Disinterested Play

[Catullus64]

I've been thinking lately about certain moments that arise from time to time in RPGs, when the player characters aren't doing anything important and stakes are minimal. In Dungeons & Dragons and its descendants, these are usually moments in towns between adventures, or while travelling between adventures if the journey is relatively safe. I tend to really enjoy these moments, when utilitarian, goal-oriented roleplay stops, and what I would call Disinterested Play arises. Examples of disinterested play, for me, would be a party of PCs:

• Getting drunk
• Singing songs
• Telling stories with no point
• Sharing meals
• Chatting about their lives before the adventure
• Falling in love
• Playing games
• Pulling pranks on each other
• Contemplating life
• Day-to-day practicing of a religion
• Sightseeing (going places just to see what they're like)
• Doing mundane and low-stakes tasks & jobs
• Arguing about trivial things

I have found that not everybody values these undirected moments of casual roleplay in their games; they feel a relentless sense that their characters should be working towards a goal, and that anything not goal-oriented should be skipped or abstracted into the background. They get restless when these moments last for more than a minute or two. Even ostensible 'down-time' should, in such a view, be directed at goals which support the main adventure.

For me, though, I have a hard time getting emotionally invested in an RPG story, however well-constructed and well-played, if it lacks these moments. I've often remarked that RPG parties tend to feel more like work acquaintances than friends, and I think a lot of that can be laid at the absence of support for such moments in the rules and structures of a game.

Now, it's not a mystery as to why so many games don't focus on creating such moments. Most RPGs are action games. Even games that de-emphasize combat, like, say, Call of Cthulhu, are still generally oriented around high-stakes scenarios with highly goal-oriented rules and gameplay rhythms. I don't object to this; I like action-oriented stories as a rule. But I do think it would behoove even the most action-oriented games to provide some structure for players and game masters to create these moments, which add strong emotional investments in the outcomes of goal-oriented gameplay.

Problem is, that's really hard to do. Reinforcing these moments with concrete penalties and rewards just turns this kind of disinterested play back into goal-oriented play, something to be optimized or 'won.' You can see rough edges where certain games gesture incompletely towards this kind of play; the Performance skill in D&D, when it's not being used as a mechanical lever for the Bard class a la 3.5e, tends to become something of an odd man out amongst the Charisma-skills, because unlike all the others, whatever they're called, it doesn't readily present itself as being useful in most goal-oriented contexts. Rules for food & water tend to only address the extremes of starvation and dehydration. I have a co-player who complains that getting drunk in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay provides no mechanical benefit, only mechanical penalties, a design decision that only makes much sense if you think about it in a context of disinterested play.

So it's difficult for game rules and text to encourage this particular style of play. Individual players and game masters can do more to work it in, but I think there is a problem of expectations at work here: the structures of RPGs as relentlessly goal-oriented tend to reinforce goal-oriented thinking, and cause players to view disinterested play as time-wasting or unrewarding. This is the problem I leave in your lap to contemplate. Do you enjoy what I here term disinterested play? What value does it have to you? What features of game systems have you found to either encourage or discourage it?

[gbaji]

So it's difficult for game rules and text to encourage this particular style of play. Individual players and game masters can do more to work it in, but I think there is a problem of expectations at work here: the structures of RPGs as relentlessly goal-oriented tend to reinforce goal-oriented thinking, and cause players to view disinterested play as time-wasting or unrewarding. This is the problem I leave in your lap to contemplate. Do you enjoy what I here term disinterested play? What value does it have to you? What features of game systems have you found to either encourage or discourage it?

Have no strong opinion either way towards the play itself. In my game, it's common for PCs who have musical abilities to play them during downtime, for example (and perform is a useful skill for gathering a few coppers to pay for your dinner while spending a night at the local tavern). But yeah, most of the "in-between" stuff is handled off table, and when there's a lull at the table, it's usually filled with a few comments about what folks are doing, and that's about it. If someone wants to do something "interesting" during these times, that's not an issue, and can sometimes lead to other things. Character engages romantically with an NPC, maybe said NPC helps them out somewhat later on. Or becomes a recurring character. Or, and I may have done this once, turns out to actually be a vampire and has an impact on a future story (this one actually lead to the vampire actually falling in love with the character, which lead him to change his plans to include her, and actually made it easier for the PCs to thwart his plans). Or something else entirely can happen. Some relevant to "action play". Some not.


