Roleplaying in combat

[Greyfeld85]

So, I have a player in a PBP game I run who is a very, "But RAW says..." sort of player. He's pretty much the type of player who refuses to wrap his brain around something if it isn't spelled out specifically in RAW.

Just as an example, in a recent combat encounter, his wolf animal companion (this player is a Ranger) got nuked down to -6 HP from a fireball. One of the other players burned two rounds to bring it nearly back to full health, while the ranger player goes running off 30+ feet away to fight the enemy. So, two rounds later, the wolf is back in shape and the ranger player asks, "So, can I give him commands now?" And I tell him that his character can give his animal companion commands when he finds out that the wolf is back on its feet. And he's like, "Well, I have line of sight to it, so I should automatically know that it's conscious again. Besides, as soon as the wolf became conscious again, it could howl to let me know."

I tell the player that after taking a fireball to the face and being brought back from the brink of death, I don't know that it's going to just stand there and start yapping like a chihuahua, and he's currently in the middle of being flanked by two enemies who are trying to beat him in the face, so line of sight or not, I don't think he would currently be aware of his AC's condition.

And this argument is what brings me to the topic for this thread.

At what point do you stop playing the numbers on your character sheet, and actually roleplay in combat? It seems like most of the time, players get so wrapped up in "winning" combat encounters that the thought of not doing the most efficient action every single round is offensive. I think even DMs get wrapped up in this as well, having the NPCs fight like robots instead of creatures with fears and biases and preferred tactics.

Have you noticed this as well? Do you have any stories to share where you've run into an especially bad case of this? Have any suggestions on how to get players out of this sort of rut?

[Duke of URL]

D&D combat is an abstraction, and rarely, if ever, reflects a real-life situation. In general, this means I'd have to side with the player -- if he has the ability to do something, he has that ability, regardless of how "realistic" it is.

Now, because the combat is abstract, people tend to gloss over the details other than their combat actions. They can be shouting messages to each other as they're doing their own things, and you have to assume that any group that's been fighting together for a while will know what their companions are likely to do. So your ranger might naturally expect that a teammate is going to heal the animal and be ready at the right time to take advantage of that.

If it's causing you heartburn, slow down an encounter or two and encourage the players to RP this type of thing out more, and see how it works out.

[Greyfeld85]

D&D combat is an abstraction, and rarely, if ever, reflects a real-life situation. In general, this means I'd have to side with the player -- if he has the ability to do something, he has that ability, regardless of how "realistic" it is.

Now, because the combat is abstract, people tend to gloss over the details other than their combat actions. They can be shouting messages to each other as they're doing their own things, and you have to assume that any group that's been fighting together for a while will know what their companions are likely to do. So your ranger might naturally expect that a teammate is going to heal the animal and be ready at the right time to take advantage of that.

If it's causing you heartburn, slow down an encounter or two and encourage the players to RP this type of thing out more, and see how it works out.

Actually, the party has fought together in all of 3 combat encounters, ever. And this is the first combat where the ranger's AC has been available.

[Slipperychicken]

Every step a character takes is roleplaying. Most characters will, however, attempt to win a battle with the best possible result. Most characters also have a good idea of their capabilities, and usually their enemies if they're prepared, so an intelligent being will use pretty smart tactics. However, if a character doesn't have the information (or clarity of thought) to know the best move, he should try whatever he thinks would work.

I think it's reasonable to let the Ranger have a Spot check to see his wolf's eyes open, or a Listen check to hear it's breathing pattern change as it comes "back to life". The guy presumably has a strong enough bond with his Animal Companion to recognize when it regains consciousness. Besides, his buddies were just spending 2 rounds healing the wolf, so they could tell him that it's healed up.

One of my DMs sometimes talks about how hard it is to roleplay an NPC in combat without some backstory written for it. Apparently, it can be hard to give "realistic" actions when you don't have a grip on a character's personality (i.e you think of it as a mook rather then a person).

