PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Suplementing Background with Roleplaying Traits



Erom
2010-09-28, 01:35 PM
So, my group are huge fans of the optional "Backgrounds" in 4e (for those who play earlier editions, they are generic origin stories, like "Raised among the <race>" or "Occupation: Farmer" that give you a small bonus (generally +2 to a skill, although a few have stronger effects) because they assign some real mechanical benefits to thinking about the roleplaying aspects of your character. Someone's background plays a large role in how they view the world, and what kind of little habits they might have. When a new player with little roleplaying ability joins, their background is often the one way we can get them to interact with the world. "Jim, you're character comes from a wealthy family, right? Why don't you try to talk to this merchant. Maybe they've heard of your family." Great, awesome.

I've been thinking about ways to expand on this, and one of my players made what I think is a really good suggestion: give a second "background" slot that you gain a small bonus from, but instead of backgrounds, fill it with "personality". What does the playground think? Is this a nice idea, or does it violate your abstraction barrier between stats and character?

Some quick examples, may have flaws, just throwing them out there:

* Stoic: Unless it's necessary, you prefer to keep your silence your thoughts to yourself. You bear hardship without complaining, and hide your emotions well. Why are you like this? Is it a remnant of past trauma, or do you simply prefer your own company? Associated skills: Bluff, Endurance
* Sociable: You love the company of other, and easily work your way into social situations. You're the natural center of attention. How do other react? Are you charismatic and charming, or are you the obnoxious hanger-on that won't take a hint? You may reroll the first diplomacy check you make in a skill challenge, but must use the second result, even if its lower.
* Angry: You're mad about something, and your internal anger bleeds into how you interact with others. Your anger can be terrifying to behold, and it fuels your resolve when others falter. Is there some wrong you feel you must set right, or are you simply frustrated with the world? Associated skills: Intimidate OR Once per day you may gain a +2 to your Will defense against a single attack.
* Mad: You're cracked - something's come loose upstairs, and your behaviors or mannerisms now mark you are slightly different from normal folk. Your unique perspective can be a benefit when puzzling out the world around you. Are your behaviors sufficient odd to generate suspicion? Were you always like this, or did something in your past trigger it? Associated skills: Insight, Perception
* Alert: You stay on your toes at all times, keep your back to the wall and an eye out for danger, even in the safest of situations. Are you like this because of past military training, or are you just jumpy? Do people consider you neurotic or cowardly, or do they appreciate your watchful presence? Associated skills: Perception OR You may gain +1 initiative in any combat that began with a surprise round.

dsmiles
2010-09-28, 01:54 PM
This may be a delicate subject. Personally, I prefer to roleplay my characters without defining an 'archetype' that he/she must fit into. If my personality doesn't fit into one of the pre-defined archetypes, do I not recieve bonuses/penalties? Or do you have to make them up on the spot?

Also, I personally don't take well to being forced into a personality choice before I sit down and play the character, it usually turns out a boring character that I have no interest in keeping alive. Of course, Suicidal may be an archetype. :smalltongue:

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-28, 02:30 PM
Rather than tie fluff to mechanics, why not just give them a list of traits to pick from? In my experience, people don't remember their background more because it has mechanics tied to it; they remember their bonus instead.

So if you just want to get people to remember RPing, just have them fill out a short-form survey (i.e. 10 questions or so) and have them keep it with their character sheet.

If you want people to take RP more seriously you need to find a mechanical way to reward people for RPing. A static bonus won't do - they don't need to do anything to get it; instead, grant APs for invoking their RP selection or some other "chip" -style reward.

IMHO, using mechanics to reward RP is a dangerous game at best. But if it works for you, more power to ya! :smallsmile:

dsmiles
2010-09-28, 02:36 PM
If you want people to take RP more seriously you need to find a mechanical way to reward people for RPing. A static bonus won't do - they don't need to do anything to get it; instead, grant APs for invoking their RP selection or some other "chip" -style reward.

