Learning from GMs at GenCon - Respond to Roleplaying

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Today, I read an interesting article (beware - behind the DDI paywall) in the recent Dungeon:
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Taking Time On the Other Side)

I found this part particularly interesting:

Respond to Roleplaying

Not every group roleplays. There are a lot of combat monkeys out there, and even groups that think they are hardcore roleplayers might be surprised at how crunchy they really are, if they had a chance to sit back and watch themselves play. It’s easy in the rush of conditions, modifiers, and questions about forced movement to skip right over a player's attempt at real roleplaying when it pops up. Keep an ear open and be ready to respond.
At the first hint of roleplaying, respond in kind. Your response doesn’t need to be elaborate; it can be downright simple, even corny, but a player who gets into role is a player who wants to engage the game on a level other than the purely mechanical. Having you step up to the challenge validates that player’s action. When I say validate, I don’t mean anything cheap or tawdry. It’s another way to use the skill of saying yes, and here's why it's important. Validation is not about giving the players everything they want; it's about responding to their wants. When you ignore the roleplayer, that player feels cheated, awkward, or even embarrassed. This doesn’t go just for strangers at conventions, either. Even longtime friends who know you and (in my case) tolerate your quirks feel dejected when faced with validation denial. A good DM challenges and validates with equal measure. It’s the recipe of fun.
The issue is not only one of reactively responding; it’s also about proactively fostering an atmosphere that encourages roleplaying. I’ve heard many times from players, in person and on the web, that they don’t feel 4E fosters roleplaying. I heard those arguments in the days of 3E, too. Heck, I’ve heard them about D&D since I started playing, and competing RPGs try to use this sentiment as a selling point. The truth is that a system can affect roleplaying only in very limited ways. Validating other’s engagement with a response is a far greater promoter of roleplaying.

I think this is an important observation, and I think it might not just apply to DMs alone. DMs have a "special responsiblity", I suppose, but - as a player, you should also react to roleplaying (provided you care for it.). You might be playing ina group that is very "action"-focused and "problem-oriented", with little time spent on the fluffy things - like I do. But I still like to claim that I like more of that. But do I respond in kind as a player? I think - due to recent experiences with a new player that soon left our group after he was disappointed with his RP experiences with us - I don't do enough. The DM allone cannot carry this - he might be important, but can it relay just be him and the player?

 

[wedgeski]

I totally agree with the quoted text, and I'm glad to say I pounce on every opportunity to roleplay with the PC's. It's hard enough getting even seasoned players to roleplay as it is; when it happens, I want to encourage it!

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I agree that the other players have a responsibility too. The game is a role-playing game; they should roleplay if they are at the table. I don't think it's the hugest thing in the world. The hugest thing in the world is just that everyone in the group has fun, and there are a lot of different ways to do that. But if one player wants to roleplay, then yeah, the others should support him. It's their gaming group after all, if they don't have each other's backs, who does?

The truth is that a system can affect roleplaying only in very limited ways.

I strongly disagree with this. There is a wealth of evidence to the contrary. To me, the opposite sentiment is in fact self-evident. I do not understand how the designers of 4e could feel this way. They obviously did, however, and the game that they produced shows it. I don't have a DDI subscription, but does SRM provide any evidence to back up this claim? I'm open to being wrong.

 

[Kelon]

You don´t need rules that support roleplay. But you need adventures that support roleplay. The official adventures had a good or not so good backstory and fight encounters after fight encounter.
The next campaign I will try to write my adventures self, but there could be a time problem.
I really like 4th edition but perhaps I should switch to Warhammer Fantasy or Rogue Trader. There seem to be no demand for city andventures, explorations, double crossing, murder mysteries and so on for D&D Players.

 

[wedgeski]

I don't have a DDI subscription, but does SRM provide any evidence to back up this claim? I'm open to being wrong.

Can anything other than anecdotal evidence really be provided either way? In any case, I agree with the quoted text: roleplaying is more a function of the group, by far, than the system.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

Can anything other than anecdotal evidence really be provided either way? In any case, I agree with the quoted text: roleplaying is more a function of the group, by far, than the system.

I could imagine doing focus group studies with different rules sets and measuring their time spent roleplaying. But yeah, I doubt that anyone has ever done that. I'd at least like to hear SRM's arguments, say, if "evidence" is not the right word.

As to the topic at hand, in the extreme cases, I think it's clear that system affects roleplay. Not too many people roleplay the yellow pawn in Sorry! But plenty of people roleplay their mini in D&D. So in the extremes, I think it's clear, the system affects the roleplay.

Now, is that a useful way of thinking about this? I'd say so. I'd say the behavior we see in the extremes, in this case, does carry over to the means, or the middle of the spectrum where it's harder to differentiate amount and kind of roleplay. But I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with me.

