How to get roll players to roleplay

[Narmoth]

I've finally realized that my players prefer to kill / rescue all the npcs in my campaign, rather than try to interact with them and role-play against those npcs, and by talking with the npcs discover the awesome backstory that unfolds in the campaign world.
This really annoys me, especially since they need to discover some of what's going on to be able to kill other stuff later on. Also, I don't care about filling the computers role in a hack-and-slash campaign, only generating maps and monsters.
So, any suggestions how to get them to try to:
- bargain, bluff and try to talk with opposing npcs rather than try to kill them or run away from them, and giving up when it is doubtful that either of them will be successful
- stop expecing the npcs that don't try to kill them to be over the top friendly and helpful (except shopkeepers) for no gain at all
- try to find out what's going on rather than to expect some npcs to say "go and kill/steal/whatever, and be rewarded with ... to get to the part where they can kill stuff.

The age range of the players is 18 to 27, with me being 23.
The problem is the same in both campaigns I run with mostly the same people.
One of the campaigns has been going on since 2001, the other was started about half a year ago.

[Shpadoinkle]

Try asking them.

[AslanCross]

I typically send humanoids against my PCs and have them trashtalk. That's a start at least.

[Mastikator]

The enemies are more powerful than the PC's, but they are also reasonable, and of a kind that the players can sympathize with. Also, the PC's are in a position to be able to bargain with their enemies. But they can't escape, and can't win if they fight. Sort of forcing them to talk to the NPCs, it's the first foot into roleplaying.

If you can get them into this situation, they'll either roleplay or they'll die. If they roleplay good, reward them, if they roleplay bad, don't punish (try to help them instead).

Also, try asking them to roleplay in advance, so they might get the hint when the time comes.

You can also ask questions about the personalities of their characters, and when/if they act contrary to their described personality, ask what their justification is.


There might also be the risk that they simply don't want to roleplay.

[Chineselegolas]

Give RP rewards. One of them does some epic roleplaying, toss a bit more treasure or xp at them.
They possibly just kill everything as they want more phat lootz, so by rewarding them for doing other things mechanically, they may find the enjoyment that comes from roleplaying instead of rollplaying and then continue without the incentive

[kamikasei]

Discuss the issue with them out of character. If they aren't totally averse to some in-character conversation, and also aren't simply jerks, they will likely make an effort when told it's a serious issue affecting your enjoyment of the game.

Within the game, try having the shopkeepers and merchants strike up conversations while doing their dealing.

Try also simply having NPCs ask questions or make comments that don't directly bear on killing or rescuing. Have little things in the world, or options in future conversations, hinge on the kind of answers given in side conversations. The duke trying to get the players on his side asks about their origins. When next they return to the city, he sends them something that reminds them of home (regional foods or clothes, etc.). Show that what they say to people in the world has effects beyond the outcome of that single conversation tree.

[Erom]

If ALL of your players prefer a roleplay light game, you might be the one that needs to change your style, unfortunately (though giving the DM chair to someone else might get them interested in the worlds more (since they crafted them)).

My group plays for the interesting tactical situations in combat, and NOT for the story (the group reasoning is "if I wanted a good story, I'd read a book, none of us can write for crap compared to a real author"), so even though I am, in addition to a roll player, a big world-builder, I have to scale that part of my play back when with my regular group, and channel my creativity into constructing interesting combat challenges.

Don't get stuck thinking that "kick in the doors" style play is any less valid than "live your character" roleplay heavy play. They are both valid styles, and if all your players prefer the crunch to the fluff, you may have to just "roll" (pun intended) with that.

[pirateshow]

Give the PCs a job that can't get done without human interaction: maybe they have to steal information from the lord's manor, but they don't know who might possess it. Do they dress up and crash the Baron's party, or dress down and get themselves hired as extra kitchen help on a busy night? Make sure that the MacGuffin is information, though, and not a physical doodad- if it's something they can smash or stealth their way to and simply make off with, they'll probably take that route. Make them talk to people to find out who knows what, perhaps having to assemble the relevant information by inference after speaking to several key individuals who each know a little bit, and they'll have no choice but to roleplay.

That said, your job as DM is to make the game fun, and if rolling dice and causing a ruckus is their definition of fun, you might be stuck with that. Throw their dice-loving brains a bone by incorporating skill checks/challenges into this adventure of social intrigue.

