Author Topic: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat  (Read 20793 times)

Offline InnaBinder

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Onna table
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #40 on: December 02, 2011, 09:34:40 AM »
Quote
Of course.  You don't hand your character sheet to the DM, roll a handful of dice, and say, "My character is very smart.  He figures out the best way to approach this problem and then does that."
That's largely what happens with physical skills, though.  A player says "My guy climbs up the rain-slick cobblestone precipice" or whatever, without needing to detail how he's setting his feet or what he does specifically to recover when the rain makes one hand-hold momentarily give way.  Again, why are physical and mental skills different in this regard, in your opinion?
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.  Even if you win, you're still retarded.

shugenja handbook; talk about it here

Offline sirpercival

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10855
  • you can't escape the miles
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #41 on: December 02, 2011, 10:17:54 AM »
Again, they aren't.  From my perspective, "My guy climbs up the rain-slick cobblestone precipice" is the same as "My guy tries to convince the guard that I'm his boss."  They're both discussing an approach.  Since I like to reward good roleplaying, if the player in the former situation goes into great detail about how they're going to actually climb the precipice, or in some way acts it out, they get rewarded just as much as the person who roleplays out an actual conversation with the guard. 

The reason approach matters for the social skills is that the tactic the PC uses to fast-talk the guard will determine his later actions.  Say, for example, that you roll really high on the Bluff roll.  When the real boss shows up later, it makes a difference if the guard thinks you're his boss (and then arrests the real boss as an intruder) versus if you convinced him that the bag of money you handed him was worth risking his job, in which case he'll try to arrest you instead.

As a DM I would be justified in requiring an explanation of approach there just like I would be justified asking which tree the PC climbed.
I am the assassin of productivity

(member in good standing of the troll-feeders guild)

It's begun — my things have overgrown the previous sig.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #42 on: December 02, 2011, 10:35:21 AM »
^^
Look at it this way, any given challenge can be broken into Objective, Approach and Style.

Objective is generally non-negotiable, and fairly obvious. If its not obvious, make it obvious to the GM or your skills won't matter jack as he gives you results you didn't want because he doesn't know what you want.

Approach is how you do it. This is important part of minimum roleplaying. Approaches can be broken down further into further objectives. You have the following levels:
-Declare action and roll. Zero effort, no immersion. Physically it might be "I cross the crevasse with my acrobatics", Socially "I convince him to let me pass", Mentally "Do I know the answer?". The GM would also find it difficult to reward a good roll even, with little to work on.
-Declare action, approach and then roll. Some degree of effort involved. "I cross the crevasse by swinging across on the rope/climbing up the walls", "I make him think I'm a legit messenger", "Find out this creature's relation to a dragon". Based on the approach, the difficulty might be better or worse, and you can break the challenge down into sub challenges to identify an ideal approach(like using a knowledge skill to work out likely weaknesses, or related information)
-Make use of an edge you know of. Self explanatory, if you have identified an easier path, use it.

Style, meanwhile is what many think of as the 'roleplaying' of it, as they narrate the action, talk the debate, act it out etc. This gets points for immersion, but shouldn't be required.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline Mnemnosyne

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #43 on: December 02, 2011, 03:56:29 PM »
Quote
Of course.  You don't hand your character sheet to the DM, roll a handful of dice, and say, "My character is very smart.  He figures out the best way to approach this problem and then does that."
That's largely what happens with physical skills, though.  A player says "My guy climbs up the rain-slick cobblestone precipice" or whatever, without needing to detail how he's setting his feet or what he does specifically to recover when the rain makes one hand-hold momentarily give way.  Again, why are physical and mental skills different in this regard, in your opinion?
In any character's equipment that can afford the weight, I always carry pitons.  Also rope.  Possibly a climber's kit, and all the other accoutrements for climbing that I can find.  I don't just say 'my guy climbs up the rain-slick cobblestone precipice', I say 'she uses her rope and pitons and climber's kit to establish safe handholds and secure her rope every 30 feet or so, such that she doesn't fall'.  If I'm going to break down a door, I don't just say she breaks it, I say she uses Mountain Hammer and smash through it, or if I don't have that maneuver, I explain how I intend to break it, whether that be hitting it with her braced shoulder or finding something to use as a battering ram, or hacking it to pieces with an axe.  And in combat, after using knowledge checks to determine what she knows, I'll describe exactly where she moves and what abilities, feats, and maneuvers she's going to use in order to try to attack her enemy, and I'll generally give an idea of how she's attacking her enemy such as 'try to overwhelm him with superior strength' or 'try to dodge his attacks while sneaking one through a weak point in his defense'.
-Do you honestly think that we believe ourselves evil? My friend, we seek only good. It's just that our definitions don't quite match.-
Ailanreanter, Arcanaloth

