Combat and Roleplaying

[coffee]

I was in a 2nd ed game a while back and the girl next to me had never played D&D before. So, naturally, I helped her out (the DM was busy with about 10 players, so I stepped in), telling her what dice to roll when, etc.

We were in combat and she asked me "What do I do?" I asked her, "Well, what would your character do?"

She looked at me for a few seconds and then I could see the little light come on. "Oh!" she said, "we're still roleplaying, even in combat!"

See, to her, there were two different games going on. The roleplaying game was when we were exploring, but it switched to a tactical game once initiative was rolled.

I was thinking about this today and wondered how prevalent this perception was. I gotta admit, back in my AD&D (1st ed) days, that's pretty much how it went. (Actually, it was mostly roll-playing and rule-playing at the table, then we went out for coffee afterward and that's when the real roleplaying happened.)

Anybody have any comments on this, particularly as it applies to OD&D? For you old-timers, war stories from back in the day are totally acceptable as responses.

[ffilz]

Back in the day, I think we considered all play to be role playing. It really wasn't until the mid-80s when I started playing things like Champions and Fantasy Hero that I really saw combat and role-play as something different, and then it was really just following other's conventions.

After getting involved with the Forge and other game theory sites, and seeing Vincent Baker's "Lumpley Principle" I realized that combat most certainly is part of role play. As long as the players are making contributions to the game fiction, they are role playing. A statement "Grog swings his mighty sword at the troll!" is role playing. Heck, even "I hit the troll!" is role playing.

What is not role playing is the GM basically ignoring the game mechanics and the players to push his own story. And I'm a bit unsure about a totally dice/randomizer free cooperative fiction deal (where contributions are probably based as much on the social pecking order as the quality of the contributions), but such an entirely social system of resolution would still be "system" by the Lumpley Principle.

Understanding this has freed me to understand and accept OD&D better, and now I think bending OD&D too far from the dungeon setting is liable to risk going into "GM telling his story" land. Other games are much better for role playing in other settings.

Frank

[makofan]

That's right - the city is the place you return to between the meaningful dungeon sessions I usually know what the monsters are going to do - not knowing what the players will do, and not knowing how the dice will shake out, is what turns it interesting.

[Finarvyn]

coffee said:

See, to her, there were two different games going on. The roleplaying game was when we were exploring, but it switched to a tactical game once initiative was rolled.

I never really thought of it that way, but you're right. Many of my players (often female) tend to get more bored when battle occurs and perk up significantly when we're back to the adventure part of the session.

While I never thought of them as two totally different things, I can see where a player might because all of a sudden we dig out the miniature figures and start to micro-manage character location, put actions in specific order, and so on. While the exploration phase of the adventure does contain marching order, often players can speak up at will to suggest a course of action. When we get into combat, suddenly taking turns becomes significant. Interesting notion.

[coffee]

Fin, that's it exactly.

On the other hand, I've know (mostly male) players to get bored up until the dice start rolling. Then they wake up and 'get to play'.

[philotomy]

While I've noticed this difference in various players, I've never really thought about it. Interesting thread.

My son is definitely a "perks up when the dice are rolling and the blood is flowing" player. My wife, on the other hand, gets stressed out by combat (she doesn't *dislike* it, she just get really anxious -- especially if she thinks the PCs are in real danger -- which they often are, in my game), and seems to have the most fun when role-playing social interactions. In B2, my son loved the Caves of Chaos, and my wife loved the Keep.

[Finarvyn]

When my daughter was ten she was allowed to play OD&D with all of the adults, and I noticed this general effect. She was bored with all of the talking, but really perked up when it was time to roll dice.

I finally figured this out and started having her do some of the rolls that I might have often done myself; for example, if I was rolling for a wandering monster I'd have her roll a die and not tell her what she was rolling. Sometimes she would roll a die that meant nothing. It helped hold her attention and wasn't an inconvenience for me.

[serendipity]

When I first started gaming I also had the game-within-a-game concept. It began that way because I hadn't ever played combat type games and didn't really know what to do in a fight. Later it continued because everyone else in my gaming groups (I had two) played that way. It didn't seem to matter what the character stats were, players (especially the guys) metagamed the best tactics they knew in order to win. Fast forward to now. These days I role play just about everything, to the eternal irritation of my fellow players, because it's fun and it's what I love best about gaming. Even so, the combat rounds are still the dullest parts of our game transcripts.

--Sere