Compelling Storytelling

[Lylandra]

I think the bigger obstacles tend to be a sense that player/PC focused "story" is a "sidequest" that should be secondary to the GM's "main plot", which is often set up to be independent of any player/PC hooks. (This is the converse of [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION]'s point about sandboxes.)

Yep. Having your personal story feel like a sidequest that doesn't have any impact on the "main plot" feels demotivating for a player, especially if you carefully weave a lot of meaningful hooks into your backstory. I guess this is why a lot of posters here are skeptical about APs: Because they need careful planning from the GM beforehand in order to incorporate PC stories in a meaningful, organic way. In addition to the absolute necessity to know both setting and complete AP from the inside out so you don't kill your story before it even started.

However, it can be done when you communicate with your PCs beforehand and invest a bit of time. For my current campaign (WotBS, as I've already mentioned), I asked my players on which characters they'd want to play and offered them some story NPC for whom they could write up connections. After they chose their origins, I read a *lot* about these two backgrounds, their people, their history etc and thought about how I could weave these specific characters into the story so it would be about *them*. It took a lot of work and a bit of creative freedom, but I'm more than happy with the outcome. My players often say they don't know which stuff came from my pen and what originated from the "original AP" and I guess this is a great compliment for any GM

 

[discosoc]

But character development doesn't have to be about roleplaying in any theatrical sense. It's about character motivations, goals etc.

Right, but those motivations require actual input from the player at some point. For the last 10 years, I've encountered player after player that literally won't bother doing something that their character sheet doesn't explicitly state is possible. They seem to treat RPG's as a board game with long-term character advancement. Now that's probably fine in the real old-school dungeon crawl sense where the whole point of the game was to just kill monsters and gather treasure for "reasons," but the genre moved passed that way back in the 80's and 90's with better story-driven adventures and settings.

It's actually getting so annoying for me as a GM that I don't even want to bother writing adventures anymore, because I know anything less than a total railroad dungeon crawl with a token "puzzle" thrown in will just frustrate the players. It's not just my current group either; it's basically every group I've GM'd since about the time World of Warcraft got popular. Not saying WoW is at all related, only that it's around the time that I started to notice a trend towards players just really lacking the ability to pretend they are someone else for a few hours.

Maybe it's just the natural progression of things as a result of grid-combat style systems and an overall influx of new players applying the same "logic" to the game that they apply to video game RPG's (min/max with very restricted "roleplay")? I definitely have a few regulars who love talking about the latest "build" they found online for their next character, which always makes me cringe (one guy showed up with 20 character sheets for each level based on the weird paladin/warlock build he found online...). Could it be a side effect of modern RPG's attempting to turn every character detail into a mechanic with things like 5e's Backgrounds? I know when I break out rules-light systems such as Savage Worlds players often fall into the same struggles of not knowing what to do or how to do it because it's not spelled out as an ability.

 

[Imaculata]

You can't ever control player behavior, nor really should you. You can incentivize certain behaviors both socially and mechanically. You can offer opportunities for players to act. That sounds exactly what you are doing here. As a GM you have to bring it. It's up to the other players to bring it too. I kind of feel these introspective moments are best when they don't feel forced. Even choosing not to speak at the funeral could tell us something about these characters.

Exactly. Sometimes a player decides not to speak. Or they decide to perform a funeral rite, because they happen to be a cleric (which is a cool way to role play your class). Its all about the DM giving the players a good opportunity to bring it. There's no guarantee that they will of course, and you can't force these moments to happen.

Yep. Having your personal story feel like a sidequest that doesn't have any impact on the "main plot" feels demotivating for a player, especially if you carefully weave a lot of meaningful hooks into your backstory. I guess this is why a lot of posters here are skeptical about APs: Because they need careful planning from the GM beforehand in order to incorporate PC stories in a meaningful, organic way. In addition to the absolute necessity to know both setting and complete AP from the inside out so you don't kill your story before it even started.

As a DM, I rarely know if a PC's personal story it going to become a main plot. It usually starts out as just a side quest, but depending on what the players do with it, it could become so much more.

A great example would be in my current campaign, where a PC Druid has just met two of his Druid brothers, who teach him new things he didn't know he could do. He is slowly learning that the Druids kidnapped him as a baby, and thus became his new family. But through the connection that the Druids have with the fey, he is learning a lot of key plot information.

It's actually getting so annoying for me as a GM that I don't even want to bother writing adventures anymore, because I know anything less than a total railroad dungeon crawl with a token "puzzle" thrown in will just frustrate the players. It's not just my current group either; it's basically every group I've GM'd since about the time World of Warcraft got popular. Not saying WoW is at all related, only that it's around the time that I started to notice a trend towards players just really lacking the ability to pretend they are someone else for a few hours.

The group I play with plays (and has played) a lot of MMO's. They play WoW, Guild Wars 2, DDO, etc. But it hasn't affected their capability for roleplaying, because they've been playing D&D since 2nd edition.

I think a lot of these games are a gateway to D&D. It has made D&D more accessible for a lot of gamers. And truth be told, D&D can be enjoyed just fine with dungeon crawls and min/maxing. In fact, I think all of my players enjoy that aspect of the game too (which is why we're still playing 3.5, because of all the tweaking). But I understand that you want more than that. Some players will easily transition from computer games to role playing, and others will not. It sounds to me like you've simply been unlucky with your groups of players.

 

[pemerton]

For the last 10 years, I've encountered player after player that literally won't bother doing something that their character sheet doesn't explicitly state is possible.

<snip>

Maybe it's just the natural progression of things as a result of grid-combat style systems and an overall influx of new players applying the same "logic" to the game that they apply to video game RPG's (min/max with very restricted "roleplay")? I definitely have a few regulars who love talking about the latest "build" they found online for their next character, which always makes me cringe (one guy showed up with 20 character sheets for each level based on the weird paladin/warlock build he found online...). Could it be a side effect of modern RPG's attempting to turn every character detail into a mechanic with things like 5e's Backgrounds? I know when I break out rules-light systems such as Savage Worlds players often fall into the same struggles of not knowing what to do or how to do it because it's not spelled out as an ability.

Establishing motivations for a PC, and then acting on it, seems a bit orthogonal to the issue of "improvised" action declaration. Or focusing on PC build.

My players are pretty into build, and we play a fair bit of 4e (a grid-based combat system), but that isn't an obstacle to a game that is driven by player/PC motivations.

 

[Imaculata]

My players are pretty into build, and we play a fair bit of 4e (a grid-based combat system), but that isn't an obstacle to a game that is driven by player/PC motivations.

We play 3.5, but make ample use of grid based combat as well. It helps illustrate battle in which positioning and distances are very important. I don't think it has ever been an obstruction to our role playing, nor does it remove imagination from the game.

 

[Ratskinner]

I don't think that's true. In my campaign I set up such conflicts between npc's, and I put the players in a position to be involved with it. I have seen my players come up with inspiring dialogue on the spot, and awesome one-liners. All the DM needs to do, is put the players in the position to be the main character and shine. I will have my npc's turn to the players when they are afraid, or sad, and ask them for advise or comfort. Those are the moments when the players will often surprise you, and those can often turn into fantastic roleplaying moments. As a DM you simply need to put the players in a good position to be awesome.

You'll note my underlined use of the word "ensure". Your players are "biting" on the lures you're putting out. I've been in plenty of groups where that doesn't really happen very well (and witnessed plenty of "lures" get ignored from both sides of the screen.)

Perhaps more to the point, I think I may have accidentally misdirected you by including dialogue, as your paragraph seems to be focusing exclusively on the performance part of the roleplaying equation. When I brought that up, I was simply contrasting a professionally written medium vs. storytelling at the gaming table (especially with respect to the advantages that professional storytellers enjoy). The types of player activity you are citing above seem (IME) to happen more or less independently of the quality/depth of the story, and appear to correlate more with a player's personality than any other factor I'm aware of. Creating (or trying to create) dramatic tension by putting the PC's values and desires into conflict doesn't really require them to respond in the first person.

 

[Ratskinner]

Establishing motivations for a PC, and then acting on it, seems a bit orthogonal to the issue of "improvised" action declaration. Or focusing on PC build.

My players are pretty into build, and we play a fair bit of 4e (a grid-based combat system), but that isn't an obstacle to a game that is driven by player/PC motivations.

I've seen players who get that Improv=bad feeling from the combat rules and then translate that into non-combat as well. ("I don't have a skill for lying.") I couldn't say (in broad terms) how sensible, justified, or prevalent that is, but I'm absolutely certain it happens. I can certainly see how that can really trip up somebody trying to work a compelling story out of things.

 

[Sunseeker]

Right, but those motivations require actual input from the player at some point. For the last 10 years, I've encountered player after player that literally won't bother doing something that their character sheet doesn't explicitly state is possible. They seem to treat RPG's as a board game with long-term character advancement. Now that's probably fine in the real old-school dungeon crawl sense where the whole point of the game was to just kill monsters and gather treasure for "reasons," but the genre moved passed that way back in the 80's and 90's with better story-driven adventures and settings.

It's actually getting so annoying for me as a GM that I don't even want to bother writing adventures anymore, because I know anything less than a total railroad dungeon crawl with a token "puzzle" thrown in will just frustrate the players. It's not just my current group either; it's basically every group I've GM'd since about the time World of Warcraft got popular. Not saying WoW is at all related, only that it's around the time that I started to notice a trend towards players just really lacking the ability to pretend they are someone else for a few hours.

Maybe it's just the natural progression of things as a result of grid-combat style systems and an overall influx of new players applying the same "logic" to the game that they apply to video game RPG's (min/max with very restricted "roleplay")? I definitely have a few regulars who love talking about the latest "build" they found online for their next character, which always makes me cringe (one guy showed up with 20 character sheets for each level based on the weird paladin/warlock build he found online...). Could it be a side effect of modern RPG's attempting to turn every character detail into a mechanic with things like 5e's Backgrounds? I know when I break out rules-light systems such as Savage Worlds players often fall into the same struggles of not knowing what to do or how to do it because it's not spelled out as an ability.

