I am mainly posting because I want other perspectives besides my gaming group.
I just started a 4E (no flame please) Dark Sun campaign and decided I would put out a few house rules. There was one that sparked some controversy within the group.
The rule was that I would be awarding little individual XP rewards for bits of Role-playing and taking in-character actions. I did this because I believe the onus of RP is on the players/DM and not restricted by rule system and wanted to show it in 4E(again this isn't about edition, please). The rule was built around the fact that I had each player give me a list of at least 5 character traits and 5 character dislikes. When I saw an action that was in-character I would award a 1/100th of the XP needed to level (with the possibility of a cap of 5 or 10 to avoid over "Hamming").
Now, I had one player in the group take a vehement stand against this rule.
Before there are any conclusions jumped to, this player is experienced from 1E on, and always a good ROLE-player. He has been the DM for the group for the last 2 years. Lastly, a friend of mine of 7 years. I have gamed for 22 years and have spent most of it DM-ing with multiple different groups, with very little complaints.
Finally to the issue.. He says that this rule makes him feel that I'm "trying to control people's play-style" and being "tyrannical" because people are "forced to ROLE-play" to keep up with everyone else in the group XP-wise. He says that rewarding some players for RP is penalizing the ones that don't. The rest of my group agrees with me, that it's a mostly a non-issue, and at the most could cause up to just 1 level difference within the party at it's fullest. He has made it clear that either the rule goes or he does, and has said that knowing my mentality is one of controlling other's play-style he can't game with me anymore, neither as a player or DM.
I was wondering about other's opinions as a general consensus. I just want to know if others think I'm being unreasonable?
As it stands, I've already removed the rule due to other points made during the month long discussion within the group, but not because of his threat. I feel that my position as DM would always be unbalanced if I gave into the threat, and would always have to worry about every decision being questioned and possibly cause expectation of reversal if threatened.
I give XP for good RP. However, as I don't like individual XP rewards, the XP is split for the whole group and no one is penalized. Same applies if a player has a solo-session.
edit: For your issue, it depends on whether feel that rule or the player is more important I guess.
To but it bluntly, I think your friend was being an a$$. He questioned the DM's ruling in a way that is simply un-acceptable. Especially since the rest of the group was okay with the rule. Besides, 1/100 is nothing to get excitied over. And in no way do I see it putting a group out of balance.
Besides, why would anyone get upset over ENCOURAGING others to role-play their characters (not FORCE but ENCOURAGE)? That just doesn't make sense to me at all. It soundds to me like your "friend" has some other issue that he/she isn't sharing. And as such is lashing out at a nothing.
I am mainly posting because I want other perspectives besides my gaming group.
I just started a 4E (no flame please) Dark Sun campaign and decided I would put out a few house rules. There was one that sparked some controversy within the group.
The rule was that I would be awarding little individual XP rewards for bits of Role-playing and taking in-character actions. I did this because I believe the onus of RP is on the players/DM and not restricted by rule system and wanted to show it in 4E(again this isn't about edition, please). The rule was built around the fact that I had each player give me a list of at least 5 character traits and 5 character dislikes. When I saw an action that was in-character I would award a 1/100th of the XP needed to level (with the possibility of a cap of 5 or 10 to avoid over "Hamming").
Now, I had one player in the group take a vehement stand against this rule.
Before there are any conclusions jumped to, this player is experienced from 1E on, and always a good ROLE-player. He has been the DM for the group for the last 2 years. Lastly, a friend of mine of 7 years. I have gamed for 22 years and have spent most of it DM-ing with multiple different groups, with very little complaints.
Finally to the issue.. He says that this rule makes him feel that I'm "trying to control people's play-style" and being "tyrannical" because people are "forced to ROLE-play" to keep up with everyone else in the group XP-wise. He says that rewarding some players for RP is penalizing the ones that don't. The rest of my group agrees with me, that it's a mostly a non-issue, and at the most could cause up to just 1 level difference within the party at it's fullest. He has made it clear that either the rule goes or he does, and has said that knowing my mentality is one of controlling other's play-style he can't game with me anymore, neither as a player or DM.
