Encouraging to roleplaying

[Seth1221]

So right now I have relatively new players (in terms of RPG knowledge) at my table. I quickly noticed that they don't really bother to roleplay their characters, they just react, metagame a lot, calculate what is best for them and not what is in the character.

To put it simply - I think they rollplay instead of roleplaying.

What tricks do you use to encourage roleplaying? I don't like the XP awards for roleplaying - I always feel like pressing players by doing so.

Any insight?

[InQbait]

Ask them things like, "What is your character's facial expression when this <insert event here> happens?"
I think good roleplaying comes down to what choices you make for your character. Does your character do this, or does he/she do that? Like, for example, an Evil character would probably do something entirely different than a Good-aligned one.
Give your players' characters items that might hold some meaning to them other than just stats and damage?
Have the players develop some backstory for their characters too.
Just ask them things like, "Why would your character do that? What is going through his head at the time you chopped off that NPC's face?"

[TheCountAlucard]

To be fair, some players just don't want to.

But really, to get the best answers, we'll need to hear more.

[molten_dragon]

So right now I have relatively new players (in terms of RPG knowledge) at my table. I quickly noticed that they don't really bother to roleplay their characters, they just react, metagame a lot, calculate what is best for them and not what is in the character.

To put it simply - I think they rollplay instead of roleplaying.

What tricks do you use to encourage roleplaying? I don't like the XP awards for roleplaying - I always feel like pressing players by doing so.

Any insight?

It could be a number of things, it's hard to say.

It could be that they don't find the roleplaying opportunities you're giving them interesting. It could be that they feel awkward roleplaying and it's more comfortable to just treat the characters as numbers. It could be that they never bothered to come up with much personality for their characters, so there's not much there to roleplay.

Or it could just be that you have players who don't like to do in-character roleplaying at the table. Some don't.

[Nooblet]

It could be that they feel awkward roleplaying and it's more comfortable to just treat the characters as numbers.

I am guessing, since they are new, it is probably this.

If they are the type of people that simply look at any RPG as if it is a game of World of Warcraft where only the numbers matter, they probably won't roleplay much.

Things you could do to help them get away from the "numbers":

- Make a suboptimal NPCs who are hilarious, (Ex. an OCD "medic" or doctor or whatever campaign you are playing. Make him obsess about how disgusting it is to clean up after someone's wounds.) If they see these kinds of characters and note how much fun it must be to play that kind, they may try and build a character similar. Which could baby step them into "roleplaying".

- Try to lighten the mood. Insert lots of humor into your campaign (to clarify, don't take your campaign as serious as ones in the past). If you do this you can maybe warm them up to the idea of getting into the game. Depending on how "serious" you are making your setting, the new players may be a bit intimidated. Try to get them to relax and enjoy roleplaying as someone else.

- Attempt to explain to them that TTRPG isn't just about playing your class, it is playing your character WHO IS a class.

Anyways, that is merely my opinion, may or may not be helpful. However I hope whatever you decide to do, that it works out for the best.

[Yora]

My suspicion would be, as I fell into that trap myself and seen it repeated by every GM I ever played with, that the campaign you are running simply does not require any roleplaying by the players. If roleplaying is something the players are doing with each other while there is a break in progressing the adventure, they are very unlikely to do it.

To get players to roleplay, the adventure has to encourage them to do so. And I think the biggest obstacle with that is that in most games automatic success at everything is always implied and assumed by both players and GMs. After all, if the PCs don't defeat the monster or don't find the clue, the game can not continue or all PCs are dead.
The key is to run games in which the players have to consider their options and make use of the environment and the other people that inhabit the world. And for that you need to have adventures in which the PCs can fail at certain points but the story can still continue. Because THEN the players have to start thinking if they absolutely have to kill a certain powerful creature they encounter. And once they know that there would be other ways to progress that don't include killing the creature, they also understand that it might be too powerful to defeat in a simple frontal attack.
And then the planning start. Then the players start to think about getting mercenaries to help them, to prepare traps and ambushes, try to get their hands on explosives, which might not be sold over the counter. And then they have to do some asking around in taverns to find someone who might know where they could get some, and so on...

