|
I know that the topic sounds a little bit controversial but I am at the point where I can no longer tolerate the lack of character consistency.
I have two players who, despite being very smart both during gameplay and roleplay elements, more or less fail at staying 'in character' or follow what they told me about their characters.
Here are what problems Ive encountered.
Here we have a dwarf whos on a quest to die Glorious Death in order to redeem the little bit of honour he has left. From the rulebook he read that dwarf are very grim people who only lighten up after geting drunk and they put huge stress on the matter of grudges and honour. Recently the player playd a tieflieng and a dwarf from the pathfinder setting and preformd well, butI don't know why his new character started acting like he is drunk all the time doing things that put him on his suicidal self exile in the first place.
The second player is the biggest issue . He started as a tounge & cheek bard and preformed well but after changing his character to a masculine northen hunter with more brawns than brains he stayed sly and unmanly most of the time. His third character was and continious to destroy any dignity his character's background had.
At the beginig of the game I stated that wood elves are a very non relatable race who dwell in the forest, don't understand or abhore the way the rest of the world live and behave simillar to the wilderness they live in: capricious and dangerous. I made sure the player understands what his background is and how elves should behave focusing on ezoteric and mysterious manner of their upbringing and they kin. The player was concerned with this and I proposed that if he doesn't like the idea of this very de-attached character type he could play a halfling or a human but he chose to be an elf. This player always plays a sly flamboyant drunk man whoever he picks firing jokes from right to left. and even after I reminded him during the game about his character he played as if he wasn't able to play any different.
I put reference material, novels for reading, we had discussions about their characters. Non of the above worked. I hate this but I am thinking now on soem penalty system for bad roleplaying.
Could you give me some advice how do you work with your players on roleplaying their characters?
Penalizing players for not playing their characters the way that you think they should be played is a good way to start a revolution or to lose players. No offense dude, but that is a profoundly bad idea in my opinion. If you absolutely have to give a in game alteration for roleplaying then give people a very small bit of extra experience for very good roleplaying.
In the past when I've dmed I told the players to write out a short page long background on their characters. You'd be surprised how much that helps when it comes to consistent roleplaying.
|
|
Yes I hate the idea of penalty system that is why I posted this question.
I have some issues with the extra experiance becuase the dialogs are good, the characters act like a very good shaddy looking bunch o drunks the only issue is that they aren't supose to be this way.
And yes they submitted not only a page long character history but a bullet point list of informations to help themquickly reference their characters most important aspects. I have players who benefit greatly form this but here it had 0 success.
You control everything else in the game, let the players control their characters.
Maybe it is you that needs to change.
I've found this is generally the case. Players usually know what type of game they want to play, even if they are unable to put it into words or unaware of the paradigm at all. It's the GM's role to recognize this and adjust the game to match the needs and desires of the group as best he or she can.
Don't worry too much if the players alter their character's fluff. Usually this is a sign that they're developing as players, and the changes represent new understanding. Once again, this is often something the players themselves are unaware of. Don't attempt to hold them to racial concepts or stereotypes; the players are the heroes, often the exception to the rule. Let them take their characters in the directions they want, adapt to the campaign to compensate, and don't stress about the little stuff. When you get as concerned over an issue as you indicate you can't enjoy the game, either.
Carrots work better than sticks.
Give a roleplay XP award to one player every game, and keep giving it to other players until they start role playing properly.
Characters get to role play. That is their job as far as the game is concerned. It is not a dm's job to tell them how to role play their characters based upon his/her preconceptions.
You're telling your resident elf that he has to live up to your racial stereotype. Is there some reason why he cannot be an individual among the elven community? You show me a group of people without a resident nut and I'll show you a bunch of skeezy liars.
One can't really role play wrong. One can do it poorly, but it is rather hard to say its wrong imo.
why not throw real wood elves at the party, who would probably react strongly to meet another wood elf so askew from their society. that's not a punishment, it's rp engagement with the setting, the player decides if he wants to play a wood elf whose own people would consider to be retarted/insane/etc.
What is your problem with the 3rd character? Some people dont have any dignity, or are on a mission to lose it, why isn't that valid...?
I'm not clear about how these different characters come to pass, do they die and others show up later? is it 'instant handwave polymorph'? how this is handled can contribute towards players' attitudes to total character personality and consistency.