I was wondering about other's opinions as a general consensus. I just want to know if others think I'm being unreasonable?
As it...
It actually is a bit controlling, and most players know their characters better than the DM so if they think they are in character and you don't it could only cause more conflict.
In short those than want to RP will, and those that don't wont. Some people don't feel comfortable RP'ing and others, like myself take a while to get into it. I don't think I should have earned less XP during my pre-RP'ing days.
|
I think he's overreacting a bit, especially since you asked the players for a list of the things that would get them the bonuses. Lots of DMs toss out bonus XPs for good RP moments, even without having the codified list. Your way actually seems more fair to me.
Look at the reverse, too. By refusing to play if you use the rule he's also trying to force his style of play on the group. Perhaps he's afraid that others in the group will be better RPers and gain more bonus XPs, even with the built in "ham" ceiling. I don't give out RP bonus XPs for this reason. I give out bonus action points (3.5 Eberron style. Extra 4E action points might be overwhelming.) instead. that way, the players get rewarded without pulling ahead.
Yeah overreacting but his point is still valid. It does feel a bit like a schrute-buck. If people want to role-play they will, they don't need an incentive beyond its own enjoyment.
I give XP for good RP. However, as I don't like individual XP rewards, the XP is split for the whole group and no one is penalized. Same applies if a player has a solo-session.
edit: For your issue, it depends on whether feel that rule or the player is more important I guess.
I agree with this idea a lot. I use it in my games and everyone's happy, well, except for the one player who staunchly supports individual XP.
I award lots of bonus xp; for good RP, creative problem solving(coming up with better solutions than I thought of as DM), etc. I give everyone in the group an even share. The amount is usually random, between 50-200 xp depending on the situation.
I stopped giving out bonus XP for good roleplaying because I tended to have a couple of really good RPers and a couple of really terrible RPers, and ended up favoring the good roleplayers in terms of the bonus XP unconsciously. Thus while it was a fine idea in theory, it became a terrible idea in practice, because all it did was discourage the bad RPers from RPing. This is what your friend, I believe, is getting at - even if he's not exactly being clear (and, I agree, being a bit overreacty about it.)
Nowadays what I do is hand out plot points instead - and not for Role playing specifically, but for taking in character actions that put an interesting twist on the story (for example, I handed one out yesterday when a player suggested that his [not yet introduced] character be considered a suspect during a murder investigation). Each plot points allows them to reroll any one d20 roll, even if the roll isn't theirs, in order to affect the more random elements of the plot. I usually hand at least one of these out every session or two these days.
|
|
I have played games where this kind of thing is in the rules and I have instituted similar things in the past in other games. I now no longer do it.
The reason is this. I game in several different groups and in these groups there are many different types of player. Some (like myself) are shameless hacks with a love of scenery chewing and over the top characters. Others are quiet and thoughtful and enjoy participating in the game in their own way, watching and occasionally commenting whilst others drive the game forward.
Both styles are equally valid. However the RPG awards will almost exclusively go to the former group rather than the latter. By giving "roleplaying awards" your intention is to reward good roleplaying and that's laudable. However the other side to this is if a player doesn't get the reward then the implication can be taken that they are somehow an inferior roleplayer to the person who does. The GM also opens him/herself up to accusations of favouritism.
We all contribute to the game in our own ways. I remember a great roleplayer I once gamed with who hardly said a word for entire sessions. He just turned up and rolled his dice. But then after 3 or so sessions of quiet he would speak up and offer his opinion or a course of action. The thing was that this contibution would always be truly insightful or brilliant, so much so that we would almost always follow his advice. He would then go back to munching on a piece of pizza and we wouldn't hear from him again for a few sessions.
