Seeking Advice: How to motivate players to role play more

[Roger_the_jolly]

The thing to do is to get your best two roleplayers into a smaller game, outside of your weekly session, and get them playing characters that are as well thought out as they can be. Then you need to really get them firing and interacting and you need to do some really deep roleplaying that has nothing to do with stats.

Then, with their help, gradually, bring more and more roleplaying into your main game.

The DM is also very important; if you set loads of combat challenges then you won't get roleplaying; you will get wargaming. The PC background is quite important for roleplaying as well, because it is very hard to play a character if you don't have a clear idea of them. Most players' characters are not that well thought out in many cases.

I honestly think that many roleplayers have never actually seen much roleplaying, so how can they be expected to know how to do it?

Thanks, this looks like a very practical piece of advice.
I need to think about how to implement it, but a glimmering of an idea already beckons

 

[Mouseferatu]

Some (I tentatively suggest most) players just love to play it as a game and are not really interested in immersive roleplay.

As DM it's not my job to lead the players into something they're not interested in. It's my job to make the game as fun for them as possible. If they don't want to roleplay, I'm not going to make them roleplay, so I choose the missing option: I don't need to motivate them to roleplay because it's their game, not mine.

You know, while I agree with part of your point--that it's not the DM's place to force players to RP if they don't want to--I strongly disagree with parts of it as well.

It is as much the DM's game as anyone else's--more so, in some ways, since he puts more work into it. Everyone at the table needs to have fun and enjoy the game, including--perhaps even especially--the DM.

It may not be the DM's "job" to make the players play a certain way, but neither it is his "job" to run a game of a type he doesn't want to run.

 

[Roger_the_jolly]

Some (I tentatively suggest most) players just love to play it as a game and are not really interested in immersive roleplay.

As DM it's not my job to lead the players into something they're not interested in. It's my job to make the game as fun for them as possible. If they don't want to roleplay, I'm not going to make them roleplay, so I choose the missing option: I don't need to motivate them to roleplay because it's their game, not mine.

I have to disagree with you (maybe not surprisingly since I start this thread).
I think the same logic can be applied to saying most people should not learn how to swim since they don't ask to be taught. I think that deeper roleplaying enhance the suspension of disbelieve (also negates the need to suspend anything when you become involved) and create better fun for all involved. I think interactive with 6 people is better then interactive with 2 (player and DM).
BUT, I'm willing to accept your opinion as right for players that have tried deeper role playing and have found no appeal in it. For these kind of players war gaming is the thing I think.
The problem with some players in my groups is that they don't seem to try at all even once to see what will come of it - they create very shallow (not to say childish) characters with little or no background and play them like a boxing glove.

Now, these people are my friends and out of game they are great friends. I don't want to chide them too much in game, and anyway I don't think negative input is a way to encourage learning, but they do ruin part of the fun for all the rest of us. So, I'm hoping for some way to maybe have them learn a bit of doing things differently.

 

[Dlsharrock]

Something you professed to in your common DM mistakes thread seems quite pertinent.

IME a DM who doesn't describe scenes well and doesn't immerse him/herself in NPCs creates situations that lend themselves well to combat driven XP hunts. Not a bad thing. I sometimes prefer such games. But if you *want* deep roleplaying I would suggest you begin by immersing your players in the setting with good descriptions and leading the way with believable, deeply roleplayed NPCs. As Ydars said, some players may have little to no experience of roleplay in the sense you're suggesting, so your example might give them the inspiration they need. This advice only works sometimes. Some players just don't like deep roleplay

edit: (just remembered this) Having said that, I once played a 'joke' game about zombies attacking a bus where the DM kept his descriptions to a bare minimum and the game was supposed to be a quickie bit of fun, but the PCs on the bus were able to interact so well that it became an exercise in deep roleplay. So the actual situation may also be important. In this case all the players were stuck together with nowhere to go, so conversation and character exploration was the only option. My point is, to take my advice with a pinch of salt though there may be a grain of truth within that salt.

 

[med stud]

Create a relaxed environment, give positive feedback, say "yes" a lot. That will work for shy players or players that are afraid of making fools of themselves.