[Devils_Advocate]

It doesn't sound like they're doing a poor job of roleplaying, per se. It sounds to me like they're doing an excellent job of roleplaying a group of antisocial mercenaries. And realistically, a lot of "adventuring parties" are going to be just that: gangs of greedy thugs who mostly kill other sapient beings for a living. We're not talking about well-adjusted members of society here.

Since these guys are plainly unskilled at the more subtle nuances of social interaction, it is almost inevitable that they eventually become the target of some sort of sinister manipulation: pawns in somebody's game. So if you want to encourage more investigation and interaction with other characters, try having them used in increasingly obvious ways. Maybe an anonymous figure could tip them off that their employer isn't what he appears to be. Hopefully they'll eventually become motivated to try to figure out what's going on.

Have them run into a few unfortunate surprises, and try to make it clear that they could have seen them coming if they'd been willing to ask more about what they were getting into.

[Egiam]

Have the players find a tied-up hostage of their enemies. What if he (or she) has seen the location of the secret entrance? This causes roleplaying.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Include interesting NPCs (not ones that dominate scenes, but ones that capture the players' interest with minimal action) and involve the PCs in the gameworld.

Most players have an instinct to settle down that flares up randomly, usually after they kill the inhabitants of a particularly nifty (and small) piece of architecture, or save some small place with no powerful rulers or protectors. This leads to a great deal of RP when encouraged. Just make sure to provide incentive to stick around - interesting people, opportunities for profiting in some way, and nearby adventure.

Involvement in the gameworld is the single best tool. I love running my Glorantha campaigns, where the PCs are always members of a society (usually a Heortling clan of some hundreds of people, living in an area the size of a small village and surrounding farmlands). The gameworld lacks your traditional economy - coin is useless, and there's no such thing as "inns" or "taverns" (the era is most comparable to Europe under the Roman Empire, in the very early Dark Ages). You only get to eat if you work for your food, either in the fields or by serving a specific society that produces food. The clan provides the PCs with weapons, lodgings, magic, cattle, food, support, love, training, prestige, influence... everything they could want. And once the PCs get used to this, they start thinking about things the way their characters should - family comes first. They turn in their loot to the chief, as they should, and receive part of it back as gifts (assuming the chief is generous as he should be). They approach challenges in a way that's conscious of the consequences for their clan. They spontaneously seek out ways to improve the clan - they don't go cattle-raiding just to get experience and cows, they go cattle-raiding to increase their clan's herds and prosperity (and to vex enemies of the clan!).

In D&D, where creating an ecology like this is a lot harder and goes against many of the game's basic assumptions and tropes, my players rarely bother with much roleplay, because they have no reason or motivation for it. They don't feel so deeply involved in the world.

So, yeah. Involve your players in the gameworld. Give them motivations. Once that's working, give them complex problems. "But if you just kill him, his family will have a blood feud with yours, and that could break out into a clan war - in the middle of harvest-season! And the gods will certainly favor them, because they'll have just cause."

[Lemur]

It doesn't sound like they're doing a poor job of roleplaying, per se. It sounds to me like they're doing an excellent job of roleplaying a group of antisocial mercenaries. And realistically, a lot of "adventuring parties" are going to be just that: gangs of greedy thugs who mostly kill other sapient beings for a living. We're not talking about well-adjusted members of society here.

Since these guys are plainly unskilled at the more subtle nuances of social interaction, it is almost inevitable that they eventually become the target of some sort of sinister manipulation: pawns in somebody's game. So if you want to encourage more investigation and interaction with other characters, try having them used in increasingly obvious ways. Maybe an anonymous figure could tip them off that their employer isn't what he appears to be. Hopefully they'll eventually become motivated to try to figure out what's going on.

Have them run into a few unfortunate surprises, and try to make it clear that they could have seen them coming if they'd been willing to ask more about what they were getting into.

I was thinking along these lines as well. As DA says, the PCs sound pretty much like callous mercenaries- now ask yourself, do NPCs in your campaign world react to them as such? For example, if they walk into a store, does the shopkeeper deal with them in a neutral, businesslike manner (like you would with most people) or with a cautious "I don't want any trouble" attitude (like you might if you had 6 hit points and a group of thugs walked into the same room as you).

It sounds like you make your NPCs interact with the PCs in a way that attempts to make the PCs do what you want them to do and know what you want them to know. While this might seem like the obvious, keep in mind that the computer you desire so much not to be could do that just as easily.

