D&D 5E 5e should include roleplaying incentives as a module.

[Umbran]

Not really, since it reinforces the idea that your character's goal is the same as the player's goal--it encourages you to think as your character, since you and your character want the same thing.

That only holds if gaining gold was the player's goal, which is not a given. Instead, XP for gold stipulates that now the players really need to have gaining gold as their goal, and whatever goals they actually wanted can go hang.

 

[Weather Report]

Pleasantly over-simplified to appear witty and slightly snide ('cause snide is all the rage these days), but lacking all the complexities and nuance of real-world social interaction.

Wow, how snide, thanks.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

A friend of mine expresses concern that getting mechanical benefits for bringing weaknesses into play encourages artificial role-playing in the form of picking weaknesses just for the benefits. He cites people doing exactly that in new World of Darkness games.

 

[Manbearcat]

A friend of mine expresses concern that getting mechanical benefits for bringing weaknesses into play encourages artificial role-playing in the form of picking weaknesses just for the benefits. He cites people doing exactly that in new World of Darkness games.

People focus on motive when it comes to metagaming regularly with respect to roleplay (eg is the person in Pawn Stance and just treating their PC as disposal or as a means to trivialize challenges with no regard for the fiction or is the person in Author Stance and trying to compose a coherent narrative/backstory with respect to character actions). There are all kinds of motives to metagaming and there are various consequences stemming from these motives. What is important is "does the outcome of this metagaming enrich the overall play experience of the table or compromise it?" Put another way, does it comport with the genre conceits/logic, spotlight sharing, and challenge expectations (authenticity, type, difficulty level, etc) that the players and the GM are hoping for/working towards? If those things are accomplished by the metagame mechanic (not only not compromised but perpetuated), does an examination of the underlying motive of a singular metagame action (eg an accepted complication, or even an invoked one, for an advantage/asset later) or a portfolio of them matter?

I think gross metagaming that makes a mockery of the genre conceits/logic and/or the spotlight sharing and/or the challenge expectations is problematic and is either a system blind-spot/hole or a player problem. If it creates bad fiction (spinning bowties and clown shoes in a grim game) or makes for a genuinely bad time for a player at the table, then you have a problem. But I think you can safely compartmentalize the two scenarios away from one another.

 

[sabrinathecat]

Role-playing is its own reward.

I want them to concentrate of writing GOOD modules. So many of them suck. Or in the case of the Scales of War, the writing is grossly uneven, with brilliant adventures, and crap ones--with great, challenging encounters, and horribly written skill challenges that just make me want to throttle someone.

We need modules and adventures. Lots of them. Put some time and effort into them. Really. Go for quality and quantity.
Publish Dungeon Magazine again, as a printed book.

And make sure that the modules are consistent with the rules! Can't tell you how many typos and errors there are. I figure there are at least 10 in any given mod. Anything from a missing comma to the details of an attack power being missing.
And of course, the all time favorite: close blurst. What the heck is a blurst? Is it a blast or a burst?

 

[VinylTap]

There are logistical problems with making "perfect" products. Getting both quality and quantity is a goal I'm sure, but the reality of working for a company you've got deadlines and budgets.

 

[cmbarona]

For what it's worth, I like the idea of the game rewarding good roleplaying, I'm just not sure how to implement that in D&D. I played an extended World of Darkness campaign many years ago, and at the end of every session, I was subjectively rewarded for good roleplaying with a few experience points (those points are much rarer in that system). This simple facet of the game was enough to motivate me to make and act out characters with distinct and dynamic personalities, goals, methods, etc. I became better at roleplaying and better learned just what it is the more I did it and got rewarded for it.

 

[Ratskinner]

I've seen this a great deal. I don't know your personal experience, but mostly, I see it from folks who have not given something like (FATE-based) "Spirit of the Century" or its like a good try. In practice, some of these mechanics work smoothly enough that they blend in seamlessly to the adventure - the mechanics you're calling upon are things that are closely tied to who or what your character is. In D&D, you may say, "I get +2 on my roll because I have Obscure Feat #17!" (as if this isn't somehow metagame?). In another system you may say, "I get +2 because I'm, 'The best shot east of the Mississippi'!" In effect, it can be more immersive and adventurey than the usual D&D counterpart.

I tend to agree on the effect. However, I also think that works better in games with generally simpler mechanics.

 

[Ratskinner]

Even simpler is Fanmail: Put a number of chips on the table. Whenever any participant finds a contribution delightful, he or she can hand out a token.

That way it's not only the GM's job.

Old School Hack calls these Awesome Points. I think they work quite well for a D&D style game.

 

[Ratskinner]

Why would it need to be mentioned in an adventure at all, though?
In my experience (a few sessions of Legends of Anglerre), it leads to people making choices because "that would be a cool thing to happen," not because "that's what I/my character would choose to do to maximize my/his/her chances of success." (Or, even worse, making a metagame choice that benefits their character, like "I spend a fate point so the bad guy has a cool sword") I'm talking specifically about the fate point mechanics here. I am perfectly willing to accept that I'm wrong on this count; I haven't really played many games like this.

I must admit to bafflement. One big purpose of aspects is to make sure that "that would be a cool thing to happen" and "that's what I/my character would choose to do to maximize my/his/her chances of success." are the same thing. Are you objecting to that premise on Simulationist grounds?

Not really, since it reinforces the idea that your character's goal is the same as the player's goal--it encourages you to think as your character, since you and your character want the same thing.

XP for killing monsters, on the other hand, does incentivize metagaming (unless your character is a genocide enthusiast).

So my character has an aspect Things should just stay dead!. I might invoke it to get a bonus against undead critters. I might get compelled when somebody goes for a Raise Dead or Resurrection. This is different from another character who has an aspect of I'll kill every zombie I see. These express (in part) the characters' goals and encourage the players to act on those goals through compels and invokes. This seems to me to be precisely the opposite of metagaming as you're describing it.