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

[Geron Raveneye]

There's differences between the extremes, though. The question is less if a verbally described battlefield is to be seen equal to a battlemap with minis, the question is if the different ways to depict said battlefield can and do influence the way the players act and react to the combat situation. To me, it is pretty self-explanatory that different stimuli cause players to react differently to the situation, and thus act differently, too.

By the way, to those who claim it's "the player's fault" that he shifts to mini-mode when battlemat and minis come out...tell me one thing: If the game presented to me is a tabletop mini-wargame, and I play it out as such, how can that be my fault? That's akin to saying "If you play chess by silently sitting over the board, calculating every move to the best tactical advantage instead of making whinnying sounds when you move the Horse, or sound a trumpet when you move the queen, that's your fault." And if you look at the way D&D presents the rules for combat, and the way everything connected with it is neatly quantified into round-sized parcels and 5'x5' steps, it is nothing more than a more complicated version of chess....or a tabletop mini game. They don't faciliate roleplaying by providing a solid rules backbone...they actually package every possible action, be it cool roleplaying action or boring 5' step, into precise boxes and assign tactical advantages and disadvantages to each. It's no surprise that many players shift from roleplaying a combat to crunching tactical numbers while counting out the steps on a battlemat. At least not to me. Your mileage may vary, and all that, and that's just as well, otherwise D&D would be a hell lot more boring.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The point I'm trying to make is, I don't see the difference between a verbal map which the DM paints with the players or an actual physical representation of the same. Either way, you have the spacial relationships spelled out. Sure, the verbal version might not be as precise, but, it should be close.

Then again, I have a deep aversion to Calvinball, so, battle maps just seem the way to go for me.

These two statements seem to be at odds. Either you see no difference, or one isn't Calvinball.

 

[Gold Roger]

I'm with olaf that it's purely a matter of the people involved.

Just yesterday I've played the first session of a short dungeoncrawling campaign. What I provided was nothing but miniatures, a dungeon and a battle map. There was no plot. There was not much of action-reaction. There where few NPC's. Yet we had more charactarisation (I don't call it roleplaying, because roleplaying to me is the whole package) than we ever had in any of our campaigns before. There was a lot of inter character banter, in one combat two characters stood by uninvolved for some time, because of the characters personalities, etc.

That was simply because of the mix of players involved and a premise that lead to colorfull characters (all PC's are spoiled nobles). We've had other sessions with no combat whatsoever and there was no characterisation at all. There was a lot of talking, but with a mix of players that didn't lend themself to characterisation it was left at that.

 

[Hussar]

These two statements seem to be at odds. Either you see no difference, or one isn't Calvinball.

It is when you take what I was responding to in the example of the wizard fireballing the completely wrong area because his version of the game differed from the DM's. If you are not using a battle map, but still enforcing locations, then the DM must ensure that those locations are known by all players.

Unless there is some reason why the wizard would be so completely in the wrong, then the DM is playing Calvinball. He's changed the rules of the situation, probably entirely unintentionally, because of the miscommunication of location. I do not see this as good roleplaying. I see this as poor DMing.

If the DM is giving out clear information that everyone understands, I still fail to understand what the difference is. I'm sorry Geron, but, you can talk about different inputs all you like. At the end of the day, it's still the same. Whether I can see that the troll is three squares away or you tell me he's fifteen feet away, it's the same thing.

Neither should impede or promote role play.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

If the DM is giving out clear information that everyone understands, I still fail to understand what the difference is. I'm sorry Geron, but, you can talk about different inputs all you like. At the end of the day, it's still the same. Whether I can see that the troll is three squares away or you tell me he's fifteen feet away, it's the same thing.

Neither should impede or promote role play.

Nothing to apologize for, Hussar. It's just that such a simplistic view of how different kinds of inputs and stimuli affect the behaviour of different persons simply does not generally work. I'm not here to convince you of that, I'm simply saying that it exists. Wether you believe me, or not, is actually not much of a concern for me. I won't argue at all that it might not be that way for you...but you're probably as much a good "average" sample of humans as I am.

Although it should give you something to think about that most major corporations are well aware of how different ways to present something will influence the behaviour of their customers, and that there's plenty of money sunk into research concerning exactly that. Wouldn't be done if that effect didn't exist. Or the fact that there's plenty of different ways to impart knowledge, and that not all ways are equal for the individual. The way how information is given influences how it is processed, and how people act on it. And that doesn't go into the fact that verbalization of information can impart so many different undertones that people react to, by intonation, description, emotional emphasis, mimic and gestures.

 

[Thotas]

The crux of the fireball example is this: the player(s) paid for the DM's misunderstanding. Had the mage's player made the error, the "friendly fire" arguement would be perfectly legit.

Physical maps, as has been pointed out, may provide a player with more info than their character would have. It is the duty of the player to remind himself that he should only use info that his character would have for making any tactical decisions. (One might even call this "roleplaying in combat".)

