Combat and Role Play, Mutually Exclusive?

[Raum]

Over the years I've seen a lot of people allude to or even explicitly state an exclusion between combat and role playing. At times it's almost as if someone decided to redefine 'role play' as 'use skills outside of combat situations'. Some even state a need for social skills as a prerequisite to role play. Many (even myself on occasion) see an emphasis on combat over role play based on pages dedicated to one over the other, rewards for one over the other, or a variety of other reasons. Perhaps game systems should explicitly reward role playing. Perhaps they should dedicate pages to more than a superficial presentation of role playing.

But the systems' short comings don't need to stop us from role playing.

This article provides a look back at the beginnings of role play. Days when the system was purely about abstract combat. Here's a quote:

He lied, swindled, improvised, and played his character to the hilt. He came to the game with fake CIA ID he’d mocked up, so when another player “captured” and searched him he could whip them out. Other players were still moving pieces around the board and issuing orders like a wargame while Dave Arneson was running circles around them and changing the whole scenario. He was winning the game entirely by roleplaying.

Perhaps we, as players and GMs, need to step back from the system (whatever it may be) and remember role playing means 'acting, interacting, and making choices from a character's point of view' - whether in combat or not.

Enjoy gaming!

[Kaihaku]

I think the combat system can greatly enhance roleplaying, it's when things get out of balanced in favor of mechanics that things get...ew.

[Neon Knight]

Well said, OP, well said. *applauds*

[Asbestos]

Here's the issue. Role play is subjective, combat is not. D&D is marketed for what, ages 12 and up? They want to get new people to come in, and why shouldn't they? More players are great for the company and great for keeping the game going. But, new players are often inexperienced and need a jumping off point. Of course people can role play, it is a role playing game after all. But, when some players have shaky RP skills or are new to it and DMs are new to DMing, it may be intimidating. Role play has to be allowed to grow, I don't think you can force it on people. I think that the people that go around toting the rule books like they're some sort of sacred word and that X can't happen because rules for X don't exist or that I can do Y because the RAW allows me to, even if its absurd, are what damage the game. The base rules, imo, provide us with a scaffolding made of the most basic, fundamental, parts of the game. Its up to players and DMs to build up the rest and RP is essential to that.

[LibraryOgre]

In d20, he wouldn't be able to get away with it, because someone would want to check his Bluff modifier against Sense Motive/Insight, or make him pass a forgery test to use faked credentials.

[Tormsskull]

Over the years I've seen a lot of people allude to or even explicitly state an exclusion between combat and role playing.

I don't recall seeing that sentiment. I've seen the sentiment that if you try to optimize your character strictly for combat, that it can negatively affect role playing, but I've never seen someone try to make the argument that you can't roleplay during combat. I do it all the time.

Perhaps game systems should explicitly reward role playing. Perhaps they should dedicate pages to more than a superficial presentation of role playing.

This really depends. If you give people RP experience or their character's special abilities because they roleplay, then in a sense you're defeating the purpose of roleplaying.

The thought process becomes 'I want to make my character more powerful, if I roleplay I get more bonuses, and as such makes my character more powerful, so that's what I will do'.

If you're thinking like that already, then your mindset is already against roleplaying, and on character optimization.


I've found that the best way to encourage roleplaying is to simply ask a player what their character is like. Ask them at times what their character thinks about something. When the player stops and actually thinks about this, then their character image starts to flourish in their mind.

[JaxGaret]

I've seen a lot of people allude to or even explicitly state an exclusion between combat and role playing.

Do people actually think that? I thought those were just flamebaiters.

Enjoy gaming!

Good gaming

[Vortling]

Combat can be entirely subjective. It really depends on the system you're using. I find it odd that people separate the combat from the roleplaying or even that they would think to do so. To me, everything in a RP game involves RP. This is especially true in combat heavy games where it's likely that you have characters with military backgrounds and those characters make decisions based off their backgrounds and not off the mechanics that represent them.

[Raum]

Here's the issue. Role play is subjective, combat is not.

Is it subjective or is it simply more difficult to quantify? Wushu ties role playing directly to rolling dice by basing the number of dice rolled on the number of descriptive elements in the action described. You simply roll to see how well you succeeded.

