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

[Cadfan]

I tend towards the rules-lite end of the roleplaying spectrum. As a DM, I often forget to even ask my players to roll social skills. As a player, I decide what social skills I want to be good at, and then make sure I have a bonus in them. Then I don't feel bad when I use them without remembering to roll. Its the same reason I always make sure I have at least one good social stat. I know I'm going to end up being smart and tactical, regardless of my stats, so I make sure I've paid in advance.

If you want to see why social mechanics aren't necessary for a roleplay heavy game, go play Faery Tale with a couple of eight year olds.

 

[Ariosto]

One problem is that people mean different things by the term.

To me, rolling dice (or any other game-mechanical activity) is not role-playing. That does not mean it cannot inform role-playing, as (for instance) reference to Traits and Passions does in King Arthur Pendragon. However, manipulation of game mechanics is not the act of role-playing itself -- and the temptation to rely on it as a substitute can be detrimental.

What role-playing means to me can perhaps be adequately expressed with reference to two complementary aspects.

One is dealing with the imagined world from the character's perspective. Whatever takes one "out of the shoes" of the character lessens that aspect. To show a player a map of the whole dungeon when all Fang the Fearless knows is what his torch lights is contrary. To say when he proceeds further that he meets [insert stat block], or even just a name such as "bugbear" when Fang doesn't recognize it, is contrary; a physical description of the creature is what's appropriate. To have the player say vaguely, "I search for traps," and then get told by the GM (after a dice roll) what actions the character takes is contrary.

The more game mechanics become self-referential, disassociated from (or blatantly opposed to) attempts to depict the world, the more they become a distraction from engaging the world as if one were in it. More time spent dealing even with very "realistic" rules sets likewise means less time to deal with their referents.

Pretending not to know something because the character does not can be distracting from this aspect, which is primarily about imagining oneself in the situation. Nonetheless, it is likely to be necessary to some degree. I think the GM should avoid creating temptations for himself to tell players, "Your character can't think of that." If the players already know all about Monster X, for instance, they might not appreciate being forced to choose poor strategies on the basis of their characters' ignorance. Creative descriptions can help a bit, and new monsters can help a lot.

The second aspect is expressing the character's personality and character. Is Fang really fearless, or does he have arachnophobia? What does he believe and value? What relationships are important to him? What are his interests and tastes? Is he talkative or laconic? Trustworthy or unscrupulous? There is a world within a person, and exploring just a bit of it can make a character vivid.

This is accomplished largely by making decisions on the basis of such character traits. That can be hard if it conflicts with a notion of what a scenario is about. "You must rescue the Crown Prince of Prunkwald!" But Fang loathes Prunkwald and is not about to lift a finger even for the privilege of killing the Prince instead of letting Baron Von Dunkeldink do it. Then again, the Fearless One is quite impetuous in battle, disdaining "cowardly stratagems" and considering a death worthy of a ballad better than inglorious survival. That's not so great if others consider his reckless pursuit of glory as wrecking a game about careful tactics. In another game, the strategist who seeks to avoid needless fights might be the problem. "Why can't you play a warrior the right way?"

In general, I think the need is not for more rules to "support" role-playing but for the rules not to get in the way of it. Game-mechanical "rewards" are less a solution than the demand for such rewards as an incentive is a problem. "No Experience Points, no role-playing" does not seem to me an attitude conducive to more role-playing!

The matter of fights taking a long time to resolve, and of complex "character building" and "managing" focused on combat mechanics, seems to me something that can reduce the breathing room for role-playing. The RPG evolved from the war-game, and can easily devolve right back. Again, crunching numbers and rolling dice are not (by my definition) role-playing activities. They are, however, the main focus of most combat-resolution game systems -- and the trend at least in D&D has been to add more of them.

More generally, rules-heaviness has tended toward giving the answer of NO. No, you can't do that; no, you can't be that. Why not? Because that would break this balance, violate that "niche," etc., in the elaborate structure of game mechanics that takes precedence. There's an economy of game resources limiting options. To expand the options calls for more rules, which must thereafter also be taken into account. Some folks point to the introduction of the Thief class as the start down this slippery slope.

The bottom line is that the fundamental purpose of rules is just the opposite of "providing flexibility." Their function always is to limit possibilities.

That's not necessarily a bad thing; limiting options is how one defines a game. Working within more complex rules can add more interest to game-playing. It just is not so conducive to role-playing.

So, there are trade-offs; there's a best balance to find, the point differing from player to player.

 

[Thasmodious]

On the subject of roleplaying xp awards, I stumbled upon an idea that really helped me group a few years ago. My 3e group went through one major change where we lost a couple of players (my wife had given RPGs a 5 year try, but just never really got into it, and another player had quit gaming) and we added three new ones in a short period of time. The new group was a bit awkward RPing together, without having gamed together for some time, so I wanted to get things going. I've enjoyed individual awards for years, and an RP award was one of them, that I gave out. I decided instead to have the award handed out nightly, but by player consensus, rather than my call. It really helped. The guys started playing IC a lot more, that small element of competition and cooperation really pulled it out of them and got them comfortable playing as group. I'd still drop an on the spot award for something really cool, a rousing speech, an especially clever turn in a social encounter, etc., but there was always the award the players choose.

