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

[Geron Raveneye]

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.

The thing is, and I think I'm not too far off with this, that with D&D 3.x, the game has become a combination of a roleplaying game and a tactical mini game (skirmish sized). It has the pen-and-paper roleplaying component, and the tabletop/battlemat count-your-squares-and-roll-the-dice mini game component..and yes, compared to earlier editions, that has become much more pronounced, up to the example illustrations in the core rules.

So while plenty of people are able to mesh both, blending the roleplaying with the tactical mini game, another part of our hobby simply switches tracks from "roleplaying" to tabletop mini game" and back, depending on the part of the game that comes up. That might be a function of the player, of course...but I contend that the rules play a big part in this "mental gear shift" simply by actually being a tactical mini game where combat is concerned. The whole setup is built around the assumption that combat is best and most optimally played out with minis on a battlemat, the rules cater to handling everything in units of 5' squares, the AoO concept works most optimal when done with minis on a battlemat, spells are optimized for the battlemat down to the AoE being sold as wire shapes for easy layout.

In my eyes, that doesn't just encourage players to switch to "tactical mini game mode" in their minds when the battlemat comes up, it's actually what is assumed to happen by the rules, and will yield the most optimal results. The game is set up to switch gears from roleplay to mini game, and that's what many players follow. In a way it's as if the game required the group to suddenly whip out the monopoly board to resolve house-building scenarios...people would switch mostly to Monopoly mode, and barely stay in character.

Hmmmm, D&D Monopoly...I wonder what a wizard's tower is worth in rent...

To keep that from happening? Make the combat rules less dependant on minis and battlemats. Note that I'm not arguing for taking those components out of the game...but make them less necessary for the rules to work. Or at least, create alternative combat rules that are less mini-centric. A bit more abstract, or narrative, maybe. Simply spoken, make it less of a tabletop miniature game, then players won't have to switch mental tracks during it. The question is just how to do roleplaying combat...but that's for a good game designer to answer.

 

[Hussar]

I'm still not getting it.

How are tactical considerations not roleplaying combat?

In El-Rammen's above example, to me, it doesn't matter if there's a baby on the other side of those orcs or not. That's simply another factor in the tactical equation. If we MUST SAVE THE BABY, then taking the AOO becomes a non-issue, since it's of less importance to the goal. OTOH, if the other side of the wall of orcs is the orc leader, then it might be a good idea, or it might not be, depending on many other tactical considerations.

In any case, it is still a tactical process. Sure, you can fill in lots of flavour text into the combat, but, that still doesn't change the decision making process. Moving to a more narrative process again doesn't change the decision making process all that much. It merely simplifies it.

If I'm playing a fighter, then what I do in combat IS roleplay for that character. This is where I get to express my character in all its glory (and folly). Sure, the bard might be able to charm the pants off the waitress, but, when the midden hits the windmill, it's Grgur Branamir, dwarven fighter with a polearm whose going to be calling the shots and getting it done.

Narrative or not, minis or no, it's not a whole lot of difference. When combat starts, it's all about tactics, good or bad.

 

[MerricB]

3e doesn't really handle swashbuckling combat that is full of repartee. (Watch Pirates of the Caribbean for that sort of combat). Of course, those types of combats work best with 1 player, 1 DM. In such cases, play and counterplay can occur quickly and with dialogue as well. Is that roleplaying in combat?

Certainly, role-assumption in combat is well and truly alive. It has to be if you want to stay alive. The player who who rushes his rogue into melee with iron golems is not properly assuming the role!

My players chat between themselves about the best way to proceed in difficult combats (try fighting in snow against archers...) and if they're not doing it strictly "in-character", they're still participating in the game.

6 players to 1 DM makes role-playing hard in any case; once combat intervenes, it becomes more difficult, although the fun-factor may move upwards as the players get more involved.

After all, telling a goblin "I will kill you" doesn't really add much to the game.

Cheers!

