DM Dilemma

[Nimble Goodbarrel]

However, I play 3.5 edition, and all the skill checks kinda stomp all over the real talky parts. Players will just say, "I rolled 17" and leave it at that. But the DMG (for 3.5 at least, although I assume 4th has something similar) talks about how you can award circumstance bonuses for those players who really navigate the situation carefully. And so I decided to merge the old school with the new school -- we talk out whatever skill check is coming up, and those who navigate well earn a +2 or +4 circumstance bonus.

Totally agree and I do this. However I haven't used this outside of a skill challenge and I should.

You're mistaken. Solving puzzles, providing it is done in-character, very much is role-playing. And, for that matter, engaging in combat may very well be role-playing, provided it is approached in-character, and not merely as a tactical puzzle to be solved in the optimum manner.

I agree with this aswell. The problem is that they don't solve the problem in character and act as their characters would. If they did then I would have no problem with it at all. Instead I feel like I could bring a crossword to the table and have as much fun.

The next step from there is to encourage the players to start directing the action.

I had this conversation with my oldest friend at the table. For arguments sake we will call him Andrew. I told him that I felt that he played much better when we first started playing (about 15 years ago), because he took control of the action. Andrew said that he felt his character is more of a tactician and focuses on combat. (I equate this with playing the silent ranger who sits at the back and keeps to himself). He said that he was honourable and that his character wouldn't cause trouble. I asked "Why do you have to cause trouble to take control?" He didn't have an answer.

Hey, the big question you have scrupulously avoided answering is:

What the heck do you (Nimble Goodbarrel) mean by 'role playing'?

I knew this was coming and I thought that I would cross that Troll invested bridge when I came to it.

I think that role playing in D&D terms means to act or play a character which may have elements of yourself included but is generally different than yourself and would act in a different manner than you would in a given situation.

I once had a player who said that he was going to role play his character as himself. His character was going to act as HE would act in those situations. I don't think this is role playing and we don't game with him anymore.

The reward system can work well, another option to bonus xp could be to give a roleplay point at the end of the session.
This could either be used as a reroll or as a success if used before a roll.

Wonderful idea I think I am going to use this. Thanks.

Better yet, have them players give you the actual motivations, goals, et cetera, and then you work them into the adventure. Link concrete rewards to these motivations, goals, et cetera. That way the players are responsible for both the criteria and their own progress toward meeting that criteria.

I actually asked for back stories for their characters. No one has given me one yet. I have asked for it a couple of times and explained my reasoning for it. I feel that they are just not that into it.

Here are my suggestions.

1) Address your players by their character name. Like, when it's Greg's turn to go say "What's Galrath the Grim going to do?"

Done.

2) Do you use the battlegrid? I find it can detract from the group's ability to creatively imagine a situation. Try running a combat or two without the battlegrid.

We do use the battlegrid however I try to use it only for big encounters. Maybe three per session.

3) Flesh out time spent back in town. Adventurers attract all sorts of trouble, from greedy dwarves, to apprentice wizards to comely young ladies. These sort of encounters may have nothing to do with the over-arching plot.

Done as well. Acutally I love doing this, however for the reasons stated above I rarely get a fish to bite.

5) Put the player characters in situations where their mental state is slightly altered. It's hard to make good decisions whilst drunk or high. You can then watch the players reason out how their characters would behave in such a situation.

This would be a dangerous thing for my group. On occassion there is some real life situations like this at the table.

You might also want to try to recruit one of the players to help you. If all three are resistant, pick the one that's at least willing to meet you half way. Talk to him aside for a bit and try to get him on board, or at least let him know that you're going to spotlight him in the next game.

Then, at a logical point in the session, turn to that player and try to engage him one on one. Have an NPC talk to him in character. Lead by example. Cut the other guy lots of slack and don't worry about how successful you are the first time out.

I actually have tried to do this with everyone at the table not just who I think is the best. I try at least once a session to give everyone the chance to shine and be tin the spot light. Maybe I do have to focus on one player instead and keep at them until the others follow.

Again that you everyone for your responses, some really good ideas and I appreciate your help.

 

[Mark Chance]

I actually asked for back stories for their characters.

A whole backstory was more complicated than I was thinking. Keep it simple. Have each player identify one character specific goal to be accomplished next adventure. Work that goal into the adventure, and reward those who seek it out, whether they succeed or fail.

