Weem’s DM Tips for RP Prompting and Immersion

[Hussar]

I know in my current gaming system (Sufficiently Advanced) the mechanics dump a HUGE amount of power in the player's laps. I have one player who really isn't all that comfortable with it. She keeps asking if she can do this or that before trying.

I keep telling her that it would be much better if she simply declares what she's going to do, and trust that her understanding of the mechanics is sufficient to draw her own limits. If she wants to do X and X is cool and X is fitting with the character, then she can do X.

It's a really different feel than something like D&D where everything is proscribed by the character sheet.

 

[fba827]

Interesting post, even though I'm a player who never DMs -- well, not since 1980 anyway. Teach me to spend all my time over on the 4e Rules forum!

Regarding backgrounds and such: I always feel selfish when I try to get the party to do something that advances my character's long-term agenda. I know the game is not all about me or my characters, but I think I probably overcompensate -- a lot. Suggestions for me or my DMs?

One thing I did with an older group when I used to DM regularly -- the first level at the start of the campaign would actually be broken down into a miniadventure for each PC (individually) with the other players being NPCs that tie to the focused-PC. Culminating in the PC getting to some point that would tie in with the other PCs. Thus the campaign with the group as a whole would begin at 2nd level (where 1st level was everyone's 'semi solo' adventure).

Example: The person playing the paladin would play his own PC, while everyone else played some premade clergy-type NPCs. The paladin's player had in his background that he is a local hero to everyone except the sheriff who never liked him. So, for the miniadventure, this paladin with NPCs would then go off to find the missing townsfolk, and in the course of doing so may get a clue (that is inconsequential at the time but leads to something that makes sense in the later campaign plotline) and the sherriff might have either been involved with enough deniability to save himself or else he is just miffed at the paladin for stealing his spotlight.

Next session the rogue player who wanted his background to be about being on the run for a murder he didn't commit might have him trying to flee some area, with the NPCs all being other convicts (if they escaped from jail) or just travelers that he tried to 'blend in' with..

And so on until every PC had their own 1st level adventure.

Sometimes they would each last half a session, other times it would be an entire one-to-two sessions for each PC... but it was important that each PC had the same length everytime we did this in order to not show favorites. Of course, we often had at least two PCs have some sort of relation (it was players who were brothers so they often had brother PCs or "old friends" etc and they'd plan spells and feats that worked well off of each other) so they'd have their miniadventure combined into one.

It really brought to life everyone's personal goals and made it a) real to the player rather than just words on the background, and b) saw how it tied to the grander campaign arcs


It worked fine for that old group, but I am sure it would not work all groups since some people would scoff at the idea of needing to play an NPC, or playing when the narrative is strongly dictated by the primary PC of that arc. So I wouldn't advise such a tactic for all groups.


But also keep in mind, some DMs may have plans for your background that may just not have come up yet (but they are there)... but then there are other DMs that generally forget/dismiss it if it doesn't come up fairly early in the campaign. So it's really as much as thing with the particular player and how vocal they are (possibly at the detriment of other players), what the DM has is remembering, and what the campaign direction allows...


edit: that ended up being much longer than i meant it .. sorry for the wordiness

 

[Hussar]

fba827 - I like the idea, but, I'm not sure about the time requirements. I have a group of five players. To do what you're suggesting would require me to spend five or six sessions of pre-game play. That's a pretty big chunk of time for me.

I wonder if cutting it down to a much, much smaller thing would be better. Each PC gets a talky bit and an encounter (not necessarily combat). That should take about an hour to get through. If the encounters were all connnected somehow, you could have a shared experience.

For example, in the beginnign of the WOTC module Rescue at Rivenroar - the module starts out with the town of Rivenroar under attack by bad guys. (Not really a spoiler since this is actualy the very first scene of the module) You could split that up a bit so that instead of the party being all at the same location, they could be at separate locations, each dealing with a separate part of the attack, culminating an a larger encoutner where all the PC's arrive at roughly the same time.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Bookmarked. Nice.

I've recently learned to roleplay more during combat because my D&D Encounters DM is running the sessions like a boardgame.

I've come up with a combat gimmick for my Githzerai Monk, Dak. He fights with a bottle of wine in his hand. (Monk's don't need to spend their starting 100g on armor, weapons, or books, so I spent all of mine on wine bottles). His signature move is the Drunken Monkey.
The flavor text on a power should be treated with equal importance to the power's effects!

