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

[ThirdWizard]

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."

Isn't it more like saying "Man, I wish I could make the horse whinny when I move it around," when playing chess? Nobody is saying the Players have to roleplay. Well, I'm not. Some people don't want to. But, to complain that you feel hampered by miniatures when roleplaying is more akin to complaining that you can't make the fun sounds in chess. You can do that if that's what you want.

 

[Numion]

No, AoOs are so punishing that PCs never make the mistake of drawing them, even if NPCs do make that kind of mistake. It doesn't matter how realistically the GM runs the NPCs.

Drawing an AoO is not always a mistake. I've drawn a few on purpose so that a caster might cast his spell without receiving one. I RPed it as harrassing the monster so it's attention was drawn to me instead of the wizard - it's pretty common in movies for people to distract the enemies so someone else can do something

 

[Gold Roger]

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.

No, they wouldn't be more likely. This kind of thing can't be enforced (and what would be the fun of enforcing it). I'm not talking about rookie players that have jet to be shown that there can be characterisation in Roleplaying. What I'm talking about are Roleplayers that have set expectations to the game. These people will always play to their expectations and if they can't or are disencouraged from doing so they won't have fun from the game.

Say I have a group of a casual player, a story and characterisation fan, a powergamer and tactician and a guy like me, that enjoys tactics as well as most other aspects of the game and just wants the full package. And then lets say I do what you suggest and see how they react.

First the casual player, he will shrugg and be as uninvolved as he was before. He doesn't care about his xp or success, he's just for the hanging out, the game is just a platform.

The story and characterisation fan will of course like the change, but actually not much will change for him. The only thing he gets is an indication from the DM that tells him that his playstyle is "right".

The powergamer and tactician will be first and most of all miffed. He put much effort into his cool character and more effort into ensuring the opposition is beaten and he gets no reward? Instead he has to get involved in the for him booring part of the game just to advance? How does one get more powerfull by talking anyway? Of course he will still try to do lots of characterisation. But chances are it's 1) forced and thus uninspired, 2) he may be not at all talented in it, even if he genuinely tried to characterise, be not able to come up with something and 3) will quickly become obnoxious and annoying as he desperately tries to hog improved throws and xp with at times nonsential and bad attempts of characterisation. You've just turned a fun guy that just wants to massacre bad guys and otherwhise kicks back into a problem player. The dramaturgist will quickly grow annoyed with him while the powergamer begins to see the dramaturgist and DM as his enemies, the ones that forced this thing onto him. This of course puts of the casual player, that comes to hang out with friends and can't take the negative athmosphere.

The "full package" player will most likely accept the ruling (though he might voice his concernes with such singlemindedness, as I would). Otherwhise nothing mouch would change for him though. He enjoys characterisation as part of the a game and plays it out as much as anything else (say, tactical considerations). But he sees the game getting more focused and thus dropping other things out of the playfield. Playing theater D&D is fun, but so is kicking evils ass and having a cool power. With time inter group conflict, the dramaturgist hogging the spotlight and the game leaving behind elements he enjoys leads him to seek out a new group.

Of course the DM only focusing on combat and rules all the time is just as unhealthy, but let's say we accept the groups diversity and play to it. Xp are given for combat as well as roleplaying. This way, the powergamer can play a character like Magnificos the mage, an arcanist that first and foremost seeks eldritch power or Xuan-Jing, mystical warrior from the west that seeks to prove himself. This way he can powergame and play tactical and still stay in character, thus not hurting the dramaturgists versimilitude. The dramaturgist gets his playtime as well and can still keep up in xp with others. The generalist couldn't be happier and the casual player doesn't care anyway. Any new player get's the whole package and thus can develope his own preferences instead of being showhorned into those of the group.

What you suggest works for a group that is made up of people that are into the characterisation part and only wants new members that are so as well. But then again such a group would play that way anyway. This is an adjustment to a certain playstyle, not a measure to encourage it in players.

Of course that doesn't have anything to do with the question if mini's and a battlemap dissencourage characterisation anymore. On that I can only say that there is neither encouragement nor disencouragement to me. But a battlemap and the whole picture surely help me determine how my character would react to a situation. I'm sure there are people that have problems staying in character when confronted with a battlemap. But I'd venture that's a psychological blockade based on a preconceived notion, rather than an actual problem with the battlemap. Going about it with an open mind should quickly make clear that there shouldn't be a problem with battlemaps.

