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

[Hussar]

Well, I would think that perfect information would include the relative distances of the combatants, the locations and relative distances of any features that could affect the combat, lighting effects, possible obscurement effects and the relative size and health of the combatants.

All of which should be present in either a verbal description of the scene or in a battlemap representation of it.

I know you keep going on about how different inputs will result in different experiences, and, to a degree, I agree with you. Playing an entirely verbal game or playing with a battle map will be a different experience. In the verbal game, I will sit passively while the DM describes the scene and then perhaps ask for clarification of various points. In a battle map game, I will sit passively while the DM describes the scene, draws the scene and places minis, and then perhaps ask for clarification of various points. So, yes, there's an extra step in there, so there is a difference.

However, that's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is, will that difference, that extra step, somehow prevent or inhibit role play? To me, I think it's utterly ridiculous. Why should my playing suddenly change because I see a visual representation on a map that should correspond very closely to the verbal description the DM is providing?

So, yes, there is a difference in the experience. However, I deny the idea that it will have any effect on roleplay. Which has been my point all along.

 

[pemerton]

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

[snip]

But this is WAY outside the original conversation.

Sorry - just trying to respond to some of the issues raised, like whether or not it is possible for rules to support, inhibit or otherwise influence roleplay.

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?

When I GM, I use a combination of verbal discussion and quick pen & paper diagrams. And yes, I do vary the information depending on PC's perception skills - I regard this as one of the benefits for investing skill ranks in perception. In our campaign there is one samurai PC with significantly less perception than any of the other characters (1 rank at 20th level) and he is notorious for becoming lost in the "fog of war".

I think the combat perception issue is important not so much for counting the number of foes - on an open field, with only a handful of opponents, I don't require a skill check for that - but for when things get trickier, like

*tyring to work out what sort of action an opponent has readied (Sense Motive or some similar sort of skill for reading body language and intention);

*anticipating where one's allies are going to move, attack etc (similar to above);

*hearing things said by one's allies over the din of battle;

* noticing and responding to foes who are invisible, using other sorts of illusions, coming in from behind, teleporting in and out or otherwise making ordinary perception difficult (I think this sort of thing becomes quite important at high level).

I think it's plausible that a battlemat approach, where everyone has the same general's-eye-view information, makes it harder for these sorts of roleplay elements (I call them roleplay elements, because they connect to the play of the character as the character sheet presents him, in this case as having poor perception abilities) to come to the fore, for the sorts of reasons that other posters have elaborated above. A GM-description approach facilitates it.

As for the above example, of the GM who enforced the mage fireballing his own party - as Hussar said in relation to another example, this is just the GM being a prat. Once it becomes clear that the confusion is not for any in-game or roleplaying reason, but a table error between referee and player, the player should be able to re-announce his action. Of course, verbal as opposed to battlemat makes this more likely - but it's a trade-off I'm prepared to make to get (what I believe to be) the roleplaying benefits identified above.

So while I sympathise with a lot of what Hussar says (about the role of rules in modelling the character, for example - that's why I play RM) I don't agree that verbal vs battlemat makes no difference to roleplay.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

However, that's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is, will that difference, that extra step, somehow prevent or inhibit role play? To me, I think it's utterly ridiculous. Why should my playing suddenly change because I see a visual representation on a map that should correspond very closely to the verbal description the DM is providing?

So, yes, there is a difference in the experience. However, I deny the idea that it will have any effect on roleplay. Which has been my point all along.

And that's the problem with your point...you're generalizing from your own way of behaving, denying that it could be totally different for anybody else. Which is, in a way, funny, seeing as there's enough posters on this thread alone who tell of exactly that happening, either with themselves or with people they know.

Human behaviour is no mathematical science, where you can disprove something by offering a counter-proof. The simple fact is that it happens, and another simple fact is that it is never just the rules, or just the players, it is the interaction between both that causes a certain behaviour to spring up.

If one way of describing a combat scene was as good as the next, and everybody could, under perfect and ideal circumstances, play with one exactly the same way as with another, we'd not have two dozen different games, each with their own take on how to handle combat. The bandwidth ranges from totally narrative combat without much of a tactical touch, to purely tactical combat that totally discards of the roleplaying factor. Every system has its fans and detractors, because every system influences how its players experience combat, and how they play it out.

