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

[ashockney]

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

Sorry dude!

I didn't mean for that to happen. I'd be happy to switch sides on the argument. I agree with Mark, that I think it's a worthwhile dialog, and that you've brought up a good point that's worth discussing. Just throwing in my own .02.

 

[BryonD]

So Mark, you got me in this. What is YOUR opinion?

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

That is fair. But you are still putting it on the player.

I'm not putting it on the player so much as observing a trend. The ultimate role-playing game is 'Cowboys and Indians'. The only rule is if I point my finger at you and say 'Bang!' first, you have to fall down dead (or not, if you play like we used to ). The AH game 'Gunslinger' was still at its heart 'Cowboys and Indians', but the rules governing player interactions were so detailed and methodical that it pretty much forced you into left-brain thinking instead of right-brain. As you get better at the rules, the more room you have for right-brain activities.

Personally, I think the DM has far more influence over tactical vs. RP than the rules do. If the DM is laid back, encourages and rewards RP, and manages things to streamline gameplay, the less intrusive the RP-minded players find the tactical part of the game. I've played old WoD and saw things get just as nitty-gritty with tactical thinking as any game I've played in d20.

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.

I don't buy that 'mini's killed the game' mentality, either. I've used minis in every RPG I've played for 25 years and never had it be an issue. We used to play a home-brew game where two seperate groups would run through some sort of SWAT-type scenario. Each group was in a seperate room, and the DM would run back and forth describing things and adjudicating actions. There was just the barest hint of maps, no written rules for movement, etc. And despite being very rules-light, it was *extremely* tactical in play.

My beef with the DDM aspect is the business model, not the affect on the RPG.

 

[BryonD]

Sorry dude!

I didn't mean for that to happen. I'd be happy to switch sides on the argument. I agree with Mark, that I think it's a worthwhile dialog, and that you've brought up a good point that's worth discussing. Just throwing in my own .02.

That's cool.
I'm just preloading the excuse for when I type enough words that I eventually contradict myself or say something just plain STUPID.

 

[Mark CMG]

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.

Adjusted the thread title.

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

Almost sorry I got you into this.

 

[BryonD]

I'm not putting it on the player so much as observing a trend.

<snip>

I agree with you completely. And I will even state that your observation regarding the DM's influence is very accurate.
Players will do what they are rewarded for doing.

 

[Mark CMG]

So Mark, you got me in this. What is YOUR opinion?

I'm not sure. I've seen players who cannot play tactically if they try, literally, but through roleplaying perform some of the most amazing combat moves I've ever seen . . . all with the minis on the table. On the other hand, I do agree that most players seem to switch modes when the battlemat is set up and the minis come out. When I DM, I try to go with the flow of what the group is tending toward. When I play, which is admittedly a rarity, I tend toward tactical play unless the DM gives me a real opening to RP without it working against me. I think that might have to do with there seeming to be more control over the situation if approach tactically. I do believe that the rules can engender one style over the other prior to the minis coming out but I guess I am still on the fence as to whether or not the actual minis can be prevented from auto-switching some players into tactical-only mode.

 

[BryonD]

Adjusted the thread title.

Almost sorry I got you into this.

I almost accept.

 

[Valesin]

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..

I agree with this statement, but isn't it just another way of saying that experienced roleplayers are better at roleplaying? Sure, you have to learn the rules and as you do the game opens up more, achieves greater depth. Is that a bad thing?

My problem with this thread is that people seem to be saying that a) combat is all that happens and b) combat should be as roleplaying intensive as other aspects of the game. It probably isn't, and it probably shouldn't be. My group has been RPing for over a decade and I can tell you that the real roleplaying occurs outside of combat. Conniving your way into getting an audience with the prince or trying to strike a deal with a rakshasa so that you have the upper hand in the negotions are obviously going to allow more roleplaying opportunities than killing some ogres. And I think that is how it SHOULD be. When people are fighting for their lives they tend to put aside their politics, their religious differences, their petty squabbles. There is plenty of time for all that when the combat is done (or before it starts, or preferably both).

The tactical aspects of 3.5 play make combat more realistic, adding another layer to the game. There is nothing in the combat rules that hinders roleplaying in other contexts.

As for there being no rules to encourage roleplaying...I don't get it. The rules are silent on the roleplaying aspects of the game, and I would argue that they should be. Roleplaying doesn't require rules; the rules are there for the non-roleplaying parts of the game (have you ever tried roleplaying disarming a trap?). Roleplaying comes from experience and the relationship you have with your PCs and the other players. No rules can teach that, but no rules can prevent it either.

 

[Mark CMG]

I agree with you completely. And I will even state that your observation regarding the DM's influence is very accurate.
Players will do what they are rewarded for doing.

Or avoid what they might be penalized for doing, as I was trying to point up just now.