My group is about to tackle The Spires of Xin-Shalast. Roleplaying has always been a little weak with this group, and my various attempts to encourage it really haven't gone that well. Now, at 14th level, the roleplaying has vanished completely & each session is just the players discussing strategy & tactics before combat.
So, what do you do to encourage roleplaying? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
|
Different groups find different comfort levels for Role Playing.
Some groups prefer to RP only a little, as a lubricant to go from dungeon to dungeon. Other groups see the RP as a feature, and combat as stuff that happens between getting to play in character (or even RP during combat).
If you're all the way to the last adventure of the AP I assume you're playing then I assume the players have been having fun so far to stick to it this long.
Step One should always be open communication. You desire more Role Playing interaction from the players, communicate this desire to them. You might find that some of your players feel the same way. If players are receptive to it, then look carefully over the adventure for areas where the PCs can overcome a situation by talking it out.
You should also brace yourself for the idea that your players don't feel comfortable or happy Role Playing their characters. If that's the case then I'd say finish up the campaign, (you've come so far anyway) and then perhaps find a new group who would be interested in such a thing.
In any case I don't know your group as well as you do, so I'll ask. Do they not role-play because the opportunities haven't been presented? Or is it because it makes them uncomfortable? Or is it because they just don't care either way?
|
Long time ago I started awarding RP bonus xp. Something I picked up from White Wolf World of Darkness games. Add in engaging NPC's and social elements to a game. Gives those that RP a bonus to social rolls, the better they RP the bigger the bonus.
Once they start doing it, it is typically easy to make it fun and then in my experience they just start doing it and stop caring about the carrots.
|
|
If you're going to go that method rather than bonus XP offer them Hero Points. It's a carrot that helps them succeed at their favourite thing (Combat) for participating in something you'd like to see more of (RP) (and avoids headaches like multiple character levels in an adventure).
My group is about to tackle The Spires of Xin-Shalast. Roleplaying has always been a little weak with this group, and my various attempts to encourage it really haven't gone that well. Now, at 14th level, the roleplaying has vanished completely & each session is just the players discussing strategy & tactics before combat.
So, what do you do to encourage roleplaying? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
This module has a lot of great framework for RP if I remember right. There are a group of non-combatants that have made their home in an otherwise hostile territory and you can definitely have your fun with them and the players for about an hour or two.
More so, the arena combat with the ice devil can be loads of fun, should you decide to have parley (six second rounds mean not a lot is said for a six second period of time, please remember) before the inevitable melee.
The RotRL that I ran, the players found everything that ever had an idea of getting a Sidhedron Rune tattoo'ed on themselves and made it meet it's maker. So by the time the small mercenary party (the Part-timers) found Karzoug's spire, the man himself had already been brought back thanks to the lens. So he was leading a counter-charge against them with around eight rune giants.
There is a reason why we lost 5 characters during that last battle. Out of ten, mind you. That is why I called it a mercenary party not simple adventurers.
The primary key to get players to do anything is to do it yourself. The more you engage them with RP, the more likely they will respond with RP. This is hard, because it requires you taking the first risk.
The primary key to get players to do anything is to do it yourself. The more you engage them with RP, the more likely they will respond with RP. This is hard, because it requires you taking the first risk.
+1 This is the best possible suggestion.
Also, D&D/Pathfinder is not a particularly roleplaying heavy RPG, and book adventures lend themselves less to roleplaying than home made adventures. One way to get players to try a little hardcore roleplaying might be to run a one-shot game with lots of character and few rules. Pick something they can really pick up on quickly, like a story about pirates, or something based on a movie or TV show they all like.
Another possibility, a little less radical, is to set aside a single session as no-combat day. Put the characters in a situation where they'll have lots of interesting NPCs to talk to, and a few things to accomplish that they can only attain through roleplaying.
i have the same issues with my players. they haven't always been like that, back in the day our campaigns were quite RP heavy. after 3rd edition i noticed things started to change into more hack n slash slay the enemy and loot his gear. i think maybe it was because of so many options with feats and class abilities. with so many goodies even players that weren't power players got a taste and were hooked. they want more and more faster and faster. it also might be games like "champions of norath, boulders gate, dnd online" that they got into at the time as well. Players get used to leveling up and getting powerful fast and they think dnd should be the same. They see RP as just slowing down there experience and want to get past it to kill things to level up fast. For me it's the journey that should matter not the destination. And when you think about it leveling up really doesn't mean much to the overall scope of things, players level and get a + to this and that so enemies get a + to compensate. thats why no matter what level there is still a CR system. but players only seem to want there next "fix". another thing is it seems a lot of players just want to be kratos from god of war, super tough bad arse who talks with his sword and wants to become all powerfull and kill the gods. No rp just kill and move on.