If the PCs are little more than wandering killers, then the people of your world should treat them as such: commoners shy away, authorities treat them with suspicion, and as long as they maintain the "kill for treasure" attitude, the main source of their employment should be from seedy individuals with increasingly questionable ethics. You shouldn't have to force information about the story on them if they're not interested. They can suffer the consequences (unless the consequences are something like "you died because you didn't talk to the one guy who would tell you the right solution to the problem")

[Tormsskull]

If ALL of your players prefer a roleplay light game, you might be the one that needs to change your style, unfortunately (though giving the DM chair to someone else might get them interested in the worlds more (since they crafted them)).


I'd agree with passing the dm chair to someone else. Personally I don't enjoy hack n slash games (unless it is module), and I wouldn't want to dm or play in them.

[Flickerdart]

If "kicking in the door" is their style, and you want them to get a piece of information...make it known to them through implicit or explicit means that person A of criminal element B knows the location of C, where C is something they want. Obviously, they can't just waltz in there and kill everybody, because, say, A is not a head honcho locked up in his office, but one of the rank mercenaries that's going to be fighting against them when they charge in. If they kill him, C is lost forever.

So. They'll either have to negotiate with the enemies after they bash in the door, snoop around through A's belongings, or get A alone and interrogate him. Whichever way, they can't just use combat to get it done.

[valadil]

Try a different system. A lot of players think D&D is just about kicking down the door. If you start over without preconceptions you can get them to roleplay more easily.

I also recommend backstories.

[woodenbandman]

Erom is correct, you can't force the players to play a game that you want them to play. They wanna kick down the door, and as the DM you have to let them kick down said door. Try throwing some dialogue in the middle of combats in the form of insults/gloating bad guys or begging and such. If you get a rise out of players, you've accomplished your goal, because they've given a little. They may eventually choose to give more if you present them with interesting situations. if they're getting bored, drop it; it clearly wasn't meant to be.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Erom is correct, you can't force the players to play a game that you want them to play. They wanna kick down the door, and as the DM you have to let them kick down said door.

This assumes the players have made a conscious choice for this playstyle over others, which is not always the case. (Indeed, it may very rarely be the case.) Players who have not encountered or tried different ways of playing - like no combat, all interaction - will usually not think to try something else. Moreover, an entire group playing hack-and-slash is not an environment in which individual players are likely to try out a new, more roleplay-heavy style.

Helping players explore other styles is rarely a bad idea.

[FMArthur]

Your efforts produce a loud "THUMP", scuffmarks, and foot pain. The door is far too sturdy for that. Your keen senses (DC -5 Spot) reveal a shiny doorknob to you.

Sometimes, you just need to have their usual strategy actually fail. Don't get me wrong, some groups don't want to roleplay, but some just don't know how to, and I've dealt with a couple like that. It sounds petty and 'railroady', but it can awaken actual, good roleplayers in some people that you can actually trust to behave like people in your world after a few instances of mandatory roleplaying. A few instances of dealing with overwhelming odds, imprisonment, or having a specific, paid mission to stop a war is all it takes for some groups to start interacting nonviolently with your world. After they get into the habit, you won't need to strictly 'demand' roleplaying in such a manner.

But if you are playing with a group who named their characters Master Chief, Killblood McGoresplatter, Gandalf, and Pimpmasta, don't bother.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Sometimes, you just need to have their usual strategy actually fail.

This is very true. Conditioning players with success or failure is the easiest approach.

You have to be careful, though. If you keep revealing that they killed some innocents who just happened to look like armed hobgoblins and having doors open when kicked, you'll just piss them off.

Kicking in doors and attacking everyone is very often at least a bad option, and there's nothing railroady about allowing PCs to suffer consequences for bad choices.

[Narmoth]

First of all, thank you for all suggestions. I'll try to comment at least some of them:



Don't get stuck thinking that "kick in the doors" style play is any less valid than "live your character" roleplay heavy play. They are both valid styles, and if all your players prefer the crunch to the fluff, you may have to just "roll" (pun intended) with that.

The problem is that I don't care about the "kick in the doors" style that was the style of the game when I introduced them for it back in 2001. I frankly don't care about dm-ing such a game anymore.

And I still have epic battles. I just want the players to talk to the part of the epic world they aren't supposed to kill.