D&D is a very mini-centered game, so many players will simply play out combat as a tabletop mini game, with little or no roleplaying thrown in because they're more busy with gauging the tactical advantages and disadvantages of a maneuver to actually stay in character. If you're an exception to the rule, more power to you, or actually, my heartfelt envy. I know that different rules for combat influence players enough to make them play differently, as I've experienced it more than once, firsthand and with fellow players. Kudos to you if you never had that experience so far.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, GR, my experience is the other way. In 2e, where we never used minis, combat was still entirely tactical.

That's why I don't see what people are talking about when they say the game suddenly changes when you use a battlemap. Combat, IME, has always been tactical. You make the best decision that you can to maximize your gain while minimizing your losses. That's tactical thinking in a nutshell. Whether or not you use minis has zero impact on that.

Then again, I refuse to play with people who consistently think that taking stupid actions is better roleplaying. Note, I am specifically talking about DnD here. Other games, it might be different, but, then again, IME, it's not. The players try to maximize effect for minimum risk.

People talk about swinging from chandeliers and the like. Sorry, but in 25 years of gaming, I've never once seen a DnD player try to do that. Minis, no minis, it makes no difference. Walk up to the monster, beat on it till it drops. IME, people actually pay attention to tactics now with 3e because there are advantages for doing so and the advantages are known to all the players and not buried somewhere in the pages of the DMG.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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!"

If you make the assumption that the DM is out to get you, then you are absolutely right. On the other hand, if that assumption is correct, then a battlemat won't save you.

What I was considering was dramatic tension and realism. If you have a spell with a radius of 15 feet, and you know that the troll is 15 feet (not 16 feet, and not 14 1/2 feet) from all other potential targets, you can blast away without worry. If you are making an approximation, you cannot do the same. This can add dramatic tension without ever using an "Aha gotcha" moment. "About 15 feet" doesn't ever have to be wrong; it never has to result in mishap. It can still add dramatic tension.

As far as realism goes, I know lots of people who can eyeball approximate distances. I know no one whose eyeballing is as good as a tape measure. If you require that level of certainty, you shouldn't be adventuring.

Again, look at the example with the goblins. I said "about a dozen" and suggested that this could mean 10 or 15...a difference of 3 max. In a shadowy cave with stalactites and stalagmites to block visibility, this seems believable to me. Why do you assume that the DM would say "10" and mean "15"? Why do you assume that, as the situation changes over the course of the battle, estimates would not be revised? Why assume an "Aha gotcha" moment? Why not assume, as my post had suggested, that the number of goblins might be lower than shadows and noise suggested?

You have mentioned using a computer program with figures on it that only you can see. By your reasoning, this is an "Aha gotcha" tactic, closely replicating the unknown number of goblins. Yet clearly you do not see it as such.

"Aha gotcha" implies that the DM is trying to pull one over on the players. There are lots of times when, in a game, having the players suddenly shift how they perceive things can be fun. These are not "Aha gotcha" moments because the DM is not trying to prove himself superior to the players (and, really, how could he not have superior information?), but because the events themselves (including the shifts in perspective) are intended to be enjoyed by the players. They are part of the fun of exploring an unknown, mysterious area in which not everything is laid out for the players ahead of time.

Why should my playing suddenly change because I see a visual representation on a map that should correspond very closely to the verbal description the DM is providing?

I think, for many people, that this occurs because at one point "you" were inside your head and now "you" are a little piece of plastic. I.e., without minis the player identifies with the character directly. With minis, the player identifies with the character through a proxy.

RC

 

[Monty Tomasi]

People talk about swinging from chandeliers and the like. Sorry, but in 25 years of gaming, I've never once seen a DnD player try to do that. Minis, no minis, it makes no difference. Walk up to the monster, beat on it till it drops. IME, people actually pay attention to tactics now with 3e because there are advantages for doing so and the advantages are known to all the players and not buried somewhere in the pages of the DMG.

My experience in several campaigns with different players has included swinging from chandeliers, running battles in the rigging of a ship being boarded by pirates, invading a walking city by leaping off a balloon and having a falling battle as they raced to get to the heart of the city ahead of another group and other types of combat.

