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

[el-remmen]

But, in a combat, shouldn't ALL decisions be tactical? Call me strange here, but, we have characters fighting for their lives against opponents that are trying their best to do very bad things to them. Every decision during combat should, IMO, be centered on the idea of not having those bad things being done to me.

It really depends on the people involved, their motivations, experience and situation they find themselves in.

Sure, running through a group of orcs' "threatened area" is usuallya dumb thing to do - running through because it is the only way you have of saving the baby about to be sacrificed, even if you think there is a good chance you will die trying is role-playing.

Now some other character might think, "Forget that! Let the baby die. . ." and that would be role-playing, too.

 

[jgbrowning]

Sure, running through a group of orcs' "threatened area" is usuallya dumb thing to do - running through because it is the only way you have of saving the baby about to be sacrificed, even if you think there is a good chance you will die trying is role-playing.

Now some other character might think, "Forget that! Let the baby die. . ." and that would be role-playing, too.

It's a trap! If you rescue the baby it grows up to become the Destroyer of Worlds!

joe "RB GM" b.

 

[rounser]

The first step to getting good roleplay during combat is description, description, description.

Nice in theory, but in effect this slows the game down, and the players know it's redundant, because they know it has no effect on the outcome. If description did have an effect on the outcome, then the rules would arguably support roleplay more.

 

[pemerton]

How do rules encourage roleplaying?

In my experience, most examples of rules that promote roleplaying come from games other than D&D eg Spiritual Attributes (is this the correct terminology?) in Riddle of Steel, which:

(1) grant combat adds when a character is pursuing the goals the player has chosen for her character;

(2) can be spent to improve other aspects of the character (ie act as XP/character points);

(3) once spent down to zero, can be earned (potentially in new personality directions) through appropriate character actions.

A system like this supports RP, because it links roleplaying choices with success in character actions, in both directions: pursuing goals gives success, and success allows new goals to be mechanically integrated into the character. This is an RP virtuous circle.

(Note: the above is based on a reading of TROS, not play - my group plays a mechanically quite different style of Rolemaster.)

Off the top of my head, I can't think of mechanics in 3E D&D that overtly support roleplay, other than alignment, which links character action to the capacity to use, benefit from or be affected by certain important magical effects. Earlier editions had more such mechanics, I think. For example, in 1st ed the important function of Charisma was to grant henchmen (in effect, secondary characters under the direction of the PC), and the henchman loyalty mechanic in the DMG generated incentives for PCs to be thoughtful rather than ruthless leaders. But these sort of behaviour-incentives did not have the same dynamic impact on RP as the TROS example above. The behavioural guidance came straight from the rules - it could not be developed by the player.

I think the biggest mechanical impact on roleplay from D&D mechanics, but one which is implicit rather than overt, is the fact that the game focuses primarily on combat as the means of conflict resolution, and success in combat, for most characters in most circumstancs, requires killing one's foes. This makes pacifist-type characters very difficult, and also puts near-unbearable strains on the aligment system: on the one hand, a conception of absolute evil is required to justify PCs merciless attitude towards their foes, but on the other hand the constant killing gives rise to artificial but never-ending alignment quandries for paladins and similar PCs.

I think that Arcana Unearthed/Evolved takes some steps towards resolving these issues, by increasing the range of damage where foes are disabled or dying but not dead, and by getting rid of alignment. These mechanical changes support roleplaying at least in a negative sense, by clearing ground for a wider range of successful character types.

EDIT: I think by "roleplay" I mean something different from what Third Wizard does
in his/her posts: not a readiness to engage in description and in-character dialogue, but rather a readiness to create and play characters with meaningful personalities and goals that actually matter to the choice of character action, and the resolution of the conflicts that arise in a campaign.

I should add that it is also possible for mechanics to support roleplay in Third Wizard's sense: eg one can easily conceive of a rule which allows each player to play up to 3 "fate points" per session, which allows the player to give a description of her character's action or environment which then becomes official within the gameworld. Of course, such descriptions would have to be consistent with what the GM has presented, but no referee's description is ever complete. Under this rule, if a character needed to have a piece of string in her pocket,
or came up with a plan that depended on the villain's bedroom being lit by candles rather than lanterns, then instead of the GM randomly determining such minor details, or being the only person at the table empowered to make such decisions, the player could spend a fate point to make the decision instead. A mechanic of this sort would be one way of encouraging players to become more descriptive of their actions and environment.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Nice in theory, but in effect this slows the game down, and the players know it's redundant, because they know it has no effect on the outcome. If description did have an effect on the outcome, then the rules would arguably support roleplay more.

