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. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment