Aside from having more or less combat, what do you consider the main differences between the two? If possible, could you give examples or your own experiences?
Edit: I think a few posters have misinterpreted my question. By saying, "aside from having more or less combat," I meant to ignore combat and fighting all together, it's not part of the discussion. I don't care how much or how little a group fights in comparison to roleplay, I'm just talking about the ROLEPLAY aspect.
I would say it's more about Character interaction both PC to PC and PC to NPC. You can have 2 different groups play the same campaign, it will have the same amount of combat, the difference will come in how soon they get to each combat encounter. A group that is light on RP will see combat more frequently than a group that is heavy on RP. RP doesn't stop at combat though, you can describe how your character does certain things, so even a campaign that is combat heavy can also be RP heavy.
As for my own experiences, I'm still relatively new to playing. I'm getting to the point where I am starting to get more confident in trying to RP, both in social and combat situations.
Aside from having more or less combat, what do you consider the main differences between the two? If possible, could you give examples or your own experiences?
As @Yosterix touched on, it's largely about character interaction and how deeply a party will engage with the world. RP Light will mostly have quests as an excuse to go kill goblins. There won't really be a reason or engagement with the NPC, it's just "ah sweet! We get to kill goblins this week!" The combat is pretty much the point of the game. The quest, the world, everything in it, exists in order to create that fun situation where they fight.
RP heavy games will have the party engage with the NPC, the village they're in, the world around them. They will make decisions that are not necessarily optimal because that's what their character would do. There is still combat, but isn't the goal - it's another tool in the toolbox while they explore both their world and their character.
No one really sits at either extreme. Instead, it is a spectrum. We all have different tastes and even moods which influence what we want out of game at any given time. All modes are valid - it's just different ways of playing the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Do you cast mage armor, or does Valemnor mutter a few arcane words and trace patterns in the air as sigils of blue light appear and then absorb into his body?
I don’t think it’s as binary as the OP implies. The amount of combat doesn’t have to factor much into the equation. A campaign can have lots of role play and lots of fighting. In a basic sense, time is the limiting factor, you can play out every interaction with every shopkeeper person on the street and nobleman, and also have lots of intense, complex fights, just you might not have time to do both in the same session. Role play is about acting in character, doing that in a fight, or doing that talking to a shopkeeper doesn’t change it as role play.
I’d also say you can certainly have a high role play game with minimal combat, and vice versa. Just the two don’t have to be in competition.
To answer the question, I guess it’s about how much time the players spend in character. Do they say “I say, ‘I want 50’ of rope.’” Or do they engage in a conversation with the rope merchant without saying “I say.”
Most games I've experienced are a mix and I would classify heavy/light only for extremes where there's mostly RP and no RP. I watch only one group who'd I consider heavy RP as they have had sessions with zero combat and all combat is just a few rounds at most and two rounds usually. I watch another group with hours of continuous combat but also hours of continuous RP and cannot consider them to be light or heavy.
For disclaimer: This is all opinion from my view. That is all it is. That doesn't mean anyone else is wrong. That doesn't mean anyone who agrees with me is right, either.
Another disclaimer: That one with hours of combat and RP film their day-long sessions all at once but publish in 30-minute chunks which is perfect for my attention span.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I won't say that this is the "difference" between the two, but I think a big indicator of an RP-heavy playstyle vs. an RP-light playstyle is how much the players actually care about NPCs.
RP-Heavy players will treat NPCs as real people... they'll care about trying to avoid traumatizing young people in a crowd, they'll chat casually with the shop keepers. An RP-light playstyle will treat them more as a function within the world... sure, they'll actively interact with the important characters that are clearly part of the story, but otherwise they're aware that the NPCs largely don't matter, and unless the DM is really pushing them for harder RP, dismissing or insulting NPCs when you're done with their function isn't going to have any kind of serious repercussions for the characters. If anything it might lead to some funny moments at the table as the players clown on some random NPC as a gag before marching off to do gameplay stuff.
Role play is about acting in character... I guess it’s about how much time the players spend in character. Do they say “I say, ‘I want 50’ of rope.’” Or do they engage in a conversation with the rope merchant without saying “I say.”
I have to disagree with this. Roleplay is about being your character and making the choices they would make. Doing that in third person is every bit as valid as doing it in first.
With all the podcasts and CR and everything these days, people often conflate acting with roleplaying and think if they can't do a funny voice with archaic speech then they can't roleplay well.
If you feel what your character feels and communicate what your character is thinking and feeling, you are roleplaying. "Gulthor feels conflicted about buying the rope from this merchant" is every bit as valid as acting out that feeling.
The rest I agree with, especially the idea that amount of combat has little too do with how heavy your roleplay is. Many of the best roleplay moments I've ever had happened in combat - and why wouldn't they? It's where stakes are the highest.
