How do you roleplay? How do you teach it?

[Slartibartfast]

Some players just don't quite get the idea of roleplaying. Some of them play themselves, which isn't terrible, but others play inconsistent characters or sort of "blank" characters with no motivation, goals, or personality. I have recently encountered one such player, and I need to teach them how to roleplay. I've explained the general idea to them several times (as have the other players in my group) but it doesn't seem to get through to him.

How would you explain roleplaying to these people? More importantly, how would you teach these people who are having difficulty understanding HOW to roleplay, so that they can learn to roleplay themselves?

[Starwulf]

Introduce them to these forums. No, seriously, I 125% mean that. Introduce them, to these forums. Before I was introduced to these forums, my idea of "Role-playing" was whenever I played a character in a game video-game, I would make sure I stuck to his stereo-type. Like, in Morrowind/Oblivion, if I Played a warrior, I would stay away from any magical spells/scrolls, no matter how useful they possibly could have been. I had a sword, a shield, Heavy armor, and I wailed on things. If I played a Mage type, I wore robes, carried a staff, and cast spells.(granted, when I was younger, I did play whatever version of D&D was around then, but that didn't particularly stick(16 1/2 years ago)). After I was introduced to these forums, that ALL changed. I discovered the complexity and fun of actually ROLEPLAYING my character. Creating a fun and exciting background, digging inside my characters mind, figuring out what made him tick, what his goals were, what kind of people he liked and disliked, what his personality was, all that wonderful stuff.

These forums are, as far as I'm concerned, the cure to people who like to play RPGs(video games or otherwise) but don't actually roleplay.

[Shalist]

There's guides online, though start with the basics to help get them in their character's skin:

Writing a description

Writing a background

(the site has other stuff, and while it is geared towards a certain game, a lot of it can apply to D 'n D).

---

On a personal note, I have a hard time getting into characters due to never being able to play them...I've wasted so much time creating characters for games that never make it to (or past) the first session, or characters that get killed off very early, etc, that I'm a bit shy about 'committing' to one.

Also, I'm naturally a strong non-RPer on my best of days--it just doesn't seem relevant to what I want out of the game (solving puzzles, figuring out how stuff works, finding new ways to do things, etc). Something that would help a non-RPer like me would be consequences (good or bad) associated with IC activities--a sense that my ICness is actually having some sorta impact on the game world, vice just providing 'meaningless' flavor.

[Garwain]

Not everyone can act. If acting doesn't come naturally, that's ok as well. I bet (s)he is more into minmaxing than roleplaying though .

Anyway, to blend in around the table as for these:
- choose 1 distinctive trait
- choose 1 catch phrase
- choose 1 to love and 1 to hate (thing or person)

And that covers basically what makes a character stand out and 'interactable'.

[dsmiles]

The only people I've "taught" to roleplay are my kids. Hook 'em young, it makes all the difference.

Every other new player was easy. They just hung back, rolled the dice, and observed for the first session (sometimes two). After that, they jumped right into the acting bit.

[Lyra Reynolds]

Something that would help a non-RPer like me would be consequences (good or bad) associated with IC activities--a sense that my ICness is actually having some sorta impact on the game world, vice just providing 'meaningless' flavor.

Definitely this. I get much more easily in character and am much more involved if there's some personal stake for my character. Doesn't have to be big, I don't need to be the Chosen One or whatever, but small things like an NPC that I like who's involved in the plan, or it's set in a town I once visited and I get to revisit old acquaintances, things like that.
With my campaign, I found that it also really gave the party a kick when NPCs they'd once helped came back and told them how their lives had improved due to the party's help. For DMs, it also gives handy plot ideas: let's go back to that village that was skeleton infested and let's see what's it's like three years later! :p

[Elasair]

Develop your character as if you're making notes about someone you know. If you're able to get to the point where you think of the character as someone real, and not imaginary, then you've succeeded.

Important things to keep in mind;

You need flaws. These are was make the character interesting. I recently played an orc who's flaws were that he was too honorable. He wouldn't fight women (only subdual would he do), and he wouldn't fight or finish a helpless opponent. That clashed, and created roleplay experience, when the party wizard cast hold person and my orc wouldn't take advantage of that.

