D&D 5E How to force emotions down your players' throats?

[Lanliss]

Given the heated arguments on this website on what exactly is "role-playing" - can the player offer any insight into what they consider to fall under "better role-player"?

Just asked him.

"Playing more like my character, and acting like I am actually in the world."


I know the second is on me, I need to get more descriptive and interesting, but the first falls right in line with the advice I was hoping for, and got a lot of, in this thread.

 

[Lanliss]

Not always the case; some times our descriptions do not make sense in their mine they see something different had that happen several times

Also, something Iserith did not mention in his descriptions. He rarely makes these fact collecting actions actually cost an action. It is very similar to the normal Q&A style, but feels much more fluid.

 

[robus]

Just asked him.

"Playing more like my character, and acting like I am actually in the world."


I know the second is on me, I need to get more descriptive and interesting, but the first falls right in line with the advice I was hoping for, and got a lot of, in this thread.

Have you read @iserith's guide to adjudicating actions? The player might enjoy reading the player descriptions of their actions and gain some inspiration from those...

As far as playing more like his character that's a tough one. He should flesh out his character some more perhaps. Is the character brave and bold? Or timid and thoughtful? If he can keep some clear aspects of how his character might face the world that might help him choose actions that are in line with his role-playing goals. Backgrounds don't tell us much about the personality of a character.

Have him think about some events from his characters past that made an impact. How did the character respond to those fictional situations? Basically have him spend some time getting to know his character better (could be done in a 1 on 1 session with you - sort of like a therapy session )

But really I think it's a rare player who really role plays their character well, so this player should go easy on himself IMHO.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not always the case; some times our descriptions do not make sense in their mine they see something different had that happen several times

Or we simply don't want to spend 20 minutes describing every single feature of the room or area, and the players also don't want us to do that, and who even has time to plan that much detail out ahead of time, every time?

So, the players ask questions appropriate to the vague plans forming in their heads, and I answer.

Also, sometimes you describe things, and players don't have perfect short term memory. This is why I like drawing things out or using maps, but even then sometimes you can't tell/don't remember to draw everything, especially in a 3d sense. And we definitely play the game in 3d.
The "worst" I've seen with this, at the table, went vaguely like:

Player: How tall is the stairway, again?

DM:15ft, and it winds gradually, think ballroom more than tight spiral, to the south, here, ending in this area that overlooks the main room, with a rail about navel height to an average man.

Player: Ok, and do the rails up the stairway and on the landing look sturdy?

DM:<checks character's perception and investigate numbers, which in this case are quite good> Yep, not only that, but you've noticed in general that the place is in less disrepair than a cheaply built manor would be, abandoned so long. Unless I say otherwise, assume most stuff is still pretty sturdy, built to last.

Player: ok, sweet. I <describes what she wants to do, and how she wants to do it>

DM: Nice. Go for it. (it was pretty straightforward, and her description included what skills and features she'd be using at what points, all of which made sense with the game's action economy and other rules, except that she forgot to one aspect of jumping) You'll want a running start or some kind of vault for that jump, don't forget to leave enough movement in your path for that.

Player: MMMk, I think I'm good

<resolution of actions ensues, giant monster bear troll gone wrong thing gets rekt>

Her turn took a little longer than normal, but the payoff was well worth it.

Especially in 5e, which moves so much more quickly than previous editions, I just don't see the problem. I'd much rather my players feel free to ask questions in order to pull off crazy stunts and the like, than feel like they aren't "supposed" to interrupt the flow of the round to clarify things.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure, there are lots of reasons why a player might not understand the fictional situation as clearly as the DM does. However, that doesn't necessarily require the litany of questions I see at many games. Players can instead describe what they do to get the information they seek. "How tall is the tree?" is easily described as "I take stock of how tall the tree is." Or "Can I jump over the pit?" might be "Tordek tries to judge if he can safely jump over the pit." Or "Do I know anything about trolls?" can be "I try to recall what I know of trolls."

The information the player seeks gets imparted, but again, it's a difference between the DM and player having a Q&A session before play can continue versus the player describing what he or she wants to do and the DM narrating the result of the adventurer's action. The latter produces better results in my view, especially as it relates to the OP's goal.

I guess I just don't see how the two are meaningfully different.

Is it just about the players keeping their speech strictly "in character"?*

That's the only difference I can see. Either way, the question is being asked. Often, it's being asked because it's something that the character can just see, but the player can't, and thus the player has to find out, one way or another, what their character can see.

IMO/E, "How tall is the tree", and "I size up the height of the tree" are functionally identical. In many cases, such as the height of a tree, the information is entirely passive for the character, and thus the second method seems...almost cheesey and unneeded? Like, why am I "roleplaying" the "act" of having passively seen a thing, instead of just asking what it is exactly that I passively saw?

*obv by in character I mean not strictly OOC. Ie, "Tordek takes stock of how sturdy the railing looks" is still in character, in this sense. *

 

[Lanliss]

Or we simply don't want to spend 20 minutes describing every single feature of the room or area, and the players also don't want us to do that, and who even has time to plan that much detail out ahead of time, every time?

So, the players ask questions appropriate to the vague plans forming in their heads, and I answer.