My group is about to tackle The Spires of Xin-Shalast. Roleplaying has always been a little weak with this group, and my various attempts to encourage it really haven't gone that well. Now, at 14th level, the roleplaying has vanished completely & each session is just the players discussing strategy & tactics before combat.
So, what do you do to encourage roleplaying? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Well Pathfinder/D&D 3.5 is kind of heavy on rules, stuff to look up, and battle maps.
My only suggestion is Shelf the books, rules, and dice for 4-6 games. Role play everything out. If you need a random roll, flip a coin. Heads they win, tails there captured, and if the role-play stupid ""I do not care if you are to boss, and we have been captured, you look like a Dark worm slug"".. well then they die.
Anyway my 2 cents worth.
If you're going to go that method rather than bonus XP offer them Hero Points. It's a carrot that helps them succeed at their favourite thing (Combat) for participating in something you'd like to see more of (RP) (and avoids headaches like multiple character levels in an adventure).
This is my preferred approach as well. I further try to define things by having the players give me roleplaying goals for their characters. When those goals are met, the player gets a Hero Point. This way, players who want Hero Points take a more active hand in the game, and it also helps remove the problems of trying to find an objective definition for an arbitrary concept such as "good roleplaying".
The key to good roleplaying is - as has been said - to do it yourself first.
For this a few rules have are important:
1. Speak in character - there is no substitution for this! Giving memorable NPCs accents can work very nice - practise in front of a mirror if you must!
2. Gestures - as it is strange if each an every NPC has a certain accent, signature gestures are a good method to add some recognicion value to your NPCs. Examples are throwing your hands in the air for drama queen NPCs, squinting or rasisng your finger with everything you say.
3. Eyecatchers. Describe the looks of your NPCs with an eye catcher like a blood red scarf or a bright yellow blouse, high heeled balck leather boots and the like.
If you mind this you might not do the follow:
"As you enter the bar there is a barkeeper behind the bar."
"What does he look like?"
"Well, you know, barkeeperish, do you want to ask him about your problem?"
"Uhm, I guess so."
"Well he tells you to mind your own buisness."
"I try to coerce him into saying more."
"He yells for help - roll initiative."
but instead do it like this:
"As you enter the bar a huge old guy behind the bar looks at you through one eye, the other patched up with a bloody patch that seems quite new while polishing mugs and chewing a matchstick."
"I ask him if he knows anything."
"Well, do you yell through half of the room?"
"Uh, no, I approach the bar."
"Well, what do you say, let us hear nnns words!"
"Uh, ok: Hey fine sir, I guess a spledid bar such like yours must have quite a many customers from abroad!"
"He looks at you, squinting, shoves his matchstick from one side to the other and mutters: who wants to know this?"...
Quite a difference.
Maybe they *GASP* don't like to roleplay.
Are you the DM? If so, then get over it.
If you aren't, find another group.
|
@OP: Which specific parts of 'roleplaying' do you see as lacking and want to encourage? RP is a very broad term, and can cover the following;
1) speaking in character, avoiding metagaming terms,
2) making decisions in character, that may not be the optimal choice for the player,
3) less focus on combat, willingness to parlay or find non-violent solutions to solve the mission.
These are separate issues, and have different causes and solutions.
You can be a slash-happy player, who solves all perceived obstacles with the edge of his axe, yet still be having fun, entertaining the rest of the group, by role-playing to the hilt, singing war-chants and taunting his foes as he drives them before him.
Another player could lead every encounter with a parlay attempt, but that doesn't prove they are a better roleplayer, if all they're doing is cynically trying to whore every circumstantial bonus to a maxed-out Diplomacy score. They're still playing the system, rather than playing the game, playing the character.
