|
I was just wondering what kind of experience people have had with low role play games.
I am going to DM my first game and I know that the folks that will be playing are not the type that are going to be acting in character. And I do not see my self as a DM who will be doing much voice acting.
I was just wondering what peoples experience with this type of game was.
There's no right or wrong way to roleplay. It sounds like your group wants to powergame. If that's what makes them happy, give them plenty of combat. Perhaps they're in a wartorn area, and going anywhere is dangerous. Or, maybe they're just in a nasty dungeon.
"Clear the dungeon/fight in the war/kill everything that moves" is fun, sometimes. Some players aren't that into playing their characters to the hilt. They just want spectacular combats, and don't want to have a French accent.
I like to feel like I'm my character when I'm a player. I like some description and atmosphere, but I don't need every bar patron described in detail at 1st level, and I don't care that they have the best cheese in town. If they're important to the story, I'll see them again, once I've leveled. Other players love all the details.
Talk with the players. Get a sense of their playstyle. It's only a problem if you get bored with it. If everyone's happy to just kick in the door and roll dice and kill things for loot, railroad it. They've handed you the plot, and it doesn't have to be engrossing. Just let them fight a lot, and they'll be happy.
If you really have a group of players who just want to engage in combat, then you should work hard to provide a challenging tactical encounter for them. When I have players like that I really step up the NPC/monster tactics, techniques and the terrain and effects.
But I do still try to give the encounter some personality and flavor.
When my group plays, we don't really get into character too much. There is some dialog, but no special voices, no fancy, archaic language, etc. As GM I do a few voices just so everyone knows who is talking, but none are going to win me an Oscar.
For their part the players specify actions that their characters would take, and things their characters would say, based on what they've created on their sheets. So even though the players aren't in character, they are still representing the personalities, motives, strengths, weaknesses, etc. of their characters. They're just not acting.
This all works fine for us. It's not a dialog-centric campaign. That doesn't mean it's all combat either. I give them all sorts of challenges to work through.
I wouldn't try to force anything. Just go with what feels natural to you, let your true personality shine through. Your persona as the GM is every bit as important as the personas of any NPCs you play. As long as you're comfortable and just being yourself, it's going to work out great.
TL;DR Don't sweat it, it's all good.
Quite frankly, I only know one guy who uses a voice for his character. And he's only had 1 character that's used that voice. But I consider us to be a pretty high role-play group.
I've GM'd for low RP groups, though. And the name of the game is combat. Learn it, and make it interesting. Remember, if you understand the rules, you have the right to break them.
-The Beast
I consider myself to be an "old school" role player. I work hard to give my characters unique personalities. I create complete backstories, determine motivations, develop habits and even will come up with catch-phrases.
But I've never yet used a "voice" for any of my characters, even my female ones. I describe what they do and I speak the words, but I don't "act out" the dialogue. Much of my role playing is based around what my characters actually DO, not what voice, accent or gestures I use.
I'm not an actor, I'm not a mimic, and I don't try to be. I just try to create interesting characters who behave in a consistent and believable manner.
Changing the inflection of your voice to match a specific character or mood can do a lot to draw the players in. My last GM had a very flat, monotone voice. On the rare occasion that he did act out a character it was like a breath of fresh air. It caught my attention and engaged me in a way that listening to some one rattle off a description in monotone never would. Don't be shy!
It's my experience that pure or almost pure combat games are very difficult to keep interesting. If you put a lot of effort into varied and diverse combats, though, there's plenty of fun to be had there. Although, when I have run these types of games I've found that people start to naturally empathise with their characters and the world around them and the level of roleplaying increases very organically. It all very much depends on the group.
One thing I found that kept the combat fresh was going heavy on description, both of environment and events.
Even if you do not use voices or anything try to give encounters flavor, some graphics to stimulate their imagination a detailed map, interesting monsters that do not come straight from the bestiary and just be descriptive, even a highly combat orientated group is interested in a little cinematics, maybe even more so.
Also do not make every encounter as challenging as the next, if you keep that up the players will lose interest, if the big boss is just another hard battle the game will go downwards quickly.
Everyone has said combat, so I'm going to throw this one out there. Puzzles. Not role play mysteries but mazes, etc. Legend of Zelda type stuff.
Oo, +1 to what Kierato said. Excellent suggestion, puzzles really add to the game.
Oo, +1 to what Kierato said. Excellent suggestion, puzzles really add to the game.
Only when done right, I have seen quite a few people getting bored with this sort of thing, you will have to see if the party actually likes to solve puzzles if the party is heavily combat orientated maybe combine the two, perhaps puzzles can make the battles easier in some way.
Like L12 Procastinator, my group doesn't go in much for "acting", although that doesn't stop them playing their characters with quite well defined personalities. EG: the fighter is always crass and reckless, the druid sneering and sarcastic, the bard a bit of a worrier. Admittedly these are all pretty close to the players' own personalities.