[Zubrowka74]

As a DM I've always rewarded good RP, with XP or plot-advantage. If the ranger doesn't even blinks an eye for his companion (with whom he's supposed to be sharing a special bond) it's bad RP. Do this often enough and the AC might walk away, RAW or not. It's not a bound or summoned creature.

[Tyndmyr]

So, I have a player in a PBP game I run who is a very, "But RAW says..." sort of player. He's pretty much the type of player who refuses to wrap his brain around something if it isn't spelled out specifically in RAW.

Just as an example, in a recent combat encounter, his wolf animal companion (this player is a Ranger) got nuked down to -6 HP from a fireball. One of the other players burned two rounds to bring it nearly back to full health, while the ranger player goes running off 30+ feet away to fight the enemy. So, two rounds later, the wolf is back in shape and the ranger player asks, "So, can I give him commands now?" And I tell him that his character can give his animal companion commands when he finds out that the wolf is back on its feet. And he's like, "Well, I have line of sight to it, so I should automatically know that it's conscious again. Besides, as soon as the wolf became conscious again, it could howl to let me know."

I tell the player that after taking a fireball to the face and being brought back from the brink of death, I don't know that it's going to just stand there and start yapping like a chihuahua, and he's currently in the middle of being flanked by two enemies who are trying to beat him in the face, so line of sight or not, I don't think he would currently be aware of his AC's condition.

And this argument is what brings me to the topic for this thread.

At what point do you stop playing the numbers on your character sheet, and actually roleplay in combat? It seems like most of the time, players get so wrapped up in "winning" combat encounters that the thought of not doing the most efficient action every single round is offensive. I think even DMs get wrapped up in this as well, having the NPCs fight like robots instead of creatures with fears and biases and preferred tactics.

Have you noticed this as well? Do you have any stories to share where you've run into an especially bad case of this? Have any suggestions on how to get players out of this sort of rut?

I don't think your player was acting unreasonably. Hurt animals tend to make noise, and noticing something 30 feet away is not unreasonable. Especially because paying some degree of attention to an animal companion that's dying is...very normal.

In short, I see no problem with roleplaying, but I *do* see a very strange denial of information.

[dascarletm]

I always like roleplaying in combat, but a lot of my compatriots do not. :/

as an example of this my and my friend have both DM'd multiple campaigns.

In mine I strive to have NPCs take the most plausible action based on what they are.
Rarely do I have intelligent beings fight to the death, unless they would most likely do that.
They will provoke attacks of opportunity, and don't abuse their mechanics.

My friend on the other-hand has all his NPCs fight tactically and do the best possible actions.

I got mad when a raging mob charging me and the rest of the party all suddenly stopped charging when we readied actions against the charge, and then the untrained mob moved in the best way to flank and not get attacks of opportunity.

It just doesn't make sense.

It's not a game of LoL or Dota, we're using the fighting mechanics to support how we roleplay a combat, not the other way around.

[Greyfeld85]

I don't think your player was acting unreasonably. Hurt animals tend to make noise, and noticing something 30 feet away is not unreasonable. Especially because paying some degree of attention to an animal companion that's dying is...very normal.

In short, I see no problem with roleplaying, but I *do* see a very strange denial of information.

I didn't tell him that his AC couldn't act. I was just suggesting that being flanked by two enemies, one trying to bash your head in with a flail and the other trying to cut your heart out with a sword, might be a little more immediate of a concern than checking to see if your wolf is back on his feet. Especially since he felt that it was more important to engage the enemy than to check on his AC's well-being in the first place when its limp form was flung through the doorway on the back of a ball of fire.

[Tyndmyr]

I didn't tell him that his AC couldn't act. I was just suggesting that being flanked by two enemies, one trying to bash your head in with a flail and the other trying to cut your heart out with a sword, might be a little more immediate of a concern than checking to see if your wolf is back on his feet. Especially since he felt that it was more important to engage the enemy than to check on his AC's well-being in the first place when its limp form was flung through the doorway on the back of a ball of fire.

