|
Post by ayslyn on Feb 22, 2012 18:02:13 GMT -8
In my friend's game, the RP only ramps up once the battlemat comes out. Wow. If RP only ramps up when the battlemat comes out, I'm real curious what happens when the battlemat goes away then. Certainly, your point looks so much more valid when you nitpick and focus on semantics. My point, however, is that role playing only stops if you let it.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Feb 22, 2012 19:26:00 GMT -8
I honestly wasn't trying to nitpick or insult anyone. And I certainly don't think that using minis, a battlemat, props, or that anything else prevents RP from happening. As you said, RP only stops if the players allow it to. It's just been my experience that the less there is on the table, the more people will be inclined to RP.
I really am curious about your "RP only ramps up once the battlemat comes out" statement though. Perhaps it's because I find combat to be the least interesting part of a game session, but I can't really imagine what the players RP about during a combat. I can see people acting in character or using their character's voice or mannerisms when giving orders in battle or making plans. But again, in my experience the players who got excited when the battlemat rolled out just wanted to roll dice and hit stuff. They had out of character discussions with people about what Powers or tactics they should use, or where they should move or what other people were going to do on their turn, but not a lot of RPing. It was just "I move here" "I activate my Seven Swords of Ventuslar Power" and so on.
I really am sincerely interested in hearing some examples of your friend's game so I can understand what's going on.
|
|
|
Post by heavymetaljess on Feb 24, 2012 9:51:17 GMT -8
I really feel like minis and GM provided maps/battle mats limit players who have never used them and constrain the imagination of people who have. We play just like Stu described - no minis, no GM provided maps, and all combat is imagined in the head. In my 2E game, two players are used to never having maps unless they drew one from an in character stand point (Josh & Alex). One was playing for the very first time and has no expectations (Rae) and the other is used to mats and minis (Mike).
When our first combat broke out there was only the slightest resistance to me describing the scene instead of pulling out minis. Mike was open minded and in the end really liked not having the physical bits (wink, wink). He made some great decisions because he had no maps to look at during the game. Josh is an inventive combatant and wouldn't have curb-stomped an assassin if he had a battle map to tell him he wasn't near said curb. Alex was rolling like a boss - practically cleaving bad guys in half. I let her move quicker than her character actually can in that first combat to keep up the momentum and impress an important NPC with her combat prowess.
BUT, for this to work, I have to side with hyvemynd - the GM has to be really descriptive of approximate distances (for spell casters and ranged shooters) and basic visuals. If you can create a feeling of the scene and at least one player is being inventive, everyone else will join in. If the fight's in a kitchen, the character to pin a bad guy behind a table will get the next character throwing trash onto the floor to slow movement.
|
|
|
Post by daeglan on Feb 25, 2012 10:30:29 GMT -8
My problem with that is EVERY time I have played what the GM thought they were describing and what I visualized NEVER match up. This leads to arguments and frustration and much badness. Having maps and minis eliminates that problem. If the role playing stops I see no reason why all of the discussions on increasing role playing would fail.
I do not see maps as constraining imagination. As they say a picture is worth a thousand words. being able to see where everyone is and what the environment is would certainly in my eyes help the imagination not hinder it.
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on Feb 25, 2012 21:16:31 GMT -8
When me and my pals grew up playing D&D 2nd Edition, we naturally had no money, so we did it all on paper and it felt very free form. When D&D 3.0 came around, we all had our first after school jobs, so we did the miniatures thing.
Now we're playing again, some Savage Worlds, some Pathfinder, we have been keeping only the minis and the decorations(I have several packs of barrels, chairs, torches etc etc) but not bothering with the battle maps. Mostly because we are just testing to see if we want to continue to play, so we're not planning out the maps.
We have found it liberating.