You might be a heavy RP group if you have to check with your fellow players to make sure it's just your characters that don't like each other, not the players.
"Heavy roleplay" = "we don't have a trained sense for pacing or focus, so we put 110% effort into describing everything."
Ex: "As Belkor raises his polished oaken staff, set with seven opals to honor the seven great spirits of his homeland, he whispers a short refrain in the elven tongue: oog booga looga boog. A spectral blue light emanates from within him, and shimmers out across the staff, and you all see the faint outline of an elven hand reaching out. It grasps the door knob, turning it. 'Mage Hand,' he says, with a faint smile. He steps into the bathroom."
"Light roleplay" = "we cringe whenever we think about roleplaying, so we do the bare minimum in order to retain our pride."
Ex: "Wow, yeah, it seems like these villagers are really upset about the whole child-eating monster. Gorm looks out across the crowd and tells them we'll take care of it, don't worry. Does the monster have any known weaknesses?" (Are you asking the villagers?) "Oh, yeah. I guess so. And does it have to eat children? Or does it just prefer them?"
"Heavy roleplay" = "we don't have a trained sense for pacing or focus, so we put 110% effort into describing everything."
Ex: "As Belkor raises his polished oaken staff, set with seven opals to honor the seven great spirits of his homeland, he whispers a short refrain in the elven tongue: oog booga looga boog. A spectral blue light emanates from within him, and shimmers out across the staff, and you all see the faint outline of an elven hand reaching out. It grasps the door knob, turning it. 'Mage Hand,' he says, with a faint smile. He steps into the bathroom."
"Light roleplay" = "we cringe whenever we think about roleplaying, so we do the bare minimum in order to retain our pride."
Ex: "Wow, yeah, it seems like these villagers are really upset about the whole child-eating monster. Gorm looks out across the crowd and tells them we'll take care of it, don't worry. Does the monster have any known weaknesses?" (Are you asking the villagers?) "Oh, yeah. I guess so. And does it have to eat children? Or does it just prefer them?"
;P
I would say heavy roleplay doesn't have to be description heavy. The descriptions themselves can be the same. A lot of times the acting is more heavy. to some, describing every little spell and effect is tiresome. Instead, a lot of times 'heavy rp' is more about interaction and conversation than an overload of description. my opinion, of course
Role play is about acting in character... I guess it’s about how much time the players spend in character. Do they say “I say, ‘I want 50’ of rope.’” Or do they engage in a conversation with the rope merchant without saying “I say.”
I have to disagree with this. Roleplay is about being your character and making the choices they would make. Doing that in third person is every bit as valid as doing it in first.
With all the podcasts and CR and everything these days, people often conflate acting with roleplaying and think if they can't do a funny voice with archaic speech then they can't roleplay well.
If you feel what your character feels and communicate what your character is thinking and feeling, you are roleplaying. "Gulthor feels conflicted about buying the rope from this merchant" is every bit as valid as acting out that feeling.
The rest I agree with, especially the idea that amount of combat has little too do with how heavy your roleplay is. Many of the best roleplay moments I've ever had happened in combat - and why wouldn't they? It's where stakes are the highest.
I don’t think we’re disagreeing as much as I was unclear. I meant acting in the sense of “behaving like.” Not the sense of “putting on a performance.”
You might be a heavy RP group if you have to check with your fellow players to make sure it's just your characters that don't like each other, not the players.
Underrated comment. Five stars.
Personally, I find the difference between light and heavy RP to be the degree to which players inhabit their characters. If your group is happy spending an entire session chatting in character, wants to learn each other's secrets, gets emotionally invested in the lives and quandaries of the PCs, have frequent fireside chats in the aftermath of combat or narrative beats, and has to temperature-check after conflicts arise in-character...yeah. I think that's an RP-heavy group.
Light RP: You've been in the same game for 2 years and you've only just learned that the dwarven cleric played by the person sitting next to you is female.
Light RP: You've been in the same game for 2 years and you've only just learned that the dwarven cleric played by the person sitting next to you is female.
Depending on your preferred lore, that could be considered heavy roleplaying.
I consider the difference to be sufficiently subjective to be effectively non-existant.
I've seen heavy PR in real life, and I'll say this: It's not for me. I'm in it to have fun, not to wring out the dark recesses of my soul, and bare for all to see my inner torment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I see a divergence in how people are defining roleplay in the thread. Some consider it to be referencing the level of engagement with their character - are the players making decisions based on their interpretation of their character? Do they engage with the world? Are they interested in the worldbuilding? Are they playing the role of their character? Or are they playing a hack 'n' slash that is about stuffing the game with as much fighting as possible? The other interpretation seems to be the level of engagement in the storytelling aspect of the game. Do they describe the spells being performed? Do they describe everything as though it's a novel? Or are they skimping on the details and focussing on the general facts?