 

[LostSoul]

No, they wouldn't be more likely.

Well, you agree that it is more likely later on...

The powergamer and tactician will be first and most of all miffed. He put much effort into his cool character and more effort into ensuring the opposition is beaten and he gets no reward? Of course he will still try to do lots of characterisation.

So if that's the kind of game everyone wants, rewarding it is worth it. You rightly point out that not everyone will like that change, but, you know, oh well. Not everyone likes the XP system as it currently stands, either.

And there's the flip side to that: story/characterization dude puts a lot of effort into roleplaying, and he gets no reward?

All I'm trying to say is that the rules can have an influence on play. Not that everyone's going to like it or not, or the game will be awesome for everyone.

Um... there's another point I want to make.

What you suggest works for a group that is made up of people that are into the characterisation part and only wants new members that are so as well. But then again such a group would play that way anyway. This is an adjustment to a certain playstyle, not a measure to encourage it in players.

Doesn't this arguement work both ways? If the tactician enjoys tactical combat, he'll still play that way regardless of XP. (Actually, I guess for D&D, it doesn't, because the whole game is about getting better at tactical combats.) But anyway...

Imagine that you are a story/characterization dude. That's what you love to do! You're playing D&D, getting XP for killing monsters. (Yeah, I know, overcoming challenges, but whatever. That's a different arguement.) Then the change comes along and you get XP for what you love to do! Suddenly, what you love to do is what you get rewarded for. You no longer have to do what you don't really care about (tatical combats), so you can focus on the good stuff.

Now I'd rather play with a group that had the same goals, so that while story dude is doing his thing, tactical dude isn't getting bored. But if you want to include everyone, I guess you could do a half-and-half thing, so that both people get rewarded for what they like to do.

Maybe it's just me, but I think that playing would be more fun if you get rewarded for doing what you like to do.

This doesn't have much to do with maps and all that, but it's about "Do rules prevent RPing?" I think they can support roleplaying, although you could roleplay in Monopoly. Prevent roleplaying? Maybe if you had a rule that said, "Any time you talk in character you lose 100 XP," or something like that.

 

[Gold Roger]

Well, you agree that it is more likely later on...

What that powergamer is trying to do then though is adhering to the letter, not the spirit of the rule. The goal of making him really characterise isn't really archieved.

So if that's the kind of game everyone wants, rewarding it is worth it. You rightly point out that not everyone will like that change, but, you know, oh well. Not everyone likes the XP system as it currently stands, either.

Don't you think those first two sentences are kinda don't fit together?

And there's the flip side to that: story/characterization dude puts a lot of effort into roleplaying, and he gets no reward?

Didn't I say to reward every playstyle? Well I don't use XP as written. Mostly for the sake of party dynamics.

All I'm trying to say is that the rules can have an influence on play. Not that everyone's going to like it or not, or the game will be awesome for everyone.

Um... there's another point I want to make.

They can influence how you play. But that influence is mostly one sided. The game provides many facets of entertainment. Some of these facets (powergaming, tactics, buttkicking, sometimes combat part of storytelling) are founded on the rules and influenced by them. Others are more a matter of the DM and group dynamics, while the rules are just a backdrop for "the other stuff", (storyteller, casual, dramaturgism, exploration, etc.). The rules influence only those facets and playstyles founded on them. You can play a pure storyteller and dramaturgist game without any rules. Tempering with the rules can easily piss of a tactician or powergamer (and it's worth mentioning that most players have mixed playstyles, so this could be a tactician/dramaturgist).

For me this whole thing boils down to a "greener grass complex" where non-tactician/powergamers see "Hey, the biggest RPG D&D supports those playstyles in it's rules, why isn't our playstyle supported". Of course, the answer is that rules actually can do little in influencing those styles, so why bother.

Doesn't this arguement work both ways? If the tactician enjoys tactical combat, he'll still play that way regardless of XP.