I feel the same way playing some LFR games. I play a priest of Waukeen (trade) - actually an invoker with cleric multiclass.

For Hand of Radiance - I throw coins at monsters, and tell them to go away.
I also use Waukeen's Buyout: " Ill offer you 5 THP and a shiny gold piece, if you dont attack me or my friends for a bit. If you do, ill have to smite you" I dont actually recall the printed name of this power -its his l3 encounter.

 

[weem]

One thing I did with an older group when I used to DM regularly -- the first level at the start of the campaign would actually be broken down into a miniadventure for each PC (individually) with the other players being NPCs that tie to the focused-PC. Culminating in the PC getting to some point that would tie in with the other PCs. Thus the campaign with the group as a whole would begin at 2nd level (where 1st level was everyone's 'semi solo' adventure).

I have actually done that in my campaigns as a transition from one tier to another.

From a post I made 1 year and 11 days ago (oddly enough)...

The campaign I currently run, we have played 17 sessions... after the 18th (next weekend) the group will likely be splitting to get a number of different things done in time for a large event. So, after the next session, we will be planning "individual" games where, for example, one weekend we play the path of the Fighter, at which point the other players will play NPC's involved in his storyline - another weekend will be for the Wizard, etc etc until they are done and meet back up which will be one session for each player.

These worked out REALLY well. One of players (the one playing the Fighter) has since told me that his individual game in that campaign was his favorite game ever as a player of D&D (and he has played for a long time, many editions).

I highly recommend this approach (either during a campaign as I have done, or at the beginning as fba827 has mentioned). If you have time that is....

fba827 - I like the idea, but, I'm not sure about the time requirements. I have a group of five players. To do what you're suggesting would require me to spend five or six sessions of pre-game play. That's a pretty big chunk of time for me.

He might do them in pairs perhaps (or into smaller chunks as you later mention). I will be doing that with two of my players whose characters are really close (also to cut back on time spent).

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I wonder if this hits on something. I know I tend to kinda grind my teeth when the players won't pony up and start advancing their own goals. Could it be that the players are looking for some sort of sign or permission that they can put themselves forward like that?

I mean, just about every "good player guide" out there tells players not to hog the spotlight. To be polite and not dominate the game. I wonder if players take this a bit too far and become almost afraid of "being a bad player" by trying to take a bit of control.

I also wonder, thinking about the groups I have played with, if this explains a bit about why one or two players can so dominate a group. If one or two players doesn't feel bad about putting a foot forward, and the rest do, that player becomes the one eyed man in the land of the blind.

Sure, there are players out there who just aren't interested in getting behind the wheel, but, I wonder if there aren't at least just as many players who are too polite to drive.

Not sure how to deal with that.

The last group I DM'ed was a group of eight players and I found myself running into that very question. The way I handled it was to take a little bit of time during a session advancing individual story lines for the three players who were quite obviously ready to roleplay and grab the spotlight for a bit. During the next session, I tried to draw some of the other players out by providing hooks and scenes directly related to items from their PCs background, Doing a bit like Weem in his description of a scene, addressing the relevant player while facing them directly, so there was no confusion that for the moment, the scene was all about them.

I ended up drawing a couple of players in, dipping their toes in a bit. I then (off line) encouraged my three very active roleplayers to see if they could help those players by interacting with them in role, in game. It worked to draw them out a bit more when it wasn't just them being in the spotlight, but was an active thing between the players.

The other players I found just were not into or not at all comfortable with the more active roleplaying side of things and just were there for socialization or to kill stuff. We talked about it and they were fine with letting the roleplayers have their fun, as long as they got what they wanted out of a session as well.

I miss that group.

 

[Janx]

drawing on the points about "not hogging the spotlight":

at one point in my B5=D&D naval campaign, as the campaign shifted, a PC was put in charge of the fort.

I advised him, to be more like Captain Picard, in delegating, rather than bossy to the PCs.

He interpreted that, to when something would happen, he would turn to an NPC and direct them to take care of it.

Unfortunately, what i meant was, to delegate to another PC, thereby bringing them in on the scene.

Part of my thinking was, the reason Dr. Crusher is on the away team, is because her player showed up at the game table that day. Whereas Brent Spiner had a tummy ache and couldn't play Data, so Data stayed on the ship.

