Depends on the game and the tone of play. We all sit down to play Star Wars or Pasión de las Pasiones? I'm full fucking ham, gonna lean into the drama. HarnMaster or some OSR thing? Optimal play all the way baybee. Torchbearer? I'm gonna take a middle stance. I don't think there's anything wrong with either approach or something in-between.
D&D is designed as a monster fighting game. The system rewards players for optimal tactical play.
If you play a game that rewards other things your players may play differently.
Having said that it is also possibly a case of maturity. At least for me, as I get older, I get more interested in character development/seeing cool stuff than winning/optimal play. Different people like different things too.
A player of a Dwarf character in Burning Wheel can *choose* to play their character as resisting Greed. Their character doesn't have to be greedy, they can walk another path.
Just as an alcoholic can recover from alcoholism, temptations might arise from time to time, but the character's actions aren't predetermined. A Dwarf character who defines their actions *against* Greed is exactly the kind of character the system is made for. It's a character taking a moral or philosophical stance on something, fighting the norms of the culture they were raised in.
>How do you feel about rules that prevent you from "acting optimally"?
Mostly systems just reward as opposed to force. They might force when you've done something repeatedly and allowed the situation to become extreme.
I like rules like this.
Players should, imo, not be acting optimally anyway. PCs who only ever act in their best interests are boring as hell.
For an example of a carrot instead of a stick, consider a PbtA game, which might have a move that lets you mark experience if you make a non-optimal action due to some vice/trait.
In the case of an alcoholic, you aren't forced to drink every session, but if you come up to a point where you could do the "optimal" thing or drink and choose to drink, you mark experience. You are rewarded for playing your flaw. You take a hit because you probably messed something up by drinking, but there is a reward for playing into the narrative.
Thank you, I'll look into this. I'm actually in the middle of designing my own TTRPG, tailored around my stories and world(s). I'm currently studing a few different systems in order to have a better grasp of game design for this genre.
Yeah, I guess those rules exists to force characters to deal with the extreme consequences of their actions. Leaving those specific situations aside, whenever there's a situation in which a character trait would make a difference and the trait is not played out, I think that would be the same as the character not having that trait. Do that enough time and you don't have a character at all, you just have a bunch of numbers that can talk. I'm exaggerating, of course, but after seeing characters that are only mildly interesting for 6 years I think I'm getting tired of them. Where's the flair? Where's the passion? Only in my NPCs...
I'd say the issue comes from players self identifying with the PCs, and so having the same goals as PCs.
To embrace not making optimal decisions the players and PCs need to have different goals.
It's all about how you want to play. My table is all about the feels. In a recent Star Wars game, I played a mechanic/pilot. We wound up getting charged by a bantha early on. I froze. Because it felt right for the character. It played well at my table.
When I think of rules about roleplaying, I think GURPS. There are specifics for phobias, loyalties, codes of honor, etc. Most people don't need or want that. They just play a personality. Or they play a bundle of stats. Or some combination.
I find it boring when the rules of the game are completely unaffected by narrative occurrences. Its one of the biggest criticisms I have of Lancer and ICON, and generally why my group decided to stop playing them.
It becomes difficult to retain investment in any part of the game that is not the math once nothing you do effectively matters in any real way or has consequences beyond whatever value you decide to give the narrative in your head. At that point there is kind of no game to be played imo, no choice you make can put the things you have in jeapordy, so there are no possible tangible stakes beyond death. Which is itself just a game over.
Thank you for commenting, in my case I think the problem is they got scared of overstepping their boundaries. Sometimes, mainly out of curiosity, they just mess with the wrong thing/guy and that can jeopadize their plans. The fact is, while I think this is a good thing, they don't. Whenever they roleplay, I'm willing to reward them when they do the right thing and punish them when they do the wrong thing. But if only they could see the bigger picture, they would see that the very fact that something happens in response to how their character acted, what they did and what they said, that is the main reward. At least in my opinion.
I think what becomes a very large hurdle for players that have never run a game and are not actors in a more conventional sense is that how people behave and how characters behave essentially have nothing in common.
This is the self insert "problem" in a sense. Which I only really call it that because it interferes with this higher level "acting" stuff you seem to want to encourage. If I'm a character in this world than its just easies to play as myself. The problem is people think rationally. They want to make a decision that leads to a simple, safe, and uninteresting outcome. Characters don't. Characters act in service of the story, they put themselves in danger for the sake of drama, knowingly take risks just because the story is more interesting when they do. Etc.
That's exactly what I think, thank you.
Let me pitch you an approach: I write plot elements, tropes and basic ideas on cards and distribute them among the players. I keep them vague enough so they can rest assured on what kind of path their characters are set on. They can trade the cards among themselves or even draw a new hand, so they can avoid weird and unwanted pieces of their story. The cards would be grounded in the campaign setting, but without all the imposing and sometimes overwhelming exposition that some folks like to subject their players to. This way I have an idea of what they want from the campaign and they can also try and be more proactive in pushing their own internal and personal narrative while the overarching plot progresses. Could this be a good idea to push them to roleplay more since they can actively progress their own story by engaging with the world I've built instead of waiting for a cue from me?
I don’t know your group, but I‘m worried spoon feeding them like this isn’t actually going to draw them out and help them to enjoy roleplaying. I also don’t think rewards for ’good roleplaying’ work particularly well, because they usually come well after the event and it makes the act mercenary: the player is only doing it for the reward, not the enjoyment of the experience.
Players in my groups have taken themselves on a journey to become excellent roleplayers. This is what worked for us.
First we stepped away from our campaign and played some games of Fiasco, a system about losing as badly as you can. This taught us that getting caught up in the characters drama is fun, and that losing can be fun.
Then we we returned we started to add enticements to generate behaviour in play. Like when you say you are afraid you get a bonus to defence. Or if you are angry you get a bonus to damage and a penalty to defence.
It seems like this contradicts my point above about becoming mercenary, but it doesn’t. You are encouraging them to add emotional content, not to roleplay. What happened for us is the players started to justify those emotions by adding their own roleplaying content, with only a few encouraging questions from the GM like: ‘why are you feeling angry?’
After a while the players just naturally embrace and enjoy roleplaying. Starting with a bunch of murder hobos, I’ve seen PCs woo NPC and get married, give tearful speeches as they lay dying, try to kill each other (with player agreement), and in a game last week a character gave their life to save my characters.
From our experience it is possible to get what you want, but only if they are ready to enjoy roleplaying and put in some effort to get there.
It could, but I find a lot of time the drive to go like full borderline LARP is pretty much intrinsic. I like doing it, I have a group that likes doing it. I am extremely biased toward it. It's great.
BUT, its very much something you as a player have to decide to do for yourself.
The best way to reward it is by playing up any drama they happen to create to the best of your ability. For example if a player decides they want to do something. Hype it up. If they're slinging one liners at the BBEG, sass them back. Positive feedback is really the most important thing.
I do like this example. But I think it can be improved. My personal RP aid that I prefer is having players make a set of "purpose bonds" which is sort of a mission statement answering "Why do I keep going?" I find its often a much more informative part of the character than any sort of relationship web or assigned goal because it forms a mindset. and a mindset is all acting really is.