Let it sort itself out; if you try to force roleplaying it won't happen. See above about uncomfortable people.

Go in with an open mind. Good roleplaying can be like the Icelandic Sagas with a curt, short style full of understatements and black humour. It can also be like Shakespeare. Both of them are viable for creating a good story.

I have had a bunch of new players recently and that's what seems to be working.

EDIT: I wouldn't involve XP- carrots as motivation. If you get good roleplaying going it's a reward of it's own.

PS: All instances of "you" is the generic "you".

 

[Fallen Seraph]

While it is hard to make some players into roleplaying, and it isn't the best to use mechanical reasons to do so.

IF you wish to do so, one manner of such would be to create overarching "milestones" (not the 4e mechanical milestones) for each character. The players don't know about them, but they fit the goals and personalities of the character.

When the player has the character complete a milestone in their characters life they gain some manner of benefit, most likely some sort of feat (with feats being less powerful and more character fluff in a way it is somewhat more balanced and fitting).

This can promote roleplaying in that the players have to act out and be centred around their characters goals and personality to eventually come across the milestones you the DM have laid out.

This idea, is originally from Promethean: The Created, but the mechanics/reason for it has changed greatly.

 

[Roger_the_jolly]

While it is hard to make some players into roleplaying, and it isn't the best to use mechanical reasons to do so.

IF you wish to do so, one manner of such would be to create overarching "milestones" (not the 4e mechanical milestones) for each character. The players don't know about them, but they fit the goals and personalities of the character.

When the player has the character complete a milestone in their characters life they gain some manner of benefit, most likely some sort of feat (with feats being less powerful and more character fluff in a way it is somewhat more balanced and fitting).

This can promote roleplaying in that the players have to act out and be centred around their characters goals and personality to eventually come across the milestones you the DM have laid out.

This idea, is originally from Promethean: The Created, but the mechanics/reason for it has changed greatly.

I'm not sure this will work for me. IME I've found that giving obscure rewards (obscure in that the players don't know how to achieve them, they just pop into existence at one point) is not a good way to promote play.
Players start to hunt around to see what will provoke a response and the game as a story just stops.

But the idea of having a character milestone set by the player and DM according to the player written background is very appealing to me. I think that other then a sense of accomplishment I would reward said player with some in-story reward like a nobility title or renown or something else that is both ego-warming and could serve as a hook for more things to come.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well, I guess it depends on the players, the idea is more. In real life you don't actively go seeking for a life-changing event, or try and provoke one, it simply happens.

So the idea is, that through the players simply playing their characters they may come across a life-event that is a milestone in their characters life and as such gain some kind of benefit. Feat in-game would represent the knowledge/experience gained from that event taken form.

In-game rewards like titles and renown would be seen as part of this life-event.

 

[Heselbine]

I have to disagree with you (maybe not surprisingly since I start this thread).
I think the same logic can be applied to saying most people should not learn how to swim since they don't ask to be taught. I think that deeper roleplaying enhance the suspension of disbelieve (also negates the need to suspend anything when you become involved) and create better fun for all involved. I think interactive with 6 people is better then interactive with 2 (player and DM).
BUT, I'm willing to accept your opinion as right for players that have tried deeper role playing and have found no appeal in it. For these kind of players war gaming is the thing I think.
The problem with some players in my groups is that they don't seem to try at all even once to see what will come of it - they create very shallow (not to say childish) characters with little or no background and play them like a boxing glove.

Now, these people are my friends and out of game they are great friends. I don't want to chide them too much in game, and anyway I don't think negative input is a way to encourage learning, but they do ruin part of the fun for all the rest of us. So, I'm hoping for some way to maybe have them learn a bit of doing things differently.

With respect, I think your approach is a little arrogant. You seem to be saying "I know best".

My players DON'T want an immersive role-play experience, in general. I've tried. I love immersive role-playing. Some of the best games I've ever had have been those. But I have stopped trying to lead my players because it's simply not what they want.

I think you are in danger of alienating your players by assuming you know what's best for them.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think this would backfire badly if only some of the players are interested in immersive roleplaying.