Have the players find a tied-up hostage of their enemies. What if he (or she) has seen the location of the secret entrance? This causes roleplaying.

One of the players tried to use a charisma-check to sleep with her in stead. No-one asked why she had clerical powers (she had previously healed the new member of the party in the slave market) in the underdark but didn't act like she was a priestess of the spider queen.


Also, the main problem is that they are high elves in underdark. They should have a snowmans chance in hell there normally, even in disguise. If they talk with the right people, they should be doing fine, but it's totally unrealistic to expect the priesthood to ignore them if they are totally unable to be careful. Yes, I could throw them in the temple prison. But story-vice, that's where they want to get to rescue a npc, so that would really be helping them and railroading a lot.


I'd agree with passing the dm chair to someone else. Personally I don't enjoy hack n slash games (unless it is module), and I wouldn't want to dm or play in them.

Did that. It's just that sometimes, there's still demand for my campaigns, as they are more powerful there, and the players are powergamers.


If "kicking in the door" is their style, and you want them to get a piece of information...make it known to them through implicit or explicit means that person A of criminal element B knows the location of C, where C is something they want. Obviously, they can't just waltz in there and kill everybody, because, say, A is not a head honcho locked up in his office, but one of the rank mercenaries that's going to be fighting against them when they charge in. If they kill him, C is lost forever.

So. They'll either have to negotiate with the enemies after they bash in the door, snoop around through A's belongings, or get A alone and interrogate him. Whichever way, they can't just use combat to get it done.

Tried that. But how can I give them that information if they are in enemy territory and not talkative?
I sent them to retrieve a staff for a wizard. The thief is known, and possible location also. They find the thief. See that he hasn't the staff (he's handed it over to the one who commissioned the thievery). They kill everybody, including the leader of the thiefs guild and the thief they were looking for, and now have not a chance in heck to find the staff.
Now I'm going to have the staff appear with the new owner. He'll kill the wizard that hired the adventurers and take his place, showing the players how bad things can get when they kill everything. But I'm not sure it will actually help.


Your efforts produce a loud "THUMP", scuffmarks, and foot pain. The door is far too sturdy for that. Your keen senses (DC -5 Spot) reveal a shiny doorknob to you.

Sometimes, you just need to have their usual strategy actually fail. Don't get me wrong, some groups don't want to roleplay, but some just don't know how to, and I've dealt with a couple like that. It sounds petty and 'railroady', but it can awaken actual, good roleplayers in some people that you can actually trust to behave like people in your world after a few instances of mandatory roleplaying. A few instances of dealing with overwhelming odds, imprisonment, or having a specific, paid mission to stop a war is all it takes for some groups to start interacting nonviolently with your world. After they get into the habit, you won't need to strictly 'demand' roleplaying in such a manner

I'm not saying they should interact non-violently all the time. But they need at least to talk to get from combat A, in location N, to combat B in location M without following railroad tracks.
Also, failure means death burned in this campaign. Gruesome and horrible death, with their bodies being looted, and the remains.

[Zen Master]

I've come upon this problem mostly when playing games that include assault rifles. And grenades. The existance of such weapons tends to make players think they are Rambo.

What has worked for me in these cases is a demonstration. Say they get a simple mission. Go to A, and collect B. When they park their minivan outside A, C happens. C could be a cyborg/robot/Strike team/whatever, also sent to collect B. The players give it their best - but their bullets bounce or miss, or they are held at bay by suppressive fire, while C grabs B and exits stage right.

All this designed to produce one result. One of the players will go: 'We need bigger guns. *MUCH* bigger guns.'

At which point I introduce the concept of contacts - people who can and will do favors, but wont always take payment in money, and are not as such killable. At least, there is no benefit to killing them.

All of this can easily be done with fantasy as well. But in a fantasy setting, people have more examples to build their character over, which leads to generally fewer Rambo approaches.

[Kiero]

Try asking them.

This is really the best advice in the thread. It's not rocket science, talk to them and ask them why they play the way they do. And if they'd consider doing things differently.

[Reluctance]

Did that. It's just that sometimes, there's still demand for my campaigns, as they are more powerful there, and the players are powergamers.

So either ask the next person to take up the chair to give out more goodies, or ratchet down the gains yourself. If the players are most rewarded for doing what they do when you run, what's their incentive to do anything different?