If it's just "there is a room, you have to cross this room, you have to defeat the creature that is in the way", then there simply isn't any incentive to roleplay. It's a question of getting its hit points to zero before your own hit points reach zero, which is a problem that can be entirely solved by rolling dice.
Similar, when the players know they can't get to the next part of the adventure until they find a clue in the sub-bosses office, they will just say "I search the room. 17." And if the Target Number was actually 20, the GM still says "you find the note in the desk drawer" because otherwise the PCs wouldn't have anywhere to go. On the other hand, if the players know that they have to find something that might be a clue or they will have to wait until the next village is destroyed to pick up the trail of the villains, they are much more likely to actually get creative and ask what's in the desk drawers, and go through the notebooks on the bookshelf, and so on. If they end up empty handed, the adventure will still continue, but in the meantime the villain will cause more damage which the PCs probably want to avoid.

There are three primary techniques to this approach:
> If the PCs have to find a clue to progress to the next part of the adventure, always leave at least three clues. If they don't get the idea to look through the desk drawers, they might at least think about checking the dead villains pockets, or interrogating the servants.
> Dungeons have to be arranged in a way that does not require the PCs to deal with every room and encounter to get to the location where they will find the clues that will progress the story. That way, they can chose which encounters to deal with and which ones to avoid.
> There has to be a time limit at some points during the adventure. If the PCs can deal with one room in a dungeon at a time and take an 8 hour rest at any time they'd like to get all their spells back, then they will probably want to face and defeat every single encounter in the dungeon. If they only have 4 hours before the time for the sacrifice or before the commander of the castle returns with the majority of his army, then the players have to chose what things in the dungeon to deal with and which ones to skip.

As one might notice, none of these things I mention actually adress getting the players to have elaborta conversations with NPCs and among each other in character. But they force the players to make descisions about the story and very soon they should start to disagree what exactly the PCs should do and start debating. And that's where you have the kickoff point for roleplaying.
Or consider again the situation in which the players want to buy gunpowder to blow away supporting pillars to kill a creature they can't kill with their swords and spells. If the shop owner doesn't say that he doesn't have anything, but that he simply doesn't want to sell it to them, then the players will almost certainly start to argue that they want to get that stuff. And it's unlikely they will argue with the GM for not having the shop owner sell them what they want. They'll argue with the shop owner.

[kyoryu]

Play some Dungeon World.

Live by the rule "to do it, you have to do it."

Make sure you describe things constantly in terms of what's happening in "the fiction".

The combination of lighter rules, a general lack of battlemat, and emphasis on what's happening in "the world" as opposed to "on the map" is probably what I'd start with.

[Seth1221]

It could be that they feel awkward roleplaying and it's more comfortable to just treat the characters as numbers. It could be that they never bothered to come up with much personality for their characters, so there's not much there to roleplay.



Both those reasons are probably true. The first time I roleplayed an old man (trying to impersonate him) on of the players chuckled, which kind of ruined the moment. I guess they have to get used to that:smallwink:.




- Make a suboptimal NPCs who are hilarious, (Ex. an OCD "medic" or doctor or whatever campaign you are playing. Make him obsess about how disgusting it is to clean up after someone's wounds.) If they see these kinds of characters and note how much fun it must be to play that kind, they may try and build a character similar. Which could baby step them into "roleplaying".


Yup done that. I really like to insert such quirky characters to the game. That time it was a spaced-out gnome accountant. The scene was a lot of fun, but still reacting, not acting on the side of my players. Still it was a great moment and a lot of fun so no complaints here.


My suspicion would be, as I fell into that trap myself and seen it repeated by every GM I ever played with, that the campaign you are running simply does not require any roleplaying by the players. If roleplaying is something the players are doing with each other while there is a break in progressing the adventure, they are very unlikely to do it.

If it's just "there is a room, you have to cross this room, you have to defeat the creature that is in the way", then there simply isn't any incentive to roleplay. It's a question of getting its hit points to zero before your own hit points reach zero, which is a problem that can be entirely solved by rolling dice.
Similar, when the players know they can't get to the next part of the adventure until they find a clue in the sub-bosses office, they will just say "I search the room. 17." And if the Target Number was actually 20, the GM still says "you find the note in the desk drawer" because otherwise the PCs wouldn't have anywhere to go. On the other hand, if the players know that they have to find something that might be a clue or they will have to wait until the next village is destroyed to pick up the trail of the villains, they are much more likely to actually get creative and ask what's in the desk drawers, and go through the notebooks on the bookshelf, and so on. If they end up empty handed, the adventure will still continue, but in the meantime the villain will cause more damage which the PCs probably want to avoid.




