PDA

View Full Version : Who has the highest? role play vs roll play



Frenth Alunril
2015-01-01, 12:59 AM
Tonight I asked my players to stop using numbers, proficiencies and features to define their characters. Instead, I made some examples of which of us would actually do the best at a skill vs which of us needs to do it at the moment.

I'm trying to encourage them to play as their characters, i.e. Robin of Locksley, friend of the people! Not Level 2 ranger, dex 16, proficiency in stealth.

I think they are getting it.

What do you do to reward role play over roll play?

VincentTakeda
2015-01-01, 02:43 AM
No matter what game system or campaign I run my players have developed a bad habit of either building their characters to be tied strongly to a setting element or to a mission...

Sort of an ok, we'll be playing such and such next... what kinda character are you going for?
Well. where are we going to be?
What will the campaign be about?

I got tired of characters that are square pegs built to fit square holes and want my guys to just make characters that arent tailor made for making regional/racial or mission specific meta choices in their builds. They are currently building their characters in what I call the 'matrix boot sector'... the white room. No information on what kind of world they will go to or what kind of campaign its going to be. Design the character you'd be happy to play no matter where it goes or what the task is.

It's proving to be more challenging than I expected. I've gotten confusion, speechlessness, awe, pushback, attempts to worm information out of me... its been quite a task.

Lemmy
2015-01-01, 03:50 AM
What do you do to reward role play over roll play?First... There is nothing wrong with "rollplay". IME, that's a condescending term used to condemn people who like focusing on combat, numbers and/or rules. Some players are simply incapable/unwilling to role-play much and/or simply do not enjoy doing it. There's nothing wrong with that. I've had more than one of such players in my games... And for as long as they were not harming anyone's fun, I had no problem with it.

That said... My way of encouraging roleplay is simply giving small bonuses to skill checks and stuff for a good roleplay. i do not punish players for simply saying "I roll Diplomacy", but I do give them a bonus if they role-play their character's words. I also have NPCs talk and act in a way that prompts the PCs to react to it in different ways. I do not stop roleplaying just because combat started and I base NPCs' thoughts and actions on what said character would do in that situation, instead of what is the "optimal" thing to do.

It doesn't really take much effort, actually... Seeing the GM and other players role-playing encourages more timid players to try and do the same, even if just a little.


It's proving to be more challenging than I expected. I've gotten confusion, speechlessness, awe, pushback, attempts to worm information out of me... its been quite a task.
I don't blame them.

Role-play is great and all.. But designing a character and then finding out they are ill-suited to survive in the world they are placed is frustrating and annoying... It's similarly annoying to grab cool abilities and then never see them put to use because the world/campaign doesn't give them enough a reason to be used. Your player who created a Ranger with Undead as Favored Enemy would be rightfully upset and frustrated once he found out undead are extremely rare (or even nonexistent) in the campaign's setting and the story takes place mostly in an urban environment where half his abilities are useless 90% of the time.

Additionally, it doesn't make any sense, IMO (unless the characters were suddenly transported to a plane they know nothing about... But that's a plot that gets really old really fast). The characters were born and raised in said world... Their choices of career/training would obviously be molded by the world around them, but they aren't. How the hell does a a player choose his character's career/training path if he doesn't even know what the hell exists around his character? If his character lives in a coastal region, he should probably know something about swimming and/or fishing... If the character lives in a deep jungle, he should know a thing or two about tracking and hunting... And so on... But what can the player do when eh doesn't know anything about the world? He can't make any setting-related choice, so he is encouraged to become a generic jack-of-all trades with the same skills as all his friends...

I'd very likely refuse to play in a game whose GM refuses to tell me anything about the setting/campaign.

oxybe
2015-01-01, 04:59 AM
Roleplaying within a campaign is generally an investment you, the player, are making.

You're likely talking to NPCs, making contacts & discovering how the world works and reacts to different things

This means NPCs you've interacted with positively in the past are more likely to do you favours should the need arise (and the negative interactions will get your requests thrown back in your face), you're likely to get more information if you ask specific questions then if you just wait for a generic exposition dump, etc...

Give them opportunities, but don't force it.

Roleplaying, in and of itself, however, should also be it's own reward and forcing others into doing this activity (that not everyone is comfortable doing) may be more detrimental then you'd think.

You know the old saying: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him pretend he's an elven princess.

VincentTakeda
2015-01-01, 05:04 AM
I'm a simulationist sandboxer, so my gm style is to make the campaign and the setting to fit the players, but we've managed to get into a habit of choosing the op or the setting first, so they're always making something that 'works' but it's never really functionally a character they'd choose to play except for the fact that it 'works'.

So what you have is folks building characters to fit in a setting, and when something changes about the setting they get peeved, and others building to perform a function with expectations of the scope of its success, and when it doesnt play out in the way they imagined it, they also get pissed. All while playing ostensibly the most suited builds the setting or op could possibly call for.

As if they dont want anything to go wrong or be challenging.

While at the same time none of their characters ever seems to 100% fit what I believe the players would choose to play if they weren't simply trying to 'form the proper crew for the task'

So this time around, I want the crew first. Task and setting will be built around that, so that maybe they can play some characters they might actually enjoy for a change, in missions and settings that vary widely. Once you have a bank robber campaign, and you build a bunch of bank robbers, and you rob the bank... What's next. Campaigns over. Another bank robbery perhaps?

As a gamer for 30 years I dont ever remeber before building my character asking the gm 'whats the world going to be like... whats the mission going to be'... The mission always changed and the characters could last for decades doing tons of different things. Now every character is only good at doing one thing and after that thing is over... Character's pretty useless at doing anything else, so it's pick a new task, build a new team... There's no continuity of character so the players aren't really invested in making one guy to be someone they're heavily invested in.

I'm more of a character driven guy, and the last character I built is the kinda guy I wish I could play for a decade... I'd happily take him into any system, into any world and any job. I'd like to get these guys to build characters, not tools. I'd take him to warhammer, rifts, the 1980's the 900's. Superheros. Volcanic planets. Aqua adventures... Bank robberies, stopping the planet from being destroyed by an asteroid... He wouldnt be the 'best tool' for each of those jobs. But I'd enjoy him even then.

Star lord and Han solo were not 'cool' because they were smugglers. They were smugglers, but the game they were in had barely anything to do with smuggling. They were cool because they were able to use their skillset to handle whatever wierd plot life threw at them. I'd like the characters in my games to be more like that. Han solo could easily 'deal' with a zombie apocalypse, ideal for it or not. And personally I'd wanna play that game.