I'm not saying they should interact non-violently all the time. But they need at least to talk to get from combat A, in location N, to combat B in location M without following railroad tracks.
Also, failure means death burned in this campaign. Gruesome and horrible death, with their bodies being looted, and the remains.

So they're given lots of power, and have messy fatal consequences for messing up. The only way I'd "roleplay" in such a campaign would be by rolling up a diplomancer or Batman. Seriously take a step back and look at what you encourage.

Still, if you want it to be good for you, here are your options:


Kill the game. Let them fight without asking questions first and jump into a TPK situation. They'll be mighty pissed, but it will send a strong message that combat strength alone will not solve all their problems. Of course they might interpret that as "we need to twink harder", but that's always a risk. Then say that you feel like running something else. Pick a game that talks a lot about being the roleplayer's game. It's a long shot, but some people do adjust their tastes based on fluff.

Create bad guys to really piss your players off. D&D is full of MacGuffins that can keep your party from properly taking the bad guy down. You can quickly bring the players to the point where they'll engage in combat banter with the guy and have a specific goal to take him down. It's primitive, but it's still roleplaying and it's still a stepping stone.

Watch what you reward. If the PCs get loaded down with swag for kicking down the door, that's what they'll do. Throw in difficult and treasure-free fights that they can more easily bypass by talking or sneaking around. If you really want to encourage backgrounds, offer a quest mechanic where the players can earn XP or some other game currency for declaring and then completing certain goals. Some players will never completely drop the mission mindset to become method actors, but even they can develop more nuanced involvements with the campaign world.


And don't expect them to break the habits of over seven years overnight. They're still adventurers, and a large part of what makes D&D fun is slaughtering and looting the baddies. Thinking that "I want them to talk to NPC X to advance the plot" is any less railroady than "They have to go to city Y to advance the plot" is also wrong. (Bonus tip: Not all players are huge sandbox fans. In my experience, games are more likely than not to flounder when not given any sense of direction.) That said, players have enough base interests that you can use to get them invested in the campaign world. The rest is details.

[kamikasei]

I have to reiterate that it's a bad idea to try to "train" them in good behaviour in-game. Giving them situations where violence cannot solve their problems will just lead to unorthodox applications of violence. When mayhem ensues, they will see that as rising stakes and respond with more violence, ratcheting up the escalation and the strain on you but from their point of view just following the natural course of the story.

Tell them, yourself, outside the game, that you don't just want to throw things at them to be killed. Ask them to rein it in. Straight up tell them that the next session or two sessions or whatever will contain not a single situation where violence or the threat of violence is the right response. Explain that you simply can't enjoy DMing for their current playstyle and that if they can't make some concessions you will simply stop DMing for them all together.

[bosssmiley]

Involvement in the gameworld is the single best tool. I love running my Glorantha campaigns, where the PCs are always members of a society (usually a Heortling clan of some hundreds of people, living in an area the size of a small village and surrounding farmlands). The gameworld lacks your traditional economy - coin is useless, and there's no such thing as "inns" or "taverns" (the era is most comparable to Europe under the Roman Empire, in the very early Dark Ages). You only get to eat if you work for your food, either in the fields or by serving a specific society that produces food. The clan provides the PCs with weapons, lodgings, magic, cattle, food, support, love, training, prestige, influence... everything they could want. And once the PCs get used to this, they start thinking about things the way their characters should - family comes first. They turn in their loot to the chief, as they should, and receive part of it back as gifts (assuming the chief is generous as he should be). They approach challenges in a way that's conscious of the consequences for their clan. They spontaneously seek out ways to improve the clan - they don't go cattle-raiding just to get experience and cows, they go cattle-raiding to increase their clan's herds and prosperity (and to vex enemies of the clan!).

*squeee!* I love this about Runequest. Pendragon and Ars Magica did similar with the family dynasty and covenant/troupe play aspects of those games.

D&D tried it with BECMI, AD&D and especially Birthright, but it didn't seem to stick. The hivemind preferred HeroQuest to playing house. :smallannoyed:

On-topic: I'm sure this came up last week. Engage the players and they'll start to role-play before they know it. Have NPCs speak to them in character, offer them a +2 on Diplo' roles if they respond as their character rather than as a player, etc, etc.