I don't know the problem with the other player, if he has a continual supply of booze, being drunk is normal. If he doesn't, his character must logically becfaking drunkeness... that seems like something you can discuss with the player, develop the pcs psychology either around faking this (why? but really getting sometimes, or its all fake? why doesnt the character really drink all the time?... certainly within the capacity of a her-class pc to arrange 99% of the time.... but perhaps his personality when NOT drunk could be developed more...?)
Don't force them to change the way they play. They are playing their characters the way they want. What you can and should do is have the world react accordingly. If the player is playing an elf that is generally viewed as non-relatable, then have the world not relate to him as well.
You can do this with the rules. Interacting with NPCs can often require Diplomacy checks. If this race of elves has a -2 to Charisma, that's already going to be a penalty to Diplomacy checks.
You need to have the world do what it should do. If you aren't, then you're not roleplaying the NPCs correctly either and can't expect the players to roleplay well.
I can understand a bit how you feel, ... because I was like your players.
It can't be helped sometimes, keep talking to them, but don't punish them. Encourage them, but don't tell them how to do it "right".
I hope you won't use your destructive ideas and that this thread spawns a whole lot of constructive ideas.
I recently read an article which had some insight into this topic, I found it to be quite helpful. Link to article. Don't worry its short.
Sometimes there are just people who aren't cut out for being really good roleplayers. No matter what kinda of scenarios you throw at them. I've been playing RPGs in various forms for about ten years, and I'm still a horrible roleplayer.
I know that the topic sounds a little bit controversial but I am at the point where I can no longer tolerate the lack of character consistency.
I have two players who, despite being very smart both during gameplay and roleplay elements, more or less fail at staying 'in character' or follow what they told me about their characters.
Here are what problems Ive encountered.
Here we have a dwarf whos on a quest to die Glorious Death in order to redeem the little bit of honour he has left. From the rulebook he read that dwarf are very grim people who only lighten up after geting drunk and they put huge stress on the matter of grudges and honour. Recently the player playd a tieflieng and a dwarf from the pathfinder setting and preformd well, butI don't know why his new character started acting like he is drunk all the time doing things that put him on his suicidal self exile in the first place.The second player is the biggest issue . He started as a tounge & cheek bard and preformed well but after changing his character to a masculine northen hunter with more brawns than brains he stayed sly and unmanly most of the time. His third character was and continious to destroy any dignity his character's background had.
At the beginig of the game I stated that wood elves are a very non relatable race who dwell in the forest, don't understand or abhore the way the rest of the world live and behave simillar to the wilderness they live in: capricious and dangerous. I made sure the player understands what his background is and how elves should behave focusing on ezoteric and mysterious manner of their upbringing and they kin. The player was concerned with this and I proposed that if he doesn't like the idea of this very de-attached character type he could play a halfling or a human but he chose to be an elf. This player always plays a sly flamboyant drunk man whoever he picks firing jokes from right to left. and even after I reminded him during the game about his character he played as if he wasn't able to play any different.
I put reference material, novels for reading, we had discussions about their characters. Non of the above worked. I hate this but I am thinking now on soem penalty system for bad roleplaying.
Could you give me some advice how do you work with your players on roleplaying their characters?
Firstly, is everyone having fun? If so, congratulations, problem solved.
Otherwise, penalizing people for not roleplaying their characters like you want them has never worked and likely never will work. It only goes as far as the player is willing to tolerate the extra baggage, and is more likely to make them resent role-playing.
Don't wage war, wage peace. Don't force him the roleplay, but allure him into it. Have NPCs ask him about his past occasionally. Maybe drop some side-quests to let him do a little soul searching, etc. Drop a bit for inspiration, such as maybe mentioning the Clandreggin' the party finds in a dungeon to be one from one of his ancestors, or family members.
More flies with honey, after all. It sounds like he/they lack inspiration, or just falls into a comfortable routine and isn't really interested in roleplaying different but wants to play something differently. That's fairly understandable.
Then again, it's not really any of your business how they're roleplaying their characters if that's what makes them happy and they aren't upsetting everyone else at the table (not being disruptive, rude, mean spirited, causing problems, etc).
In the spirit of "dangling the carrot" I suggest incorporating a mechanic from an other game system. There is a little indie RPG called "Fate" which actually awards characters for good role playing. What you do is you have your characters write up a list of "aspects". These are simply words or phrases that say something about your character, such as "drinks like a fish" or "Death before dishonor!" Any time a character plays to their aspects you can award them with a "Fate Point" (use some kind of counter, like game tokens, pennies, ext.). These Fate Points can be used by the players to shift the game in their favor in a couple of ways.