You need desires. These are what help drive you forward and give you motivation. My orc was adventuring with a group of sociopathic murderers just so he could make money to send his adopted elf daughter to medical school. Without the driving force, he'd just be along for the ride.

You need something unique to call your character your own, something that sets him/her apart. For my orc, it was as simple as a mohawk.

[Frozen_Feet]

Something that would help a non-RPer like me would be consequences (good or bad) associated with IC activities--a sense that my ICness is actually having some sorta impact on the game world, vice just providing 'meaningless' flavor.

You'd like me as a GM, then - Karma features heavily in all of my games and I'm merciless about lampshading how actions of PCs look to the NPCs.

---

Generally, when I start teaching a roleplaying game, I go through a list of points in roughly this order:

1. You'll be acting people, like characters in a book or a film.
2. They live in a world of their own, which is quite alike this unless otherwise noted.
3. Within constraints of the rules, you're free to act your character however you like. However, each action has proper consequence; outside game rules, you can try to think what you would do in the same situation to see if action is reasonable.
4. When it's uncertain whether you'll get your way, random chance will decide.
5. The practice of the game goes: I tell you a situation, you act and react based on that, then I act and react based on you, and so on. Bit like telling ghost stories in turns.
6. When I speak, you listen, when you speak, I listen. If you have something to say, wait for your turn or raise your hand.

Some analysis of these points:

1: It's necessary to give a reference point of what to expect from the game just before them. If you're going to play fantasy, saying "like characters in Conan" or "characters in Lord of the Rings" is a good example. Trying to explain everything roleplays could be to new players will just get them confused.

2: Creation of reference points continues here. Referencing the real world is meant to hint the new players that they can use real-life logic and common sense to approximate actions and reactions. However, at the same time, stressing that it's their world helps to lay the groundwork for understanding the difference between them and their characters.

3: Getting new players to accept and understand that it's a game is vital in my opinion so they learn to accept and play by the rules. Not everything is possible in every game. This way, when they lose or don't get what they want, they'll hate the game, and not you. Explaining players they have freedom to choose and to do things is important for making them understand they can drive and affect the game as well; on the other hand, appealing to their personal experience and explaining freedom of choice doesn't mean freedom from consequence lays groundwork for immersion and getting into character.

4: This is continuation of the above part. It's also lays groundwork to the understanding that the GM is also bound by some rules; that the GM isn't wholly abritrary and can be challenged if he's not being fair.

5: Obviously, after the above explanation most people still have little idea how things actually work. So it's best to reduce it to the simplest possible guideline: I speak, you speak, rinse and repeat. Referencing other entertainment the players are familiar with is once again used to help.

6: Long story short, my new players tend to be brats. To keep the game from devolving into a shouting contest, I invoke the image of class room or other learning circumstances by the practices involved. This lays groundwork for common courtesy in the table. I figure it's useful for adults as well.

Beyond these, there's the general issue of making new players understand what the difference between GM and player is. This easy with kids - kids are familiar with all sorts of games where one player has a special role compared to others. With older players, you can always refer the banker in monopoly, or dealer in card games. Explaining this division is usually part of point three.

[Slartibartfast]

Introduce them to these forums.
[...]
These forums are, as far as I'm concerned, the cure to people who like to play RPGs(video games or otherwise) but don't actually roleplay.

This is probably an excellent solution,but it's sort of long-term. Giant forums aren't quite as good as a short-term fix, but good idea.

[...]
Something that would help a non-RPer like me would be consequences (good or bad) associated with IC activities--a sense that my ICness is actually having some sorta impact on the game world, vice just providing 'meaningless' flavor.

That's a hard one. Obviously, any good DM will make sure that IC actions will have these sorts of effects, the problem is that if the characters don't DO anything IC, you don't have much to react to. We need something to make them start doing IC actions in the first place.

Not everyone can act. If acting doesn't come naturally, that's ok as well. I bet (s)he is more into minmaxing than roleplaying though.

That's the funny one. He's being doing D&D for awhile, but really couldn't minmax if he tried. He made a basic straight wizard with an odd but not unreasonable spell list. Minmaxing doesn't seem to be the issue here, but having munchkins in my group I can oddly enough assert that the munchkins are actually roleplaying. Weird, but I guess you can find all kinds of strange players.