Offline Mooncrow

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 983
  • The man who will be Pirate King
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #44 on: December 02, 2011, 04:27:09 PM »
Quote
Of course.  You don't hand your character sheet to the DM, roll a handful of dice, and say, "My character is very smart.  He figures out the best way to approach this problem and then does that."
That's largely what happens with physical skills, though.  A player says "My guy climbs up the rain-slick cobblestone precipice" or whatever, without needing to detail how he's setting his feet or what he does specifically to recover when the rain makes one hand-hold momentarily give way.  Again, why are physical and mental skills different in this regard, in your opinion?
In any character's equipment that can afford the weight, I always carry pitons.  Also rope.  Possibly a climber's kit, and all the other accoutrements for climbing that I can find.  I don't just say 'my guy climbs up the rain-slick cobblestone precipice', I say 'she uses her rope and pitons and climber's kit to establish safe handholds and secure her rope every 30 feet or so, such that she doesn't fall'.  If I'm going to break down a door, I don't just say she breaks it, I say she uses Mountain Hammer and smash through it, or if I don't have that maneuver, I explain how I intend to break it, whether that be hitting it with her braced shoulder or finding something to use as a battering ram, or hacking it to pieces with an axe.  And in combat, after using knowledge checks to determine what she knows, I'll describe exactly where she moves and what abilities, feats, and maneuvers she's going to use in order to try to attack her enemy, and I'll generally give an idea of how she's attacking her enemy such as 'try to overwhelm him with superior strength' or 'try to dodge his attacks while sneaking one through a weak point in his defense'.

And that's great and immersive and everything - right until you enforce it as needed.

In general, I would agree with veekie's breakdown of Objective, Approach, and Style.  Style's great and everything, but when you require it, and especially if you require it to be correct, you might as well tell certain people that they can't play certain roles.   

Offline InnaBinder

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Onna table
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #45 on: December 02, 2011, 05:33:06 PM »
Quote
Of course.  You don't hand your character sheet to the DM, roll a handful of dice, and say, "My character is very smart.  He figures out the best way to approach this problem and then does that."
That's largely what happens with physical skills, though.  A player says "My guy climbs up the rain-slick cobblestone precipice" or whatever, without needing to detail how he's setting his feet or what he does specifically to recover when the rain makes one hand-hold momentarily give way.  Again, why are physical and mental skills different in this regard, in your opinion?
In any character's equipment that can afford the weight, I always carry pitons.  Also rope.  Possibly a climber's kit, and all the other accoutrements for climbing that I can find.  I don't just say 'my guy climbs up the rain-slick cobblestone precipice', I say 'she uses her rope and pitons and climber's kit to establish safe handholds and secure her rope every 30 feet or so, such that she doesn't fall'.  If I'm going to break down a door, I don't just say she breaks it, I say she uses Mountain Hammer and smash through it, or if I don't have that maneuver, I explain how I intend to break it, whether that be hitting it with her braced shoulder or finding something to use as a battering ram, or hacking it to pieces with an axe.  And in combat, after using knowledge checks to determine what she knows, I'll describe exactly where she moves and what abilities, feats, and maneuvers she's going to use in order to try to attack her enemy, and I'll generally give an idea of how she's attacking her enemy such as 'try to overwhelm him with superior strength' or 'try to dodge his attacks while sneaking one through a weak point in his defense'.

