(LONG)-Getting back to basics, role-playing?

[Janx]

Another suggestion I would make is: if what you're after is story, write a novel.

If, otoh, you want players to contribute to the game and drive action, avoid story like the plague. Story comes out as a result of play. If you're forcing a plot on your players, you're going to get nothing but players interested in combat. Why? Because it becomes the only part of the game where they probably feel they have any input. You see this in any game where the GM has a heavy hand and is forcing action to an inevitable outcome.

I agree with buzz on everything but this. But even on his point above, there's a balance to be stuck (which is where I believe his stance comes from).

If you literally write a story as the adventure, then yeah, it'll suck. It'll be a railroad. Players will hate it. If you let the players drive the action, odds are good, you'll just get a dungeon crawl. And those don't make good stories. Sure the time you killed a dragon using a toothbrush and a wand of wonder is funny, but that's not novel worthy material.

The fact is, if you want the players to enjoy a story, you've got to write the front half of the novel. Build interesting NPCs, get a few plots going that they players will get engrossed in. Then you've got to let the PCs drive the 2nd half of the story. You can't plan on how it'll end.

Based on that, if you want more role-playing and less combat, you've got to have NPCs and plots in a world that can't solve every problem by stabbing it or setting it on fire. To do that, will take some thinking and planning. Probably the biggest factor is NPCs gotta have secrets. And at some point, secrets gotta be found and shared. Getting the PCs to interact with NPCs verbally is how yer gonna get roleplaying to happen. Giving them problems to solve that fighting won't help will open that door. You might also want to give XP for roleplaying.

Think in terms of % for XP. It takes 13 encounters to level up (per average Monte-Math). If a game lasts 6 hours, and an encounter takes an hour, that's 6 encounters. That's also almost 50% of the XP needed to level in one session. Let's assume you like that rate. Let's assume you cut the fighting back to 3 combat encounters. That means 50% from fighting, 50% from say roleplaying. From here, you just gotta have cool ways to dish out XP. We know the leveling is level times 1000. We also know that combat XP is basically 300 times the CR. So here's some ideas:

give level times 100 points for playing in character. This means that for most of the game, we could see a difference between you and your PC, and it was consistent in form, and style. An accent, vocal patterns, word selection, etc. It doesn't have to be fancy, it just should sound like you with all the modern slang.

give level times 300 points for each encounter the PCs talked their way through that could have ended in trouble or heavy combat for the PCs had they not talked their way out of it.

Heck, the above is just a few ways to reward the non-combat aspects of gaming. But they could result in a change in mentality.

 

[Geoste]

And, I am certain, you will be told many, many times to come that it is your fault, and not the fault of the game. Not that the game rules don't influence players, of course, but....well, let's just say that the minute you suggest that X edition isn't perfect, the defenders of X edition rear their ugly head....

So true, Raven. I've been the victim of such low Comeliness types when I spoke of such blasphemies.

Will: At any rate, I feel your pain. I can see your position clearly. I agree that the rules can and do encourage players to play a certain way. Some of the fault does indeed lie in the system, but OTOH, I can see how you'd rather keep playing a widely and heavily supported game. I'm in the same boat.

Yes, there are better game systems out there, but the whole D&D thing snowballed into a massive thing. Inertia. It's to the point where the newer players have no clue about other RPGs - and most of those that do don't want to. Disgusting.

*stokes the campfire* Back in my day, when we played 2E - and even 1E! - we knew about other RPG games and we liked it!

Remember the old days when playing D&D didn't require you to lug a bunch of minis around? Or when all the books you needed could fit in a small book bag? Remember role-playing, not roll-playing?

You might also consider looking for 3rd party suppliments that help you to focus on the aspects of the game you want to...

Ah, here is my advice. Thanks Raven for the quote, but the answer is for Will: to discourage the whole "I want combat now!" mindset, I am now using Rolemaster's Arms Law combat rules for D20 D&D. I am talking about discouragement of combat by using something more realistic than the whole "I'm good, 100% until I fall below zero hit points" thing.

With Arms Law, no longer does a character have to wait until zero or less HP to fall unconscious. They can get their butts creamed on the first hit if an opponent gets lucky. Therefore, combat is not so straightforward anymore. It's more realistic and gritty.

Conversion is a cinch: for most bonuses, it's a straight +1 = +5%, and this can easily be done on the fly while you DM. Every point on the d20 is equal to 5%. I add an extra sheet for my players - a Combat Sheet if you will - and there is where I made all the easy d20 to d100 conversions for the PCs prior for play. Best of all, you can still keep playing D20 with all of it's supplements, adventures, etc.

So, the results I have gotten out of this speak for themselves: if a player is going to mindlessly charge into a battle where he is outnumbered, then he is an idiot that deserves what he gets (most likely killed). Arms Law will make the players think twice about such folly and mindless violence. I have seen players begin to PLAN things out, and to even consider if a fight is worth it or not... in other words, they began to roleplay, even if that roleplay was about decision-making an ambush or some such thing. Give it time and they will return to roleplaying other non-combat matters such as your plots.

