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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

The OWoD system for creating character personalities (featuring the real personality and the personality presented to the world, which interestingly is apparently an actual theory from psychology) worked well for this. You could get some fairly complex characters created this way, and since there was a mechanical benefit for roleplaying, people tended to do it.

The people who weren't really interested in roleplaying chose personalities that would do whatever they would do anyway, and the moral codes in VtM in particular earned a rap of being the "Path of Whatever I Wanted to Do Anyway," but it was a much more roleplaying-intensive way to go than, say, alignments.

I'd love to see an alignment system that took the best of that approach while still being recognizably D&D.

 

[BryonD]

Ah. Well, not having seen the original context, the quote was all I had to go with.

That is cool. I understand completely.

Thing is, though, I've seen the "RP stops when minis hit the board" phenomenon. There are gamers--a lot of them, IME--who seem to go from "role-playing" to "tactical," and never the twain shall meet.

Oh, me too. I certainly do not dispute that it happens. I'm just saying that is a player thing.

Whether that's primarily the fault of the minis, the rules, these particular gamers, or a combination thereof, I wouldn't dare hazard a guess. But it does happen, and it seems to happen a lot less--IME, again--without minis than with them.

Certainly. But I've yet to hear anyone explain how minis actually force this to occur. To me it is kinda boggling that someone's ability to use their imagination can be flipped off like some kinda light switch.
But when someone says that the game sucks and bases that on their own imagination failing them, it seems odd.
I'm 5'6". This does not cause basketball to suck.

 

[ashockney]

There are direct and indirect versions of these rules IMO...

Direct:
Player: "We bribe the guard, get access to the throne room, and confront the count!"
DM: "Cool, roll a DC15 bluff check to get past the guard. I'll get an opposed Sense Motive check to determine surprise for the count, once you're inside."

This interaction went very, very differently in 1st edition.

Indirect:
I've labored on in other threads about high-level gameplay in 3.x D&D that the issue I have with it, is exactly this. The rules, as they are currently developed, fly in the face of excellent roleplaying. They attack the versimilitude...quick kills, teleporting everywhere, easy access to absolute information (commune, etc.) and they are DRASTICALLY overly burdensome. Combats stretch from 15 minute "interplay" into two hour Axis and Allies final battle breakdowns, with turns that can take FOREVER. If you as a player are forced to spend fifteen or twenty minutes to determine your optimal action sequences, and then roll the appropriate random determinations to guage success...how much time are you (or more importantly, the five other people at the table) talking "in character". It's too easily lost.

 

[jgbrowning]

Certainly. But I've yet to hear anyone explain how minis actually force this to occur.

Some people (like me) find it extremely hard to multi-task. Role-playing and playing a tactical mini game at the same time is very hard for me to do. So, it's not force it's influence. For people like me, using minis influences the reduction of role-playing.

joe b.

 

[rounser]

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.

What's that game; Feng Shui or something? I remember hearing about that being held up as an example of a system that facilitates roleplaying during combat, because one's combat maneuvers could be chosen stylistically to reflect character.

That was just hearsay though, and I could well be wrong.

 

[BryonD]

There are direct and indirect versions of these rules IMO...

Direct:
Player: "We bribe the guard, get access to the throne room, and confront the count!"
DM: "Cool, roll a DC15 bluff check to get past the guard. I'll get an opposed Sense Motive check to determine surprise for the count, once you're inside."

This interaction went very, very differently in 1st edition.

Indirect:
I've labored on in other threads about high-level gameplay in 3.x D&D that the issue I have with it, is exactly this. The rules, as they are currently developed, fly in the face of excellent roleplaying. They attack the versimilitude...quick kills, teleporting everywhere, easy access to absolute information (commune, etc.) and they are DRASTICALLY overly burdensome. Combats stretch from 15 minute "interplay" into two hour Axis and Allies final battle breakdowns, with turns that can take FOREVER. If you as a player are forced to spend fifteen or twenty minutes to determine your optimal action sequences, and then roll the appropriate random determinations to guage success...how much time are you (or more importantly, the five other people at the table) talking "in character". It's too easily lost.

"Forced"? I must have missed that.
If you are spending 15 mintues determining "optimal action sequences" then I find it hard to believe you wanted to role play in the first place.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I think the more discrete the rules governing an interaction in a game (combat or otherwise), the more likely players are to fall into tactical thinking. I think it's human nature -- we're all taught from an early age to follow the rules. The more 'brainpower' (for lack of a better term) a player has to devote to that, the more focused they become to the exclusion of other things.

I certainly don't think that the rules are intended to discourage roleplaying, but in my experience, players who haven't internalized the rules until they have become second nature have a harder time mixing RP and tactical thinking at the same time. The more experienced players don't have to think about adding modifiers, or remembering reach, etc., and that frees them to interact more apart from the rules.

Of course, there are people who truly just like the tactical part, and that's cool, too.

 

[ashockney]

Certainly. But I've yet to hear anyone explain how minis actually force this to occur. To me it is kinda boggling that someone's ability to use their imagination can be flipped off like some kinda light switch.

The best example I've seen of this in games is choosing completely assinine character choices in an effort to build the optimal character. For example:

I'm playing a Monk/Assassin/Sorcerer, he's so bad a$$!!!

What? Why? Don't you have a paladin in the party, how's that work?

Or...

I've built the most wicked warband, it's got a CE Undead led by a LG Cleric. Sweet!

Ummm...oh, never mind.

 

[BryonD]

Some people (like me) find it extremely hard to multi-task. Role-playing and playing a tactical mini game at the same time is very hard for me to do. So, it's not force it's influence. For people like me, using minis influences the reduction of role-playing.

joe b.

Is it really multi-tasking?

Again, part of my premise is that if you are looking at it as a tactical mini game then you have already turned your back on roleplay.

You are not required to try to win the mini game. And I'd argue that it is much more fun to stay in character and simply assess what you would do if you were this person, in exactly the same way you would if the minis were NOT there. Then just use the minis to play out the tactical implications of your actions. Put the roleplay horse before the tactics cart, I guess, to hatchet a phrase.

Best of both worlds.

And that is not incompatible with assuming that your fighter character would be somewhat tactically capable. The characters do not have a bird's eye view of things. (well, usually not ) Just go with what your character would do and than play it out.

 

[rounser]

The rules, as they are currently developed, fly in the face of excellent roleplaying.

As I understand it, there are dual purposes for things like "Gather Information" and "Bluff" checks:

1) Preventing "netrunning" scenarios (i.e. situations where one player gets all the DM's attention for a significant period of time, boring the others).
2) Divorcing the social skills of the player from those of the character.

I think that (1) is called for some of the time, but not all, and (2) is a bit of a handwave. As a thought experiment in removing (2), perhaps the game would improve if Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma were replaced with something like Magical Affinity, Divine Affinity and Karma (or Luck), remove all RP skills except Knowledge-type ones, and having the player's words stand for the character. I mean, you can't simulate 26 in a mental trait as a player except with a die roll anyway, because none of us are that witty, canny or sly....surely.