And that's great and immersive and everything - right until you enforce it as needed.

In general, I would agree with veekie's breakdown of Objective, Approach, and Style.  Style's great and everything, but when you require it, and especially if you require it to be correct, you might as well tell certain people that they can't play certain roles.
This.  It becomes worse - in my opinion - when you tell Bob, your obese gamer friend with a speech impediment, that he can't play the Halfling Bard he wants to, but you have no such proscription against Vikki, your 5' tall 97# friend who can't carry the hardcovers needed just for her character, playing a Half-Ogre Barbarian Bearzerker.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.  Even if you win, you're still retarded.

shugenja handbook; talk about it here

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #46 on: December 02, 2011, 07:48:21 PM »
This.  It becomes worse - in my opinion - when you tell Bob, your obese gamer friend with a speech impediment, that he can't play the Halfling Bard he wants to, but you have no such proscription against Vikki, your 5' tall 97# friend who can't carry the hardcovers needed just for her character, playing a Half-Ogre Barbarian Bearzerker.

I feel your pain.  I don't have the mindset or social skills necessary to become an inspiring leader, frightening tyrant, or opportunistic politician.  Even if I do my best to give off a fearsome aura to the BBEG through description and mood, I know that he would sound different and speak different than I do.

It's easy enough to think about the Int 6 Ogre Barbarian's speech pattern would be ("I kill puny humans!").  It's another matter entirely when role-playing the evil Wizard-King Szass Tam, or Highlord Ariakas, Emperor of Ansalon and scion of Tiamat.

Offline sirpercival

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10855
  • you can't escape the miles
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #47 on: December 02, 2011, 09:24:52 PM »
Who says that speech-impediment Bob can't play that character?  I would have no problem with that if he wants to play a social character.  I'm not going to FORCE him to roleplay things, particularly if it's hard for him or it embarrasses him, because it won't be fun for him that way.  But I'm also not going to stop rewarding people who roleplay well.

I don't set the standard based on the lowest rung of the ladder, I set it based on the middle -- and then I help the bottom keep up, and give the top enrichment (just like I would if I was teaching a class).
I am the assassin of productivity

(member in good standing of the troll-feeders guild)

It's begun — my things have overgrown the previous sig.

Offline InnaBinder

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Onna table
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #48 on: December 02, 2011, 09:43:47 PM »
Who says that speech-impediment Bob can't play that character?  I would have no problem with that if he wants to play a social character.  I'm not going to FORCE him to roleplay things, particularly if it's hard for him or it embarrasses him, because it won't be fun for him that way.  But I'm also not going to stop rewarding people who roleplay well.

I don't set the standard based on the lowest rung of the ladder, I set it based on the middle -- and then I help the bottom keep up, and give the top enrichment (just like I would if I was teaching a class).
Let's say Bob, my overweight, stuttering friend, is a Halfling Bard in the campaign.  Also in the campaign is Percy, who made a Spellscale Sorcadin; Percy's a likable fellow generally, who works out, has great teeth, and is pursuing a career in public speaking when he's not roleplaying.  Both get roughly equal 'spotlight time' and both are reasonably 'social' characters, and their contributions in combat are a statistical dead heat for this session.  If Percy's rewards, whether XP or story awards, are greater than Bob's because Percy's more charismatic in real life, you're passive-aggressively telling Bob he needs to play a different archetype.  At which point we're back to pondering if there should be a wall-climbing contest to determine who plays the party's muscle, and so forth.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.  Even if you win, you're still retarded.

shugenja handbook; talk about it here

Offline sirpercival

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10855
  • you can't escape the miles
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #49 on: December 02, 2011, 09:52:21 PM »
So, you're against the idea of giving out roleplaying xp, because it's discriminatory against uncharismatic players?

