Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The inspiration mechanic is supposed to reward you for playing to your flaws. I think 5e does more of that than any previous edition.

But there are games where playing to a certain mindset or set of limitations is fundamentally built into the game on a basic level. Dungeons and Dragons does not do that, nor is it designed for narrative in the way true story games are. It is half wargame, half roleplaying game, and that is a big part of it's charm.

 Da Boss wrote:
The inspiration mechanic is supposed to reward you for playing to your flaws. I think 5e does more of that than any previous edition.

But there are games where playing to a certain mindset or set of limitations is fundamentally built into the game on a basic level. Dungeons and Dragons does not do that, nor is it designed for narrative in the way true story games are. It is half wargame, half roleplaying game, and that is a big part of it's charm.

Many games have tried to have complex and detailed social mechanics that are as detailed as the ones for fighting, but I find that games with those can end up inhibiting roleplaying, because they codify everything. There's some really cool ideas that have come out of such systems--for example, I liked Weapons of the Gods having one "manipulate people" system that you could apply to anything including Taoist magic, having a silver tongue, medicine, seduction or being an amazing chef, and I liked the idea from Exalted 3e that to persuade people, you needed to find out the things they cared about and play off them with the things you could try to get them to do being keyed to how important that thing was to them.

But in practice....rolling dice to simulate a conversation with the same degree of detail as a combat never really felt anything but jarring. And in a way, saying "Okay, he got seventeen successes, he's persuaded you to go along with his plan." is a good way to get players dis-invested in their characters if they can't control them. And that's before you get into the minefield that is PC vs PC social rolls or anything related to seduction.

I’m going back to 3rd edition D&D, but there were experience rewards for overcoming obstacles of many kinds, without needing to murder everything.

Traps, riddles, social encounters... these could all be given difficulty ratings and appropriate experience given. Even dodging an encounter could be worth (some) experience if some degree of risk was involved. That’s up to the individual DM, but I did that back in the day. XP is the reward for risk, and convincing the sheriff you didn’t kidnap the mayor’s daughter, and the clear consequences are public execution? Taking a risk deserves the reward.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I’m going back to 3rd edition D&D, but there were experience rewards for overcoming obstacles of many kinds, without needing to murder everything.

Traps, riddles, social encounters... these could all be given difficulty ratings and appropriate experience given.[b] Even dodging an encounter could be worth (some) experience if some degree of risk was involved. That’s up to the individual DM, but I did that back in the day. XP is the reward for risk, and convincing the sheriff you didn’t kidnap the mayor’s daughter, and the clear consequences are public execution? Taking a risk deserves the reward.

This is standard in 4e (4e also pushed for traps to be included in regular encounters, rather than always being encounters on their own, which I found made for some nice encounter dynamics.) 4e also had quest XP, which made it even easier to deal with a particular issue however you wanted and not worry about missing on XP from murder hoboing.

All of that said, I've enjoyed 5e's milestone XP system, which we used in any previous edition as well. Basically the "level when the DM thinks you should" method.

As for "encourage playing in character" within a system's rules, there are some systems I've played that do this. White Wolf had their whole "recover Willpower by acting in accordance with your Nature" thing going, but it often just became another system rather than encouraging actual role-play. Genesys has benefits and drawbacks based on motivations and such, but honestly the best system is "play the game". If you're not really into character, why are you playing a role playing game? There are plenty of board games that hit all the story telling and combat buttons, the in-character role-play is really what sets TTRPGS apart. I shouldn't (and for me don't) need a set of rules within the system that say "You played AS your character, have a cookie".

I would also never, ever, have an NPC role to make a PC do something. Removing player agency is a serious thing, so outside of direct mental domination (e.g.: Charm Person spells or the like), that just doesn't happen. I don't care how silver tongued my NPC is supposed to be, players ultimately have the say in the way their characters behave.

*shrug* I got out of the game by the time 4th edition rolled around. I don't know anything about it or 5ed for that matter. Between 2nd and 3rd/3.5, 3/3.5 are amazing. Not without flaws, I found that multiclassing was quite prohibitive if you weren't chasing a Prestige class...