There's also the matter of whether the PC's behaviour is appropriate to the genre. The former PC is perfect for a Ragnarok-style game of 'defend King Hranulf's Hall from the endless horde of giants', and is actually being played exactly as his society expects him to act. Take him to a Venetian ball, and he's a liability waiting to happen.
The second PC is the opposite; perfect for a game of courtly intrigue, but stupefyingly irritating when he insists on spamming his Diplomacy skill on every bloodthirsty marauder.
"Enough with the parlay! Just kill something!"
"What do you mean, I don't get a bonus for my noble's outfit? I tell the orc tribe to go home!"
"Wearing foofy pants gives you a penalty to your roll. These warriors are only impressed by feats of strength. There's a tribe of ogres driving them toward the front lines. They are enraged by you wearing makeup, I don't care how expensive it was. They also do not like the smell of your perfume."
"But that's not what the rules say. It says clearly, on page xx, paragraph y, that..."
"<groan>"
Have you talked to your players and expressed your expectations? Since you are bringing this before the board and made no mention of any of your players expressing similar concerns, I am led to believe they are quite happy with the current situation.
If this is the case, you must first recognize that it is very likely you and your players have different creative agendas. No one is right or wrong, you are just looking to get different things out of the experience. It is important that you discuss this with your players and try to find some common ground where everyone can enjoy the game.
Now, at 14th level, the roleplaying has vanished completely…
At the risk of sounding a bit harsh, this is on you. If there is a problem and you do not address it, it is only going to get worse. The longer you let it go, the more ingrained it will become.
Also, D&D/Pathfinder is not a particularly roleplaying heavy RPG, and book adventures lend themselves less to roleplaying than home made adventures.
I agree here. That is not to say drama is impossible with Pathfinder, it is just not the focus of the game. To a large extent that influences players' expectations. Everyone recognizes you get rewards to killing things and taking their stuff. Roleplaying can be its own reward, but it is difficult to focus on that when everyone else focuses on the tactical aspects and your attempts get marginalized.
…even players that weren't power players got a taste and were hooked.
This is a problem I see with players who like to optimize. It starts an unspoken arms race with the other players to stay relevant. Sure, everyone is free to build their sub-optimal character, but if the GM does not make an effort to keep that character useful it just becomes dead weight. So the concept oriented players have to give up those builds in order to offer something to the group.
another thing is it seems a lot of players just want to be kratos from god of war, super tough bad arse who talks with his sword and wants to become all powerfull and kill the gods. No rp just kill and move on.
Some players see role playing as wish fulfillment. I think a little of this is o.k., but obviously it gets boring really quick. If you can identify this trait in a player, I think it is fairly easy to deal with. Communication is important as always. Let the player know he does not get to be Mr. Awesome all the time. At the same time, I think it is important to let the character be Mr. Awesome some of the time.
In my experience, all too often GMs seem to want to prove just how insignificant the PCs are in the GM's world.
Are you the DM? If so, then get over it.
The GM is just as entitled to fun as the players. If the players are not willing to find common ground, why should he? Would you tell the players to 'get over it' if the GM wanted to run Happy Rainbow Tea Time?
In summary: talk to your players, address problems as they arise and reward behavior you wish to encourage.
Oh, I almost forgot. I have mixed feelings about awarding XP for role playing. I believe there are in game ways to reward players for role playing. Have the NPCs react to them. It does not always have to be 'positive' either. What you want is for the players to see their character's actions matter in the world. They can change their world.
The GM is just as entitled to fun as the players. If the players are not willing to find common ground, why should he? Would you tell the players to 'get over it' if the GM wanted to run Happy Rainbow Tea Time?
No, I wouldn't. Which is completely unrelated to my post. I am NOT talking to the players; I am talking to a DM (theoretically) and as such, the resulting reply is DIFFERENT. A DM is entitled to fun, sure, but he knew what he was getting into when he took the post and at level 14, this particular situation didn't just creep up on him unseen. And if his players don't want to roleplay, why does the DM even care? The onus of roleplay was never on him to begin with. If he really wants to roleplay, perhaps he himself should find a roleplay heavy group to play in separate from the one he is DMing? If the players don't want to roleplay, why should the DM's personal interests be forced upon the players, no matter how covert and indirect it is done, contrary to their own?