They could spend a point to improve a role by two points, or re-role a bad damage role. More interestingly, they could use a point to make a "declaration" about the game world. For example, being chased through the streets of a busy city the player could declare that a merchant pushing a cart of vegetables conveniently cuts off their pursuers, thus giving the player more of a lead. The GM, of course, has absolute veto power, but so long as the declaration is reasonable, isn't game breaking (like having an adversary suddenly drop dead from a heart attack) and doesn't present any continuity issues, then let it fly.
An other interesting part of aspects is the freedom to "compel" them. Let's say somebody is playing a thief with the "cowardly" aspect, when they suddenly decide they are going to jump into the fray and face off with some horrifying beast. This is rather out of character for them, so what you can do is compel them with tantalizing Fate Points!
"My cowardly thief lunges at the terrifying aberration and stabs it with his puny dagger!" asserts the player. "Does he?" enquirers the GM as he slides a Fate Token across the table. "Those spiked tentacles look awfully nasty." The player then has the choice to accept the fate token and give in to his cowardice, or they can resist the compulsion by meeting the GMs wager with a Fate Point of their own. A character can be compelled a maximum of three times per instance.
So to summarize; playing to type earns players points which can be used to improve roles and alter the game world to their liking.
Also; if racial characteristics are a big deal to you then you could make the character's race a mandatory aspect and compel it whenever you think someone is being "un-elflike" or what have you. You could also apply this to character classes and alignments. I do think, however, that any aspects that go against race or class archetypes should take precedence since these are the things that make a character unique. Also remember that characters change over time, so feel free to add, alter, and swap out aspects as the plot dictates.
Maybe you could even make Fate Points exchangeable for XP. The whole idea is that this gives you a means of directing play but not without giving players new freedoms in return.
For me it sounds like they are simply "revolting", I would ask them simply why the play this way.
Talking is the best way to solve such issues
I have to agree. It sounds like they are role-playing just fine, the problem is that they are not role-playing what you feel should be their stereotypes.
Chill, let them play their players the way they want to. It's all about having fun, after all.
Just confirm that your players understand that they are playing against stereotype, then occasionally have them meet some of their own people who regard them as weird. No need to do anything beyond that.
I think that the problem I have is when a player doesn't play consistently the character they have chosen. If a player (who in my case are all personal friends of mine, I haven't role played with strangers for a couple decades) always plays a cautious, intelligent type while I might be raising my eyes at the lack if imagination, it's fine. On the other hand, if a fighter who is 'good', has always accepted the surrender of beaten foes (even evil ones) and goes out of his way to minimise collateral damage suddenly decides to coup de gras an adversary because it's the quickest way to get the mini off the playing mat then I have a problem (especially where the victim is intended as a recurring adversary).
Another problem can be where out of character and in character responses get muddled. For example, I cannot help being sarcastic, I just can't. So my characters, even the happy smiling ones, inevitably can't resist digs and jabs. This is poor role playing really, but we smile and move on.
You have more scope for applying penalties if your player is playing against alignment compared with playing against stereotype, although this often comes from player and gm having different views of what a particular alignment represents ("I know I'm chaotic good, but it's ok for me to torture someone because my personal moral code says that as long as they deserve it it's a good act").
The character disadvantages in the original Deadlands had an interesting way of doing things. You gained points for special abilities by taking disadvantages like "honest" or "honourable" or "mean as a rattlesnake". Then you could either just take your points and walk away or you could gain extra experience by role playing these. Effectively, if you role played a disadvantage so that it cause you some inconvenience you got one extra xp, if it put you in genuine danger you gained two and if it put the whole party in danger you got three. Examples being "no Ma'am, actually I have ungentlemanly designs on your person", (1), "I'm not drawing on an unarmed man, get your gun Fast Eddie" (2), "just before we ride out of town, I go back and shoot the sheriff who took our guns when we came in" (3). You weren't penalised for NOT role playing these, but you were only actually rewarded if the role playing came at a cost.