You'd have to be a pretty novice warrior to not notice events happening 30 feet away. I mean, you've got a teammate over there for twelve seconds, where his animal companion is. It's extremely reasonable to assume that he'd be aware of that.

And a sudden vision failure is not a listed effect of being flanked. Seeing something that's not hidden, a short distance away, in LOS, that has movement around it? Very easy.

If you are concerned by his lack of worry over the AC, that's a different issue altogether.

[dascarletm]

I didn't tell him that his AC couldn't act. I was just suggesting that being flanked by two enemies, one trying to bash your head in with a flail and the other trying to cut your heart out with a sword, might be a little more immediate of a concern than checking to see if your wolf is back on his feet. Especially since he felt that it was more important to engage the enemy than to check on his AC's well-being in the first place when its limp form was flung through the doorway on the back of a ball of fire.

Maybe it was more of a concern to him maybe it wasn't.

In situations like this I usually wouldn't press the issue.

Let him do it during that encounter, then talk to him about it later. Maybe he had a good reason in his mind as to why he thought it would make sense.

I always suggest not arguing during a game session; go path of least resistance, write down your issue, and bring it up to the person at the end and discuss.

[Greyfeld85]

And a sudden vision failure is not a listed effect of being flanked. Seeing something that's not hidden, a short distance away, in LOS, that has movement around it? Very easy.

This is sort of what I'm talking about. "Well, the rules don't say that I can't see it, so obviously I can see it!" The rules don't take into account roleplaying opportunities, which is the point of this entire thread.

[dascarletm]

This is sort of what I'm talking about. "Well, the rules don't say that I can't see it, so obviously I can see it!" The rules don't take into account roleplaying opportunities, which is the point of this entire thread.

I like to imagine role-playing scenes as movie scenes to see if they make sense to me.

A dead hard ranger who has his pet wolf badly injured presses forward to take the fight to the injurers. While parrying blows from enemies on either side of him, the strain easily shown in his face, he catches his trusty wolf, Fenrir, out of the corner of his eye standing up. Barely able to keep holding off his attackers he yells, "Fenrir, Attack!" As the one blow he couldn't quite keep off is coming down towards him he is saved by a fast moving furry object. His wolf is holding the arm of the attacker shaking it violently allowing the ranger to deal with the other attacker.

etc. etc.

It could work, and be a lot cooler than not noticing even.

[Tyndmyr]

This is sort of what I'm talking about. "Well, the rules don't say that I can't see it, so obviously I can see it!" The rules don't take into account roleplaying opportunities, which is the point of this entire thread.

The rules are a helpful guideline. Simply put, your chars are supposed to be somewhat heroic, and somewhat competent. If his char is not Grok the Dullwitted, him not seeing something that's in plain sight a short distance away would be very odd. Not at all good roleplaying.

[dascarletm]

The rules are a helpful guideline. Simply put, your chars are supposed to be somewhat heroic, and somewhat competent. If his char is not Grok the Dullwitted, him not seeing something that's in plain sight a short distance away would be very odd. Not at all good roleplaying.

What's his spot/wisdom score. Is he aware of his surroundings or very focused?

Good point Tyndmyr.

[Greyfeld85]

The rules are a helpful guideline. Simply put, your chars are supposed to be somewhat heroic, and somewhat competent. If his char is not Grok the Dullwitted, him not seeing something that's in plain sight a short distance away would be very odd. Not at all good roleplaying.

I should probably point out that the wolf is actually inside a house that's sort of smoldering from the fireball. Generally, the lighting from outside is going to make it difficult to see properly when you look inside a house. It's sort of the "camp fire" effect, where bright light makes it more difficult to see into the shadows.

Also, I didn't say he couldn't do it, I just gave him my opinion, because he asked for it. *Shrugs*

[Tyndmyr]

So, he's asking for your opinion, that's a good sign by any standards.

I think you just failed to convince him that your opinion was sufficiently justified. It's not a roleplaying failure, just a difference in opinion.