A dramaturgist couldn't characterise if he was in a group whose DM and/or majority of players stiffles it (note, it's the DM stiffling, not the rules). I was thinking of a initially balanced group whose DM decides that characterisation is the "one true way to roleplay" and tries to shoehorn the group into his expectation using your suggestion. Actually you even reinforced my point. The tactician will keep trying to play tactical, despite of every attempt of creating rules that make him play as dramaturgist.

(Actually, I guess for D&D, it doesn't, because the whole game is about getting better at tactical combats.) But anyway...

Now you're really venturing into the realm of personal oppinion. The D&D rules contain elements of tactical combat to a large degree because a large part of the player base is tactician (usually in addition to other playstyles you can't satisfy with, say, wargames) and the tacticians enjoyment hinges to a large part on the rules, unlike the enjoyment of many other playstyles would be my wording (clunky, but then things are like that sometimes).

Imagine that you are a story/characterization dude. That's what you love to do! You're playing D&D, getting XP for killing monsters. (Yeah, I know, overcoming challenges, but whatever. That's a different arguement.) Then the change comes along and you get XP for what you love to do! Suddenly, what you love to do is what you get rewarded for. You no longer have to do what you don't really care about (tatical combats), so you can focus on the good stuff.

But for a pure characterisation dude, how much are xp really worth. Isn't a progressed story or nice little in game treat a much bigger reward to him? Getting kewl combat skills won't do much for him. Of course there are the mix types. But then the dramaturgist/powergamer again gets kicks out of killing monsters for xp.

And of course D&D is a group game where you have to accept the wishes and expectation of others. Everyone that isn't ready to step back once in a while in such a game, hasn't got the problem of different playstyle but the problem of being a jerk and no place in my game (even in an all same playstyle group, the spotlight has to be shared). Actually a player that doesn't care for combat at all might grow to appreciate a powergamer/effective tactician whose skill leads to combats that quickly end.

Now I'd rather play with a group that had the same goals, so that while story dude is doing his thing, tactical dude isn't getting bored. But if you want to include everyone, I guess you could do a half-and-half thing, so that both people get rewarded for what they like to do.

The problem is that many people have mixed playstyles (to the point of dudes like me that contain more or less all of them).

If every DM was to only entertain his personal style and every gamegroup has to have 100% matching playstyles you'd have very many people with problems to find groups.

Add to that the fact that playstyles and prefernces develope and do so differently for different people, even in the same gaming group and you've got a lot of real world drama preplanned.

Better to keep in mind that this is a group game and in a group you have to be mindfull of others. Maybe this is easier to say for me as a generalist and I still agree that wastly different preferences sometimes just don't work, but there will always be variety.

Maybe it's just me, but I think that playing would be more fun if you get rewarded for doing what you like to do.

Which is actually my biggest point. I want to reward everyone for doing what he likes to do.

But different ideas on what's fun to do also lead to different ideas of what's a good reward.

This doesn't have much to do with maps and all that, but it's about "Do rules prevent RPing?" I think they can support roleplaying, although you could roleplay in Monopoly. Prevent roleplaying? Maybe if you had a rule that said, "Any time you talk in character you lose 100 XP," or something like that.

I actually did a bit of roleplaying in my last monopoly game, by the way, I was stealing money from the bank, allied with another player and we called ourselfs mafia.

A gaming system can support roleplaying. With good advice, starting points and fluff material. I see that in D&D. For a recent example I'd point to the PHB2. The roleplaying advice there in should at least help some of the less experienced players who want to play out personalities. But that has got nothing to do with the rules.

 

[LostSoul]

What that powergamer is trying to do then though is adhering to the letter, not the spirit of the rule. The goal of making him really characterise isn't really archieved.

Don't you think those first two sentences are kinda don't fit together?

Yeah, that's kind of the thing. The tactician isn't going to be happy in the game that doesn't reward him. The same goes for the story guy too, though, or whoever. I think he'd be happier getting rewards for what he likes. I don't think we really disagree on this point, just about what makes a good reward for our story dude.

Others are more a matter of the DM and group dynamics, while the rules are just a backdrop for "the other stuff", (storyteller, casual, dramaturgism, exploration, etc.). The rules influence only those facets and playstyles founded on them. You can play a pure storyteller and dramaturgist game without any rules. Tempering with the rules can easily piss of a tactician or powergamer (and it's worth mentioning that most players have mixed playstyles, so this could be a tactician/dramaturgist).

