I want equal parts of both. I like variety. I really like the intricacies of combat, and the like the exploration and role-playing aspect of the game too. Find a middle ground between the two. A good way to do this would be to grant 1 noncombat ability/power for every combat ability power. That way you never have to choose between being good in combat, good at skill checks, or good at socializing...
There is a big difference between these two questions:
Do you think 5e should have less emphasis on combat and more on RP?
and
Do you think 5e's rules should have less emphasis on combat and more on RP?
There is no answer to the first question. What you want to have emphasis on, you can have emphasis on. My preferences in my game can be different, and we can both have fun.
Why is it that Out-of-Combat=Roleplay, while Combat=No Roleplay to so many players of this game?
I'm trying to figure this out too.
I'm thinking of doing the mecahnical part (Rolling) and then have the player (or DM in the case of Monsters) describe the results (Role/Story). Too often it seems that the great idea/description gets truncated by the roll.
that's because its never been demonstrated to them. Have them describe the before action: "I chunk the spear at the lead kobold while shouting my fierce battle cry.", rolls a miss. DM describes the result: "The spear looks like it is about to hit straight on, but the kobold rolls out of the way."
Let them describe what they are doing, but you describe how the world reacts to it. Give them a small bonus for good ideas and trying to roleplay...
I, too, often use "player whim" when crafting adventures. But sometimes they HAVE to confront the big-bad, sometimes the story they themselves developed lead in a direction where time is a factor, fates are on the line, and kingdoms (or someone/something else they care about) will suffer. So you kind of have to get them back on track (or play fast and loose with what they have created, which cheapens both sides of the story making). And, sometimes, you simply leave the previous session on a cliffhanger that involves starting with combat the next session... but the players forget, or rethink, and try to avoid it even though you left it with them in the room with the Big Bad raising his wand/sword and preparing to smite them.
Winging it is great, and has often produced some of my favorite and most satisfying sessions as a DM. But other times, the situation calls for a bit of railroading. Both, as you say, are valid, and both can become necessary due to player interaction and decisions (as I even stated in my original post).
However, there are so many circumstances where individual players can change what they want and how they want to play from session to session, or may be playing characters that are simply better than they are at something (whether it is a knowledge area, tactical, or based on a skill), and there has to be some sort of mechanism to show that difference between the character and the player ability level.
For example, I, personally, do not like riddles. I avoid them, I don't read them. When they pop up in stories I am reading (let's say, The Hobbit), I usually skim past them and continue reading from where the riddle stops and the narrative continues. Many pre-fab modules and many DMs LOVE riddles (in 30 years of RPGing, I have literally never played with a DM who hasn't used a riddle at some point in a campaign). However, in most applications and in the way every DM I have played with use them, riddles are testing the PLAYER'S knowledge of the riddle, not the CHARACTER'S. Since I actively avoid them, and don't care for them, I suck at riddles. Yet I may be playing the CHARACTER that is the smartest in the group, who is well-read, knows histories and fables and stories from many cultures, and has a very strong likelihood of knowing or correctly guessing the riddle solution. In many of the situations other posters have presented, the fact that I don't know it means my character fails because the DMs are not allowing me to roll anything. They are relying entirely on my PLAYER knowledge and ability to interact with the DM, instead of my CHARACTER'S knowledge and ability to interact with the world he knows and lives in. To me, this is a failure of that DM to realize and substantiate the differences between me and my character.
And, you know, sometimes I've had a really long day or week at work, I'm not at my best roleplaying. In a session just a month or two ago, my character was asked to persuade someone of something. Well, I (the player) simply drew an absolute blank. Normally, I tell the DM at least a high-level overview of what types of things my character will say, if not the exact wording of what I'd like the character to say. But this time, I was dry. Nothing. Nada. By the rules/situations some have posted, that would be auto-failure in these circumstances, even if my character had a huge Diplomacy/Bluff/etc. skill bonus to those types of interactions. Luckily, my DM recognized the situation and said, "Just give me a diplomacy roll" and we moved on with the encounter. Thank goodness there was a mechanism for my much more erudite and interactive character to save his player's behind!
So, because of these types of situations, and others that some have posted, I think that any version of the rules should have a mechanism by which a player can represent his/her character's abilities over his/her own when the player is failing to come up with a solution (or pithy interaction, or whatever). While I like "roleplaying" and being immersed in the character and the world, sometimes you have to separate player from character and admit that a skill roll or attribute test needs to stand in for the player's lack of knowledge or ability.
This is why I get confused by these "roleplaying" versus combat (or out of combat versus in combat) posts. I think that roleplaying should be happening all the time, whether you are in combat or otherwise. However, I also think there always needs to be the mechanism to allow the character to shine, especially when the player is not.
Maybe those of you who post that your preference is for interaction to be a player talking to the DM also use skill or attribute rolls in some fashion as well, and that hasn't been stated yet. Or maybe you have mechanism you use when a player is obviously having an "off" day roleplaying, or when a shy person is playing someone gregarious and outgoing, or when someone is playing a charcter who is vastly more knowledgeable of a situation than the player is. If you do, then maybe mentioning it here will give those of us in the other camp a new understanding of how you adjudicate these situations. I have a hard time believing you "make" a shy person act outgoing and "force" them to come up with exactly what they will say to the king if they are playing the charismatic Bard who is trying to convince the King of something. So how do you get through these types of situations without resorting to dice/skill/attributes?
