, combat rarely (if ever) resolves anything, since most of the White Wolf games have protagonist races that just go into "temporary" death. Then stand up, dust themselves off, and go back to doing whatever they were doing before hand. So what if you decapitate the head of the silver claw? He'll just regenerate in a few hours and come back to rip you a new one.

Even in my favorite White wolf setting, Hunter, a game focused heavily on combat, and the baddies could STILL get back up after you were done with 'em.

Honestly, the only White wolf product that I've ever read where combat actually resolves things is Exalted. And it doesn't hurt that the system is so well built for combat! So-far-over-the-top that it makes the end of "Kung Fu Hustle" seem like an average game session.

Now, that said. D&D players have to remember the origin of the game. Chainmail came from
the minis tables, and D&D evolved out of that. And while other game systems might feature page after page of background story and fluffy material to educate the players about the world, D&D puts the responsibility of world design solely in the hands of the Game Master. In exchange for the high crunchiness, we get a detailed mechanical system.

 

[genshou]

In summary, in my opinion it is the players, not the equipment that they are using that determines how combat plays out.

Please note that I am not saying that this is true in all cases. It probably doesn't hold in many cases. I am just suggesting what people are more or less likely to do.

Olaf the Stout

Sounds about right to me. I'm one of those exceptions, I suppose. I love role-playing, but I grew into D&D with wargaming grognards. I'm used to using a combat mat and minis. I do think many things in D&D (like spell area of effect) make a combat mat a good addition to the game, in order to avoid those nasty fireball miscommunications. And it takes the strain off our imaginations when the spatial recollection is in the middle of the gaming table, so we can focus on running our characters instead of everyone trying to maintain a mental picture of who is where doing what.

 

[LostSoul]

I'd like to read some examples of what encourages roleplay (particularly during combat) in some people's opinions as opposed to what does not.

Whenever the player describes his action in a way that makes anyone else say, "Cool!", he gets a +2 bonus to his roll.

Feat: I hate that guy
You really hate an NPC of your choice, and you do everything you can to kick his ass.
Benefit: Name an NPC. Whenever you're in combat with him, you get a +2 bonus to all your rolls.

Feat: In love
You're in love with someone, and your love lifts you up.
Benefit: Name an NPC. Whenever that NPC is threatened, you gain a +2 bonus to all your rolls to aid that NPC.

I think that Favoured Enemy can work this way too.

Just some stuff off the top of my head.

 

[Mokona]

I wondered if their was any agreement, widespread agreement, or even universal agreement on his points.

I'll agree and take it one step further. D&D, specifically version 3.5, does not discourage roleplaying in combat to any meaningful extent.

 

[Hussar]

That seems to be an incredible silly argument for your point of veiw,

Okay let me put it in another way,

The majority of RPG's out there don't use mini, battle mats etc...and they also have plenty of combat, (say something like "Exalted")

how do those games manage it?

Unless your characters are somehow omnipresent, then you are forced to use a battle map. As soon as you say, "Character A is there and not over there", you have delineated the physical relationships between the characters. Even if the map is entirely mental, IT'S STILL A MAP.

The idea that, while I can't actually see the guy standing behind me, I also cannot have any knowledge of anything outside of my field of view is ridiculous. If someone steps around me and gets behind me, I don't suddenly forget that he's there. I may not know exactly where he is, but, I am pretty sure he's still there.

Now, if the guy has snuck up on me unawares, that's different. Of course, that's what the surprise round is for. Much easier on OpenRPG where I can place hidden minis that only the DM can see, but, still easily done in a tabletop game. Keep notes of where the badguy is, numbered squares on the battlemap or keep it in your head.

However, once I know that guy is there, I don't studdenly develop amnesia when he is out of my view.

But as you said yourself thats just "miscommunication"

And in real life, friendly fire happens

Agreed, however, most people don't drop fireballs in a completely different area than what they wanted to. Why should the DM's misunderstanding mean that I make a mistake? Remember, the mage did the right thing, it's that the DM screwed up. In other words, the DM's mental map differed from the player's mental map.

It wasn't a case that the mage miscommunicated, rather they were not playing the same game.

However, in all cases, THEY STILL HAVE A MAP!

 

[genshou]

Whenever the player describes his action in a way that makes anyone else say, "Cool!", he gets a +2 bonus to his roll.

Feat: I hate that guy
You really hate an NPC of your choice, and you do everything you can to kick his ass.
Benefit: Name an NPC. Whenever you're in combat with him, you get a +2 bonus to all your rolls.

Feat: In love
You're in love with someone, and your love lifts you up.
Benefit: Name an NPC. Whenever that NPC is threatened, you gain a +2 bonus to all your rolls to aid that NPC.

I think that Favoured Enemy can work this way too.

Just some stuff off the top of my head.

Those are beautiful. I generally give that benefit out for free once without requiring a feat. You can have one archenemy and one love interest that give you these benefits (for a really interesting scenario, make them the same person). If you want more than one love interest, that's fine of course, but only one gets the benefit of True Love™.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Unless your characters are somehow omnipresent, then you are forced to use a battle map. As soon as you say, "Character A is there and not over there", you have delineated the physical relationships between the characters. Even if the map is entirely mental, IT'S STILL A MAP.

The idea that, while I can't actually see the guy standing behind me, I also cannot have any knowledge of anything outside of my field of view is ridiculous. If someone steps around me and gets behind me, I don't suddenly forget that he's there. I may not know exactly where he is, but, I am pretty sure he's still there.

Now, if the guy has snuck up on me unawares, that's different. Of course, that's what the surprise round is for. Much easier on OpenRPG where I can place hidden minis that only the DM can see, but, still easily done in a tabletop game. Keep notes of where the badguy is, numbered squares on the battlemap or keep it in your head.

However, once I know that guy is there, I don't studdenly develop amnesia when he is out of my view.



Agreed, however, most people don't drop fireballs in a completely different area than what they wanted to. Why should the DM's misunderstanding mean that I make a mistake? Remember, the mage did the right thing, it's that the DM screwed up. In other words, the DM's mental map differed from the player's mental map.

It wasn't a case that the mage miscommunicated, rather they were not playing the same game.

However, in all cases, THEY STILL HAVE A MAP!

Nobody denies the fact that players imagine the battle in their heads, including a rough guess of the distances and relations of the opponents.

Lets just not drag this into a "black or white" argument about "every kind of map being equal to a gridlined battlemap with minis", okay? Because that simply isn't the case.