Combat vs. Roleplaying: Why the Separation?

One of the most common discussions I see on various forums and message boards is this division of "roleplay" and "rollplay".  Besides being an oversimplification of roleplaying games, I l also find it to be a false dichotomy.

For anyone unfamiliar with this "theory", the main idea is that combat and action scenes in most RPG's is where the role playing stops, and the game changes to a more tactical style of game play.  This position is supported by personal experience, as well as the myriad of actual play posts and podcasts where you can actually see and hear this dynamic unfold.  What I fail to understand is why this happens in the first place.  It is my position that the "role playing" should never stop, even in combat.

Because of the vast differences in the mechanics and rules of RPG's, I want to address this false dichotomy from a very generalized position, but I will be using my RPG, Blood, Sweat & Steel as an example, along with the world's most popular RPG, Dungeons & Dragons, to better illustrate my position.

In most RPG's, players announce their action prior to rolling the dice to determine the outcome. In some RPG's, this happens almost simultaneously  particularly systems that use an initiative and alternating rules system.  Dungeons & Dragons is a great example of this type of system.  In some RPG's however, you actually declare your intent as a separate part of the resolution process.  That is how Blood, Sweat & Steel works.

I think it's understandable that most groups tend to focus more on numbers and tactics during combat, because most RPG's have more rules for combat than many other aspects of the game.  This often leads to much less emphasis on staying in character and maintaining a descriptive dialogue.

Let's start with D&D, which uses initiative and an "alternating turn" style combat system.  Most often, the scenario is kind of like this:

DM: "Okay Nate, it's your turn."
Nate: "I'm going to swing my sword at the giant lizard!  With my roll, I get a 17!"
DM: :That's a hit!  Roll for damage!"
Nate: "I got a 6!  my Strength bonus raises that to 8!"
DM: "Nice!  It's a solid strike, but the lizard is still standing!"

Here's the same scenario, with an effort to maintain the descriptive narrative and "role playing" aspect in the game:

DM: "As the giant lizards circles you, it's tail lashes from side to side, it's tongue flickering as it hisses menacingly. You see a moment of opportunity!"
Nate: "Well, there's nowhere to run, I think to myself, so I'm going to have to convince this beast that I will not be its lunch today!  I circle in the same direction, seeking an opportunity to close and slash at one of its front legs!
(Nate rolls, and gets his result of 17.)
DM: "As you circle the giant, you position yourself perfectly, and it leaves its front leg in a perfect position, allowing you a clean shot!"
(Knowing now that he struck the lizard, Nate rolls for damage, getting a total of 8 points of damage.)
DM: "Your blade slices cleanly through the thick, leathery skin on the lizard's front leg, covering your blade in the monster's blood.  It lets out an terrifying hiss and backpedals a bit, but hasn't given up on having you for lunch.  It does appear to be a bit more tenative however!".
Nate: "I let out a primal scream to let this thing know that there are better things to try and eat than me, as I look for another opportunity to slay this creature!"

Now, I will readily admit that the second example is a LOT easier to imagine in a hypothetical situation than it would be in the heat of battle.  Coming up with colorful descriptions of actions before or as they are happening can be difficult when you are trying to calculate to-hit bonuses, movement, positioning, etc.  But I will also submit that it can become second-nature, with a commitment to the process and practice.

Here is the same example, using Blood, Sweat & Steel as an example.  First, it's important to point out the two distinct differences in the combat rules between D&D & BS&S.  While D&D uses an initiative system and an alternating action style of combat where everyone gets a turn to do something, BS&S  uses no initiative & a simultaneous action style of combat.  In a simultaneous action system, both sides declare their intent before any dice are rolled.  Then, each side makes a roll to determine the result of their action.  The side who gets a better result "wins" their action, while the loser is assumed to be reacting to the loser's action.  This system is designed to be a faster resolution system that is also more "realistic" in the sense that real fights are rarely a "I swing, you swing, I swing, you swing" proposition.  The other difference between the two systems is how damage is handled.  D&D uses Hit Points, which represent the amount of damage a creature can take before it is no longer able to fight.  BS&S uses a non-linear wound system instead.  In this non-linear wound system, there are 4 types of wounds, and each wound type comes with its own parameters and consequences.

So, with that in mind, here is the same example as it might occur in BS&S.

GM: "Okay Nate, we're in an Exchange now.  The giant lizard looks like it is going to attack you.  What is your character going to do?
Nate: "I'm going to attack the lizard, using my Melee Skill, which is at +1 (Good), and adding my "Axe Master" Talent, which raises that to +2 (Great).
GM: "The giant lizard gets a total result of +1 (Good)."
Nate: "I rolled a +1 (Good), for a total result of +3 (Superb)!"
GM: "You win the Exchange, with 2 Successes, a Moderate Wound!  That means the lizard must make a Gut Check or be Dazed the next Exchange, and it will be at a -1 for the rest of the fight.  The lizard makes its Gut Check, but it will have the -1 Moderate Wound penalty for the rest of the fight."