Do note my comments weren't directed solely at D&D. Many other systems are subject to similar criticisms.

I don't recall seeing that sentiment. I've seen the sentiment that if you try to optimize your character strictly for combat, that it can negatively affect role playing, but I've never seen someone try to make the argument that you can't roleplay during combat. I do it all the time.

Never? It's often seemed a common trend to me. I do agree they aren't mutually exclusive.

This really depends. If you give people RP experience or their character's special abilities because they roleplay, then in a sense you're defeating the purpose of roleplaying.

The thought process becomes 'I want to make my character more powerful, if I roleplay I get more bonuses, and as such makes my character more powerful, so that's what I will do'.

I'll accept the premise for discussion...how is that a bad thing? Is it better somehow to role play without receiving some in game benefit? As a gamer, I want to ask "why are you role playing if not to gain a benefit for your character?" Whether it's getting a higher bonus, resolving conflict, or something else entirely your character usually has a purpose.

[TheThan]

I can see how people can come to the conclusion that RP and combat are mutually exclusive. Combat is a huge part of DnD. Nearly everything on your character sheet deals with combat. There is almost nothing in the way of RP on your sheet. No place to put backgrounds, favorite saying or anything of the sort.
However I don’t prescribe to that sentiment. I’ve heard people say that you can’t RP in combat or that if you build a mechanically effective character, you’re not role-playing. Which to me is totally bunk. If I build a fighter, you bet I’m going to build a fighter that can you know… fight, and fight well. You’re supposed to be playing a hero after all.

However not all games call for combat. Any game of mystery or intrigue can have little to no combat in it and still provide an interesting game that holds the player’s interest. There are a lot of variables in play at a gaming table, on both sides of the screen. Players and Dms need to keep the lines of communication open between them. Naturally this requires a bit of maturity and the willingness to compromise. (That’s where problems happen)

Anyway I think there are two main reasons why this attitude seems so prevalent. (yeah their related too)

The first is a combination of two things, miscommunication and angst. Everyone sees the game differently. Player A comes to the table expecting an RP heavy game, while the other players expect a combat heavy game. Player A’s character falls behind the party’s power level because he’s making choices based on what his character would do. While the others are considering things from the other direction, they are making decisions based on what they, as players would do. This leads to party optimization and little role-play. Which, makes Player A feel left out and he stops having fun and goes on the Internet and whines.

The other problem is that the rules can easily get in the way of the RP aspect. It’s easy to approach the game from the perspective of it being a game. Much like playing a game of Warhammer fantasy, you build your army to do what its supposed to do, and ignore the things it can’t do. The same is true for dnd. It’s easy to build a wizard to cast spells and control the battlefield. But if you build said wizard to fight in hand to hand, well your probably not going to last long. Just look at how many character building threads there are on these very boards. Every one is “how do I make this more powerful”.

Now I’ve rambled enough, so I’m out.

[Ravyn]

Mutually exclusive? HA.

Now, caveat here, I'm known for my dislike of combat situations for various reasons, but I've found some of my best RP was on the battlefield, and even had one character for whom I found a defining personality trait in mid-skirmish. (Granted, that trait was trying to snark the foe into incompetence, but it worked so perfectly...)

The thing about a struggle is that it's a chance for who someone is to show through. Anything from loyalty to reckless courage to a need to try to tell the other side they're all being idiots (particularly scary when it works) - it's all possible. Just have to remember the option's there.

[Kizara]

Google "Stormwind Fallacy".

[bosssmiley]

Combat & role-play mutually exclusive? I'm sorry, but none of us in the frilly shirt, floppy hat and skinny sword brigade got that memo.

...

Please ignore the piteously groaning 'bearer of bad tidings' stuffed behind the arras.

Fight + RP =

[Tormsskull]

I'll accept the premise for discussion...how is that a bad thing?

It depends, as I said. If we set up a system where roleplaying = mechanical benefits, then we have to hope that the DM and the players are on perfect sync to know what exactly qualifies as roleplaying and what doesn't. If a player roleplays well, does he get experience, or does the whole group get it?

If its just the player, then it could be a bad thing as it is unbalancing the group, and its creating a sort of competitive environment where each player is trying to obtain more RP mechanical benefits than the other players.