Mental maps have the problem of being imprecise when precision is needed, which it sometimes is. Apparently this is not a problem with Feng Shui, which has always sounded like a rules system I need to read 'cause it sounds entertaining.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm with olaf that it's purely a matter of the people involved.

Just yesterday I've played the first session of a short dungeoncrawling campaign. What I provided was nothing but miniatures, a dungeon and a battle map. There was no plot. There was not much of action-reaction. There where few NPC's. Yet we had more charactarisation (I don't call it roleplaying, because roleplaying to me is the whole package) than we ever had in any of our campaigns before.

Imagine that you handed out XP only for doing these sorts of things - only for characterization, and nothing else. And let's add something else on top - let's say that if you act in character when you attempt a roll, you get to roll two d20s and take the best result.

Do you think that the people playing would be more likely to act in character?

If you do, can you see how rules can make a difference? That it's not just the people, but the rules are a part of it?

If you don't, well, I don't know what to say.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It is when you take what I was responding to in the example of the wizard fireballing the completely wrong area because his version of the game differed from the DM's. If you are not using a battle map, but still enforcing locations, then the DM must ensure that those locations are known by all players.

My point was not that there was no difference; my point is that -- contrary to other statements -- you clearly see a difference between a mental map and a battlemat. Therefore, "I see no difference" as a method of preventing discussion of those differences (pro or con, for other side) seems a bit disingenuous to me.

As far as the troll being 15 feet or three squares away:

In a described combat, the troll is approximately 15 feet away (unless you have some means to measure the actual distance). Your friend is approximately 15 feet from the troll. You are fighting about a dozen goblins, but you cannot be sure exactly how many (10? 15?) unless you actually take a moment to count.

In a battlemat combat, you can clearly see how far away the troll is, and the relationship between the troll and everything else on the map. There is no guesswork, no eyeballing, no approximation to take into account. You know as a fact whether or not your spell will catch your friend, because there is nothing to guage. You can tell exactly how many goblins you are fighting, without your character stopping to count, because you - the player - can count when it is not your turn.

Simply put, in a described combat, you might not know things your character should reasonably know. In a battlemat combat, you will know things your character reasonably should not. In a described combat, the DM controls information flow. In a battlmat combat, the player controls a much greater degree of information flow.

This doesn't make one superior to the other. The real question becomes, which is the greater evil -- knowing too much or knowing too little? In many cases, the answer depends upon the scenario and the strengths/weaknesses of the DM and players involved. At least IMHO. Miniatures would ruin a scenario based off of the classic film Alien (where half the fun is not knowing), but definitely enhances a scenario where the terrain has multiple levels and interesting things to exploit.

IMHO, the game ought to support both. YMMV.

RC

 

[Monty Tomasi]

I've just joined a group that uses a battle-map and minis. I've been in groups before with minis on a table that gave a rough idea of where people were positioned but never one with a grid and set measurements.

The character that I play at the moment is a (cloistered) cleric without much experience of combat. In a way the battle-mat actually helps me to role-play this by consciously not making tactical decisions. He's not trained to coordinate a fight and in most instances he's never sure what the right thing to do is.

So in some combats he might even run one way, change his mind and run the other way. Two fights ago he panicked and tried to stuff a poinsed frog down an enemy henchman's throat. In the last combat he hid behind a rock, cast sanctuary after awhile and came out to pick up a horn that the enemy was going to use to summon reinforcements - but by that time they were all pretty much dead. Those actions had very little tactical advantage, but it was fun and enhanced the role-play overall.

Whilst the battle-mat does promote tactical thinking from what I have seen - I cannot justify in-character why each character should make the optimal choice each round. We're not a SWAT team, we're a bunch of spell-slinging, sword-swinging treasure hunters that may over time get more coordinated - but it does not work for me that we all work as a well oiled team from the first session.

Making mistakes in a fight can have humorous consequences and lead to memorable adventures. If it's a question of - you make a mistake and someome dies, for me the fun quickly evaporates.

 

[Monty Tomasi]

Another thing that I've just thought of is that for me personally I find that I prefer to picture the battle in my head and pay close attention to how te GM is describing the action.

By having it played out with miniatures on a plastic or paper sheet with a grid, for me I cannot picture the battle being played out in my imagination as well. I have to focus on squares, who is standing next to whom and which minis are threatening which ones, which are within line of sight are which are not.

If a combat is descibed well enough by the GM in terms of who is positoined where, the action currently taking place and the players each pay attention to what is going - I have found the combat mechanics to work just as well when there is no battle-mat.

Having it on the table simplifies the combat, but I also believe that it erodes the rich images that I would otherwise put energy in to creating in my imagination. Like having a TV set in the centre of a room, things like this seem to draw one's attention and that is a natural thing. I could train myself to think otherwise and behave in a different manner - but the simple solution is just not to have miniatures on a grid system in the first place.