Should Roleplay Determine Character Advancement?

[ExploderWizard]

In way, all advancement comes from roleplay. It really doesn't matter what is used to count the beans, intelligent play keeps PC's alive (and thus successfully advancing) while poor play results in things such as whole groups of PCs dead at the bottom of a pit. Dead PCs usually are not as successful as living ones.

 

[Argyle King]

Not for me. For one thing roleplaying is very subjective. Even with the best of intentions on the part of both players and ref, I've found any but small RP rewards get too easy to game. You get people roleplaying for the sake of power (because levels are power) and not for the sake of roleplaying.

But ignoring that aspect for a moment, why is RP advancement a better means of advancing characters? As a mechanic, it seems to be very weakly coupled to the things that level advancement gets you (mostly more combat ability in most game systems). It feels like declaring someone an uber cyclist because he can type quickly.

Very valids points...

What you said in the paragraph is one of a few reasons why I've come to prefer games which do not have levels.

The second paragraph I understand and mostly agree with. I do find it silly that roleplaying the royal tea party would suddenly unlock a new karate technique. Though I'm not sure I'd entirely agree that most games reward you with abilities which are unrelated to rp.

Aside from D&D, I also play quite a bit of GURPS. The advice it gives to GMs is to allow players to spend points on things they are familiar with, use, or could have reasonably learned throughout the adventure. I believe one of the examples given as to what would not be reasonable was someone alone in a landlocked barren wasteland suddenly learning the shiphandling skill.

I'll also add that characters don't require GM awarded points to advance in that game either; it's possible to gain skills through study as well by having your character seek out a means of learning something. An example given in one of the books is a character going on a quest to find a martial arts master from whom he could learn a legendary fighting technique.

In either case, the GM is free to completely ignore either of these and rule that things work at his table any way he pleases. I personally feel they work pretty well as is, and function as a way to reward rp which makes sense in the context of the game. Likewise, it also (like the previously mentioned Pendragon) allows for characters to choose personality traits. It fits together pretty well.

 

[Haltherrion]

I've noticed a lot of folks warning that 'roleplaying is subjective', as a potential downfall of awarding xp solely (or mostly) based on roleplay. While this is true, I think it is something that can be overcome pretty easily.

One way to do so would be to give (allow the players to select) one or more personality traits by which to judge their roleplaying. If Player A chooses 'conciliatory' as one of his personality traits, and then makes a point of going along with what others choose, then he's fulfilled his roleplaying requirement, and the group can receive a commensurate xp reward.

Another way might be to ask the players themselves, "how well do you feel that you roleplayed during this session?" They are, after all, probably the best judge of whether they played their characters or not. Again, success in this regard should contribute to a group xp reward.

I don't think any of those solutions solve the subjectivity problem.

Your example of the conciliatory trait is a prime example: conciliatory can easily become passivity. Where do you draw the line? It's a judgement call but somewhere on the border of passivity you start rewarding the player for doing nothing

On the later suggestion of allowing the players to judge, that seems the height of subjectivity. I've used that method myself (for minor XP rewards for RP) and it works okay but in the borderline cases, I've seen the more glib out lobby the more quiet players and the group end up making awards I personally wouldn't agree with. Am I right and the group wrong? Well, who knows, it's subjective

But in the end, my objection remains the underlying mechanic. Why does roleplaying directly cause level advancement, at least for systems where the main benefit of advancement is more combat ability? I was smashing at a cocktail party so I now I have 20% more hit points and am better with a plasma gun?

In the past, I've used small RP rewards to try to encourage more roleplaying but that's more a nudge than anything. Don't do it any more because it didn't work very well.

 

[pemerton]

IBut in the end, my objection remains the underlying mechanic. Why does roleplaying directly cause level advancement, at least for systems where the main benefit of advancement is more combat ability? I was smashing at a cocktail party so I now I have 20% more hit points and am better with a plasma gun?

Why does finding treasure make me a better spellcaster (AD&D 1st ed)?

Once someone's talking about XP for roleplaying, I think we already have to cut them the slack of being prepared to treat XP as a purely metagame mechanic rather than part of ingame causal reality. (There have been some posters on the ICE forums who have suggested that NPCs must level quite well because they always stay in character and hence get the roleplay XP, but I treat these simulationist interpretations of roleplay-based XP either as jokes or as very atypical.)

That being said, there is one game that links roleplay to advancement via a modelling of the ingame causal reality: Runequest (where skills have a chance of improvement every time they are used). So go to that cocktail party and roll to improve your Silver-tongued, Heavy Drinking, and Snappy Dressing skills!

 

[Haltherrion]

Why does finding treasure make me a better spellcaster (AD&D 1st ed)?

