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

[BryonD]

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.

The rules do not force this.
This is another example of players throwing roleplay out the window before they even start to play.

I agree 100% that it happens. I disagree that the rules force it.
I've seen it in all editions of D&D and pretty much every other RPG I've played for any real amount of time anyway. minis or not.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

You are not required to try to win the mini game.

I think there's probably a dynamic in a lot of groups, though, that at least encourages players not to be the one that 'loses' the mini game. There is subtle pressure on everyone to play up to the level of the most tactically minded player in the group.

Oddly enough, I don't see the same thing in the other direction. The RP>Tactical crowd will try to play more tactically, but the RP<Tactical players almost never try to lay off the metagaming and just play.

 

[BryonD]

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.

That is fair. But you are still putting it on the player.
And if the player's are encouraged to just role play and let the GM handle the details as you learn, then that can help.

But also, this has gone more into the (all) "rules never prevent" in this thread title, which is different from the "same rules but added minis kill it" context of my position. No problem, just saying.

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

Agreed. But I don't think they are complaining either.

 

[BryonD]

Ok, I can't keep this up.
I feel like a goalie with a whole team taking practice shots at the same time.
I can't maintain the context of each comment

 

[ashockney]

"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.

Forced...

...because you have three, four, five, or six actions to determine
...because the result of each action affects the outcome of the next action
...because you kill, or you will be killed
...because high level opponents have defenses, lots of them, and every action takes three, four, or five steps to determine the resolution
...because you have exponentially more actions available to you, and literally dozens of possible modifiers to each action


...or you could just cast Magic Missile.

If you don't get it, I've got to assume you haven't played it.

And this is a DIRECT result of the game - as it is written. It doesn't have to be this complex.

These players want to roleplay. They want to be KINGS, they want to be generals, and they want to master the battlefield.

 

[ThirdWizard]

#1: The puzzle combat. This is a classic. The PCs are engaged in a combat that is extremely difficult for them or that they can't finish. Something where the enemy doesn't do a whole lot of damage per round, but will take a very long time to kill works, or something like skeletons that keep rising every time they're destroyed. The object is for the PCs to realize that they can end the combat through doing something besides hack and slashing.

#2: The trapped room. Combat in this case takes place in a room filled with traps, moving parts, or other such devices that make the PCs have to work together to accomplish without much hardship. Perhaps the party fights while the rogue disarms a trap or one character must hit a lever that allows another character through a doorway, or a strong character must hold a chain down to keep a bridge from falling. Be creative!

#3: Get the MacGuffin! Killing the enemy isn't the primary goal. They have something you want, and you need it now to do something. Disarm them, grapple them, hold person them. Do whatever it takes so that you can get the scepter and put it in the slot, or get the orb that is summoning a powerful outsider and smash it!

#4: Hostage? One enemy is slowly escaping with a hostage while two others engage the PCs! What do they do? Saving the hostage is the first priority, but its being made very difficult by the situation. If they all stay and fight the two enemies, then the other guy will get away. They need to think of something and pull it off -- fast!

#5: Charmed villiagers! A vampire or some other creature is using innocents against them. They need to break the spell, convince the villiagers that they aren't a threat, or find some other way of dealing with the threat before they themselves are dead.

#6: Three way battle? Who's on who's side here? The PCs engage with enemies who are not only fighting the PCs but they're fighting each other! Is it a case of mistaken identity? Are some of them actually allies who don't realize it? Can the PCs form a temperary alliance with one group to crush the other? What happens after the first group is crushed? Should the PCs back off and see if the two groups kill each other? Why are they fighting in the first place?

#7: But... he's good! Mistaken identity or miscommunication can be a real pain, especially when the local clerics of Pelor believe you're assassins. Perhaps its time to beat a hasty retreat, or maybe nonlethal combat options are in order if you can pull it off. Maybe diplomacy will work if you're good enough. Whatever the case, you best not kill them because if you do, you'll have some real crimes to answer for.

#8: Goad them. Nothing says "roleplay" like PCs getting insulted every which way, and few can take it. Make the NPCs yell out at the PCs, whether its about how horribly the fighter wields his sword, insults to the cleric's god, or laughing at barbarian's loincloth, the PCs will not like it one little bit. Encourage them to shout back, and make the combat about insults as well as survival.

#9: Barrom Brawl. This is a true classic of D&D combat. It's usually nonlethal, but the problem is it usually serves no purpose, its the barbarian going out and punching a random guy in a bar. Give it purpose! Make them have a reason to start trouble in a bar, and make an NPC throw the first punch! They run into their arch-enemy in a bar (had that happen in a campaign, it was awesome), someone they slighted runs into them (ala the Gamers), there are just so many reasons for drunk people to fight, you'll think of something!

#10: The PCs are the Law. When the PCs have to arrest someone, not kill them, then things get more complex. They have to subdue them, manacle them, knock them out, diplomacy them into submission!

#11: Props, props, props. Chandaleirs, carpets, tapestries, banasters, stairs, slopes, doors, dumwaiters, bridges, spikes, tables, chairs, rocks, trees, ladders, nooks & crannies, two foot holes, book shelves, alchemist supplies, fire, anvils, frozen ponds, vines, quicksand, cows, trophies/candlesticks, secret passageways, beds, cramped spaces, barrels of grog, wetbars, muck filled pools, stalagmites/tites, clock tower gears, wagons, fire rain, waterfalls, etc. Be creative. If you build it, they will use it.

 

[BryonD]

Forced...

...because you have three, four, five, or six actions to determine
...because the result of each action affects the outcome of the next action
...because you kill, or you will be killed
...because high level opponents have defenses, lots of them, and every action takes three, four, or five steps to determine the resolution
...because you have exponentially more actions available to you, and literally dozens of possible modifiers to each action


...or you could just cast Magic Missile.

If you don't get it, I've got to assume you haven't played it.

And this is a DIRECT result of the game - as it is written. It doesn't have to be this complex.

These players want to roleplay. They want to be KINGS, they want to be generals, and they want to master the battlefield.

Well, then clearly you haven't roleplayed it.

It doesn't have to be that complex. And it IS NOT unless the players sitting at the table CHOOSE to make it be.

 

[ashockney]

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.

I totally agree with you here. I've had by far, more enjoyable "games" when I did this (and others were willing to do it, too).

 

[ashockney]

The rules do not force this.
This is another example of players throwing roleplay out the window before they even start to play.

I agree 100% that it happens. I disagree that the rules force it.
I've seen it in all editions of D&D and pretty much every other RPG I've played for any real amount of time anyway. minis or not.

Excellent point...

 

[BryonD]

...because you have exponentially more actions available to you, and literally dozens of possible modifiers to each action

You know, its is funny that one of the rule-lite/rules heavy complaints against 3E is that it constrains options compared to other systems.

I disagree. Either way the player says what they want to do and the GM resolves based on a combination of rules and judgement.