I can see both as being valid, but they are describing two different qualities and although they can be correlated, they should be distinguished between.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You make an excellent point, Linklite. More than once, I've joined a group that was "RP heavy" only to discover the players simply did combat descriptions and funny voices. To them, that was RP, and a lot of it. To me, it was just flavor - no emotional depth, which is what I really wanted in a game.
Both are valid, like you said, but the use of the same term conflates two very different playstyles. Definitely worth thinking about as I recruit for (and join) new campaigns in the future.
I think that's nearly all you can manage if you're playing a pre-planned adventure like the ones published by Wizards. These adventures don't know anything about your characters, and they rarely give the DM any advice on how to integrate such information when the DM does know about them. So, things are going to go a certain way, regardless of your character. Certain scenes are going to get major focus, and adding content to cater specifically to PCs means dragging out the plot. The most you can do is color within the lines with your preferred colorful prose (might I recommend purple?).
And when people have been trained on nothing but those, they end up with patterns of behavior.
But all of this could be boiled down to simply saying: D&D isn't built for "heavy roleplay." Heavy roleplay is basically homebrew. And as such, there's no, like, industry standard for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Aside from having more or less combat, what do you consider the main differences between the two? If possible, could you give examples or your own experiences?
Edit: I think a few posters have misinterpreted my question. By saying, "aside from having more or less combat," I meant to ignore combat and fighting all together, it's not part of the discussion. I don't care how much or how little a group fights in comparison to roleplay, I'm just talking about the ROLEPLAY aspect.
I would say it's more about Character interaction both PC to PC and PC to NPC. You can have 2 different groups play the same campaign, it will have the same amount of combat, the difference will come in how soon they get to each combat encounter. A group that is light on RP will see combat more frequently than a group that is heavy on RP. RP doesn't stop at combat though, you can describe how your character does certain things, so even a campaign that is combat heavy can also be RP heavy.
As for my own experiences, I'm still relatively new to playing. I'm getting to the point where I am starting to get more confident in trying to RP, both in social and combat situations.
As @Yosterix touched on, it's largely about character interaction and how deeply a party will engage with the world. RP Light will mostly have quests as an excuse to go kill goblins. There won't really be a reason or engagement with the NPC, it's just "ah sweet! We get to kill goblins this week!" The combat is pretty much the point of the game. The quest, the world, everything in it, exists in order to create that fun situation where they fight.
RP heavy games will have the party engage with the NPC, the village they're in, the world around them. They will make decisions that are not necessarily optimal because that's what their character would do. There is still combat, but isn't the goal - it's another tool in the toolbox while they explore both their world and their character.
No one really sits at either extreme. Instead, it is a spectrum. We all have different tastes and even moods which influence what we want out of game at any given time. All modes are valid - it's just different ways of playing the game.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Do you cast mage armor, or does Valemnor mutter a few arcane words and trace patterns in the air as sigils of blue light appear and then absorb into his body?
I don’t think it’s as binary as the OP implies. The amount of combat doesn’t have to factor much into the equation. A campaign can have lots of role play and lots of fighting. In a basic sense, time is the limiting factor, you can play out every interaction with every shopkeeper person on the street and nobleman, and also have lots of intense, complex fights, just you might not have time to do both in the same session.
Role play is about acting in character, doing that in a fight, or doing that talking to a shopkeeper doesn’t change it as role play.
I’d also say you can certainly have a high role play game with minimal combat, and vice versa. Just the two don’t have to be in competition.
To answer the question, I guess it’s about how much time the players spend in character. Do they say “I say, ‘I want 50’ of rope.’” Or do they engage in a conversation with the rope merchant without saying “I say.”
Also, amunsol gives a good example.
Most games I've experienced are a mix and I would classify heavy/light only for extremes where there's mostly RP and no RP. I watch only one group who'd I consider heavy RP as they have had sessions with zero combat and all combat is just a few rounds at most and two rounds usually. I watch another group with hours of continuous combat but also hours of continuous RP and cannot consider them to be light or heavy.
For disclaimer: This is all opinion from my view. That is all it is. That doesn't mean anyone else is wrong. That doesn't mean anyone who agrees with me is right, either.
Another disclaimer: That one with hours of combat and RP film their day-long sessions all at once but publish in 30-minute chunks which is perfect for my attention span.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I won't say that this is the "difference" between the two, but I think a big indicator of an RP-heavy playstyle vs. an RP-light playstyle is how much the players actually care about NPCs.
RP-Heavy players will treat NPCs as real people... they'll care about trying to avoid traumatizing young people in a crowd, they'll chat casually with the shop keepers. An RP-light playstyle will treat them more as a function within the world... sure, they'll actively interact with the important characters that are clearly part of the story, but otherwise they're aware that the NPCs largely don't matter, and unless the DM is really pushing them for harder RP, dismissing or insulting NPCs when you're done with their function isn't going to have any kind of serious repercussions for the characters. If anything it might lead to some funny moments at the table as the players clown on some random NPC as a gag before marching off to do gameplay stuff.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I have to disagree with this. Roleplay is about being your character and making the choices they would make. Doing that in third person is every bit as valid as doing it in first.