For example, say one character is a sorcerer who wants easier access to scrolls. He could perhaps earn his way into a Arcane Casters Guild by performing X, Y, and/or Z. Give that player the opportunity to achieve his character's goal. No matter what, he can at least earn some XP.

For a more simple goal, maybe a character has always wanted to see an oliphant. Sure, it might not seem like much, but it's important to that character. The trick is working an oliphant into the adventure.

 

[maddman75]

Here's one I've used to great effect before. The Wise and Powerful Patron is really Evil.

He's sending them on missions that make them more and more uncomfortable. Maybe at first it involves an orc tribe - yay, good ol' D&D! We go and kill a bunch of orcs. Then he tells you that the orcs are running a mine - take them out. Nice fun dungeon and some guardians, but the miners themselves are noncombatants. See what the PCs do with them. Next mission - take down an orcish fort, slaughter the pigs they keep there, and burn their fields. Finally, they've found an orcish shrine where they're worshipping their foul god. They find just orcish pilgrims, wanting to pray to their stone idol. Again, see what the PCs do with it.

And they may merrily take part in the slaughter. That's fine, send some orcish adventurers after them. Or have the Big Holy Church denounce their mentor's actions and he comes to the PCs for help.

Put them in a situation without a clear Right and Wrong, and let them see what they do.

Another way to get them into the game is to make them prove what they say. Your ranger says he's honorable and doesn't want to cause trouble. Which of these is more important to him? If he's honorable, he won't go along with the party. If he doesn't want to cause trouble, he will. Do this with all your PCs. Push conflict at them to see what they do.

 

[fireinthedust]

I'm going to recommend some different options than you're hearing here.


Why are you DMing? It sounds to me like you have a different style of RP from your friends, am I right? Not that you aren't a great DM, but it sounds like your expectations and rewards don't line up with theirs.

You: emmersive. I'm guessing you want to be somewhere else when you play. You get a lot out of stories about characters who aren't the best in the world. In fact, you'd like Elaine Cunningham's book City of Splendors; or Guy Gavriel Kay's Tigana. You read settings books like the 3e FRCS, and go "I wonder what it'd be like to meet Hallister Blackcloak; I wonder what makes him tick. If he had a book, I bet he'd stop being a bad guy and start being nice". You have names for all your magic items, and remember fondly how you got them. You buy your PC food, his favourite meal, and the type of Eladrin herbal tea his mother drank before she was betrayed by your mad uncle.

Them: Chess. They read player's options books and think "I bet I could really hit an orc with this... but I could hit more of them with *that*!" If there was a dragon guarding the gates to a dwarven vault, they'd buy shovels and dig around it to get inside, equip themselves, and then backstab the dragon for xp. They buy their items and, if an item loses a percentage of its optimization, they *sell* it, then use the gold to buy more items! They buy their PCs rations, possibly made of cardboard.


Me: I like both styles. Before I DM a game, I try to understand what I want to accomplish for my players. I like making puzzles, and I like making NPCs. ...I also live in Toronto and run a 4e game; it is more useful for RP than 3.x, as 3.x is a simulationist game (die-rolls for social skills, more complex than 4e's).

Basically, you have a good set of gamers. They show up every game, and if you keep them sober they can get through it; good call, I ban drugs at my games (after a bad experience years back), and keep drinking down (and food up).

You like them as people. Maybe you're looking for something in your RPG playing that you could more easily find someplace else. That's what got me writing, that's what got me drawing. I game because I like the whole thing, not just one aspect.


Shyness: maybe they're not into RPing the way you want the to. I don't like "performing" for others. I'm not a monkey on a string. I have actor and musician friends, and I like music and acting, but I don't sing just because someone goes "hey, you're a singer".
I have a mix of players who RP and others who don't. One specifically who just. doesn't. rp. Others do nothing but.

Maybe you need more players to add to the group. Maybe you need a different DM for them, and different players for you.

I don't think it's fair of you to expect other people to change who they are just because you want something. You agreed to run a game for them, not for other people. DMing is very much about facilitating the game for your players, as well as them stepping up to play with you. If you try to shove RP down their throats, they'll hate it and resent you for it.

 

[aboyd]

I actually asked for back stories for their characters. No one has given me one yet.

Yeah, it rarely works even in games where the players like role playing. For many people, writing is work, even if it is coupled with role play.

I have found that carrots work well, though. Send an email to the group in between sessions. In that email ask for information about each character's background. State up front that each player will earn an XP point for each word of background, up to 500 words (and thus, 500 XP). Or if they're high level, make it 5 XP or 10 XP per word, but always put a cap on it so that people don't feel they have to write forever & ever.