Not a single one of the avengers build themselves to take on building sized worms from outer space. It just happened to be the thing they had to deal with. Captain america might have been a wuss when it came to fighting giant space worms, but you didnt see him in the post credits saying man... I'd rather be more like thor and less like me. He was cool because he did what he do... Black Widow didnt say 'damn. i'm just not suited for this fight. let me roll up another character...' she said 'I think i'll just hitch a ride on a giant floating gun platform... It'll be fun!'

I want my players to give that kind of a thing a try. I'm not saying I want my players to 'role play' more or become 'master thespians'... I just want them to build a character they actually like... so that I can build the campaign around them instead of them building around me, so that I can give them a game with more variety and a character that can last longer than a single objective.

Knaight
2015-01-01, 05:19 AM
They are currently building their characters in what I call the 'matrix boot sector'... the white room. No information on what kind of world they will go to or what kind of campaign its going to be. Design the character you'd be happy to play no matter where it goes or what the task is.

It's proving to be more challenging than I expected. I've gotten confusion, speechlessness, awe, pushback, attempts to worm information out of me... its been quite a task.
This seems like something that would actively get in the way of role playing. It's much easier to role play if the character was built to feel like they are a part of the broader setting, with actual ties to it beforehand. Cutting that out of character generation pretty much requests focusing on mechanics instead.

VincentTakeda
2015-01-01, 05:21 AM
Cutting that out of character generation pretty much requests focusing on mechanics instead.

I'm ok with that. I'm trying to circumvent 'meta' gamist and narrativist character design. I'm totally fine with them choosing their mechanics only and developing personality later. I just dont want the mechanics to depend on what they plan to face. For example there's so much more to a zombie campaign than simply killin zombies (you could have chefs, carpenters, biological engineers, armorers, priests...), but at my table what you'll end up with when you say zombie campaign is a table 100% comprised of elite purpose built zombie killin supersoldiers... their only skills will be shootin zombies, killin stuff that aint zombies so they can steal it's ammo, and then using that ammo to shoot more zombies.

My players have become so addicted to 'being super effective' that they don't give a second thought to 'being anything else.'

Even if 'being super effective' actually leaves them bored, or completely useless at the campaign even taking a brief segué into a different direction. That technique worked out great for the alchoholic in Independence Day. "i'm pilot..." "I fly plane"...

But for the rest of the campaign that isnt about "bein pilot" and "flying plane", their characters couldnt cook a can of soup to save the party from starvation.

So as a gm I'm then forced to make every campaign every week about the one thing the characters are competent at... Whats the campaign going to be like this week? Oh... It'll be about flying planes... What about the week after that. Oh... I figured I'd have you guys flying some planes or something... Sounds cool... I had a neat idea... I was thinking about changing things up a bit, so I've decided that I'm gonna let the campaign take a little jaunt into flying some PLAAAAAANES.... You guys maybe up for flying some planes instead of flying planes? You cant fly planes this week because all the planes need to be repaired. What do you do? Oh, we'll just wait until our planes get fixed... Uh... They wont get fixed because nobody rolled up an aircraft mechanic and your landing was an emergency landing not at an airfield in enemy territory... Might as well be Rocks Fall Everyone Dies at that point because everyone wanted to be a supreme badass at flyin planes. And at the end of the day nobody at the table even likes planes or flying or air to air combat or playing a pilot.

All because when the characters ask me what the campaign is about I said the world will probably be at a technology level where planes are available.

Granted thats a smidge of an over simplification, but in most aspects, this is entirely what happens at my table.

BWR
2015-01-01, 05:21 AM
In most cases my characters start out as nothing but a collection of mechanics I think sound fun to play. Personality develops through play. They start off being defined by the mechanics and eventually become defined more by character traits and history. I'll usually start with some broad, vague idea of a personality just to have the semblance of being more than a bot. Soon the true personality will start to develop.
I've tried coming up with a detailed personality to go with the mechanics before the PC is introduced and sometimes it works but rarely have I made a person and then thrown appropriate mechanics at it. The only two I can think of off-hand were a bureaucrat for V:tM and a scholar-berserker for L5R.

Xuc Xac
2015-01-01, 05:26 AM
Star lord and Han solo were not 'cool' because they were smugglers. They were smugglers, but the game they were in had barely anything to do with smuggling. They were cool because they were able to use their skillset to handle whatever wierd plot life threw at them. I'd like the characters in my games to be more like that. Han solo could easily 'deal' with a zombie apocalypse, ideal for it or not. And personally I'd wanna play that game.

Do you think they would have had those skill sets if their GM hadn't told them that they would be in a setting with spaceships and lasers?

VincentTakeda
2015-01-01, 05:29 AM
Do you think they would have had those skill sets if their GM hadn't told them that they would be in a setting with spaceships and lasers?

Hard to tell. There are so many other things you could do in a world with spaceships and lasers.

JusticeZero
2015-01-01, 06:46 AM
Seems like a ridiculous idea. I mean, I often don't tell people what the campaign will be about, but setting information is easily at hand. If I don't have any information to go on, you're getting Wacky Combat Build #9 out of me.

Arcane_Snowman
2015-01-01, 07:23 AM
If I don't have any information to go on, you're getting Wacky Combat Build #9 out of me. Pretty much what I end up resorting to if the DM is stringent on information, as much as I'd probably be more interesting to play something else, I've had more than enough of characters that were built to do something other than combat, see nothing but combat. And lets face it, violence often gets presented as the only or best solution to a problem, which really doesn't encourage people to try and solve it any other way.

As for rewarding roleplay, I have a tendency to play systems that already have roleplaying rewards in place, such as awarding rerolls etc, it's an innocuous bonus that doesn't overly reward people for it in mechanical terms, but it's still an incentive to try. That being said I also try to remember to reward people for interesting cool/ideas, regardless the roleplaying aspect of it. If it makes the story better, then I'm happy.

VincentTakeda
2015-01-01, 07:38 AM
I wont deny I am a different sort of DM.

AstralFire
2015-01-01, 08:17 AM
The best tools in my box for encouraging roleplay are also the best ones in my box for encouraging 'roll play.'

- Make the players' actions have consequences, good and bad.
- Provide them with plenty of premade material for them to read at their leisure, with only a small amount required but loads optional.
- Be available to answer questions.

They get investment in the system and in the characters that way.