 

[Steel_Wind]

I've been playing D&D for over 27, closing in on 28 years now.

I love role-playing - and I love miniatures. While the opinions expressed in this thread may be sincerely formed and held by those that feel miniatures detract from their game... that's a truth that is particular to your game - not mine.

I just don't agree. At all.

 

[BryonD]

3e doesn't really handle swashbuckling combat that is full of repartee. (Watch Pirates of the Caribbean for that sort of combat).
Cheers!

Certainly true.
But, and again I've found this true through all versions of D&D.
And I am quite content with it.
If anything it can be used to HELP with RP because you are free to describe the finer details in any way you choose.

 

[BryonD]

The thing is, and I think I'm not too far off with this, that with D&D 3.x, the game has become a combination of a roleplaying game and a tactical mini game (skirmish sized). It has the pen-and-paper roleplaying component, and the tabletop/battlemat count-your-squares-and-roll-the-dice mini game component..and yes, compared to earlier editions, that has become much more pronounced, up to the example illustrations in the core rules.

But there is nothing to stop you from being in character and making character driven choices and then using the tactical side to play THAT out.

In my eyes, that doesn't just encourage players to switch to "tactical mini game mode" in their minds when the battlemat comes up, it's actually what is assumed to happen by the rules, and will yield the most optimal results. The game is set up to switch gears from roleplay to mini game, and that's what many players follow. In a way it's as if the game required the group to suddenly whip out the monopoly board to resolve house-building scenarios...people would switch mostly to Monopoly mode, and barely stay in character.

The question is, do the rules FORCE this, and I still am unwavered from my position that the answer is "no".

I disagree that the rules assume this. The combat rules are just that, tactical rules for simulating the physical result of actions. This works whether you are trying to be optimal or not. And again, that was true in all editions. Was it ok to get killed or "lose" the fight in 1E?

You MAY stop roleplaying if you CHOOSE to. But that is the players choice. And, IMO, if they make that choice then they are losing out on some of the fun.

To keep that from happening? Make the combat rules less dependant on minis and battlemats. Note that I'm not arguing for taking those components out of the game...but make them less necessary for the rules to work. Or at least, create alternative combat rules that are less mini-centric. A bit more abstract, or narrative, maybe. Simply spoken, make it less of a tabletop miniature game, then players won't have to switch mental tracks during it. The question is just how to do roleplaying combat...but that's for a good game designer to answer.

I disagree that this has in the past or will in the future have the result you are predicting.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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

Nope, its been clarified to be about miniatures. See the title's change.

I'm still not getting it.

How are tactical considerations not roleplaying combat?

You see this everywhere. Skill Focus (basketweaving) is a roleplaying feat, while Power Attack isn't. Or a real roleplayer is a person who puts their high stat for fighter into Int instead of Str or Con. That's a commonly concieved belief, that the roleplayer will take a lesser path because it is more realistic. Jump to any thread about roleplaying versus powergaming (like you can't be both) and you'll see that it is a superior form of roleplay to weaken your character because it shows you're more into the game than the powergamer.

Of course, its silly, but its a common way to think about it, and its nothing new.

EDIT: My definition of roleplaying is pretty simply "be in character" which has a great amount of freedom in what roleplaying actually is. So, if the Player says "I rush the kobold, swinging harder that usual! (Power Attack 2)" *rolls* then that's roleplaying.

Now, my earlier post with the 11 ways to add roleplaying to combat is really a way to add more thought provoking roleplaying. Or in other words, to bring out more character interaction and decision making inside combat that will vary depending on the PCs involved. So, for example, there is no "right" way to handle a hostage situation. One PC might just shoot the hostage. Another PC might try diplomacy, and another try to take aim at the hostage taker. And so on and so forth. So that post was about adding varied choices that will go beyond winning in an attempt to get charicterization involved.