Under a roleplaying award system that type of player suffers and that's not really fair. It is better to give a flat award to everyone to show that everybody's contribution is equally valid. It is true that it's a GM's job to get people roleplaying but it's better to do that through engaging them in roleplaying opportunities than through an experience mechanic.
My two cents: I always felt that giving out individual rewards for role-playing is a case of "the rich get richer". The avid roleplayers get a bonus (even though they already tend to dominate the game, in my experience), and weaker roleplayers get nothing. And if it does encourage roleplaying, I suspect it's of the "hammy" type as noted above (e.g. everyone plays a loudmouth PC instead of the strong, silent type).
I wouldn't resent it like the player in the original post, though (unless the XP bonuses were so huge that the party's level started to diverge dramatically). I would just shrug, and move on with the game.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I have played games where this kind of thing is in the rules and I have instituted similar things in the past in other games. I now no longer do it.
The reason is this. I game in several different groups and in these groups there are many different types of player. Some (like myself) are shameless hacks with a love of scenery chewing and over the top characters. Others are quiet and thoughtful and enjoy participating in the game in their own way, watching and occasionally commenting whilst others drive the game forward.
Both styles are equally valid. However the RPG awards will almost exclusively go to the former group rather than the latter. By giving "roleplaying awards" your intention is to reward good roleplaying and that's laudable. However the other side to this is if a player doesn't get the reward then the implication can be taken that they are somehow an inferior roleplayer to the person who does. The GM also opens him/herself up to accusations of favouritism.
We all contribute to the game in our own ways. I remember a great roleplayer I once gamed with who hardly said a word for entire sessions. He just turned up and rolled his dice. But then after 3 or so sessions of quiet he would speak up and offer his opinion or a course of action. The thing was that this contibution would always be truly insightful or brilliant, so much so that we would almost always follow his advice. He would then go back to munching on a piece of pizza and we wouldn't hear from him again for a few sessions.
Under a roleplaying award system that type of player suffers and that's not really fair. It is better to give a flat award to everyone to show that everybody's contribution is equally valid. It is true that it's a GM's job to get people roleplaying but it's better to do that through engaging them in roleplaying opportunities than through an experience mechanic.
THIS. Excellent Post FoC.
To the OP: By adding a mechanic for RPing, you are forcing your style of play on others - even if it's not your intention. It's very possible your friend felt threatened by this in some way, possibly that you were judging those that did not actively role play the way you want them to, and he reacted the only way he knew how. After all, a player who isn't as comfortable role playing may end up feeling inferior to others at the table and cause him/her undue stress. Remember, it's a game, and shouldn't cause stress to those who play it.
I know other posters state your friend over-reacted, but this is probably a hot button issue for him, so he reacted quite strongly to your house rule.
While I agree that D&D/Pathfinder/et al are role playing games, I also agree with FoC's post about how role playing should be handled. Adding a mechanic to reward those who role play based on your criteria can only lead to more problems at the game table as those who don't meet your criteria are left feeling inadequate in comparison.
I'm in general agreement with most of the posters here. Players should be allowed to have fun their way and rewarding some specific style of gaming has detrimental effects on that. I personally bring in a reasonable number of newbs into the game and they are already pretty intimidated. Why set the bar even higher for them? On the other hand some players are really just basically wall flowers. Drawing focus to that may make a player that is otherwise a quite but contributing member of the group feel unwelcome and picked on.
All of that said I think this players reaction was extreme and not really fair. Probably something like this ought to be decided by a group vote.
A little clarification,
I DM'ed with him in the group for about 2 years, 5 years ago, and I don't think I DM any different (usually have a small binder of maps and playable races/variats for my homebrew).
The intent was XP for RP, not necessarily good RP. I know who the RPers and non-RPers are, and was going to reward off of effort, not success. It's not work for good RPers to casually RP, but for non-RPers to do minor takes a decent effort.
I don't like everyone all the same XP when I DM. I don't mind the extra work to figure out individual sums. I just don't feel that if someone skips a few sessions (skips, not other obligations), that they shouldpop right back in as the people putting forth the time and effort. Same idea I had for RP XP, the greater the EFFORT the greater the value.