Actually I devised a quite large sandbox, which took us about 4-5 sessions to go throuogh. The goal was known and the clues were scattered across the city. They really enjoyed doing the side-quests, looking for clues, interrogating mooks etc. Still I had the feeling that they are pragmatic, trying to "win" the scenario, instead of playing it.

[oxybe]

my advice? ask them what they're looking for in a game.

there is no better people to ask then your target audience. you can try new stuff out to see if they bite... maybe a plot twist will grab their attention, but before you start putting random lures or bait on your line, figure out the type of fish you're going for.

the only problem i see with your method is this: here is that you're looking for a way to "trick" these guys into roleplaying.

"What tricks do you use to encourage roleplaying".

you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him pretend he's a magical fairy... it just won't happen.

find out what kind of game these players want first, ask them what interests them: do they want a game of action where they can be the Big Darn Heroes, do they want to explore crazy areas, do they want to investigate a murder, hob-nob with the nobles, etc...

ask them what they like and give it to them, no need for tricks.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Yora's got a good idea, but I think I can sum it up and explain it in a slightly different way that may or may not make a difference.

Make them realize that failure can be good, that "bad" things aren't always bad. I know you already have a system you're playing with, but maybe take a look at Fate Core (maybe other versions of Fate too, I'm not sure) and it's Compel mechanic.

In short, it works off a character's Aspects, established facts about their personality, their history, their physique, etc. When the GM compels a player, he takes a character's Aspects and says, for example, "Since your character is Large and in Charge, it makes sense that you'd disobey the order from this town guard who thinks he's better than you." The player could then agree, and get a Fate Point in exchange for playing out the consequences of this action, or pay a Fate Point and keep it from happening. It helps show that "bad stuff" can be just as fun as "good stuff".

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Fate Core might be a pretty great game to try out, since it actually has an element of metagame that at the same time encourages players to engage their character's traits.

[Rakaydos]

Star Wars Edge of Empire might be a good one. Build up the idea of negotiationg with the DM over what Advantage and Threat mean.

[Thrudd]

Both those reasons are probably true. The first time I roleplayed an old man (trying to impersonate him) on of the players chuckled, which kind of ruined the moment. I guess they have to get used to that:smallwink:.



Yup done that. I really like to insert such quirky characters to the game. That time it was a spaced-out gnome accountant. The scene was a lot of fun, but still reacting, not acting on the side of my players. Still it was a great moment and a lot of fun so no complaints here.



Actually I devised a quite large sandbox, which took us about 4-5 sessions to go throuogh. The goal was known and the clues were scattered across the city. They really enjoyed doing the side-quests, looking for clues, interrogating mooks etc. Still I had the feeling that they are pragmatic, trying to "win" the scenario, instead of playing it.

If these are people new to RPG's, they may take a while to get into the character acting aspect of it (if they ever do). Did you have them create background stories and describe the personalities of their characters? Do they each have in-setting motivations and goals? If not, then what would they go off of to roleplay? They have all defaulted to pragmatic adventurers who are only concerned with getting stuff and surviving, which is understandable for D&D.
If they did create those things, and you give them opportunities to interact with you and eachother in-character, then they may just not be ready for that type of game yet.
If they dont' really have a clear idea about their characters, use some prompts to help them create a very basic personality. To make it easier to get them to start playing their character, ask them each to choose something their character likes. Something they don't like. Something they are afraid of. Something they want. Something they believe about the world, or what they have faith in. Leave the questions really open ended, let them say anything, vague or specific.
Then, of course, make sure these things get brought up occasionally during the game, in both significant and insignificant scenes. Indiana Jones hates snakes. Make sure the tomb he's walking through has some harmless snakes crawling all over the place in one room that he can grumble about. The Dwarf hates large bodies of water, they will have opoprtunities to be in a situation where they need to cross a river or a lake, and they will have a chance to talk about it in character. Your Elf loves trees, have the Orcs cruelly chop down some trees for no reason so he can react to it. You get the picture. You need scenes that are flavorful and keyed to the personality traits of your players to cue them to be in-character. As time goes on, they may eventually get into it more without you needing to cue them.

As an aside, D&D really isn't designed for character/personality driven gaming. People do it and have made it work for a long time, but there is nothing in the mechanics that makes it necessary or rewarding in game terms. As others have mentioned, if acting in-character is really that important, you might like one of those games which is more about that, and less about fighting monsters and finding stuff.