That is a far more relevant and correct question than yours - Should the DM's personal view of how the game should be played override how the players want to play the game?
If your answer is yes, I don't want to play with you and pity your players.
I play with several different groups with some overlap between them. Often there is debate about what we should be playing and sometimes a particular game gets vetoed because someone doesn;t like the rules system, setting or the DM. Just as often a DM will come up with an idea and then discard it because 'it wouldn't work with players X, Y or Z' in the mix. Role-playing is a hobby which means we should be enjoying it - if we aren't then why bother? Any game has to be a compromise between the different expectations everyone has.If you want to run a particular style of game you have to put that out there from the outset and see who bites. If someone doesn't want to play then they don't have to. However, if the object is to get together with a particular group of friends then you have to try and find something they all want to be involved with.
…this particular situation didn't just creep up on him unseen.
I agree with you here. However, I believe where we disagree is that I do not think he should just 'deal with it' because he made the mistake of letting it go.
And if his players don't want to roleplay, why does the DM even care?
Wow. I am not even sure where to begin. Do you realize a GM could enjoy crafting a world where plot and intrigue exists? Creating situations that are not always solved by sword point?
If the players don't want to roleplay, why should the DM's personal interests be forced upon the players, no matter how covert and indirect it is done, contrary to their own?
Do you really believe there is no such thing as compromise? If the GM does not want to run a game without more role playing, why should he be forced to? Or, maybe, as I suggested, the GM could talk to the players and they could find common ground where both of them are happy.
I, in no way, suggested the GM be covert about his intentions. I am suggesting he openly discuss them with his players. From the sounds of it, I doubt the GM wants to run a campaign that is nothing but role playing and I am willing to be the players do not want to play in a game that is nothing but a tactical war game. Therefore, it is likely, they can all find a happy medium.
The first question to ask is: are people having fun? And that includes you as a GM.
If they and you are, who cares if they are roleplaying?
If you all agree that you would like to do more roleplaying, then there are lots of good suggestions above. The best, in my opinion, involve ways to make the roleplaying more rewarding to the players, although not necessarily through direct XP rewards. Try to make it fun and absolutely imperative to advancing the game. In social situations, don't start by just asking for the Dipomacy roll, and don't let the players just say they are making a Diplomacy roll. Make sure you roleplay it out before making the roll at the appropriate time, and give modifiers to the roll based on good or bad roleplaying or ideas. For example, if the players remember the mayor likes whiskey, give them a bonus to their Diplomacy roll if they buy him a shot before pumping him for information. Try and make each NPC distinct, memorable and believable so they stick in the players' minds and they want to interact with them.
If, however, you want to have more roleplay and they don't, or there is a division at the table, then you have a bit more of a problem. I would suggest then that you need to have an honest conversation about what people (including the GM) want out of the game and arrive at some sort of compromise.
…the system does not limit you.
Fair enough, but only so much as any game does not limit you. You could role play a game of monopoly as well.
I agree, the system does not limit you. However, it specifically rewards a tactical approach. That approach does have an affect on expectations. Also, because the game focuses on a tactical approach, I believe it requires more effort from the GM (or even module publishers) to integrate role playing. Paizo has obviously found a good mix to appeal to a broad spectrum of gamers.
Find out if RP is what they want. There are different gamers and some like roleplaying other don't at all.
I've found there are several types of players the role player is just one of them. There are combat players, problems solvers, story builders ane empire builders as well. Any player can be one of these or combination of them.
For me as players I like problem solving, and story building. Combat and role playing are just ways to resolve conflict. I enjoy role playing and combat for for solving the problems presented and furthering the story.
This is what you need to find out from you players. So for example if you have a player like me and you present combat as the only way to solve problem or build the story then combat is all you will get. That's because that's the only tool I have in my tool box. Give me the option to role play and I'd use that tool as well I just need the opportunity to do so.
Wow. I am not even sure where to begin. Do you realize a GM could enjoy crafting a world where plot and intrigue exists? Creating situations that are not always solved by sword point?
