More RP in my RPG?

[Sir_Mopalot]

So reading one of the 3.5/4E argu-threads, someone said something that really resonated with me. Basically the argument was that both versions discourage real roleplaying, and that any game that made its central power-gaining mechanic killing things and finding new crazy loot was going to encourage the violent super-rich hobos that we all know and love. So my question is this: What systems out there do a better job with that?

[Odin the Ignoble]

I think the problem is probably more to do with the setting or DM style then anything else.

If you reward players for powergaming then you'll get power gamers.

If you reward players for role playing you'll get role players.

[Tyndmyr]

7th Sea tends to heavily reward players for doing awesome, dramatic things, in the form of drama die, which may be exchanged for temporary power or non trivial amounts of xp.

Optimizing for awesomeness is a very good thing.

[potatocubed]

For starters:

• Burning Wheel, if you're feeling crunchy.
• FATE, if you're feeling rules-light. (See also my sig, shameless self-promotion, etc.)
• World of Darkness, for a mainstream game with an experience system that is not rooted in combat.

There are more, but those three should point you in the right direction.

...in fact, you could also try old-school D&D like Swords and Wizardry or OSRIC, where you get XP for treasure recovered rather than monsters slain. That encourages players to circumvent challenges without fighting wherever possible. You could even run 3.x that way, although you'd have to adjust WBL and level-up speeds a bit.

[DeadManSleeping]

Oddly enough, Shadowrun encourages RPing heavily...as a violent, possibly super-rich hobo

Honestly, any system that forces players to pay attention to detail that they don't care about won't be enjoyed. I do, however, encourage FATE systems. Aspects are awesome for RP.

[dsmiles]

Mouse Guard seems like it does (it's based on Burning Wheel).

RISUS, of course.

Call of Cthulhu does.

[kyoryu]

So reading one of the 3.5/4E argu-threads, someone said something that really resonated with me. Basically the argument was that both versions discourage real roleplaying, and that any game that made its central power-gaining mechanic killing things and finding new crazy loot was going to encourage the violent super-rich hobos that we all know and love. So my question is this: What systems out there do a better job with that?

Strangely enough, my last session was a 4E game that was completely without combat, even though I tried to drag the characters forward to the combat.

It's more dependent on players/GM than system, though certainly some systems encourage it more.

[Tengu_temp]

I don't think if either 4e or 3.5 discourage roleplaying. First edition does, with its focus on dungeon crawling, gathering treasure and random traps that kill you instantly. However, they don't do anything to encourage roleplaying either.

Some games that encourage roleplaying include:

Exalted - doing cool stuff gives you bonus dice and Essence. There's a lot of stuff that focuses on interaction between characters.

FATE/Spirit of the Century - a lot of the rules depend on roleplaying. The best way to win a conflict is to find or create a weakness in the enemy and then exploit it, which is always roleplayed and depends on the circumstances.

Weapons of the Gods - you get Virtue points and extra Destiny points for roleplaying. You get bonuses for acquiring Lores, which exist in-game. The fluff and crunch are very tightly connected.

Legend of the Five Rings - you gain and lose Honor depending heavily on how you roleplay. To advance to a higher rank, you need to ask for permission in a letter to your Daimyo. Has a setting where saying the right thing is often as important as doing the right thing.

[Sarco_Phage]

Dogs in the Vineyard is a good system for this.

[Bang!]

Pretty much any game where the things you write on your character sheet/summary are what the character cares about or who the character is, rather than numeric bonuses to every possible combat action.

To name a few:
Anything using fate FATE (Diaspora, Spirit of the Century, Starblazer Adventures, Dresden Files), Dust Devils, Dogs in the Vineyard, Grey Ranks, Mouseguard/Burning Wheel, Polaris, Don't Rest Your Head, My Life with Master, Fiasco, Puppetland, Penny for My Thoughts, Primetime Adventures, Trollbabe, 3:16, Houses of the Blooded.

EDIT: These are just the ones I've played and read. There are a lot more.

[Sir_Mopalot]

Wow! Thanks guys, I'll have to check some of those out. As for changing the style of the existing D&D game, I'm running a 4E game. I love both 4E and 3.5, but we're on 4th at the moment. Anyways, Does anyone have any suggestions for how I could change things up a little bit? I'm confident in my ability to write interesting stories, set up combats that have a little complexity, and come up with non-combat scenes that have them solving puzzles and whatnot, but beyond not being able to make the horse drink from the RP trough, I don't even know how to lead them to that water.