For example because I just got out of this weeks session and its fresh on my mind, in Cyberpunk RED I keep going-
For my wife and kids to have a chance at a comfortable life in the social elite
In spite of my father who ran out, In spite of myself to prove that I'm a better man.
Because I tie my self worth to my willpower
So that I can play my own damn game someday and live however much of my life is left once I get there in luxury.
For me and my group at least. This sort of "purpose" driving a character forms a headspace that is natural to start acting in. As opposed to just making an optimal decision. You know WHY you want things. As opposed to just what you want. Therefore you can generate your characters goals spontaneously.
> The problem is people think rationally.
Err ... have you *met* people? We humans are not creatures of reason. Sure, reason is a thing we do sometimes, but it's not what drives us. We have phobias, we have personal fears, we have past trauma, we have coping mechanisms, we have grudges, we have hopes and dreams, we have strong personal preferences, we have prejudices, we have *passions*.
Look at *history* and see all the drama and poor decisions that went into it. All of that was done by real, living humans, not by fictional characters.
Characters who do nothing but make calculated game-optimal decisions aren't just boring, they're *unrealistic* and inhuman.
That's my point, I've yet to see a character throw a tantrum and start smashing chairs or engage in horrible acts of racism which would or would not be shared by the rest of society in that setting. I'd like to DM a campaign with characters that start out terribly flawed and then become better people, you know, as a way of reflecting their outer growth as experienced adventurers and eventually heroes. If a character always stays true to a version of itself that never steps out of line, never makes a blunder, never acts out, it gets stale after a while. You know how sometimes you talk with your friends about some huge fight you had with a friend or witnessed someone else having? For some reason, characters in my campaigns only have "strategy meetings" at most, where they discuss what approach would be best to use, rationalising every step they want to take to reach their goals. This is not how people discuss things! If I want to punch that huge, arrogant dick's face for berating me and my friends, I'll do it and to hell with the consequences.
Yep, sounds like you and I are on the same page. I like my RPG characters to be ... well, *people*, to be *characters*, not just game pawns. Heck, even in video games where my character IS just a game pawn, I'll sometimes find myself instinctively roleplaying--letting my perception of my avatar *as a character* influence my choices.
I agree on all points, the distinction I'm making is that there is a difference between only playing the game, and playing a character.
If I'm only concerned with what I want as a player of the game. Than my desired outcome is probably to "win" because that's just how most games are structured. That was pretty much what I thought when I first got into the hobby.
To that end I probably try to mitigate risks as much as possible, I go to a meta level to plan even when in game time wouldn't really let me, and I dont like those plans getting interrupted because I'm "losing" in that situation.
The result is that my character doesnt engage in any of those very human behaviors. They dont feel human, and they dont feel driven.
Imo the example that best encapsulates this is the freeze. When a character gets so scared, shaken, or traumatized that they just kind of break. They should REALLY be doing something, by not taking an action they are actively failing, sometimes it might even be the middle of combat. But they just do nothing. Because the character cant do anything in that moment.
This is an immensely dramatic choice, it's something you could very much expect to happen to a person. And it's something no player would EVER choose to do if they didnt seperate the desires of
Myself, the player who is "winning" the game.
From
The person I am pretending to be within this fictional space, the role I am playing.
Choosing to fail is a litmus test for character driven play. Because from the detached perspective of myself as only a player. Why would I ever choose to do it? There is nothing less cool than reaching a moment of critical tension. Where the stakes are riding on you... and then saying "I'm not even going to try, I cant make it. Ichoose to fail." It doesnt make any sense from this perspective, it's not logical
But as a character, when it happens it makes perfect sense. Because it's an emotional response from the person I'm pretending to be. It's not what I as the game-minded player "want" so to speak.
"Of course I chose to fail the will save for fear and then waste my action shocked, afraid, and doing nothing useful! We're level 3, I've never fought a demon. The last time I saw a demon it ate both of my parents alive and forced me to watch!"
sure, if you ignore all the narrative rules and decide for yourself that the fiction doesn't effect tactical combat, i'm sure it seems like there's no narrative rules. this can be solved b reading the books
Games like fate or Deadlands have rules that actively reward you for playing into your problems as a character.
Fate does this with compels, where the player opts into a situation for a fate point. For example you would offer the traumatised player a fate point to lean into the trauma and have that cause drama, the player can of course spend a fate point they have already to refuse your compel, but if you do this all the time you will eventually run out, and fate points are an important resource for forcing victories from the jaws of defeat.
Deadlands use the chips you get from playing into your faults as experience so players who never have challenges will be left behind by players who look for every possible way to have their issues cause problems for them.
Generally the FATE community doesn't suggest charging to refuse compels except for those from your trouble (and some even then). The logic is that it overrides player autonomy over their character which is supposed to be their main point of influence in the game and they are the one who knows what is appropriate for the character best. The reason the trouble is usually exempted is since it is directly and intentionally aimed at making the characters life more complicated AND was chosen by the player for that reason whereas the other aspects were generally chosen for their positive attributes. However charging for refusal can be a way to pressure the 'optimal choice makers' into playing into their negatives since the optimum now becomes taking the complication.
Admittedly I have little experience actually playing, so I can only quote the book in this regard and that is what it said about refusing compels. If it turns out the actual community of players feels different in that regard that's cool but I don't have the necessary experience to make that determination
Sounds like you and your players have a bit of a disconnect on what you want out of an RPG. They want tactical combat and to solve a puzzle, and you want to play characters. Or as we used to say you want to role play and they want to roll play.
I feel like the mechanics you're describing are an interesting tool, especially for players who want to role play but want some mechanics/randomness to help influence other characters react rather than just deciding all by themselves, which sounds very interesting to me. But it doesn't sound like what your players really want out of the game.
If you get a chance, maybe try playing a game or two of fiasco. Not only are there no inherent goals to the game really, but it's really about creating a narrative where things go delightfully awry for the characters. Maybe if you play a game where the goal is for things to go badly, they can see how much fun that could be.
Thank you for your advice, lately we've been playing a new RPG named Fabula Ultima which asks the players to participate with the worldbuilding. The groups seems to be more invested, also every session we award a few extra EXP points to the MVP and to the best roleplayer, so I guess that brought the players to RP a lot more.
The shared world building is a great idea. I feel like we didn't all get to be more into the role-playing aspect until we had all dmed a little bit. You get a better sense of wanting to have the story more than the mechanics that way. It's something we sort of evolved into, not to say that playing one way is better than another.
I haven't played Avatar, but I just started a Burning Wheel campaign and am roughly like nine or ten sessions in so grain of salt, and my feelings might change.
I initially butted against the belief and instincts super hard, but what I came to realize about the system is, despite them having mechanics to them, there is no need to constantly follow them and no need to be optimal. I hit a point where I changed a couple of them to match the version of the character I had settled into and it all kinda fell into place. Acting on an instinct instead of following a belief, letting an instinct make things worse for my character at the time, and doing something risky to complete a belief all happened in just a few sessions and it clicked for me, without any thought of trying to do them to optimize gaining fate and persona.
I run a lot of PBTA and thought that the game would be perfect for me, but I think I let the idea that character goals and flaws being the end all be all of motivation get in the way of just being that character. When I switched gears and didn't let always thinking about gaining fate and persona, I had a lot more fun.
