what makes a system encourage roleplaying not "rollplaying"

[Humanophile]

The best way to avoid rollplaying or metagame thinking in a game is to package it with metaplot and atmosphere, and indundate the players with the idea that this is a story, that this is acting, that this is high drama instead of a simple game. White Wolf does this exceedingly well, and they've proven it to be a very effective sales strategy.

However, this tactic seems to end the moment everyone starts playing. There are several reasons that roleplaying is different from other forms of fiction, and one of them is the difficulty it has focusing on in-depth character motivation plots with a sole protagonist. I would love Vampire if their fiction and games played were anything like what the major sourcebooks hint at, but it's like the difference between Crow 2 and Crow 1. In order to do it right, you need an excellent group of players, and that caliber player could pull the same style off in Toon if need be.

You can also make the game highly deadly. In which case, you either encourage social interaction, or else you put your players into a situation where they're encouraged to strike first. Be aware, though, that by this logic high-level play is already "conductive to roleplaying": is there really much difference between a bullet that can kill you almost instantly, and a spell that can do the same?

One thing I would like to see is a tack-on rule for social acumen and background. Again, WWGS games come close here, but makes it too easy to "munchkin out" backgrounds, or else just dump the wad into the one or two of them that actually give you a numerical benefit. Still, if anyone's game to play around, I'd like to see something that lets D&D characters come in with a bit more cash, close friends, reputation, etc. depending on how they want to play their "background points".

But I guess all it really comes down to is both an initial world and a metaplot that make you think "wow, this is cool, I wanna be part of that". Which is all well and good, but which carries its own drawbacks. (Such as getting on your nerves when you need piles of sourcebooks to figure out what the latest one is talking about, or making people afraid to change things for fear of "messing things up".) I mean, if I want a specific flavor to my roleplaying experience, I'll look for games with rules that encourage that flavor, but there's something to be said for D&D's Saturday Morning Cartoon flavor, too.

 

[reapersaurus]

There are two major things in D&D which do not encourage roleplaying:

1) The skills system in 3E.
Between most classes only getting 2 skills/level and the whopper of a paltry list of class skills with most classes, it's a wonder that most players subtly get the idea that their PC's can't be creative, or branch out in new directions.

2) The lack of a flaws/merits game mechanic.
Complain about the powergaming aspects of quirks and the like, but you have to admit - it tends to make the player feel that their character is more than just stats listed on a paper.

 

[TalonComics]

Yeah, it really comes down to the GM/DM and the players.

The main problem with D&D is it has a huge power gamer base that play it. Heck, the Epic Level book proves that. I think there are plenty of game mechanics that can encourage roleplaying and I've seen some nice "How to Roleplay" intros as well that help.

In all honesty though before the game starts the DM should just flat out ask, what are your motivations for wanting to play in this game? If the players' answers don't match the DM's then that's a good sign there could be some problems.

Here are a couple of answers that I've actually gotten when running D&D:
Me: Okay, I need to get character backgrounds about your characters.
Rollplayer: You mean you want us to fill out the back of the character sheet?

Me: I'm trying for more roleplaying.
Rollplayer: Oh come on! This is D&D. There's no roleplaying in D&D.

~Derek

 

[Wolfen Priest]

I guess I have to admit to having been a little flabberghasted and/or bemuddled when playing with certain DMs who really want you to roleplay a certain way.

That is, the ones who want you to say everything your character says, word for word. Then they proceed to talk to you with a Scottish/English/Irish accent... and I'm going, "uhmmm, my character doesn't really have an accent. He's more of a Clint Eastwood type of guy."

Which of course throws the whole thing off, making the DM's NPC's seem like ren-fairre outcasts and bad play production rejects, and making my guy seem like a slightly overzealous psychopathic killer all at the same time.

 

[evileeyore]

Hmmm, system that most promotes Roleplaying...

The Award goes to Amber (the diceless game... Natch)

Hmmm, game that most promotes Munchkinising...

Tough call but I award GURPS hands down (I twist the rules for that game into incomprehensible pretzels and minmax the character much more easily..)

System that most promotes a Hacktober fest...

D&D.

and as nazgul said:

'The "back to the dungeon" philosphy isn't about baking pies, it's about finding orcs and stealing theirs.'