Also, sometimes you describe things, and players don't have perfect short term memory. This is why I like drawing things out or using maps, but even then sometimes you can't tell/don't remember to draw everything, especially in a 3d sense. And we definitely play the game in 3d.
The "worst" I've seen with this, at the table, went vaguely like:

Player: How tall is the stairway, again?

DM:15ft, and it winds gradually, think ballroom more than tight spiral, to the south, here, ending in this area that overlooks the main room, with a rail about navel height to an average man.

Player: Ok, and do the rails up the stairway and on the landing look sturdy?

DM:<checks character's perception and investigate numbers, which in this case are quite good> Yep, not only that, but you've noticed in general that the place is in less disrepair than a cheaply built manor would be, abandoned so long. Unless I say otherwise, assume most stuff is still pretty sturdy, built to last.

Player: ok, sweet. I <describes what she wants to do, and how she wants to do it>

DM: Nice. Go for it. (it was pretty straightforward, and her description included what skills and features she'd be using at what points, all of which made sense with the game's action economy and other rules, except that she forgot to one aspect of jumping) You'll want a running start or some kind of vault for that jump, don't forget to leave enough movement in your path for that.

Player: MMMk, I think I'm good

<resolution of actions ensues, giant monster bear troll gone wrong thing gets rekt>

Her turn took a little longer than normal, but the payoff was well worth it.

Especially in 5e, which moves so much more quickly than previous editions, I just don't see the problem. I'd much rather my players feel free to ask questions in order to pull off crazy stunts and the like, than feel like they aren't "supposed" to interrupt the flow of the round to clarify things.

To be clear, Iserith's style accomplishes exactly the same thing, just with different words. Instead of "Do the rails look sturdy?" I would say "I check to see if the rails seem sturdy." Or "Lucien checks to see if the rails seem sturdy." I doubt it makes a difference to everyone, but so far it has made it much easier, to me, to stay in character in his games.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Players are different, as Robin Laws says. They aren't all actors or action-oriented. Sounds like this guy might be a tactician, to use Laws' category.

To put him into his character's shoes, you could try describing what he's experiencing in a very visceral way. The stink of rotting flesh on the ghoul's breath, his hair standing on end from a shocking grasp, his ears ringing after a thunderwave and so forth. But I wouldn't recommend it, I don't think he's that kind of player.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Some people just like playing games without delving deeply into theatrics.

 

[iserith]

Or we simply don't want to spend 20 minutes describing every single feature of the room or area, and the players also don't want us to do that, and who even has time to plan that much detail out ahead of time, every time?

I would view spending "20 minutes describing every single feature of the room or area" as much of a failure on the part of the DM as describing so little that the players must ask questions to have enough context to act. Surely there is a middle ground here where the DM gives the basic scope of options sufficient for the players to have the context to act and does so in a reasonable amount of time. Or perhaps you are just exaggerating for effect here? Though to what end I can't guess.

I guess I just don't see how the two are meaningfully different.

Is it just about the players keeping their speech strictly "in character"?*

That's the only difference I can see. Either way, the question is being asked. Often, it's being asked because it's something that the character can just see, but the player can't, and thus the player has to find out, one way or another, what their character can see.

IMO/E, "How tall is the tree", and "I size up the height of the tree" are functionally identical. In many cases, such as the height of a tree, the information is entirely passive for the character, and thus the second method seems...almost cheesey and unneeded? Like, why am I "roleplaying" the "act" of having passively seen a thing, instead of just asking what it is exactly that I passively saw?

*obv by in character I mean not strictly OOC. Ie, "Tordek takes stock of how sturdy the railing looks" is still in character, in this sense. *

I've explained it twice already in this thread: One is the player asking the DM a question and the DM answering. The other is the player describing what he or she wants the character to do and the DM narrating the result of the adventurer's action. The latter is in my view more in line with the basic conversation of the game as laid out in the Basic Rules and lends itself better to the flow of a story. And, at least in the case of the OP, it appears to make it easier for players to stay in character. @Lanliss says as much upthread.

From my perspective as a DM, when the Q&A is going on, the forward momentum of game play has stopped while the scene is being clarified, resuming only when the player has gotten sufficient context or pre-approval to act. Whereas when the player is describing what the character is doing, the momentum of game play continues uninterrupted, each action and result building on the next to flesh out the scene and create the emergent story.

 

[77IM]

Three words: Piss. Him. Off.

If you want players to act emotionally, anger is one of the easiest to trigger. The tricky part is, you don't want him to be angry at you, the DM; you want him angry at an NPC.

The whole "quest to eliminate Chaos" immediately popped into my head a Joker-esque character who taunts the PC and mocks his tactical approach. Some chaotic power keeps this guy alive. Ooooh, maybe a Rakshasa or other fiend; when they get killed on the material plane they just come back on their home plane, so he could continue harassing our PC protagonist for quite some time before the final takedown! And if you do it right, then when the PC finally eliminates their NPC rival, it should be very satisfying. Some of the most engaging and memorable role-playing comes from interacting with a villain that is "fun to hate."

Again, be careful not to overdo it and make the player actually be angry with you. Try to create an NPC that offends the PC's sensibilities somehow, but doesn't actually "harm" them in any way. Like, destroying all the PC's magic items will make the player angry, which is not what you want. You know your players better than I, so it's up to you to know which buttons to push. (Or not push -- if your player is very sensitive, maybe this whole approach is a bad idea.)