Arcane_Snowman
2015-01-01, 09:00 AM
Sorry if it seems a bit backwards, responding to an older post later, but it's taken me longer to formulate my answer here:

I'm ok with that. I'm trying to circumvent 'meta' gamist and narrativist character design. I'm totally fine with them choosing their mechanics only and developing personality later. I just don't want the mechanics to depend on what they plan to face. Honestly I never really seen that as a problem, in fact I encourage people to tailor their stuff around what their characters are going to be facing. Depending on the campaign of course.


For example there's so much more to a zombie campaign than simply killin zombies (you could have chefs, carpenters, biological engineers, armorers, priests...), but at my table what you'll end up with when you say zombie campaign is a table 100% comprised of elite purpose built zombie killin supersoldiers... their only skills will be shootin zombies, killin stuff that aint zombies so they can steal it's ammo, and then using that ammo to shoot more zombies. I'm going to take this example and run amok with it, because it's going to be used to illustrate my point:

I personally think that in order for a game to work, there needs to be a lot of transparency between the GM/Players as to allow for everyone to enjoy the game, if the players don't know the parameters of the game and what you as the DM is expecting and where you're intending to go with it, then everyone is going to misunderstand one another, as there are a lot of tropes attached to a specific genre of game types, all of which can produce wildly different games.

For a zombie apocalypse style game, reinforcing other aspects of the game invariably would require a whole slew of mechanics added. For example, if they don't have proper medicine and people to use it, then otherwise innocuous wounds will fester and they'll start to accumulate penalties. Keep track of their meals and if they don't have any, they'll start to weaken etc. These things should would reinforce the need for a more complicated group dynamic. And if you don't reinforce a need for things like bullets, fresh water, and all those other things that would ensure a person's survival, then there's no reason to do anything else.

For a zombie survival game intended to tackle all these things, a community where you get to control multiple characters would be much more enabling for a wide range of characters, as each player can have a character that is capable of tangentially participating, even if it isn't their area of expertise.

There's also a pretty big adjustment time to take into consideration, if you're playing with the prototypical D&D group and then just drop them into a political game, expecting something other than havoc to happen is folly. A certain amount of "training" is needed so that they can differentiate between the game concepts, because unlike something like a action game wherein there are a lot of visual and mechanical cues to put you into the mind space of the game, the Tabletop Roleplaying Game doesn't really fundamentally change, meaning that there's a bigger workload on the GM to ensure that people are with the program as it were.


My players have become so addicted to 'being super effective' that they don't give a second thought to 'being anything else.' Well, there's nothing wrong with being super effective, as long as that super effective is something interesting. A decent amount of systems would support a know it all, with every knowledge skill under the sun, but there's not as many that makes this a truly valuable thing to be, unless it's a side effect of something else, like being a wizard for example. As such, some work does fall on the DMs shoulders to make these other things valuable.

I often find that giving people some sessions to get a feel for the game, and change their characters accordingly, goes a long way towards getting everyone on the same page.

AstralFire
2015-01-01, 09:09 AM
I think building a game around the characters is a valid concept, but you really have to have some sort of... common ground for it to work, and I'd bet that's where the players are stumbling. If one guy wants to play a cursed servant of the god of the wind and another wants to be a cannibal cook while a third is interested in political intrigue, and they have no idea of setting, they also have no notion how they're going to "fit in" to each other as a party.

I frequently build worlds around characters as a writer and as a freeform RPer for one-on-one RPs. But when doing any sort of mass freeform RP, I pretty much have to provide some sort of base for people to move forward on.

RPGuru1331
2015-01-01, 10:00 AM
Hard to tell. There are so many other things you could do in a world with spaceships and lasers.
No, it isn't. Trying to refer to Starlord and Han Solo as examples of good characters is antithetical to your point - Starlord and Han Solo were both created to fill specific roles in their plots. Also, smuggling provides the impetus for Han's inclusion in star wars, and while smuggling is not directly germane to what he actually does in the movie, flying well and shooting well (Skills that flow semi-organically from his background in this particular crime) are absolutely relevant.

@both Vincent Takeda and OP, Changing your system up can help some. Another way is to provide mechanical bonuses to your players when they're being interesting - or at least apparently putting an effort in to you - you'll start to provide them incentives. And I'm willing to bet that once they get into the habit of doing interesting things, they'll start making more interesting characters.

Frenth Alunril
2015-01-01, 11:00 AM
I only ask, because it took my players an hour to choose one of 3 options: use a distraction/magic and cross a guarded street, use magic to confront group at intersection A and run past them in a mad dash, or go back and find another way.

It was strange listening to the conversation because it should have been, "hey, Cedroe, you sneaky halfling, can you run across the street and check it out, you're small, they aren't going to see you."

But they were saying, "I'm a thief, my stealth bonus is the highest, but I'm also the strongest, and have to carry this 200lb paladin. Who is the next sneakiest? Elf, you are a ranger, but you don't have proficiency in stealth, halfling, you are a cleric, you can't sneak."

This went on for an hour, I should have attacked them with more mooks after 5 minutes.

But they are all new to the game and I'm some gygaxian grognard.

AstralFire
2015-01-01, 11:27 AM
I only ask, because it took my players an hour to choose one of 3 options: use a distraction/magic and cross a guarded street, use magic to confront group at intersection A and run past them in a mad dash, or go back and find another way.

It was strange listening to the conversation because it should have been, "hey, Cedroe, you sneaky halfling, can you run across the street and check it out, you're small, they aren't going to see you."

But they were saying, "I'm a thief, my stealth bonus is the highest, but I'm also the strongest, and have to carry this 200lb paladin. Who is the next sneakiest? Elf, you are a ranger, but you don't have proficiency in stealth, halfling, you are a cleric, you can't sneak."

This went on for an hour, I should have attacked them with more mooks after 5 minutes.

But they are all new to the game and I'm some gygaxian grognard.

That doesn't really fall under "roll play" (which is a stupid term), that's "the game's being bogged down in minutiae". When it boils down to it, that's actually a very reasonable conversation to have in-character: "I'm the sneakiest, but I have another task of priority."

In 3E & 5E, I might have provided an environment that would give a circumstance bonus, like a distraction happening up street.
In 4E & SWSE, I'd be less likely to.

Either way, I would have told them to chance it on their general competency.

Or alternately, yeah, warned them that their discussion was taking up too much IC time, and then thrown a fight at them if it kept up.

Vitruviansquid
2015-01-01, 12:29 PM
I don't do anything to motivate my players to be better roleplayers.

