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

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

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.

Yes, it is silly.

What matters is intent and motivation, not result.

An rp'er will take power attack because he envisions his character as a 'swing for the fences' barbarian with a big axe that likes to lop peoples' heads off.

A powergamer will take power attack because he knows he can work the math to be optimally successful in combat by adjusting the modifiers after deriving the opponents AC.

And, of course, you can be both.

But I wll confes to being skeptical when the 18 STR / 8 INT power-attacking, cleaving barbarian claims those are RP choices and but then only RPs the 'good' stuff and tries to weasel out of the bad stuff.

 

[BryonD]

I don't find the rules to encourage RP, either, unlike, say, White Wolf.

Again, I won't speak to WW specifically. But I agree with you. It is pretty much the other side of the coin. RP is up to the player and the game just models the world.

If the game doesn't model the world you want to play in, then you can STILL RP, it just will not be as or even at all rewarding. But beyond that kind of extreme scenario, RP is 99% personal.

 

[BryonD]

But I wll confes to being skeptical when the 18 STR / 8 INT power-attacking, cleaving barbarian claims those are RP choices and but then only RPs the 'good' stuff and tries to weasel out of the bad stuff.

Just for my POV, this may still be quite fun.
If they are claiming this is an RP choice, well then that is pretty lame.
But if they just want to be the big tough kick in the door, kill the orc and take his stuff guy and that works with the rest of the group then great. Everyone is having fun and that is what it is all about.

I'm not claiming you said differently. I'm just drawing a distinction between my position of being able to RP with tactical combat and minis as opposed to a completely separate debate as to whether RP is a requirement for a fun time playing D&D.

 

[ThirdWizard]

But I wll confes to being skeptical when the 18 STR / 8 INT power-attacking, cleaving barbarian claims those are RP choices and but then only RPs the 'good' stuff and tries to weasel out of the bad stuff.

Well, there are two sides to roleplaying. And, one can make the most realisitic, role-built character, but be completely unable to roleplay him well during a session. Or one can make a powerhouse barbarian min/maxed to the extreme, and stay 100% in character during a session. So, that powergamed barbarian might just run straight through the gauntlet of orcs to save the baby being sacrificed, even if it isn't a tactical decision, because deep down he's a good person and loves children, or maybe he just wants to kill all the orcs and get their stuff, and he just sees the baby as a way the DM is trying to screw him on the alignment.

So, I'm not making any quality speculation about various decisions. But, if one describes all their character actions in combat and is in character the whole time combat is going on, but is making great decisions, placing spells well, not getting AoO, always making sure they move for their skirmish, whatever, then they can still be roleplaying. You don't have to cripple yourself intentionally to be roleplaying.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Was it ok to get killed or "lose" the fight in 1E?

Certainly not. I think the difference lies in that it is a lot easier to make a sub-optimal choice in 3e than 1e. In other words, the chance of playing 'poorly' is greater. ( I use the word 'poorly' with reservation; I don't mean to imply that the game should be treated as a win/lose proposition. The only way I think you can lose is if you don't have fun.)

In 1e, combat boiled down to: choice of target, ranged vs. melee, cast a spell or not, and if so which spell. Maybe the occasional 'do I switch weapons' if you were using the weapon type vs armor rules. Even if you were using minis, it was largely for flavors sake and adjudicating positioning in situations where it mattered (eg marching order in tight corridors).

In 3e, throw in: power attack or not, AoOs, reach, move and attack, ready action, etc, etc, etc. These are rules complications, and don't preclude RPing in any way. But mini's feed those rules in a way that they didn't in 1e.

I think for some players, for a variety of reasons, the visual/tactile aspect that minis bring channels them into a tactical mindset at the expense of a role-playing mindset. I think there is an experience factor, as I've mentioned previously. I think there are probably some Pavlovian type responses formed by games played when we were kids, where understanding and following the rules was paramount and the goals were straightforward. "Roll the dice and move your piece" is the ringing bell.

But 90% of my gaming experiences have involved mini's in some form or another, and I've seen a hell of a lot of great role-playing in the midst of all that, to buy into the 'mini's kill role-playing' argument. If a group wants both, they'll find a way to make it work.

 

[Thotas]

I've played the game with minis all the time, since 1979. Over three and a half editions, with all the variances in game rules and different groups people that I've played with, the little things on the table sitting in the 1 inch squares have been the only thing that's as constant as the d20 itself. The thing that's varied the most in that time was how much roleplaying went on. I've played with a group where we once went an entire session without needing a dice roll on the part of a player (DM rolled some saving throws for an item being kicked back and forth in the hallway to see it it broke), 'cause all we did that day was roleplay. I've played with groups that when I roleplayed, they actually asked me what the hell I was doing and didn't understand my answer. Minis were staple in both groups.

A lot of things affect how much roleplaying your group will do and how they do it; the DM's style, the plot of the adventure, individual personalities, group dynamics of said personalities, the ambiance of room you play the game in, probably lots of things I can't think of right now or have never even noticed before. In my experience, however, the miniatures are the least important influence on that part of the game.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

But I wll confes to being skeptical when the 18 STR / 8 INT power-attacking, cleaving barbarian claims those are RP choices and but then only RPs the 'good' stuff and tries to weasel out of the bad stuff.

I was thinking more along the lines of the big, stupid barbarian that conveniently 'forgets' that he can't read, or who wants to claim 'well, thats something my character would just know' instead of putting skills into Knowledge, or making Int checks.

 

[Quasqueton]

I completely agree with the ByronD quote in the OP.

Quasqueton

 

[ThirdWizard]

I was thinking more along the lines of the big, stupid barbarian that conveniently 'forgets' that he can't read, or who wants to claim 'well, thats something my character would just know' instead of putting skills into Knowledge, or making Int checks.

Yeah, that's not just a bad roleplayer, that's a metagamer, too. We hate metagaming in our group more than just about any other kind of disruptive activity. No, I don't think that's normal, but we're crazy like that. I don't think a guy like that would last very long with us at all.

EDIT: I saw a group of 10th level PCs rush pair of Devourers (CR 11, I believe - with death attacks) in my game because the PCs had never seen them before, and the priest failed his Knowledge check to know what they were. That's devotion to non-metagaming.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

But is the DM given enough proper tools, through the rules and their explanation, to really influence style of play (leanings toward roleplay vs. tactical-minded) more than the rules given to the players?

Yes, I think this is important. The game rules don't help RP nearly as much as playing with a more experienced GM. Adventures rarely help with this, either.

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."

Rushing through the orcs example:

If this were D20 Modern, the "role" and "roll" would match up, too. A multi-classed Fast Hero could try to rush through the orcs; there's a chance they won't even get hit! But a DnD character dare not do that; the rules conspire to (generally) result in a lame AC and you would lose a heck of a lot of hit points doing so.

I think the AoO rules are excessively punishing. Iron Heroes does it a bit better. You can move at a fraction of your speed without drawing AoOs; much superior to the withdraw (one free square, no addition actions) option.

But, in a combat, shouldn't ALL decisions be tactical?

Most, anyway. But rescuing the civilian might take precedence over smart tactics.

Likewise, when the NPCs aren't all amazing tacticians that always do the best action and never make mistakes, then it encourages the PCs to do the same. NPCs never run through AoO to get somewhere? PCs won't do it. NPCs never take an AoO? PCs won't do it. NPCs never use skills in combat? Neither will PCs.

No, AoOs are so punishing that PCs never make the mistake of drawing them, even if NPCs do make that kind of mistake. It doesn't matter how realistically the GM runs the NPCs.