Having said that, I think the reason why disinterested play gets skipped over a lot is that it's often less group oriented and more individual oriented. Many players are not comfortable "roleplaying" out social situations. Talking to someone about something related to the task at hand is about as far as they go. Trying to get an entire table to roleplay out sitting at a table and having a conversation, or sharing stories, or singing songs is difficult, and I'm not sure how much value there is. Most players are more than content with a simple "We spend the evening hanging out, singing songs, drinking ale, and swapping old war stories" and then we move on.

IME, what happens if someone wants to actually roleplay these sorts of things out, is that they monopolize the table time telling their stories, and roleplaying their character, which is a lot of fun for them and fulfills the need/desire you spoke of in terms of "getting into" the RPG. But the rest of the table is sitting there doing nothing, maybe a bit uncomfortable. And honestly, we're already sitting around a table, maybe eating food, maybe drinking beverages. Why bother with the game? We could just do that as our own selves instead. Most players play these games to play out scenarios that they can't do themselves in RL. We can all do those downtime things already. What we can't do is cast mighty spells, or take on a group of brigands with our weapons, or defeat a dragon and get its treasure. So yeah, it's not a surprise that most players want to skip the "mundane" stuff and get right to the reason they wanted to play in the first place.

YMMV, but IMO it's going to be incredibly table specific how much detail and time folks are going to be willing to spend on this.

[icefractal]

Many players are not comfortable "roleplaying" out social situations. Talking to someone about something related to the task at hand is about as far as they go. Trying to get an entire table to roleplay out sitting at a table and having a conversation, or sharing stories, or singing songs is difficult

That's my experience as well. Casual / "natural" roleplaying can be more difficult to do well than roleplaying dramatic situations, IME, because you can't fall back on tropes or wow-factor from the decisions themselves - it's all in the execution.

That said, I do like downtime / non-goal-oriented play on a conceptual level, and usually feel the lack if there's isn't any. It's just that it's very easy for me to hit a mental block when playing them out. Also that experiential things (seeing a beautiful vista, eating delicious food) don't come through fully when your interface is text/speaking.

What gives the same feeling, to an extent, is low-stakes situations where there's plenty of room to goof around and the question is less "can you succeed" than "what approach do you take". Gives the characters the room to express their personality even if it's not the most effective course of action, and provides a prompt for roleplaying less intimidating than an empty stage.

[Easy e]

In some system, at the end of the session you hand out the rewards like Karma, XP, whatever the system uses, etc..... often times the group discusses handing out benefits for things like role-playing, best jokes/ideas throughout the session, etc. in addition to more goal oriented game play. These discussion and hand-outs can incentivize RP and non-goal oriented play. In these cases, players are less reluctant to engage in these Disinterested Play scenarios.

In addition, other games give some in game benefits either during play or in character creation itself that incentives creating/following the characters motivations, drives, burdens, or ties. Again, these can create a situation where playing out these aspects of the game make more sense and help guide players to this type of play naturally.

[Rynjin]

With our group I've found it's best to allow these types of moments to arise naturally. Sometimes they happen, sometimes they don't, but I think every group is naturally going to have moments where players are conversing in character eventually.

Once it happens once, it's likely to happen again...so long as you don't force it, and so long as the GM doesn't forcibly END it. If the players feel like unstructured roleplaying is "off topic" they will likely stop doing it.

During these naturally occurring moments, as a GM I just step back and listen. Once there's a bit of a lull in the conversation I'll move things forward until the next natural stopping point.

Not having these moments naturally come up is not necessarily or usually a GM mistake, but it couldn't hurt to try to take a less active role as a GM in a session and just kinda see what happens.

[Quertus]

Do you enjoy what I here term disinterested play? What value does it have to you? What features of game systems have you found to either encourage or discourage it?

