The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat

[Libertad]

I was watching The Dungeons & Dragons Experience, a documentary on the world's oldest tabletop RPG.  One scene in particular stood out:

"Some gamers prefer a tactically-oriented, combative approach to their games.  Others place a heavy emphasis on role-playing, sometimes their sessions would have nothing but talking for several hours without rolling any dice."  I don't think that this was the exact quote, but this was the gist of the conversation.

Where did we get the idea that combat and role-playing are mutually exclusive?  A warped view of the Stormwind Fallacy?  And why the large emphasis on in-character communication?

If I'm a Cleric of War and Glory, I will methodically prepare the right spells before venturing into an undead-filled crypt.  I lives for battle, and the preparation of certain weapons, spells, and equipment are vital to combat.  As a Cleric, I should know a thing or two about the undead, and thus should carry a backup sword or warhammer depending upon whether I'm currently fighting skeletons or zombies.  This is a good combination of tactics and role-playing.

A commentator on the White Wolf message boards once said that the Vampire: The Requiem role-playing game could be min-maxed socially.  Despite the system's emphasis on "roleplay, not rollplay,"  a vampire businessman with high ranks in mind control disciplines and social skills can convince armies to lay down their weapons and turn trusted allies against each other with nothing but a good die roll.  How is this different than optimizing a combat character in D&D?  Both builds are created to be good at a certain task so that the dice favor them.  Where do we get the idea that combat-oriented games are more "munchkiny" than other games?

Another thing I notice:  Some Game Masters and players are not fond of the idea of die rolls for social skills, such as persuading people to your way of thinking or crafting a plausible lie.  The theory is that this will convince players to carefully consider their words and keep track of falsehoods.

I do not think that this is a good idea.  We create characters that are better than us in many game systems.  I do not need a PhD in real life to play a scientist, or know how to wield a katana to be a samurai.  I don't think that people with average or poor social skills should be precluded from playing a silver-tongued bard or a charismatic, inspiring cleric.  Why do social communication skills have an exception?

[nijineko]

i have a player who flatly refuses to "role" play for this exact reason. he wants to play characters that are good at things he is clueless at. he does not want to be forced into some detailed description of something he knows little to nothing about.

[Mooncrow]

Another thing I notice:  Some Game Masters and players are not fond of the idea of die rolls for social skills, such as persuading people to your way of thinking or crafting a plausible lie.  The theory is that this will convince players to carefully consider their words and keep track of falsehoods.

I do not think that this is a good idea.  We create characters that are better than us in many game systems.  I do not need a PhD in real life to play a scientist, or know how to wield a katana to be a samurai.  I don't think that people with average or poor social skills should be precluded from playing a silver-tongued bard or a charismatic, inspiring cleric.  Why do social communication skills have an exception?

This is something that drives me nuts when I see it.  I'll buy it if the DM just wants a bit of verisimilitude, and knowing just what was said for future reference, ie. as long as it doesn't effect the dice roll.  If the story replaces the dice roll, or gives penalties or whatever, then I'm totally against it.  I once had a carefully crafted Face character in a Shadowrun game, where almost half my build points were sunk into social skills and bonuses - and I didn't get to roll a single goddamn dice because "your story was good enough that we don't need to roll", and it's not like my skills were helping me out either; he let the 0 pool guys do the same thing.   

[sirpercival]

It's very easy to justify needing a roll -- good social skills are just as much (if not more) about the presentation than the actual words.  A bluff or diplomacy attempt can be the best-worded speech in the history of mankind, but if you sneeze at the wrong time or have a nervous tic, no one will believe it or trust you.  The roll takes into account random variables like that -- environment, the biases and mood of the listeners, etc.  So as a DM I give a bonus to a player who RP's a fantastic pitch or hits exactly the right points for their audience... but if they roll a 1, it still won't work because of something they couldn't plan for.

[Basket Burner]

1s don't auto fail.

[sirpercival]

Your point?  I was assuming in my post that the roll mattered.  If you can't fail the roll even on a 1, then that obviates the roll for a different reason than "your story was too good".

[Basket Burner]

My point is that it sounded as if you were assuming that it did.

[Mooncrow]

It's very easy to justify needing a roll -- good social skills are just as much (if not more) about the presentation than the actual words.  A bluff or diplomacy attempt can be the best-worded speech in the history of mankind, but if you sneeze at the wrong time or have a nervous tic, no one will believe it or trust you.  The roll takes into account random variables like that -- environment, the biases and mood of the listeners, etc.  So as a DM I give a bonus to a player who RP's a fantastic pitch or hits exactly the right points for their audience... but if they roll a 1, it still won't work because of something they couldn't plan for.