However... Most of my adventures were essentially 1 section = one level. I would block out adventures so that the boss battle would put the party over into the next level. I liked that 3rd edition was balanced so that equal XP and Gold were the ideal reward system. Made dishing out treasure a breeze. Just make sure the sum totals matched, be they through hordes or rewards or what-have-you.

And what does this all have to do with Serious RPG's? Well, in a serious RPG, the big bad is seldom the dude with massive armour and a giant bludgeon of doom. It's usually the power behind the scenes, manipulating and directing the underlings. The big bad is seldom the powerhouse that PC's can get a pile of experience from killing.

Often, the reward for encountering the Big Bad is NOT a pile of XP, but instead the Players' experience of finally knowing they've stopped the big bad. Of discovering the hidden motivation. Of seeing the mirror darkly and recognizing traits of their own in their enemy. Finding out your nemesis is not a "monster", but a "human" motivated by rational if distorted thoughts and beliefs. Villains motivated not be "evil" but by a belief in their own righteousness.

Mechanically, very little reason to spend time on this encounter... but for the players' experience? All worth it. and then you level, because that's the end of the module.

The FATE system has good incentives for playing in character.

When you create a character you define Aspects for that character. These are little snappy lines which describe a particular part of your character. For example a character I played had the Aspects "Jesus Take The Wheel", "The Road To Hell Is Paved With Temptation", "The Sisters Will Not Be Pleased...", "Can Things Go BOOM Now?" and "Dangerous When Sober, Deadly When Drunk". Each of these was effectively describing individual parts of the character which can be interpreted to be both good and bad. "The Sisters Will Not Be Pleased...", for example, was the result of his catholic schooling in Ireland and the memory of the ruler across the knuckles. This meant that he would often feel the need to interject into situations which his mind felt would upset the Sisters, often at risk to himself. "Can Things Go BOOM Now?" represents his penchant for explosives, which manifests in his familiarity with working with explosives (both conventional and homemade), which is good, and also his particular lust for seeing things explode, which is bad.

In gameplay, these Aspects manifest in different ways. If a particular Aspect is relevant to an action you are making then you can spend a fate point to invoke it, either for a +2 for the roll you are making or to re-roll. Converesly, if you willingly act in a manner in accordance to one of your aspects which complicates the life of your character, for example stepping in to save someone from being mugged because you are compelled by religious guilt, then the GM rewards you with a fate point. Finally the GM or another player can offer you a fate point (or even 2) with the proviso that if you take it, your character will act in a way in accordance with the Aspect that the GM or player is invoking and complicate things, for example my character is holding a rocket launcher and a tiny voice in his head is saying "wouldn't it be awesome if the front door of that mansion were to just suddenly disappear?". The player can resist this invocation of their Aspect by spending their own Fate points to resist and if they don't have enough fate points then they are going to do that action.

So you have a fate point economy in which those who consistently play in character get more Fate points, which they can use for bonuses to their rolls or to compel other characters to act in certain ways. More powerful characters, i.e those that have purchased lots of extra abilities which grant special powers or bonuses to rolls in certain situations, have lower starting fate point totals than those who are less powerful. This provides a balance between different levels of power, where the character who has bought a ton of extra stuff is more vulnerable to being compelled by the GM or players and has less points to spend on re-rolls and bonuses unless they accept some compels to boost their own supply. Meanwhile the less powerful character has a much larger supply of fate points, so they can more easily resist compels and get bonuses and re-rolls.

@OP:

I have played in a dozen or so campaigns and have been most of the time the DM. My advice with people who are not mature enough for role-playing:

Throw ´em out of the group as soon as you can.

 Strg Alt wrote:
@OP:

I have played in a dozen or so campaigns and have been most of the time the DM. My advice with people who are not mature enough for role-playing:

Throw ´em out of the group as soon as you can.