IMHO, using mechanics to reward RP is a dangerous game at best. But if it works for you, more power to ya! :smallsmile:

This is what I do. I give bonus XP for roleplaying. I also give RPs (Roleplaying Points) that can be traded in much like action points, but there are a couple of different things that RPs can do that action points can't. But there are also things that action points can do that RPs can't. So, characters tend to level faster if they're better roleplayers, in my campaigns.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-28, 03:07 PM
This is what I do. I give bonus XP for roleplaying. I also give RPs (Roleplaying Points) that can be traded in much like action points, but there are a couple of different things that RPs can do that action points can't. But there are also things that action points can do that RPs can't. So, characters tend to level faster if they're better roleplayers, in my campaigns.
I've found the, particularly in WotC D&D games, having people level up at different rates creates imbalances in the game. Each level is worth so much that even just having one lagger or one fast-mover can make the rest of the party feel held back or irrelevant.

Granting "Roleplaying Points" is a cleaner solution, but I haven't figured out a good mechanism for using them. Granting re-rolls seems straightforward enough, but I prefer using existing mechanics before inventing new ones so I suggested making them APs.

Also: be warned against favoritism.
One of the pernicious effects of individualized reward systems generally is that it encourages Players to suck up to the DM; to play the game how the DM wishes rather than what would be fun for them. In particular, people who are very good at manipulating DMs can get massive power boosts by currying the DM's favor; this sort of favor can be poisonous in RPGs when that power allows one Player to "hog the spotlight." At worst, it creates a game where all the Players are focusing on keeping the DM happy instead of actually playing the game before them - a subtly demoralizing turn of events that DMs are unlikely to even notice.

Due to this, I use individualized reward systems rarely; and when I do, I make sure the awards are small but meaningful. Getting a couple of extra re-rolls in D&D4 helps the PC "work better" at a given power level; getting an extra level places them in a superior position to their allies.

Elemental_Elf
2010-09-28, 03:49 PM
This may be a delicate subject. Personally, I prefer to roleplay my characters without defining an 'archetype' that he/she must fit into. If my personality doesn't fit into one of the pre-defined archetypes, do I not recieve bonuses/penalties? Or do you have to make them up on the spot?

WotC has some really generic ones that pretty much preclude people from not having one. There's Geography based backgrounds (you grew up in a forest/desert/mountains/urban/wetlands). Then they have societal (you grew up in a poor/wealthy/noble family) as well as something that happened when you were born (i.e. cursed/blessed/some-kind-of-omen) and some job oriented ones (farmer/artisan/mariner/scholar/etc.).

I totally agree that it can feel a bit constraining, which is why each campaign setting also has a list of backgrounds based on the region you were born/lived-in. Added all together, there's a plethora of options to choose from and at the end of the day, most amount to a static +1 or +2 to a skill check, so it won't kill you if you don't select a background. :)

EDIT: Oops, you meant the OOP's personality traits. Sorry, ignore me!

kieza
2010-09-28, 04:16 PM
If you want people to take RP more seriously you need to find a mechanical way to reward people for RPing. A static bonus won't do - they don't need to do anything to get it; instead, grant APs for invoking their RP selection or some other "chip" -style reward.

Rather than AP, I use Plot Points: You get one per level, plus rewards for particularly good RP. You can spend a PP to any of a number of things, but the ones I suggest are:

Add an element to a scene. You can't contradict what has already been established, but you can add in details or embellish a description. So, if you need an escape route suddenly, you can use a plot point to say that there are a bunch of horses in the nearby stable that you steal.

Introduce an NPC. You can't introduce someone with world-shaking importance (no kings, avatars of gods, etc.), but you can place an old army buddy in the watch, where he might be able to get you information. You can also use this to "name" unimportant existing NPCs (Guard #3 turns out to be your old girlfriend Sarah).

Change the world. You can't change the underlying structure of the world (geography, laws of physics or magic) or severely change the political landscape (everyone is allied with your country and will do anything for them), but you can increase tensions between two countries, cause a peace conference, awaken a greater dragon for a couple of weeks, cause a famine, or anything along those lines.

And, if I think it's appropriate, I may let them do other things. Essentially, Plot Points are a way to reward my players for roleplaying in a way that encourages more roleplaying. It also lets them have more of an impact on my world than just what their characters do.