I agree with what you've said, except I don't think you can run a pure storyteller and dramaturgist game without any rules.

"Evil Dude is my father!" "No, he's not." "Yes, he is."

"The evil army approaches." "My guy brandishes his sword and cuts them all down!" "Dude, that's lame." "Well, that's what happens." "No, it's not."

You need some way to agree on what's going on. Tampering with those rules will just as easily piss off your story guy.

A dramaturgist couldn't characterise if he was in a group whose DM and/or majority of players stiffles it (note, it's the DM stiffling, not the rules). I was thinking of a initially balanced group whose DM decides that characterisation is the "one true way to roleplay" and tries to shoehorn the group into his expectation using your suggestion. Actually you even reinforced my point. The tactician will keep trying to play tactical, despite of every attempt of creating rules that make him play as dramaturgist.

A couple points, I guess.

You're right, you have to get along with the group in order to play the way you want. Tacticians have this problem as well, though. The other people can stifle that kind of play just as easily.

The other point is that I'm not trying to change anyone's mind - I'm trying to say, "If you like this sort of thing, try these rules out. They might help you get what you want." The tactician says, "I don't like that, so I don't want to play that." That's cool.

I think it's important to say, "This is what we're going to do," so that you don't have those kinds of problems down the road. If you come to a D&D game expecting tactical play, and it's all about story and developing character, you might be pissed off.

But for a pure characterisation dude, how much are xp really worth. Isn't a progressed story or nice little in game treat a much bigger reward to him?

Let's not talk about D&D for a bit. Imagine a game where the rewards aren't kewl powers or increased kick-assedness; instead, the rewards allow you (the player) to have more influence on the story. That kind of "XP" reward would be valuable to the story guy.

 

[pemerton]

It seems that no-one cared for my earlier post - still, I'll have another go.

They [ie the rules] can influence how you play. But that influence is mostly one sided. The game provides many facets of entertainment. Some of these facets (powergaming, tactics, buttkicking, sometimes combat part of storytelling) are founded on the rules and influenced by them. Others are more a matter of the DM and group dynamics, while the rules are just a backdrop for "the other stuff", (storyteller, casual, dramaturgism, exploration, etc.). The rules influence only those facets and playstyles founded on them. You can play a pure storyteller and dramaturgist game without any rules.

[snip]

A gaming system can support roleplaying. With good advice, starting points and fluff material. I see that in D&D. For a recent example I'd point to the PHB2. The roleplaying advice there in should at least help some of the less experienced players who want to play out personalities. But that has got nothing to do with the rules.

It's not true that rules are not part of roleplay support. Even in D&D there are very elaborate alignment rules, which serve a variety of roleplay functions:

*by establishing enemies as "absolutely evil", they legitimate what would otherwise be morally problematic, namely, indiscriminate killing of one's foes;

*by determining the conferral of various benefits and burdens - access to various spells, damage from various spells, access to spontaneous healing, ect - they help determine the shape of the campaign world and the place of the PCs in it;

*by placing limits on the behaviour of certain classes - and penalties for breaching those limits - they link certain professional abilities to certain personality types (eg there are no berserkers who regard personal and social discipline as a pre-eminent value).

That is not to say that alignment is only a roleplaying mechanic - it also feeds into other parts of the mechanics. As one example, by legitimating killing, it obviates the need to have a combat resolution system that allows for non-fatal victory (such a combat system would probably be more complex).

Other roleplaying systems (like The Riddle of Steel discussed in my earlier post) have other, often more dynamic, ways of promoting roleplaying.

The point was that sometimes a detailed model limits you. I prefer a model that is less defined and thus less restrictive, which is one of the reasons I like playing C&C. That doesn't mean no rules or mechanical model at all. And I think that sometimes it's fine to say "I'm a squire, I should know this even though it's not listed on my character sheet." Sometimes a detailed model just isn't necessary.

As I said, it's a matter of preference.

This post is not advocating one system against another - it is, in the end, a matter of personal or group preference. But if we acknowledge that preferences can lean towards one or another system, then we are acknowledging that systems are different, and support roleplaying (and other aspects of gaming) in different ways. If there weren't these differences, then our preferences would have nothing to latch onto.