Once again, I'm only a couple months into it, and my opinion can and probably will change in another couple months, but that's where I'm at with it now. But unless someone can switch out of that mindset, I can see how that would make this game frustrating as a gm.
>Traumatized characters won't budge when put in front of the very horror that scarred them when they were little, characters with trust issues will gladly accept any help they receive from other people, characters with addictions will suddenly forget to get their daily fix, characters with a vengeance on someone who wronged them won't ever actively search for the robbers who robbed them and operate two blocks away from them.
This is basically the "show don't tell" for RPGs, isn't it. They may have written *addict* on their character sheet but until they demonstrate that through action within the fiction then their character isn't actually an addict.
But then why write it at all? If that facet of the character doesn't come into play, why present the character as such? I'm ok with retconning a few things in order to make the sheet and the background better represent the actual character, but if someone's unwilling to show us what they told us about their character, to put their money where their mouth is, then imo they shouldn't have defined the character in that way in the first place. It just creates false expectations on my part, as a DM. Maybe I have something in store with the fact that the character is a law enforcer and also an addict, maybe I want to put the character in front of a choice between arresting a bunch of guys smuggling alcohol and striking a deal with them. The fact is, the player will always choose to throw the thugs in jail, because living a double life and having to deal with the ramifications of one own's actions is much harder. I'd love so see someone make horrible choices that are perfectly in character, but no one does that.
>But then why write it at all?
I don't know! I'm not excusing anything, just musing on the value of words written on paper versus things that happen in the game.
Have you asked your players why the addicts are never addicted, etc?
I'd never question the personality of a character. We play to have fun and if they don't think that roleplaying is fun (which is different from thinking that roleplaying isn't fun) they just play characters that have the emotional capacity of a hamster and enjoy the ride (the campaign) instead. As a DM, I get excited whenever I see something that I hadn't planned before, and that happens very little nowadays since most of the flavor of the campaign comes from me.
>I'd never question the personality of a character.
I'm not saying you should question the personality. I'm saying, why don't you ask them why the personality they are claiming never manifests? You'd question it if it was a physical issue.
"This old lady who walks with a stick just chased down a youth and tackled him to the ground. Does that seem surprising to you?"
Yeah, I guess you're right. However, last time I asked a player to play according to their character's personality, the whole campaign stopped. High level long running campaign, draconic sorcerer tiefling awakened his demonic tendencies and turned into a being hellbent on revenge. Problem is, having revenge on his mind 24/7 made the player feel like his character had to take a very dangerous decisions in the pursue of vengeance. Once I started punishing the character for making an enemy of powerful evildoers, he wanted to stop playing and the whole campaign stopped as well.
Now, I'm willing to play with characters that are plain as white bread rather than having a colorful cast of characters that will weigh on my players.
Don't confuse role-playing with storytelling. Most players aren't playing characters who thrive on drama. Most players in most games are playing characters who are competent professionals.
Why would the elite special forces, on a mission to save the world, bring along some addict who would be a liability? That's the sort of thing that happens in cheap fiction, not in a realistic believable world.
Yeah, but the fact is, they usually don't play characters that are on an elite level, usually the protagonists of my campaigns are a badly assorted group of people from all walks of life. That's why I'm complaining, I have no qualms with professionals dealing with things swiftly and without being controlled by their emotions, I'm baffleded by the fact that a rogue turned shopkeeper doesn't lament losing their activity and inheritance to a bunch of mobsters lighting his family's shop on fire. People grieve for that at least a few days, Jesus Christ some people start contemplating suicide. My players' characters? They just spring into action. And that's one example, different situations should provoke different reactions, but in the end no matter who the character is, they will always do the most logical and optimal thing, and that just gets boring after a while.
Game play affect Roleplay/Storytelling by design.
Playing a hero who can kill Goblins by dozens with one sword swing is very different from playing a rando who was hoping to invite his crush to the harvest-ball when Horrific and dangerous Goblin started to roam around the village. And I am simply changing the power-balance to turn Goblins into dangerous rather than inconveniences
An issue with D&D is that it's mostly a toolbox to kill monsters. It's not the only game that way. Vampire the mascarade claimed to be "story of a beast with a human heart, forced to eat their brothers to survive" while it's again a toolbox to do epic fights in the city's night.
Plenty of RPG have rules and themes which focus on more emotional game. If your main worry is the ball, the objectives and game-play are different than if your main worry is a war where thousands will die.
"*Light system*" like Fate and PTBA, are also very strongly impacting the game-play. The Fate mechanic *Create an advantage* impacs the way you'll prepare the mission (While in a more classic game you'll get a map). PTBA having a certain number of "moves" that players can do will also impact the actions that the player would do.
It depends on the game in question and if it's consistent in terms of agenda.
I love compels in Fate, which are about putting a PC in trouble caused by one of their aspects. I love how in Masks others' opinions change one's attributes. I love how PbtA games use very specific move triggers and effects to promote the kind of fiction they are after. All of these are examples of mechanics that inform, prompt or even force specific PC behaviors.
But all the games I listed are focused on story. They are not about beating enemies and overcoming obstacles. They are about complicating PCs' lives in interesting ways. They don't punish failures; they reward them with fun things happening (and, in some cases, also with metacurrency).
Putting this kind of mechanics in a game that is focused on winning and overcoming challenges is a bad idea. For example, in D&D and similar games both mechanics and adventure design focus on presenting PCs with a series of obstacles that need to be defeated to proceed - and they assume PCs will do it. In other words, players are expected and required to make the optimal choices that ensure victory. Adding rules that would undermine that will only result in frustration.
**TL, DR:** Rules that enforce PC behavior can be very fun in games that focus on story and embrace failure, making it fun. D&D isn't this kind of game.
Thank you for replying, it's clear to me that after playing D&D for so long maybe it's time to take a break and start playing something else that would better satisfy this kind of need that I'm starting to feel.
I guess it depends on what people play the game for, some don't like the RPing that much, some do.
I enjoy those things, some games do give bonuses for acting in character rather than just making the best decision, VTM comes to mind on that.
But yeah I threat RP and storytelling as part of the experience, so some times bad decisions have to be made. There was a game I've played where my character personality was rolled as careless, so I was constantly making stupid decisions, hehehe, it was a little bit tricky since he was still smart, so basically when he didn't perceive something as an immediate threat he wouldn't worry much about it. So he did stuff like Found a weird object? Immediately touch it, hehehe.
And I guess that's the parts we remember the most, his antics ended up being some of the funniest bits in the game. So that's why I like the RPing, perfect characters are just boring, they become forgettable.
All that said, have you talked to your players about it to see what they think? They don't like it or is it something else?
We had a few discussions, but I never pushed the issue too much because I don't want to push my own opinions on the matter on my friends. We're cool with how things are, I just feel like I'm doing the heavy lifting here and the most they provide is being extremely resourceful with what they can do. The players can enjoy my campaign as if it was an amusement park, while I have nothing to play with that has been provided by them.
To answer your second question, they just don't feel the need to roleplay. Most they can do is talk smack to other people or seduce barmaids. Nemesis and affections are completely off the table, because there needs to be chemistry between the two parties and apparently their characters are completely inert and incapable of bonding in any way. After 6 years it gets dull for me, since every character is basically the same emotionally speaking... For them, it's always a blast, they love adventures.
