I prefer to reward 'good' role playing rather than punishing 'bad' role playing. I also try to keep a wary eye out so the rewards do not ultimately become a punishment for players that may be less adept at role playing.
This mechanic sounds a bit heavy handed to me and subject to the same different interpretations that has plagued Alignments since their inception. People inclined to role play will likely do so with out this sort of mechanic being incorporated. People not so inclined will buck at this hinderance.
|
Like any tool of the DM, when used a bludgeon it can be bad. However, If all at the table agree to it and think it would help, then it can be good thing. I know I wanted to stop using swear words, and I asked my wife to keep on me about it. Others may have felt, looking on from the outside, that she was "nagging" me about it. However, I agreed to it and wanted to change that behavior. It worked.
So, if the players are having a hard time "staying in character" in a game that frowns upon OOC, by all means use it. If the game is more casual, then don't. It's just one more thing a DM can use or choose not to use. Offering the option in the DMG2 is a good idea.
Didn't Luke Crane do this in Burning Wheel or Mouse Guard as the "angry" condition? I've never played any of his games firsthand but I know I heard something very similar on an actual play recording once or twice.
I actually really like the idea because it does something 4E tends to shy away from: letting the fiction dictate the mechanics. It does seem like an overly harsh penalty, though. I'd keep maybe half of it. Maybe.
For most games, I probably wouldn't use it. However, if we were playing a decidedly roleplay heavy game and the players had clear and important motivations for their characters, I may introduce the mechanic, but not as a stand alone. I would make it part of a larger group of overall mechanics that encourage staying true to one's motivations. In some ways, following one's character motivation would be a "game" in itself, as I would introduce temptations to break away from that motivation. Players would have to find the right balance of following their character's motivation and stepping out of it, just as in real life people sometimes have to compromise their goals and values because the real world is messy. Players, of course, would need to agree to such a game.
|
|
There's another mechanic someone pointed out where if you roleplay for 15minutes and it advances the story you get an XP reward equivalent to a monster at that level.
I see the potential for abuse or at the very least whining when the PC acts IC and the GM says no to the reward...
"But its in the DMG2!"
There's another mechanic someone pointed out where if you roleplay for 15minutes and it advances the story you get an XP reward equivalent to a monster at that level.
I see the potential for abuse or at the very least whining when the PC acts IC and the GM says no to the reward...
"But its in the DMG2!"
Do they [the author] define "Roleplay" to advance the plot, are they talking about IC, OoC, coming up with an idea, plot hook? Because that sounds a strange mechanic ?
If a PC talked for 15min, as i DM i might feel they were hogging the spotlight, rather than helping out.
Surely story awards, or action points are better rewards than XP.
|
DMG2 has introduced a roleplaying mechanic a la what you see in WoD. Basically, if you act OOC or ignore your motivation, you are considered "DISTRACTED".
A DISTRACTED PC suffers from one or more (or even all) of the following
*Grants Combat Advantage*
* Takes a -2 penalty to saving throws*
* Loses one healing surge after each rest*
* Cant regain action points*Until either the character reverts to his behaviour or it is seen as a logical growth of the character, the penalties apply.
Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about this in D&D....In D&Ds history, the only true roleplaying mechanic was the paladin code of conduct/ divine characters code of conduct (doing a Chaotic Evil act if you were Neutral Good didn't affect your character at all other than a possible change in alignment)
I've always done a Spockbrow with regard to such roleplaying mechanics so what say you? Yea this is a good thing for roleplaying or Nay, such mechanics actually hinder roleplaying.
I haven't got my hands on the book yet, but I was thinking that this was more of a combat state. To deal with players at the table who aren't paying attention.
As a GM I hate when a player who hasn't been following the flow of battle since there last turn. Who demands a summery of the last 15-20 minutes of actions, and drags everything to a stop (never mind any cross table chatting that might have been happening while they weren't paying attention distracting others.)
I think a great mechanic here would be -2 to your actions, and your delayed by 2 on the initiative, as your character is distracted.
Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about this in D&D....In D&Ds history, the only true roleplaying mechanic was the paladin code of conduct/ divine characters code of conduct (doing a Chaotic Evil act if you were Neutral Good didn't affect your character at all other than a possible change in alignment)
Well actually that's not true. In 1st ed there was also a mechanic for rewarding and punishing roleplaying. It was a rating system that was used to decide the cost of your training for the next level. In 1st ed you recieved XP but did not just level when you hit a certain point. You had to train, depending on class and level you might need to hire a trainer or be able to self train. Either way you had to pay a fee per week of training and the number of weeks was in part based on your rating. The rating was a number 1 to 4 from your DM on how well you roleplayed your character. It's all in the 1st ed DMG. SO this mechanic while different from that one isn't wholly new to the game either.