[kyoryu]

Wow! Thanks guys, I'll have to check some of those out. As for changing the style of the existing D&D game, I'm running a 4E game. I love both 4E and 3.5, but we're on 4th at the moment. Anyways, Does anyone have any suggestions for how I could change things up a little bit? I'm confident in my ability to write interesting stories, set up combats that have a little complexity, and come up with non-combat scenes that have them solving puzzles and whatnot, but beyond not being able to make the horse drink from the RP trough, I don't even know how to lead them to that water.

They go to a town at some point, right? In town, when they want to go shopping, have some random encounters (non-combat) with townfolk on the way. Roleplay the interactions they have. They want to see the mayor/duke/whatever? Roleplay their interactions with the guards, how they get an audience, etc.

Have these be quirky characters if possible. Have these NPCs impose on the PCs in some way if possible (a merchant mistakes the PC for someone else (non-hostile), or asks him to invest in a business opportunity. A character gets stuff dumped on him from an upper-story window. Etc.) Give them non-combat things to react to, and place them in interesting, non-combat scenarios.

[Jerthanis]

I think that a good cold start to roleplaying is a moral dilemma. If the Players can't agree on whether they should do something or not, they'll begin discussing it. Take note on what the characters say, and have later villains and NPCs mention the choices and arguments that they made in that case, and have them treat the PCs appropriately.

If everyone treats the PCs like real people, and react to the things they decide and continuously bring them up, the players might start developing the characters in their minds. "Oh yeah, I did say that last time... Corwyn Strongarm is the type of person who would say that." If they begin behaving in a different way later, have an NPC ask the PC why they've made a different decision compared to last time. If the PC says, "Last time was different because I care more about X than Y", you win, they're defining their character. If they say, "I've changed my mind, I used to not care about X, but do now." you win because they've now played a dynamic character.

[kyoryu]

Another thing that can help is asking players to write in-character writeups of what happened at the last game. Give bonuses of some sort (xp, whatever) for doing so.

That can at least get them thinking about how their *character* sees things, and thinking in their character's voice.

Don't mandate them, just offer decent bonuses for them.

[Comet]

Very good suggestions in this thread, nothing much to add there.

What I would like to say, though, is that the way to encourage RP by means of a system is to make that RP an integral part of that system, not just something that you put on top of it to make it prettier.

Stunt dice, narrative control mechanics and such do the trick, since the crunch and roleplaying come as a single package.

Awarding RP XP if the players happen to recite elven poetry while playing their miniature tactics game might help a bit, but it really isn't the way to go in the long run.

Now that I think about it, another example of a good game in this regard would Bliss Stage. Very genre specific, and every mechanic of a game is there to build up to a certain kind of story and certain kinds of character arcs. You basically can't play the game as it is written without accidentally roleplaying along the way.

Of course, not all systems need to be this specific in enforcing RP. In those cases the responsibility for the amount of RP in a session fall on the group itself, with the rules acting only as a basic way of resolving conflict. Nothing wrong with that, either.

[Bang!]

I'm confident in my ability to write interesting stories, set up combats that have a little complexity, and come up with non-combat scenes that have them solving puzzles and whatnot, but beyond not being able to make the horse drink from the RP trough, I don't even know how to lead them to that water.

The most fun, and the most RP I've had in a D&D game are in situations where morality questions are pushed. Things like the suspicious lady hanging around in the hell-dungeon who is almost certainly a succubus and who is almost definitely going to kill the party, and who somebody should probably kill immediately (except that nobody's actually 100% sure she's not human). Or party debates on what to do with the evil kobold prisoners, keeping in mind they have young to feed and a well-earned disrepute with the local townsfolk.

Unfortunately, D&D seems to go out of the way to kill that sort of fun. Still might be worth a shot, though.

Alternatively, you could bribe them. That's how the FATE system works. You might even steal that section from the FATE rules.

Basically, FATE games ask players to write down a certain number of traits for their characters. When a player lets that trait be used against their character's best interests, the player gets rewarded with a Fate token. Fate tokens then can be exchanged to give the character an advantage in a later situation where using a trait in a beneficial manner.