What I consider RP for the sake of the rule was mainly in-character actions/decisions (could also be seen as not meta-gaming). No attacking the BBEG, because it's statistically more advantageous, when he has minions of the PC's favored enemy. Also, personality traits (the 5 and 5 lists) being used. Saying things like "my character..." as long as it's an in-character decision counts. I don't require voices just because all my PC's have them. I don't require descriptive actions just because I use them.
I too think their might be something bigger going on. In typical male fashion, however, we tend to not talk about things that we are having problems with.
Edit: we did vote as a group (anonymous poll on our forums), 1 for MORE individual, 1 for NO individual, 1 for an alternate to XP individual reward, 3 for fine the way it is, 1 abstained from voting, and I stated I wouldn't vote.
Basically I like a 50/50 game RP/Combat split. The RPers engage in combats the Rollers start, why can't the rollers engage in the discussion the RPers started? If an RPer just stood there in combat and actively did nothing, intentionally took no part, most of the group would be upset with him getting a share of the XP. Why shouldn't it go the other way with RP?
As a DM I approach it little differently. During RP I try to address the Rollers in-character, I ask them OOC what they are doing or what they are saying. I try to coax some RP out of them.
Generally individual awards tend to be bad ideas in a group game. What happens is that individuals begin hogging the game time to get their individual xp. This means the other players are both (a)not getting xp while the player is sucking game time and (b)don't get to play during that time. This is a double whammy. Now compare that to a situation where the entire group gets xp, then while one individual may be hogging game time, the others are less upset about it because they are also getting rewarded.
It is similar to the issue of say letting a rogue scout ahead and then getting sole xp for overcoming traps and such. Not only is the rogue stealing game time from the other members, but is also "stealing" xp from them as well.
Things like that start creating really dumb in character results. "Why is your loud heavily armored warrior trying to sneak up with the rogue?" "I'll be damned if I allow him to get all the xp!" "Why is your Int 4 barbarian pushing his way in front of the bard and paladin to shout at the king?" "I'll be damned if I allow them to get all the xp!"
EDIT: And splitting xp for everyone at the game is not the same as giving xp to someone that was absent from that game. Everyone at the table really should be getting the same xp.
I understand most of the reasons not to, I also removed the rule from the game due to other reasons. None of which the upset player brought up, but by the players that agree with me.
I am really just confused by the degree to which he took it, in not even being able to play with me knowing "how I try tpo control other people's play-style" and that as a DM he said I ran a "totalitarian regime".
Thank you all for the replies, this gives me a few other perspectives.
Basically I like a 50/50 game RP/Combat split. The RPers engage in combats the Rollers start, why can't the rollers engage in the discussion the RPers started? If an RPer just stood there in combat and actively did nothing, intentionally took no part, most of the group would be upset with him getting a share of the XP. Why shouldn't it go the other way with RP?
Huh. When you phrase it that way, it really sounds like you're trying to punish the non-roleplayers, even if that is not your intent.
Note that there's a difference between combat and non-combat encounters. Combat encounters are designed so that every player gets a turn, guaranteed. But non-combat encounters don't work that way, generally; you don't cut off one player in mid-sentence and say "Okay, Conan used up his speaking time, it's Elric's turn to talk now." Likewise, five characters fighting is much more effective than one character fighting; it's not clear to me that five characters talking is any more effective than one character talking.
That's mainly how I feel as a player, as I do both RP and Rolls, and the people that d less of both get just as much as I do. Why am I gonna work so hard to give someone else a 1/4 of my paycheck, same goes for my XP.
As a DM, I don't follow initiative during RP, but I always ask periodically the players that aren't taking part what they are doing during the course of the RP. Some people are shy or uncomfortable with the RP, so I try to give them a chance to do or say something during the RP portions. I know full well as an outspoken RPer that sometimes I may dominate a RP portion and may need to be told to let someone else talk.