Also, why are you assuming that Bob is a bad player?  There's no reason that uncharismatic Bob won't get himself roleplaying xp by having great ideas or playing in character.  If you're saying that I shouldn't give out rp xp because it's discriminatory against Bob the bad player, well... Bob can get better.  He needs to understand and internalize his character, and the rp xp will come.
I am the assassin of productivity

(member in good standing of the troll-feeders guild)

It's begun — my things have overgrown the previous sig.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #50 on: December 02, 2011, 10:07:36 PM »
Obviously, as a DM, you throw bones where you have to. If you reward Percy 50 XP for a great turn of phrase that saved the party from conflict, you should likewise reward Bob for thinking to use Diplomacy to convince the mercenaries that the illusionary money was real, even if all Bob said was, "I try to convince them it's real" and rolls.

And, you know what? I reward "bad" RP, too! As long as it's in character!

I had a very awkward player one time try to bad talk a god to its face at 3rd level. That was the stupidest thing he could have done, insult Vecna after Vecna saves them. I had Vecna cast a Curse of silence on him when it was clear the player wouldn't shut up, but I gave him a good chunk of RP XP at the end because he said from the start that his character was a little brash. If that's how he wants to demonstrate that his character is brash, who am I to argue? Smack-talking a god IS pretty brash, even if he meant it to be more smarmy that flat-out insulting.

ALSO:
Only hand out RP XP if they do something fairly notable! Basically, anything that you will be able to remember, whther it be silly, stupid, awesome, or weird, deserves recognition. You obviously don't just reward charismatic players playing charismatic characters and doing charismatic things!

In short, reward risks on either the player's part (by pantomiming a potentially silly-looking kill move) or the character's part (by actually doing something risky outside of the norm).
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 10:11:17 PM by SneeR »
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline InnaBinder

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Onna table
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #51 on: December 02, 2011, 10:35:05 PM »
So, you're against the idea of giving out roleplaying xp, because it's discriminatory against uncharismatic players?

Also, why are you assuming that Bob is a bad player?  There's no reason that uncharismatic Bob won't get himself roleplaying xp by having great ideas or playing in character.  If you're saying that I shouldn't give out rp xp because it's discriminatory against Bob the bad player, well... Bob can get better.  He needs to understand and internalize his character, and the rp xp will come.
Nope, I didn't say that at all.  I never said Bob is a bad player.  I've said, repeatedly, that BOB IS NOT GOOD AT BEHAVIOR THE GAME CALLS CHARISMATIC.  Bob is not what most of society would call 'physically appealing' and isn't good at public speaking.  Heck, that might well be why Bob wants to play the Halfling Bard - to do something in fantasy he can't do well in real life.  As I've parsed and responded to your comments, you've said that the person (not the character) who is good at exemplifying or adequately explaining how a character with a high CHA behaves in a social situation will be better rewarded for using social skills than a less charismatic player would be. 

As far as "Bob can get better", that's telling the CHA player that he needs to bone up on social skills.  Again, that's mixing player ability with character ability, and akin (note I do not say identical) to telling Vikki she can play her Bearzerker just as soon as she joins a gym and can do 50 pushups in front of you, to show she understands how to play a strong character.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.  Even if you win, you're still retarded.

shugenja handbook; talk about it here

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #52 on: December 03, 2011, 03:06:32 AM »
Thats where the breakdown works better.
Bob might be unable to make an actual charismatic speech, but he can choose between the angles to approach the problem. "I Bluff him" is no effort involved, and gets no rewards, but you SHOULD reward a good approach like Bluffing the target with something specific. At no point do you actually require an actual speech out of Bob, only that he name how hes going to do this.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline sirpercival

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10855
  • you can't escape the miles
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #53 on: December 03, 2011, 09:13:17 AM »
Thats where the breakdown works better.
Bob might be unable to make an actual charismatic speech, but he can choose between the angles to approach the problem. "I Bluff him" is no effort involved, and gets no rewards, but you SHOULD reward a good approach like Bluffing the target with something specific. At no point do you actually require an actual speech out of Bob, only that he name how hes going to do this.