Yes, such has value to me, as well. The best things to encourage such IMO are the GM simply presenting such scenarios, and players actively engaging in such.

I do think it would behoove even the most action-oriented games to provide some structure for players and game masters to create these moments, which add strong emotional investments in the outcomes of goal-oriented gameplay.

Problem is, that's really hard to do. Reinforcing these moments with concrete penalties and rewards just turns this kind of disinterested play back into goal-oriented play, something to be optimized or 'won.'

Yeah, such incentives tend to detract from actual roleplaying. I prefer to play with people who roleplay for roleplaying’s sake.

That said, I guess the WoD “end of season” “1 XP for roleplaying” might encourage more people to think in terms of roleplaying than in terms of gaming the system. Shrug. Depends on the group, I guess.

[Satinavian]

So it's difficult for game rules and text to encourage this particular style of play. Individual players and game masters can do more to work it in, but I think there is a problem of expectations at work here: the structures of RPGs as relentlessly goal-oriented tend to reinforce goal-oriented thinking, and cause players to view disinterested play as time-wasting or unrewarding. This is the problem I leave in your lap to contemplate. Do you enjoy what I here term disinterested play? What value does it have to you? What features of game systems have you found to either encourage or discourage it?

I am not sure there is much sense in trying to encourage them system wise.

Those moments either occur naturally or they don't. And if they happen, it is usually because players explore those details in, well, detail because that is interesting to them. A GM can do a bit about it with the general instruments of pacing. Most of this stuff won't happen if the main plot has an element of urgency and the players are really engaged with it. A GM can also modify the level of detail.
Those work fine, but trying to force it will fall flat regardless. If done heavyhandedly, those nice side scenes only become boring busywork and everyone goes through the motion until the plot takes off again.
The best a system can do to make such stuff happen is to have a setting that is interesting to the players to explore beyond following the plot. Many such scenes get promted by peculiar but unimportant stuff that the PCs can interact with.

[Pauly]

My default setting as a player is disinterested play. I’m much more interested in my characters doing cool and cinematic things than achieving victory in the scenario. I am actively following the plot and I’m not doing stupid things for the lolz. It’s just that arriving in style is more important to me than getting to the destination.

I used to be more hyper focussed on power curves, action efficiency and character optimization. When I was doing this I played very straight to the mission. I cane to the realization that this style of play wan’t actually fun for me

[Phhase]

Honestly, I think "disinterested" is a bit of a misnomer. Perhaps freeform? And when well done, I think it's organic moments like these that make up the scaffolding that holds up everything else and gives it life.

[Jay R]

You don't necessarily need anybody else to join you. When I was playing Gwystyl, a gnome illusionist, I would occasionally use low-level spells just as potential pranks. At one point, the party had climbed to the top of a small hill. Gwystyl left behind a magic mouth, set to go off the next time somebody climbed it, which said, "if you wait up here for 24 hours of contemplation, you will learn something very important about who you really are."

He also routinely cast prestidigitation at dinner, to improve the taste of the food.

I had a wizard research Bigby's expressive single digit as a cantrip.

I once ran Pip, a pixie PC. Pixies get permanent image for free once a day. He once found a narrow crack giving a view into a hollow in a large boulder. So he cast a permanent image of a large pile of gold and gems deep inside.

Pip saw a guy in town abusing a dog. Later, Pip cast a permanent image of a sleeping dog, cast over a rock, just in hopes that the guy would kick it.

For no particular reason, he once left a permanent image of a moose stranded halfway up a cliff face.

Pip will also help others, but try to do it anonymously. [This is pretty easy for somebody who is usually invisible.] He once found a shoemaker in very poor straits, and used fabricate to make shoes out of the remaining leather the shoemaker had. [I want to believe that in that world, the story of The Shoemake and the Elves came from Pip's actions.]

My Ranger Gustav was in a party composed mainly of people from the largest city on the continent. When anything bizarre happened, he made a point of saying, "I will never understand you city folk." [I particularly enjoyed it doing so when it clearly had nothing to do with the city folk.]

You can do as much "disinterested play" (a poor term) as you like, as long as it doesn't interfere with the party's mission. Just be sure that it's interesting to the people around you, since it is taking up some of their gaming time.