Do I admit I may be a little biased as a player, yes. I came to play a RPG, if people just want to turn every RP opportunity for the group into a combat, might I suggest D&D Miniatures game or Warhammer minis(not WFRPG). There are plenty of combat only games out there, and almosytjust as many if not more non-combat RPG's (maybe more not sure).
Can I see where this may have had an effect on the rule I made, I can look back and say it may have. The rule was removed. Does it make me any less wanting of more RP from some people, not likely. Will I continue to RP to get a RP response from a Roller, most definately. Do I demand that they give me a RP response, not at all, doesn't stop me from trying. I had just thought that if I awarded what Rollers tend to want most for their characters that they would be eager to earn it.
I have GM'd all sorts of systems. I will give a group XP to everyone,(or depending on the system a base XP.) and individual XP on top of that. The individual XP is based on the specific character and the specific player's ability. I will also give instant XP for key actions or behaviors that further the plot. I also give XP for writing backgrounds and write-ups. None of my players have ever complained about it, and giving XP for all this allows players with different strengths to still get individual XP.
Individual experience awards is very subjective, even with the best intent. It may be most players don't have a problem with it in theory, but we all bring our own expectations to the table. Once you start catering to specific needs, or players, you end up on a slippery slope. As a DM, I wouldn't want the extra hassle tracking it.
Maybe you should implement quests into your DM style, to award the group with when they roleplay versus rollplay. Just make sure you plan your encounters ahead of time with some type of decision tree, so consequences are obvious. If some people are into the mechanics of the game, offer them a mechanical advantage when roleplaying, or a disadvantage when they don't.
This make take some trial an error, but it must be something that applies against all playing styles.
Meh, you are giving BONUS XP for good behaviour, the same way an employer can give employees a bonus for good work. Not every employee will get the bonus, but they STILL GET PAID the normal salary.
I'm realy failing to see the problem here.
|
You could also give rewards for character development. This could be writing stories, keeping a journal, roleplaying, or something else. That way you're rewarding the players for getting into the game.
Also, have you considered doing something else, like "action points," -roleplay points?
I intended to give out action points in my game for both arriving within 15 min. of starting time and for good roleplaying. (it turned into just arriving on time) One problem is that same people would have a ton of cards (or XP), and others wouldn't. However, I've noticed that the same people who don't role play much don't use the action cards as much. - this is not the same for XP, because all players want XP, but not all are willing to try harder at a certain game aspect for it.
|
Meh, you are giving BONUS XP for good behaviour, the same way an employer can give employees a bonus for good work. Not every employee will get the bonus, but they STILL GET PAID the normal salary.
I'm realy failing to see the problem here.
What if he were giving bonus XP to people who talk boating or physics with him? Would you be okay with that?
What if he were giving bonus XP to people who talk boating or physics with him? Would you be okay with that?Meh, you are giving BONUS XP for good behaviour, the same way an employer can give employees a bonus for good work. Not every employee will get the bonus, but they STILL GET PAID the normal salary.
I'm realy failing to see the problem here.
If you worked at a Marina, a bonus for talking about boating has merit.
If you work in a lab, a bonus for talking about physics has merit.
If you are playing a Role-playing game, a bonus for Role-playing has a lot of merit.
I have run whole adventures based on player's write-ups and backgrounds. It causes players to think about their characters...their goals and motivations. I find it makes for a better game, and the players decide on their own, some of the story hooks I will use. For example, one player in a Shadowrun game, gave himself some enemies. Even though he wrote that in his own background, he was still surprised when one of the enemies appeared and caused him problems. He spent a good amount of effort hunting this enemy and had alot of fun doing it. By doing it this way, it gives the characters color that they do not always have otherwise.
While generally I'd say it's not a good idea, the response from the player was very much freaky-weird.