And you imply I'm being short sighted. These are not mutually exclusive activities. You don't either play Diablo or Vampire: The Masquerade. There are rules governing stealth and intrigue. You can get through the game without role-playing, but also without fighting. Have you missed the threads of old-school gamers lamenting the addition of rules governing social interaction? Role-playing does not mean "Not hitting things with a sword." You can role-play every single blow if you wish (and I really wish you wouldn't). Or you could conduct an entire scenario with a merchant based entirely on skills and rules built into the game without one bit of role-playing.
But never mind that - let's address your implication, it doesn't matter WHAT the DM wants to do if the players decide THEMSELVES to solve every problem with a sword and murder. That's how the game works. Is a player going to try and kill a character and DM go "No, you can't do that, you are struck immobile by a god." That's bad DMing. The DM is a facilitator for the players. That's why they are playing tabletop D&D instead of DDO or NWN.
Do you really believe there is no such thing as compromise?
DO you believe the DM should be forcing the players to do things they don't want to do? That is the only question present here that has a binary answer and is not a false dichotomy.
If the GM does not want to run a game without more role playing, why should he be forced to?
Because the players decide how the game runs, regardless of how or what the DM does unless he runs the game with a vindictive iron fist.
Thank you for your posts, Cartigan. I believe I understand where you are coming from now.
I hate to say this, but after 2-3 modules of slogging through fight after fight with giants, I'd likely be numb and incapable of role-playing myself. (For my home game, I discontinued that AP after "Hook Mountain.") Come to think of it, I never run an AP now without interweaving a LOT of extra stuff, most of which is RP-focused.
That's not to say that one can't roleplay while engaging in fight after fight, but I find the mind-set eventually cements into a tactical ops one unless there's a fair amount of relatively nonlethal "time in town" (or wherever) between "missions."
|
|
Thank you for your posts, Cartigan. I believe I understand where you are coming from now.
Indeed.
The 'Kathy Bates' method of finding a GM, as demonstrated in Stephen King's 'Misery'?Anthrax put it best:
And only me,
A really extra-special story.
Make it mine,
Every line;
If you don't you'll be sorry.
It's what I want (what I want),
And I'll tell you what.
I know you,
And you know me,
And you can keep your filthy mouth shut!
Probably your best bet is to introduce roleplaying as a mechanic, and one of the best attempts I have seen is incorporating the fate mechanic, from the fate system. Or you could incoporate skills in combat with some added mechanical advantage. It may not be true roleplaying, but by the time the characters reach higher levels where everything lives or dies in a couple rounds, it tends to take a back seat.
Indeed.
I should like to point out I am not trying to imply anything more than I believe I have a better understanding of where Cartigan is coming from. I am not saying he is wrong or trying to imply that.
Interesting this came up, I currently am running Rise of the Runelords: Fortress of the Stone Giants. And last weekend, we played and it seemed like it had become a numbers game. Everyone had fun, even myself. But my level of fun was much less. A player approached me last month and has stated he likes the game, but wished there were more roleplay.
For those that have read most of the AP's out there, which one seems to lend itself to the most NPC interaction throughout series "out of box"?
Greg
You can insult me all you want, but the fact remains, there is no mutual exclusivity between "combat" and "role-playing." Moreover, no amount of anything short of tyrannical DMing will make a party play how the DM wants them to play, assuming they stick around after the tyrannical stuff.
Interesting this came up, I currently am running Rise of the Runelords: Fortress of the Stone Giants. And last weekend, we played and it seemed like it had become a numbers game. Everyone had fun, even myself. But my level of fun was much less. A player approached me last month and has stated he likes the game, but wished there were more roleplay.
** spoiler omitted **
For those that have read most of the AP's out there, which one seems to lend itself to the most NPC interaction throughout series "out of box"?
Greg
Kingmaker - hands down. Between all the pretty cool NPCs created and the necessities of kingdom building nd solving problems by methods other than hitting things until they stop moving, this one really lets the roleplayers shine unless the GM downplays or handwaves it.
I hate to say this, but after 2-3 modules of slogging through fight after fight with giants, I'd likely be numb and incapable of role-playing myself. (For my home game, I discontinued that AP after "Hook Mountain.") Come to think of it, I never run an AP now without interweaving a LOT of extra stuff, most of which is RP-focused.
That's not to say that one can't roleplay while engaging in fight after fight, but I find the mind-set eventually cements into a tactical ops one unless there's a fair amount of relatively nonlethal "time in town" (or wherever) between "missions."