[Catullus64]

You can do as much "disinterested play" (a poor term) as you like, as long as it doesn't interfere with the party's mission. Just be sure that it's interesting to the people around you, since it is taking up some of their gaming time.

Well that's the real trick, ain't it? If the rest of the group isn't invested in this kind of low-stakes play, and doesn't participate in it, it will by its nature be disruptive and damage other people's fun, so there's a limit on how much you can just create this kind of play for yourself. Similarly, if the DM doesn't do anything to deliberately create space for this kind of thing, it can be very hard to indulge in it without interfering with the prepared material.

So while it might seem counter-intuitive, I think this sort of disinterested play (a good term) needs spaces in the game to be purposefully set aside for it it it's going to flourish. A certain consensus about its value needs to be built in the group.

[Bohandas]

I wonder if anyone's ever made a Seinfeld RPG

[Tanarii]

Sounds like downtime to me, not table time.

(Which seems to have been one of your points, not everyone is interested in it.)

[Quertus]

Well that's the real trick, ain't it? If the rest of the group isn't invested in this kind of low-stakes play, and doesn't participate in it, it will by its nature be disruptive and damage other people's fun, so there's a limit on how much you can just create this kind of play for yourself. Similarly, if the DM doesn't do anything to deliberately create space for this kind of thing, it can be very hard to indulge in it without interfering with the prepared material.

So while it might seem counter-intuitive, I think this sort of disinterested play (a good term) needs spaces in the game to be purposefully set aside for it it it's going to flourish. A certain consensus about its value needs to be built in the group.

Sounds like downtime to me, not table time.

(Which seems to have been one of your points, not everyone is interested in it.)

I mean, when I have my character try to ask out the cute receptionist at the Pokémon daycare facility, or collect samples from the horrible monsters, or to try to make it to town in time for Avatar Day, it’s usually part of the main session. And if the group can’t handle that - if their fun is damaged by someone else having fun - that’s on them.

That said, I tend to try to have characters who have “their own fun” be less active at other times, “sharing the spotlight”, as it were. If you don’t, it’s easy to see how one could mistake “having a personality” and “caring about things” with “being a spotlight hog”, I guess.

[Jay R]

You can do as much "disinterested play" (a poor term) as you like, as long as it doesn't interfere with the party's mission. Just be sure that it's interesting to the people around you, since it is taking up some of their gaming time.

Well that's the real trick, ain't it? If the rest of the group isn't invested in this kind of low-stakes play, and doesn't participate in it, it will by its nature be disruptive and damage other people's fun, ...

Not necessarily. When Gwystyl set up a prank to get some stranger to spend all night on top of a rock, the other players thought it was funny, and they laughed. Then we moved on. No disruption; no damage to people's fun.

The other players enjoyed Pip casting an image of a sleeping dog over a hard rock. Of course, that assumes that my free play will entertain them. If it won't, then yes, it's disruptive, and I should stop doing it. Role-playing games are inherently a cooperative venture. My part of it should help entertain everybody.

...so there's a limit on how much you can just create this kind of play for yourself.

Yes, but it's pretty straightforward. Make it interesting. Keep it short. Move on. Like with any other part of an rpg, you can only hold the focus if what you do is interesting enough that they are glad they're playing.

Similarly, if the DM doesn't do anything to deliberately create space for this kind of thing, it can be very hard to indulge in it without interfering with the prepared material.

I actually prefer for the DM not to "deliberately create space for this sort of thing". That's like throwing people onstage with no warning and no script and demanding that they perform. I often can't think of anything to do. But if the party goes into a tavern, or meets the local baroness, or camps by a stream, and I get an idea, I can make it happen. The essence of free-play role-playing is that it is free-play. If the DM sets it up, then it's on-demand.

So while it might seem counter-intuitive, I think this sort of disinterested play (a good term) needs spaces in the game to be purposefully set aside for it it it's going to flourish. A certain consensus about its value needs to be built in the group.

Either I entertain people with my ideas and shenanigans, or I don't. If I do, then that is the consensus about its value. If I don't, then no prior consensus can help.