He'd likely have been bounced from our group just for that creepy-ass outburst. Socialize much?
|
|
What if he were giving bonus XP to people who talk boating or physics with him? Would you be okay with that?Meh, you are giving BONUS XP for good behaviour, the same way an employer can give employees a bonus for good work. Not every employee will get the bonus, but they STILL GET PAID the normal salary.
I'm realy failing to see the problem here.
If you worked at a Marina, a bonus for talking about boating has merit.
If you work in a lab, a bonus for talking about physics has merit.
If you are playing a Role-playing game, a bonus for Role-playing has a lot of merit.
Agreed.
I believe active participation should be rewarded, though obviously you need to do it in small increments, and not just any ole active participation either.
I give bonus xp in small amounts (10 is for something epic) for important things that the player makes happen, or really well done rp.
I played a couple sessions at my lgs with the owner a couple years back, and he took an approach to individual exp i hadnt seen before, and havent since, that I think Im going to try to incorporate into my next game.
After assigning the base xp for everyone, he could ask the group what they thought they/others had done to deserve bonus, whether that be something important to help overcome the combat enoucnter, or good roleplaying. It seemed to work out find for everyone there.
If you worked at a Marina, a bonus for talking about boating has merit.
If you work in a lab, a bonus for talking about physics has merit.
If you are playing a Role-playing game, a bonus for Role-playing has a lot of merit.
That's pretty much the sum of it.
Roleplaying adds to the overall game, so therefore is behaviour that should be encouraged and rewarded.
I'd also be rewarding based on collaboratiely written backstories that provide the DM with extra plot hooks, detailed background/area info etc.
All of which contributes to the overall depth of the game and helps a campaign stand out.
If you don't feel like putting in the extra discretionary effort then thats cool, but don't get upset if yo dont get allocated any discretionary xp.
I’d probably tell him that this is how I run my games, the rest of the group doesn’t have a problem with what I’m doing so I clearly not being entirely unreasonable, and that if his solution to things not going his way is to take his ball and go home then that’s his choice.
If you cave on this I doubt it will be the last time he tries to pull this move.
|
|
If you worked at a Marina, a bonus for talking about boating has merit.
If you work in a lab, a bonus for talking about physics has merit.
If you are playing a Role-playing game, a bonus for Role-playing has a lot of merit.
And you don't see how someone being a janitor at a bowling alley would be upset that the other employees get extra pay over him for joining the league when he doesn't join because he is no good at bowling? Not saying that it isn't fair, just that his feelings are a reasonable reaction.
I think the player was being a jerk about his argument but he was mostly correct. The most common way to encourage acting in a game is to have some folks who do that and if others are interested they will try their hands at it. Using in game rewards makes acting a game mechanic which is against the whole point of wanting more of it to make the game less purely mechanical.
The more subtle way to get role play from someone is to think about them, their character and give them real meat to chew on. Put them in a situation that has meaning and gives them a choice to make. They can't but help role play that choice out in some way, even if its not with witty dialog or a cool character voice.
My favorite overt way of encouraging player story telling was a group that would vote each year on their favorite character in the group and they would all chip in to have a professional illustration done for that character which would go up on the game room wall. That was damned cool and made you want to win that spotlight. It also wasn't just about your acting but your characters role in the story and in the group.
Flip the coin and you have the player that talks in character and has a picture of his character. He spends down time training in new skills and helps the NPCs of the village the party stays in.[using ranks in craft or profession to inprome the town]
Or the player who keeps an in character journal and help the DM with names.
They should be punished because you don't like to RP? To each his own.
If a player RP's give them a bonus, [xp or NPC help, a title] If the player puts more into the game he should get more out of the game.
Mr. Fishy rewards good RP. Bad RP Mr. Fishy gets the "stick".
If you worked at a Marina, a bonus for talking about boating has merit.
If you work in a lab, a bonus for talking about physics has merit.
If you are playing a Role-playing game, a bonus for Role-playing has a lot of merit.
That's pretty much the sum of it.
Roleplaying adds to the overall game, so therefore is behaviour that should be encouraged and rewarded.