From a personal perspective, it is from years of abusive GMs. And not just one or two GMs, but many over time. GMs who want to hammer you into their idea of how your character could work and get frustrated when you're not playing the way they think you should. GMs who want to keep you in a box so that they don't have to worry about you doing something that might upset the delicate balance, or just GMs saying "no" when you attempt to try something you think would be cool, unique and interesting. Or the worst of them all: DMs who will take advantage of you going outside your sheet to punish you. To twist what you want to do like they're some kind of demented genie so that they benefit and you do not.

I play what's on my sheet because the game says I can. Because I can hold fast to the idea that unless the GM wants to say "the rules don't apply except when I want to use them to my advantage" that I can always do what is on my sheet. If my sheet says I've got 5 attacks per round, I can make 5 attacks per round. If my sheet says I get to cast spells, then I get to cast spells.

If my sheet doesn't expressly say I can do it, in my experience you might as well not bother.

I prefer to play in a manner where I don't aak if I can do a thing. I simply do it. In my experience, stating "I do XYZ" has more often than not resulted in a disportionately negative response from the GM, therefore I limit my statements of fact "I attack this creature" to things I know I can do, such as use my action to attempt an attack with my sword against the opponent.

 

[Lylandra]

The group I play with plays (and has played) a lot of MMO's. They play WoW, Guild Wars 2, DDO, etc. But it hasn't affected their capability for roleplaying, because they've been playing D&D since 2nd edition.

I think a lot of these games are a gateway to D&D. It has made D&D more accessible for a lot of gamers. And truth be told, D&D can be enjoyed just fine with dungeon crawls and min/maxing. In fact, I think all of my players enjoy that aspect of the game too (which is why we're still playing 3.5, because of all the tweaking). But I understand that you want more than that. Some players will easily transition from computer games to role playing, and others will not. It sounds to me like you've simply been unlucky with your groups of players.

I'm still enjoying my weekly WoW and it hasn't changed my RP skills for the worse. But it has increased my focus on game balance and mechanics, because in a MMO you *have* to constantly min-max, simulate, tinker with your equipment etc. in order to be a "good player".

But regarding roleplay, on the contrary, MMOs have even helped me and my fellow players approach RPing from a different angle. If you ever seriously RPed in a MMO, you'd have soon realized that the engine does not really support your character's actions unless you only want to display awesome clothes and flashy effects. You are dependant on your creativity, wit and the openness of your fellow players to interact with you. Also, because the "real main story" is handled by the engine in a predictable way, you have to focus more on relationships and little details. I know at least one player who said that MMO RP taught him how to handle emotional roleplay and how to grow a character in small, personal steps.

 

[pemerton]

I've seen players who get that Improv=bad feeling from the combat rules and then translate that into non-combat as well. ("I don't have a skill for lying.") I couldn't say (in broad terms) how sensible, justified, or prevalent that is, but I'm absolutely certain it happens. I can certainly see how that can really trip up somebody trying to work a compelling story out of things.

There seem to be two ways this might happen (I'm not sure if you have one, the other, or both in mind).

(1) The player is thinking of doing X, but X doesn't seem to be covered by the rules of the game. "Actions the rules don't cover" is the language that 4e uses. I've personally not found this to be a big issue: Nature to take control of dinosaurs, Arcana to manipulate magical portals, etc. It does require the list of skills/powers to broadly speak to the genre concerns of play, so that the improv/extrapolation is relatively straightforward.

(2) The player is thinking of doing X, but the PC sucks at it - "My fighter has CHA 10! My wizard has STR 8!" For me, one test of the engagement of the players with the fiction is their willingness to declare these sorts of actions. I see it most often with the low-CHA, no social skill fighter in my main 4e game. The situation is unfolding such that the PC is not going to get what the player wants him to have - and so the player declares social actions to try to steer things back on course. The fighter is not just going to stand silent while his tricky, socially manipulative friends push the situation in a direction he doesn't want it to go!

Sometimes these actions fail. Sometimes the player (or another player) expends resources to turn what would have been a failure into a success. (More signs of investment.)

I see people complain a lot about (2). Rulebooks, too, often take for granted that (say) the bard PC will handle social situations. But to me this smacks of poor framing. Very few combats are designed and presented in such a way that only the fighter has to fight. The opponents engage the whole of the party, even the mage, and the onus falls on the players to use their resources to keep the mage from falling.

Social encounters can be designed the same way - not quite literally the same, insofar as they don't involve antagonists moving through space making literal attacks - but the NPCs can speak to the fighter, or commence doing things that go against the fighter's interests, and now the player of the fighter has to make the same choice the player of the mage does in combat - Do I just stand there and look stupid while they walk all over me? Or do I push back, even though - mechanically, and in the fiction - it's not quite what I'm built for?