[Satinavian]

Well that's the real trick, ain't it? If the rest of the group isn't invested in this kind of low-stakes play, and doesn't participate in it, it will by its nature be disruptive and damage other people's fun, so there's a limit on how much you can just create this kind of play for yourself. Similarly, if the DM doesn't do anything to deliberately create space for this kind of thing, it can be very hard to indulge in it without interfering with the prepared material.

If the group doesn't like this kind of play, you can't make them like it. Instead you have to give it up or searh a groups more fitting to your style.

And the Dms doesn't really have to create space. When it starts, he can just lean back until it is over, maybe occasionally portraying NPCs if those are involved or answer questions about the environment. The prepared material doesn't run away.

[Tanarii]

Either I entertain people with my ideas and shenanigans, or I don't. If I do, then that is the consensus about its value. If I don't, then no prior consensus can help.

Shenanigans during table time aren't what's being discussed in the OP though. It's taking table time to play out stuff that's normally during downtime, not during table time. That's far more than a little bit of time for something entertaining during normal play time. It entire extra scenarios the GM needs to add so this stuff can be played out, instead of being between session bookkeeping.

[Catullus64]

Shenanigans during table time aren't what's being discussed in the OP though. It's taking table time to play out stuff that's normally during downtime, not during table time. That's far more than a little bit of time for something entertaining during normal play time. It entire extra scenarios the GM needs to add so this stuff can be played out, instead of being between session bookkeeping.

Bingo. It also often involves the DM having to answer questions about their world, play NPCs in a manner that they may not have been expected, and pace their game such that this kind of low-stakes play still makes sense in the narrative. It's a different structure of play, rather than a dash of seasoning on goal-oriented play.

[Tanarii]

Bingo. It also often involves the DM having to answer questions about their world, play NPCs in a manner that they may not have been expected, and pace their game such that this kind of low-stakes play still makes sense in the narrative. It's a different structure of play, rather than a dash of seasoning on goal-oriented play.

And just to be clear, even though it sounds like downtime to me and I wouldn't personally enjoy having to DM it nor be at a table that spent table time on it ... I don't think it's wrong for a table to want to make that stuff table time instead of downtime.

I just personally prefer table time be reserved for goal-oriented play, as you call it. At least as the underlying reason the scenario is being included as table time. And if it's a sandbox world, I want the players to be focused on the primary thing driving play be creating their own goal oriented play within it.

[Mechalich]

Rather than 'disinterested' the OP appears to be describing 'slice of life' style roleplaying. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and slice of life tales are growing in popularity in both the fantasy and science fiction genre.

The tricky part here is that a narrative with any large amount of slice of life moments that exist purely to display some aspect of life in a fantastical world or function purely for comedy can be distracting from the overarching narrative. A common sample would be scenes of food consumption. Everyone has to eat, but generally in fiction mealtime only appears in the narrative when something important happens during the meal, usually some important conversation or interaction that either advances the plot or serves as critical character development. Slice of life moments that fail to advance the plot or characters in some way but instead simply delay the story are often regarded as filler, and for good reason (and in fact, a lot of explicit filler material devotes itself to slice of life scenarios).

The question, then, with regard to this kind of material in TTRPG campaigns, boils down to what is the campaign about? Does the inclusion of this kind of material serve a purpose in the story, or is it a distraction? This can be tricky to determine, since the ultimate goal of tabletop play is to have fun, and often 'have our characters do stupid comedy stuff' is well within the realm of fun even if it doesn't advance the story at all, especially if the campaign is being played at a fairly meta, comedic level. OOTS is a fairly good example here, actually, since the plot is largely subordinate to the joke and lengthy digressions are common (like the current strip, which is about having lunch). if by contrast, the table choses to play their epic quest (or whatever) straight, then tolerance for this sort of thing drops dramatically.

[Quertus]

“Slice of Life” scenes are great for the characters to get to know one another, to give you information to use to predict how the others will respond to suggestions like, “we need to start going all Soylent Green if we want to live”, or “we need to starve to death to preserve our moral integrity”.