 

[FireLance]

To follow a little from Reynard's and Ariosto's posts, here are a couple of initial thoughts on what it means to roleplay a character:

1. Personality: First of all, a role-played character will have personality traits, likes, dislikes, beliefs, goals, etc. which will distinguish him from another character of race X and class Y, powers A, B and C, and feats D, E and F. Ideally, he should also have sufficient background to explain how and why he came by those traits, likes, dislikes, beliefs, and goals, either defined as part of his back story during character creation, or (even better) established during actual play.

2. Relationships: In addition, a role-played character will have relationships to other elements within the game world, such as NPCs, locations, organizations, etc. Ideally, these should go beyond basic relationships such as "place I'm exploring", "guy who gave me a quest" and "evil cultists I'm fighting". Friendship, loyalty, rivalry, affection, and even hatred can help to flesh out a character more fully, and integrate him into the campaign world.

3. Consistency: Finally, a role-played character will take actions and make decisions consistent with his personality and relationships. I think this is where system elements can sometimes interfere with or hinder role-playing, when the mechanically most optimal action or decision is not consistent with the character's personality and relationships. When another choice is significantly superior in a mechanical sense from the choice that would be most consistent with the character, it creates a great incentive on the part of the player to make the mechanically superior choice instead of the consistent choice. Incidentally, in the area of character creation and advancement, this is the basic argument why more "balanced" rules interfere less with role-playing: when each choice open to a character confers approximately the same mechanical benefit, the player will not feel that he is giving up much (if anything) by selecting an option that is more consistent with the character.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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

The GURPS system provides the player with the tools to define the character. When awarding character points for these games the GM shouldn't be basing the reward on how he/she thinks the character should have been played but rather how well played the character was as defined by the player.

Example: A player chooses the bully disadvantage for his character. During the adventure there are numerous opportunities to intimidate and browbeat various NPC's that are weaker than the PC, but the player ignores the disadvantage and is super nice and overly kind to those he could have stepped on. It was the player that got a benefit (10 extra character points) from taking the disadvantage, and it was the same player that decided not to roleplay the character he defined for whatever reason.

This doesn't mean that characters can never change. Over the course of a campaign a character can "buy off" certain disadvantages and/or aquire new ones that fit the experiences of the character. This is character development that is represented mechanically.

To look at things another way, rewarding successful in game activities (beating encounters, completing quests, treasure ect.) rewards metagaming and acting way out of character if these are needed to accomplish the goals required for the reward. Its harder to do roleplaying rewards in D&D that don't seem like rewards for playing the way the DM likes because there is no roleplaying/trait support in the system for character creation/development. This is why I believe that D&D does nothing to support roleplaying or hinder it.

 

[JediSoth]

A player of mine and I were talking about sort of this exact topic this week.

We recently switched to 4E and one of my players was complaining that under 3E, since there were rules for everything, he was free to do whatever he wanted; 4Es lack of rules for certain things were stifling his imagination.

The other player argued that the fact that there WEREN'T rules to cover everything should have been freeing and too many rules could stifle imagination.

So, it can go both ways.

Personally, sometimes I find that more restrictive rules can make me more creative as I try to find ways to accomplish what I want within the framework. But I also find less restrictive systems freeing because I don't have to look everything up; I can make up rulings on the fly.

So, I guess my answer to the OT is: everything and nothing.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

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.

Thank you for answering my questions.

I think I agree with just about everything else you said, so I didn't quote it here.

The one thing I still don't get is that I understand the above quote as, and I want you to know I'm not intentionally mischaracterizing you, "It's a roleplaying game because it has that name or 'tag'. Call D&D a 'pen and paper game' and it'll be dropped in terms of roleplaying to settlers of catan. Call Catan a 'roleplaying' game and people will step up."

Now I'll grant you that there's an element of truth to this, but I think it is a small element. In my opinion, different games/systems/editions HAVE to be better/worse for roleplaying. Of course, different people roleplay in different ways (I do get that), but different games result in different effects, I think (so game A might be better for roleplaying for me and game B might be better for my wife, but both games DO impact our roleplaying). Maybe that's not the sole component, or even the main component, but I still can't understand anyone who says "roleplaying is system independent". I'd like to, but I can't get that.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Thank you for answering my questions.

You are welcome.

I think I agree with just about everything else you said, so I didn't quote it here.

The one thing I still don't get is that I understand the above quote as, and I want you to know I'm not intentionally mischaracterizing you, "It's a roleplaying game because it has that name or 'tag'. Call D&D a 'pen and paper game' and it'll be dropped in terms of roleplaying to settlers of catan. Call Catan a 'roleplaying' game and people will step up."