[Tim Proctor]

When I DM and whenever I go through a monologue (which happens) where I'm describing things in the environment, etc. at the end I will ask the players to explain what their Characters are thinking, etc. I find this helps bring them into that mindset.

I personally don't care if they make voices or anything like that. With low or high CHA (INT and WIS too) characters it can be hard to role-play them because that a person with 20 CHA would say to persuade someone isn't what I would say so I falter. So I'll explain what the character is trying to do and make the roll.

[Seth1221]

If these are people new to RPG's, they may take a while to get into the character acting aspect of it (if they ever do). Did you have them create background stories and describe the personalities of their characters? Do they each have in-setting motivations and goals?

To make it easier to get them to start playing their character, ask them each to choose something their character likes. Something they don't like. Something they are afraid of. Something they want. Something they believe about the world, or what they have faith in. Leave the questions really open ended, let them say anything, vague or specific.


Yes I asked them for a background and personality of their characters. I gave them some examples but they still managed to put together a small description. I guess they didn't know what they should put in and what can be left unsaid. I'm thinking about creating a questionnaire about their characters, where they will just have to anwser with a sentence. Maybe this will help them understand their own characters.

Also I asked them to tell me what is their greatest strength and their greatest weakness. most of the plot will in time revolve around those.

[Remmirath]

I find that simply roleplaying the NPCs consistently, leaving the PCs plenty of time for roleplaying, and often asking them what they do in non-battle situations all help. In case you aren't already, make sure to announce initiatives and call on them by character name rather than by player name. Make sure that when asking for any sort of Diplomacy, Intimidate, or Bluff checks you get them to give you at least the gist of what the character is actually saying rather than just rolling it. That kind of thing.

If they're completely new to roleplaying, talking to them about it a bit might help as well. Subtle prodding and ample opportunity tend to work the best once everyone is more or less on the same page.

[DeadMech]

I'm never table rp'd before instead having played various online chatroom and forum games. So for the moment I'm trying to imagine myself at a table.

First thing I would think is that people are are unfamiliar with the game system are probably nervous or otherwise unsure. It's not a simple game and it has quite a few facets. Nervous unsure people aren't going to be extroverted. They aren't going to stand up and act out motions. They probably have issues even announcing their attack targets. I might be right or I might be wrong but it can't hurt to try make them as comfortable as possible.

An issue that can come up a lot at a table is people talking over one another. When I play a forum game and to a lesser extent a chat game, I have time to put together my characters actions, thoughts, speech and post them in response to what is happening. I can type it all out as it comes to me, give it a quick second read for typos, and hit enter to send it. No one interrupts my thoughts half way through. No one tells me my idea is dumb before I've even finished forming it in my own head and said it in a way that makes sense.

Another key difference I believe is that the time scale is much different at a table than it is online. Sometimes I wait a day between every new post. Sometimes I wait 5 minutes. It's still exceptionally longer than the time people at a table would chime in. This means I have to react faster. I don't get to think about the clue to the mystery overnight, approaching it from multiple angles. I don't get to spend time through my day imagining a situation. At a table I would probably get that feeling allot, the one where you think of the perfect thing to say ten seconds too late to actually say it.

I think the sum of all this is that if you want roleplaying to happen part of what you have to do is to make room for it. And none of this touches of other aspects like how you present the world and the people in it which is probably even more complicated still.

[Thrudd]

Yes I asked them for a background and personality of their characters. I gave them some examples but they still managed to put together a small description. I guess they didn't know what they should put in and what can be left unsaid. I'm thinking about creating a questionnaire about their characters, where they will just have to anwser with a sentence. Maybe this will help them understand their own characters.

Also I asked them to tell me what is their greatest strength and their greatest weakness. most of the plot will in time revolve around those.

Well, it sounds like you're doing your best to encourage them. It will just take time for everyone to get familiar with the idea (if they decide it is for them).

[Jay R]

Put them in situations that require role-playing, not combat.

When the Duchess asks them what they saw in the forest, or the tavern-maid winks at them, or the sage asks them to solve a puzzle before he will help them, rolling dice simply won't help.

[elliott20]

Fate Core might be a pretty great game to try out, since it actually has an element of metagame that at the same time encourages players to engage their character's traits.

The bolded part is the critical part here. I believe it is OK to metagame, if you can align that with the interest of roleplaying, and the best way to do that is to make sure failure is never a punishment, but an opportunity for cool stories.

[Jayabalard]

To be fair, some players just don't want to.He's dealing with new players. It may be that they just don't want to... but just as likely, they don't know how to and don't yet know that they want to.