With all the podcasts and CR and everything these days, people often conflate acting with roleplaying and think if they can't do a funny voice with archaic speech then they can't roleplay well.
If you feel what your character feels and communicate what your character is thinking and feeling, you are roleplaying. "Gulthor feels conflicted about buying the rope from this merchant" is every bit as valid as acting out that feeling.
The rest I agree with, especially the idea that amount of combat has little too do with how heavy your roleplay is. Many of the best roleplay moments I've ever had happened in combat - and why wouldn't they? It's where stakes are the highest.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
You might be a heavy RP group if you have to check with your fellow players to make sure it's just your characters that don't like each other, not the players.
"Heavy roleplay" = "we don't have a trained sense for pacing or focus, so we put 110% effort into describing everything."
Ex: "As Belkor raises his polished oaken staff, set with seven opals to honor the seven great spirits of his homeland, he whispers a short refrain in the elven tongue: oog booga looga boog. A spectral blue light emanates from within him, and shimmers out across the staff, and you all see the faint outline of an elven hand reaching out. It grasps the door knob, turning it. 'Mage Hand,' he says, with a faint smile. He steps into the bathroom."
"Light roleplay" = "we cringe whenever we think about roleplaying, so we do the bare minimum in order to retain our pride."
Ex: "Wow, yeah, it seems like these villagers are really upset about the whole child-eating monster. Gorm looks out across the crowd and tells them we'll take care of it, don't worry. Does the monster have any known weaknesses?" (Are you asking the villagers?) "Oh, yeah. I guess so. And does it have to eat children? Or does it just prefer them?"
;P
I would say heavy roleplay doesn't have to be description heavy. The descriptions themselves can be the same. A lot of times the acting is more heavy. to some, describing every little spell and effect is tiresome. Instead, a lot of times 'heavy rp' is more about interaction and conversation than an overload of description. my opinion, of course
Updog
I don’t think we’re disagreeing as much as I was unclear. I meant acting in the sense of “behaving like.” Not the sense of “putting on a performance.”
Underrated comment. Five stars.
Personally, I find the difference between light and heavy RP to be the degree to which players inhabit their characters. If your group is happy spending an entire session chatting in character, wants to learn each other's secrets, gets emotionally invested in the lives and quandaries of the PCs, have frequent fireside chats in the aftermath of combat or narrative beats, and has to temperature-check after conflicts arise in-character...yeah. I think that's an RP-heavy group.
Light RP: You've been in the same game for 2 years and you've only just learned that the dwarven cleric played by the person sitting next to you is female.
Depending on your preferred lore, that could be considered heavy roleplaying.
I consider the difference to be sufficiently subjective to be effectively non-existant.
I've seen heavy PR in real life, and I'll say this: It's not for me. I'm in it to have fun, not to wring out the dark recesses of my soul, and bare for all to see my inner torment.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I see a divergence in how people are defining roleplay in the thread. Some consider it to be referencing the level of engagement with their character - are the players making decisions based on their interpretation of their character? Do they engage with the world? Are they interested in the worldbuilding? Are they playing the role of their character? Or are they playing a hack 'n' slash that is about stuffing the game with as much fighting as possible? The other interpretation seems to be the level of engagement in the storytelling aspect of the game. Do they describe the spells being performed? Do they describe everything as though it's a novel? Or are they skimping on the details and focussing on the general facts?
I can see both as being valid, but they are describing two different qualities and although they can be correlated, they should be distinguished between.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You make an excellent point, Linklite. More than once, I've joined a group that was "RP heavy" only to discover the players simply did combat descriptions and funny voices. To them, that was RP, and a lot of it. To me, it was just flavor - no emotional depth, which is what I really wanted in a game.
Both are valid, like you said, but the use of the same term conflates two very different playstyles. Definitely worth thinking about as I recruit for (and join) new campaigns in the future.
I think that's nearly all you can manage if you're playing a pre-planned adventure like the ones published by Wizards. These adventures don't know anything about your characters, and they rarely give the DM any advice on how to integrate such information when the DM does know about them. So, things are going to go a certain way, regardless of your character. Certain scenes are going to get major focus, and adding content to cater specifically to PCs means dragging out the plot. The most you can do is color within the lines with your preferred colorful prose (might I recommend purple?).
And when people have been trained on nothing but those, they end up with patterns of behavior.
But all of this could be boiled down to simply saying: D&D isn't built for "heavy roleplay." Heavy roleplay is basically homebrew. And as such, there's no, like, industry standard for it.