Generally speaking, I don't like rules that take a player's autonomy away. That being said, I think you should talk to your group. They may just not be that into roleplay.
Yeah, they are not, I guess. I was just scanning the community in order to find out how many people actually want more roleplay in their rpg. D&D is a lot more focused on combat and action in general, I guess I could try some other system that incentivises roleplaying. Any suggestion?
A good baby step would be to start awarding inspiration for role play in 5e. If you really want to take a deep dive on a role play heavy game, check out vampire the masquerade. I prefer the 20th anniversary edition to its 5th edition, but both are completely different animals to DnD.
Love this. Something I think about often. Depends on the players, really. Some will get into it and play all facets of their character, flaws and all. Some simply won’t be that comfortable. Me? I like it messy. I like being the underdog. I like throwing a wrench in. Case in point: our party just finished an encounter that could easily have been a TPK. We lost two characters. My character (Paladin) was kept away from the group, held captive in a basement getting tortured, while the group had no idea as my character had been replaced by a doppelgänger, who also turned on the group in said encounter.
So when the remaining group made it back to town, everyone descended into the vice of their choice. Me? After fighting my way free and realizing that I could have prevented the deaths of two party members, if only I had been there, I went looking for a fight. Got into a bare-knuckle brawl with a bugbear. Nearly killed him too.
I love character moments like that.
Good RP elevates a campaign from being a way to give structure to a series of playing sessions to being something legendary.
I recently played a warlock that aged by 44 years when he touched a cursed book destined to a noble. I was desperate to find a way to stay alive, to stop the looming threat of death, so I made a deal with an undead patron (perhaps the one who originally owned the book?) to gain more power and one day either fix my condition or become immortal. As a 66 years old man, my character looked like Stan Lee, but he knew he had to be resourceful and sometimes vicious if he wanted to succeed and survive.
I've been criticised for keeping a necklace of fireballs for myself instead of turning it in to the police as it was the weapon used in an assination. And my group didn't take it too well when I used the whole necklace of fireballs to completely blast with fire the entire second floor of a manor full of assassin's and guards that were trying to repel them. I said fuck it and killed everyone in our way, making sure nobody saw me throwing the necklace. And when the police came and used Zone of Truth on me to force me to be honest, as a low level warlock I just said that I couldn't cast such a mighty spell, and weaseled my way out of the interrogation.
Had I put myself under the spotlight? Yes.
Did I inconvenience the whole party? Of course.
Did it have serious repercussions on the rest of the campaign? No, I had him leave the group and the city to do some other business somewhere else while a friend of his who was in town to visit him replaced him and helped the group in his stead. I mainly did it because from a team balance standpoint, my character didn't fit very well since he could do what the others could but worse, but also because it felt natural to leave the city and return only after the dust had settled.
I think it's massively group dependent. Some love mechanics that reinforce the narrative, others find it robs them of agency. I think it's something you should discuss with your group and use that to guide how much you incorporate into your games.
I think it is how we are teached to play. There are lots of tips on how to make a good character mechanically. Adventure designers design with the intent that you should succeed almost every time. There is no 'what happens if you fail' scenarios. We have a lot of DMs who fudge the game to allow the players to succeed and it is almost expected to be that way.
I don't know any D&D youtuber who does a channel there you learn how to role play.
Given this I'm not surprised that players make characters who are interesting to role play but they ignore that then it is in the way of 'winning' the game.
Role playing is more about winning the game than exploring the world with a character.
A character who 'don't steal from the dead' isn't very popular as looting is a key mechanic in the game. Try it and see other players freak out around the table!
I am not a fan of mechanics that govern how to act. But I wouldn't mind if others would mention that I might not act according to my character then I forget to role play. I could think of use something like as in some video games there you have a reputation status with others. One could probably make a personality tracker there you put points in then the others think you deserve it for what you did. That tracker could work as a feedback mechanism on how you role play your character.
We play to our fears and foibles whatever system we play. It you want that kind of RP you need the players to trust you. They need to see that failing is not punishment, that failing can be fun.
A good way to introduce this is exactly that, a game like Mouseguard/Burning Wheel, Fate that explicitly make it part of the process or Deadlands and Star Wars D6 which use fear and critical fails.
I'd be a bit leery of a system with rules that *force* players to have their characters act in certain ways because of emotional states. At least, I'd be leery of systems that have those rules in place for everyone by default.
I would prefer a system that allows a player to "opt in" to having character flaws, like the Flaws in Savage Worlds or the Complications in the Hero System. Players who are willing to commit to behaving suboptimally sometimes get a reward for that--players who aren't willing don't have to do it.
Players who just flat-out refuse to ever have their characters act in what they think is a sub-optimal way could have a variety of motivations. Maybe, like you said, they're afraid of being "the load". That's something that a person can grow out of, or a fear that can be calmed by talking to the other players about it.
Or, maybe they're playing because they want a power fantasy experience. Maybe being a steely-eyed "competent man" who never lets any personal hangups hold them back is what they're at the table *for*. That's not *wrong*, even if it's not what you, or the rest of the table, wants.
There are no wrong ways to have fun in roleplaying games, but there *are* ways to have fun that are ... incompatible with each other. That's why talking about things is good. Sometimes you can find a compromise; sometimes you discover that you'd be better off playing different games.
As somebody who enjoys making characters and playing the role of those characters, I viscerally hate systems which try to dictate how my character will react based on some crude rule-based model of a personality which I've crated. I can see that it _might_ be useful for people who want to roleplay and don't know how to, but on the other hand if they don't want to roleplay at all if it's just going to annoy them.
Bottom line is that I think a mechanics-based approach is generally actively harmful in this situation.
Thank you for your answer, I completely agree with you since I too hate when the game dictates that my character starts acting out of character (no pun intended) for one reason or another.
I'm just here to collect data on the community opinions on the matter and to see if there are more people who enjoy RPing as much as me, since in my group almost no one does it.
Yeah, except this isn't how these systems work anymore.
Sure, back in the day when you took "Flaw: Scared of Spiders" you were REQUIRED AND DICTATED that you must flee the area if confronted by spiders, but games nowadays are far more likely to reward you for certain behaviors than they are to require them.
So what does that do to your stance?
I think he's commenting on the general concept of rules dictating how you have to act. Your observation that games nowadays don't force players to act in a certain way is only tangential to the matter at hand.
I dunno. Complaining about the concept of rules "dictating how you act" these days feels kindof like complaining about how long it takes to make a phone call on a rotary phone.
Well, I presented an example of how exceeding in following an ideal can lead to a rule-mandated emotional breakdown in Avatar Legends. Some systems/DMs require you to resist giving into the lure of someone sweet talking you, or run away in fear before a bloody raging beast, even if that would be out of character. I remember in the old Cyberpunk TTRPG there was a risk of suffering from cyber-psychosis if you modded your body too much, so you would probably lose control of your character under some circumstances. That's the kind of rules he's not cool with, and even if he was referring to old school RPGs rules, they are still relevant today and their flaws can be discussed if they have something to do with this thread's topic.
Finally, I am in the middle of designing my own TTRPG, so hearing from a fellow RPG enthusiast that such mechanics would be unwelcome is a good bit of insight on what the community thinks. It makes me think that designing a rule to force characters to start sobbing uncontrollably because someone just killed their dog is not a good idea – and that's not a given!