BTW, before anyone mentions it: I do not buy into the whole critical fumbles disfavors the PCs thing (I limit fumbles to once a round per character anyway - all other times it is a normal miss).

That's my solve. And it worked for me.

-

 

[buzz]

I agree with buzz on everything but this. But even on his point above, there's a balance to be stuck (which is where I believe his stance comes from).

Right. What you call "the font half," I call "situation."

You present the players with a setup that is pregnant with crisis: a Big Bad looming in the background, a cult working behind the scenes, a barbarian horde en route, a prophecy dangling in front of those eager to exploit/thwart/ensure it, etc. Then you drop the players in, stand back, and wait for things to explode.

Granted, D&D (and, IMO, True20, C&C, HackMaster, HARP, etc, etc.) lives or dies by the encounter, and good encounters pretty much require prep. Ergo, why dungeons are such a good vehicle for D&D (& etc) play; players are free to act, but within some defined parameters.

So, I reccomend starting PCs at a point where there are clear goals and decisions, and the "plot" is already in motion. E.g.:

The royal family of BlackKeep is dying; a mystical disease is causing them to slowly die and then rise as ghouls. There are suspicions that the disease is a curse, as though the family is beloved by the people, they have many enemies. Should the line die out, the land will collapse into anarchy, leaving the West open to attack from the gnoll hordes, and the people of BlackKeep prey to the now-ghoulish family.

The court senechal suspects the curse is the work of the notorious blackguard, Revas Thulin, and his undead army. The high priest's divinations point to long-thought-dead magics that the lich Shatar-Khan was said to practice. The commander of the guard has traced the start of the infection to a poisoned goblet known to be the calling card of the Rogue's Underguild of BlackKeep.

The players: a pladin who is the fourth son of the king, and who will eventually succumb to the disease, despite his faith, if a cure is not found; the apprentice spymaster (rogue) of the guard, who has more ties to the Underguild than he's let on; the court wizard, servant of the senechal, new to the court and desperately in need of his master's apprioval if gold is to be pried from the king's coffers for an expanded library; and the novice templar (cleric), sworn to obey the high priest and purge the land of Shatar-Khan's blasphemies.

Ideally, you and the players helped come up with those concepts.

Anyway, you've got a clear problem and goal, but with a couple of obvious directions in which to go (and which you can prep in advance), as well as some interesting conflicts of interest. They key is to let go of the reins at this point, and let the players drive where the campaign goes next.

 

[buzz]

So, the results I have gotten out of this speak for themselves: if a player is going to mindlessly charge into a battle where he is outnumbered, then he is an idiot that deserves what he gets (most likely killed).

Have you altered how you award experience then? Because you're basically creating an incentive to stay out of combat/danger, and combat/danger is the primary way you earn XP in D&D.

 

[ValhallaGH]

So sorry for the long post but it's been on my mind as of late and I'm just wondering, how many others have had similar feelings and thoughts on the evolution of this game we know and love? Has anyone out there found a way to use the d20 system in a way that encourages less minis/combat action? Hell, do I just need to find a new group to play with perhaps?

Honestly, you need to redo the way you run/play your games.
People respond to what they get rewarded for. Combat encounters have two rewards: treasure/XP and coolness. The first reward is obvious. The second is that during the fight they get to use thier characters' abilities to the utmost, showing off how cool/strong/smart/etc their character is.
So why aren't they sucked in by your stories in the same way? Do your stories reward them? Do they get treassures and experience for participating in and advancing the story? Is it comparable to what they would get from killing stuff? Do your stories let them show off how cool and capable their characters are? Do they have a chance to dramatically alter the story, at almost any moment, by what they say and do?
When the stories are more interesting that the fights, not just because they are good stories but because the characters have a chance to make them unique, is when players start to say things like, "hurry up and kill it. I want to speak with the queen."


If you go through all the above and you still have the same problems then you may want to try some d20 Variants.
True20 comes to mind, since the rewards are for the story-arc completed, not the combats. Also, it's easy to convert most of your existing 3.X library to True20 games.

Alternatively you could try a different set of RPG rules. Maybe a completely different mechanical system will make it easier to shift the focus off of killing things.

By the way, have you read this article by Monte Cook? I always find it refreshing when I'm questioning the value of my current role-playing.

 

[sniffles]

Thanks guys! I understand that it looks a lot like the problem might just be me or my players and I thought so too for a while. When I had the same thing develop in a totally different group and had another friend who I don't game with even express a similar thought in passing I began to think differently. Perhaps a change up in a new campaign after a year break where I spell things out very clear right from the start- role guys, not roll...
I'll certainly look at Castles&Crusades as well, it sounds a lot like oD&D! Thanks for the tip!