[Here's a link to the Spirit of the Century srd's description of Aspects. It goes into much better detail and it's an easy read.]

I don't know if 4th edition D&D uses Action points, but they're in 3e's Eberron and Unearthed Arcana books. Also on the SRD. You could use those in place of Fate points to bribe players into characterization. It might even be a good idea to expand them to do some of the fun metagamey things Fate points do, like introduce plot elements. (Wasn't that even a fighter fix somebody was floating around these boards? could have been somewhere else.)

Edit: Guh. Ninjaed on both points.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

The simplest hack is probably getting rid of combat XP, and implementing your own XP system. Take a page out of World of Darkness.

You get XP for things such as: achieving goals, being best RPer, heroic actions, encountering and defeating the supernatural (in D&D, this could be encountering and defeating the new and unfamiliar), learning something new about the supernatural, surviving great dangers, etc.

Though it's not my preferred solution to character advancement (stuff like Fate Points is rather cooler, IMO), it still does the job pretty well. It encourages players to divert their energies elsewhere. Just make sure they know and learn what they can get XP for.

[Darklord Bright]

I've always enjoyed Mutants and Masterminds more than any other system (due to easy conversion to other genres through power level limits) - but it has a neat mechanic where you can give your character a flaw (say, Honour: Never runs away from a fight, or Secret Identity) and the DM will give you 'hero points' when you play up that flaw, which allow you to do things like reroll a failed roll.

Plus the actual character-building mechanics (even combat ones) are very freeform and fun as heck.

But it's not really RP-encouraging any more than DnD in the end. It just encourages putting your own fluff on your abilities and such a lot more. It's also not specific to super heroes, there are conversion supplements that can turn it into Conan-style fantasy or even over-the-top anime that accounts for hangtime.

Oh well, probably not what you're looking for in any case.

[valadil]

I don't think if either 4e or 3.5 discourage roleplaying.

Agreed. I've never had trouble roleplaying in either. The problem is that they do encourage combat. If I make a character with a new prestige class, I'm gonna wanna see how his mechanics handle in a fight. Most of the time he'll be mechanically equivalent to my last character when it comes to leaving the dice on the table and just talking.

Does anyone have any suggestions for how I could change things up a little bit?

Basically you need to come up with problems that are not solved by the adventurers standard operating procedure of "kill it, then loot it." The obvious plot that comes to mind here is a mystery. Put the players in a situation where they have to use their social skills to wheedle information out of unwilling NPCs and then puzzle it together. Once they resolve the puzzle they're free to kill the guilty party, but until then they'll have to rely on their other skills.

[SiuiS]

Use flaws, but hang them up.

I found a list of flaws at one point (and have been looking ever since!) where each flaw had a tag to be activated once per session. For example, the flaw Star-Crossed gave the character -2 against any NPC he would reasonably be attracted to when socializing. Nothing special here.

Except once per session, either the DM or another player can say "roll a will save or fall head over heels for [NPC the PC is talking to]." the formula becomes simple; flaws aren't always going to be shaky and frail, but will be picked in a fashion that fits the character. The bonus is a feat. They don't play he flaw? They lose the feat.

I'll be darned if I could ever find that list again though...

[nyarlathotep]

So reading one of the 3.5/4E argu-threads, someone said something that really resonated with me. Basically the argument was that both versions discourage real roleplaying, and that any game that made its central power-gaining mechanic killing things and finding new crazy loot was going to encourage the violent super-rich hobos that we all know and love. So my question is this: What systems out there do a better job with that?

Most things with regard to roleplaying don't need rules. Both 3.5 and 4th edition are more neutral to roleplaying than against it they provide rules for where rules are needed the most (combat) and rather generic rules for everything else. Most rule-systems that I find that claim to "encourage roleplaying" just bog it down with unnecessary rules. To me roleplaying should be the same regardless of system varying only based on setting.

Just find some guide on getting people to roleplay more/acting help books and choose a system that gives rules for what you think needs rules and gives that aspect the feel you think it needs. D&D (heroic combat), Dark heresy (gritty combat), Traveller (space travel), or Exalted (Dragonball Z fanfiction combat).