While that system had its own flaws, it was at least loosely linked to combat: in general you used combat abilities to kill things that had treasure, acquisition of said treasure result in the improvement (leveling) in the combat abilities. Makes a lot more sense to me than leveling my combat abilities for roleplaying.

That being said, there is one game that links roleplay to advancement via a modelling of the ingame causal reality: Runequest (where skills have a chance of improvement every time they are used). So go to that cocktail party and roll to improve your Silver-tongued, Heavy Drinking, and Snappy Dressing skills!

Yep, it certainly can be done. A CRPG analogy is Oblivion. You use skills, they level. You level enough skills, you level. You level non-combat skills and it doesn't work so well for you (since the game auto-levels the foes by your character level not your combat skill level ).

It can be done in the right system. For systems like D&D, doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't think any of those solutions solve the subjectivity problem.

This seems to be an argument for more rules for roleplaying. Afterall, combat only seems objective by comparison because the various factors that comprise the formula have been predetermined within the ruleset. A +2 sword gives a +2 bonus because someone has decided that is what it is, not because there is an inherent actuality of fact. Therefore, one could surmise that any roleplaying obstacle that is possible to overcome via roleplaying has, let's say, a 50/50 chance to be overcome. If, in certain circumstances, an NPC needs convincing but it is an NPC with little patience, a shorter attempt at roleplaying rather than a long-winded attempt might increase rather than decrease the chance of success. Perhaps, also, the NPC has a trigger that gains automatic success, like offering a certain sum of money, and an automatic failure, such as mentioning the NPC's missing eye. This has always been the way roleplaying is handled and while it might appear at the table to an observer that it is subjective by examining the underlying process one sees that it has an objective basis even if it is not as numerically defined as a non-roleplaying situation. So it might work well enough if rules were then written that more clearly defined ways of delineating situations on the fly without requiring die rolls, e.g. NPC "Tom" needs to be convinced to loan his cart to PC "Karl" for some purpose. Tom has had past dealing with the PCs so start him at 70% likely to loan the cart. Karl mentions he will pay 20 gp on its return, so add 20 bringing the likelihood up to 90%. Karl also states that he will help Tom remove a tree stump in the yard which will otherwise require ten hours of work for Tom so add 10% more, beining the total to 100% and the cart is loaned. Each factor defined and seemingly as valid as a +2 magic bonus, a handful of hit points, or a reflex save. Now Karl is more accomplished and confident. Why should his success in this case not effect his combat as much as his success in swinging his sword effect his ability to climb a tree, or resolve a verbal dispute through diplomacy, or learn to shoot a bow while riding a horse? It's all abstract to a certain extent and ultimately just as easy to justify it in one direction as in the other if that is the goal.

 

[Mallus]

While that system had its own flaws, it was at least loosely linked to combat: in general you used combat abilities to kill things that had treasure, acquisition of said treasure result in the improvement (leveling) in the combat abilities. Makes a lot more sense to me than leveling my combat abilities for roleplaying.

This (kinda) makes sense for thieves and fighters. Wizards and clerics should gain XP through things like apprenticeship, study, and meditation. Unfortunately, those do not a game of fantasy adventure make.

A CRPG analogy is Oblivion.

Tangent: wait, are you using Oblivion as an example of a leveling system that works well? Didn't players resort to tricks like taping buttons down and running their characters into walls for hours on end? ie, it's a system that models tedium exceptionally well.

 

[billd91]

I wouldn't want to base a lot of advancement off role-playing as in speaking in 1st person, saying what you want the character to say, and all that. That's too subjective to me.

But what I would like to see in a game are chances to gain XPs for achieving progress related to a character's expressed motivations, desires, in-character long term goals.

That said, I'm generally not using specific XP these days. I'm having the PCs level up when it feels appropriate based on what they've accomplished so far.

 

[Haltherrion]

Tangent: wait, are you using Oblivion as an example of a leveling system that works well? Didn't players resort to tricks like taping buttons down and running their characters into walls for hours on end? ie, it's a system that models tedium exceptionally well.

Quite the opposite: as a system that let you level for non-combat skills but still pegged monster strength to your level, it could be rather nasty if you didn't manage your character right. First few times I played, I ended up leveling some support skills (like running and healig) and getting to a point where I couldn't progress because my character couldn't deal with the at-level fights. Shelved the game for over two years but when I came back it, I had more fun with it, despite its quirky leveling system.

I just cited it as an example of a system that allowed leveling for non-combat reasons.

 

[Haltherrion]

This (kinda) makes sense for thieves and fighters. Wizards and clerics should gain XP through things like apprenticeship, study, and meditation. Unfortunately, those do not a game of fantasy adventure make.

I'd definitely agree with that assessment: it makes sense for those classes and it's hard to make a game out of it.