As long as you're not playing a system where min-maxed characters can easily break the game for everyone else, I think it's a fairly good policy to let everyone at the table just play how it feels right for them.

DigoDragon
2015-01-01, 12:34 PM
I encourage rp by making part of their exp gain based on how well they play their characters. I don't look for Shakespearean actors, just that they make the attempt and play consistently to their character. If they want character building where they overcome some disadvantage that is good too!

VincentTakeda
2015-01-01, 01:41 PM
I too am a grognard, though more of a Greenwood/Zeb Cook type.

I have found a band of overspecialized, over optimized one trick pony parties isn't 'wrongbadfun'... for the right type of players. If you're happy to build a smuggler and then get disappointed that the campaign doesnt have any smuggling though... That's a problem. If by extension you build a character who's ONLY good at smuggling, then even when the campaign is about smuggling, it feels very monotone and goes very badly when it varies even a little... You're actually practically building a character for the purpose of not enjoying it...

Like... On purpose...

I find that what happens is my players will hunger for variety, and then get very bothered by the notion that when I provide it, they are not as unilaterally successful as when they tackle 'job one' 'for which they are built'. It leaves them unsatisfied with a character design they chose for themselves and at the same time...

One of my players' most frequent quotes is 'detectives we are not'. What he means by this is that he's very aware that the party has little capability other than solving the problem for which they were designed. He's clearly not happy with that situation, but they literally can't help themselves... its real life neurological programming. The world doesnt care who you are... The world cares about what you do. So they don't build characters that are great, they build a party that does one thing really well. When the moment comes for them to need to execute in a different way, even they find themselves wanting. We've talked about it directly, like 'you could build something thats got a more versatile portfolio'... but one player has actually said, and I'm quoting him directly here, 'The only way I can avoid optimizing is if you take away my ability to...'

We then had him use a system where nearly every character decision involved a die roll and it did indeed produce a well rounded character that he did enjoy... The one sitting next to him wasn't ready for that kind of commitment and thus completely chose all of his options and immediately enjoyed his character not a lick. It was a pretty impressive display of the thing that happens all the time at my table. Given artistic control over what my players play, they seem to have a knack for overspecialization followed by disappointment, to a degree that even knowing about it can't circumvent it. Leaving them unsatisfied.

It's kind of like the 'nobody wants to play the healer' problem. Everyone wants to play the guy who's good at what the campaign is about, but even if things would go more smoothly to include a healer or a scout or a support character... the players have a much harder time convincing themselves to be versatile in the face of so many great ways to pile on to the best possible solution. Leaving a party full of stone cold killers with vulnerabilities in every other aspect than stone cold killin. Who then get upset when the campaign is all about stone cold killin, and then upset again when they're not as successful at the stuff that isn't stone cold killin.

It simply leaves me feeling... unsatisfied as well.

I'm not saying my solution is the perfect solution. I'm not saying its going to work well. But somethin's gotta change and its about more than just 'giving them a crunch buff each time they acknowledge having built poorly' or fiatting away the parts of the campaign they're not well built to handle.

I'm not just very hungry for them to build something that isnt so laser focused. Even though they, themselves, can see the problem, at the same time they've practically stated outright that they're horrible about doing it unless the options are taken from them. Literally pried from their cold dead hands... Its as if they'd be much better off if I made all the characters and just handed them the sheets and said here. This is you.

I know that's actually how some people play. I'm not happy being that kind of gm.

I know some folks that really enjoy doing one shots... When the game day ends, the campaign ends. I'm not happy with that kinda game either.

So if they 'can't avoid building to setting and task unless I take away the option'... I'll take away the option. If they can't talk themselves into not building to setting or to mission, then the paradigm is now 'build a character that can you'll be happy taking on any job in any setting. Build a character that handles the kind of problems that you'd enjoy being able to handle in the way that you'd enjoy handling them, having no idea where he's going and no idea what problems will be put before him.' 'Build a character that is happy with who he is and happy with what he does and is aware of the possibility that each day might put him in a situation that he's not ideally suited to handle and where the laws of physics may change at a moments notice...'

Thats actually what adventuring is... Its what the game is supposed to be about. For me at least. With the 3.0 and 3.5 systems coming out and games being published to cater to the mmo/moba videogame playstyle, the gaming community has become populated with far more gamists for my taste and there's not much I can do about that.

Of course as a gm its my job that if they all built pilots that I shouldnt put them on a world full of all dinosaurs and no planes... I'm not a fool. But you'd almost get the impression that my players are worried such a thing would happen, despite never having been that kind of gm for them before.

Hiro Protagonest
2015-01-01, 02:27 PM
Uh, they should always build to setting. You think of a game about piracy on the Chinese seas... nobody knows how to operate a boat, and one of the characters is a detective. This is assuming you're using a system for only modern games and none of them show up with a sorcerer. Maybe you don't want that "perfect fit", but you could at least tell them they're going to be part of the underworld. Even if you change it all around to fit them, you've still gotta scrap that whole idea for now.

VincentTakeda
2015-01-01, 02:28 PM
Like I said. I'd be a fool if they build characters that couldnt pilot a ship to make a campaign that is all about piloting a ship. I'm not a fool. I can build a campaign around a pirate, a detective and a sorcerer no problem. I don't have trouble with a super diverse party at all. Its in fact what i'm going for in the first place. It is in fact tacitly my actual goal.

I could probably storyboard up about 6 months of very dynamic campaign in about 20 minutes for a team that wanted to do a little bit of pirating, a little bit of investigating and a little bit of sorcery... What I have a harder time with is keeping any campaign interesting when the players are only good at one thing, and the one thing they're good at is the one hint I gave them ahead of time.

So this time around... my hint is 'the campaign will be as broad as possible. It could literally be anywhere about any thing'.

I have completely removed the ability to build to setting or task. Because they told me they couldnt do it any other way.

Which I find supremely odd since I spent 20 years building characters not knowing what the setting or the plot was going to be, and those games turned out just fine.

You know what its like when you like... You go out. And you get a job. And maybe its not 'what you want to do for a living' but it pays the bills... And you're good at it... But you don't really enjoy it? But its easier than going out and finding a job that maybe you like more... 'Eh. I don't enjoy it... But I'm good at it and it pays the bills.'

Thats what I have... I don't have players. I have employees. 'What's the job, boss?' They're very good at the job and maybe not so good at enjoying it. And they keep doing it because it seems easier than doing the other thing which they might enjoy more. I mean... Sometimes thats the right way to go when we're talking about getting the bills payed. But this is supposed to be a game you do for fun in your spare time... You'd think you'd gravitate to what you enjoy more than you'd gravitate to simply getting the job done.