In improve theater, one of the tricks they use is to try to move the scene in a way that brings in the other actor standing there on stage with them.

For an RPG, when a player is pursuing a personal goal, they should try to bring the other PCs into the scene. Either just to discuss it, or to eventually help with it.

Basically, players have a responsibility, while the scene is still about them, to incorporate the other players so it becomes a group scene.

 

[pemerton]

Basically, players have a responsibility, while the scene is still about them, to incorporate the other players so it becomes a group scene.

4e tackles this in the combat context via the use of combat roles.

It still needs work, though, in relation to skill challenges. Does anyone have experience of running skill challenges in such a way that the spotlight expands in the way Janx is describing? What techniques did you use?

 

[Janx]

4e tackles this in the combat context via the use of combat roles.

It still needs work, though, in relation to skill challenges. Does anyone have experience of running skill challenges in such a way that the spotlight expands in the way Janx is describing? What techniques did you use?

You've actually taken my point to an area I hadn't given much thought to.

I assumed, relatively speaking, that if the party was in a room with monsters, everybody was probably involved in the fight if they weren't dead or something.

I had been thinking about talking scenes, where the PC is pursuing his "personal goal", and could easily do so with out the other PCs, but has an opportunity to bring the PCs into it so they WOULD be there when a fight or other such scene came up.

For example, Bob wants to go check in with a contact who used to know his father, so he can learn how he died. The party just got into town from the dungeon. He could just say, I split off from the party to go do this. Or he could say, "hey Jack, I've got some personal business that I could use a man to watch my back."

Suddenly, there's another player in the scene, so now two, instead of one players are actively involved for a few minutes.

And Jack, could easily say, "Sure, I got yer back. But you know, if this busineess is dangerous, maybe you should tell us about it, and we can be even more prepared. heck Wyatt's got spells he could use to spot trouble."

Basically, the players, in the interests of always getting to do stuff, support other players in their personal goals, versus forking the party and having dead time.


Now for what Pemerton is implying, Skill Challenges to me strike me as "the best man for the job" gets to roll dice, while everybody else stands back, or at best "lends support" for the +2 bonus. I haven't seen 4e's definition of a skill challenge, but the concept seems to be "a situation that requires the use of a skill".

I would bet, that the way to incorporate more people, is to make a challenge have multiple steps, with different skills, and potentially, simultaneous skill usage in order to suceed. Basically Bob has to roll a Balance, while Jack does a Climb on top of him, to reach higher.

The other part to solve, is that a skill challenge doesn't get stuck on a simple die roll. Making a situation that has multiple diverse skill solutions means that Bob gets to try his way with his skills, then Jack gets to try if Bob fails (or perhaps they both try at about the same time, if there's no reason not to try both).

 

[weem]

Thornir Alekeg: said...

The last group I DM'ed was a group of eight players and I found myself running into that very question. The way I handled it was to take a little bit of time during a session advancing individual story lines for the three players who were quite obviously ready to roleplay and grab the spotlight for a bit. During the next session, I tried to draw some of the other players out by providing hooks and scenes directly related to items from their PCs background, Doing a bit like Weem in his description of a scene, addressing the relevant player while facing them directly, so there was no confusion that for the moment, the scene was all about them.

I ended up drawing a couple of players in, dipping their toes in a bit. I then (off line) encouraged my three very active roleplayers to see if they could help those players by interacting with them in role, in game. It worked to draw them out a bit more when it wasn't just them being in the spotlight, but was an active thing between the players.

The other players I found just were not into or not at all comfortable with the more active roleplaying side of things and just were there for socialization or to kill stuff. We talked about it and they were fine with letting the roleplayers have their fun, as long as they got what they wanted out of a session as well.

I miss that group.

This is good stuff here, and I underlined an important aspect of it - have those who are mroe experienced/comfotbale with RP-ing draw the others in. Janx: mentions something like as well about players bringing other PC's into the scene.

In my current campaign, all four of my players are great roleplayers (I picked them for this campaign for that reason), but even if this is the case, it's good when PC's can bring others into their stories when possible and remember that their story is still theirs, even if there are others along to help out.


pemerton: asked...

It still needs work, though, in relation to skill challenges. Does anyone have experience of running skill challenges in such a way that the spotlight expands in the way Janx is describing? What techniques did you use?

I don't really run skill challenges the way they are described to be run. I do not structure them at all in fact. I have been meaning to make a thread about it actually...