I'd also be rewarding based on collaboratiely written backstories that provide the DM with extra plot hooks, detailed background/area info etc.
All of which contributes to the overall depth of the game and helps a campaign stand out.
If you don't feel like putting in the extra discretionary effort then thats cool, but don't get upset if yo dont get allocated any discretionary xp.
I am with shifty on this one
I dont see a problem if the Barbarian pushes his way forward to shout at the king - (Sounds right to me as he is a Barbarian and this is the kind of thing barbarians do, cause you know they are kinda barbaric and don't know about manners and stuff, they don't sit meekly in the corner and wait for the poncy singer to finish jibber jabering).
I would add that as an assist to the diplomacy roll - the Barbarian is getting involved.
I don't see a problem with a warrior trying to sneak like a rogue - Fully armoured warriors sneaking has been done in the real world. Vikings used to muffle the oars of their long-ships sneak ashore and then start the burning, looting and pillaging once they were ready.
If we play a game where we only play to strict roles - the fighter fights, the wizard casts spells, the bard talks, We might as well be playing a board game. There is no growth or evolution of the characters and the game is Warhammer FB or Descent.
When I ran Shadowrun I used to get the players to help decide who got bonus experience at the end of a session.
And you don't see how someone being a janitor at a bowling alley would be upset that the other employees get extra pay over him for joining the league when he doesn't join because he is no good at bowling? Not saying that it isn't fair, just that his feelings are a reasonable reaction.
This example is a little off the mark as well.
We are strictly talking about people participating in a particular uniform event, and the level of their participation within it being commensurately rewarded.
The janitor shouldn't be paid extra (or less) to join the bowling team, as that isn't his job. His job is to clean fix and maintain the bowling alley.
The correct example is if there were two janitors, and one turned up, put in a basic effort and 'did his job', yet the other one was not only finding and correcting problems, but also suggesting better ways of doing things and using extra effort to do a superior level job that benefited the business, wouldn't you feel he'd earned that little extra as a reward/nod?
Besides, he could still join up for extra bowling if he wanted to, the fact he sucks wouldn't/shouldn't be a barrier, but he has to realise he wont be winning any trophies for mediocrity, but if he has a hoot doing it then who really cares?
So when it comes to role playing, well I'm happy to have guys at the table who are great and get caught right up in their roles as it makes for some good memorable gaming, and allows me as a GM/Fellow player to derive far more enjoyment from the game. I'm also fine with a few other guys at the table who are happier to sit back a little and be 'movie extras'.
As long as we are all having fun, we are all welcome, but it makes sense to give that little extra to those who, at the end of the day, brought that little bit more entertainment to share with their friends.
How about an individual RP bonus ONLY when people are playing a character they don't normally choose as a stereotype? That way you encourage people to try something different, and to stick with it instead of inexorably morphing into a clone of their other characters during the course of the campaign.
Honestly, I find the "attack of the clones" syndrome (in which each player has a "default" personality shared by all their PCs) to be a LOT more common than "general bad RPing."
It doesn't sound like you're rewarding players "roleplaying," it sounds like you're pushing for a very specific style of roleplaying that not everyone is interested in.
You are, in the long run, doing far more harm to people acting in character then you are doing good.
It doesn't sound like you're rewarding players "roleplaying," it sounds like you're pushing for a very specific style of roleplaying that not everyone is interested in.
You are, in the long run, doing far more harm to people acting in character then you are doing good.
I'm not looking for a specific style of Role-playing at all.
From as little as separating player and character knowledge, and making in-character decisions to as much as speaking in voice, or staying in-character with dialogue. You can add stories to the world ( my homebrew always has grown off of the characters), have a full and rich backstory.Any role-playing would be better than no role-playing.
Unless, if by roleplaying you just mean that it's an RPG so anyone that comes and rolls dice is "technically" roleplaying. If that's the case, then I ask, if someone is playing Monopoly and takes no actions other than to roll the dice and move their piece, when it's their turn are they really "playing" Monopoly?