The only people I've "taught" to roleplay are my kids. Hook 'em young, it makes all the difference.

Every other new player was easy. They just hung back, rolled the dice, and observed for the first session (sometimes two). After that, they jumped right into the acting bit.

Yup, that's how I learned D&D, when I was about 3 years old. And from my experience, most players seemed to follow that same pattern you describe. This guy just is staying in the "hang back" state and isn't catching on.

I get much more easily in character and am much more involved if there's some personal stake for my character.

Again, I'd love to give him some personal stake in here, but so far all he's given me to work with is "I'm a wizard." I had a bit of trouble working with so little to go on.

Develop your character as if you're making notes about someone you know. If you're able to get to the point where you think of the character as someone real, and not imaginary, then you've succeeded.

Probably the best answer is to just sit him down and do just that. If I can get him to stick with it the whole way is another question entirely though.

You'd like me as a GM, then - Karma features heavily in all of my games and I'm merciless about lampshading how actions of PCs look to the NPCs.

I bet I would. Sound like good DMing. Your points there are pretty good too. The interesting problem now is taking a player who is very familiar with D&D and still can't roleplay. Still keeping me baffled.

-------------

Good thoughts anyone. I would say this advice could teach anyone to roleplay. I'll go put it to the test and have my player read over this stuff and see if he can work it out. By the power of stubborn perseverance I'll work through this with him eventually!

[Pisha]

One thing to try, if nothing else seems to be getting through: ask the player what movies, books, tv shows, etc. he likes. Which ones are his absolute favorites? Who is his favorite character? Then challenge him to create a character in the game based on that character.

Yes, it's not as creative or original as making up your own from scratch, but if he's having a hard time getting the idea of roleplay, having an already-established personality to act out could be a good learning tool. Once he starts having fun playing a personality rather than just a collection of stats, then he can work on branching out into developing his own characters.

[slaydemons]

I told my players to imagine themselves in this world and act like they would in real life.

[Slartibartfast]

One thing to try, if nothing else seems to be getting through: ask the player what movies, books, tv shows, etc. he likes. Then challenge him to create a character in the game based on that character.

That could work, but I think I'd just insult him with the suggestion of copying something like that. Nice try though.

I told my players to imagine themselves in this world and act like they would in real life.

So far under that tactic he's sat around in bars drinking the entire campaign, and then chucking fireballs at stuff. It's so bland as to be unbelievable. Usually works for people with reasonable natural talent, but I feel like we're closer to starting from scratch here. Especially since I know that his real-life persona doesn't drink that much and is not overly pyrotechnically inclined. At least no more so than the average D&D player.

[Traab]

The hardest part about roleplaying, to me, is when I know that my character should act a certain way, and I also know that it would be a bad idea to do so. For example, I used to rp a lot in Everquest. One of my characters was a halfling druid that started his life as a warrior. So even though he has all these spells, he doesnt use many of them. Instead he has a kickass hammer and shield, a melee haste item, throws up his damage shield and self buffs, then runs into melee range to beat the mob to death. Got me killed from time to time, but I had fun. Imo, when a real roleplayer gets into a sticky situation, he doesnt think, "Whats the best way to handle this?" He thinks, "How would my character handle this?"

[Frozen_Feet]

So far under that tactic he's sat around in bars drinking the entire campaign, and then chucking fireballs at stuff. It's so bland as to be unbelievable. Usually works for people with reasonable natural talent, but I feel like we're closer to starting from scratch here. Especially since I know that his real-life persona doesn't drink that much and is not overly pyrotechnically inclined. At least no more so than the average D&D player.

Okay, so he knows the rules alright? Then try this:

Mercilessly barrage him with events in a desperate attempt to squeeze reaction out of him. Pull out all the stops for narrative cheese and ham. Bring out adorable cute little critters and make it abundantly clear they will die if he doesn't help. Have desperate housewives try to woo him. In general, just dump the gameworld upside down on his drunken-pyromaniac-bum face, and watch what happens.

[Eldariel]

The process of roleplaying is simply acting. Any acting training applies to roleplaying; getting into your character's mind, treating the other actors and imaginary constructs as real people (of course, what that means to your character depends), using a set of traits you follow to define your character, etc.

