Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4720715" data-attributes="member: 710">I actually think this is a very good example. If you want to promote roleplaying, it must create a game reward and a way to success. For example, there are two "rules" in most RPGs that I use as an example.1) Never split the party.It's too dangerous. A single character has less chances to survive if he enters any kind of combat, and even other types of conflicts get either if there is help. But, there are actually valid reasons for PCs to go Solo. The Rogue that goes scouting, the Bard that seduces an NPC to get aid.So basically there needs to be a "rule" in the game that helps doing this.There is another problem with this - RPGs are played with multiple players, and if an individual player has the spotlight for a longer time, it tends to get boring for other players. So,you need something to "fight" against this. For example, the game might allow PCs to take over NPCs in any given situation (without it "breaking" the game, too.)2) No inter party conflicts.That's something that we all avoid, because it leads to splitting the party and weakening the overall group. But realistically, sometimes this can happen. But most people avoid it - and it also hurts the enjoyment of the game if sometimes, inter party conflicts turn into conflicts between players. If you want to promote something like this, you need to create rewards that help all sides and compensate for any disadvantages the conflict creates in other situations. ---I think the "guiding" principle I see in these two examples is that you need to distinguish between "character award" and "player award". A character isn't rewarded if he falls in love with an NPC and the NPC is later held hostage or killed. It's a terrible experience for the PC, and it gave his enemies power over him. He might lose money, his life or his love, he will fail at other in-game goals. But you can give the player a reward for going through all this, because he roleplayed how his character would act in this situation. If you want the PCs to run "solo", sometimes the other players will have to take over NPCs or other opposing elements. The rules will need to reward that player, too, while his character is entirely unaffected by the event.The biggest "disadvantage" of this approach is, that it lacks something some people really like, the "simulation" aspect of the rules. The rewards the players get don't model anything in the real world. They represent something outside the game world. But they will still affect the game world - the player can use this rewards to shape the course of the campaign - set stakes, take control over game elements, and so on.</blockquote>

Verification