[Totally Guy]

Does anyone have any suggestions for how I could change things up a little bit? I'm confident in my ability to write interesting stories, set up combats that have a little complexity, and come up with non-combat scenes that have them solving puzzles and whatnot, but beyond not being able to make the horse drink from the RP trough, I don't even know how to lead them to that water.

Chatty DM, an awesome D&D blogger, recently posted this article talking about the things he's found that are good from experimenting with other systems. He applies this stuff to his D&D game.

[Samurai Jill]

I think the problem is probably more to do with the setting or DM style then anything else.

If you reward players for powergaming then you'll get power gamers.

If you reward players for role playing you'll get role players.

It's more complex than that. What you reward players with is as important as what you reward players for.

[Kiero]

I think the problem is probably more to do with the setting or DM style then anything else.

If you reward players for powergaming then you'll get power gamers.

If you reward players for role playing you'll get role players.

Nah, not that simple. I've never played 3.x in tabletop, but my experience with 4e wasn't that it discouraged roleplaying. Rather that when combat started, the roleplaying stopped until it ended. This with a group who love to talk in character and chew up scenery with the best of them. All the roleplaying around the combats still took place, just not while we were all in tactical skirmish wargame mode.

[EccentricCircle]

a good way to ween players off the "kill it and take its stuff" mentality is to use bonus xp. for any given encounter a certain amount of xp will be listed in the DMG tables. if they storm in and kill everything then they will get half of that ammount of xp, if they consider their objectives and come up with a more inteligent and thought through solution then they will get more, but in any event the ammount they get will be proportional to how well they dealt with the situation, whether their characters were played in character. and so on. it makes the DM's job a bit harder as you essentially have to mark them on their technique, but it makes the players more consious of their characters role within the story and i've found it to be the best modification to the xp system i've ever used, if not the easiest.

these days I generally just drop milestones into the story by which point they should have achieved a specific objective, got to a specific place, or done a certain deed, at which point they should level up, by moving these forwards or backwards depending on how well they are doing you control the rate of leveling up (so if they figure everything out much sooner they will level up more quickly, if they go the wrong way it will take longer)
this is easy for the DM and doesn't link xp to combats or even encounters at all, but isn't as satisfying.

[Samurai Jill]

The simplest hack is probably getting rid of combat XP, and implementing your own XP system. Take a page out of World of Darkness.

I don't recommend this. You can encourage "role-play" in the sense of funny accents and hollow posturing by bribing players with XP, but the problem is that rewarding actual role-play with XP sends the following, subtly contradictory messages:

* The ultimate purpose of this game is to follow character motivations even at personal cost.
* The ultimate purpose of this game is to maximise your character's mechanical power.

So, no. If you expect players to actually role-play, you need to reward them with something other than a pure effectiveness-improvement mechanic.

I'm confident in my ability to write interesting stories...

Secondly- and this is particularly true if you're going to present players with underlying moral/ethical dilemmas that make correct responses non-obvious- then you have to get rid of the idea of fixed storyline. Otherwise, you present players with another set of contradictory messages-

* I expect you to take your character's motivations seriously even at personal cost.
* I expect you to react predictably to situations where your motives are in mutual conflict (including 'greed' or 'self-preservation' as motives,) AND/OR-
* Don't expect your decisions to have any genuine consequences.

(GURPS, for example, only provides partial support for role-play, because the way it handles personality traits as a fixed stimulus-response pattern obliges the GM to never create situations where character motives are in conflict.)

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I don't recommend this. You can encourage "role-play" in the sense of funny accents and hollow posturing by bribing players with XP, but the problem is that rewarding actual role-play with XP sends the following, subtly contradictory messages:

* The ultimate purpose of this game is to follow character motivations even at personal cost.
* The ultimate purpose of this game is to maximise your character's mechanical power.

So, no. If you expect players to actually role-play, you need to reward them with something other than a pure effectiveness-improvement mechanic.

Partially agreed. If you take it to the logical conclusion, yes. But if the players have a bit of fuzzy give-and-take, expanding their scope of advancement beyond "loot and killing" and into "investigation and perils" can be a very good thing.

It's not as deep as, say, Burning Wheel or FATE, but it's still a good, simple step forward.

Plus, those two messages don't have to be contradictory. With great power comes great responsibility, or so Uncle Ben says. Overused and trite? Maybe a little, but it's still true. More mechanically powerful characters will still find reasons to pay a personal cost for their decisions.

