Combat vs. Social Interaction & Exploration is a group decision, or at worst a DM decision. Rules systems are neutral to this distinction. Personally my group has never had a problem with social interactions or exploration in 4e. This is a habit we have honed in some cases for 33 years. Back in 1e (which had no interactive skills, and very little guidelines for social interaction) I remember calling for attribute checks (roll under your CHA on a d20) in social situations. The point being, that in a system where skills were non-existant, and social interaction was barely defined we developed great skills and habits that we still use today in systems that arguably have more rules and guidelines for these things than ever before.
Now if you want to talk speed of combat, I think like others here, that we need faster combat. However that has been stated as a design goal, and demonstrated as achieved in information we have already seen, so I think this thread is unneeded in the final analysis.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
My First D&D - 1979 D&D Basic Set (6th Printing)Show
One think I wonder is why most of the character's option must be combat oriented. Ok if you are a fighter or a barbarian, whose task is fighting better and better, ok if most of the paladin's abilities go for combat ones, ok if a warlord is mostly combat oriented, but why so many spells are combat oriented? Why do not put also nice, maybe even strong spells, that have allmost no effect on fighting? Why don't give rogues many cool out of combat abilities? Why not gift rangers with nice abilities? Why must an assassin, whose objective is sneakying and killing unseen be good at fighting? Why a monk, who specialise a lot in self knowledge and meditation, has all fighing oriented abilities? That is what I ment by saying that dnd next should be less combat oriented.
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.)
OK, so there are people who do it the way we do things. Commonly, my players talk after the roll, unless they think they can describe something more kickass than they can possibly pull off by the game rules. They have yet to do it, but if they pulled out an awesome descriptive hit, I'd most likely call it a crit. I mean, there's no reason to let that kind of thing go to waste. But commonly it's act first, then describe.
You have not enjoyed life until you have a player character mintotaur jump, clear a 10 foot pit and bisect a kobold in a hit while screaming in rage. That was how he described charging, making a jump action in the middle of the charge move action, and using howling strike, crit hitting; using an execution axe, he was able to roll a frigging 12 on his high crit dice, doing over the 24 hp he had. It was awesome, and I felt that he was not only playing the game, but also playing his role, the barely contained rage driven berserker minotaur worshiper of Thor (my campaign's Kord replacement). That is, from my understanding, what roleplaying means; playing not just by what the rules give, but using those rules and the traits of the character to make an actual, interesting living being.
If all RP means to people is "talking", they aren't really roleplaying. They should be playing their role when they fight in combat, playing their role when talking, when suggesting what avenue of action to take, when deciding what inn to stay at or ale to buy, what temples to help . . . That means in comat, buying a potion, etc. If the players are instead locking in to play that card, roll that dice, pick that item, etc, they might as well play a board game. That's not to say that rolling dice, picking items, playing out cards and such can't be a focus of the game, but they should be playing the story as well.
Otherwise it's just damn boring for all the people at the table. :-\
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.
For my reasons stated above, if the only concept of how to play a role is talking, I can't really sympathize.
After all, if that were the truth, we'd still just have radio plays. And we'd never have invented theatre. Or even cheeseball B movies.
Am I wrong, D&D denizens? Should playing the role not just be what a character says, but what they do and how that's described as well?
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotesShow
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
Am I wrong, D&D denizens? Should playing the role not just be what a character says, but what they do and how that's described as well?
You are very much right, my friend.
It is one of the things I fail to understand every single time, and I think that also ties into the whole 'munchkin' / 'optimizer' label people have been lugging around so much. Every time people come and complain about their players optimizing the characters, I find myself thinking: "So what? The character itself is likely to seek improvements to his capabilities in every way possible, that's in-character, folks!"
I described it before, but my group goes into hard-tactical mode when combat starts in our current game, and it simply fits. The group consists of two extensively trained individuals (both having been trained until 10th level as 'Elite of the Elite' respectively), one extremely dedicated archer whom is not much into speaking all that much anyways and a surface-thoughts-reading Ardent also hardned by roughly one decade of extensive adventuring in a world where going out of the village means a coinflip towards death by monster.
Am I pissed that my players suddenly stop all RP-talk or quippin? Far from it. This style suits the campaign just fine. They are roleplaying - hardened combat-veterans that can read the moves of enemy and ally alike, reacting to it and making the best of the situation. Fact is, they are role-playing in combat. Maybe not exactly what some people understand as roleplaying, but they most certainly are in-character.