Of course, this doesn't get to character creation. That's more writing; so any talented actor who writes novels is automatically a good roleplayer

[Shadowknight12]

Make sure they actually understand what roleplaying is, what it means, and that it is an activity they actually enjoy, before following any advice in this thread. Not all people enjoy excessive roleplaying. Some prefer to be blank slates, stereotypes, or make the minimal token effort it takes for them not to break other people's immersion.

Do not push them somewhere they might not want to go towards. If they hesitate, let them think, postpone the conversation, give them time.

Roleplaying is not, by itself, an enjoyable activity. It is only enjoyable to those who find it so. Do not be mistaken into believing that everyone will enjoy roleplaying with the "right guidance" or the "right encouragement." They might well not.

EDIT:

Okay, so he knows the rules alright? Then try this:

Mercilessly barrage him with events in a desperate attempt to squeeze reaction out of him. Pull out all the stops for narrative cheese and ham. Bring out adorable cute little critters and make it abundantly clear they will die if he doesn't help. Have desperate housewives try to woo him. In general, just dump the gameworld upside down on his drunken-pyromaniac-bum face, and watch what happens.

This is the worst idea I have encountered on these boards. By far. Do not do this unless you are absolutely sure the player will enjoy this, or at least not mind it.

[Seb Wiers]

Some players just don't quite get the idea of roleplaying. Some of them play themselves, which isn't terrible, but others play inconsistent characters or sort of "blank" characters with no motivation, goals, or personality. I have recently encountered one such player, and I need to teach them how to roleplay. I've explained the general idea to them several times (as have the other players in my group) but it doesn't seem to get through to him.

"Blank characters" are often the result of a blank game world. Without emotionally / morally meaningful events to react to, there's no real "hook" to pull people into meaningful roleplay. Some players make up such things to put in their character's past, but many (myself included) just don't have the drive to do that, especially if they don't know the game world all that well. Giving them a few key past events to hang a character background on can be VERY helpful in that cas.

[LibraryOgre]

What I would suggest is something that gets them to think more about who their characters are and what they want. The usual is some variation on "20 Questions"... like this link to 100 questions. While I think 100 is a bit much to put on someone who isn't used to the idea, having them come up with 20 questions and stick to those as their guidelines brings it to the fore.

You might also try bribery, or homework. Basically, offer XP (significant but not game-changing... in 3.5, maybe 100-200 per level; one or two in things like Vampire or L5R) to explain his character. It used to be called bluebooking, but I imagine you can take care of it with e-mail today (in fact, I need to e-mail my L5R GM about some thoughts I'm having on my Akodo). Why did you do X last week? When it came time to choose, what made your character go with the option he did?

Have people start to react to their actions. If his Paladin is always demanding payment, then start having people comment on that. "Your friend is quite the mercenary. I wonder if he cares about anything... or anybody." When their actions matter, people are more likely to watch them.

Just a few thoughts.

[Seb Wiers]

The process of roleplaying is simply acting. Any acting training applies to roleplaying; getting into your character's mind, treating the other actors and imaginary constructs as real people (of course, what that means to your character depends)

Until very recently (the popularization of method acting in the 1930s), most of those things were not considered part of acting. A lot of people are totally unaware of the importance of such thinking, and assume that good actors (and role players) are pretty much just people who are good at impersonations of fictional characters.

[Frozen_Feet]

This is the worst idea I have encountered on these boards. By far. Do not do this unless you are absolutely sure the player will enjoy this, or at least not mind it.

Boo! You have no sportsmanship.

The idea is to throw balls at the player to see how long it takes for him to hit one. It's impossible to tell if he'll enjoy it or not before trying it out, and his enjoyment is a secondary concern at best here. The primary concern is to see what kinds of things will spark a reaction and of what kind. Think of it as enforced method acting.

A GM who never does anything unexpected without being "absolutely certain" will not get very far. One of the best ways to find out whether people like something or not is bring them face-to-face with it. Out-of-game discussions will only get you so far, because people often can't tell you just what they will like because they've never experienced it before.

[randomhero00]

I explain it as an analogue (sp? analog?) to writing a character in a book. Tell them to think of their favorite fantasy story, then insert their own character in there that has connections and motivations etc. So sort of a writing exercise almost (except I tell em just to use their imaginations at first).

