Setting the Dial: The Perfect Mix of Play and Roleplay

[CleverNickName]

Begging the question never did get anyone closer to understanding. They are not mutually exclusive, nor as portrayed are they really the way everyone does them.

Actually, it did help me understand one thing: for all of our discussion of rules and mechanics, the story is still the most important part of the game to us--and not by a small margin, either.

So in other words, Fluff > Crunch.

That's the conclusion I am drawing, anyway. Well that, and polls are a fun way to initiate discussion.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I think some people are simply being difficult. Its clear to see that deep roleplay and combat simulation as the OP defined them are mutually exclusive. It is a rare event where you will be doing both at the same time in game.

Interesting, almost all of the best games I've been involved with in my 30+ years of gaming have involved some heavy role-playing during combat - trying to save the merchant with a knife to his throat, choosing between a fallen companion and the kidnapped princess, finding out a supposed ally has betrayed you, etc. (not every combat had that level of R/P, though)

In fact, my experience has been that you need good combat to set up good role playing. Without at least the threat of combat hanging out there, I've found the role-playing really deteriorates.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I should also say that while people always claim to want more role playing - especially on various internet forums - in practice, most people prefer rolling their d20s to hit (meaning, combat) with some role playing thrown in on the side. However, as I said above, some of the best role playing can come during or because of combat.

 

[hanez]

Interesting, almost all of the best games I've been involved with in my 30+ years of gaming have involved some heavy role-playing during combat - trying to save the merchant with a knife to his throat, choosing between a fallen companion and the kidnapped princess, finding out a supposed ally has betrayed you, etc. (not every combat had that level of R/P, though)

I dont think we are disagreeing here at all. Sure you can roleplay during combat. So for example if the combat was 10 minutes long, and 1 (interspersed) minute of combat time was spent negotiating and speaking then it is fair to say that 9 minutes were spent in combat, and 1 minute was spent in social roleplaying.

In fact, my experience has been that you need good combat to set up good role playing. Without at least the threat of combat hanging out there, I've found the role-playing really deteriorates.

I think you have a really good point here, that is why I would vote somewhere between a 3-6 range on the authors scale.

If you can refer to needing the "threat of combat" then it is a fair question to ask "how much do we need?" Should it be virtual certainty that we are going to spend hours in the dungeon hacking and slashing (perhaps a 9 on his scale) or will combat be a rarer event that breaks out when negotiations in RP fail (perhaps a 3).

I should also say that while people always claim to want more role playing - especially on various internet forums - in practice, most people prefer rolling their d20s to hit (meaning, combat) with some role playing thrown in on the side. However, as I said above, some of the best role playing can come during or because of combat.

Agreed. I find that the best campaigns are the ones with signifigant combat, but where almost always the players (and characters) know why they are in combat, feel personal stake in the outcome of the combat, and that the combat is not overly repetitious. On the other hand I find that ofetn a 10 minute hook is used to validate 8 hours of combat/dungeon exploration, and that this is generally less satisfying.


Again all I am saying is that the OPs question is a fair (some posters have reacted as if it presents a false dichotomy and I think this is incorrect).

 

[Libramarian]

Well, like I wrote in the first post...the type of game that is almost pure storytelling, with hardly any dice-rolling at all. I'm trying really hard to steer clear of a lot of word traps that usually come up in threads like this...words like "immersion," or "simulation," or "gamist," etc. I am just trying to get a feel for how much storytelling vs. dice-throwing people like in their games, that's all.

I like lots of PC-NPC interaction, but what's tripping me up is the word "storytelling". That's more of a word trap for me than gamism or immersion I guess.

We don't really play for the plot, or character development -- that's good, but it's a secondary priority. World-building is more important, but still not really the focus. The players primarily play for XP, pretty much powergaming I suppose. But I as DM "force" them, if you will, to roleplay, because they have to make friends and contacts in order to get rumors and missions. I don't give them any quests just for showing up, they're not destined to be heroes. They have to explore around and talk to people and make alliances and deals, and generally ingratiate themselves into the political situation until they get information about what's up.

(Basically all the good juicy stuff that the 4e DMG tells you to skip through to get to the next encounter.)

So, probably pretty heavy on the roleplaying side, and yet not really because (a) I don't actually require or even reward the players for portraying consistent alternative personalities (they can just "be themselves" if they wish, UNLESS they choose a class with personality and conduct restrictions, such as the Paladin); and (b) none of us really make decisions during play specifically in order to produce the best story. The players play to get the XP and the loot, I as DM make this challenging, stimulating, and occasionally morally problematic.

Would that be closer to 1 or 10 by your thinking?

We really do have lots of roleplaying, and I would even say intrigue, but at the same time I would say that "cooperative storytelling" is very far away from our style. The players have no -- and no need for -- cooperative storytelling techniques like scene control, narrative declaration etc. They just move around, talk to people, fight things, and the story is whatever happens -- usually amusing, but also pretty basic and presumably less focused and coherent than it would be if we were more into storytelling as such.

 

[Li Shenron]

I voted XX because if you meant interaction vs combat you forgot the third pillar of the game (exploration) which is my favourite.

And instead if you meant roleplay vs rolling dice, you still forgot problem solving, which is neither the previous two, and again my favourite.