And in that mindset I think I gank his cool quote for my sigline...

 

[Henry]

The question is: if a totally new player, new to RPG's, computer RPG's, etc. were introduced to D&D, would they think the game was pro-combat or pro-social interaction?

Answer: Who introduced them to it?


D&D now has a strength that the previous versions lacked: it now has a clear-cut mechanical system for going either way. White Wolf doesn't have it - neither does Shadowrun, or many other social-heavy games.

With the same d20 rules, I can be an Elven bard at the King's Court, using my diplomatic skills to sway the tide of a nation, or I can be a Halfling thief who cons fat merchants out of hard-earned gold - and not a blow be struck. I can also take that Elven bard and Halfling Rogue out on the road and waylay any poor sap who comes along and take their money by force. And by the DMG Rules, I can get just as much XP as the Orc Fighter who takes down hill giants for his pay.

Show me another game that encourages activity in both directions. They exist, but they are few - many of them encouraging more social interaction than combat. It's all in the preconceived notions that one brings to a game, not how you are supposedly gaining XP, or how one person says, "this system only encourages combat."

 

[Wolfen Priest]

I just want to add that when I was stuck in a campaign with a really "roleplaying" heavy DM, I played a paladin with a 17 CHA, and his diplomacy skill was maxxed out.

Every encounter, I would have to roll a diplomacy check, and just breezed through everything. It was almost a joke.

So, for every type of game, there is a way to 'munchkinize.'

 

[shurai]

There are two major things in D&D which do not encourage roleplaying:

1) The skills system in 3E.
Between most classes only getting 2 skills/level and the whopper of a paltry list of class skills with most classes, it's a wonder that most players subtly get the idea that their PC's can't be creative, or branch out in new directions.

Actually, Reapersaurus, you should know that of the 11 classes, 5 get 2 skill points/level, 5 get 4, and one, the rogue, gets 8. 'Most' D&D classes get more than 2 skill points/level.

Also, its worth noting that the wizard is an exception, since they'll always have a good intelligence bonus. More generally, many characters are smart, so the average is probably 4 to 5 skill points per level.

Characters can 'be creative' and 'branch out' all they want . . . they'll just have to stop spending so much time learning how to smash things or blow things up and multiclass into rogue, ranger, or bard.

Remember, that skill point choices are in the context of class. If you want your fighter to learn how to be play the mandolin, all you have to do is take a bard level or three.

-S

 

[TalonComics]

I just want to add that when I was stuck in a campaign with a really "roleplaying" heavy DM, I played a paladin with a 17 CHA, and his diplomacy skill was maxxed out.

Every encounter, I would have to roll a diplomacy check, and just breezed through everything. It was almost a joke.

So, for every type of game, there is a way to 'munchkinize.'

Just because you can munchkinize it doesn't mean they have to allow it.

I've seen the same thing done with Bluff as well. A Rogue with nothing better to do can get a pretty ugly looking lying machine going where they could convince everyone in town they're pantsless. Heck, about level 13 you can do that. It's practically the Jedi Mind Trick.

~Derek

 

[FireLance]

I think it all boils down to what you consider to be roleplaying. Using skills or social interaction reduces combat, but less combat does not necessarily mean more roleplaying:

Player A: I try to convince the orc to give me the pie with my Diplomacy skill.

Equating roleplaying to no combat also means that people with big, dumb, fighting machine characters are automatically not roleplaying. This may not always be the case:

Player B: Bror, you gutted the goblins, bashed up the bugbears and smashed the skeletons. Why won't you fight the orc?

Player C: Humans beat Bror, drove Bror away. Bror would have died in snow. But orcs found Bror, fed Bror, taught Bror to fight. Bror will not fight orc.

Even in a non-combat, social interaction situation, there is nothing to prevent a player from "gaming" instead of "role-playing":

Player D: Vandar the Rebel hates aristocrats and has no respect for so-called authority figures! But just to be on the safe side, I bow to the Baron and let him have the last piece of pie.

There is no simple way to encourage roleplaying. Players either will or won't. Giving rewards for "roleplaying" only changes the nature of the game to one of who can act in the most consistent (or angsty, or self-conflicted, or whatever you encourage) manner. But is that really roleplaying? You decide.