Allow them to format the background in whatever way they wish -- some might just provide bullet points, some might provide a story, or (in my case) some might provide a sequence of letters between the character's family members that sorta "lives out" the major turning point in the character's life. Don't nitpick typos or much of anything at all. Whatever you get, you get.

However, you can and probably should make it clear that character backgrounds won't influence game play. Somewhere in this forum is a discussion of a player who wrote into his background that he was "destined to die in a battle with a red dragon" and when his character died in a fight with orcs or something, the player insisted that it was impossible -- his character could only be killed by a red dragon, no matter what. You don't want to allow any background to dictate your game's plot.

Anyway, good luck.

 

[amerigoV]

They don't role play between characters. Getting them to use their characters names is like pulling teeth. If they did that I think it would be a great start and we could build off of it.

Hmmm, evil thought. There was an old KoTD where the group was assaulting an evil cult. The group broke it up, by El Ravager was knocked unconscious and lost his memory. The kings men arrested everyone but freed the heros. However, El Ravager was caught up in with the cultists.

So BA asked what does El Ravager look like? Blank stare from Dave. He never filled out the description. The group could not describe what El Ravager looked like and El Ravager did not remember his name. So, El Ravager got beheaded along with the rest of the evil cultists.

If you can find that KoTD, you might pass it out and say "dont let this be you!"

 

[Korgoth]

There are few games so bad that they couldn't be some fun for some group somewhere. This isn't an indictment of the particular game you mentioned, but I think there is some possibility that the problem you describe (a problem, since you're not have much fun) is related to the system you chose.

The greater the mass of stats in a game, the larger their 'Schwarzschild Radius', and thus the greater the danger of someone crossing the 'Event Horizon' of... well, as un-NewSpeak as it is, I have to say it... "rollplaying".

OD&D, Classic Traveller or perhaps Pelgrane's The Dying Earth RPG would be the equivalent of electroconvulsive therapy.

 

[Gilladian]

One thing I have found that will start some roleplay at table with reluctant roleplayers is to "roleplay out" the combat as much as I can. With every action or blow, I describe in detail what the monsters are doing. In other words:

"The bugbear who looks the biggest and meanest advances on you, his mace in hand. He growls as he moves in on Granthar. The other two snatch up javelins from the floor, and begin shifting into position to get a clear line on Bruin." Then I ask each PC, in initiative order, to tell me what they're doing.

If they give a plain answer, such as "I attack the big bugbear", I'll respond "okay, you swing aggressively with your greatsword. The bugbear looks surprised at your attack. Roll to hit!"

If they respond with a little more detail, I will give positive feedback, and possibly even a small bonus to hit if I feel they're being particularly "good" in their play. Once they're roleplaying in combat, they're far more likely to turn to each other and say "Good job, Granthar!" than "Kyle, you hit!"

From there, the roleplay DOES gradually increase, in my experience.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Our group has three modes of play:

- Combat: Players act as players more so than characters, deciding what to do based upon metagame elements. Occasionally someone will roleplay something but in general, this is all about keeping track of the stats with bonus details occasionally thrown in.

- Skill Challenge/Downtime: This is the most mechanical. Basically saying what they want their character to do and this is the skill I'm using to do it and here is the result.

- Free-form: Or what I consider to be roleplaying. In this mode, we are are acting out the character, be it mannerisms, different voices etc... (When I DM, I have eighteen different voices that I've got down pat from Dwarvish brogue to Ben Kenobi to Evil Insidious Wizard to... I think you get the idea). In this mode, we become the character involved like an actor.

It sounds like your group only uses the first two modes of play. Getting them to do the third most likely feels silly to them - and this is a hurdle that they eventually might get over but there again maybe not. Don't push it though, lead by example but if it doesn't work, so be it. I normally hand out rewards for roleplaying the failings of a character (such as poor diplomacy or wisdom). Reward the behaviour you want at the table and you'll be surprised how quickly a power-gamer will play along.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Jhaelen]

I once had a player who said that he was going to role play his character as himself. His character was going to act as HE would act in those situations. I don't think this is role playing and we don't game with him anymore.

Hmm. Are you no longer playing with him because he wanted to play his character like that?! That would be a bit ... harsh.

The thing is: You can't force people to roleplay. As the DMG 4e section on player archetypes correctly notes, there's a lot of different motivations why people play rpgs.