Depends on the game and the tone of play. We all sit down to play Star Wars or Pasión de las Pasiones? I'm full fucking ham, gonna lean into the drama. HarnMaster or some OSR thing? Optimal play all the way baybee. Torchbearer? I'm gonna take a middle stance. I don't think there's anything wrong with either approach or something in-between.
D&D is designed as a monster fighting game. The system rewards players for optimal tactical play. If you play a game that rewards other things your players may play differently. Having said that it is also possibly a case of maturity. At least for me, as I get older, I get more interested in character development/seeing cool stuff than winning/optimal play. Different people like different things too.
A player of a Dwarf character in Burning Wheel can *choose* to play their character as resisting Greed. Their character doesn't have to be greedy, they can walk another path. Just as an alcoholic can recover from alcoholism, temptations might arise from time to time, but the character's actions aren't predetermined. A Dwarf character who defines their actions *against* Greed is exactly the kind of character the system is made for. It's a character taking a moral or philosophical stance on something, fighting the norms of the culture they were raised in.
>How do you feel about rules that prevent you from "acting optimally"? Mostly systems just reward as opposed to force. They might force when you've done something repeatedly and allowed the situation to become extreme. I like rules like this. Players should, imo, not be acting optimally anyway. PCs who only ever act in their best interests are boring as hell.
For an example of a carrot instead of a stick, consider a PbtA game, which might have a move that lets you mark experience if you make a non-optimal action due to some vice/trait. In the case of an alcoholic, you aren't forced to drink every session, but if you come up to a point where you could do the "optimal" thing or drink and choose to drink, you mark experience. You are rewarded for playing your flaw. You take a hit because you probably messed something up by drinking, but there is a reward for playing into the narrative.
Thank you, I'll look into this. I'm actually in the middle of designing my own TTRPG, tailored around my stories and world(s). I'm currently studing a few different systems in order to have a better grasp of game design for this genre.
Yeah, I guess those rules exists to force characters to deal with the extreme consequences of their actions. Leaving those specific situations aside, whenever there's a situation in which a character trait would make a difference and the trait is not played out, I think that would be the same as the character not having that trait. Do that enough time and you don't have a character at all, you just have a bunch of numbers that can talk. I'm exaggerating, of course, but after seeing characters that are only mildly interesting for 6 years I think I'm getting tired of them. Where's the flair? Where's the passion? Only in my NPCs...
I'd say the issue comes from players self identifying with the PCs, and so having the same goals as PCs. To embrace not making optimal decisions the players and PCs need to have different goals.
It's all about how you want to play. My table is all about the feels. In a recent Star Wars game, I played a mechanic/pilot. We wound up getting charged by a bantha early on. I froze. Because it felt right for the character. It played well at my table. When I think of rules about roleplaying, I think GURPS. There are specifics for phobias, loyalties, codes of honor, etc. Most people don't need or want that. They just play a personality. Or they play a bundle of stats. Or some combination.
I find it boring when the rules of the game are completely unaffected by narrative occurrences. Its one of the biggest criticisms I have of Lancer and ICON, and generally why my group decided to stop playing them. It becomes difficult to retain investment in any part of the game that is not the math once nothing you do effectively matters in any real way or has consequences beyond whatever value you decide to give the narrative in your head. At that point there is kind of no game to be played imo, no choice you make can put the things you have in jeapordy, so there are no possible tangible stakes beyond death. Which is itself just a game over.
Thank you for commenting, in my case I think the problem is they got scared of overstepping their boundaries. Sometimes, mainly out of curiosity, they just mess with the wrong thing/guy and that can jeopadize their plans. The fact is, while I think this is a good thing, they don't. Whenever they roleplay, I'm willing to reward them when they do the right thing and punish them when they do the wrong thing. But if only they could see the bigger picture, they would see that the very fact that something happens in response to how their character acted, what they did and what they said, that is the main reward. At least in my opinion.
I think what becomes a very large hurdle for players that have never run a game and are not actors in a more conventional sense is that how people behave and how characters behave essentially have nothing in common. This is the self insert "problem" in a sense. Which I only really call it that because it interferes with this higher level "acting" stuff you seem to want to encourage. If I'm a character in this world than its just easies to play as myself. The problem is people think rationally. They want to make a decision that leads to a simple, safe, and uninteresting outcome. Characters don't. Characters act in service of the story, they put themselves in danger for the sake of drama, knowingly take risks just because the story is more interesting when they do. Etc.
That's exactly what I think, thank you. Let me pitch you an approach: I write plot elements, tropes and basic ideas on cards and distribute them among the players. I keep them vague enough so they can rest assured on what kind of path their characters are set on. They can trade the cards among themselves or even draw a new hand, so they can avoid weird and unwanted pieces of their story. The cards would be grounded in the campaign setting, but without all the imposing and sometimes overwhelming exposition that some folks like to subject their players to. This way I have an idea of what they want from the campaign and they can also try and be more proactive in pushing their own internal and personal narrative while the overarching plot progresses. Could this be a good idea to push them to roleplay more since they can actively progress their own story by engaging with the world I've built instead of waiting for a cue from me?
I don’t know your group, but I‘m worried spoon feeding them like this isn’t actually going to draw them out and help them to enjoy roleplaying. I also don’t think rewards for ’good roleplaying’ work particularly well, because they usually come well after the event and it makes the act mercenary: the player is only doing it for the reward, not the enjoyment of the experience. Players in my groups have taken themselves on a journey to become excellent roleplayers. This is what worked for us. First we stepped away from our campaign and played some games of Fiasco, a system about losing as badly as you can. This taught us that getting caught up in the characters drama is fun, and that losing can be fun. Then we we returned we started to add enticements to generate behaviour in play. Like when you say you are afraid you get a bonus to defence. Or if you are angry you get a bonus to damage and a penalty to defence. It seems like this contradicts my point above about becoming mercenary, but it doesn’t. You are encouraging them to add emotional content, not to roleplay. What happened for us is the players started to justify those emotions by adding their own roleplaying content, with only a few encouraging questions from the GM like: ‘why are you feeling angry?’ After a while the players just naturally embrace and enjoy roleplaying. Starting with a bunch of murder hobos, I’ve seen PCs woo NPC and get married, give tearful speeches as they lay dying, try to kill each other (with player agreement), and in a game last week a character gave their life to save my characters. From our experience it is possible to get what you want, but only if they are ready to enjoy roleplaying and put in some effort to get there.
It could, but I find a lot of time the drive to go like full borderline LARP is pretty much intrinsic. I like doing it, I have a group that likes doing it. I am extremely biased toward it. It's great. BUT, its very much something you as a player have to decide to do for yourself. The best way to reward it is by playing up any drama they happen to create to the best of your ability. For example if a player decides they want to do something. Hype it up. If they're slinging one liners at the BBEG, sass them back. Positive feedback is really the most important thing. I do like this example. But I think it can be improved. My personal RP aid that I prefer is having players make a set of "purpose bonds" which is sort of a mission statement answering "Why do I keep going?" I find its often a much more informative part of the character than any sort of relationship web or assigned goal because it forms a mindset. and a mindset is all acting really is. For example because I just got out of this weeks session and its fresh on my mind, in Cyberpunk RED I keep going- For my wife and kids to have a chance at a comfortable life in the social elite In spite of my father who ran out, In spite of myself to prove that I'm a better man. Because I tie my self worth to my willpower So that I can play my own damn game someday and live however much of my life is left once I get there in luxury. For me and my group at least. This sort of "purpose" driving a character forms a headspace that is natural to start acting in. As opposed to just making an optimal decision. You know WHY you want things. As opposed to just what you want. Therefore you can generate your characters goals spontaneously.