We have our own "old school" free form feel from when we were young, but we have the more tangible visualizations too. I'm getting a lot more of the "I want to crawl under here for cover" or "I want to jump on top of him" type stuff I remember as a younger player that I just did not seem to get from my players during our battle mat 3.0 "square by square" combat. I never denied them these things back then, it just did not seem to come up as often.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Feb 26, 2012 10:32:07 GMT -8
I honestly wasn't trying to nitpick or insult anyone. And I certainly don't think that using minis, a battlemat, props, or that anything else prevents RP from happening. As you said, RP only stops if the players allow it to. It's just been my experience that the less there is on the table, the more people will be inclined to RP. I really am curious about your "RP only ramps up once the battlemat comes out" statement though. Perhaps it's because I find combat to be the least interesting part of a game session, but I can't really imagine what the players RP about during a combat. I can see people acting in character or using their character's voice or mannerisms when giving orders in battle or making plans. But again, in my experience the players who got excited when the battlemat rolled out just wanted to roll dice and hit stuff. They had out of character discussions with people about what Powers or tactics they should use, or where they should move or what other people were going to do on their turn, but not a lot of RPing. It was just "I move here" "I activate my Seven Swords of Ventuslar Power" and so on. I really am sincerely interested in hearing some examples of your friend's game so I can understand what's going on. I guess some of it is going to come down to what you consider RP. Describing your actions as more than just "I move here", and "I swing at him" is the first, HUGE step. In our first game, we got into combat in a mountain pass. On one side, there was a "shelf" with archers. My monk raced over, made a climbing check to scale the wall and engage those archers. All normal mechanically. I described it as him planting his sword (he wields one of those giant anime-style weapons) in the ground, and flipping up over it, onto the shelf, and pulling it up behind him. In another game, our DM had backlash rules for spellcasting. Our mage was knocked out by a bad backlash roll. My bard, who was a little smitten with her, declared that there were invisible enemies (did I mention he wasn't the sharpest pencil in the bin?) and spent the rest of the fight standing over her, protecting her from these invisible enemies. Role playing is more than just chatting with NPCs, and character drama. I recommend picking up the Feng Shui rulebook, as it has a lot of good advice for making combats more interesting.
|
|
|
Post by daeglan on Feb 26, 2012 19:29:20 GMT -8
And many of those actions require a better grasp on what the layout of the battlefield than I have known a GM to be able to impart with words alone. I am not really interested in playing 20 questions when my turn comes up.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Feb 26, 2012 23:37:09 GMT -8
It's pretty difficult to say where descriptions of actions end and role playing begins. Plus the two areas overlap quite a bit and are not mutually exclusive. I like both of your examples ashlyn, especially the second one about the love-smitten bard. Deciding that your sub-average intelligence character didn't understand what was happening, and then making choices based on what he thought was happening (even though he was wrong) is great. If I were GMing a game of Savage Worlds and one of my players did something like that, I'd probably give them a Benny. I'd definitely give the player a Benny if they spent the entire fight standing over the unconscious mage exposing themselves to harm because of it. The one about the sword-wielding monk moves a bit closer to what I would call an action description rather than role playing, but if your monk is always doing crazy, over the top stuff like that, then you are acting in character. Like I said, it's a pretty grey area. I would argue though that neither of those examples require a battlemat or minis to be on the table. However, neither would having a battlemat and minis out prevent those actions from happening. Those kinds of moments can happen regardless of whether physical props are being used or if everything is being run completely "in head". I would disagree though daeglan that those actions need a better description than the GM's words alone can provide and therefore require a battlemat. In the monk example, the GM has said that there are archers on a "shelf". What more do you need to know? The players know there is a shelf or ledge there and that there are archers on it. If the player then says "I run headlong towards the archers, hurl my sword into the ground and use it as a springboard to vault up onto the ledge." several things could happen: - The GM acts like a douche and says "No. The ledge is too high. You can't do that." Which is a total dick move. The archers got onto the ledge somehow, so the PCs should be able to as well.
- The GM allows the player to do it without a roll simply because the move is awesome, and the character's concept implies that this sort of thing is possible. The character vaults onto the ledge and now gets to make an attack regardless of how far away the ledge actually was.
- The GM thinks the move is awesome, but that the attempt shouldn't automatically succeed. She says something like "OK, give me a jump check (or whatever skill is appropriate) at (some reasonable) difficulty." The player rolls and the GM narrates the outcome based on what the dice say.
- The GM decides that the ledge is some distance away and says "OK, but you won't be able to get over there until your next turn because of how far away the ledge is. Do you still want to do that?"
