D&D 5E Actors Having a Tough Time Roleplaying

[Knight_Marshal]

You could try have have them make characters that embody that one part that they wanted but didn't get as a way to allow them to act/RP and be the character they didn't get to play in a game where they can take him/her in directions the script wouldn't have.

 

[CanadienneBacon]

I argue for a living. When I game, which is a thing I do to relax, the absolutely very last thing I want to do is get into a rules debate around the table. I've left games without a second thought when the other players turned out to be very much into maximizing efficiency and arguing semantics about what characters could and could not do. I wonder if my situation is an analog for your professional actors. Like others have said, perhaps they want a break from acting.

 

[iserith]

They are roleplaying as long as they are making decisions for their characters in the context of the game. It sounds like your objection is that you want them to also be acting which is just a way to communicate that roleplaying. Perhaps they just don't want to communicate that way when playing D&D.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Hi All,

Looking for some advice. Hopefully this poor horse hasn't been flogged too much already. Will try to make this short. I'm running a converted Rise of the Runelords campaign in which I and three of the four players are professional actors. However, getting roleplay going around the table is pretty difficult. They've all been playing a very meta style of D&D for a long time so it's a new idea for them to really jump into the roleplay wholeheartedly. They've stated that they're enjoying themselves a lot, that they love this gaming style, and are always eager to get around the table, but once there, they really tend to slip back into the meta approach. I really don't want to corner them into playing the game in a way that they don't want to but the potential for really great roleplay is there (actors) and they claim that they're open to it.

What I've done to encourage rp:

1.) Had them all write backstories and have incorporated those into the campaign.

These can be fun and a source of inspiration IF the players enjoy doing so and are into it. Assigning this stuff as a requirement to play isn't fun.

2.) Made sure that I'm leading the way (actively roleplaying all npc's, combat encounters, descriptions, etc.)

It is always good to lead by example. Make sure that you are doing so because you enjoy it.

3.) Doled out inspiration for good roleplay.

Incentives can help sometimes but more often than not the players won't care or will just play stupid pet tricks to get a treat. Having fun role playing should be its own reward.

4.) Asked them to describe, "What does it look like when you X (finish the big bad, pass out drunk, etc.)

This isn't role playing. This is narration. It is difficult to do both at the same time without looking very silly. Role play is simply reacting to the imagined situation as if you were there. Thats all there is to it. Narration is far more "meta" than role playing. A narrator isn't living the action in the moment, he or she is describing events to others. So a player saying " I attack the orc with my short sword" is role playing just fine. The player is inhabiting the character and relating what he or she does in the moment.

5.) Asked them how their pc feels when X happens (they learn their father is still alive, etc.)

This can add some drama to a game but again, not a requirement for role play. If something happens in the game and the player tells the other PCs how he or she feels about something then that is great in-character dialogue. If the DM is constantly asking the players to share their character's feelings with the group then it feels more like a therapy session for fictional characters.

6.) Pointed them to videos of sessions which are roleplay heavy (Fistful of Dice's Provokers Campaign, etc.)

These can be great fun to watch. The good ones are really good because you can tell that the players are really enjoying themselves at the table. Role playing should flow out of getting that enjoyment. If it is forced then it won't be nearly as much fun.

7.) Written a review of each session in third person, essentially an ongoing fictional account of the campaign.

I keep a little journal of campaign events myself. This isn't for the players its for me.

Still. . . not much progress. As I say, they may just not be up for it, which is fine. But they keep stating otherwise.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thanks so much in advance!

Players will generally play in style that is most fun for them. Aside from showing them how much fun role playing can be, there isn't a whole lot to be done.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Our table inc me are actors too. Generally about half of the time/people are into RP, the rest of the time it's about playing the game and tactics.

I enforce a "what you say your character says" rule. That helps to maintain immersion but often is more of a rein. I think there is a desire to switch off tbh, which I totally get. However, those with most improv background tend to be more into the RP.

Would I like my table to resemble Critical Role? Sure I would.
Will it happen? Probably not.
Is it still good fun with a good chunk of RP action? Yep.
And the first part of that last question is the most important bit.
For your players, perhaps they don't want a busman's holiday. For you, it may be very hard to get the sort of acting you seek without there being an audience to play to - podcast style.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't getting into the particular style of roleplaying you describe because, being professional actors, they recognize that the "lines" they improvise are actually pretty bad writing. Good acting and good writing are not the same thing, and writing good dialog in particular is very, very hard. I for one do not enjoy the acting form of roleplaying, because most of the time what people come up with is pretty bad. I could see it being like fingernails on a chalkboard for professional actors.

The old advice for writers is "show, don't tell", and the same advice can be applied to roleplaying. Roleplaying through describing actions ("I'll remind him of his mother's last words" rather than "Remember what your mother said on her deathbed!") encourages the player to show instead of tell, and comes across a lot less awkwardly.

It also gives the players the "out" of not trying to dress up mundane actions when they can't think of anything good. Sometimes it's ok to just say, "I'll try to Persuade him" or "I attack with my sword." That moves the story along more quickly, and the more of the story you cover the more chances there will be for players to have a flash of roleplaying inspiration. I'd encourage them to focus on those flashes, and dispense with the...dispensable.

I play in some Play-by-Post games, and some players narrate every combat round in-character, often with several sentences. Reflecting on it now, I can't recall the specifics of a single one of those posts. They're just not very interesting, and they don't actually contribute to the story.

Forcing a player to roleplay that way every time they contribute becomes a meta-game of "can you stay in character?" but doesn't often actually generate good storytelling.

 

[Imaculata]

I enforce a "what you say your character says" rule.

I've always disliked such rules. That is why I simply ask my players:

"Does your character actually say that?"

Players discussing their thoughts does not need to break immersion. If anything, it shows that they are invested. I allow them to discuss out-of-character for as long as they wish, without taking any of it as IC talk.

I trust that my players can play out their characters fairly, and ignore any information that their character wouldn't have. It is perfectly fine to draw a clear line between what the players know, and what the characters know. My players have shown to feel more comfortable when they aren't being forced to be immersed at all times. It allows them to talk about the story during the game, and openly discuss their opinions and thoughts regarding certain characters. This is valuable information to me as a DM.

 

[cmad1977]

If people are having fun... Stop worrying.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

[MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] my players will take time out to formulate complex plans and have elaborate discussions in the middle of a conversation with an NpC or a battle...I do it to remind them that they can't just break off and talk amongst themselves without the NPC noticing and reacting accordingly.

If I didn't do it it becomes not a role playing game but a strategy board game with a really crappy board.

 

[iserith]

An argument could be made that the discussion among players as to what they will do as a team isn't actually happening in the game. The characters are skilled adventurers that have worked together before so, in the game, they're just acting in a manner that reflects this. The players, however, have to discuss and plan among themselves. I think if there is an objection to this, it's that it's not a speedy enough conversation and it bogs down play. To that end, encouraging the players to accept and add onto ideas rather than negate or debate them is a good idea.