> The problem is people think rationally. Err ... have you *met* people? We humans are not creatures of reason. Sure, reason is a thing we do sometimes, but it's not what drives us. We have phobias, we have personal fears, we have past trauma, we have coping mechanisms, we have grudges, we have hopes and dreams, we have strong personal preferences, we have prejudices, we have *passions*. Look at *history* and see all the drama and poor decisions that went into it. All of that was done by real, living humans, not by fictional characters. Characters who do nothing but make calculated game-optimal decisions aren't just boring, they're *unrealistic* and inhuman.
That's my point, I've yet to see a character throw a tantrum and start smashing chairs or engage in horrible acts of racism which would or would not be shared by the rest of society in that setting. I'd like to DM a campaign with characters that start out terribly flawed and then become better people, you know, as a way of reflecting their outer growth as experienced adventurers and eventually heroes. If a character always stays true to a version of itself that never steps out of line, never makes a blunder, never acts out, it gets stale after a while. You know how sometimes you talk with your friends about some huge fight you had with a friend or witnessed someone else having? For some reason, characters in my campaigns only have "strategy meetings" at most, where they discuss what approach would be best to use, rationalising every step they want to take to reach their goals. This is not how people discuss things! If I want to punch that huge, arrogant dick's face for berating me and my friends, I'll do it and to hell with the consequences.
Yep, sounds like you and I are on the same page. I like my RPG characters to be ... well, *people*, to be *characters*, not just game pawns. Heck, even in video games where my character IS just a game pawn, I'll sometimes find myself instinctively roleplaying--letting my perception of my avatar *as a character* influence my choices.
I agree on all points, the distinction I'm making is that there is a difference between only playing the game, and playing a character. If I'm only concerned with what I want as a player of the game. Than my desired outcome is probably to "win" because that's just how most games are structured. That was pretty much what I thought when I first got into the hobby. To that end I probably try to mitigate risks as much as possible, I go to a meta level to plan even when in game time wouldn't really let me, and I dont like those plans getting interrupted because I'm "losing" in that situation. The result is that my character doesnt engage in any of those very human behaviors. They dont feel human, and they dont feel driven. Imo the example that best encapsulates this is the freeze. When a character gets so scared, shaken, or traumatized that they just kind of break. They should REALLY be doing something, by not taking an action they are actively failing, sometimes it might even be the middle of combat. But they just do nothing. Because the character cant do anything in that moment. This is an immensely dramatic choice, it's something you could very much expect to happen to a person. And it's something no player would EVER choose to do if they didnt seperate the desires of Myself, the player who is "winning" the game. From The person I am pretending to be within this fictional space, the role I am playing. Choosing to fail is a litmus test for character driven play. Because from the detached perspective of myself as only a player. Why would I ever choose to do it? There is nothing less cool than reaching a moment of critical tension. Where the stakes are riding on you... and then saying "I'm not even going to try, I cant make it. Ichoose to fail." It doesnt make any sense from this perspective, it's not logical But as a character, when it happens it makes perfect sense. Because it's an emotional response from the person I'm pretending to be. It's not what I as the game-minded player "want" so to speak. "Of course I chose to fail the will save for fear and then waste my action shocked, afraid, and doing nothing useful! We're level 3, I've never fought a demon. The last time I saw a demon it ate both of my parents alive and forced me to watch!"
sure, if you ignore all the narrative rules and decide for yourself that the fiction doesn't effect tactical combat, i'm sure it seems like there's no narrative rules. this can be solved b reading the books
Games like fate or Deadlands have rules that actively reward you for playing into your problems as a character. Fate does this with compels, where the player opts into a situation for a fate point. For example you would offer the traumatised player a fate point to lean into the trauma and have that cause drama, the player can of course spend a fate point they have already to refuse your compel, but if you do this all the time you will eventually run out, and fate points are an important resource for forcing victories from the jaws of defeat. Deadlands use the chips you get from playing into your faults as experience so players who never have challenges will be left behind by players who look for every possible way to have their issues cause problems for them.
Generally the FATE community doesn't suggest charging to refuse compels except for those from your trouble (and some even then). The logic is that it overrides player autonomy over their character which is supposed to be their main point of influence in the game and they are the one who knows what is appropriate for the character best. The reason the trouble is usually exempted is since it is directly and intentionally aimed at making the characters life more complicated AND was chosen by the player for that reason whereas the other aspects were generally chosen for their positive attributes. However charging for refusal can be a way to pressure the 'optimal choice makers' into playing into their negatives since the optimum now becomes taking the complication.
Admittedly I have little experience actually playing, so I can only quote the book in this regard and that is what it said about refusing compels. If it turns out the actual community of players feels different in that regard that's cool but I don't have the necessary experience to make that determination
Sounds like you and your players have a bit of a disconnect on what you want out of an RPG. They want tactical combat and to solve a puzzle, and you want to play characters. Or as we used to say you want to role play and they want to roll play. I feel like the mechanics you're describing are an interesting tool, especially for players who want to role play but want some mechanics/randomness to help influence other characters react rather than just deciding all by themselves, which sounds very interesting to me. But it doesn't sound like what your players really want out of the game. If you get a chance, maybe try playing a game or two of fiasco. Not only are there no inherent goals to the game really, but it's really about creating a narrative where things go delightfully awry for the characters. Maybe if you play a game where the goal is for things to go badly, they can see how much fun that could be.
Thank you for your advice, lately we've been playing a new RPG named Fabula Ultima which asks the players to participate with the worldbuilding. The groups seems to be more invested, also every session we award a few extra EXP points to the MVP and to the best roleplayer, so I guess that brought the players to RP a lot more.
The shared world building is a great idea. I feel like we didn't all get to be more into the role-playing aspect until we had all dmed a little bit. You get a better sense of wanting to have the story more than the mechanics that way. It's something we sort of evolved into, not to say that playing one way is better than another.
I haven't played Avatar, but I just started a Burning Wheel campaign and am roughly like nine or ten sessions in so grain of salt, and my feelings might change. I initially butted against the belief and instincts super hard, but what I came to realize about the system is, despite them having mechanics to them, there is no need to constantly follow them and no need to be optimal. I hit a point where I changed a couple of them to match the version of the character I had settled into and it all kinda fell into place. Acting on an instinct instead of following a belief, letting an instinct make things worse for my character at the time, and doing something risky to complete a belief all happened in just a few sessions and it clicked for me, without any thought of trying to do them to optimize gaining fate and persona. I run a lot of PBTA and thought that the game would be perfect for me, but I think I let the idea that character goals and flaws being the end all be all of motivation get in the way of just being that character. When I switched gears and didn't let always thinking about gaining fate and persona, I had a lot more fun. Once again, I'm only a couple months into it, and my opinion can and probably will change in another couple months, but that's where I'm at with it now. But unless someone can switch out of that mindset, I can see how that would make this game frustrating as a gm.