The job is going to be on an oil rig...
Three oil riggers, boss.
Yeah but... its going to be under siege by mutant sharks
Oops. Sorry boss. Here you go. Three mutant shark killers...
Yeah but... its going to be about finding out where these sharks are coming from... A dimensional portal to another world where you might find them controlled by a sea god or your oil rig might have tapped into the oil reserves of a country of aliens on another plane of existance... Your characters could be the ones that like. Discover Narnia or somethin...
I'm not sure what you're askin for, boss... Would you like us to reroll up three british schoolchildren?
Boss, perhaps we should just stick with the mutant shark killers... That seems like it would translate pretty well into handling anything we find in Narnia...
There's going to be a lot going on that isnt just about killin.
Look boss... I'm having trouble puttin a crew together here until you tell me what this job is actually about.

How do I put this... There's actually a reason why the players guide to every D&D edition thats come out starts with the character... In palladium the books all explicitly state 'first... imagine the character'... 'then imagine the setting' 'then imagine the action'.

Thats not an 'accidental thing' to put it in that order.

I think the whole 'here's the adventure, now build your team' thing is the worst thing thats ever happened to the hobby. And nowadays its like suuuuper pervasive... Like its hard for players these days to even imagine not designing to setting and job. Like even the suggestion of it starts them chuffing and rabbling. "whuwhu? what? how? why? Why would you do that to us?" But... Thats what adventuring IS!... its the actual point of the game, being taken to unexpected places to do unexpected things...

You're playing an adventure game, but anymore it seems like not knowing whats coming before it comes is almost... physically or psychologically painful. I mean I've played that way for decades just fine, but suggesting such a thing to a player anymore is thought of as 'you should never ever do that'...

I hate to sound contrary, but it used to be 'thats the way it was done'... Now even suggesting it is met with either 'how could I possibly game that way' or worse... 'how dare you'. As if its not even possible to build an enjoyable character if you don't know what's coming and where you're gonna be ahead of time.

We NEVER used to do that. But anymore a lot... A LOT ALOT of players anymore almost physically can't bring themselves to build a character unless they know 'where its going to be' or 'what the task will be'... That takes a pretty amazing chunk of the adventure out of adventuring... I start to feel like either the world or the hobby is programming people's brains to find the unexpected.... painful... to experience and expect the unknown... is somehow a bad thing. In a game thats allegedly about the fun of adventure and discovery... arguably played by real humans who are in a life that at least, to some degree, should be about fun and adventure and discovery....

I can't wrap my mind around it.

Pinnacle
2015-01-01, 03:21 PM
I only ask, because it took my players an hour to choose one of 3 options: use a distraction/magic and cross a guarded street, use magic to confront group at intersection A and run past them in a mad dash, or go back and find another way.

It was strange listening to the conversation because it should have been, "hey, Cedroe, you sneaky halfling, can you run across the street and check it out, you're small, they aren't going to see you."

But they were saying, "I'm a thief, my stealth bonus is the highest, but I'm also the strongest, and have to carry this 200lb paladin. Who is the next sneakiest? Elf, you are a ranger, but you don't have proficiency in stealth, halfling, you are a cleric, you can't sneak."

This went on for an hour, I should have attacked them with more mooks after 5 minutes.

But they are all new to the game and I'm some gygaxian grognard.
Your players were discussing who was best suited to a task based on their actual capabilities, and you wanted them to stop and says "Halflings iz sneekers!"?

That... sounds like roleplaying. What characters are good at doing is definitely part of roleplaying.
Also some being unsure how to proceed since they're new players. For that I suggest offering some suggestions--never just one--or reminding them of some details that they're not thinking of.

Arbane
2015-01-01, 04:27 PM
Nobody likes to find out they brought the Wizard of Paper to the Land of Scissors.

VincentTakeda
2015-01-01, 04:46 PM
Nobody likes to find out they brought the Wizard of Paper to the Land of Scissors.


Like I said. I'd be a fool if they build characters that couldnt pilot a ship to make a campaign that is all about piloting a ship

I might have addressed this upthread a bit....
Sorry for the long posts.
And to quote Darth Ultron from another thread...

But worst of all, knowledge, is boring. It's no fun to figure out the plot on page one. It makes playing the game pointless.

Faily
2015-01-01, 05:40 PM
I let my players know what genre of game we will be playing, so that they can make characters accordingly.
It's no fun playing a Bard specced to the teeth for social interaction with nobility, with a focus on magic that targets the mind of humanoids... only to be sent into the wilderness to fight animals.

People sit down at a table to have fun, after all, and people tend to have more fun if they can make a character that actually works in the setting.

If people want to play mounted super-chargers, I will let them know if the campaign or one-shot adventure don't really work for that (because it will be indoors, in tight corridors).

I trust players with optimizing how they want, because I feel that it is mostly my job to make them roleplay more. If I don't make the world interesting to interact with, I'm not surprised if roleplay is going out the window. It's why I take great care to make places interesting, make NPCs that the players care about, or to engage them in the world their characters occupy. That is where people start to roleplay, in my experience.

JusticeZero
2015-01-01, 06:19 PM
The job is going to be on an oil rig...
Three oil riggers, boss.
Yeah but... its going to be under siege by mutant sharks
Oops. Sorry boss. Here you go. Three mutant shark killers...
Yeah but... its going to be about finding out where these sharks are coming from... A dimensional portal to another world where you might find them controlled by a sea god or your oil rig might have tapped into the oil reserves of a country of aliens on another plane of existance... Your characters could be the ones that like. Discover Narnia or somethin...
I'm not sure what you're askin for, boss... Would you like us to reroll up three british schoolchildren?
Boss, perhaps we should just stick with the mutant shark killers... That seems like it would translate pretty well into handling anything we find in Narnia...
There's going to be a lot going on that isnt just about killin.
Look boss... I'm having trouble puttin a crew together here until you tell me what this job is actually about.

So you do what I always do: "The adventure is going to start out on an oil rig, so you need to be able to explain why you're there." But you specifically said that you won't even give them that!

Frenth Alunril
2015-01-01, 08:05 PM
Your players were discussing who was best suited to a task based on their actual capabilities, and you wanted them to stop and says "Halflings iz sneekers!"?

That... sounds like roleplaying. What characters are good at doing is definitely part of roleplaying.
Also some being unsure how to proceed since they're new players. For that I suggest offering some suggestions--never just one--or reminding them of some details that they're not thinking of.