I have to say that I agree with Courtfool, while I can see myself playing under this rule and possibly even using this rule, I would rather use one of the mechanics that would reward players for playing their character well, rather than penalizing the people who I think are doing worse.
I would probably not choose to use this optional rule if given the choice (Although, I could possibly take it as a penalty to my own character if I felt that he had is mind stuck on some other event rather than the battle at hand).
|
|
So while we are in this thread on RP Mechanics, there is an interesting tid bit on rewarding roleplaying in the DMG 2.
An XP mechanic that says give players the equivalent XP of defeating a monster their level for every 15 minutes of RP. Only count "meaningful rp" like if the player hams it up with every extra (merchant, inn keeper, street urchin) don't count that time. Also if a player intentionally drags out the RP just to milk the XP (and only if this becomes an issue) deduct time from the total equal to twice the time wasted (once for the time waste, and once more as a penalty.)
The point of a time based reward is to encourage people to try and RP and not just give the extroverted drama major a big old sack of XP.
I'm not sure if I will do this at my table, but it is a nice idea.
My major problem with this is that there's no metric. How do you define meaningful roleplay? I can think of at least two groups I've played in where chatting up the barmaid for 20 minutes real-time would in fact be considered meaningful. You'd have to say something like "solves an in-game issue or progresses the plot over 15 minutes of roleplay" but even that's a little cagey.
If you play in a tight group where everyone has pretty similar expectations on what 'good roleplaying' is, then individual DM discretion is probably more than sufficient to handle it. That group is also less likely to care about the XP and roleplays for the enjoyment of it.
A rule like this is meant to encourage people whose enjoyment is primarily systemic or mechanical (gaining levels, char-op, etc) to be more narrative without fear of undermining their primary 'payout' (not getting XP for fighting or skill challenges or whatever). Thus you need more crunchiness to the rule - something like Dresden Files' Compels or having completely story-based Milestones.
True. Precise or not, it's better to have the encouragement in an official book.
So while we are in this thread on RP Mechanics, there is an interesting tid bit on rewarding roleplaying in the DMG 2.
An XP mechanic that says give players the equivalent XP of defeating a monster their level for every 15 minutes of RP. Only count "meaningful rp" like if the player hams it up with every extra (merchant, inn keeper, street urchin) don't count that time. Also if a player intentionally drags out the RP just to milk the XP (and only if this becomes an issue) deduct time from the total equal to twice the time wasted (once for the time waste, and once more as a penalty.)
Okay, I freely admit that I'm a very new DM, so maybe I'm not as skilled at tracking such things as others, but I want to know how many DMs could actually keep track of this? I very rarely have any sense of the passage of time during the roleplay intensive portions of our sessions, because I'm too busy trying to think a step ahead of my players to pay attention to how many minutes have passed while they're interrogating the prisoner/talking to the innkeeper/grilling their contact in the local merchant's guild about something/etc. There's no way I could keep track of the time spent on each RP encounter, I don't think.
On the other hand, I probably could track every minute we spend on combat, because that seems to me to drag on endlessly and involve a lot of wading through various options before deciding what to do, though my players assure me that it isn't taking too long for them.
|
|
So while we are in this thread on RP Mechanics, there is an interesting tid bit on rewarding roleplaying in the DMG 2.
An XP mechanic that says give players the equivalent XP of defeating a monster their level for every 15 minutes of RP. Only count "meaningful rp" like if the player hams it up with every extra (merchant, inn keeper, street urchin) don't count that time. Also if a player intentionally drags out the RP just to milk the XP (and only if this becomes an issue) deduct time from the total equal to twice the time wasted (once for the time waste, and once more as a penalty.)
Okay, I freely admit that I'm a very new DM, so maybe I'm not as skilled at tracking such things as others, but I want to know how many DMs could actually keep track of this? I very rarely have any sense of the passage of time during the roleplay intensive portions of our sessions, because I'm too busy trying to think a step ahead of my players to pay attention to how many minutes have passed while they're interrogating the prisoner/talking to the innkeeper/grilling their contact in the local merchant's guild about something/etc. There's no way I could keep track of the time spent on each RP encounter, I don't think.