[Jayabalard]

So, any suggestions how to get them to try to:
- bargain, bluff and try to talk with opposing npcs rather than try to kill them or run away from them, and giving up when it is doubtful that either of them will be successfulTalk to them out of game and tell them the problems with thier current methodology, and explain what you think they should be doing instead.

- stop expecing the npcs that don't try to kill them to be over the top friendly and helpful (except shopkeepers) for no gain at allThat's simple... You have complete control over that. As the GM, just don't have NPCs be over the top friendly and helpful for no gain at all. If someone is friendly and helpful, then they probably expect something. Even better, have some of them be friendly but evil, and use the players to their own nefarious ends with no intention of actually giving them anything for their trouble. If you're feeling particularly malicious as a GM, then have at least some the NPC's themselves be quantum NPCs: don't define whether the NPC is genuinely helpful or using the players until the players do something in character to check it; if the players just attack first without doing anything to check, then they wind up killing one of the "Good guys" and if they just take the NPC on faith and don't investigate the person who's giving them quests then it turns out that they were one of the "Bad Guys". That way they're setting themselves up for trouble any time they don't investigate these people who are giving them quests

- try to find out what's going on rather than to expect some npcs to say "go and kill/steal/whatever, and be rewarded with ... to get to the part where they can kill stuff. Easy again; just stall them until they do something to find out what's going on. Toward the beginning, make this really easy, so as soon as they put forth any effort they "get the quest" but gradually wean them off of this.

[Tormsskull]

One trick I do like to use is to give the PCs a quest that they have absolutely no idea how to defeat. Perhaps there is a monster that is near-invulnerable, but is rumored to have a weakness. If they head to fight the monster, they will be in for a lot of pain as they won't know the monster's weakness.

If they're smart, they'll try to discover the weakness beforehand in someway. This usually revolves around talking to NPCs, visiting a seer or the library, or something similiar.

In this way you can get them to roleplay a bit, and also try to get them interested, as their characters, in other aspects of the world that will involve more roleplay.

Also, and I cannot stress this enough, make sure that the PCs cannot solve all of their problems with violence. If they pick a fight with a prominent lord or noble or someone important, have that person kick the crap out of them, possibly taking something valuable from them up to and including their lives.

Generally speaking, if your gameworld makes sense, the players will have to RP somewhat in order to survive.

[Tsotha-lanti]

One trick I do like to use is to give the PCs a quest that they have absolutely no idea how to defeat.

This is one of the best ways to challenge the players rather than the PCs' attack bonus. Better yet, don't make it about defeating something, but about accomplishing something.

There is a danger, though: the players may end up sitting there, glaring at you, frustrated and annoyed because they don't get what they're supposed to do. It takes experience to be able to approach situations in unconventional ways and think laterally.

But overall, these are the best challenges. I've been planning various (RuneQuest) challenges in the style of traditional myths: the PCs are challenged to herd cats, to plough a vertical mountainside, to lift a hill, to catch the wind... and I won't even bother planning for the "right" way to do it, but instead let the PCs come up with a way. If it's clever and appropriate, it'll work. "Plough furrows in rock, you say? We'll go find the best, strongest farmer in all the land!" "Herd cats, you say? I'll catch the queen, hide her, take her shape, and lead them around!"

[Learnedguy]

Angry annoying people

Yeah, to force your players into trying to roleplay you should have them to run into angry people who won't take no for an answer.

The thing is, your players are probably a bit shy about roleplaying. There's a barrier that has to be breached. And those angry annoying people are your sledgehammer:smallyuk:!

Or, in other words, have the PCs run into these guys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amWP8FpLrtw):smallamused:

[Narmoth]

Explain that you simply can't enjoy DMing for their current playstyle and that if they can't make some concessions you will simply stop DMing for them all together.

Seems like the one option really left.

[Artanis]

I gotta agree with talking to them. Everybody is supposed to have fun, and that includes the GM. If you aren't having fun, sit down with the players and talk to them, and explain why. However, do NOT expect them simply to start playing the style you want them to play: if they want an action game, forcing them into an RP game will suck even more for them than the current situation does for you.

One way or the other, you have to change as well. It sounds as though your actions have practically told the players that their style of game is the kind of game you want. If they expect something to happen, then there's a reason for that. If they've never met a shopkeeper who wasn't friendly and giddy to see them, then why would they expect otherwise? If they're always high-powered, they why would they expect that they should do something other than what you have made them best at?