D&D 5E Actors Having a Tough Time Roleplaying

[Unwise]

Since the players are enjoying themselves, I would say the OP is kind of stuck. They have done the right things to encourage RP already. I would suggest a system like PDQ or Fate to encourage RP and to a lesser extent The One Ring. The thing is, if they are enjoying this game, its a bit mean to close it down and start another.

Having an interesting mechanical system often leads to mechanical play. PDQ in particular has such a simple system that there is no fun inherent in it. That sounds bad, but don't get me wrong, it encourages fun play, its just that there is no fun to be had tweaking numbers, looking for synergies or planning builds. In my experience, this means that people look for fun elsewhere, they build any character they want as they are all equally effective. Players feel unconstrained by the mechanics of the game in a hundred little ways.

 

[Imaculata]

I've never had the experience of game mechanics getting in the way of role playing. I suspect this depends entirely on your group.

In a recent session, my players were fighting a bunch of evil wizards, while lava was closing in on them. One of the players had summoned a phantom army, thus exposing the enemy wizards to attacks of opportunity (this is 3.5 rules). The players discussed out loud with each other what the most efficient position would be to summon the phantom army, which is perfectly fine by me. I don't feel this breaks immersion. The players are talking tactics with each other, not the characters.

Another player then discussed how on his turn, he could dash into one of the wizards, so the wizard would be pushed back a few squares, and exposed to multiple attacks of opportunity from the phantom army (a great example of players combining their powers for cool combos). The players all discussed what actions would be best in this situation, leading to some interesting strategic play. But then as soon as a strategy was decided on, they resumed role playing. And I think this works great.

I don't think you need to be in-character 100% of the time. If you're only in character when it is your turn, then that is perfectly fine. And you don't need to narrate every attack you do, and every dice you roll. Because that could get old fast. If the combat starts feeling a bit mechanical, or too much by the numbers, then I as a DM can always add some extra narration. But I don't think the players should feel obligated to ONLY talk in-character.

I also prefer my sessions being open to offhand comments and silly jokes. That, to me, is what D&D is all about. If I as a DM accidentally call a female npc a "He", and everyone has a big laugh about it, then there is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't matter, and it doesn't ruin role playing.

OC jokes and interruptions are good. Especially when the plot is super serious, or extremely suspenseful, then that is all the more reason for moments of levity. It allows a relief from the suspense, triggered by the players themselves.

I NEVER tell my players that they MUST BE SERIOUS. If your story is exciting and engaging, then your players will automatically be serious when it matters. And you can perfectly mix OC discussions about strategy, with bits of serious IC role playing.

 

[iserith]

I also prefer my sessions being open to offhand comments and silly jokes. That, to me, is what D&D is all about. If I as a DM accidentally call a female npc a "He", and everyone has a big laugh about it, then there is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't matter, and it doesn't ruin role playing.

OC jokes and interruptions are good. Especially when the plot is super serious, or extremely suspenseful, then that is all the more reason for moments of levity. It allows a relief from the suspense, triggered by the players themselves.

I NEVER tell my players that they MUST BE SERIOUS. If your story is exciting and engaging, then your players will automatically be serious when it matters. And you can perfectly mix OC discussions about strategy, with bits of serious IC role playing.

Anyone who knows me or reads my stuff can tell I generally like my D&D with two scoops of silly on top.

The other day, however, I watched some of the WotC actual play of Curse of Strahd and, while the DM appeared to be playing it straight, the players were goofing most of the time. Now, if everyone agreed to play Ravenloft like a B horror movie (which I heartily recommend), then great. But that's not how it looked to me and made it painful to watch. So I guess the lesson there is get everyone on the same page with regard to tone before play. A serious tone with well-timed jokes or dramatic irony is great stuff. A DM trying to do a serious tone and a bunch of players trying to be funny all the time? Not so much, in my view.

 

[Imaculata]

I agree entirely. If players are goofing constantly, while the DM is trying to tell a serious story, then maybe they are simply not into it? Or maybe they are bored? Then again, I've DM'd a Call of Cthulhu campaign where goofing around a bit and genuine suspense went hand in hand. But I guess it is a matter of moderation. You can't have too much of either one, and have to strike a right balance. And of course, everyone has to be on the same page.

 

[krakistophales]

I don't see why you can't just simply ask them if they want to act out roleplay or not, and because of the fact that they're actors, if they're simply burned out from their professions and therefore want to be light on the roleplay, or that they simply haven't been comfortable enough or drawn into the game enough to act as a result. Communication is key, so just ask.