Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 236246" data-attributes="member: 4937">1) A richly described setting in the core source material.One of the problems D&D has always had in encouraging role play is also one of its strengths.  D&D lets you play the game you want, where you want, how you want.  However, as a result, players generally know very little about the setting and don't feel compelled to richly dress thier character in background to fit themselves into the setting.  Vampire is a good example of the opposite approach.  Most of the core material is about the setting.  So, between being set in something that superficially resembles the real world and having this rich background, players are strongly encouraged to envision complex stories for themselves.D&D really doesn't have anything like this.  Not only are the settings available  in extra material only, but typically the settings are really shallow - especially when first introduced.  Years of developement have yet to make Forgotten Realms even remotely deep.   Greyhawk is by and large no better.  Krynn always felt  like a one shot setting.  Spell Jammer was silly.  Dark Sun felt silly and munchkinish.  Ravenloft was cludged together.  No one seemed to pay much attention to Bloodright, so why should TSR spend money on setting?Now, that isn't to say that a RP heavy campaign can't done in D&D or even in any of the official D&D settings (even FR), but it does mean that to a certain extent it is up to the DM to push the characters into doing that, flesh out the worlds, and provide this information to the players to use in filling out thier background.  I would expect to spend a couple of hours working with each player answering questions about my setting so that they could get a good feel for what sort of options they had in character background.  The more you make a player think about his character the better.2) Lethal CombatIf the combat system is particularly lethal, players are strongly encouraged to avoid combat.  And, if they must avoid combat, then they must find other things to pass the time than roll dice and kill creatures.  Call of Cthulu hack and slash anyone?  When's the last time you saw a CoC character without a background and personality?  Power gamers tradiationally don't play (and don't enjoy playing) games like CoC or Paranoia.That is not to say that you can't have an RP heavy game with a combat system that encourages combat, just that you have to have the right players to do it.  It is also not to say that a CoC game necessarily features deep RP.  It's quite possible to play CoC with a group of problem solvers and get nothing but metagaming conversation and investigative dice rolling.3)  Rules within the system that expressly reward good RP (or penalize bad RP). Vampire is another good example of this.  The willpower mechanic forces a player to strive to achieve certain roll playing situations so that he can restore his all important will power.  If you are playing a 'care giver', then you have a strong impetus to give care in a fashion that is very evident to your referee as good roleplaying. The D&D system is still somewhat hampered by the age of the system.  Although 3ed. went a long ways toward incorporating more modern approaches and rules, the one explicit RP mechanic in the game is still primitive and if anything got weaker.  That mechanic is of course, the much maligned alignment.  Of course, it always seems like alot of the reason it is maligned is most people don't seem to understand what it is and isn't.In my experience, the more the player maligns alignment as a restriction to RP, the less that player really wants to RP no matter what he says.  Basically, those that hate alignment almost always want no restriction on how they play so that they can game and not roleplay.  IMO, They should play neutrals (the unaligned) and stop bugging people.That is not to say that alignment = personality, and choosing an alignment does not constitute a background.  But, I do think that it gives a mechanic for the DM to punish and reward roleplay.  In first edition, Gygax explicitly linked alignment behavior and class behavior to eligibility to advance a level.  In his campaigns, presumably, failure to act 'in character' meant a larger outlay in gold peices for training and more down time in which the character was not available for adventuring.  Although Gygax had a rather simple notion of what 'in character' meant (all fighters were natural leaders and brave for instance), this was still I imagine a somewhat effective means of making his players stick to a consist set of behaviors.  Horrible violations of stated behavioral norms had even a bigger penalty - loss of level and alignment change (which could be bad depending on what class you were supposed to be).I personally feel that you should give XP 'story awards' to characters who complete major story arcs for thier own characters.  Just like you award the party an XP bonus for finishing an adventure, award players an XP bonus individually for accomplishing something important to themselves or otherwise adding to the interest of the campaign.  (As an aside, I'm very much in favor of halving combat XP whether you do this or not.  3 ed. just advances too fast to really savor being a particular level.)However, no matter how well constructed the system is, all of this is irrelevant compared to two much more important things: the attitude of the DM and the aptitudes of the players.   If the DM roleplays his NPC's, creates deep personalities for his NPC's, creates an intriguing setting, and forces the characters to enteract in ways other than combat, then RP will usually.  ON THE OTHER HAND, there are simply players out there who won't roleplay no matter how much encouragement you give them.  You can sit certain players down in the middle of any number of roleplayers, and no matter how long they associate with them, they won't understand what the attraction is or why the other players aren't min/maxing thier characters. That's just the nature of the game.I know this is long already, but I want to mention that I disagree with those that say the skill system (or lack of it) is necessarily an impediment to role play.  The real advantage of an elaborate skill system is it starts a player thinking about his character, who he is, what he wants, how he has lived and what he has done up to now.  At least, that is how it should work in theory.  In practice, power gamers will simply look at which skills are most likely to come into play (particularly in combat situations) and choose those with no reflection on who thier character is.   Ultimately, having a lot of skill points to spend does nothing to encourage the creation of a well realized character.  Skill points are simply another way of defining 'what you can do' just like combat abilities and spell casting, and do nothing to spell out 'who you are'.  A fighter can be perfectly deeply realized without alot of explicit skills.   For example, Boromir, Faramir, Gimli, Leoglas, Merry, Pippin, Denethor, Theoden, Samwise Gamgee, Thorin Oakenshield, Bombur, Balin, and Turin are all clearly fighters (and possibly all have similar alignments!) but are all clearly distinct characters with different personality traits.  Sure, that Sam can cook is a character quirk, but its hardly sufficient to describe him or his goals in the world.</blockquote>

Verification