I have found something similar in a lot of games based on published material. When I or another dm is writing our own adventure, we can weave it around the characters, make the events and NPCs mesh with the characters hopes, dreams, desires, prejudices etc. The players get into the mindset of their character more easily because the story is presumably about them. This in my opinion leads to some great RP.
Its a lot harder to have characters that are fully committed to published stuff. The hooks are weaker, and then events and npcs matter to the characters less, leading to sessions of slogging through fight after fight because the why becomes less important then the next 'challenge'
Kingmaker - hands down. Between all the pretty cool NPCs created and the necessities of kingdom building nd solving problems by methods other than hitting things until they stop moving, this one really lets the roleplayers shine unless the GM downplays or handwaves it.
Interesting, I am playing in the early stages of a kingmaker campaign right now, and there certainly have been some interesting npcs. Most of the roleplaying has been unmitigated disaster, but that doesnt mean it wasnt fun, or good roleplaying.
Interesting "last among equals" perspective in this thread.
Interesting, I am playing in the early stages of a kingmaker campaign right now, and there certainly have been some interesting npcs. Most of the roleplaying has been unmitigated disaster, but that doesnt mean it wasnt fun, or good roleplaying.
Kingmaker - hands down. Between all the pretty cool NPCs created and the necessities of kingdom building nd solving problems by methods other than hitting things until they stop moving, this one really lets the roleplayers shine unless the GM downplays or handwaves it.
I won't spoil your fun, but look for lots of good RP opportunities to come as your group gets more familiar with and attached to the area and the characters who inhabit it. There are lots and lots of quests and essential plot developments that are best solved with social skills and roleplaying. Not that a combat-oriented group couldn't just power their way through, but it certainly wouldn't be optimal for their kingdom. Kingmaker does more to encourage not dumping Charisma than any other Paizo-published adventure I can think of.
I'm running the campaign now and we're about halfway through the second book and having a blast.
Interesting "last among equals" perspective in this thread.
I am unfamiliar with the phrase. Googling it did not really help. I think it means, to be the least effective among a group. I am not sure how that applies to the thread. Please give more info? Not trying to be obtuse, it just comes naturally.
Greg
Roleplaying has always been a little weak with this group, and my various attempts to encourage it really haven't gone that well.
Why does everyone assume that the players don't like RP? There are lots of reasons for RP to take a backseat regardless of how much folks like it.
Based on my own GM'ing of Runelords, there are a few things that could cut down on the roleplaying.
- No one has much of a charisma. This just gets worse if some of the characters are dumb as stumps as well. Even if you don't make it a mechanical rules thing, characters will shy away from the things they are not good at. Add in not knowing languages, not understanding creature types, and you end up with the deck stacked against the party before anyone even starts.
- I used a lot of illusion, charm and other trickery in Hook Mountain. This was real cool, but from then on, my players were very hesitant to trust strangers. It's kind of hard to RP if someone is bound and gagged...
- Some parts of the AP were dungeon slogs that resulted in whole sessions of hack and slash. Not a bad thing, but by the time you get towards the end of the Fortress of the Stone Giants, there could be hack and slay habits formed.
- Our group often played late into the evening on Monday nights. After a long weekend, and a full day of work, we were often very tired. It was easier to roll the dice and think about the next round of combat, rather then try to cajole some NPC into revealing information about stuff that happened weeks ago (in real life time.)
- Our group also had some "social issues" that made discussions, decisions, strategy, problematic.
Your players are playing the game the way that gets them the maximum systemic benefit. Players can (and do) benefit from being good tacticians in Pathfinder/d20. The mechanism by which they do so is clear and obvious - to the point where characters who are not optimized for their combat niche are called 'boat anchors' in parties.
What obvious and clear benefits are there to roleplaying in Pathfinder?
Talk to your players, engage them with characters to roleplay off of. Keep them engaged.
Next game, play something with shorter campaign arcs and use a system that encourages roleplaying directly, and which builds the plots off of character goals.
Adding another note of support for Kingmaker as a good-for-roleplay campaign; my party's front line fighter decided on a charisma of 18 and hasn't regretted it. Kingmaker is also great for allowing you lots and lots of room to weave your own stuff into it; I have added plotlines centered around the specific backstories of my PCs, and with a little work they've fit right into the overall plot.