I'm trying to be more helpful than debateful. It can be done, I don't really know why people think it can't, and I'm trying to show ways that it can so that others can use these tools to improve their own game. If they do want to roleplay during combat.

Not all my combats involve roleplay. The third zombie fight of the evening will probably be rushed through. But when the ghoul illithid show up, and one of them attached to a PC, the PCs not knowing whether or not an illithid ghoul could brain suck, that was a great roleplaying opportunity, and I would have hated for it to be just a number crunch.

So that's where I'm coming from.

 

[BryonD]

BryonD,

It sounds like you're advocating "make choices based upon character (*role*) independent of tactical consequences to determine what your character would do" as opposed to "use your knowledge of the game to make tactical choices (*roll*) to determine what your character would do."

And I agree and that's what I do when I play. But I find my choices more and more influenced by making good *roll* decisions...

I think mini's, and the extensive rules set that comes with them, make it harder for me to role-play because the rules determine character perhaps even more than role-playing does. Every character has a *roll* that must be assessed when role-playing. For instance, I only know that I'm a baddass and can run through a line of orc warriors because I'm 12th level *roll*.

If I try to *role* without the *roll* to back me up I'm just going to end up dead. And, generally, dead isn't fun.

To me, the minis (and the codified complexity resulting from them) bring the *roll* aspect of the game forward as the physical capabilites are clearly stated. The leads me to *roll* as much as I can to *role* as much as I can. If I knowingly make a choice that is *-roll* because it doesn't suit my *role* I risk the fun of the game for the other players with a sub-optimal *roll* decison.

And it is the threat of death that leads me to make more and more *roll* choices during combat than *role* choices. Because I'm not the only one playing the game, and other people have other goals than to see me make a *role* choice that decreases their fun.

joe b.

But now you are forcing it to be to much black and white.
The 12th level badass should know he is tough enough without any metagame information.

also
If other players are demanding that you discard RP choices in favor of purely making the premium tactical choices, then we are back to players causing this break down. Not the rules.
And I find myself HIGHLY skeptical that these same players would be any less driven to "win" in a non-mini set-up.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I don't use minis. I do use a battlemat, though, with dry erase markers.

I've run campaigns with both little and lots of RP using the exact same rulesets (DnD and Modern). I don't find the rules to interfere with RP at all (I treat many actions in combat as "RP" because combat is definitely not incompatible with RP). In practice, lots of combat rules might reduce RP a little bit, only because combat takes longer, and there's less RP in combat than out of combat. I don't see that as a direct "reducer" of RP. Maybe it's just because my sessions don't have a whole lot of combat (I'm terrible at setting up random encounters, etc).

While it's generally a good idea to drop a combat really early into an adventure, in practice pretty much every adventure I buy and use doesn't start with combat until a lot of investigation or problem solving has already occurred. Maybe D20 Modern adventures somehow set themselves up that way - there's nothing in the rules to force that.

I don't find the rules to encourage RP, either, unlike, say, White Wolf. However, if White Wolf came out with a double-sized book with lots more combat rules, I think RP would only be slightly reduced. Combat would take longer.

 

[BryonD]

You see this everywhere. Skill Focus (basketweaving) is a roleplaying feat, while Power Attack isn't. Or a real roleplayer is a person who puts their high stat for fighter into Int instead of Str or Con. That's a commonly concieved belief, that the roleplayer will take a lesser path because it is more realistic. Jump to any thread about roleplaying versus powergaming (like you can't be both) and you'll see that it is a superior form of roleplay to weaken your character because it shows you're more into the game than the powergamer.

yep.

Of course a dirty little secret here is in those threads (and I am certainly NOT speaking of anyone in this thread) the people who claim to be the deep and true (or even superior) role players will be the same ones who start talking about how minis mess it up. :\

I've never been a RP snob. Come to the table and have fun. Heck, I'm certainly not a deep immersion roleplayer myself. But a really good roleplayer should not come close to be knocked out of character by a battlemat. Are they just not as good as me?