Sigh. It's not the first time I've seen this complaint, and probably won't be the last. I don't have the history of gaming that some other folks on this forum do, but for as long as I've been playing everyone I played with has used minis and lugged around half a ton of books. It's not because the game made us do that; it's because we like it. If we decided we didn't like it, we'd stop.

I have played D&D 3E with nothing but the PHB and no minis. It's possible, and it can be fun. But everyone involved has to agree to do it that way.

It just makes me sad that folks always want to blame the game, as though the D&D police are coming to hold a gun to your head if you don't use all the materials. It's a choice. :\

 

[buzz]

So why aren't they sucked in by your stories in the same way? Do your stories reward them? Do they get treassures and experience for participating in and advancing the story? Is it comparable to what they would get from killing stuff? Do your stories let them show off how cool and capable their characters are? Do they have a chance to dramatically alter the story, at almost any moment, by what they say and do?
When the stories are more interesting that the fights, not just because they are good stories but because the characters have a chance to make them unique, is when players start to say things like, "hurry up and kill it. I want to speak with the queen."

Oh, freakin' BOOYAH, VGH! BOOYAH!!!

By the way, have you read this article by Monte Cook? I always find it refreshing when I'm questioning the value of my current role-playing.

A classic. My fave quote: "Vampire is a game where you're a vampire, and everyone else in the world is a normal human, but it's not for powergamers -- yeah, right."

 

[Raven Crowking]

At the risk of causing him a heart attack from shock, I will say that I agree with what buzz wrote about "situation".

Honestly, you need to redo the way you run/play your games.
People respond to what they get rewarded for. Combat encounters have two rewards: treasure/XP and coolness. The first reward is obvious. The second is that during the fight they get to use thier characters' abilities to the utmost, showing off how cool/strong/smart/etc their character is.

However, this is a system problem. If you want your players to become more involved in the role-playing aspect of the game, you need to model interesting role-playing encounters coupled with mechanics that both reward role playing and give the PCs cool "role-playing" abilities.

It is fairly obvious that, if you want the PCs to talk with things, you need to give them things to talk to. Moreover, you need to be careful in ensuring that talking to things is not always (or even often) detrimental, or they will always assume a set-up. At worst, most parleys should include a trade-off: the PCs gain a solid, tangible benefit in exchange for some information or owing a favor (that only very, very rarely should turn into a real bite in the keister).

The personality feats in Dynasties and Demogogues are an intentional attempt to create a role-playing reward system. I recommend offering a personality feat for free. Then only give Action Points for meeting the condition of the personality feats your PCs have chosen.

The DM always has the burden of leading. If you want the players to know what kind of cool options are available, you have to show them. Make NPCs who have cool non-combat powers. This might require you to create/scavenge feats that are a little less martial in nature.

The Core Rules of 3.X give a lot of cool combat options; it is up to the DM to equal these options in non-combat situations. Using, for example, complex skill checks is a good idea. There is a debate system in Dynasties & Demogogues, and a system in the Medieval Player's Handbook, that are both designed to use a resolution mechanic simular to the combat mechanics for carrying on political and/or philosophical debates. I haven't had a chance to examine Skill Focus: Talking yet, but I have heard/read good things about it.

In addition to this, the varient Vitality/Wounds system can help to take the focus off combat. Or you can use Arms Law, or anything that makes combat a bit more deadly and a bit less of the best option. Remember that overcoming challenges gives XP; those challenges do not need to be combat-oriented. In any event, slowing level progression has the benefit of making the game less about the twinks and more about the stuff that happens between getting new twinks. I recommend 1/2 standard XP.....

.......Just make sure that your adventures take into account whatever changes you make!

In any event, I hope those ideas help.


RC

 

[Geoste]

Have you altered how you award experience then? Because you're basically creating an incentive to stay out of combat/danger, and combat/danger is the primary way you earn XP in D&D.

Oh yes, I have altered the XP system very much. I award a base XP award amount based on Class Abilities (per use), Spellcasting (per spell), and even a Subplot XP award for players who bring something to me for their characters (if it includes other PCs, then it's worth more). Then it's multiplied by their level of experience.

I've also cut down combat XP by 1/4.

It works very well, and the XP from other stuff more than makes up for the loss in combat XP if a player roleplays wel enough and uses what his character can do (class abilities and such).

In fact, I have my XP Guide online (PDF; ~43 KB).

 

[Kormydigar]

This style of play only happens when the DM is willing to allow it. You sound like someone who has a lot of experience running games. The focus on only killing things happens if you allow it and reward such behaviour. I have run some games that started to get this way, and I know what you are talking about. I simply stopped rewarding that type of thinking by disconnecting xp and levelling from combat. If the players know that thier precious xp comes from roleplaying and contributing to the campaign instead of just smacking things then you will see a change in play style.