Of course, that’s the kind of play I prefer, gaming with roleplayers where each new party can have drastically different moral values than the last one, where feeling out and getting to know the other PCs actually matters, and where the campaign poses such dilemmas that Knowledge: party can actually matter.

[Catullus64]

Rather than 'disinterested' the OP appears to be describing 'slice of life' style roleplaying. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and slice of life tales are growing in popularity in both the fantasy and science fiction genre.

The tricky part here is that a narrative with any large amount of slice of life moments that exist purely to display some aspect of life in a fantastical world or function purely for comedy can be distracting from the overarching narrative. A common sample would be scenes of food consumption. Everyone has to eat, but generally in fiction mealtime only appears in the narrative when something important happens during the meal, usually some important conversation or interaction that either advances the plot or serves as critical character development. Slice of life moments that fail to advance the plot or characters in some way but instead simply delay the story are often regarded as filler, and for good reason (and in fact, a lot of explicit filler material devotes itself to slice of life scenarios).

The question, then, with regard to this kind of material in TTRPG campaigns, boils down to what is the campaign about? Does the inclusion of this kind of material serve a purpose in the story, or is it a distraction? This can be tricky to determine, since the ultimate goal of tabletop play is to have fun, and often 'have our characters do stupid comedy stuff' is well within the realm of fun even if it doesn't advance the story at all, especially if the campaign is being played at a fairly meta, comedic level. OOTS is a fairly good example here, actually, since the plot is largely subordinate to the joke and lengthy digressions are common (like the current strip, which is about having lunch). if by contrast, the table choses to play their epic quest (or whatever) straight, then tolerance for this sort of thing drops dramatically.

Slice-of-life's not a bad analogy to use here, and shares a lot with what I'm seeking to describe and explore. The thought crossed my mind of using that term, but it's also wrapped up in genre conventions and works very much outside of TTRPGs. It's also typically used to describe a certain kind of story, and I'm not particularly interested in a whole game of disinterested play; I'm much more interested in how these moments add emotional weight to otherwise action-heavy, plot-driven games.

I also think that having an occasional distraction from the main narrative of a game is pretty important. It provides breathing space so that tension and danger don't become exhausting, and it allows a chance to characterize and provide context to the stakes of the story. In that sense I think such moments absolutely serve the story of an RPG even as they don't advance or otherwise service the plot. To borrow an analogy from a very popular piece of non-interactive media, The Ember Island Players doesn't really serve any important role in advancing the plot of Avatar: The Last Airbender, but that episode is actually pretty vital in allowing the audience to slow down, contemplate what's gone before, and get ready for the whirlwind of action and drama that is Sozin's Comet, and is thus vital to the story.

[Tanarii]

I guess it depends on if you want to play a game, play a story, or play every moment of what your characters are doing. And various combinations of each.

Interestingly, it seems like those most interested in playing out downtime are doing so because they're most interested living in their characters 'lives'. And those don't just stop because you're back in town restocking before the next expedition into the dangerous wilderness / dungeon. Especially if they're having a blast blowing their hard earned loot carousing and living it up like an aristocrat.

In-so-far as personality based roleplaying goes, I'd much rather see what happens under stress. How is character personality affecting decisions, and even party interpersonal interactions and group decisions, where the metal meets the meat? And that stuff is out there in the adventure. (Even if "out there" = an urban adventure.)

[animorte]

I also think that having an occasional distraction from the main narrative of a game is pretty important. It provides breathing space so that tension and danger don't become exhausting, and it allows a chance to characterize and provide context to the stakes of the story. In that sense I think such moments absolutely serve the story of an RPG even as they don't advance or otherwise service the plot. To borrow an analogy from a very popular piece of non-interactive media, The Ember Island Players doesn't really serve any important role in advancing the plot of Avatar: The Last Airbender, but that episode is actually pretty vital in allowing the audience to slow down, contemplate what's gone before, and get ready for the whirlwind of action and drama that is Sozin's Comet, and is thus vital to the story.

There’s also the episode, The Beach that this applies to. People from the opposite side, but also having their own learning experience during this downtime that doesn’t particularly progress their story or goals. It still has valuable moments.