[dascarletm]

I should probably point out that the wolf is actually inside a house that's sort of smoldering from the fireball. Generally, the lighting from outside is going to make it difficult to see properly when you look inside a house. It's sort of the "camp fire" effect, where bright light makes it more difficult to see into the shadows.

Also, I didn't say he couldn't do it, I just gave him my opinion, because he asked for it. *Shrugs*

As the player or DM I'd do a spot check to see if the character knows.

Adjust DC appropriately.

[Greyfeld85]

ANYWAY, this thread wasn't supposed to be about my situation, it was just an example to explain the topic of my thread.

Does anybody have any stories to share?

[strider24seven]

I should probably point out that the wolf is actually inside a house that's sort of smoldering from the fireball. Generally, the lighting from outside is going to make it difficult to see properly when you look inside a house. It's sort of the "camp fire" effect, where bright light makes it more difficult to see into the shadows.

Also, I didn't say he couldn't do it, I just gave him my opinion, because he asked for it. *Shrugs*

Um... if the wolf is inside a house and the ranger is outside...

How does he have line of sight?

If he does (say a bit of the wall dropped down or there's a window)... then he has LoS and there shouldn't be a problem.

Having LoS and being 30 ft away and asking to be notified of it isn't RAWtarded. A player isn't RAWtarded until he starts claiming that drowning people heals them.

[dascarletm]

yes, see above.

specific stories I have a lot, but just in general what I said earlier.

My wizard I currently play will escape combat and leave his allies if it makes sense

My groupmates got on my case when I fled a cavern system when I got cut off from them.
That situation was both tactical and roleplaying. Thought they thought I'd be better off attempting to get to them, and I thought being dead was tactically unsound.

Another point, characters with lower int (10-14) are more fun to play than high int'ers in my opinion. You get to do more fun things than the standard, BEST POSSIBLE CHOICE, all the time.

[Greyfeld85]

Um... if the wolf is inside a house and the ranger is outside...

How does he have line of sight?

If he does (say a bit of the wall dropped down or there's a window)... then he has LoS and there shouldn't be a problem.

The fireball blasted the door off its hinges.

[strider24seven]

The fireball blasted the door off its hinges.

So did he have LoS and were there impedements to his vision?

i.e. were targets beyond X feet treated as if they had concealment to them? Then your opinion would carry some actual weight

(not saying that your opinion isn't good or valid, but that there might be some serious implications)

[Greyfeld85]

So did he have LoS and were there impedements to his vision?

i.e. were targets beyond X feet treated as if they had concealment to them? Then your opinion would carry some actual weight

(not saying that your opinion isn't good or valid, but that there might be some serious implications)

One of the enemies is scuffling around right in front of the doorway, actually.

[strider24seven]

One of the enemies is scuffling around right in front of the doorway, actually.

Well, enemies don't obscure LoS. But you have a very strong case from a roleplaying standpoint.

Anyway... I tend to like to say where I strike my foes and let the DM have fun with it. I do the same from the other side of the screen when my players are up for it. Then again, like any avid Dwarf Fortress player, I enjoy ripping off limbs.

[roguemetal]

This is less a rules based question as it is a question of DM-player interaction. When starting a campaign, it's important to know what your PLAYERS want. If your players are generally interested in combat, give them combat, if they want roleplay, give them roleplay. It sounds to me like this is a case of the DM just not enjoying the players' playstyle because you want a very specific group of people. If this is the case, you may need to let them do their thing and slowly introduce them into effective roleplay. If it's bad enough you feel like quitting, I suggest saying you will be implementing the realistic aspect in the next session, affecting all NEW abilities they get, but none of their old. Blatantly removing an ability from a player will probably be met with hostility.

The whole problem with realistic roleplay? No benefits (in their minds). If you really want them to play their characters, award them something for realism.

[Psyren]

I'll tell you where roleplay in combat becomes a real chore - enchantment spells (i.e. charms/compulsions), and figuring out what is in someone's "nature."

I've seen some arguments that made me consider banning Suggestion at my table.