On the other hand, I probably could track every minute we spend on combat, because that seems to me to drag on endlessly and involve a lot of wading through various options before deciding what to do, though my players assure me that it isn't taking too long for them.
GMing is as much art as it is crunch, you just sort of get the feel. 15 minutes can also probably measured in thing accomplished. Like a player probably shouldn't be spending 30-50 minutes weeding away at the king until the game grinds to a halt, the same way you sometimes feel combat grinds to a halt. So really instead of counting 15 minutes as a reward, consider counting each successful RP "encounter" that meaningfully drives the plot forward. An encounter might last longer if multiple players are involved, and that's okay as well, as long as it is driving the game forward.
I've been reading DMG 2 pretty linearly (instead of jumping around like most crunch books make me do) I consider myself a seasoned gm, and seriously I'm reconsidering that notion. This book is great!
In some ways, following one's character motivation would be a "game" in itself, as I would introduce temptations to break away from that motivation. Players would have to find the right balance of following their character's motivation and stepping out of it, just as in real life people sometimes have to compromise their goals and values because the real world is messy. Players, of course, would need to agree to such a game.
I want to game with you.
GMing is as much art as it is crunch, you just sort of get the feel. 15 minutes can also probably measured in thing accomplished. Like a player probably shouldn't be spending 30-50 minutes weeding away at the king until the game grinds to a halt, the same way you sometimes feel combat grinds to a halt. So really instead of counting 15 minutes as a reward, consider counting each successful RP "encounter" that meaningfully drives the plot forward. An encounter might last longer if multiple players are involved, and that's okay as well, as long as it is driving the game forward.
Okay, that takes it back to a subjective system of bonuses for meaningful RP. Which is fine, and something I've been doing as appropriate when I've wanted to reward my players for developing their characters' stories or advancing the plot of the campaign in meaningful ways.
It's a very different proposition than timing RP and rewarding the time spent on it, which is how the DMGII section is described. I'm fully in favor of plentiful RP bonuses-- I just question how one would go about implementing the method excerpted from the DMGII without breaking immersion in the game.
Unless my players suddenly stop roleplaying (and I don't imagine they will-- my players seem to like to ham it up), I think I'll stick with what I've been doing. Reward meaningful RP that advances the story, in my admittedly subjective opinion, and not worry about timing anything. One more thing to keep track of in a gaming session would likely make my head explode. :)
If your head isn't exploding, you are doing it wrong.
If your head isn't exploding, you are doing it wrong.
NOoooooo! The PCs' heads are supposed to explode, not the DM's!
Well actually that's not true. In 1st ed there was also a mechanic for rewarding and punishing roleplaying. It was a rating system that was used to decide the cost of your training for the next level. In 1st ed you recieved XP but did not just level when you hit a certain point. You had to train, depending on class and level you might need to hire a trainer or be able to self train. Either way you had to pay a fee per week of training and the number of weeks was in part based on your rating. The rating was a number 1 to 4 from your DM on how well you roleplayed your character. It's all in the 1st ed DMG. SO this mechanic while different from that one isn't wholly new to the game either.
Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about this in D&D....In D&Ds history, the only true roleplaying mechanic was the paladin code of conduct/ divine characters code of conduct (doing a Chaotic Evil act if you were Neutral Good didn't affect your character at all other than a possible change in alignment)
Really?
Geez, even though I was the DM and used my friend's 1e DMG, I don't even remember this...Might be because I went and bought my own 2e DMG and that I don't remember anything like that...
I don't remember it this either but KoDT parodies it mercilessly so its in all likelihood one of those rules in 1E that existed but most people did not actually use. 1E was the king of rules like that.
Meh. Looks optional to me.DMG2 has introduced a roleplaying mechanic a la what you see in WoD. Basically, if you act OOC or ignore your motivation, you are considered "DISTRACTED".
Yeah I'd not be so inclined to beat a PC for not roleplaying but I would be inclined to point out if I find their actions are merely self serving and didn't seem to be in line with characters usual motivations, maybe the character has reason and the PC can express their reasoning even privately in which case as long as they are roleplaying an aspect of the character I don't mind.
I have had a couple of self serving PC's, not evil just a bit more self serving than your mainstream happy scooby doo type party.
A character I used to run was a mage who put a priority on everything:-
Brother(adopted and a paladin)
Country
Party
Countrys noble
peasants
Others ( outsiders elves, dwarves, other countries people etc)
In short he'd sacrifice peasants before knight, nobles before the party etc unless saving a peasant would aid the country in a large way.
He was consistent however and always like it.