If the whole group gets it, then, depending on the group, it could either work really well where the players that want to RP do so, and those that don't do not, and everything's all set. However, I would hazard a guess that for many groups if someone was refusing to RP but reaping the benefits of other players RPing, there could be a problem.

Overall, IMO, as soon as you set up a system where players should expect a mechanical benefit for everything that they do, you're going to have issues. I much prefer it how it is now, which is that everyone is expected to roleplay without mechanical benefits.

Player A’s character falls behind the party’s power level because he’s making choices based on what his character would do. While the others are considering things from the other direction, they are making decisions based on what they, as players would do. This leads to party optimization and little role-play.

This is completely true. For me, the default game is 'making decisions based on what the character would do'. And truth be told, it seems like this is a lot of people's default assumption, which is why they try to hard to legitimize or rationalize the decisions that they as players made in the aim of optimization.


All in all, I don't think anyone has a problem with players making mechanical decisions based on what they as a player want. The problem comes in when someone is making mechanical decisions based on what they as a player want, and try to pass it of as is they are making the mechanical decisions based on what their character would do.

Google "Stormwind Fallacy".

Perfect example of a player making decisions based on what they as a player want, passing it off as what the character would do, and then defending that scheme.

[warmachine]

Need to step back from the system? Do you seriously think people are incapable of acting? Drama and literature are taught in secondary schools, you know. Even players who play slayers are roleplaying a different persona. The only people who don't roleplay are powergamers because they don't care and that's why others don't like them.

If you want a system that rewards roleplaying, try GURPS. A lot of Disadvantages picked at character creation have no mechanical effect but provide bonus creation points because you choose to hurt yourself. For example, someone with Truthfulness, when asked by the BBEG, will insist on telling him the heroes will undo his evil plans, even though this alerts the BBEG right there. Self imposed behaviour is only one part of roleplaying but it's a start.

Also note that an aspect of gaming his not been described: genre and campaign conventions. These are part of the system but aren't combat rules. This defines and constrains the player's actions and it's bad roleplaying to defy them. In a dungeon crawl, you attack everything and loot all the treasure. In Star Wars, you do infiltrate a heavily patrolled Death Star, even though it should be suicidal. In Paranoia, you don't shoot a player's clone, even if he should logically have the same mutant powers as the previous clone.

[Roderick_BR]

In d20, he wouldn't be able to get away with it, because someone would want to check his Bluff modifier against Sense Motive/Insight, or make him pass a forgery test to use faked credentials.

A DM can decided that a check is not necessary, if no one have reasons to doubt. If the RP is very well made, and not ridiculous (as in, showing up in royal armor and claiming to be the King's knight, against using some old leather armor and saying you are a hill giant), sometimes people won't think twice about agreeing. I lost count in how many games my playes had ideas so good, that only the most paranoid NPCs were allowed a roll to disbelief. It's not rule zero, it's normal rules within the game, like when an ilusion is so well placed, that no one is allowed a "free saving throw", unless they actually ask for one.

[Khanderas]

I think the notion that RP =/= combat comes from the type of gameplay where the protagonists are in a dungeon and when they killed everything there they win.
No other reason given to why they are there (or handwaved as "evil crypt" or "hired by mysterious strange or something").

[Raum]

TheThan, I agree whith everything you said up to here:

Player A comes to the table expecting an RP heavy game, while the other players expect a combat heavy game. Player A’s character falls behind the party’s power level because he’s making choices based on what his character would do. While the others are considering things from the other direction, they are making decisions based on what they, as players would do. This leads to party optimization and little role-play. Which, makes Player A feel left out and he stops having fun and goes on the Internet and whines.

While communication is definitely a common issue the dichotomy you describe is a false one. The game may well be both "combat heavy" and "RP heavy". Players may well "optimize for combat" and still role play. It's the assumption of having to make a choice between the two I was targeting.

Google "Stormwind Fallacy".

Yes, the Stormwind Fallacy is a common aspect of an assumed exclusion between combat and role play.

It depends, as I said. If we set up a system where roleplaying = mechanical benefits, then we have to hope that the DM and the players are on perfect sync to know what exactly qualifies as roleplaying and what doesn't.

