What system elements promote and hinder roleplaying (inspired by "does 4e hinder ")

[Woas]

As others have said above me, I feel reward systems are a big motivator to roleplaying. One game I think that has one of, if not the best pro-roleplaying reward systems is Dogs in the Vineyard. The reason I rate the games reward system, and subsequently it's roleplay promoting ability, is that DitV allows a player to grow a character, even through failures. That might seem odd, but that simple little twist is what makes the system so roleplay friendly. It allows a player to really get into a character and roleplay the character's imaginary personally whether for better or worse and still 'gain' from it in game terms.

 

[Thasmodious]

Good Roleplaying is system independent.

In my experience no matter what the reward system may be, a person tends to ahve the same basic level of roleplaying with a rewards system or no.

Inspiration of the story element encourages good roleplaying. THis can be done in a complex system or a simple system. It all depends on the story.

This has been my experience as well.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't think there is a system that can actually hinder roleplaying. If the participants want to roleplay then they may do so with or without any system support at all.

Having said that, there are systems that support and promote roleplaying. A great example is GURPS. The GURPS system provides tools that promote roleplaying. The reward system is based purely on how well the player portrayed the character during the adventure. Success or failure at the adventure's goals is irrelavent to this reward.

Personality traits both good and bad are part of the basic mechanical character design and have meaning in relation to the system.

Despite all that support and good design, it is possible to play GURPS and not roleplay at all. It is a sad thing but I have seen it.

D&D has no actual system support for roleplaying but yet it happens all the time. Overall, regardless of the system its participant driven.

 

[SteveC]

To add on to what some others have said: I think that generally a simpler ruleset will encourage more roleplaying, but that tends to be because the system isn't there to fill in for you: you're talking and explaining what your character does since you don't have a "safety net" of mechanics to fall back on.

In some cases, that can be quite disconcerting: I've played and run a lot of Amber games, and you really have it all hanging out (so to speak) because there's barely a framework of rules to support you. I've found that these games are either exceptional or terrible with little room in between, and it's largely based on the "skills" of the participants.

It is possible for a more rules heavy game to encourage good roleplay, but I think those kinds of games are rare: Burning Wheel, for example is a very crunchy game, but I also think it encourages good roleplay.

The game I'd say is single handedly responsible for my being any sort of a roleplayer was the Hero system, which is anything but rules light. For me, the removal of the effect (what a power does) from its special effect (what it looks like) was a revelation that set me free of a lot of the restrictions that had come before it. I suppose its the sort of feeling that Mutants and Masterminds gives to newer players who mostly have experience with D20/OGL games.

So I'd say I mostly agree that a rules light system will encourage roleplay, but I'd say that it isn't universally true.

--Steve

 

[TwinBahamut]

I just can't wrap my mind around it being independent from the system. Sure, it's not decided by it, but, for example, I'd wager that while it is POSSIBLE to roleplay in Settlers of Catan or even chess, few would disagree with me if I said "Yes, but those games are not as good roleplaying as, say, Vampire, GURPS, or D&D (any edition)."

Or do those who believe that roleplaying is indepndent of system/edition claim that it really is equal? (I'm not being snarky- If this is the case, there must be a fundamental difference in how we define roleplaying or how we play those games mentioned; both sides-chess and catan and Vampire, GURPS, and D&D)

To answer these questions...

I don't think that the difference between D&D and Settlers of Catan in how much people roleplay is a mechanical difference exactly. There is a difference in how much people roleplay in those games, but it doesn't have a lot to do with the limitations or mechanical options in either. Rather, I think it has a lot to do with the expectations of people going in to the games. People go into D&D to roleplay while they play the game, and people typically don't go into Settlers of Catan expecting to roleplay. In this regard, you might say that the act of creating a character for D&D might be considered a mechanical incentive to roleplay, since it puts you in the mindset of playing a role (your character), but that might be the extent of it.