Alternatively, you could--

--Recognise that different people want different things, and not force people to engage with things that don't give them enjoyment.
--Come up with a compromise in the style of the campaign.
--Notice when someone's not comfortable with getting into character, because of shyness, unfamiliarity with the group, or any number of reasons.
--Recognise when someone's coming from a group or culture that didn't encourage in-depth RP.
--Ease people into roleplaying with a bit of effort on the GM side (I ask people the odd question about their backstory, such as "why did you become a pacifist?" or "why are you no longer with your tribe?", to just get them thinking about that)

Or you could just swing around absolute statements go on power trips, and alienate people for no good reason. It's your choice.

 Elemental wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
@OP:

I have played in a dozen or so campaigns and have been most of the time the DM. My advice with people who are not mature enough for role-playing:

Throw ´em out of the group as soon as you can.

Alternatively, you could--

--Recognise that different people want different things, and not force people to engage with things that don't give them enjoyment.
--Come up with a compromise in the style of the campaign.
--Notice when someone's not comfortable with getting into character, because of shyness, unfamiliarity with the group, or any number of reasons.
--Recognise when someone's coming from a group or culture that didn't encourage in-depth RP.
--Ease people into roleplaying with a bit of effort on the GM side (I ask people the odd question about their backstory, such as "why did you become a pacifist?" or "why are you no longer with your tribe?", to just get them thinking about that)

Or you could just swing around absolute statements go on power trips, and alienate people for no good reason. It's your choice.

Have you read the OP´s post and mine? Apparently not. OP was talking about douchebags that drag down the game and I experienced my fair share of players that tried desperately to sour the mood by behaving like jackasses ALL THE TIME thus alienating NPCs and ultimately jeopardizing the accomplishments of the PCs.

Read my advice again:
Throw these jerks out of the group. I have been a DM for over ten years and I won´t suffer fools again who try to steal my time.

And another thing: Trying to defend these guys with no social skills is pathetic. They are not from a different culture and the issue is not that they don´t know what RPG is all about. There are simply there to destroy the game and spoil the fun for everybody else around the table. Don´t let them achieve their goal. Throw them out.

My personal favorite was the guy who rolled a tank, said he would roll a tank, said he was more than happy to be the tank... and then proceeded to play his paladin as a ranged crossbow user who was never in the front line, always retreated from melee, and hardly ever used any spells (as a Paladin) which basically screwed the entire group because we all organized characters on the assumption we had someone who was happy to tank because that's exactly what he said. If an enemy so much as didn't go down in the first few hits, he simply ran from the fight and completely disengaged.

The players got fed up with this guy playing incredibly selfishly and getting PCs and NPCs killed under the guise of "being in character." Which admittedly, he did roleplay his character well from a story perspective, its just that the character was 0 fun to play with and in a "real adventure" every other PC would have kicked him from the group for being so cowardly as to be useless to our general survival. Plus the blatant lying about how he planned to play the character. The GM and us all thought he was a troll, except the GM was unwilling to confront or deal with the problem. I think a fine line exists between roleplaying a cowardly lion, and sabotaging the group with misinformation and selfish play.

This is a group that didn't last long.

 LordofHats wrote:
My personal favorite was the guy who rolled a tank, said he would roll a tank, said he was more than happy to be the tank... and then proceeded to play his paladin as a ranged crossbow user who was never in the front line, always retreated from melee, and hardly ever used any spells (as a Paladin) which basically screwed the entire group because we all organized characters on the assumption we had someone who was happy to tank because that's exactly what he said. If an enemy so much as didn't go down in the first few hits, he simply ran from the fight and completely disengaged.

The players got fed up with this guy playing incredibly selfishly and getting PCs and NPCs killed under the guise of "being in character." Which admittedly, he did roleplay his character well from a story perspective, its just that the character was 0 fun to play with and in a "real adventure" every other PC would have kicked him from the group for being so cowardly as to be useless to our general survival. Plus the blatant lying about how he planned to play the character. The GM and us all thought he was a troll, except the GM was unwilling to confront or deal with the problem. I think a fine line exists between roleplaying a cowardly lion, and sabotaging the group with misinformation and selfish play.