Communication is certainly important and causes many issues when it fails. But communication aside I still don't see an issue with gaining benefits from role play. Some games make that more explicit than others but, outside of personality quirks, almost all role play is with the expectation of a benefit.

If a player roleplays well, does he get experience, or does the whole group get it?

If its just the player, then it could be a bad thing as it is unbalancing the group, and its creating a sort of competitive environment where each player is trying to obtain more RP mechanical benefits than the other players.

If the whole group gets it, then, depending on the group, it could either work really well where the players that want to RP do so, and those that don't do not, and everything's all set. However, I would hazard a guess that for many groups if someone was refusing to RP but reaping the benefits of other players RPing, there could be a problem.

Whether or not experience rewards should be individual or group based is largely dependent on the system you're playing.

Overall, IMO, as soon as you set up a system where players should expect a mechanical benefit for everything that they do, you're going to have issues. I much prefer it how it is now, which is that everyone is expected to roleplay without mechanical benefits.

Perhaps I'm defining 'mechanical benefits' in broader terms than you meant but, in my experience, players almost always expect a mechanical benefit for role playing. And, since we're playing a game, I don't see anything wrong with that expectation. If I'm RPing a transaction with a merchant I'm attempting to get a better price as a benefit. When I'm finessing my way past a surly guard my benefit is bypassing an obstacle. Perhaps I'm RPing a conversation with the goal of getting some piece of information...

Don't misunderstand, you can certainly role play without expectation of a benefit. Playing a swashbuckler as a vain clotheshorse is one of many potential examples. But expecting a benefit from RP isn't a bad thing. I suspect the majority of RP has that expectation.

Perfect example of a player making decisions based on what they as a player want, passing it off as what the character would do, and then defending that scheme.

Hmm? I thought the Stormwind Fallacy was stating a dichotomy between optimization and role play?

[Winterwind]

While I wouldn't say roleplaying and combat are mutually exclusive at all - it's easy to disprove, too, just consider freeform, where everything is roleplaying because there is nothing else to do, if roleplaying and combat were exclusive, combat would be impossible in freeform games - I would say that roleplaying and mechanics are very much so. Every second one spends rolling dice, adding modifiers and comparing numbers is a second not spent on describing what the character does, feels and says. And since combat usually tends to be the part where the most mechanics are involved, it automatically follows that combat is where more time than anywhere else is spent on not-roleplaying. I assume that's why people see an exclusion here.

[Epinephrine]

One problem with combat in role playing is that one is expected in a way to play it effectively. Effectiveness often comes down to mechanics, so it becomes a mechanical exercise.

Now, playing combat the other way can be fun, but you risk losing your character (or causing the loss of other people's characters). There's something fun about actually playing the reckless fighter, driven by hate, taking attacks of opportunity from the minions to get to the enemy you want to fight - but it's not smart, and it could kill you or your team. Not everyone is a methodical combatant, eliminating threats in the right order, trusting in others to deal with threats.

[Eldariel]

Perfect example of a player making decisions based on what they as a player want, passing it off as what the character would do, and then defending that scheme.

Actually, Stormwind Fallacy basically states that you can optimize however much you want and still roleplay. It also states that you can optimize not at all and still roleplay. It basically states that your character's class bar doesn't determine his personality, quirks or anything else for that matter.

It's basically a necessity for Core 3.5, since 3.5 fails at presenting character ideas as the character classes the idea should fall under. Therefore, the easiest solution is to simply allow players to make up the character's sheet and personality independent of each other.

Best of all, playing like this doesn't detract from the game at all - on the contrary, it serves to make all players enjoy themselves more as they get to play what they want and portray it with a set of abilities, not a set of class levels which have some of the mechanical abilities the character would have, but fall short on other aspects.

[hamishspence]

Combat Roleplaying is a subgenre all to itself, when you hero describes his strikes in roleplaying style, his character shouts warcries, etc, etc.

In that sense, you can combine the two, so they aren't exclusive.

[Fiery Diamond]

I agree with the OP.