[The Big Dice]

(GURPS, for example, only provides partial support for role-play, because the way it handles personality traits as a fixed stimulus-response pattern obliges the GM to never create situations where character motives are in conflict.)

GURPS, like Pendragon, encourages and rewards you playing in a way that supports the numbers on your sheet. GURPS takes the line that there's a chance you'll respond a certain way in certain situations.

Is it the responsibility of the GM or the player to put the character in situations where the dice will be called on to decide how the character might react? Should the coward avoid combat? Should the phobic character look for opportunities to confront (and eventually overcome) his phobia?

They are roleplaying questions, not things the GM should be directly confronting the character with.

[Britter]

Is it the responsibility of the GM or the player to put the character in situations where the dice will be called on to decide how the character might react? Should the coward avoid combat? Should the phobic character look for opportunities to confront (and eventually overcome) his phobia?

They are roleplaying questions, not things the GM should be directly confronting the character with.

If the GM is not putting players in situations where those elements of their character are challenged, than what is the point of having those as elements of your character? If they are not being directly confronted, how can you roleplay? (serious questions, because I am not sure I understand what you are saying here, and I don't want to disagree without groking you)

In my opinion, if you come to me with a character who you say is, for example, a coward, you are making a statement about the sorts of challenges you want to face. I will ask for details, and than I will take your coward and give him choices where he can either act to his nature, or attempt to grow past it in some way. To me, that is where the meat of roleplaying is.

Frankly, I detest GURPS and it's quirks and flaws, because they are simply mechanical things that never actually seem to matter, more so if the player chooses particularly well when selecting the so-called negative aspects of his character.

If I say I am playing a coawrd, I am asking the GM to confront me with opportunities to be cowardly, and difficult choices to make about when and how and why I should be a coward. I am also asking to have my cowardice thrown in my face as often as is appropriate, so that I must confront that aspect of my character and either accept it for what it is, or grow past it.

[The Big Dice]

If the GM is not putting players in situations where those elements of their character are challenged, than what is the point of having those as elements of your character? If they are not being directly confronted, how can you roleplay? (serious questions, because I am not sure I understand what you are saying here, and I don't want to disagree without groking you)

What you're doing is putting all the responsibility for how you deal with situations on the head of the GM. It isn't up to the GM to decide to put you in situations tailor made for your character. It is up to you to respond to the situations your character finds himself in, but in a manner that is consistent with the numbers and words on your sheet.

In my opinion, if you come to me with a character who you say is, for example, a coward, you are making a statement about the sorts of challenges you want to face. I will ask for details, and than I will take your coward and give him choices where he can either act to his nature, or attempt to grow past it in some way. To me, that is where the meat of roleplaying is.

I'd say someone wanting to play a Coward (I've done this, btw) is making a statement about how they are going to play their character and how they are going to approach situations where danger to the character is at hand. It's not saying to the GM "I want you to adjust the world to fit me" but rather saying to the GM "This is the kind of way I am going to react to the world."

It's a subtle but crucial difference that puts the player and the way the player is going to have his character respond to things front and center. And to me, that, not the GM spoon feeding me, is the meat of roleplaying.

Frankly, I detest GURPS and it's quirks and flaws, because they are simply mechanical things that never actually seem to matter, more so if the player chooses particularly well when selecting the so-called negative aspects of his character.

I take the line that I'm going to get points back for playing the character the way I was planning to play him. Not simply treating them as free points, but rather treating the Disadvantages and Quirks are prompts to remind me what the original character concept was.

I understand that not everyone does this, but it is the way GURPS was designed to be played.

If I say I am playing a coawrd, I am asking the GM to confront me with opportunities to be cowardly, and difficult choices to make about when and how and why I should be a coward. I am also asking to have my cowardice thrown in my face as often as is appropriate, so that I must confront that aspect of my character and either accept it for what it is, or grow past it.

When I've played a Coward, I took every opportunity to have my character act in a cowardly way, with the odd flash of bravery. I would voluntarily fail the Will roll to act in combat, resulting in me spending fights hid behind wagons, under tables and behind the bigger, tougher PCs in the group.

Because, as I said, it's not about the numbers so much as it's about getting bonus points in advance for playing the character you wrote up instead of the one that you usually play.