EDIT: Oh yeah, roleplaying traits. Rather than having characters choose them on creation, I'd give the benefits to any player who roleplays the trait well. You could let them last until the next extended rest, and any new ones would replace the previous one. So, if you respond stoically in a roleplaying scenario ("My friends, it is exceedingly heartening to see you all once more! How many years has it been since our last meeting?" "Seven and a half."), he would get the Stoic bonus until the next rest or until he gets really angry. This doesn't force characters into set roles, and it also encourages realistic reactions to events.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-28, 04:16 PM
I've found the, particularly in WotC D&D games, having people level up at different rates creates imbalances in the game.
I disagree. As long as the differences in advancement rate aren't too big, this shouldn't be a problem. That character A gains his level one or two sessions earlier is just as much a difference as when character B is the first to get a Mace of Coolness +3. Par for the course.

I find that in practice, it evens out: one session, player X gets a lot of focus and RP moments and the bonus experience, and the next session it's player Y.

(edit) players who want to suck up to and manipulate the DM and hog the spotlight will do so and cause problems regardless of whether you use personal XP awards.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-28, 04:23 PM
I disagree. As long as the differences in advancement rate aren't too big, this shouldn't be a problem. That character A gains his level one or two sessions earlier is just as much a difference as when character B is the first to get a Mace of Coolness +3. Par for the course.

I find that in practice, it evens out: one session, player X gets a lot of focus and RP moments and the bonus experience, and the next session it's player Y.

(edit) players who want to suck up to and manipulate the DM and hog the spotlight will do so and cause problems regardless of whether you use personal XP awards.
The real problem is when you have players who are not natural roleplayers at the table - they're not going to be able to take advantage of the bonuses you're handing out.
In the Mace situation, the DM can decide to place different treasure the next time around; as an analogy, it becomes as though one player always found stuff that was awesome for his character and nobody else ever did. Or everyone else is getting +3 Maces and Player X never seems to find any. Players will react in a similar fashion.

Worse, those skilled at RP are now given license to "hog the spotlight" because there's a prize attached to it. Without a reward for aggressive RP, the DM can calmly say "hey, can you cool it? I want Player X to take a turn in the spotlight;" if you say that with an award attached, the Player will (rightly) feel like you're telling him to forgo personal treasure that he could easily earn in the hopes that someone else might try and fail at it - bad feelings all around.
Naturally, if everyone in your group is equally capable/comfortable with RP then you won't have these problems; but in that case, why are you bothering to incentivize RP at all?

EDIT: these are all basically problems tied to favoritism in gaming in general.
You can award "reluctant RPers" more for their RPing, but then the hard-working RPers will fume that their elaborate character development never gets noticed while Mr. "Oh, I'm so paranoid" gets 100 XP every time he looks over his shoulder. Resentment is easy to build and each attempt to mitigate will only lead to further issues.

And, of course, Players will spend more time doing things that reward them - do you really want a game of D&D where everyone spends their time in bars picking up chicks rather than killing monsters? If so, I'd recommend playing a game system where killing monsters is deemphasized and picking up chicks is the point of the game.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-28, 04:29 PM
The real problem is when you have players who are not natural roleplayers at the table - they're not going to be able to take advantage of the bonuses you're handing out.
Why not? They can be encouraged by this. And by the other players, of course.


Without a reward for aggressive RP, the DM can calmly say "hey, can you cool it? I want Player X to take a turn in the spotlight;" if you say that with an award attached, the Player will (rightly) feel like you're telling him to forgo personal treasure that he could easily earn in the hopes that someone else might try and fail at it - bad feelings all around.
This does not even remotely describe any roleplayer I'm personally familiar with.

Hal
2010-09-28, 06:22 PM
You know, I've been trying to think of a way to incorporate the Fate/Dresden system of Aspects into D&D 4e for this very reason.

Haven't figured anything out yet, though.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-28, 07:06 PM
Why not? They can be encouraged by this. And by the other players, of course.
If they're being encouraged by the other players already, why bother making rewards? :smalltongue:


This does not even remotely describe any roleplayer I'm personally familiar with.
Glad to hear it. Still, consider how you'd feel if your DM said "no, you can't pick up that Mace +3; Timmy needs to go on a quest for his Wand of Magic Missiles." Perhaps you're sufficiently magnanimous that you'd be happy to have the DM tell you to wait on the sidelines while your fellow PCs pick up phat lewt. Me, I'd prefer to play a game where I can either work with everyone to achieve an award or I can freely compete for it.

dsmiles
2010-09-29, 10:51 AM
I've found the, particularly in WotC D&D games, having people level up at different rates creates imbalances in the game. Each level is worth so much that even just having one lagger or one fast-mover can make the rest of the party feel held back or irrelevant.