My group is also a fair bit more focused on combat than RP, and yet I've managed to get some roleplaying out of even the most combat-focused characters.
Also, to Cartigen: While I certainly see where you are coming from, I feel that compromise is possible. While you are right that players can enforce their own will in a way that GMs cannot (without being bad GMs, anyway), I also believe that most players will listen if you have an open conversation with them about the kind of game you want to run, and will be willing to work with you to find a middle ground. Or maybe I just have unusually awesome PCs. :)
I know that when I started Serpent's Skull and told my PCs that I wanted a wilderness survival game and would be tracking things like carrying capacity and food and water intake for the first time, some of my PCs were uncomfortable with the idea of a more "realistic" game. After some discussion, however, we came to a consensus (it would only be "wilderness survival" as long as the PCs were realistically cut off from civilization) and both I and my PCs have been having fun since.
Interesting "last among equals" perspective in this thread.I am unfamiliar with the phrase.
Google "primus inter pares" and consider the reversal.
Google "primus inter pares" and consider the reversal.Interesting "last among equals" perspective in this thread.I am unfamiliar with the phrase.
Okay, understood now. Disagree with observation.
Some parts of the AP were dungeon slogs that resulted in whole sessions of hack and slash. Not a bad thing, but by the time you get towards the end of the Fortress of the Stone Giants, there could be hack and slay habits formed.
This is my worry as well. I intend to have some heavy non-combat NPC focused interactions for a couple of game sessions soon. Our group has always been very focused towards an RP centric game. I just want to re-inspire the spark.
Greg
|
|
My group is about to tackle The Spires of Xin-Shalast. Roleplaying has always been a little weak with this group, and my various attempts to encourage it really haven't gone that well. Now, at 14th level, the roleplaying has vanished completely & each session is just the players discussing strategy & tactics before combat.
So, what do you do to encourage roleplaying? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Have you considered that, far from being opposed to RP, the players consider these discussions to be roleplaying?
Even without knowing their race/class composition, and backgrounds, it's common knowledge that their experiences in the AP to date consist of being a group of hard-bitten mercenaries hired to stop the invasion of their country by any means necessary.
Given that, they could well believe that 'sitting inside a Rope Trick, discussing how best to kill the enemy leaders and their surrounding bodyguards' is exactly what their characters would do.
They are a magical SWAT team, tasked with whacking the ruler of an enemy state, an evil wizard who's thousands of years old. Keeping quiet, and laying low before jumping out and raising merry hell, is in character, hence good roleplay.
Wandering the streets, setting off the enemy's radar, looking for 20' giants and freakish monsters, just so you can compliment them on their shiny tusks and choice of drapes is bad roleplay.
Or is it not what they do, but how they do it?
That it's not the tactics discussions, per se, but the fact they speak in meta-game terms when they do it?
I disagree here with what I think you are implying (and if I'm wrong mea culpa).Your players are playing the game the way that gets them the maximum systemic benefit.
I wasn't saying that the two were points on the same continuum - I was simply pointing out that his players were acting in a way consistent with the 'incentive' theory of game design:
Your players will indulge the behaviors that are rewarded by the game system chosen. Conversely, if you want your players to play in a certain way, make sure that they're a kind of play your players enjoy and make sure the system rewards those kinds of play.
My group is about to tackle The Spires of Xin-Shalast. Roleplaying has always been a little weak with this group, and my various attempts to encourage it really haven't gone that well. Now, at 14th level, the roleplaying has vanished completely & each session is just the players discussing strategy & tactics before combat.
So, what do you do to encourage roleplaying? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
An adventure path is a long haul, and with the end in site your players might just be focusing on the goal rather than the journey.
Part of it could simply be adventure path fatigue.
If you want more RPing, have more things talk to them. My players are just about to tackle Spires as well, and there was just as much rping as there was combat. And the rping was in many cases much more memorable, negotiating with a
Introduce goals that can be attained by talking, just as much by combat, then reward them as if they had won the combat.
If the players haven't left yet, add in some downtime and introduce RP problems. Let me know where your players are and I can discuss what I plan to do.