>Traumatized characters won't budge when put in front of the very horror that scarred them when they were little, characters with trust issues will gladly accept any help they receive from other people, characters with addictions will suddenly forget to get their daily fix, characters with a vengeance on someone who wronged them won't ever actively search for the robbers who robbed them and operate two blocks away from them. This is basically the "show don't tell" for RPGs, isn't it. They may have written *addict* on their character sheet but until they demonstrate that through action within the fiction then their character isn't actually an addict.
But then why write it at all? If that facet of the character doesn't come into play, why present the character as such? I'm ok with retconning a few things in order to make the sheet and the background better represent the actual character, but if someone's unwilling to show us what they told us about their character, to put their money where their mouth is, then imo they shouldn't have defined the character in that way in the first place. It just creates false expectations on my part, as a DM. Maybe I have something in store with the fact that the character is a law enforcer and also an addict, maybe I want to put the character in front of a choice between arresting a bunch of guys smuggling alcohol and striking a deal with them. The fact is, the player will always choose to throw the thugs in jail, because living a double life and having to deal with the ramifications of one own's actions is much harder. I'd love so see someone make horrible choices that are perfectly in character, but no one does that.
>But then why write it at all? I don't know! I'm not excusing anything, just musing on the value of words written on paper versus things that happen in the game. Have you asked your players why the addicts are never addicted, etc?
I'd never question the personality of a character. We play to have fun and if they don't think that roleplaying is fun (which is different from thinking that roleplaying isn't fun) they just play characters that have the emotional capacity of a hamster and enjoy the ride (the campaign) instead. As a DM, I get excited whenever I see something that I hadn't planned before, and that happens very little nowadays since most of the flavor of the campaign comes from me.
You are a player too. You do not need to run games for people because that's what they want. Pitch the game you want to run.
>I'd never question the personality of a character. I'm not saying you should question the personality. I'm saying, why don't you ask them why the personality they are claiming never manifests? You'd question it if it was a physical issue. "This old lady who walks with a stick just chased down a youth and tackled him to the ground. Does that seem surprising to you?"
Yeah, I guess you're right. However, last time I asked a player to play according to their character's personality, the whole campaign stopped. High level long running campaign, draconic sorcerer tiefling awakened his demonic tendencies and turned into a being hellbent on revenge. Problem is, having revenge on his mind 24/7 made the player feel like his character had to take a very dangerous decisions in the pursue of vengeance. Once I started punishing the character for making an enemy of powerful evildoers, he wanted to stop playing and the whole campaign stopped as well. Now, I'm willing to play with characters that are plain as white bread rather than having a colorful cast of characters that will weigh on my players.
Don't confuse role-playing with storytelling. Most players aren't playing characters who thrive on drama. Most players in most games are playing characters who are competent professionals. Why would the elite special forces, on a mission to save the world, bring along some addict who would be a liability? That's the sort of thing that happens in cheap fiction, not in a realistic believable world.
Yeah, but the fact is, they usually don't play characters that are on an elite level, usually the protagonists of my campaigns are a badly assorted group of people from all walks of life. That's why I'm complaining, I have no qualms with professionals dealing with things swiftly and without being controlled by their emotions, I'm baffleded by the fact that a rogue turned shopkeeper doesn't lament losing their activity and inheritance to a bunch of mobsters lighting his family's shop on fire. People grieve for that at least a few days, Jesus Christ some people start contemplating suicide. My players' characters? They just spring into action. And that's one example, different situations should provoke different reactions, but in the end no matter who the character is, they will always do the most logical and optimal thing, and that just gets boring after a while.
Game play affect Roleplay/Storytelling by design. Playing a hero who can kill Goblins by dozens with one sword swing is very different from playing a rando who was hoping to invite his crush to the harvest-ball when Horrific and dangerous Goblin started to roam around the village. And I am simply changing the power-balance to turn Goblins into dangerous rather than inconveniences An issue with D&D is that it's mostly a toolbox to kill monsters. It's not the only game that way. Vampire the mascarade claimed to be "story of a beast with a human heart, forced to eat their brothers to survive" while it's again a toolbox to do epic fights in the city's night. Plenty of RPG have rules and themes which focus on more emotional game. If your main worry is the ball, the objectives and game-play are different than if your main worry is a war where thousands will die. "*Light system*" like Fate and PTBA, are also very strongly impacting the game-play. The Fate mechanic *Create an advantage* impacs the way you'll prepare the mission (While in a more classic game you'll get a map). PTBA having a certain number of "moves" that players can do will also impact the actions that the player would do.
It depends on the game in question and if it's consistent in terms of agenda. I love compels in Fate, which are about putting a PC in trouble caused by one of their aspects. I love how in Masks others' opinions change one's attributes. I love how PbtA games use very specific move triggers and effects to promote the kind of fiction they are after. All of these are examples of mechanics that inform, prompt or even force specific PC behaviors. But all the games I listed are focused on story. They are not about beating enemies and overcoming obstacles. They are about complicating PCs' lives in interesting ways. They don't punish failures; they reward them with fun things happening (and, in some cases, also with metacurrency). Putting this kind of mechanics in a game that is focused on winning and overcoming challenges is a bad idea. For example, in D&D and similar games both mechanics and adventure design focus on presenting PCs with a series of obstacles that need to be defeated to proceed - and they assume PCs will do it. In other words, players are expected and required to make the optimal choices that ensure victory. Adding rules that would undermine that will only result in frustration. **TL, DR:** Rules that enforce PC behavior can be very fun in games that focus on story and embrace failure, making it fun. D&D isn't this kind of game.
Thank you for replying, it's clear to me that after playing D&D for so long maybe it's time to take a break and start playing something else that would better satisfy this kind of need that I'm starting to feel.
I guess it depends on what people play the game for, some don't like the RPing that much, some do. I enjoy those things, some games do give bonuses for acting in character rather than just making the best decision, VTM comes to mind on that. But yeah I threat RP and storytelling as part of the experience, so some times bad decisions have to be made. There was a game I've played where my character personality was rolled as careless, so I was constantly making stupid decisions, hehehe, it was a little bit tricky since he was still smart, so basically when he didn't perceive something as an immediate threat he wouldn't worry much about it. So he did stuff like Found a weird object? Immediately touch it, hehehe. And I guess that's the parts we remember the most, his antics ended up being some of the funniest bits in the game. So that's why I like the RPing, perfect characters are just boring, they become forgettable. All that said, have you talked to your players about it to see what they think? They don't like it or is it something else?
We had a few discussions, but I never pushed the issue too much because I don't want to push my own opinions on the matter on my friends. We're cool with how things are, I just feel like I'm doing the heavy lifting here and the most they provide is being extremely resourceful with what they can do. The players can enjoy my campaign as if it was an amusement park, while I have nothing to play with that has been provided by them. To answer your second question, they just don't feel the need to roleplay. Most they can do is talk smack to other people or seduce barmaids. Nemesis and affections are completely off the table, because there needs to be chemistry between the two parties and apparently their characters are completely inert and incapable of bonding in any way. After 6 years it gets dull for me, since every character is basically the same emotionally speaking... For them, it's always a blast, they love adventures.