Giving bonuses is still crap, tbh - I'm not Neal Caffrey in real life, but if I want to play a smooth talking con man in game, I still need some measure of those real life skills to justify it?  But even though I'm not Conan in real life either, there's no connection between that and my combat ability.

[sirpercival]

Well, if the character has put some investment into the skill (enough to be good at it) then the bonus shouldn't really matter... but shouldn't I reward a player for awesome roleplaying?  I suppose some extra RP XP could work instead.

[TenaciousJ]

It's very easy to justify needing a roll -- good social skills are just as much (if not more) about the presentation than the actual words.  A bluff or diplomacy attempt can be the best-worded speech in the history of mankind, but if you sneeze at the wrong time or have a nervous tic, no one will believe it or trust you.  The roll takes into account random variables like that -- environment, the biases and mood of the listeners, etc.  So as a DM I give a bonus to a player who RP's a fantastic pitch or hits exactly the right points for their audience... but if they roll a 1, it still won't work because of something they couldn't plan for.

Giving bonuses is still crap, tbh - I'm not Neal Caffrey in real life, but if I want to play a smooth talking con man in game, I still need some measure of those real life skills to justify it?  But even though I'm not Conan in real life either, there's no connection between that and my combat ability.

Some reward for good role-play is justified.  I like to encourage anything that makes the game more entertaining for everyone at the table and I've seen people actually research and practice to improve their role-play skills when they see that it has some benefit.  I view rewarding a well-worded use of Diplomacy as something akin to catching an opponent flat-footed because you surprised him with your tactics.  The DMG supports the idea in the section about favorable and unfavorable conditions.  Speaking well should be a favorable condition.

[archangel.arcanis]

We generally give a slight (+/- 2) modifier based on what the player says.  It encourages them to think about their presentation but isn't enough to really push the probability either way, if the roll was meaningful that is. We also tend to give out more RP XP if it is done in character rather than describing what the character says. All of this is to encourage people to play their character well and reward good role playing. We have had many people who were capable drama students who couldn't build a character capable of taking a shit without having an aneurysm so they needed the help most of the time.

[Mooncrow]

Well, if the character has put some investment into the skill (enough to be good at it) then the bonus shouldn't really matter... but shouldn't I reward a player for awesome roleplaying?  I suppose some extra RP XP could work instead.

Truly awesome roleplaying is one thing; but that should be pretty rare, even among really good roleplayers.  Even then, I think that an in-game reward, separate from the roll success, is more appropriate for that type of thing.  As an example; convincing the captain of the guard that you're in the treasury doing "a surprise security test" while backing up the story with actual names (because the player was paying attention for once) - then the characters might not only get to walk out, but manage to get paid as well. 

But if you're giving out a bonus (or allowing the roll to happen at all) because "yeah, that seems believable", then that kind of crosses into "player needs the real life skills to back up his fantasy skills" territory.  Don't get me wrong, I think having a good story to go along with social rolls is great; but I don't require it.

[veekie]

One way to deal with it is to reward approach. The specific words don't matter, but what ways they are using to exert social leverage on the NPC or angle they're attacking the puzzle does help or hinder the roll. You can do it the easy way(making use of some known aspect of the problem obtained via other skills) or the hard way(blunt force of presence).

Exalted's stunt system also helps, you get a small bonus depending on your description:
+1 for trying at all beyond the generic "I persuade him to X"
+2 for incorporating the situation into your angle of attack.
+3 for something awe inspiring that gets everyone at the table's attention.

[Libertad]

So I've been cruising the "Worst Experience in gaming" thread of Something Awful, and I find this post which attempts to integrate dice and "role-playing social scenes" by Etherwind.  http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3198150&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=61

How I do it is in three steps:
Establish what the player wants to achieve in the conversation.
Work out what the dice rolls are and make them; take note of the result.
Role-play the resulting conversation to fit the dice roll.
If a player is pretty hopeless as a natural speaker I tend to give them a bit more leeway when role-playing out the results (i.e. if the results say they got an exceptional success on an oratory roll, but they're fairly plain speaking, I just have the NPCs respond accordingly). Generally, I think it's important to recognise that players will not be as talented as their characters, and it's better just to recognise and reward effort.

Where appropriate (usually when a player's doing a speech or something one-sided), I give a Free Raise for well-delivered material (which can be used to lower the TN or enhance the success, as appropriate). A couple of times this has led to the dice saying they failed, but them having the opportunity to just scrape a success if they do some pretty good role-playing. I also give this bonus to actions that are particularly clever in their set-up.