I made the example of possible role play consideration about the fact that they were only using meta data in their discussion. "let's consider, this room, which of us would actually sneak the best, Bobby or myself? (we are physically the largest people in the room, larger than average humans) even though I'm quite sneaky, you can't see my character sheet and you don't know I have levels in rogue, so, this conversation is really strange. Perhaps the the smallest is the sneakiest, or the one who volunteers us the option you go with."

I guess my underlying concern is that they were metagaming out numbers instead if the situation.

I really liked the avengers example above.

Don't good stories start with characters who do a thing because they have to based on the situation and their moral fiber, being statted-out to exploit a situation is what happens at the end.

I guess I'm into the long campaign.

VincentTakeda
2015-01-01, 08:43 PM
Page 9 of the 2nd edition players handbook said it best for me.


The player is placed in the midst of an unknown or dangerous situation created by a referee and must work his way through it. This is the heart of role playing. Another major difference between role playing games and other games is the ultimate goal. Everyone assumes that a game must have a beginning and an end and that the end comes when someone wins... ...That doesnt apply to role playing games... The game doesnt end when the adventure is finished. The same characters can go on new adventures. The length of any particular adventure need not impose an artificial limit on the length of the game.

These quotes are from the sections 'Creating a character' and 'The Goal' under the chapter called 'The Real Basics'.

So I guess I'm just hungry to get back to a game where that's true. It's clearly the exception, not the rule these days.

Pinnacle
2015-01-01, 09:09 PM
I guess my underlying concern is that they were metagaming out numbers instead if the situation.

Do the numbers not represent something in the game world? That's what they're for, after all.



So I guess I'm just hungry to get back to a game where that's true. It's clearly the exception, not the rule these days.

I don't really see how exploring the unknown means not knowing the world exists until you pop into it fully-formed and prepped for adventure.


You two seem to be arguing for exact opposites, aren't you?

VincentTakeda
2015-01-01, 09:23 PM
Yeah. I mean when I play games. I play them like palladium's rifts... You will be expected to step through a dimensional hole and everything you know will be turned on its head, and your characters should be expected to cope with the sky not being blue and up not being down. You will be expected to deal with trade negotions, hostage rescues, shadow ops... a planet where the trees shift positions while you sleep...

The one thing you should expect in my campaigns is not to know what to expect from the setting or what the task at hand will be. If I have to tell you that we'll be in warhammer or we'll be playing pirates... you're not really making someone that'll be ready for anything, and while I very much don't want a character that's ready for everything, if you build a character thats only ready for one thing, my campaigns are going to force you to think pretty far outside the capabilities of your stat block.

I'm fine with a person rolling up Choppy Mc Chopper the unilateral lumberjack as long as he's ok with discovering that my campaign is not going to present him with nearly the blanket problems that can be solved with choppy chop. This has not been my experience with players lately. They in fact are quite shocked and perturbed at the raw volume of things which cannot be solved with chopping, and thus have begun asking 'where are we going and what other things will be expected of them other than chopping and the answer is 'second star to the right and on till morning, buttercup. The situations you'll be expected to handle may include both chopping and all of the other things. Build a starship captain if you like, but don't be surprised when the first stop on the adventure express is on dinosaur island... Buckle your seatbelt dorothy, this is gonna be a bumpy ride.'

I've been doing it nice nice for them for over 3 years now and it's killin me. I'm not passing out tour guides to the drop zone anymore.

goto124
2015-01-01, 09:55 PM
Do the numbers not represent something in the game world? That's what they're for, after all.

This reminds me of the OotS strip where Roy says 'It's okay, you can say +5 Sword around here'.

In an RPG I used to play, RP and non-metagaming was enforced. It made things very frustrating, especially when you've played for a while and then switch to a new character (to try out different skills, personalities, etc). You know that trolls are weak to acid, but can you remember if your character knows? What about all the other information you've gathered from your time playing, that's been driven deep into your brain, but your character supposedly does not know? How do you keep track of everything he has and hasn't learnt?

It's why I dislike being told 'no metagaming'. It's a lot of mental work that hurts my head. I gave up after a while.

Frenth Alunril
2015-01-01, 10:25 PM
Do the numbers not represent something in the game world? That's what they're for, after all.

I guess if they represent a thing, talk about them as that thing. "well, you seen to be fleet of foot and agile, maybe you can get up there?"

If you break down any story into stats, there is no more fun, because "thief 18/100 punches out camel, then decapitates Thulsa-doom! Throws lantern into temple, Ming's (wrong movie) daughter cries."

I both agree and disagree.

I suppose, as some others, I look for Swiss army knives, not can openers. The long line of cans that need opening gets boring, I'd rather do alright at opening a can, then saw some wood, light a fire, eat a steak, tighten some screws, pluck some splinters, open a bottle of wine, then trim and file my nails.

To each their own. I'll raise this brood to emote and role play like this is the 1970's

VincentTakeda
2015-01-01, 10:34 PM
And that I guess is an interesting twist. I mean I'm basically totally ok with my players talking out how they're going to tackle something by going over the stats on their sheets... If what the characters are thinking is 'which one of us is the most stealthy' i'm not opposed to them ooc saying 'let see. whats your score? whats my score?'... to get an answer.

Whereas in character I also don't tacitly require them to then rehash the conversation in an in character way... We have the stat conversation ooc, then when we go back to in character we simply give the answer we found out of character. So I'm pretty loose about that...

I'm much more loose about how my players use their stats once they have them. Just not very loose about how they choose those stats in the first place. If they're metagaming before the game even starts... Thats a new hard line i'm drawing.

Xuc Xac
2015-01-01, 10:53 PM
I think it would be better to just take away their ability to specialize instead of taking away any possible connections to the world.

For example: If the problem is a Han Solo whose only stat is Smuggling +10, then tell them they can't start with anything higher than 3. That way you'll get a Han Solo with Pilot +3, Pistol +3, Smuggling +3, and Bluff +1.

If the problem is that the entire party all optimize for the same task, then give them different tasks that need to be covered. Run a character creation session together before you start the campaign and do it like Ocean's 11, or Mission Impossible, or 7 Samurai, or any other "getting the team together" movie.

If you're doing a zombie apocalypse game, don't let them build 5 zombie killers with "Shootin' zombies in the head +20" as their only skill. Tell them they need one or two characters with combat skills to bodyguard the party, one with medical skills to treat zombie bites (as well as tetanus and food poisoning from eating stale twinkies), one with mechanical skills to get vehicles and power generators running, etc. If they build for the job, then don't tell them the job is killing zombies. Tell them, specifically and with an itemized check list if needed, that the job is to survive in a zombie apocalypse.