Then I tell them DnD (insert game) is just like a communitative (sp? again hehe) story. All they need to do is fit in a character that has ties to the environment. Then "tell" the other players about it by "showing" them during the game.

[Pisha]

Here's a question: is he having fun?

It's been brought up that not everyone is going to enjoy roleplaying, and that's true. If he really, truly just wants to hang out at a tavern drinking and then throw some fireballs, ok - more power to him, I guess. (The next question, of course, is whether you want to invite him to your next game, if that's all he's going to do, but that's on you.)

If he's not having fun, I'd suggest talking to him about it. Maybe this just isn't his hobby, he doesn't get what the rest of you see in it, and he'd rather go play video games. HOWEVER, if he IS feeling frustrated and wants to get into the game more, start mentioning some of the ideas from this thread. Toss 'em all at him, even the stupid ones, because something might appeal to him that you didn't think would.

(The reason I suggested basing a character off a fictional one, btw, is because it really can be a tool for developing the kind of imagination you need for these games. It can be hard to imagine how you, yourself, would act in certain situations, because for most of us, it's so far divorced from our real lives that we'd have no way of knowing. But you know how various fictional characters react in dramatic, life-or-death situations, because you've seen them do it! If you suggest it and he takes it as an insult, feel free to tell him that one of the best characters I've played with was fairly obviously based on the Doctor. It's a long-standing tradition to steal get character inspirations from popular fiction.)

[Shadowknight12]

Boo! You have no sportsmanship.

On the contrary, I have far too much.

The idea is to throw balls at the player to see how long it takes for him to hit one. It's impossible to tell if he'll enjoy it or not before trying it out, and his enjoyment is a secondary concern at best here. The primary concern is to see what kinds of things will spark a reaction and of what kind. Think of it as enforced method acting.

Again, worst idea I've yet to read in these forums. This is the equivalent of molesting a virgin because they are indecisive about sex. Or stuffing someone's mouth with a food they have never tried before. Or punching them in the face in order to get them to try out boxing. It can work, I have to admit as much, because abnormalities exist everywhere, but the overwhelming majority of cases will provoke the exact opposite effect you're trying to achieve.

Also, Enforced Method Acting is frankly despicable, and I would scorn and boycott any director who did such an atrocity.

A GM who never does anything unexpected without being "absolutely certain" will not get very far. One of the best ways to find out whether people like something or not is bring them face-to-face with it. Out-of-game discussions will only get you so far, because people often can't tell you just what they will like because they've never experienced it before.

You are completely and absolutely mistaken. I have never done anything major without running it through my players first, and not only I have not encountered any problems, the aforementioned players have gone out of their way to get me to DM for them again.

Furthermore, you are treating your players like children, rather than mature adults. If an adult tells me that they dislike something, or that they do not wish to participate in something, or they are ambivalent about trying something out, I respect their decision because they are, in fact, mature adults. I do not override their preferences "because I know best." You do not tell a virgin "Don't worry, you'll like it!" as you proceed to molest them.

No means no.

[Slartibartfast]

I will ignore the "enforced method acting" subthread for a bit.

Here's a question: is he having fun?

No? He's not having fun, but he says that he's not having fun because his character never gets to do anything. Of course, the reason his character never gets to do anything is because he spends his time doing nothing of consequence. I've even tried taking some of the events of consequence to him, but he chose to ignore them and continue drinking. That left me in a logical paradox loop which I politely pointed out to him. There really hasn't been an answer yet.

At this point I may very well give up, although the flavor of giving up is one I have yet to choose.

Back to Enforced Method Acting: Actually, I probably shouldn't get back to it. The topic seems dangerous. Regardless, I'd think that going all-out like that is fairly nonsensical because it picks a flavor of comedic and unrealistic play which isn't really our group's style. That's more like a cartoon or a really bad soap opera than a serious D&D game (not to say that non-serious D&D games don't exist or aren't fun, because they can definitely be fun. Also: Toon). Just doesn't mesh.

@Randomhero: "Communatative" should be "communal." Pretty sure that's the word you're looking for. And yeah, tried some analogies.

[Frozen_Feet]

Again, worst idea I've yet to read in these forums. This is the equivalent of molesting a virgin because they are indecisive about sex. Or stuffing someone's mouth with a food they have never tried before. Or punching them in the face in order to get them to try out boxing. It can work, I have to admit as much, because abnormalities exist everywhere, but the overwhelming majority of cases will provoke the exact opposite effect you're trying to achieve.