As for chess and such... for some reason a minor scene in C. S. Lewis' Voyage of the Dawn Treader comes to mind, where mouse knight Reepicheep keeps losing at chess because he is too busy replaying grand stories of valorous knights to remember to try to win. You don't see roleplaying in chess because, well, it gets in the way of winning, and chess is an extremely structured and competitive game with clear good and bad moves (clear to skilled players, that is, not necessarily clear to me ). I think there is a certain point where, if roleplaying and winning directly conflict, winning will almost always be put at a higher priority. That said, I don't think this applies very much to any RPG I have ever seen, because such games almost always allow numerous choices that are all equally valid routes to victory (unless you have a stingy railroading DM, which is fortunately rare).

Put simply, there are factors that affect how much people roleplay, but they come up in the comparison of RPGs to other forms of entertainment far more than in comparisons between different RPGs.

 

[Remathilis]

Having said that, there are systems that support and promote roleplaying. A great example is GURPS. The GURPS system provides tools that promote roleplaying. The reward system is based purely on how well the player portrayed the character during the adventure. Success or failure at the adventure's goals is irrelavent to this reward.

I'm not picking on you EW, but I have to question this.

Once upon a time, I gave XP for good role-playing. (This was in the dark days of 2e, when you needed huge amounts of XP to gain levels, kill XP was small, and gp=xp was an obscure, optional rule. It threw nothing off to grant bonus XP for roleplaying, snacks, DM bribes, etc). However, I began to notice a certain disconnect between what I viewed as "good" and what my players did.

In particular, I found that how my friends viewed their PCs and how I did differed on more than one occasion. Classically, there were debates on alignment (what I viewed as an evil act my player viewed as coldly neutral) but there were other discrepancies as well (as another example, a cleric of my game had a very different interpretation of "honor" than I did. Where I saw Sir Galahad, he saw Bushido samurai).

Mostly though, I found giving "good role-playing" XP began to equate to "playing in the manner I preferred" on a lot of issues. Thus, players whose styles more closely emulated my own tended to get more XP and thus started to be higher level. After this became apparent, I began giving a flat "good RP" award to everyone, which morphed from "reward for playing in character" to "showing up this week and not derailing gameplay".

Eventually, I dropped the reward entirely. It was so subjective, I began to question my own criteria for judging. Is a player who is an introvert (doesn't talk a lot, but shows up because he likes to be with his friends) being punished? What about someone playing a strong, silent type? Why should I be the one grading my PCs performances?

Since then, I dropped XP for RP and never looked back since. I occasionally grant a small "clever" bonus for very creative play, clever thinking, or outright sheer awesomeness, but the reward is modest and rare. Similarly, there is no penalty for "bad" role-playing, but PCs that are disruptive often get spoken to to promote PC and player unity (and fun).

 

[Reynard]

First thing first: in order to answer the question, we have to define the term "roleplaying".

It seems simple at first -- playing a role. But let's pick it apart a little.

What does "play" mean? "Play" is often associated with "game" -- does that mean when we are talking about "roleplaying" in an RPG we are discussing the game aspects, i.e. the mechanics.

What does "role" mean? Is "role" the same as "character"? Is "role" individual, or is it defined as ones place within the structure of the group or the game as a whole? If 4E has taught us anything, it is that "role" can have very different meaning than we might assume on first blush when we think "roleplaying".

Even if we define those terms, we have to consider degree: is the person who speaks in first person with a funny voice roleplaying "more" than the person who narrates his character's actions in third person, all else being equal? What about the people (most of us, I'd wager) who oscillate between the two during any given session or even encounter/situation/scene? And if speaking "in character" is roleplaying, what about wearing a funny hat to the game or prosthetic ears? I'm sure we've all seen or heard about the infamous episode of Jesse.

Is roleplaying limited to a singular character? If me and my little brother play D&D together and he runs 4 characters, is he roleplaying? And by the same token, is the GM roleplaying, handling so many characters at once?

What happens when the system demands an action or mindset? If your character is affected by a fear spell, is "pretending" to be afraid a prerequisite of "roleplaying" in that circumstance? And on the flip side, if the player is in an emotional state that the character isn't (ex: the player characters, all 1st level, encounter a rust monster for the first time), is he or she no longer roleplaying?