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs.
Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell!
I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
For me, roleplaying is making improvised decisions from the point of view of an imaginary character in response to an imagined scenario.
Providing detailed descriptions of actions, or speaking in the first person, is entirely tangential. One may provide detailed, creative, imaginative descriptions delivered from the point of view of the Shoe in Monopoly moving around the board. That doesn't mean you're roleplaying the shoe. Unless you improvise actions, it's not roleplaying. It's boardgaming, computer-gaming, wargaming, etc - with added silliness.
That's just my definition. Yours may differ.
When combat is resolved by the precisely regulated actions of miniatures on a grid/board (or figures on a computer screen, or pewter pieces on a track), I find that I am much less likely to imagine the scenario, I'm less likely to make decisions in response to an imagined scenario as viewed from the eyes of my character, and I am much less capable (or completely, in many types of games) of improvising actions. The reason my players are quiet during miniatures combat is because they don't need to communicate improvised decisions - because they're not making any.
That's just me and my players. YMMV.
I find that in OSRIC combat, the highly abstracted action economy and the imagined positioning encourages improvisation. The lack of a grid requires the players to imagine the scenario. The lack of detailed top-down physical representation, and the fact that descriptions of the scene are delivered as if from character POV, requires the players to make decisions from the point of view of their characters.
Again, that's just for us.
I find that it's possible to simply select from a menu of options in OSRIC, rather than improvising. But I also find that, perhaps because the menu is often just 1 item, selecting from the menu is actually rarer than when you have 24 menu items. Also - because there's no grid, where you go during combat becomes, almost always, an improvised decision.
For me, roleplaying is making improvised decisions from the point of view of an imaginary character in response to an imagined scenario.
Providing detailed descriptions of actions, or speaking in the first person, is entirely tangential. One may provide detailed, creative, imaginative descriptions delivered from the point of view of the Shoe in Monopoly moving around the board. That doesn't mean you're roleplaying the shoe. Unless you improvise actions, it's not roleplaying. It's boardgaming, computer-gaming, wargaming, etc - with added silliness.
Decisions associated with the capabilities of and based on the imagined goals and point of view of the character within a defined scenario. Poorly defined character capabilities so that everything is improvized and doesnt have mechanics governing how its resolved is not intrinsic.
For me, roleplaying is making improvised decisions from the point of view of an imaginary character in response to an imagined scenario.
Providing detailed descriptions of actions, or speaking in the first person, is entirely tangential. One may provide detailed, creative, imaginative descriptions delivered from the point of view of the Shoe in Monopoly moving around the board. That doesn't mean you're roleplaying the shoe. Unless you improvise actions, it's not roleplaying. It's boardgaming, computer-gaming, wargaming, etc - with added silliness.
That's just my definition. Yours may differ.
When combat is resolved by the precisely regulated actions of miniatures on a grid/board (or figures on a computer screen, or pewter pieces on a track), I find that I am much less likely to imagine the scenario, I'm less likely to make decisions in response to an imagined scenario as viewed from the eyes of my character, and I am much less capable (or completely, in many types of games) of improvising actions. The reason my players are quiet during miniatures combat is because they don't need to communicate improvised decisions - because they're not making any.
That's just me and my players. YMMV.
I find that in OSRIC combat, the highly abstracted action economy and the imagined positioning encourages improvisation. The lack of a grid requires the players to imagine the scenario. The lack of detailed top-down physical representation, and the fact that descriptions of the scene are delivered as if from character POV, requires the players to make decisions from the point of view of their characters.
Again, that's just for us.
I find that it's possible to simply select from a menu of options in OSRIC, rather than improvising. But I also find that, perhaps because the menu is often just 1 item, selecting from the menu is actually rarer than when you have 24 menu items. Also - because there's no grid, where you go during combat becomes, almost always, an improvised decision.
It looks like you are making the classical mistake of confusing roleplaying (as in playing the role of) and storytelling (telling the story oftentimes ignoring the rules in the process). For instance "I grab the chandelier and swing across the 80 foot pit". Your max movement in a round is less than 80 foot, the chandelier probably doesn't reach that far and a number of other problems arise. This is firmly in the storytelling category. Using a fancy description to bypass rules is storytelling. Roleplaying is taking the actions that fit within the rules and "playing the role of the character" in that context. So "I grab the chandelier and try to swing across the 80 foot pit." DM:"You can't reach so you land safely on this side." is roleplaying.