Its been a long time since I played with anyone who was precious about role-playing as opposed to roll-playing. I don't think its reasonable to expect someone who's had a hard week at work to suddenly turn into a paragon of archaic eloquence for the evening, nor for anyone else to be forced to sit and listen to them. If they want to default to a Diplomacy skill check, why not?
Similarly, if an NPC is delivering a flowery and overly wordy speech, I don't want to take a big chunk of game time monologuing. I'd rather describe it as such, and then ask for Int rolls to see if anyone understood what on earth he was saying.
I don't think you need to steer clear of the social interaction scenes - just be prepared to handle them in third person if that's what the group is most comfortable with.
Good luck with the game
Unless you already have a really great campaign idea in mind, I would recomend starting with either a module of decent length, or an adventure path. Typically either is going to have well thought out combats, puzzles, and traps, with a decent amount of roleplaying that can easily be emphasized or put into the background as needed. This will allow you to have those elements readily accessible without doing hours of game prep that will be wasted, or being caught unprepared when one of your players suddenly decides they want more of whichever aspect.
I've been running a group through kingmaker for just this reason. We're all pretty burnt out on more serious campaigns, and kingmaker let's my players set the pace and decide which aspects of the game they really want to use, and which they don't.
In my experience low Role Play games generally work out as follows...
*sung to the tune of "hie ho, hie ho"*
Hack and Slay
Hack and Slay
Thats the way
I earn my Pay
If that is the type of game you like then Slay on brother.
Me; I prefer the "talking heads" style.
I suggest making your encounters individually dynamic. Don't have it be "you encounter the monsters across 100 feet across the field and roll initiative" make them be more like "You're getting attacked by pirates and a nasty storm has brewed up roll initiative" and randomly have a large wave crash up on the ship knocking some people down every few rounds or the mast of one the ships falls and make reflex save to not get crushed.
Oo, +1 to what Kierato said. Excellent suggestion, puzzles really add to the game.Only when done right, I have seen quite a few people getting bored with this sort of thing, you will have to see if the party actually likes to solve puzzles if the party is heavily combat orientated maybe combine the two, perhaps puzzles can make the battles easier in some way.
This is certainly true, but I'll add that you need to be really careful with those kinds of puzzles on a making-it-seem-worthwhile level. With how precious actions often are in combat, unless there is a clear reason to use those on solving a puzzle, I am prone to try to push through the combat quickly and see if I can do the puzzle afterwords. If it's something that will affect combat that much, as a GM I might have an ancient tome in the library mention the BBEG's weakness to the sun striking the seventh house of the Dark Lord's ancestors disrupting his shadowy aura or some such, causing him to lose a fear aura or concealment.
Like L12 Procastinator, my group doesn't go in much for "acting", although that doesn't stop them playing their characters with quite well defined personalities. EG: the fighter is always crass and reckless, the druid sneering and sarcastic, the bard a bit of a worrier. Admittedly these are all pretty close to the players' own personalities.
I'm with BaldEagle and the others who have players who decide what their characters do, but don't necessarily act.
Personally, I see four levels of "roleplay":
When most people who don't game hear "roleplay", they tend to assume the third, but I've found most people to be more comfortable with the second. It's a pretty broad category, and shooting to fall within it is probably the best way to get started.
Like others have said you dont have to 'act in character' to roleplay. But even pure hack and slash games can be fun. I have played in games that were basically
-dm narrates a description of the situation
-players decide whether to use skills/charms or hit it with sharp metal and fire
-players use skills/charms or sharp metal and fire
-players move to next situation (either physically or figuratively)
-rinse and repeat
It can be fun, and you can even still have a compelling story. Think of some older rpg video games, they can have a good story even if 90% of the content is you hacking things to bits.
For the dm, its important to try to still create some kind of connection with what is going on. Maybe there is a theme to the enemies or there is some overiding force driving things. Use a bit of narration to frame things, even if its just a dungeon crawl. And ofcourse make sure the combats are interesting and challenging. If you dont have to work out npc motives as much, or their personalities, it gives you more time as a dm to play the combats. So make use of it.
Most games are low roleplay imo.
In my experience though, even low roleplay PCs still appreciate a little voice acting from the DM and good and non-robotic descriptions. You're storytelling after all. When you tell jokes or stories in real life etc, you don't tell them like a robot.
My game group varies heavily in roleplay intensity, sometimes we are all in the mood to roleplay and solve puzzles indulge in intrigue and dont roll a single die all session while having fun, most of the time it is some interesting combat mixed with rp in and out off combat.
Sometimes my players had a tough week at work and just want to do something less mentally challenging than roleplay and typically we hack and slash through some encounters with little roleplay.
|
If your group enjoys the minimal/no rp style, there used to be a product for 3.x called Dungeon Bash which was essentially rules for a DM-less dungeon crawl. My group and I use them for anytime we're missing the whole group or no one feels up to DMing. The website is down, but I think you can still get the pdf off DriveThruRPG. It's well worth the $10 for it, IMHO.
EDIT: Actually it's on RPGNow for $8. http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=19159