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

[Hussar]

Not true, I never use a battle mat, so never picked up that bad habit of seeing combat that way, (combat in my games are all roleplayed, never board games)

So, I can move my fighter from place to place, even be in two places at the same time, simply because I describe it well? You cannot possibly run combat without at least a very basic concept of the relationships between the combatants. If I'm 200 feet away, I can't swing my sword. Whether you draw that on a battle map, or keep it in your head, it's still true.

(look at it this way, In real life fights don't come with floorplans,

True, but, real life fights come with REAL LIFE. I know if I can hit someone with my sword, because he's actually standing a few feet away from me. I know that I cannot throw my spear far enough to hit that retreating guy that's a dot on the horizon. In real life, you can actually see where everything is and the locations of all participants are known. Why should role play be diminished simply because you can see all the participants?

BTW, Kamikaze Midget is pretty much nailing the nail on the head. If you want your character to be able to do something, you should use the rules to allow it. Simply saying, "Well, I can do this because I spent time as a squire" is not necessarily playing your character. You want to do a particular something, then take the time to model it mechanically.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

If you want your character to be able to do something, you should use the rules to allow it. Simply saying, "Well, I can do this because I spent time as a squire" is not necessarily playing your character. You want to do a particular something, then take the time to model it mechanically.

The point was that sometimes a detailed model limits you. I prefer a model that is less defined and thus less restrictive, which is one of the reasons I like playing C&C. That doesn't mean no rules or mechanical model at all. And I think that sometimes it's fine to say "I'm a squire, I should know this even though it's not listed on my character sheet." Sometimes a detailed model just isn't necessary.

As I said, it's a matter of preference.

 

[librarius_arcana]

So, I can move my fighter from place to place, even be in two places at the same time, simply because I describe it well? You cannot possibly run combat without at least a very basic concept of the relationships between the combatants. If I'm 200 feet away, I can't swing my sword. Whether you draw that on a battle map, or keep it in your head, it's still true..

That seems to be an incredible silly argument for your point of veiw,

Okay let me put it in another way,

The majority of RPG's out there don't use mini, battle mats etc...and they also have plenty of combat, (say something like "Exalted")

how do those games manage it?

True, but, real life fights come with REAL LIFE. I know if I can hit someone with my sword, because he's actually standing a few feet away from me.

No not always

I know that I cannot throw my spear far enough to hit that retreating guy that's a dot on the horizon.

Again, No not always

In real life, you can actually see where everything is and the locations of all participants are known.

No not at all, in real life you can't (you never get a nice neat over head veiw of combat)

Why should role play be diminished simply because you can see all the participants?

Simply because thats not at all how it works in real life,

 

[wayne62682]

Personally, I am in both camps in this sort of scenario.. I love using the minis and battlemat because I can see who is where and whatever, but I loathe them because I am one of those players who finds myself thrown out of "story mode" (i.e. roleplaying) and into "combat mode" whenever it happens.

Now, maybe I'm just a poor roleplayer. It is just very difficult for me to roleplay when in combat. Let's say I have a paladin named Astyanax and the party is facing a group of orcs. Instead of saying "Astyanax draws his blade and steps forward to face the Orc chief, calling out 'Surrender, and I shall grant you mercy!' as he waits for a response" it's "[Move figure a few squares up like chess] I draw my sword and move up in front of the Orc chief. 'Surrender, and I shall grant you mercy!'" Maybe that is roleplaying in combat? It doesn't feel like it, if that makes any sense to you.

My problem is that combat throws too many variables into play, that it almost forces you to think tactically. You can't just walk up to the monster and swing, you take into account if moving will get you an AoO, if you can maneuver to flank the enemy so your rogue buddy can Sneak Attack, if you can move to get Line of Effect with a spell. The game is reduced to thinking in tactical terms rather than roleplaying/flavour terms, because it directly affects the result of the combat. If I don't consider how to move without provoking an Attack of Opportunity from the mooks, it means I might have less HP when the time comes to duel with the Orc chieftain, thus my chance of dying increases.

I'm not arguing for or against the "tactical mode", just saying that it's a necessary evil due to the mechanics which rely on it. I try my hardest to interject some modicum of roleplaying into it (e.g. "I yell out a battle cry and chop downward with my blade in a powerful strike. I'm using Power Attack for 5 points." but it still feels to me like it's contrived and we're playing Warhammer Lite rather than D&D when it's time for combat.

 

[JustaPlayer]

In real life, you can actually see where everything is and the locations of all participants are known.

You can't see what is happening behind you. You can't see someone hiding just around the corner. You can't see just over the rise. You can't see through a couple of people to see what might be happing on the other side. Movement is flowing so while you might have moments of clarity you can never truely grasp the whole of a combat. During combat participants tend to focus on the adversary in front of them to a point of exclusion of most all else. You may hear a comrade ask for help, it is at that point you widen your focus but even then only for the briefest moment while you decide to help then refocus on that situation.

Once the minis go on the table you become a genral looking at a battle from on high. There is no way to avoid it, even if you don't realize you are doing it.