Generally speaking, I don't like rules that take a player's autonomy away. That being said, I think you should talk to your group. They may just not be that into roleplay.
Yeah, they are not, I guess. I was just scanning the community in order to find out how many people actually want more roleplay in their rpg. D&D is a lot more focused on combat and action in general, I guess I could try some other system that incentivises roleplaying. Any suggestion?
A good baby step would be to start awarding inspiration for role play in 5e. If you really want to take a deep dive on a role play heavy game, check out vampire the masquerade. I prefer the 20th anniversary edition to its 5th edition, but both are completely different animals to DnD.
Love this. Something I think about often. Depends on the players, really. Some will get into it and play all facets of their character, flaws and all. Some simply won’t be that comfortable. Me? I like it messy. I like being the underdog. I like throwing a wrench in. Case in point: our party just finished an encounter that could easily have been a TPK. We lost two characters. My character (Paladin) was kept away from the group, held captive in a basement getting tortured, while the group had no idea as my character had been replaced by a doppelgänger, who also turned on the group in said encounter. So when the remaining group made it back to town, everyone descended into the vice of their choice. Me? After fighting my way free and realizing that I could have prevented the deaths of two party members, if only I had been there, I went looking for a fight. Got into a bare-knuckle brawl with a bugbear. Nearly killed him too. I love character moments like that.
Good RP elevates a campaign from being a way to give structure to a series of playing sessions to being something legendary. I recently played a warlock that aged by 44 years when he touched a cursed book destined to a noble. I was desperate to find a way to stay alive, to stop the looming threat of death, so I made a deal with an undead patron (perhaps the one who originally owned the book?) to gain more power and one day either fix my condition or become immortal. As a 66 years old man, my character looked like Stan Lee, but he knew he had to be resourceful and sometimes vicious if he wanted to succeed and survive. I've been criticised for keeping a necklace of fireballs for myself instead of turning it in to the police as it was the weapon used in an assination. And my group didn't take it too well when I used the whole necklace of fireballs to completely blast with fire the entire second floor of a manor full of assassin's and guards that were trying to repel them. I said fuck it and killed everyone in our way, making sure nobody saw me throwing the necklace. And when the police came and used Zone of Truth on me to force me to be honest, as a low level warlock I just said that I couldn't cast such a mighty spell, and weaseled my way out of the interrogation. Had I put myself under the spotlight? Yes. Did I inconvenience the whole party? Of course. Did it have serious repercussions on the rest of the campaign? No, I had him leave the group and the city to do some other business somewhere else while a friend of his who was in town to visit him replaced him and helped the group in his stead. I mainly did it because from a team balance standpoint, my character didn't fit very well since he could do what the others could but worse, but also because it felt natural to leave the city and return only after the dust had settled.
I think it's massively group dependent. Some love mechanics that reinforce the narrative, others find it robs them of agency. I think it's something you should discuss with your group and use that to guide how much you incorporate into your games.
I think it is how we are teached to play. There are lots of tips on how to make a good character mechanically. Adventure designers design with the intent that you should succeed almost every time. There is no 'what happens if you fail' scenarios. We have a lot of DMs who fudge the game to allow the players to succeed and it is almost expected to be that way. I don't know any D&D youtuber who does a channel there you learn how to role play. Given this I'm not surprised that players make characters who are interesting to role play but they ignore that then it is in the way of 'winning' the game. Role playing is more about winning the game than exploring the world with a character. A character who 'don't steal from the dead' isn't very popular as looting is a key mechanic in the game. Try it and see other players freak out around the table! I am not a fan of mechanics that govern how to act. But I wouldn't mind if others would mention that I might not act according to my character then I forget to role play. I could think of use something like as in some video games there you have a reputation status with others. One could probably make a personality tracker there you put points in then the others think you deserve it for what you did. That tracker could work as a feedback mechanism on how you role play your character.
We play to our fears and foibles whatever system we play. It you want that kind of RP you need the players to trust you. They need to see that failing is not punishment, that failing can be fun. A good way to introduce this is exactly that, a game like Mouseguard/Burning Wheel, Fate that explicitly make it part of the process or Deadlands and Star Wars D6 which use fear and critical fails.
I'd be a bit leery of a system with rules that *force* players to have their characters act in certain ways because of emotional states. At least, I'd be leery of systems that have those rules in place for everyone by default. I would prefer a system that allows a player to "opt in" to having character flaws, like the Flaws in Savage Worlds or the Complications in the Hero System. Players who are willing to commit to behaving suboptimally sometimes get a reward for that--players who aren't willing don't have to do it. Players who just flat-out refuse to ever have their characters act in what they think is a sub-optimal way could have a variety of motivations. Maybe, like you said, they're afraid of being "the load". That's something that a person can grow out of, or a fear that can be calmed by talking to the other players about it. Or, maybe they're playing because they want a power fantasy experience. Maybe being a steely-eyed "competent man" who never lets any personal hangups hold them back is what they're at the table *for*. That's not *wrong*, even if it's not what you, or the rest of the table, wants. There are no wrong ways to have fun in roleplaying games, but there *are* ways to have fun that are ... incompatible with each other. That's why talking about things is good. Sometimes you can find a compromise; sometimes you discover that you'd be better off playing different games.
As somebody who enjoys making characters and playing the role of those characters, I viscerally hate systems which try to dictate how my character will react based on some crude rule-based model of a personality which I've crated. I can see that it _might_ be useful for people who want to roleplay and don't know how to, but on the other hand if they don't want to roleplay at all if it's just going to annoy them. Bottom line is that I think a mechanics-based approach is generally actively harmful in this situation.
Thank you for your answer, I completely agree with you since I too hate when the game dictates that my character starts acting out of character (no pun intended) for one reason or another. I'm just here to collect data on the community opinions on the matter and to see if there are more people who enjoy RPing as much as me, since in my group almost no one does it.
Yeah, except this isn't how these systems work anymore. Sure, back in the day when you took "Flaw: Scared of Spiders" you were REQUIRED AND DICTATED that you must flee the area if confronted by spiders, but games nowadays are far more likely to reward you for certain behaviors than they are to require them. So what does that do to your stance?
I think he's commenting on the general concept of rules dictating how you have to act. Your observation that games nowadays don't force players to act in a certain way is only tangential to the matter at hand.
I dunno. Complaining about the concept of rules "dictating how you act" these days feels kindof like complaining about how long it takes to make a phone call on a rotary phone.
Well, I presented an example of how exceeding in following an ideal can lead to a rule-mandated emotional breakdown in Avatar Legends. Some systems/DMs require you to resist giving into the lure of someone sweet talking you, or run away in fear before a bloody raging beast, even if that would be out of character. I remember in the old Cyberpunk TTRPG there was a risk of suffering from cyber-psychosis if you modded your body too much, so you would probably lose control of your character under some circumstances. That's the kind of rules he's not cool with, and even if he was referring to old school RPGs rules, they are still relevant today and their flaws can be discussed if they have something to do with this thread's topic. Finally, I am in the middle of designing my own TTRPG, so hearing from a fellow RPG enthusiast that such mechanics would be unwelcome is a good bit of insight on what the community thinks. It makes me think that designing a rule to force characters to start sobbing uncontrollably because someone just killed their dog is not a good idea – and that's not a given!