This is a group that didn't last long.

Your example was surely not a nice experience for all the people involved but at least the culprit did actually play a fairly believable character that could have existed in the campaign world. Imo, if it were not a D&D campaign but a GURPS campaign and the Paladin had the disadvantage Cowardice then most of the stuff he did would have been fine. My experience with people who stink up the show were like this:

- Used consistently modern slang words to undermine the mood of the campaign.
- Insulted a lot of npcs without good reason.
- Hack ´n slash first, ask questions or do inquiries later. Or in a nutshell: Be as violent as possible because the DM won´t let you die while being a jackass. Why? Well, everybody knows that character creation takes an awful lot of time, even in D&D, and so the jerk wagered he could get away with his actions as the DM would loathe wasting time for the creation of a new character.
This is especially crippling in a Ravenloft campaign which hosts a magnitude of beings who will wreck the entire party with ease, if the pcs don´t take the time to research the creature´s potential weaknesses.

 Strg Alt wrote:


Your example was surely not a nice experience for all the people involved but at least the culprit did actually play a fairly believable character that could have existed in the campaign world. Imo, if it were not a D&D campaign but a GURPS campaign and the Paladin had the disadvantage Cowardice then most of the stuff he did would have been fine. My experience with people who stink up the show were like this:

- Used consistently modern slang words to undermine the mood of the campaign.
- Insulted a lot of npcs without good reason.
- Hack ´n slash first, ask questions or do inquiries later. Or in a nutshell: Be as violent as possible because the DM won´t let you die while being a jackass. Why? Well, everybody knows that character creation takes an awful lot of time, even in D&D, and so the jerk wagered he could get away with his actions as the DM would loathe wasting time for the creation of a new character.
This is especially crippling in a Ravenloft campaign which hosts a magnitude of beings who will wreck the entire party with ease, if the pcs don´t take the time to research the creature´s potential weaknesses.

I think we're really just talking about the unwritten rule of all collaborative exercises.

Don't be the turd in the punchbowl.

What does that mean? Depends on the group and what it's trying to do. My group was that guy, 2 experienced players who want to drink some beer and throw some dice without getting too serious, and 2 first time players looking to learn TTRPGs. There was a presumption present among all of us I think that we weren't looking to do serious RP, metagaming, or anything that took more than looking at our sheet, picking something to do and laughing about whatever happened. That guy was the turd in the punch bowl. The person who brought down the high and soiled the experience everyone else was looking for. I think his lying (or not even thinking to inform anyone he changed his mind) is what really made everyone hate him, as had he been more upfront about the character he planned to play the rest of us would have made different choices in setting up characters and the group would have functioned more organically. Instead every gear was going one direction except one, the one gear that said it would go in that direction and then went in a completely different one.

That's being a turd in the punchbowl.

Don't be the turd in the punchbowl (also applies to office politics, though that gets messier)

 Strg Alt wrote:

Have you read the OP´s post and mine? Apparently not. OP was talking about douchebags that drag down the game

I read the OP, but it looks like you didn't. Relevant bits bolded.

Now, by saying this, I do not have a problem with silly games (probably over 50% of the campaigns I've played in have some silliness involved) and am not trying to make it sound like one style of play is better than the other. I've played in sillier games and enjoyed them, but at some point I thought it might be interesting to play a game like D&D in a style that is a bit more King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table and less Monty Python and the Holy Grail, if that makes sense. Is there a way to do this gracefully without excluding players or dictating other people's character concepts too much? From what I've seen, players who tend to pick more serious characters rarely have issues when the group decides to do some lighthearted character concepts, but I've also seen players who always play silly characters tend to end up just playing Bob the wizard in disguise if they end up getting involved in a more serious game, and the game ends up not working very well.

The OP seems far more chilled than you are, and not really looking for "RESPECT MY AUTHORITY OR GTFO" responses.