I dunno, I tend to attract roleplayers of roughly the same calibre to my games, so roleplaying awards seem almost useless in the fact that everyone levels pretty equally. (Equally being within one or two sessions of each other.)


Granting "Roleplaying Points" is a cleaner solution, but I haven't figured out a good mechanism for using them. Granting re-rolls seems straightforward enough, but I prefer using existing mechanics before inventing new ones so I suggested making them APs.

My RPs can do some things that AP can't. More "plot-related effects" than "die-rolling-related effects." AP are used for action, RP are used much like kieza's "Plot Points."

TheEmerged
2010-09-30, 08:21 AM
Personally, I just told the group to write up their backgrounds normally and select a "background bonus" from the rules that's appropriate :smallbiggrin:

DragonBaneDM
2010-09-30, 11:30 AM
I love those Plot Point ideas.

Very, very awesome. Probably going to use that in my next campaign, since the point is supposed to be group story-telling.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-30, 12:01 PM
consider how you'd feel if your DM said "no, you can't pick up that Mace +3; Timmy needs to go on a quest for his Wand of Magic Missiles."I'd feel confused, really. I have no idea why a DM would say that, or why you're asking me this, or what it has to do with roleplaying or backgrounds.


Me, I'd prefer to play a game where I can either work with everyone to achieve an award or I can freely compete for it.I don't see roleplaying games as a competition.

dsmiles
2010-09-30, 12:06 PM
I don't see roleplaying games as a competition.

Neither do I. I don't understand this mentality, it hurts my brain.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-30, 01:24 PM
I'd feel confused, really. I have no idea why a DM would say that, or why you're asking me this, or what it has to do with roleplaying or backgrounds.

I don't see roleplaying games as a competition.
Yeah, I thought as much.
It's not that RPGs are competitions - but they can be. Any system that particularizes rewards has the potential to be competitive; Paranoia for example, pits the individual players against each other in the accomplishment of their goals. If you're playing Paranoia but don't view the game as competitive, you are likely doing it wrong - and will be stomped out by some PC with a secret goal that your PC opposes.

D&D has long had elements of individualized rewards (e.g. spells cast XP for Wizards and gold stolen XP for Thieves in AD&D) but they were either minor in scope or were non-rival (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)). Things like treasure gained were rival, to be sure, but it was also clearly limited by what the DM provided and could be easily divied up; everything else was group based.

RP Time, OTOH, is both difficult to divy up and rival; time I spend in the spotlight is time that you cannot also spend being in the spotlight. Normally, people engage in RP as it suits them; they do it for the intrinsic reward of playing pretend. But, when you add an unlimited incentive to RP (i.e. uncapped XP or Role-Point awards), you get an overproduction of RP from people who are able to produce it easily and well: The seasoned RPer can wring high drama from a chat with the bartender while a less seasoned RPer will need stronger direction and close attention from other players (and the DM). Since RP Time is rival, the only way for the inexperienced RPer to get enough space to work is for the seasoned RPers to shut up; since they are currently being incentivized for RP this means they are actively forgoing things that make their characters stronger - something that, in D&D at least, is a driving concern for adventuring at all.

It's easy to share the spotlight when nothing is at stake; but when you tie tangible rewards to an activity it can get very hard to sit back and watch someone fumble the ball when you could carry it for a touchdown.
If you wanted to avoid this sort of issue - which is an issue provided you believe incentives encourage people to act - then the best way would be to provide a valuable reward for RP but to cap the amount you can get in a session. That way you can say "OK Romeo, you hit your RP XP cap" which will get Romeo to sit back, satisfied that he achieved a goal, and watch Timmy the Novice work on becoming a better RPer. Why, if Romeo is a real team player, he might even work to help his ally pick up a reward now that his own is secured.