The character disadvantages in the original Deadlands had an interesting way of doing things. You gained points for special abilities by taking disadvantages like "honest" or "honourable" or "mean as a rattlesnake". Then you could either just take your points and walk away or you could gain extra experience by role playing these. Effectively, if you role played a disadvantage so that it cause you some inconvenience you got one extra xp, if it put you in genuine danger you gained two and if it put the whole party in danger you got three. Examples being "no Ma'am, actually I have ungentlemanly designs on your person", (1), "I'm not drawing on an unarmed man, get your gun Fast Eddie" (2), "just before we ride out of town, I go back and shoot the sheriff who took our guns when we came in" (3). You weren't penalised for NOT role playing these, but you were only actually rewarded if the role playing came at a cost.
Deadlands was cool like that. :)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The character disadvantages in the original Deadlands had an interesting way of doing things. You gained points for special abilities by taking disadvantages like "honest" or "honourable" or "mean as a rattlesnake". Then you could either just take your points and walk away or you could gain extra experience by role playing these. Effectively, if you role played a disadvantage so that it cause you some inconvenience you got one extra xp, if it put you in genuine danger you gained two and if it put the whole party in danger you got three. Examples being "no Ma'am, actually I have ungentlemanly designs on your person", (1), "I'm not drawing on an unarmed man, get your gun Fast Eddie" (2), "just before we ride out of town, I go back and shoot the sheriff who took our guns when we came in" (3). You weren't penalised for NOT role playing these, but you were only actually rewarded if the role playing came at a cost.
Interesting. Haven't played 'Deadlands' (yet), but I have played in other games that gave ex.p. rewards for properly playing your disad's... However, I must admit--
I'd be seriously tempted to kill the character who keeps screwing over the whole party in order to get his/her extra experience (especially if the rest of us don't get anything for each time that one character puts us all at increased risk with the excuse of "I'm just properly role-playing my disadvantage..."). Well, maybe not kill, but leave that character behind on the next adventure, yeah-- in character, why am I going to keep bringing along someone who consistently proves that they are a significant liability to the team? (in RL, that's the guy I might think about fragging if I can't get him out of my squad, if his/her mistakes keep putting everyone else's lives at unnecessarily increased risk....)
The character disadvantages in the original Deadlands had an interesting way of doing things. You gained points for special abilities by taking disadvantages like "honest" or "honourable" or "mean as a rattlesnake". Then you could either just take your points and walk away or you could gain extra experience by role playing these. Effectively, if you role played a disadvantage so that it cause you some inconvenience you got one extra xp, if it put you in genuine danger you gained two and if it put the whole party in danger you got three. Examples being "no Ma'am, actually I have ungentlemanly designs on your person", (1), "I'm not drawing on an unarmed man, get your gun Fast Eddie" (2), "just before we ride out of town, I go back and shoot the sheriff who took our guns when we came in" (3). You weren't penalised for NOT role playing these, but you were only actually rewarded if the role playing came at a cost.Interesting. Haven't played 'Deadlands' (yet), but I have played in other games that gave ex.p. rewards for properly playing your disad's... However, I must admit--
I'd be seriously tempted to kill the character who keeps screwing over the whole party in order to get his/her extra experience (especially if the rest of us don't get anything for each time that one character puts us all at increased risk with the excuse of "I'm just properly role-playing my disadvantage..."). Well, maybe not kill, but leave that character behind on the next adventure, yeah-- in character, why am I going to keep bringing along someone who consistently proves that they are a significant liability to the team? (in RL, that's the guy I might think about fragging if I can't get him out of my squad, if his/her mistakes keep putting everyone else's lives at unnecessarily increased risk....)
It's worth noting that Deadlands the rulebook doesn't describe it or have anything to do with putting your party in danger. Instead, it's about roleplaying your hindrances even when it would be inconvenient for you to do so. For example, if your character has some sort of chronic illness that causes you to cough or gag regularly, coughing or gagging while hiding from a werewolf (possibly allowing the werewolf to hear you) would be something of a major deal, while coughing phlegm onto the major of a town might be a moderate deal, and just commenting that your character coughs and stuff in general RPing might be minor.