Here are some mechanics I've seen affect roleplay to an extent that I would consider "a lot": SAN checks in CoC, stunting in Exalted, Inspirations in Spellbound Kingdoms (my own game, full disclosure there), Intimacy dice in My Life with Master, the escalation mechanic in Dogs in the Vineyard, and even skills in D&D. Tons of players love to roleplay their skills, and if those skills weren't part of the system, I'm pretty sure there would be less of that roleplay.

Maybe SRM and I just disagree on what "affect roleplay" means. To me, it is very broad. I'd say it means how the game system affects everything from the choice of genre to the frequency of roleplay in a session to the need for roleplay.

Or maybe we just differ on what roleplay is. To me, roleplay is everything from narrating your character's actions in combat to talking in character with your estate's gardener and back to describing how your character's motivations drive him to finish combat with a killing blow or with mercy.

So I still don't see how a system can "only in very limited ways" affect roleplay. To me the system changes the entire focus and frequency of the roleplay.

(Also, wedgeski, what you're saying about the roleplay being a function of the group more than the system... I agree with that to a significant extent. The group makes all the difference, no doubt. But SRM went further than that. Maybe he didn't mean to - the main thrust of what he's saying seems to be along the lines of what you said. But I take exception to that one sentence where he went further.)

 

[Verdande]

So I still don't see how a system can "only in very limited ways" affect roleplay. To me the system changes the entire focus and frequency of the roleplay.

If anybody in this discussion hasn't read Ron Edward's essay on "System Does Matter", I think they need to.

By the way, I agree with you.

See, if the system spends most of its time talking about combat, and most of the character sheet is about combat, and all of your skills are either combat-related or entirely mechanical, then it's not a very roleplaying-oriented game by virtue of the fact that its focus is on the mechanical side of the game.

On the other hand, a game where your character sheet says nothing more than your character's name, his greatest fear, and his goal in life, there's absolutely no time "wasted" fighting endless hordes of mooks. You can actually roleplay something.

But don't listen to me blather, go read the article.

 

[Klaus]

I could imagine doing focus group studies with different rules sets and measuring their time spent roleplaying. But yeah, I doubt that anyone has ever done that. I'd at least like to hear SRM's arguments, say, if "evidence" is not the right word.

As to the topic at hand, in the extreme cases, I think it's clear that system affects roleplay. Not too many people roleplay the yellow pawn in Sorry! But plenty of people roleplay their mini in D&D. So in the extremes, I think it's clear, the system affects the roleplay.

Now, is that a useful way of thinking about this? I'd say so. I'd say the behavior we see in the extremes, in this case, does carry over to the means, or the middle of the spectrum where it's harder to differentiate amount and kind of roleplay. But I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with me.

Here are some mechanics I've seen affect roleplay to an extent that I would consider "a lot": SAN checks in CoC, stunting in Exalted, Inspirations in Spellbound Kingdoms (my own game, full disclosure there), Intimacy dice in My Life with Master, the escalation mechanic in Dogs in the Vineyard, and even skills in D&D. Tons of players love to roleplay their skills, and if those skills weren't part of the system, I'm pretty sure there would be less of that roleplay.

Maybe SRM and I just disagree on what "affect roleplay" means. To me, it is very broad. I'd say it means how the game system affects everything from the choice of genre to the frequency of roleplay in a session to the need for roleplay.

Or maybe we just differ on what roleplay is. To me, roleplay is everything from narrating your character's actions in combat to talking in character with your estate's gardener and back to describing how your character's motivations drive him to finish combat with a killing blow or with mercy.

So I still don't see how a system can "only in very limited ways" affect roleplay. To me the system changes the entire focus and frequency of the roleplay.

(Also, wedgeski, what you're saying about the roleplay being a function of the group more than the system... I agree with that to a significant extent. The group makes all the difference, no doubt. But SRM went further than that. Maybe he didn't mean to - the main thrust of what he's saying seems to be along the lines of what you said. But I take exception to that one sentence where he went further.)

Using Sanity, or Horror/Fear/Madness or whatever doesn't necessarily lead to roleplaying. It's just another mechanical resource being deplenished by a mechanical threat. The player *may* want to portray the character's dwindling sanity, with mutterings or paranoid looks, but there really is no incentive to do so.

Roleplaying is *not* what you do outside combat. Roleplaying is *how* you do things, combat or otherwise. A player that yells a character's battle cry as he charges an opponent is roleplaying just as much as one who addresses the orc chieftain as "Your Bloody Highness".

Very few systems reward actual roleplaying, because people roleplay differently, and with varying ease. How do you gauge a player's speech pattern, or the quality of his backstory?If it even fair to do so?

So yeah, I agree with SRM. Systems affect roleplaying in a limited manner.

 

[LostSoul]

Roleplaying is *not* what you do outside combat. Roleplaying is *how* you do things, combat or otherwise. A player that yells a character's battle cry as he charges an opponent is roleplaying just as much as one who addresses the orc chieftain as "Your Bloody Highness".

How about the one who says, "I attack. I got a 15." Is he roleplaying as much as the other two?

 

[Klaus]

He's roleplaying as much as the one who says "I'll use Diplomacy on him. I got a 22."