The other important thing to remember is that politics are everywhere, so even if a courtier's argument isn't very convincing in delivery, the dice saying they won could simply translate to the political winds dictating that they get their way regardless.

This might sound quite elaborate, but in reality it's pretty quick flowing. I imagine it wouldn't work as well for play-by-post.

[SneeR]

I use the Bluff modifier approach. If they want some impossible thing out of an NPC, that is going to incur a penalty between 5 and 15. An especially skilled character could still pull it off, though, so that's where rolls come in.

Player: "I tell her I'm the king, so she should believe us!"
Me: "Are you sure?"
Player: "Absolutely! nothing should go wrong!"
Takes -15 penalty, rolls 12, has +18 mod... convinces NPC he's the king 

[StreamOfTheSky]

As someone who's not very sociable in RL, I hate this, it's probably why I seldom play a high cha character, because I know the DM's not going to just give me the benefit of my ability score and skill ranks, and someon who is a smoother talker will be able to do the social skills thing as well if not better no matter what is on his sheet, and I just can't stand that.  On the other hand, I like thinking tactically and usually make PCs with above average int to justify it, but I don't think a single DM has ever heard me go all Sun Tzu and ask what my Int score was or anything.


Possibly off-topic, but it's what I thought this thread might be about:
The separation of combat and RP.  When my characters fight, if capable of communicating with the enemy, they talk.  A lot.  Some games, I think I RP more in combat than out of it.  Possibly just because I enjoy combat so much.  But the funny thing is, and I've noticed this consistently now -- the players who you'd consider the biggest "role players" out of combat (who gladly waste half an hour of a 3-4 hour weekly game RPing out eating a freaking meal at the same tavern with the same NPCs they do every single freaking session  ) seem to become oddly quiet when combat breaks out.  Other than coordinating with allies, and usually as a response to the more combat active characters addressing them than it is them taking initiative, they don't say...anything.  No description of their actions, just the die rolls, and then cricket chirps can be heard.

That's just so weird to me.  I like to describe my characters' actions in combat in elaborate detail (easier with noncasters, I guess), I like to have verbal exchanges with enemies, make commentary on the action...  And at least anecdotally, I've noticed other players who are mostly combat-inclined are the same way, and what the internets calls "role players" are the opposite.  There's still some people who just don't say much or RP much in general (and that's fine, some people are just more introverted than others), of course.  Anyone else notice this?  Why is "roleplaying" always talked about as noncombat encounters, and given a vibe of incompatibility with combat?

[ImperatorK]

Talking is a free action.

In RL games you don't have the whole day to make your action. The roleplayers try to make it quick and go back to roleplaying.

[nijineko]

Talking is a free action.

In RL games you don't have the whole day to make your action. The roleplayers try to make it quick and go back to roleplaying.

i think you might have missed his point.

imo, REAL roleplayers will roleplay in combat as readily as out of combat. the idea that there is a difference between combat and non combat rp is an illusion. after all, ALL the great classic fight scenes have snazzy repertoire. that is rp.

the people who claim to be roleplayers, and then clam up during combat and try to "get it out of the way" so they can get back to "roleplaying" have completely missed the essence of roleplaying.  one might even say that they are being hypocritical, even if they do not realize it.

[Kajhera]

Talking is a free action.

In RL games you don't have the whole day to make your action. The roleplayers try to make it quick and go back to roleplaying.

i think you might have missed his point.

imo, REAL roleplayers will roleplay in combat as readily as out of combat. the idea that there is a difference between combat and non combat rp is an illusion. after all, ALL the great classic fight scenes have snazzy repertoire. that is rp.

the people who claim to be roleplayers, and then clam up during combat and try to "get it out of the way" so they can get back to "roleplaying" have completely missed the essence of roleplaying.  one might even say that they are being hypocritical, even if they do not realize it.

It's probably, actually a difficulty with multitasking. During combat there's a lot of die rolls and mechanics and little circumstantial modifiers that have to come into play and be calculated. Just having a conversation tends not to entail that.

Combining the die rolls with banter and terrified shouting is perhaps more rewarding, but you have to be able to integrate storytelling with arithmetic and tactical thinking: which is the fun of D&D, yes but also a learned skill.

[Hallack]

This is a pain in the rear end problem.  It's exactly like others have said, I'm playing this other person that DOES have these skills and aptitudes.

I don't have the skill personally.  My PC does.  Get over it.  Let me use his skills as the rules state. 

I actually like to RP but I'm not going to know the ins and outs in a way that would fairly represent my PCs skills. 

As far as the sides mentioned in the OP.  I figure that is best taken as extremes on either side with most games taking place somewhere in the spectrum between.