Slowing down the game is irrelevant.

And, your point about it not having an effect on the outcome... well... we'll just assume for the sake of argument that it doesn't because that doesn't matter. If the Players see the DM getting into the game and having fun, then they'll want to get into the game and have fun.

It's the same with any other form of roleplaying. If the DM is getting into his NPCs' character, roleplaying them out, and interacting with the Players on the NPC/PC level instead of the DM/Player level, then they'll do the same.

DM1: The wizard asks if you want to do the quest.

DM2: So, now that you know the story behind the Emerald of the Green Forest, I ask you to go and collect one of the ingredients I need. This mission is very important, and I entrust it to you to complete. Redgar? Jozan? Mailee? What say you, noble adventurers?

Which is more likely to get an in character response, I ask? Why would it different for combat?

EDIT: Your comment seems to imply that Players will never roleplay unless it gives them an advantage over not roleplaying. This just can't be true or no one would ever roleplay.

Is it your experience that Players do not want to roleplay?

 

[frankthedm]

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.

A combat system where there is a threat of your own attack turning against your side adds weight to the option of solving differences through role-play.

In D20, shooting at my foe presents no danger to me or even my ally adjacent to the foe.
In WOD, shooting at my foe will in all likelihood put the bullet in my friend if I botch.

If individual attacks have no chance of incapacitating a PC, that PC is far safer shooting first and casting Speak with the dead.
If an individual attack has eve a small chance of incapacitating a PC, that encourages PCs to find another way of dealing with foes.

 

[rounser]

Slowing down the game is irrelevant.

I don't agree. I get the impression that WotC's designers don't agree with you either.

And, your point about it not having an effect on the outcome... well... we'll just assume for the sake of argument that it doesn't because that doesn't matter. If the Players see the DM getting into the game and having fun, then they'll want to get into the game and have fun.

It depends on the players...some might view it as self-indulgent timewasting, and become frustrated with waiting for you to get on with it. Why? Because the RAW ensures that your efforts are irrelevant to the mechanical outcome.

DM1: The wizard asks if you want to do the quest.

DM2: So, now that you know the story behind the Emerald of the Green Forest, I ask you to go and collect one of the ingredients I need. This mission is very important, and I entrust it to you to complete. Redgar? Jozan? Mailee? What say you, noble adventurers?

Which is more likely to get an in character response, I ask? Why would it different for combat?

Because your "taking the quest" example is conveying useful information which will have an effect on the result. In combat, players will humour you if you want to say that the arrow grazed Regdar, but they know that what you say doesn't matter; they've still taken 4 points of damage, and you're not conveying any useful information which will affect the outcome.

Now, before you assume that I think this is the way the game should be played, you should realise that I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'm just representing a realistic way for players to think given the RAW. If description description description inside combat works for you and your group, then great; it's just that I think you should accept that the RAW don't encourage it, and in fact emphasises concentration on the mechanical outcome almost exclusively, sabotaging efforts such as yours under many circumstances.

Is it your experience that Players do not want to roleplay?

Sure, some of them. Some mostly just want to whack monsters on a tactical battlemap with their min/maxed half orc greatsword-wielding barbarian, and don't care about "storytelling" that much. Who are you to slow down the excitement* of such play with description description description?

*: As in, combat can be exciting without exposition, and such exposition may well take away from roll-a-die excitement by slowing the game down.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I don't agree. I get the impression that WotC's designers don't agree with you either.

It's entirely subjective. Some would far prefer a longer, interesting, combat to a shorter, dull, combat. If your intention is to speed through combat at all costs, then yes, speed is very important. If you're looking to enjoy an engaging combat, then speed is less important. Saying that faster is better isn't always true, and its far too subjective to claim as an axiom.

It depends on the players...some might view it as self-indulgent timewasting, and become frustrated with waiting for you to get on with it. Why? Because the RAW ensures that your efforts are irrelevant to the mechanical outcome.