Combat and Role-play are not mutually exclusive, but roleplaying combat requires players to actually care about more than "winning." The example of the hate-driven fighter given above is a good one. Alternatively, though, remember that speaking is a free action. Inter-character conversation, while not a complete substitute for having the character act in ways specific to his/her personality, can inject a great deal of roleplaying into combat situations. Ex: (both were PCs)
Sorcerer: (to Favored Soul Centaur who had been attacked by slavers) Oh, good friend, do you wish me to spare this, your attacker (points at a slaver at -7hp).
Centaur: Uh... If you want to...
Sorcerer: Very well. (Turns to slaver) Ray of Frost!

Also, Raum's comment:

erhaps I'm defining 'mechanical benefits' in broader terms than you meant but, in my experience, players almost always expect a mechanical benefit for role playing. And, since we're playing a game, I don't see anything wrong with that expectation. If I'm RPing a transaction with a merchant I'm attempting to get a better price as a benefit. When I'm finessing my way past a surly guard my benefit is bypassing an obstacle. Perhaps I'm RPing a conversation with the goal of getting some piece of information...

Don't misunderstand, you can certainly role play without expectation of a benefit. Playing a swashbuckler as a vain clotheshorse is one of many potential examples. But expecting a benefit from RP isn't a bad thing. I suspect the majority of RP has that expectation.

This is very true.

I DM, and I make clear to my players that I like heavy roleplay. I have a player who has Asperger's and after a year of playing, he is engaged well in roleplay. Allowing things to develop over time is a necessity with some people, but everyone can roleplay. Additionally, I provided rp mechanical benefits in the narrower sense (xp rewards) earlier on, and made clear the criteria for the awards beforehand--this actuallyhelped in getting people who weren't roleplaying to start, and now they do it without the xp driving them as the primary reason.

-Fiery Diamond

[Tormsskull]

Perhaps I'm defining 'mechanical benefits' in broader terms than you meant but, in my experience, players almost always expect a mechanical benefit for role playing. [...] Perhaps I'm RPing a conversation with the goal of getting some piece of information...

A mechanical benefit would be something like more gold, a bonus on a skill check, obtaining an item, etc. Gaining information its self is not a mechanical benefit, but if you needed a certain DC in order to get that information, then RPing for the purpose of getting a bonus against that DC would be in the vain of a mechanical benefit.

To me roleplaying is its own benefit. Its fun, it gets everyone thinking about their characters, and it helps to make the game world more immersive. Its easier to picture the world, the PCs, the NPCs, etc. through roleplaying.

Hmm? I thought the Stormwind Fallacy was stating a dichotomy between optimization and role play?

The Stormwind Fallacy is basically an optimizer's defense against traditional roleplaying. It tries to make the claim that you can 'build' your character in anyway that you want, take whatever classes, skills, feats, prestige classes, etc, etc, and that those choices will have no effect on your ability to roleplay. The only way that it is correct is when you redefine what roleplaying is.

It's basically a necessity for Core 3.5, since 3.5 fails at presenting character ideas as the character classes the idea should fall under. Therefore, the easiest solution is to simply allow players to make up the character's sheet and personality independent of each other.

No, its only a necesity for people that prefer a certain style of game. A lot of people have a lot of fun 'building' characters. They love to scour through books and find that feat or skill or class thats going to give them a specific ability that would make their character really cool. And that's cool. But to make the argument that it does not effect how the character is roleplayed is simply dishonest.

That same playstyle leads to disregarding multi-class penalties, ignoring alignment/alignment restrictions, and ignoring descriptive text.

Best of all, playing like this doesn't detract from the game at all - on the contrary, it serves to make all players enjoy themselves more as they get to play what they want and portray it with a set of abilities, not a set of class levels which have some of the mechanical abilities the character would have, but fall short on other aspects.

That's really subjective. To people who completely hate that style, it definitely detracts from the game.

[kamikasei]

It tries to make the claim that you can 'build' your character in anyway that you want, take whatever classes, skills, feats, prestige classes, etc, etc, and that those choices will have no effect on your ability to roleplay...
But to make the argument that it does not effect how the character is roleplayed is simply dishonest.

Obviously what your character is capable of will affect how you roleplay it. But what do you mean when you say that building an optimized character changes your ability to roleplay the result? What effect do you see it as having?

\/ Let me clarify a little.