One think I wonder is why most of the character's option must be combat oriented. Ok if you are a fighter or a barbarian, whose task is fighting better and better, ok if most of the paladin's abilities go for combat ones, ok if a warlord is mostly combat oriented, but why so many spells are combat oriented? Why do not put also nice, maybe even strong spells, that have allmost no effect on fighting? Why don't give rogues many cool out of combat abilities? Why not gift rangers with nice abilities? Why must an assassin, whose objective is sneakying and killing unseen be good at fighting? Why a monk, who specialise a lot in self knowledge and meditation, has all fighing oriented abilities? That is what I ment by saying that dnd next should be less combat oriented.
Oddly enough, I think I agree with everyone's posts this time around. Great stuff everyone!
I particularly agree with Aldrien and I think Kaldric made some excellent points as well. Good stuff guys! There's now a blog/group set up by the WotC guys (I think?) where you can vote on the ratio of combat to exploration to role-playing. I hope that if you're in favor of more role-playing, that you'll vote! (heck, even if you're not, still vote!). community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/... (Special thanks to Matt Dukes @direflail on Twitter for the link!)
The thread says it's about 'feat's but if you'd like to leave a comment saying it should apply to the 'whole game' that would be great. Make your opinion known!
David L. Dostaler Author, Challenger RPG a Free Roleplaying Game
I dont want the game to tell me how I must role-play ... I find that restrictive. It needs to remain a tool for resolving conflict.
This. Every table is going to be different, and I think the rules need to allow for that. There's no reason why they can't work that way.
I will never, ever choose a non-combat option over a combat option, and I happen to enjoy role play. I just don't enjoy it enough to risk feeling like I gimped myself when it comes to a fight.
The best way to do this imo, is to implement a system like 2e had with weapon proficiencies and non weapon proficiencies. Perhaps call them feats and proficiencies, where as feats are things you can to improve your combat skills, and proficiencies are something you gain to increase your checks, modifiers and out of combat abilities. These should come from /separate/ pools so that the player doesn't have to choose between one or the other type of ability.
For me, roleplaying is making improvised decisions from the point of view of an imaginary character in response to an imagined scenario.
Providing detailed descriptions of actions, or speaking in the first person, is entirely tangential. One may provide detailed, creative, imaginative descriptions delivered from the point of view of the Shoe in Monopoly moving around the board. That doesn't mean you're roleplaying the shoe. Unless you improvise actions, it's not roleplaying. It's boardgaming, computer-gaming, wargaming, etc - with added silliness.
That's just my definition. Yours may differ.
Improv is only a single piece of that puzzle, and is only part of the puzzle at all if the character would improvise, instead of using tried and true methods of battle to defeat enemies.
Using the player types from the 4th ed DMG, I find that Instigator types seem most ready to improvise actions; swinging on ropes, pushing over barrels, kicking guys down stairs and the like. I have two such players in my group. I also have a Slayer, who uses a mix of his trained skills with, commonly his training in Athletics to climb, jump and otherwise bound after guys and smack them hard. I've also found the thinker type interested in battle from a Tactics perspective (just using their powers wisely and efficiently), and the Power Gamer type interested in combat from a "check out what my POWARS can do, bitches" kind of mentality.
I should mention though that each of my players are also Storyteller types. They value the story overall as well as their individual approach to combat. Now, the Slayer still uses his skills, but mainly for again jumping, climbing and other predefined actions. Only my two instigators really constantly look for a chance to improvise. And yet they are all playing their roles: The Slayer guy is a barbarian, as mentioned already. He does what Barbarians classically do, kill **** and do it with glee. He adds little punctuations such as killing a guy and the "grinding his skull into a pulp under his hoof before eyeing his next target". That is ****ing roleplaying. And awesome. Now, also awesome is the mage who uses mage hand to switch levers, or the rogue who grabbed a rope trap thing and swung up onto a higher platform, killing one guy (and knocking him off the platform) and then spending an action point to kick a minion down the stairs, killing him from the fall and knocking his ally at the bottom of the stairs prone, and then yelling, "king of the hill, bitches!". That, to me, is all roleplaying. And it all happened with 4th edition.
There was also talk of "moving here" and moving their tokens on the battle field, but I'm ok with that. I will never, as DM, demand that my players only enter the heads of their characters while we play. I will not dictate the playstyle of a single player. Instead, I prefer to include and enable all my players to play the game, and to play their role in the way they see fit.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotesShow
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