VincentTakeda
2015-01-01, 11:45 PM
Yeah, essentially my new technique for setting is to say 'the setting will appropriately reflect what you build but don't expect it to remain the same for very long' instead of 'here's a setting for you to build from'.

Pex
2015-01-02, 01:15 AM
From the WOTC Forums

Originally posted by Tempest Stormwind,
05-15-06, 03:58 PM
I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optomizers.

Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.

I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

VincentTakeda
2015-01-02, 01:28 AM
Its at least a little wierd that you'd bring up the stormwind fallacy here, because I'm pretty sure thats not necessarily the issue... Its not that my crunch addicts make crappy characters... its that my crunch addicts make character's who's range of crunchy capabilities becomes so narrow that the campaign becomes frustratingly monotonous or depressing because they only do one thing really well, and that one thing is something even they don't enjoy doing ad nauseum. When presented with a problem that isnt easily solved by the 'one trick'... they're practically paralyzed. Still great funny fluffy characters, but not characters of particularly broad utility, to the point where its having a negative impact on the game itself and the emotional states of all the players as well.

Then again its possible your post wasnt directed at me.

AstralFire
2015-01-02, 01:29 AM
Vincent, have you considered using a different system?

VincentTakeda
2015-01-02, 03:43 AM
I'm using heroes unlimited with ninjas and superspies and mystic china at the moment. I've picked it because its both entirely capable of handling everything from 10th century vikings to 31st century interstellar war, while at the same time not being 'beholden to the published canon of the actual rifts universe' and 'all of that MDC garbage'.

My players are both quite familiar with the system and at least one player has said his personal favorite and most useful characters and moments came from the use of that system, and the one time he allowed his character to be scratch built using nothing but die rolls, that system was used and he ended up being very versatile and very effective and quite happy with that character as well. So far his attempts at discovering his ideal 'go anywhere do anything' kinda guy is an infiltrator style mutant. His playstyle is avoidance tactician... Loves to plan ahead so much that the party never encounters any challenges. His secondary playstyle is minions... Send something else to do your dirty work from a position of relative safety.

The other is ok with the system because while he may not be playing a canon rifts wolfen quattoria, the alien borg generation rules can produce a better wolfen quattoria than the rifts rcc can in almost every way. He will almost certainly be headed in the direction of rebuilding one of his top two favorite things to play ever... A quattoria (wolfen borg interstellar bounty hunter) or a dwarven engineer. His playstyle is narrativist. He's our setting addict who's favorite playstyle is storming the beaches of normandy with a spoon. Kind of the opposite of the previous guy. He doesnt feel truly alive until he's wading into the thick of things. His heroes are Star Lord and Captain America ... willing spirits with hearts of gold... ah yes... and Gotrek. His playstyle often more closely resembles Judge Dredd... The holy executioner. The inquisition. I'm here on interstellar authority to take you in, but i'd love it if you ran so I can keel you instead.

The third appears to be leaning towards building a pretty died in the wool autobot because he's young and transformers are cool. As a youngling he's just here to roll some dice and kill some stuff. His favorite thing is standing victorious over his defeated foe.

We will be using a homebrew variation of non stacking bonuses and AR as DR.

We will be convening probably in 2 days to see if everyone feels like what they've all built feels like it could have a cohesion and sense of power balance, as well as if they'd be confident taking these characters against any place, anything, and any task I could come up with. We'll go from there.

The litmust test is: if I say that the enemy could be any enemy you've ever imagined... Zool, critters, gremlins, wizards, aliens, robots, kaiju, mecha streisand, a pantheon of dieties, the coalition, zombies, poltergiests, my little pony, chud, the daleks? Vogons? An asteroid headed for earth?... Global Warming? Is this your team? Are we good? Can we count on you?

If I say that the environment will be any environment you've ever imagined... Volcano world. 1942 germany. 942 viking denmark. the inside of a moon sized space station planning to blow up aldebaren. Mordor. Hell. An M.C. Escher painting. Isla Nublar. Outer space. The Truman Show stage set. 20,000 leagues under the sea... Is this your team? Are we good? Can we count on you?

If the job is robbing banks, escorting a village to safety. Defending a planet from invaders or asteroids. Leading the Lords people out of Egypt. Making it all the way to Whitecastle. Investigating a murder. Tracking down a fugitive. Opening a successful donut franchise... Putting a man on the moon. Assassinating a world leader... Controlling the spice when the spice must flow... Restarting the rotation of the earths molten core... Is this your team? Are we good? Can we count on you?

If you're ready for any job anywhere then what if I say that I'm maybe tired of running the game so i'd like to turn it over to one of you guys instead... or a total stranger... or a 9 year old with a 12 pack a day mountain dew habit... Is this your team? Are we good? Can we count on you?

I want to know that if I grabbed any movie off the shelf and arbitrarily decided 'this is what the campaign is about' that the party would be ready to roll whether that movie is Avengers or Planes Trains and Automobiles. Constantine or 3 men and a baby.

Is this team ready for the red pill or the blue pill. Are these the characters you want to take to explore how deep the rabbit hole goes?

Need_A_Life
2015-01-02, 04:31 AM
First: If the players are having a good time, then that should be counted as a win.

Second, I think it's a false dichotomy to talk about "roleplay v. roll-play" in most situations; the guy who can take a beating that would cripple or kill a dozen ordinary people and still be ready for a night on the town - like many a D&D adventurer - is going to act differently than one of those ordinary people.

Hell, I've experienced a GM who got upset because my Warforged* character with the lack of social skills that implied. He gladly took orders, accepted "that's just the way it is" as an explanation for why people acted in unusual ways and occasionally made some serious social blunders such as suggesting that butchering fallen (humanoid) enemies would be better than foraging for food and allow us to make better time. He was quite the murder-hobo, excellent to have on ones side in a fight, but a complete liability in any social setting or anytime ingenuity was needed.
That, apparently, wasn't something the GM was interesting in exploring; he wanted a guile hero and moral quandaries, not a professional soldier and hardened killer with a very utilitarian approach to everything, whose idea of diplomacy was "inform person of what you want. If they refuse or offer an unacceptable deal, punch in the face and ask again."