Here's the same scenario, with an effort to maintain the descriptive role playing during the fight:

GM: "As the giant lizards circles you, it's tail lashes from side to side, it's tongue flickering as it hisses menacingly.  The hungry look in its eyes seems to indicate that you are on the menu today."
Nate: "Well, I know that I could try to scamper back up the rocks behind me, but I'm not the greatest climber and this lizard is huge, so I'm going to have to convince it that I'm not worth the trouble!  I'm going to circle the beast and look for an opening to slash one of its front legs with my axe."
Both the GM & Nate make their rolls and compare, and Nate wins the Exchange with 2 Successes, which is a Moderate wound.
GM: "The lizard attempts to bite you, but you time your movement perfectly, finding yourself in a perfect position to slash the monster's front leg with your axe!"
Nate: "I take advantage of my positioning and my axe slices through the thick, leathery hide of the beast with a deep wound that will hopefully slow it down a bit!" (Nate can make this claim because he knows that a Moderate Wound gives the lizard a -1 penalty for the remainder of the fight.)
The GM now makes a "Gut Check" which is a roll to determine how the creature reacts to the Wound.  Failing a Gut Check on a Moderate Wound would mean that the lizard is Dazed on the next Exchange.  The GM rolls, and the lizard makes its Gut Check.
GM: "You open up a nasty gash on the creature's leg, causing blood to spray.  However, it doesn't seem to deter the lizard from trying to have you for lunch, although that leg wound may slow it down a bit!".

Even though the systems are very different in their mechanics, it's totally possible in both systems to maintain a descriptive flow and "role play" the scene.  All of this was really just an extremely lengthy way to point out my very most favorite tip for GM's and players, which is:

Never stop role playing.  Always strive to imagine the game through the eyes, ears and mind of the characters and creatures in the story.  Players, don't worry about the mechanics.  Just tell the GM what you want to do.  GM's, know the game system and try to minimize talk of mechanics and numbers in your descriptions.  GM's should also encourage the players to focus on description, narration and being "in character" by also "being" the monsters, NPC's and other creatures that the PC's encounter.  Not all monsters, creatures and NPC's will fight to the death.  "Be the characters", even in battles, chases and other parts of the game where the mechanics and dice play a larger role.

Whenever I get a new player, regardless of their RPG experience or how many different RPG's they've played, my first piece of advice is always, "Just tell me what your character is trying to do, and leave the rest to me.  Don't worry about stats, or numbers, or rules, or mechanics.  Just "be" your character and I'll worry about helping to figure out how your intentions unfold in the game."

After 30 years of gaming, I still struggle to do this, so I know it's not easy.  But with the right group, and a shared mindset, it's truly my favorite way to play any role playing game. :)

What I'm not  trying to say is that role playing in combat is necessary or even desirable for everyone.  Different groups will have different playing styles, and some players prefer a more tactical approach to the game, and could care less about being "in character" and role playing everything.  What I am trying to say is that it's not only possible to maintain the role playing and descriptive narrative in the game, it's actually just as easy to do as role playing in any other part of the game, with some practice. :)

"Old School", to Me

In the world of tabletop roleplaying games, one topic that I have found fascinating has been the comparison of "Old School" gaming as compared to "New School" gaming.  It seems that a lot of the focus is on game mechanics.  However for me, the rules have almost nothing to do with "Old School" gaming.

Even in the early days of the hobby, there was no "industry standard" for rules.  Just looking at some of the early games, such as OD&D, Rolemaster, Traveller, GURPS and Palladium FRPG, I see quite a divergence in both the approach and rules in all of these games.  For me, I think the "Old School" idea is more about a mindset, playing style and expectations, not the rules you use.

First, a little about my background.  I started playing roleplaying games around 1980ish.  I was in the Gifted & Talented program in my school, and my G&T teacher suggested D&D as my year-long project.  My school purchased the Basic D&D game, and I even got to keep the game at the end.  I've been hooked ever since!  In my formative days, I also played a LOT of Dragonquest.  I also played Star Frontiers, Boot Hill, AD&D and GURPS.  I think this qualifies me to at least have an opinion on "Old School" gaming, at least in the chronological sense.

I can't speak for other groups, but most of the time, we were just winging it.  We lived in a small farming town in Wisconsin, about 30 minutes from the birthplace of D&D.  We didn't have the internet and instant access to millions of people with which we could compare notes and share ideas.  We viewed the rules mostly as guidelines, and many times, we just made things up on the fly because the interaction and keeping the story moving was more important than "getting it right".  We rarely used game terms, because we didn't know the rules by heart.  Much of the "work" was left to the GM, which was always me.  The players just described what they wanted to do, and it was my job to figure out how to make it work in the game.  "Table talk" was frowned upon, as players wanted to "feel" like they were actually in the situation.  The players weren't interested in having the story revolve around their characters.  They just wanted to react to the world as it was unfolding before them, as a group.  We were teenagers, so I think that played a big role in our willingness and ability to "get into character". I think that also contributed to the fact that we didn't require complex characters or a deep, twisted plot to have a good time.  At the time, this was such a new thing that just the experience of playing a game like this was thrilling enough.  As a child of the 70's & 80's, I was also growing up at the dawn of video games, and I think there is a similarity there.  How could we play pong for 4 hours?  It was something completely new and revolutionary, so being lucky enough to be a part of something that was in its infancy was a large part of the appeal, at least for me.