There are other variations of those options, of course. Like the GM could decide that the ledge is at a height where the player will need to make two or even three successful climb/jump/acrobatics checks to get up to the top. Or she could decide that if the player rolls really well on their check that they could also attack the archers as soon as the character lands. There was an episode somewhere in the back catalogue that related the story of a GM who always responded with a "No, you can't." when players began a question with "Can I...". The GM wasn't being a dick, he was simply trying to train his played to just do things without asking if they could first. Now granted, if you're playing a game where ranges and effects are only given in squares (like 4e) then you can't free form combat. But as I said before, I find that square based movement discourages "heroic" actions. While playing 4e, there were numerous times I had an awesome picture in my head of what my PC was going to do on his turn, but then couldn't do it because I was a space or two short of movement. Sometimes the GM would handwave that away and told us to "Move the few extra squares because that move is awesome!" but that's a slippery slope to start going down. If the GM starts doing that too often, why use the battlemat? Just do everything in head. But if the GM doesn't do that at all, the players start to play a boardgame. Personally, I only find combats interesting when there is something meaningful at stake. Kicking in the door of a dungeon and going to town on a bunch of Orcs who are simply sitting there minding their own business just doesn't do it for me anymore. There is no way that combat will be interesting for me regardless of where it takes place, what happens during the fight, or what system it's in. It doesn't matter if there is a battlemap on the table or not. If the only reason for fighting is some variation of "to get loot and XP" then I won't really be engaged in the story or the fight. I may be in the minority when I say that, but hey. Different people like different things.
|
|
|
Post by daeglan on Feb 27, 2012 0:29:31 GMT -8
What more fo you need to know?
How bout how far is that shelf from my character? how high up is that shelf? Where are they in relation to the other players? Where are they in relation to the other enemies on the field? Is there cover? How far is that shelf from any other enemies? And so on. These are all things that can effect your decision. These are also all things your character would be able to judge and also things the GM may forget to mention or have difficulty verbalizing the full layout easily.
The Ledge might be too high. Maybe there is a door behind them and that's how they got up there. maybe the latter requires 2 turns to climb. It is not a douche move and by using a map and telling players upfront while laying out the map eliminates the fuzzy ness of describing the scene in your head and makes you less likely to leave out details.
Often times as the GM is laying out the map you can ask questions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2012 5:20:43 GMT -8
I had a big long reply to this, and just deleted it, because I don't think it was helpful.
Suffice it to say, I have never played a combat with minis. I have watched and listened to some, but never played or run one.
I have also never had the issues that daeglan describes, during combat. Maybe I'm just lucky/good at GMing them.
--Pukka Tukka
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2012 11:07:13 GMT -8
Wow, three pages....doesn't it boil down to 'if it works for your game and group use it, if not don't'
When my group plays supers, sci-fi, PA, or some other modern setting it doesn't make sense to use em, but for fantasy it only improves our game. As GM I enjoy finding and making unique figs that describe a character/monster more than I could and there are so many cool maps out there by WOTC, Paizo, and others. For us maps and minis improve the game. We play a deadly game, and with maps the PCs have a better chance to win. Our game has simple combat rules that allow movement and positioning, and my players know how to RP on the maps during combat. We also set the minis in beer bottle caps to designate different condition effects (stunned, blinded, drunk).
But, like I said 'if it works for your game and group use them, and if not don't' T
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Feb 27, 2012 11:55:50 GMT -8
That brings up a very compelling question:
What brands of beer caps would do you use for different conditions?
|
|
joegun
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 249
Preferred Game Systems: Savage Worlds
Currently Playing: Just GM'ing right now.
Currently Running: Rippers Resurrected, and Savage RIFTS!
Favorite Species of Monkey: Baboon
|
Post by joegun on Feb 27, 2012 14:26:21 GMT -8
That brings up a very compelling question: What brands of beer caps would do you use for different conditions? bud light = poisoned!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2012 14:33:38 GMT -8
It's usually by type:
Any Belgium brew- Invisibility Hefeweizen- temp charisma boost IPA- Intermiten Protection Affect Anything clear in color- temp change of gender Any Stout- temp strength boost Big Buck Imperial Porter (20% ABV)- temp dead
etc....
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Feb 27, 2012 14:36:23 GMT -8
Sierra Nevada Torpedo IPA = stunned (from the hops)
Newcastle Brown = skunked
Stone Brewery Arrogant Bastard = humbled
|
|