Your Game: Roleplay Heavy, or Combat Heavy

[ASH]

A freind of mine and I were talking about how we play our games. He does not game with the same group I do and we were comparing them. He said there is alot of acting, and roleplaying and he really likes it that way.
I prefer to have a little roleplaying, (I will not use any funny voices). I like combat, and dungons. I can see how roleplaying is useful in telling the story, and can be used in combat as well. I mean we are not hack and slash players. Some of us like more roleplaying than others. The dm balances both well but I never feel like we are 'acting' out our characters.
I just want like 30 percent rolplaying and 70 percent combat or combat related play. I just prefer it to haggling over a peice of cheese at the inn. Thus I usualy play fighters and characters that require less rolplaying.

So I am wondering, what is the majority. Do most groups really act out everything. I mean we all try to portray the characters we make correctly. But do you really try to act the character out or just make decisions that the character would make?

Just wondering.

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

A freind of mine and I were talking about how we play our games. He does not game with the same group I do and we were comparing them. He said there is alot of acting, and roleplaying and he really likes it that way.
I prefer to have a little roleplaying, (I will not use any funny voices). I like combat, and dungons. I can see how roleplaying is useful in telling the story, and can be used in combat as well. I mean we are not hack and slash players. Some of us like more roleplaying than others. The dm balances both well but I never feel like we are 'acting' out our characters.
I just want like 30 percent rolplaying and 70 percent combat or combat related play. I just prefer it to haggling over a peice of cheese at the inn. Thus I usualy play fighters and characters that require less rolplaying.

So I am wondering, what is the majority. Do most groups really act out everything. I mean we all try to portray the characters we make correctly. But do you really try to act the character out or just make decisions that the character would make?

Just wondering.

I'd say ours is about 30% role-play and 70% combat as well. I'd like more role-play, but then again, some days I'm just in the mood to fight ogres.

I enjoy acting out my characters personality but I can't see haggling over a peice of cheese (or something else that doesn't apply to the plot...unless it was like, some sort of magic cheese that gave you a +1 to your constitution or something ).

I don't have specific voices for my characters but, MojoGM, who DMs one of the games I play in, does get into character when he plays certain NPCs and I think it adds to the general description of them.

I think it can be a good thing to role play a little more, but you also don't want one player who is really good at acting like their character to take up the whole gaming session. I think it should be an even balance. Esp. if the role-play leads to clues, discoveries or important ties with NPCs that can effect game outcome.

And of course, if you are in a combat heavy game but thats what you like, then that's good too. Some combat scenes are really well thought out and more fun than role-play scenes. Depends on the players. As long as it stays fun for all the players and the DM, that's all that matters.

 

[Wombat]

My group is pretty much the opposite -- 70% roleplay, 30% combat. In fact in the last session we did not have a single combat and even our Sword Maven loved it.

It's all a matter of tastes of individuals and groups.

Then again, I personally prefer a less combat-oriented game.

Like I say, personal tastes.

 

[Crothian]

I'd say more role playing then combat, but it really depends on what the players want at that time. We mix it up pretty good.

 

[Piratecat]

We're the reverse; about 60% roleplaying, 40% combat. It isn't unusual for one or two games to pass with no combat at all.

 

[Umbran]

My groups tend to be... about 50/50, I'd guess. The thing being that most times, the combat is due to, part of, or generates more role-play.

Perhaps the issue isn't how much combat you have, but how much of teh combat is there for the sake of combat, and how much of it is relevant to the story and role-play?

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

Perhaps the issue isn't how much combat you have, but how much of teh combat is there for the sake of combat, and how much of it is relevant to the story and role-play?

Yes. I should point out that in the group I mentioned above, everything is done for a purpose.

I'm in another group (probably not for long) where they only do combat for the sake of combat. There is no plot, no role-playing and despite the fact that they are very fun people to be around, the game isn't that fun. We joined it because MojoGM is friends with one of the guys and it's literally a 3 minute drive from our house. But I can't see playing in a game for that long with no plot. However, the guys in that group like just playing hack-n-slash style, so if that's their thing, more power to 'em. It's not mine.

 

[Zerakon]

I don't like to view this as a combat vs roleplaying paradigm. Rather, I aim for a session to contain about 75% high-tension vs 25% low-tension situations.

High-tension situations can manifest in the form of straightforward combat, perhaps a serious diplomatic discussion, sneaking into a thieves' guild, etc. High tension generally means that combat might be just around the corner. In the above examples, that diplomatic discussion might fail and turn into a bloodfest and those sneaking into the thieves' guild might get spotted and repelled. So, player decisions and dice rolls may determine whether the non-combat high-tension situations turn into combat, but I don't think it's less fun either way. In fact, part of the fun is not knowing what to expect... if the DM plans on having you be caught and ambushed no matter what decisions you make or how well you roll, to me that is less fun.

Low-tension situations are basically "down time" where there is virtually no chance of combat (unless a player calls it out) and the focus is certainly on roleplaying. But the high-tension situations are usually quite roleplaying-intensive, too.

Example from last night: The session was about 3.5 hours. There was only one combat, but the rogue broke into a merchant's mansion, stole some jewelry, and then framed his "friend" Simon the Slaver. No combat, but a couple bad decisions or rolls and combat could have easily happened. Later, the party did discover that some corrupt guards were up to no good out at the old abandoned mill and they went in to investigate and ended up getting into a fight (and rescued abducted villagers). So, a 3.5 hour session contained about 30 minutes of low-tension situations, and the rest was high-tension but the combat only lasted about 20 minutes of real-time. So, is that 10% combat vs 90% roleplaying?

-- Zerakon the Game Mage

 

[The Cardinal]

when GMing D&D/d20: combat 70% / roleplaying 30%

when GMing anything else (75% of my games use GURPS, the rest uses UA2e, BESM, or D&D3.5): combat 35% / roleplaying 65%

 

[Henry]

Our group is more 30 roleplay / 70 combat, mostly because it's a little more relaxed than many groups. We do have a good bit of roleplay, but there are some who are uncomfortable with it, and this skews the average away from it.

Our group LOVES dice-rolling, which might be a better question. We LOVE challenges. Can you chase the fleeing would-be assassin before he escapes? Can you swing across the ledge before it crumbles under your feet?

But pure "immersion" roleplay is less visited in our group.