Can the DM drive roleplaying?

[CarlZog]

Roll up the battlemats and put away the tact-tiles. Nothing sucks players out of character and kills role-playing faster than the sight of a one-inch square grid. Instead of thinking about what their character would do, they're suddenly thinking about what the best move the rules would allow is.

Do more in-character NPC stuff at the table. Develop an ear for good, realistic dialogue. The words you put into the mouths of your NPCs will drive how your players react to them.

Give interractions worthwhile tangible results. If they think the role-playing aspect of the game is just about flavor, they're far less invested than if they know that how they react to this NPC could determine whether the guy tells them where the treasure is hidden.

Play in real time as much as possible. This kind of forces players to act and react honestly, and makes the game a little more exciting.

Carl

 

[Psion]

Like any administrative position, LEAD by example.

Learn
Engage
Act
Demonstrate

Learn what your players game for - what they enjoy about the game, whether gaining power or goodies, character development, butt-kicking, etc. Tie obtaining that goal to character interaction, no matter how small. They'll do more roleplay to get at that goal without even realizing it.

Engage your players - have the NPCs ask questions in the first person, addressing them by name, what have you. Even if the response is more out of character than in-character, challenging them to think more first-person than third will get them gently toward that mindset. BEWARE: Identify the players who just DON'T want to be center-stage, the more sociable players who mainly just enjoy contributing from the sidelines. Putting them in the spotlight can sometime make them resentful.

Act when you get a chance or see an opportunity. Anytime a player does take the initiative to roleplay, to speak in-character, to make a suboptimal choice because it's what the character would do, reward them tangibly and soon - a small XP gift, an action point, an M & M candy whatever sticks in all the players' minds.

Demonstrate how much fun you get out of in-character hijinks. Don't go making an NPC -to- NPC monologue for five minutes, or anything, but maybe one NPC interacts with another in a way that lets the players know that they don't get along, that there are factions to play off of or there are allies to be made, but only through engaging these allies mano-a-mano.

You're probably already doing several of these things, but I hope there may be one or two ideas in here that may spark a new technique or two for you.

Well whether or not it is, it's certainly a nice stripped-down and succinct advisory. Did you just come up with that?

 

[Hand of Evil]

You have to get the players to become engaged to the characters and campaign, they have to invest more than rolls, paper and ink into them. The best way is background and tayloring the campaign to ideas and interest to the players. It is possible but it is equal only to the level the player wants to take it, with today's world being what it is, you find that commitment may be hard to come by.

 

[Gothmog]

Roll up the battlemats and put away the tact-tiles. Nothing sucks players out of character and kills role-playing faster than the sight of a one-inch square grid. Instead of thinking about what their character would do, they're suddenly thinking about what the best move the rules would allow is.

Do more in-character NPC stuff at the table. Develop an ear for good, realistic dialogue. The words you put into the mouths of your NPCs will drive how your players react to them.

Give interractions worthwhile tangible results. If they think the role-playing aspect of the game is just about flavor, they're far less invested than if they know that how they react to this NPC could determine whether the guy tells them where the treasure is hidden.

Play in real time as much as possible. This kind of forces players to act and react honestly, and makes the game a little more exciting.

Carl

I'd go one step past this. When I started my homebrew campaign 13 years ago, I had three players that were hard-core powergames and obsessed over numbers to the point they didn't develop their character's personalities. I realized that if you want your players to role-play, they need to see the game world as real people see the real world- without all the numbers. So I had them generate characters, select proficiencies (2E at the time), buy equipment, and then took the character sheets from them, and had them write their possessions on a sheet of notebook paper, as well as a 1/2 page character history. They didn't have access to AC, HP, THACO, stats, saves, etc. I kept track of all this stuff, and when they went up a level, I gave them an average roll on their HP to keep things simple. I never told them the plus on a sword, the game stats of a magic item, or exactly what level or how many XP they had.

At first, there was much gnashing of teeth and wailing, but eventually my 3 powergamers relented and gave it a shot. Low and behold, within 2 adventures, these guys were getting really immersed in their characters and the world, because they looked at it through the eyes of a character who didn't see a 0-level innkeeper, but Otis the Inkeep, who had a lazy dog that tracked ashes from the fireplace across the room. Later when I asked the group if they wanted to slowly re-insert game stats into the game, the result from everyone was an emphatic NO! Basically, reduce the possibility of metagaming by removing the stats from the player's easy access, and I've found in almost all situations the role-playing will really come to the fore. It also really stretches and challenges your DMing skills to keep everything straight, but more importantly to describe everything in detail and really portray the world as a living place since the only conduit your players have to it is you.