This is what I'm trying to say.  I wouldn't force Bob to figure out the actual wording of his pitch, and I certainly wouldn't make him perform it.  That kind of thing is governed by the roll because there are a ton of variables in the IC situation that can't be accounted for otherwise.  But I would require him to give me some idea of what he's trying to do (the "approach"), and for a good approach he would get rp xp.

If a player wanted to do those things, I wouldn't stop them -- and at their option I might allow them to just RP things and forgo a roll, but that could very well backfire if the player was not as charismatic as the character.  But at no point would I force the player to do any of this... except describe an approach, which is the difference between a good player and a bad player.
I am the assassin of productivity

(member in good standing of the troll-feeders guild)

It's begun — my things have overgrown the previous sig.

Offline InnaBinder

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Onna table
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #54 on: December 03, 2011, 09:25:10 AM »
Quote
and for a good approach he would get rp xp.
This is the only part to which I've taken exception.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.  Even if you win, you're still retarded.

shugenja handbook; talk about it here

Offline Kajhera

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 707
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #55 on: December 03, 2011, 09:49:25 AM »
I've gotten voted best roleplayer because I didn't read my character sheet well enough to see I had boots of levitation with a premade minotaur until near the end of the puzzling dungeon they would have helped greatly with. I got a mini out of it.  :D

Okay, probably it wasn't *actually* for that, but it still entertained me.

On roleplaying rewards, I've found little good coming from customizing XP for anything but level. (We're just not good enough bookkeepers, for one.) Therefore, if someone gets roleplay/extra XP for something, the whole party benefits from it.

And believe me, someone with a speech impediment trying to play a bard gets cut a lot of slack. I seriously can't talk very well at all when it comes to conversation. (I'm alright with public speaking, but I ... tend to view D&D as conversational speech, not performance speech. And I certainly don't have my lines memorized.) I don't think I stutter too much anymore, but ... just really struggling with words and not speaking clearly. Bard's my favorite core class anyway.

Someone who overcomes that sort of thing to do something awesome and out of their usual comfort zone is more likely to earn a one-time RP-XP bonus for the party than someone comfortable with their role, who does well regularly. It's unusual things, really that earn bonuses.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #56 on: December 03, 2011, 10:08:45 AM »
Quote
and for a good approach he would get rp xp.
This is the only part to which I've taken exception.
I wouldn't actually give bonus XP, I'd go with an easier roll, or bonus outcome to a good approach instead.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline sirpercival

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10855
  • you can't escape the miles
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #57 on: December 03, 2011, 11:57:06 AM »
Quote
and for a good approach he would get rp xp.
This is the only part to which I've taken exception.

Like Veekie, I might give a bonus to the roll instead, depending on the circumstance and the originality of the approach.  However, I don't understand why you take exception to it.  Why can't Bob have good ideas?  He has to be able to communicate what his character is going to do in some way, or he can't play the game at all.  I'm giving him xp for how much he understands his character's abilities and motivations, and uses those in the context of the game.  He can do that no matter what his personal make up, if he's a good player.

And in response to Kajhera, sometimes I do whole-party rp xp, sometimes I do individualized... but when I give out individual awards, I'm liberal with them so everyone who is plugged in to the game benefits.  The advantage to individual awards is that it encourages players to pay attention and be involved; why should I have to give rp xp to the guy who's on his laptop the entire time, and only surfaces to roll attack and damage?
I am the assassin of productivity

(member in good standing of the troll-feeders guild)

It's begun — my things have overgrown the previous sig.

Offline Hallack

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 415
  • With Jetpacks
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #58 on: December 03, 2011, 12:01:31 PM »
What if Bob, in addition to the previously listed traits isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.   Does that change the expectation of being able to do more than, "I Bluff him" regarding skill use?

That is largely rhetorical as really these sorts of issues are those that are best settled at individual tables where people know each other the best.  What's best for one table will not be good for another group. 

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: The idea of "Role-playing" being non-combat
« Reply #59 on: December 03, 2011, 12:08:30 PM »
Well, I personally love bonus perks(you win and then X), to get results above and beyond the roll. It also helps keep the plot rolling.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2011, 12:10:12 PM by veekie »
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.