It's just a matter of the different styles of combat that a GM can run within a game. Walking up to the monster and beating them until they drop is one of many different play styles. In the fights that I mentioned above the things limiting the options for the players was what strategies and actions they devised and if it could reasonably be done within the rules.

From my point of view having minis on the table encourages me to think in the style of walking up to a monster and hitting them with weapons and spells until they drop. That is why I prefer not to have miniatures, but in my mind it's a question of the style of combat and game that the GM prefers to run.

 

[Mark CMG]

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.

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

Sorry - just trying to respond to some of the issues raised, like whether or not it is possible for rules to support, inhibit or otherwise influence roleplay.

There's nothing wrong with that line of discussion, IMO, as long as the thread doesn't become a discussion about the specifics and how to interpret rules regarding Alignment. It may be that, like the Alignment rules, other rules that generally encourage roleplay (during combat and otherwise) are written in a manner that leave so much interpretation from game to game that they aren't as effective in doing so in the opinions of some DMs. It may be that rather than leaving rules open to interpretation to allow for DMs to craft their own games as they like them, they've actually left a portion of the game not as well supported as it might be by better design or simply more clear explanation of some of the core gaming concepts.

 

[Hussar]

You have mentioned using a computer program with figures on it that only you can see. By your reasoning, this is an "Aha gotcha" tactic, closely replicating the unknown number of goblins. Yet clearly you do not see it as such.

Except for the fact that in the example I gave, I specifically mentioned that the PC's would be completely unaware of these characters. If there is an invisible opponent, for example, I don't see it as unreasonable to remove it from the battlemap. I was responding to the idea that just because I can't see someone, I cannot possibly have any idea of its position. Which, I think you'll agree, would be silly.

About the 12 goblins, that was my bad actually. Read it too quickly. I could see miscounting by two or three without too much difficulty, although, to be fair, you have also changed the situation by adding darkness (which I talked about) and stalactites (cover, which I also talked about). If I'm in an open room with darkvision, I should have pretty much no problems seeing 12 creatures unless they are actively performing group acts which might disguise their numbers.

t may be that, like the Alignment rules, other rules that generally encourage roleplay (during combat and otherwise) are written in a manner that leave so much interpretation from game to game that they aren't as effective in doing so in the opinions of some DMs.

This intrigues me. Can you think of an example?

 

[Mark CMG]

This intrigues me. Can you think of an example?

I'm surveying to see if that is the case with other people's experience.


(Try to leave names in with their quotes, please. This thread has become long enough that it gets confusing when someone quotes more than one person and/or doesn't attribute quotes to people. Thanks.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Except for the fact that in the example I gave, I specifically mentioned that the PC's would be completely unaware of these characters. If there is an invisible opponent, for example, I don't see it as unreasonable to remove it from the battlemap. I was responding to the idea that just because I can't see someone, I cannot possibly have any idea of its position. Which, I think you'll agree, would be silly.

Agreed. It would be silly.

But it is just incrementally more silly that the players can count out the 64 gnolls and know exactly how many they are facing. Which was rather my point: there are situations that a battlemat helps, and other situations where a battlemat detracts from the desired experience. Of course, the DM could just juggle the minis in his head and only show the obvious ones on the board, but this seems to open up an even greater potential for misleading situations to me.

About the 12 goblins, that was my bad actually. Read it too quickly. I could see miscounting by two or three without too much difficulty, although, to be fair, you have also changed the situation by adding darkness (which I talked about) and stalactites (cover, which I also talked about). If I'm in an open room with darkvision, I should have pretty much no problems seeing 12 creatures unless they are actively performing group acts which might disguise their numbers.

I've done the same (reading too quickly). No harm, no foul. In my mind (such as it is ) goblins implies darkness. I mean, how many times have your characters been attacked by goblins in broad daylight?

Which is sort of related to my point: Many typical D&D monsters live/attack where there is darkness and/or confusion would be inherent in their attacks. In fact, many of these creatures rely on said darkness/confusion (and the panic it might generate in the avereage person) to be effective. That effect is much harder to achieve with a battlemat than without.