For the record, my answer to all of the above is, "It depends." To me, the only useful definition of "roleplaying" is whether a player chooses a course of action -- whether in combat or at the king's banquet table -- that he thinks his character would take (irrespective of whether he, himself, would take the same or a different action). All other issues are secondary and based on nothing more than preference and comfortability.

So, to answer the question: I think system matters, but only insofar as it might help or hinder the ability of a player to make a decision or choose an action for his character. Systems that rely heavily on meta-game effects that make decisions for players -- whether it's Exalted's Limit Breaks or 4E's encounter/daily mechanics -- hurt role-playing, and systems that open up player decision making -- whether it's Exalted's Virtues or 4E's skill challenge mechanics -- promote role-playing.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm still thinking about this, but I think that "roleplay" should have some kind of impact on the resolution of actions. Then I think you can say that your game promotes roleplaying.

Does it do that in D&D? Yeah. It's not just the number you get on your Diplomacy check. What you say also matters.

Does it have an impact in a game like Monopoly? Not really. When you pass Go you collect your cash no matter how you treated your board (or whoever pays your salary). Can you elect to waive rent to someone who lands on one of your controlled properties? I don't remember, but that could open a space for some RP.


I'm thinking that you need two things:

1. A solid resolution system
2. The ability to influence resolution through RP

That might require a DM - or rather, the authority traditionally given to a DM, however it's distributed.

I think what helps to really promote RP is to have resolution be affected by RP and have that feed back into the system somehow.

The best system I've played to promote RP is, I think, Sorcerer. You can't just roll your Will to do something; you have to describe your action, and the way that you RP it really changes things, feeding back into the system in all sorts of interesting ways.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm finding this discussion very interesting.

That said I, personally, prefer systems that are rules-lite regarding RP. I used to play (D&D) under a DM whose house rules meant that until level 9 or so, the bulk of your xp came from end-game role playing awards (oddly, the system didn't scale that well past 9th level, meaning that combat xp rapidly overtook role play xp later in his campaigns). Combat gave normal xp, it just didn't hold a candle to end-game xp until level 9 or 10.

It was under this system that I really learned to role play (there was always that one guy I was competing with for the biggest reward at end-game, even though over the years it wasn't always the same guy). Unfortunately, there were other players in those games who were often discouraged because they regularly received much lower end-game rewards than the two of us that vied for first place.

One character (not mine) in particular comes to mind. The concept was for a cool, silent type (sort of a heroic Silent Bob). He played it up well, using body language to convey his reactions, but generally remaining silent while in-character during that first game. When it came time for end-game, his RP reward was abysmally low. He asked our DM, obviously upset, why that was when he had stayed true to character throughout the game and the DM's response was, "Well, I really didn't see you role play much". He retired his character after that.

It was then that I realized that RP rewards are fairly arbitrary. You might say that it was a simple case of bad DMing, but in all fairness I can see his point. Why should the silent player be given the same rewards as those of us who were busting our asses (proverbially speaking) to role play? On the other hand, it's also fair to ask why was he being punished for playing his character according to concept.

It was then that it occurred to me that role play rewards can do as much to discourage good role play as they do to encourage it. It drew me, a generally introverted person, out of my shell due to my competitive nature, but at the same time it forced my friend to retire an otherwise cool character concept after a single game because that character's personality had a built-in xp penalty.

Since then, the compromise I've found is to keep role play rewards small and situational. Someone who does a good job role playing at convincing the barkeep to put it on their tab can get a +2 on the diplomacy check to convince him when the time comes around to roll. Just a little something to encourage role play, that can be tossed around like cheap candy to make sure that everyone gets a piece.

While role play rewards can certainly encourage good role play, I think it's important to avoid mechanics that can potentially frustrate or discourage players to whom role play might not come as naturally as it can for others. Of course, the make-up of an individual group (of players) will be as significant in this as any reward system itself.

 

[LostSoul]

One way I've heard about handing out RP awards is that the DM looks at the table as a whole - did the group get inspired, excited, entertained by the contribution? Then it's worth the award. He doesn't just consider his own feelings.