Also, Enforced Method Acting is frankly despicable, and I would scorn and boycott any director who did such an atrocity.

Way to overblow things, pal. If you scrolled down the example list, especially to the RPG section, you'd noticed that there are fair few perfectly innocious ways of implementing this. A closer analogy would be to ask them to taste a food they don't know, or handing them a pair of gloves and saying "tonight, we fight".

There is no "exact opposite" effect, because we're not trying to achieve a particular effect, we're trying to achieve some effect. Even if the effect is "dude, not funny", the observation is invaluable because it helps the player clarify his stance.

You are completely and absolutely mistaken. I have never done anything major without running it through my players first, and not only I have not encountered any problems, the aforementioned players have gone out of their way to get me to DM for them again.

Well, good for you. Not the situation at hand here, though. As noted, the player we're dealing with can't express what he wants in a sensical way, and might not even know. So the GM has to engage in a bit of empiricism to draw it out.

Furthermore, you are treating your players like children, rather than mature adults. If an adult tells me that they dislike something, or that they do not wish to participate in something, or they are ambivalent about trying something out, I respect their decision because they are, in fact, mature adults. I do not override their preferences "because I know best." You do not tell a virgin "Don't worry, you'll like it!" as you proceed to molest them.

No means no.

My philosophy in teaching new players might be colored by the fact that they have lately been literal children. However, I've also observed that "adult" only somewhat correlates with "mature"; some adults warrant being treated like brats because they act like such. Especially in the field of games, regression to a childish attitude is pretty common; I should note that roleplaying is fundamenttaly similar in many ways to make-believe of little kids, and first time roleplayers often act in a way that resembles such.

But again, your steadfast opposition to my method seems to come from not considering the specific case before us: we are not dealing with an invidual who knows what he wants. It's impossible to "respect their decision", because they're incapable of making one. It's not a "virgin" we have here; as noted, the guy knows the rules, he's been in play for a long time. What we have here is someone who's been around a couple of times and wants to try something new, but has no clue what that new thing might be. This means that the other party, in this case the GM, has to introduce him to options available.

Back to Enforced Method Acting: Actually, I probably shouldn't get back to it. The topic seems dangerous.

Bah. It seems dangerous only because our friend Shadowknight is being melodramatic. Look at the listed examples in the trope page, scroll down to tabletop games to see how this would actually work in practice.

Regardless, I'd think that going all-out like that is fairly nonsensical because it picks a flavor of comedic and unrealistic play which isn't really our group's style. That's more like a cartoon or a really bad soap opera than a serious D&D game (not to say that non-serious D&D games don't exist or aren't fun, because they can definitely be fun. Also: Toon). Just doesn't mesh.

Now this is a valid concern. Putting the event generator on hyperdrive tends to lean towards melodrama. It's possible to implement the method within desired genre limits, though. What's the standing plan? What kind of setting and genre are you operating in?

[Shadowknight12]

Way to overblow things, pal. If you scrolled down the example list, especially to the RPG section, you'd noticed that there are fair few perfectly innocious ways of implementing this. A closer analogy would be to ask them to taste a food they don't know, or handing them a pair of gloves and saying "tonight, we fight".

I exaggerated on purpose, to better demonstrate my point. What you are suggesting is just as wrong, on principle.

There is no "exact opposite" effect, because we're not trying to achieve a particular effect, we're trying to achieve some effect. Even if the effect is "dude, not funny", the observation is invaluable because it helps the player clarify his stance.

Oh, right, next time I want to know if a woman is interested in me, I'll just kiss her out of the blue. Hey, at least if she slaps me, I'll have achieved some effect, right? It'll help clarify her stance.

Well, good for you. Not the situation at hand here, though. As noted, the player we're dealing with can't express what he wants in a sensical way, and might not even know. So the GM has to engage in a bit of empiricism to draw it out.

Wrong. If the player can't express what he wants in a sensical way, that's his loss. Because he is an adult, and should not be spared the consequences of his actions. If he is too shy to communicate what he wants or too indecisive, then that's a personal trait of his that he has to work on by himself. It is not up to the DM to "fix" people.