My character's skills, feats etc. certainly do affect how I roleplay him, because to the extent that they describe the character's abilities I play him as a person with those abilities. I build the mechanics of a character to make sure that he has a good chance of success at the things my concept says he's good at; I roleplay him as a person skilled at the things his build makes him good at. There's not much point building the world's greatest swordsman as a commoner with 8 STR and DEX. What I don't see is how the act of building the mechanics of a character to give you the abilities you want then makes it harder to roleplay that character with those abilities.

[Mushroom Ninja]

The Stormwind Fallacy is basically an optimizer's defense against traditional roleplaying. It tries to make the claim that you can 'build' your character in anyway that you want, take whatever classes, skills, feats, prestige classes, etc, etc, and that those choices will have no effect on your ability to roleplay. The only way that it is correct is when you redefine what roleplaying is.

I don't know about anyone else, but my character's class, skills, and most feats do not affect how I roleplay the character. Why is it that making an optimized character means that you can't roleplay the character?

Edit: ninja'd

[valadil]

They're not mutually exclusive. I do both regularly. Sometimes I even powergame too.

That said, some players are only interested in combat and others are only interested in roleplaying. If those players end up in the same game together, they often end up bored while the type is having fun. This is due to the players involved, not due to any mutual exclusivity between combat and roleplay.

[Telonius]

"You’re the student revolutionary leader,” Wesely says “You get victory points for distributing revolutionary leaflets. You’ve got a whole briefcase full of them.”

Much later, having convinced his fellow players that he is really, perhaps, an undercover CIA operative, and that the entire nation’s treasury is really much safer in his hands, Dave Arneson’s character is politely ushered aboard a helicopter to whisk him to safety.

Far below the streets are still churning with fighting, plastic soldiers colliding with innocent citizens and angry rioters. In his lap sits the forgotten briefcase of revolutionary leaflets. “I get points for distributing these right?” And with a sweep of his arm he adds insult to injury, hurling reams of pages into the downdraft of the helicopter where they scatter and float lazily down upon the entire town…

Final score: Dave Arneson, plus several thousand points

First recorded instance of metagaming?

[kbk]

While, I enjoy a detailed system in my DnD. I want epic combat. This partially falls under the control of the GM. He or she has to enhance the combat by describing everything that happens. 4th is a step up in the feeling of epic combat from abilities. People need to think of their characters doing really cool weapon tricks and maneuvers, and not "I use my cleave and hit 2 dudes"

Another reason I applaud 4th for eliminating half the skills. You want to play the lute? Great, role play it. What 4th lacks is situational RP bonuses to skills that are still in the game, especially bluff and diplomacy. The GM needs to remember to take this into account.

Systems like deadlands also gave you a great reason to play your character. Role play out a flaw or disadvantage (especially to the extent of a disadvantage in combat), gain a fate chip.

On the other hand, the best actual RP experiences I've have been with Paranoia and Call of Cthulu. But those systems have always felt like they lacked cinematic combat. But then going through 5 clones in 2 minutes, and out thinking a supercomputer without someone calling you a commie mutant traitor, that's just cool.

[TheThan]

related comic

TheThan, I agree whith everything you said up to here: While communication is definitely a common issue the dichotomy you describe is a false one. The game may well be both "combat heavy" and "RP heavy". Players may well "optimize for combat" and still role play. It's the assumption of having to make a choice between the two I was targeting.

What I was pointing out is that player A has not made his character to be as effective as the rest of his adventuring party (players B, C and D) when it comes to combat. He’s focusing on role-playing while his friends are focusing on optimizing. Also, in this particular scenario, the Dm isn’t concerned with the role-playing aspect of the game either. Which leads Player A to feel left out.

Now the opposite can happen as well. If a player that focuses on optimization joins a game that uses heavy role-playing instead of combat. The situation will be reversed; suddenly the person that focuses on optimization will feel left out because he’s not participating as well as he could even if he has a mechanically better character.

It is very possible to do both; in fact that often times it is a fine solution to the situation. This depends on someone’s personality, a quite introverted person might find it hard to RP, but easy to optimize. Just as an outgoing person might find it easy to RP and hard to optimize. Getting people to come out of their shell is the hardest part of being a dungeon master. Being able to do both effectively takes practice and time but it is very possible. At my table being able to both optimize and Role-play well is preferable.