 

[Desdichado]

It also really stretches and challenges your DMing skills to keep everything straight,

Of course, if you don't, who's to know?

I actually had that exact same idea way back in 1985 or so, more as a knee-jerk reaction to the way my high school group played then anything else. I doubt I'd go for it now because I'd rather just find a group that enjoyed playing the way I do and minimizing the impact of the character sheet because that's how they'd rather play. I've still always been intrigued by the possibility, though.

 

[Psion]

See Robin Laws' book Robin's Laws by Steve Jackson Games for a good overview of game styles and what they focus on. You may simply have a group with a different style than what you really want.

I do have that book (actually, I just reached out and snatched it from my bookshelf), and find his analysis interesting, but I actually think that it is very difficult to peg most players into just one of his categories.

But so far as that goes, I think it would be fair to say that my current players are closest to 1 butt-kicker, 2 specialists (one sneaky/ninja specialist and one druid/fairy/shaman specialist), and an occasional casual gamer. But they have similar tastes to me in SF, including some shows and books with complex characters and relationships. So I feel they have it in them.

I don't think that you can change players into different types of players, but I do think that it could be possible to foster different playstyle or facilitate it, and variety is good in a game.

 

[Timeboxer]

Personally, I think GMs can drive roleplaying. But more than once, one of my players has gotten upset at me for saying something like, "Okay, I have to prep stuff, have twenty minutes to talk in-character," because they feel like I'm forcing them to roleplay and their philosophy of gaming requires that roleplaying grow organically from the players.

So, I suppose the answer is: Only when your players let you.

 

[John Morrow]

I do have that book (actually, I just reached out and snatched it from my bookshelf), and find his analysis interesting, but I actually think that it is very difficult to peg most players into just one of his categories.

You don't have to. I don't fit in one category, nor do most of the people I role-play with. Mixing and matching does work.

But so far as that goes, I think it would be fair to say that my current players are closest to 1 butt-kicker, 2 specialists (one sneaky/ninja specialist and one druid/fairy/shaman specialist), and an occasional casual gamer. But they have similar tastes to me in SF, including some shows and books with complex characters and relationships. So I feel they have it in them.

Watching someone else's deep characterization is different than doing it yourself. Just because someone likes to watch Basketball does not mean that they like to play Basketball and vice versa. That said, this suggests that you might be able to suck them in with well characterized NPCs. It could be worth a shot.

I don't think that you can change players into different types of players, but I do think that it could be possible to foster different playstyle or facilitate it, and variety is good in a game.

Sure. Like I said, give it a shot. I'm simply trying to help you manage your expectations so you don't get too disappointed if it doesn't work out.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Roll up the battlemats and put away the tact-tiles. Nothing sucks players out of character and kills role-playing faster than the sight of a one-inch square grid. Instead of thinking about what their character would do, they're suddenly thinking about what the best move the rules would allow is.

That's not my experience. I find that the role-players are just fine with the battlemats, and it encourages them to try things they might not otherwise do. If I put the non-roleplaying types in a non-battlemat situation, I get a constant stream of questions about the situation that the battlemat would have solved at a glance, and a lot of arguments during fights.

In other words, the RP'ers will still RP no matter what, but the non-RPers will just be frustrated.

One technique I use a lot is circumstance bonuses to skill checks for RPing, or little in-game rewards, when someone RPs well. The other players see the positive reinforcement and sometimes will step up to the plate. It's hard to find a balance - I don't want to do it so much that it becomes more like punishing the player that's not a great RPer instead of a treat for the guy who's trying to stretch.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Interesting NPC's is the first route I would take.

Then elements outside the characters initial control. For example, making them a tool of prophecy, having the character be mistaken for someone else, making the character have to 'please' an intelligent weapon (another type of NPC). Using the environment or asking them about hobbies and providing them opportunities to engage in those hobbies. To be honest, most players that don't roleplay, in my experience of course (because if you don't type that, someone assumes you're trying to make vast stereotype comments), that the player doesnt' role play because he's just no good at it.

If the player knows what it means to role play, to be that character, then they will grow into it. If they don't, they're there for a beer & pretzels type game.