 

[Remathilis]

Simply because thats not at all how it works in real life,

A group of adventurers was facing a group of orcs* in 2e. One character (Bob) charged the leader, the rest engaged the orc horde. The mage stood 20ish feet behind us. DM assumed the leader was on the left slope, the orc hordes from the right (like a V, with the mage at the fulcrum). When it got to the mages turn, he declared "I'm fireballing away from Bob". The DM declared WE all had to make saving throws as well as the orc horde. We grumbled, some of us died a round or two later from the damage + orcs. The Mage's player begged perfusely "thats not what he meant to do". The few remaining PCs regrouped only after an un-injured Bob finished the orc leader. We all threatened the mage if he EVER cast fireball again, he was going to be drowned in the river while he slept.

The moral of this story: A simple battlemat, or even a drawing would have stopped this miscommunication. Clearly, the CHARACTER could have seen the group rush right and NOT fireballed there, but the PLAYER had a 20 word description (given more than a few minutes ago, before intiatives) to base his attack on. The DMs vision of the fight was CLEARLY different that what we got out of his description. Was it the mage's fault for assuming we were in a position to be safely out of fireball? The DMs for arbitraily assuming "away from Bob" meant "at the other PCs?" That everyone was in the Area of Effect (maybe some were, some weren't).

I don't know, but I DO know since we've started using battle mats, we've never fireballed our own again.

 

[tzor]

Once the minis go on the table you become a genral looking at a battle from on high. There is no way to avoid it, even if you don't realize you are doing it.

But short of a double blind system you can never avoid it. (The notion that you can't turn your head and see behind you is as stupid as the notion of 1E facnig rules where the round was one minute long.) War games often have double blind systems and use coutners or minis so this is not a problem per se in the use of minis, it's a problem in how one uses minis.

A full verbal system has the same problems as a mini system. There will always be a tendency to view the battle from a third person perspective, with or without minis, because the DM is not going to give first person perspetives to every player on a round by round basis.

I have never understood why people get so worked up over AOO avoidance. "Oh look, there's a gauntlet between me and the bad guy. I wonder if just running through it is a good idea?" "I'm in pretty close combat with this guy, you think he would mind if I tried to open this bottle of healing fizz ... oh why do they make these bottles so hard to open?" My father, a rather eldery gentleman who fought in WWII, never played a single game of D&D in his life, much less 3E, but even he knows that if you have your back against the wall, they can't flank you from behind.

The more I read this, the more I'm convinced that it's not the minis. You want the basic rules of 2E, where your only option in a given round was, "I attack." You could run a 2E combat in your sleep, and often I was almost bored to sleep running a combat. That wasn't role playing, that was roll playing.

 

[librarius_arcana]

A group of adventurers was facing a group of orcs* in 2e. One character (Bob) charged the leader, the rest engaged the orc horde. The mage stood 20ish feet behind us. DM assumed the leader was on the left slope, the orc hordes from the right (like a V, with the mage at the fulcrum). When it got to the mages turn, he declared "I'm fireballing away from Bob". The DM declared WE all had to make saving throws as well as the orc horde. We grumbled, some of us died a round or two later from the damage + orcs. The Mage's player begged perfusely "thats not what he meant to do". The few remaining PCs regrouped only after an un-injured Bob finished the orc leader. We all threatened the mage if he EVER cast fireball again, he was going to be drowned in the river while he slept.

The moral of this story: A simple battlemat, or even a drawing would have stopped this miscommunication. Clearly, the CHARACTER could have seen the group rush right and NOT fireballed there, but the PLAYER had a 20 word description (given more than a few minutes ago, before intiatives) to base his attack on. The DMs vision of the fight was CLEARLY different that what we got out of his description. Was it the mage's fault for assuming we were in a position to be safely out of fireball? The DMs for arbitraily assuming "away from Bob" meant "at the other PCs?" That everyone was in the Area of Effect (maybe some were, some weren't).

I don't know, but I DO know since we've started using battle mats, we've never fireballed our own again.

But as you said yourself thats just "miscommunication"

And in real life, friendly fire happens :\

 

[JustaPlayer]

tzor, I never said you couldn't like behind you, but it is a blind spot, unless of course you have the much sough after "Eyes in Back of Head" feat.

I for one also like AoOs. And a wall at my back would be perfect, unless of course I wanted to retreat, which might hinder me somewhat. As I said, battle is fluid. To a point that a person can become disoriented in fact. To a point one might not know which way he is facing. Ever heard of friendly fire? If I have my back to the wall, should I necessarily know which wall and what way the door is without taking time to orient myself? I think movement can be described to a point where one gets the feel of stepping around things without having to see it played out on a board. It akes a lot of skill on the DMs part but the picture is much better in the end I think.

 

[Kem]

But as you said yourself thats just "miscommunication"

And in real life, friendly fire happens :\

Erm, in the first round of combat, that seems kinda... Odd.

Or do all mages with 15+ Intelligence have horrible depth perception?