That isn't quite what I intended. The important part is expectations, not the name, and these expectations are set up by a lot more than just the name. Things like tradition (people traditionally roleplay in D&D, but not in settlers of Catan), advice and suggestions set up in game texts (Settlers of Catan's manual has nothing but rules, the PHB and DMG are filled with setting and roleplaying advice), and other forms of communication between people who play such games sets up these expectations.

Basically, people learn how to play the game from other people who play the game, even if those other people are merely the game creators or random people on an internet forum. The more roleplaying is part of a generally accepted way of playing the game (which it certainly is in RPGs, but not necessarily in other kinds of games), then there is so expectation that people playing the game will roleplay.

If you really want to try to wrap your mind around this process, try looking at various games that fall somewhere between RPGs and Chess on the spectrum. In such games, the question of whether roleplaying is generally accepted or not is totally up in the air. MMORPGs are probably the most visible example, where roleplaying may be strongly encouraged and widely practiced in one place, but may be laughed at on a different server in the same game. Single player computer RPGs that let you create your own character, such as Fable or Fallout, also fall in that gray area, though it may be harder to get good information about different ideas of how roleplay in single-player games (and yes, I do believe that roleplaying can exist in a single-player environment).

Basically, roleplaying is part of the social side of gaming, so it is governed by social rules, not mechanical rules.

Now I'll grant you that there's an element of truth to this, but I think it is a small element. In my opinion, different games/systems/editions HAVE to be better/worse for roleplaying. Of course, different people roleplay in different ways (I do get that), but different games result in different effects, I think (so game A might be better for roleplaying for me and game B might be better for my wife, but both games DO impact our roleplaying). Maybe that's not the sole component, or even the main component, but I still can't understand anyone who says "roleplaying is system independent". I'd like to, but I can't get that.

Well, I suppose we will just have to disagree. As I said before, different kinds of games may affect the way some kinds of roleplaying are expressed, but I just don't think a set of rules exist that can either encourage someone to roleplay who doesn't want to, or discourage someone who really wants to.

 

[Ariosto]

I have not played Settlers of Catan (although I would like to), but I get the impression that it is appropriately described as a grand-strategic board game.

Such a game involves less flexibility than I associate with the RPG concept. Play is formalized and stereotyped to a greater degree, the focus is at a different level, and many things fall outside its scope. One can certainly bring some role-playing into it.

 

[Lanefan]

And to expand on FireLance's notes a bit...

To follow a little from Reynard's and Ariosto's posts, here are a couple of initial thoughts on what it means to roleplay a character:

1. Personality: First of all, a role-played character will have personality traits, likes, dislikes, beliefs, goals, etc. which will distinguish him from another character of race X and class Y, powers A, B and C, and feats D, E and F. Ideally, he should also have sufficient background to explain how and why he came by those traits, likes, dislikes, beliefs, and goals, either defined as part of his back story during character creation, or (even better) established during actual play.

And here's where the game itself can help. There needs to be a few pages in the PHB (or equivalent) devoted to personality ideas - both good *and* bad - and how to play them. Further, some random tables of personality types and traits (such as found in the 1e DMG in the NPC-generation section) should be included for those who can't think of where to start.

A non-mechanical fluff-only past professions table can help a lot too in this regard. If I find I'm playing an ex-farmer, my take on the personality might be quite different than if I'm playing, say, an ex-beggar or ex-jeweller or ex-slave.

2. Relationships: In addition, a role-played character will have relationships to other elements within the game world, such as NPCs, locations, organizations, etc. Ideally, these should go beyond basic relationships such as "place I'm exploring", "guy who gave me a quest" and "evil cultists I'm fighting". Friendship, loyalty, rivalry, affection, and even hatred can help to flesh out a character more fully, and integrate him into the campaign world.

This one's pretty much up to the DM and player involved; though again some guidelines and starting points in the PHB wouldn't hurt, this stuff is going to end up being different in every campaign no matter what.

3. Consistency: Finally, a role-played character will take actions and make decisions consistent with his personality and relationships. I think this is where system elements can sometimes interfere with or hinder role-playing, when the mechanically most optimal action or decision is not consistent with the character's personality and relationships. When another choice is significantly superior in a mechanical sense from the choice that would be most consistent with the character, it creates a great incentive on the part of the player to make the mechanically superior choice instead of the consistent choice. Incidentally, in the area of character creation and advancement, this is the basic argument why more "balanced" rules interfere less with role-playing: when each choice open to a character confers approximately the same mechanical benefit, the player will not feel that he is giving up much (if anything) by selecting an option that is more consistent with the character.

Where my take is there should be less of a penalty for making a "sub-optimal" decision. This is where rules-light has an advantage, because it seems the more rules-heavy a system gets, the more finely-balanced it is and that balance is based on the players/characters always making the optimal decision.

One way around this is to have some decisions have no mechanical effect at all, or at best *extremely* limited - e.g. the past professions table I mentioned above. Another is to simply remove many of the mechanics altogether, and go rules-light. A third is to remove the mechanics-based decisions - in other words, do like 1e and make each member of each class mechanically the same; thus forcing any difference to come via the role-played personality and-or in-game possessions.

Lan-"I had a personality once"-efan