It was unfortunate that I had decided to break from form and make such a character and that miscommunication - or lack of communication - meant that the GM was getting annoyed at something he saw as lack of engagement in roleplay, which I was actually putting quite some effort into (it's hardly my go-to type of persona, when playing). Ideally, when I was given the campaign pitch I might have been informed about the themes he wanted to play and I might have gone for a more suitable concept for that campaign instead.


* For those unfamiliar with the Eberron setting, that means I was literally playing a golem made for use as shock troops in a century-long war that had recently ended.

The Insanity
2015-01-02, 08:27 AM
What do you do to reward role play over roll play?
Nothing. They're equally important. Although most people prefer or lean towards one or the other, but that's fine, we're playing a game to have fun.

mephnick
2015-01-02, 11:22 AM
My group is heavily sided on the numbers and dice over the RP, but they do pretty well keeping the meta-gaming out of it.

Forcing characters to talk like "Grognor, you are the mightiest half-orc, perhaps you can move this boulder with your massive muscles. Perhaps Thefbare the tricky halfling can wedge the boulder to make it easier!" seems really forced to me, in any situation. I'd honestly just rather have players be like "Mark, you're the strongest, especially with the belt of strength, you should probably move the boulder. I'll help out to give you a bonus".

Seems less cringe-y to me, but obviously every group is different and you need to play to their strengths.

AstralFire
2015-01-02, 12:30 PM
My group is heavily sided on the numbers and dice over the RP, but they do pretty well keeping the meta-gaming out of it.

Forcing characters to talk like "Grognor, you are the mightiest half-orc, perhaps you can move this boulder with your massive muscles. Perhaps Thefbare the tricky halfling can wedge the boulder to make it easier!" seems really forced to me, in any situation. I'd honestly just rather have players be like "Mark, you're the strongest, especially with the belt of strength, you should probably move the boulder. I'll help out to give you a bonus".

Seems less cringe-y to me, but obviously every group is different and you need to play to their strengths.

My players typically do initial discussion IC, but if it requires detailed discussion, they go OoC. I bop them if I feel the game is losing momentum over it, which really feels like the topic creator's biggest issue -- loss of momentum.

mephnick
2015-01-02, 01:40 PM
Loss of momentum does seem like the problem, but I'm not sure how "role-playing" would have solved it. Having players that can be decisive has nothing to do with "role" vs "roll". In fact, knowing the numbers should have made the decision a lot easier, though he did mention it was new players.

Also as a side note, if I was a half-orc rogue and the DM expected me to hand off the stealth duties to the smallest character, regardless of class, just for the sake of "role-play", I'd ask him what he was smoking. I don't think the players knowing what each characters strengths are is "roll-playing". The numbers aren't supposed to be a secret, they're there to inform your in-world decisions. They should have concluded OOC that so and so had the best stealth score, and then said something IC to indicate that if so desired.

AstralFire
2015-01-02, 02:04 PM
Loss of momentum does seem like the problem, but I'm not sure how "role-playing" would have solved it. Having players that can be decisive has nothing to do with "role" vs "roll".

Oh, I fully agree. I think I said as much earlier.

JusticeZero
2015-01-02, 06:51 PM
If the problem is crippling over specialization, then address that instead of talking about "RP". Look at how Fate does skills for instance. If you want s skill at +4, you have to have two other skills at +3,which in turn means you need three +2 and four +1. Sure, they can be synergistic, but it forces some breadth. Flat out tell them that they won't know what the adventure involves, and that it will need a variety of things, so make a character that..
*Fits in with the other party members (Okay, so two people want to belong to an order of Paladins and their allies so far - I don't think a mind control expert and slaver is a good fit)
*Has some reason to be at the start point of the adventure (You start in a halfling village called "The Shire", it's a fantasy setting, and your town is isolationist..)
*Has a broad and adaptable skill set that applies to a lot of different situations (Yeah, you're awesome at swording things, but do you have other skills to use when swording isn't the solution to the problem?)

VincentTakeda
2015-01-02, 07:43 PM
Yep. Telling them that they'll have no idea where they will be or what they will be tasked with doing is turning out to do exactly what I wanted them to do.

aspekt
2015-01-03, 11:00 AM
I find myself regularly in the same boat as the OP.

Twi things I try to keep in mind:

1. For some players it's simply not fun to be thrust into an unknown world with a character not at least adapted to that world.

2. Which means I promise players to adapt the setting or narrative theme to a certain degree based on their builds.

Was I planning on lots of combat, but a player made a diplo/bluff stacked bard? I make sure to add in opportunities for that bard.

Playing op characters can be fun at times. But overall I'm not typically impressed with player creativity or ingenuity. And it is very rare that I see players that love crunch who rp much at all.

So meet them halfway. Let them know you'll do two things:

1. Adapt the campaign some to fit their builds.

2. No one will be useless in the campaign.

That last one I believe is the real fear most players have. No one wants to play a game where they are of little use.

Knaight
2015-01-03, 04:19 PM
1. For some players it's simply not fun to be thrust into an unknown world with a character not at least adapted to that world.

A lot of the time it's more that people don't want to play someone who is nominally several decades old, and yet has absolutely no history; has made absolutely no friends, enemies, or even acquaintances; and who has absolutely no knowledge of the places they have been living for however long. Even for a fish out of water game in which characters from one area end up stranded somewhere else which is completely new, they should still generally have some level of background, and that's not possible when there is literally no setting information to go off of.

I've used the backgroundless characters who know nothing approach exactly once. The characters were all robots, and the opening scene was them activating prematurely while still on the assembly line. Outside of that sort of circumstance, it's generally inappropriate.

Tarlek Flamehai
2015-01-03, 05:41 PM
Tonight I asked my players to stop using numbers, proficiencies and features to define their characters. Instead, I made some examples of which of us would actually do the best at a skill vs which of us needs to do it at the moment.

I'm trying to encourage them to play as their characters, i.e. Robin of Locksley, friend of the people! Not Level 2 ranger, dex 16, proficiency in stealth.

I think they are getting it.

What do you do to reward role play over roll play?

This sounds almost exactly like Amber the RPG.

goto124
2015-01-04, 04:14 AM
I'm trying to encourage them to play as their characters, i.e. Robin of Locksley, friend of the people! Not Level 2 ranger, dex 16, proficiency in stealth.

I once played a game where you're encouraged to think of everything in RP terms. Later, I got tired of all the secrecy, and just wanted people to be upfront and honest. Like in panel 7 of #297 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0297.html), but worse.

To be fair though, they're veterans facing the opposite problems of a newbie like me.