It doesn't sound like you're rewarding players "roleplaying," it sounds like you're pushing for a very specific style of roleplaying that not everyone is interested in.
What 'very specific' style would that be? As far as I can tell he is rewarding people for playing in character, not forfeting the game mechanics and creating a LARP or something...
In game I ran recently, my question I asked each player before handing out XP, was: "What did you learn in game?" That included anything from finding out part of the ongoing plot to realizing something about their own character, to realizing something about other people's characters. Then I would hand out XP accordingly.
In game I ran recently, my question I asked each player before handing out XP, was: "What did you learn in game?" That included anything from finding out part of the ongoing plot to realizing something about their own character, to realizing something about other people's characters. Then I would hand out XP accordingly.
Which is another good idea Lorm; finding yet another way to reward active participation and encourage people to actually get involved.
I'm guessing that the main thrust of complaints about beiong 'forced to roleplay' could well be coming from people who just aren't into being extroverted or hamming up a character, which is understandable.
What they are missing though is that theor character could indeed be the quiet tactician of few words, and when he speaks it is only to really outline his master grand plan - before withdrawing into silence.
Indeed he could indeed by the 'moody-tormented-hero-guy' who spends the whole time communicating with brooding stares, haunted looks, and stony silences... but that being said you can only roleplay Ed Cullen the Emo guy for so long before your party cracks a nut and tries to put a stake in your heart.
Same same... wistful and longing stares interspersed with sullen looks aren't quite what we are expecting from your 19CHA Bard making a Diplomacy check.
Which is another good idea Lorm; finding yet another way to reward active participation and encourage people to actually get involved.
I'm guessing that the main thrust of complaints about beiong 'forced to roleplay' could well be coming from people who just aren't into being extroverted or hamming up a character, which is understandable.
What they are missing though is that theor character could indeed be the quiet tactician of few words, and when he speaks it is only to really outline his master grand plan - before withdrawing into silence.
Indeed he could indeed by the 'moody-tormented-hero-guy' who spends the whole time communicating with brooding stares, haunted looks, and stony silences... but that being said you can only roleplay Ed Cullen the Emo guy for so long before your party cracks a nut and tries to put a stake in your heart.
Same same... wistful and longing stares interspersed with sullen looks aren't quite what we are expecting from your 19CHA Bard making a Diplomacy check.
This is why I ask for write-ups or if they do not want to write they can tell me in private, or e-mail me, so I know what is going on with the character and he doesn't lose out. I have played quiet characters and make sure the GM knows how he is thinking. I do agree that a 19 cha bard sure be out there, but even then there are exeptions. I was in a game where if my bard revealed who and what he was, the circumstances were such that it is very possible he would of been killed.
|
I have removed XP entirely from my games and they have improved greatly. At first the players groaned and wanted "awards" but it didn't take long for them to forget all about it. In fact they kicked a lot of bad habits like hamming it up for XP, and killing everything in sight for xp. The entire group focuses more on story and role play. We rotate the GM chair and every time we go back to xp the game suffers and everyone returns to old habits.
There has to be more to the story about your gamer going off on you. Maybe he has had issues building up over the years and he finally blew his stack. It seems there is never a better time to challenge the group dynamic than at the beginning of a new game. Good luck I hope you have patched things up. It sucks to part ways with old gaming friends!
I have removed XP entirely from my games and they have improved greatly. At first the players groaned and wanted "awards" but it didn't take long for them to forget all about it. In fact they kicked a lot of bad habits like hamming it up for XP, and killing everything in sight for xp. The entire group focuses more on story and role play. We rotate the GM chair and every time we go back to xp the game suffers and everyone returns to old habits.....
Gone entirely? How do you determine when to level up? Just whenever the DM decides to do so? And you can't say you don't level up, otherwise the story would just go stagnat.
Yeah we have a couple of campaigns going where XP isn't awarded, but rather levels appointed at the appropriate points in the storyline.
Works for us.