My own group plays a version of Rolemaster, which supports roleplaying in a way differently from either D&D or C&C (or The Riddle of Steel, for that matter). Compared to the D&D skill system, RM characters are extremely detailed. There are dozens and dozens of skills to choose from, and a typical character may well have 100 skills on his or her sheet.
This allows a solution to Philotomy's squire problem - a character can have the skills of a squire on his sheet without the taking of those skills impacting in any way on the character's ability to develop other skills that are more central to the main action of the game (like combat skills). D&D makes this harder, because of the extremely limited number of skill points, which makes it hard for a fighter to have more than 3 or 4 skills of any significance on the sheet - so developing Profession (Squire) (which is a cross-class skill for a fighter) would preclude being able to Ride or Handle Animals (both of which are skills that a squire ought to have).

Again, this is not to argue for RM over D&D - a lot of people find RM's skill system too complex and clunky. It's simply to defend the proposition that mechanics - both explcit roleplaying mechanics like alignment, as well as other parts of the mechanics like character creation and advancement - certainly can make a difference to the way in which a set of roleplaying rules supports roleplaying. It is not simply about giving the referee advice on world design and handling group dynamics.

 

[LostSoul]

Good points, pemerton. I didn't even consider alignment in D&D.

 

[Hussar]

I would point out that Alignment is somewhat outside the scope of this discussion.

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

See, that to me is just the DM being a prat. If you cannot eyeball 15 feet, you shouldn't be adventuring. I mean, come on, we're talking five paces. That's all 15 feet is. Five steps. 50 feet? Ok, I can see being off by 5 or 10 feet. But 15? Same with 10 or 15 goblins. I'm sorry, but, you better be able to discern at a glance a fifty percent difference in numbers. This is pretty basic training that any warrior would have.

I think RC has hit it better than I ever explain. It isn't that using a battle map inhibits role play, it's that using a battle map inhibits DM's abilities to do, "Aha gotcha" tactics. "You thought there were only ten goblins, guess again, there were 15! Gotcha that time!"

Like I said, and I'll repeat myself for the third time if the DM gives perfect information there should be absolutely no difference between using a battle map and using verbal communication, armchair psychology aside. The only difference creeps in when the DM, who is acting as the eyes and ears of the PC's decides that his version of what the players see should trump what the players may think.

To put it another way, if a character has 18 ranks in spot, do you still tell him that there are 10 or 15 goblins? If another character has an 18 Wis, do you change the room descriptions from the guy with a 6?

On another topic:

D&D makes this harder, because of the extremely limited number of skill points, which makes it hard for a fighter to have more than 3 or 4 skills of any significance on the sheet - so developing Profession (Squire) (which is a cross-class skill for a fighter) would preclude being able to Ride or Handle Animals (both of which are skills that a squire ought to have).

No. What it precludes is having MAX ranks in Ride or Handle Animals. I don't need 10 ranks in Ride to be a squire. A single rank would suffice. After all, I'm a squire, I'm not supposed to be riding into combat. Two or three ranks in Handle Animals would be fine to handle horses. A rank or two in Profession Squire handles all the rest. All of this is easily done by second level.

What people want is for characters to have max ranks in every skill and that's not going to happen. A squire has no need for max ranks in Handle Animal. All he's doing is grooming a bloody horse. We don't need every skill to be maxed out. You only need one or two ranks to handle 99% of the job. A 1st level fighter starts with 8 skill points. 2 for Profession Squire for 1 rank, 1 rank in Ride, 1 rank in Handle Animal and 4 more skill points to put somewhere else and I've got a squire.

But this is WAY outside the original conversation.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Like I said, and I'll repeat myself for the third time if the DM gives perfect information there should be absolutely no difference between using a battle map and using verbal communication, armchair psychology aside. The only difference creeps in when the DM, who is acting as the eyes and ears of the PC's decides that his version of what the players see should trump what the players may think.

Should...that's (again) the operative word here. You know what factor is actively working against that? The human mind. It's a shame that not all humans are alike in how they are affected by how information is presented to them, isn't it?

And I'd bet that what constitutes "perfect information" on a combat encounter varies from player to player as well.