However rare they may be, I appreciate the points within a D&D game that resemble these examples. It can still be valuable in understanding how different PCs progress. Sure, that’s not for everybody and the ratio is certainly in favor of active goal-oriented play. There’s nothing wrong with that.

[Mechalich]

See, I specifically said 'or serves as critical character development' for a reason. Actions that aren't directly related to the plot but that reveal character are important to the overall story progression. 'Slice of life' applies well to moments that just happen and don't involve much or in fact any character development (in a true slice of life series characters often begin as almost the exact people they started as).

TTRPGs, because they are inherently collaborative, often have trouble dealing with character development, which is largely an individualized process and especially struggle to actually ensure moments that are intended to promote development actually do so as opposed to just rolling on past without achieving much of anything. A similar problem is found in filmmakers who use a lot of prompts and improve to produce scenes - then end up with tons of material that isn't actually useful. The difference is that they can simply cut it out of the final product, tabletop can't do that. This leads naturally to a preference for some level of plot to always be happening, because that way at least something comes out of that period of table time. This is doubly so in low immersion games or action heavy games where the PC characters frankly, usually aren't very interesting anyway.

[clash]

Mechanically what I've done to encourage some of this roleplay is create a character bonding system shamelessly copied from [insert your favorite jrpg]. I use bonding points to track the relationship level of each character with every other character behind the scenes and confer minor combat bonuses when the reach certain milestones.

So far it's been working well. Characters tend to spend time growing their relationships, telling stories and having shenanigans with other teammates during downtime.

[Catullus64]

Mechanically what I've done to encourage some of this roleplay is create a character bonding system shamelessly copied from [insert your favorite jrpg]. I use bonding points to track the relationship level of each character with every other character behind the scenes and confer minor combat bonuses when the reach certain milestones.

So far it's been working well. Characters tend to spend time growing their relationships, telling stories and having shenanigans with other teammates during downtime.

If it works, it works. My concern with implementing a similar system would be, aside from fears of evoking such mechanics in JRPGs, that it might therefore discourage actual, meaningful conflict between PCs. I don't think it'd be my way of going about it, but it's cool to know that someone's found a way to successfully bring this kind of play to the fore.

[animorte]

Mechanically what I've done to encourage some of this roleplay is create a character bonding system shamelessly copied from [insert your favorite jrpg]. I use bonding points to track the relationship level of each character with every other character behind the scenes and confer minor combat bonuses when the reach certain milestones.

So far it's been working well. Characters tend to spend time growing their relationships, telling stories and having shenanigans with other teammates during downtime.

If it works, it works. My concern with implementing a similar system would be, aside from fears of evoking such mechanics in JRPGs, that it might therefore discourage actual, meaningful conflict between PCs. I don't think it'd be my way of going about it, but it's cool to know that someone's found a way to successfully bring this kind of play to the fore.

Yes, to both of these very much so. When I got Strixhaven, they gave a really neat perspective on how to approach a living world within. I’ve applied some of those concepts to my play ever since.

[Easy e]

I find "downtime play" really frustrating and boring, but love "disinterested play" where the players interact with each other. Confusing.

Role-playing out a shopping trip in town? Boring as all heck to me. Role-playing what we are doing and talking about around the fire while resting? Super fun.

The difference? No idea? The first is basically task management with a layer of role-playing to slow task resolution down. The second is pure role-playing and getting into character for no reason other than to be in character. No idea why one drives me nuts and the other doesn't.

[kyoryu]

For this type of play, I usually "make space" in my (mostly improvised) games by using a scene/sequel structure, cribbed from writing advice.

Scene: "I am going to do <x>, do I succeed?"
Sequel: "With the new information I learned in the scene, what do I do now?"

By creating explicit sequels in a game, and making sure they're rooted in an actual place, you create the environment for "disinterested play" to occur, without actually putting anyone on the spot. You're allowing space without forcing it.

That spot can be a bar, camp, whatever. It doesn't matter. Of course, that also works better if you're less linear in your game structure, since more linear game structures usually don't have the "okay what do we do" step as that's laid out one way or another.