My philosophy in teaching new players might be colored by the fact that they have lately been literal children. However, I've also observed that "adult" only somewhat correlates with "mature"; some adults warrant being treated like brats because they act like such. Especially in the field of games, regression to a childish attitude is pretty common; I should note that roleplaying is fundamenttaly similar in many ways to make-believe of little kids, and first time roleplayers often act in a way that resembles such.

Gaming with children is a completely different matter. That is not what we're discussing here. I used the term "mature" as a way to condition the word "adult." I specified "mature adult" not because all adults are mature, but because my stance only applies to those adults that are mature. If a player is acting like a child and you have no interest in dealing with children, you do not cater to the player's childishness, you treat him like the adult he is. If he doesn't like this, he can find himself another DM.

But again, your steadfast opposition to my method seems to come from not considering the specific case before us: we are not dealing with an invidual who knows what he wants. It's impossible to "respect their decision", because they're incapable of making one. It's not a "virgin" we have here; as noted, the guy knows the rules, he's been in play for a long time. What we have here is someone who's been around a couple of times and wants to try something new, but has no clue what that new thing might be. This means that the other party, in this case the GM, has to introduce him to options available.

On the contrary, the "virgin" analogy still applies. It's someone who "does not know what he wants" and "has no clue what this new thing he may/may not want to try is." You do not impose your will upon others. If the player is too indecisive or shy, you let him miss out on the activity. That is the consequence of indecision. That is the consequence of lacking agency, decisiveness and courage.

[Frozen_Feet]

You do not impose your will upon others. If the player is too indecisive or shy, you let him miss out on the activity. That is the consequence of indecision. That is the consequence of lacking agency, decisiveness and courage.

Pardon me, but I thought this thread was about teaching. Teaching is impossible without imposing your will on someone to some extent. (And I strongly feel there's irrational amount of opposition towards the concept in these boards.) Letting the player miss out misses the point if the idea is to get him over it.

EDIT: and the virgin analogy still is misplaced. The guy knows the rules, and he knows what he's signed in for. Note that he said he wants "something to do" and the GM has already tried offering him events. What I'm proposing is simply for the GM to ramp up what he's been doing already to speed finding out what exactly triggers a response.

[Shadowknight12]

Pardon me, but I thought this thread was about teaching. Teaching is impossible without imposing your will on someone to some extent. (And I strongly feel there's irrational amount of opposition towards the concept in these boards.) Letting the player miss out misses the point if the idea is to get him over it.

You teach children or people who ask to be taught. If there is opposition, there is a reason for that, and that reason should be pondered instead of tossed away because "you know best."

Posters come here with terrible, downright awful ideas all the time. Our job as a community is to inform them of the possible consequences of their actions and then letting them decide for themselves if they really want to go through with it.

You have done your part and presented your argument. Now let me do the same.

[Frozen_Feet]

You teach children or people who ask to be taught. If there is opposition, there is a reason for that, and that reason should be pondered instead of tossed away because "you know best."

Yeah, and as noted, the guy has asked to be taught. He wants something for his character to do, and that's exactly what I'm proposing of giving him.

Posters come here with terrible, downright awful ideas all the time. Our job as a community is to inform them of the possible consequences of their actions and then letting them decide for themselves if they really want to go through with it.

You have done your part and presented your argument. Now let me do the same.

Sure. But I resent the way you exaggerate and overblow my proposed advice to make it artificially seem worse and less fitting of the situation than it actually is.

[Seb Wiers]

This is the equivalent of molesting a virgin because they are indecisive about sex. Or stuffing someone's mouth with a food they have never tried before. Or punching them in the face in order to get them to try out boxing.

No, its not the "equivalent". Its not even analogous. Saying otherwise is mind bogglingly insulting to the victims of (sexual) assault and abuse.

What might be analogous would be throwing them a surprise party when they don't normally go to parties, but haven't ever stated they dislike parties, and have in fact asked why there never seem to be any parties for them to go to.

Also, Enforced Method Acting is frankly despicable, and I would scorn and boycott any director who did such an atrocity.

So, no original Star Wars trilogy (or any other Lucas film) for you then, eh? (Hint: "Luke, I am your father" wasn't in the script Hamill saw.)