I agree with you completely, Jcheraz. I took, suck at riddles and avoid them in my games. However, most DMs I know use them (grr). Anyway, kudos on such a great post. I hope the WotC reads it and incorporates all your ideas.
Why is it that Out-of-Combat=Roleplay, while Combat=No Roleplay to so many players of this game?
I'm trying to figure this out too.
I'm thinking of doing the mecahnical part (Rolling) and then have the player (or DM in the case of Monsters) describe the results (Role/Story). Too often it seems that the great idea/description gets truncated by the roll.
I think MWSAber has summed it up eloquently enough. It's too bad so few people even understand the question, much less contemplate the answer. (No offense is meant to anyone, by this.)
There is a big difference between these two questions:
Do you think 5e should have less emphasis on combat and more on RP?
and
Do you think 5e's rules should have less emphasis on combat and more on RP?
There is no answer to the first question. What you want to have emphasis on, you can have emphasis on. My preferences in my game can be different, and we can both have fun.
For the second question, I have a followup:
Why do you need rules for RP?
Sorry for the confusion, Mand12. I'll try to clear up the question below:
1. We need to make people aware this is a 'role-playing game'.
2. We need to demonstrate role-playing is not independant of combat, and at the same time combat is not a role-playing rich environment. And also, now I'm thinking of it; we need more rules encouraging and complimenting role-playing (not, and I say this for at least the 3rd time: rules on role-playing itself which would be ludicrous).
3. I'd also like to see more: options, non-combat encounters, and exploration in 5e which explains at least in part the kind of role-playing I'm talking about. Role-playing 'other' than combat to resolve problems. Heck, even 'role-playing only' to resolve more problems would be great.
4. If anyone still isn't clear on what I'm trying to say: spend a 6 hour gaming session without rolling any dice and have the best fun you've ever had playing an RPG before. If that doesn't happen, or you don't have fun; we're probably missing each other's points here.
But my point is that there's a difference between rules for roleplaying, which I don't think are appropriate, and guidance for roleplaying, which is extremely helpful without the baggage that rules bring with it.
"No, you can't do that, because that's not what your character would do" is just about the most offensive thing one can say to me while playing. How do you know what my character would do? Because it's written down in someone else's story that a character that appears similar to mine would behave that way? Sorry, no.
But my point is that there's a difference between rules for roleplaying, which I don't think are appropriate, and guidance for roleplaying, which is extremely helpful without the baggage that rules bring with it.
"No, you can't do that, because that's not what your character would do" is just about the most offensive thing one can say to me while playing. How do you know what my character would do? Because it's written down in someone else's story that a character that appears similar to mine would behave that way? Sorry, no.
Excellent points, Mand12. I'm not sure how I implied either thing. It was never my intention. I would be equally insulted if the same ever happened to me in a game. I agree with you completely.
Please reconsider my post to be about 'guidance' to role-playing and not 'rules' to role-playing. I never intended that.
I agree with you fully, sorry for any misunderstanding which may have resulted from my inability to articulate my ideas adequately.
Why is it that Out-of-Combat=Roleplay, while Combat=No Roleplay to so many players of this game?
I think there are several reasons for this.
First, combat is more mechanical than non-combat. When you're fighting, everything switches to a turn-based system, and initiative becomes god. Dice and math are used for pretty much everything important. This doesn't make roleplay impossible, but it very much limits what can be done.
Second, for many people the true meat of roleplaying is in talking. The other actions taken are just there to provide content about which their characters can talk. Combat, by its nature, limits in-character talking dramatically.
Finally, combat is often way too long for how much roleplay potential it has. A normal scene at the table lasts as long as its roleplay fun lasts, then things move on. Combat has a way of sticking around longer than the story and character drama can really support. In these situations the fun of the game is not in the story or in-character interaction, but rather on the mechanical interaction with the rules.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been."
Why is it that Out-of-Combat=Roleplay, while Combat=No Roleplay to so many players of this game?
I think there are several reasons for this.
First, combat is more mechanical than non-combat. When you're fighting, everything switches to a turn-based system, and initiative becomes god. Dice and math are used for pretty much everything important. This doesn't make roleplay impossible, but it very much limits what can be done.
Second, for many people the true meat of roleplaying is in talking. The other actions taken are just there to provide content about which their characters can talk. Combat, by its nature, limits in-character talking dramatically.
Finally, combat is often way too long for how much roleplay potential it has. A normal scene at the table lasts as long as its roleplay fun lasts, then things move on. Combat has a way of sticking around longer than the story and character drama can really support. In these situations the fun of the game is not in the story or in-character interaction, but rather on the mechanical interaction with the rules.
Excellent post, Authw8. Couldn't have said it better myself. Actually, I probably would have said it less better. Kudos.