[the OOD]

A raised hand with two fingers extended indicates talking out of character, otherwise it was in character.

when this rule was introduced into my 3.5 group, suddenly every character began to develop a personality and act in character.

[BWR]

The best thing you can do is set a good example.
Firstly, be in character with all your major NPCs and most minor NPCs and the players will soon follow suit. If you just ask "how does your character react" they won't get very involved. Even if the players initally respond with "I say X", just keep being in character. Most people will take their cues from the leader (the DM) and react to that in a similar fashion.

Secondly, give NPCs personality. Even being in character, if all they do is blandly ask for help and just as blandly thank you for saving the princess, there isn't a lot to get involved with. Be vivd in your descriptions of them and their mannerisms, spend a couple extra minutes on pointless IC small talk, affect a silly accent, affect minor mannerisms. Even if the players laugh, it makes the characters memorable.

Make memorable NPCs and locations.
Don't have the characters just go to 'a tavern with bar maids', have them get rooms in "The Sarcastic Goat", with the dwarven inn keeper whose beard does indeed look a bit goaty, who is unfailingly polite and accomodating with guests but is acerbic and cutting with staff and regulars. As the PCs get to know him over the course several weeks they notice his tongue becoming sharper and more acidic.

If you have tried this, talk to the players out of game and gently point out that this is a game that you want to go beyond mere mechanics and ask if there is anything you could to to help them get in character.

[Seth1221]

A raised hand with two fingers extended indicates talking out of character, otherwise it was in character.

when this rule was introduced into my 3.5 group, suddenly every character began to develop a personality and act in character.

Interesting idea. I wonder if it won't come off as a bit school like for them. Cool idea nevertheless:smallsmile:.


The best thing you can do is set a good example.


I also think this is really important. Moments where I have the NPC prepared and planned tend to differ from those where I have to come up with something or someone on the fly.

[Rakaydos]

Interesting idea. I wonder if it won't come off as a bit school like for them. Cool idea nevertheless:smallsmile:.

The version of this my old group used was pointer finger and thumb, like a sideways L (or pointing at the guy next to you), held just below head height. Not like "Teacher! I have a question!"

[Seth1221]

Huh, like a loser sign?:smalltongue:

[Lorsa]

Huh, like a loser sign?:smalltongue:

Like a sideways loser sign if I understood it right.

I've never implemented anything like this but the group I have joined some people have various methods of signaling when they're out of character, like doing a "time-out" sign. Most often it is fairly simple though, as here (I moved and found new people to play with in a gaming club fairly recently) IIC talk tend to be in english and OOC talk in swedish. So yeah, we roleplay in english even though we aren't.

[Jay R]

you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him pretend he's a magical fairy.

Oh my. This is beautiful.

[The Fury]

The version of this my old group used was pointer finger and thumb, like a sideways L (or pointing at the guy next to you), held just below head height. Not like "Teacher! I have a question!"

Haha! My group uses an upheld hand with crossed fingers. It is sort of cool that other groups use a variant of this, even though the hand sign is different the concept is the same.
I remember when this rule was introduced to me the DM told me that if I say something without making the gesture, that's what my character said and NPCs will react to it accordingly. Because I am a bad person I have taken to enforcing this as a player too. If a player fails to make that sign and go on about their AC, hit points or something my character will usually respond with some variant of, "What the hells are you blathering about?"

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Also, I don't know if it'll help them, but it certainly helps me to have pithy character aspects written down in front of me. Three paragraphs about backstory and personality won't help me grasp a character nearly as well as knowing the following:

Belief: %^#@ the government, #%*@* royalty, I'll do things my own way!
Instinct: Always have an insult ready to fire off.
Trait: Loyal

That on its own is a substantial aid to playing the character. (Technique was stolen very shamelessly from Burning Wheel.)

[TheCountAlucard]

Also, I don't know if it'll help them, but it certainly helps me to have pithy character aspects written down in front of me. Three paragraphs about backstory and personality won't help me grasp a character nearly as well as knowing the following:

Belief: %^#@ the government, #%*@* royalty, I'll do things my own way!
Instinct: Always have an insult ready to fire off.
Trait: Loyal

That on its own is a substantial aid to playing the character. (Technique was stolen very shamelessly from Burning Wheel.)Something similar happens with Intimacies in Exalted, representing persons, places, things, and idea that you feel strongly about.