If the Players are like this, perhaps rolepalying the combat is actually a bad thing. I'm not saying roleplaying combat is for everyone. But, the basic idea of this thread seems to be that roleplaying combat is good, and miniatures keep people from roleplaying combat.

Now, if your group already has a dispensation toward not wanting to roleplay combat, obviously you aren't going to get very far roleplaying combat. I'm showing ways that people who want to have roleplay in their combat can go about it and get it to work, even with the miniature prescense. I'm definately not saying everyone should play like me.

Now, as for roleplaying being irrelevant to the outcome, if you believe that then Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate are roleplay killers. In fact, you could go through an entire session without any in character discussion whatsoever. The RAW doesn't encourage it anywhere. It's simply a matter of taste and preferance.

Because your "taking the quest" example is conveying useful information which will have an effect on the result. In combat, players will humour you if you want to say that the arrow grazed Regdar, but they know that what you say doesn't matter; they've still taken 4 points of damage, and you're not conveying any useful information which will affect the outcome.

Well, first of all, there really isn't any information provided in the second one. He's already described the quest, that's just a short summary. See, how he says "So, now that you know the story behind the Emerald of the Green Forest?" But, just so we don't argue the point, I'll change it:

DM1: That's the story. Do you take his quest to get the first ingredient he needs?

DM2: So, now that you know the story behind the Emerald of the Green Forest, I ask you to go and collect one of the ingredients I need. This mission is very important, and I entrust it to you to complete. Redgar? Jozan? Mailee? What say you, noble adventurers?

Now remember, the question is how the Players respond! Do they gain a benefit for responding to either question in character? No, they do not. They could just say, in either example that they take the quest and move on. One encourages the Players to respond in character with their PCs' voices, however, and thus encourages roleplaying.

The point is that the DM can encourage roleplaying or kill roleplaying with the way he approaches things. If he approaches combat as "He moves. He attacks. Take 3 damage." then he has killed roleplaying completely and utterly. The Players willl rarely respond in character to that kind of thing. To follow that up with "Redgar staggers to the right and focuses on the enemy, baring his teeth." just ain't gonna happen. It might with the other example.

Now, before you assume that I think this is the way the game should be played, you should realise that I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'm just representing a realistic way for players to think given the RAW. If description description description inside combat works for you and your group, then great; it's just that I think you should accept that the RAW don't encourage it, and in fact emphasises concentration on the mechanical outcome almost exclusively, sabotaging efforts such as yours under many circumstances.

The question was who encourages roleplaying more: the DM or the RAW. I go DM every single time.

As for RAW not encouraging it, no it really doesn't. I don't think it discourages it either. It's all up to what people want to do and what they see before them. If you come to every session and the DM is always roleplaying up a storm, you'll get into it, surely.

Sure, some of them. Some mostly just want to whack monsters on a tactical battlemap with their min/maxed half orc greatsword-wielding barbarian, and don't care about "storytelling" that much. Who are you to slow down such play with description description description?

If they don't want to roleplay don't make them.

Like I said, this thread is about people who want to roleplay who find that they can't, and I just find that... well... I don't understand it at all. If you want to roleplay, then roleplay. If your group wants to roleplay, but falls into a rut and does so less and less, and the DM is getting tired of this, they can get the group back on its feet and back into the roleplay regardless of whether you're moving plastic or lead around a board.

 

[Hussar]

Hrm, what ThirdWizard says here intrigues me.

I admit that I blast through combat as fast as humanly possible. I want to keep it exciting by making it fast. I use a shot clock to cut to a minimum any debate on tactics. Make a decision and act on it, is my approach.

I think I'll give this a shot in the next few sessions in my game. Try a more lyrical approach. See how my players respond. OTOH, I know that in games I've played as a player, this sort of thing bugged me. I just wanted to get on with the show. :/

But, I'm always willing to try something new.

 

[rounser]

Like I said, this thread is about people who want to roleplay who find that they can't, and I just find that... well... I don't understand it at all.

I thought it was about whether combat rules have anything to do with roleplaying inside of combat.

As for RAW not encouraging it, no it really doesn't. I don't think it discourages it either.

Agreed on the first count. Whether it discourages it depends on the players, IMO.