You get additional fate chips for doing so. Fate chips are like fortune or luck. You can use them to negate damage, attempt re-tries on certain actions, and turn them in for additional experience points at the end of a session. It's kind of how fortune tends to repay those it craps on. You were unlucky enough to have a chronic illness which caught the attention of that werewolf, but then were lucky enough that the werewolf missed and tore out the wall instead of tearing off your head.
|
|
It's worth noting that Deadlands the rulebook doesn't describe it or have anything to do with putting your party in danger. Instead, it's about roleplaying your hindrances even when it would be inconvenient for you to do so. For example, if your character has some sort of chronic illness that causes you to cough or gag regularly, coughing or gagging while hiding from a werewolf (possibly allowing the werewolf to hear you) would be something of a major deal, while coughing phlegm onto the major of a town might be a moderate deal, and just commenting that your character coughs and stuff in general RPing might be minor.You get additional fate chips for doing so. Fate chips are like fortune or luck. You can use them to negate damage, attempt re-tries on certain actions, and turn them in for additional experience points at the end of a session. It's kind of how fortune tends to repay those it craps on. You were unlucky enough to have a chronic illness which caught the attention of that werewolf, but then were lucky enough that the werewolf missed and tore out the wall instead of tearing off your head.
I'm familiar with games that handle disadvantages that way. Now, the character who gives the party away through a major coughing fit, is much more understandable (and tolerable to the rest of the party) than the character who deliberately makes choices that screw everyone else over (as in Elinor's still nifty example, even though the character who chose option 3 would be on my s*** list). Other than the lack of being able to spend them for extra ex.p. Deadlands's 'Fate chips' sound a lot like hero points in Mutants & Masterminds.
The positive reward for following through also sounds better than the GURPS/White Wolf approach, where you get the points once, but have no on-going incentive to play your limitations (other than the fun/games of good role-playing). Now... GURPS has a few disadvantages, that if someone takes them on their PC, are pretty good for getting that PC ostracized quick. ;)
|
|
Sorry for the delay but I think I'm starting to resolve this situation.
In fact the issue was more complex for the sexond player than it was for the first one and had different background as opossed to what I thought the problem was.
Here is the whole story which rises all sorts of new issue which I fear it will be a great task to tackle as a GM.
The first player who plays the dwarf has a simple problem of disregarding his own choices at character and I have no doubt about this issue. If you are fammilliar with Troll Slayers from Warhammer Fantasy setting you will know what I am talking about, and for those who don't here is a short describtion of these characters.
Troll slayers are dwarfs who had lost their honour and put themselves on self-exile from dwarven societies to kill the most dangerous creatures in order to die in glorious death and regain a little bit of honour in the process. A basic example would be a dwarf who by destroying an evil artifact lost his sense of touch in his hands therefor he cannot become a master armorer and thus dooms his ancestors legacy due to his own reclesness which results in seeking death as a form of redemption.
The player knowing how big impact honour and redemption had on his character started doing exactly the same thing that made him go on this suicidal quest for redemption. He was fully aware of this fact and even proposed it himself. I see no other problems than the issue of self-discipline that this player has.
The case with the second player is so complex that I don't know if I will ever be able to resolve it. 1st issue is that he never 'does his homework'. He knew that playing an elf is difficult and he personally adressed this issue that it will be a challenge and he wants to face it and I helped him giving some pointers along the way but he only noted that and never reflected or reflected and didn't use them and here is the issue why. He has incredibly little self-confidence in himself to the point I didn't even imagined. His fear of confrontation was so big that he started doing sarcastic jokes along with his dwarven friend in order to adjust to his style of gaming and has stated several times that he would rather cooperate at all costs with his fellow player rather than oppose him and takes this agenda to the extreme.
I follow a simple quote from an old RP article "Roleplaying is all about inviting others into your own 'game'". What this player fears is that if he gets into a conflic with the dwarf or acts elvish it will destroy the 'balance' of the party. I know encourage him to invite the dwarf to his own roleplaying experiance and I gave him pointers how he can roleplay the elf to create some nice drama for other players and the GM to get into. I also dispelled his fears about conflicts within the party beacause they are the essence of roleplaying where people argue but at the end of the day work together, but it will still requier a lot of work to make this player stand on his own two feet.
What I like about rpgs is the story that a group of people produce and I am in extasy when you can chat and reflect on what happend, my players also share my viewpoint and I work hard to make my world belivable and NPC likeable but I also requier from the players to make their characters interesting. I had several situations where I hated characters personalities but this was due to the fact that they were so interesting and I hope that my current group can produce simmillar results. If they don't, I will probably lose interest in the game because I can easily find other players who would provide me with fun experiance. in return for enjoyable and interesting gaming experiance.
PS: Thank you all for your anwsers. Some of them really made me rethink my DMing strategies a few times so that I could tackle the problem form a variety of perspectives. It was a harsh medicine but it paid off.