I'm not pining for the "good old days" in the previous paragraph.  I was really just reminiscing, and trying to remember my feelings and emotions about gaming at that time in my life.  But doing so did kind of help me define what "old school" gaming means to me.  I think the biggest aspect of "old school" gaming for me is the mindset of just letting yourself go, to be completely immersed in the shared experience of playing a game where you can be anyone and try anything.  I also think that the GM/Player relationship is extremely important.  Before I really discovered modules, I had to create the world for the characters.  I had no idea what I was doing, but I would whip up a city, add some area villages, and then a vast wilderness, and that was about it.  I was no writer, and I had no training in the construction and management of plot lines, developing tension and so forth.  I just created a calendar, made up some "events" that I thought might affect the characters, revealed those events to the group as they occurred, and just went with whatever grabbed their interest.  I was a fledgling "sandbox gamer" before I even knew what that was! 

To sum up this blog-turned-novel, I think that "old school", to me, simply means playing the game with the mindset and goal of recapturing the magic of our earliest gaming experiences, whether 30 years ago or ;ast week.  I think the most important aspect that make a game feel "old school" to me is when the emphasis is on what's happening, and not how it's happening.  Gaming will always feel "old school" to me, because when I game, I'm always trying to recapture that feeling I had when I first discovered roleplaying games.  "Old School" is, to me, a state of mind, not a set of rules or even a playing style.

July Progress Report!

First off, for those of you who have access to either the Dropbox or Drive folders for Blood, Sweat & Steel, I have updated the character sheets!  Please download them, take a look at them, and let me know what you think!

Thanks to some exhaustive and robust play testing, there have been quite a few updates to the game in the past month.

• First, the 6 month experiment with the Gifts/Flaws system has come to its conclusion.  Comparing the notes and feedback between it and the Qualities system, I have decided that Qualities are better fit for this game.  This was a really tough decision, as the Gifts/Flaws system is considered the "standard" for Fudge, and Qualities are much more like Aspects in Fate.  As much as I wanted to keep things "old school" where I could, Qualities seem to fit the feel of the game better.  Qualities also streamline the game a bit, as it is 1 trait replacing 2 traits.  They are also self-balancing, and I miss having the Quality Types as a great way to encourage players to come up with more diverse traits for their characters.
• Switching back to Qualities game me more room on the character sheet for Skills, so I was able to increase the font size for them which makes them much easier to read.  It also gave me more room for the Rank drop-down boxes, so I made those a little bigger as well to make the Ranks more easily readable, even when the sheet is zoomed out to full-page view.
• Speaking of Skills, I've refined the list quite a bit.  There are still a total of 48 Skills equally divided into 8 categories, but I've streamlined some of the Skill names.  I also completely redesigned the Magic Skills to better fit the new magic system.  Here's what the new list looks like:

Athletic/Dexterity	Magic
Acrobatics	Alchemy
Athletics	Artificing
Riding	Divination
Running	Hypnotism
Sleight of Hand	Rituals
Swimming	Spells
Combat	Professional
Melee	Artisan
Mounted	Entertainer
Ranged	Farmer
Read Opponent	Hunter
Thrown	Merchant
Unarmed	Metalsmith
Covert/Urban	Scouting/Outdoor
Investigation	Boating
Observation	Mountaineering
Poisons	Navigation
Stealth (Urban)	Stealth (Nature)
Survival (Urban)	Survival (Nature)
Thieving	Tracking
Knowledge	Social/Manipulative
Civics	Carousing
Geography	Diplomacy
History	Haggle
Language	Intimidate
Nature	Lie
Supernatural	Seduce

• In order to maximize the space on the character sheet and make everything fit as well as possible, I split up the Harm (Wounds & Stress) into 2 separate tables.  I also added a small box into each table that automatically keeps track of the total penalties for Wounds and Stress.  This should make tracking Harm even easier!  Here's how that looks:

• The Divination and Hypnotism Skills are fully detailed and written up.  The Spells Skill is nearly complete.  I've also added Alchemy and Artificing to the Magic Skills Group.  I haven't written them up fully yet, but I have their core structure and mechanics designed, so I should have these fully detailed by the weekend.
• I'm developing the Ritual Magic Skill as a different system than Spells.  I have tried writing up a "Rituals-only" system with the bottom 2 levels of magnitude usable in Conflicts.  However, trying to use one magic system in a game with 2 different methods for pacing and tracking time turned into a nightmare.  The Ritual Skill will be very similar to the Spells Skill mechanically, but they will be very different in size, scope and flavor.

These are the big changes that have occurred in the past month.  I'm going to get all of these changes into the rules pdf before I do another revision.  If all goes well, I should have a revision ready for review in the next 1-2 weeks.