How do you promote "good" roleplaying?

[Trifletraxor]

I'm had some problems with my regular group of players for a couple of campaigns now, which is is that their characters seem to only be motivated by increasing their level of power. I moved over to the Hârn setting (gritty and low fantasy) to lessen the impact of magic, but they're still as amoral as ever.

I've followed the traits discussion with interest, but unsure if game mechanics to guide play is the way to go. I also like the gritty feel of BRP, so the more heroic narrative games are also out of the question for me.

What rituals have you used to battle the munchkin curse?

SGL.

[frogspawner]

Munchkins like min-maxing and so forth, so it has to be game mechanics. If you make NPCs/society react against them just because they act like unbridled rapacious killers (!), the players'll just say you're being an unreasonable GM.

Edited September 20, 2010 by frogspawner

[Redcrow]

What I have done in the past to encourage good roleplaying and discourage poor roleplaying is this... When the PCs are doing something that corresponds to good roleplaying I narrate with enthusiasm. Whenever the PCs do something that I consider bad roleplaying (i.e. killing for no good reason) I don't narrate at all and just reduce everything to "They hit you for x damage. You hit them for x damage and they die." and then when its time to introduce the consequences of their actions I pull no punches. So not only was the encounter itself fairly unrewarding, but now the PCs must suffer the consequences of it.

I think its important to make the poor decisions of the PCs as UN-rewarding as possible. In fact I go out of my way to make it as boring for the group as possible. I'll even handwave an entire combat if the PCs considerably outmatch the NPCs. Conversely, I try to make situations in which the PCs make good descisions more interesting and rewarding.

For me this has been a simple but effective technique, but don't expect immediate results because it may take a few encounters before the players begin to change their habits.

[rust]

One of the methods I use is the combination of families and social networks of

the characters with the society's customs of blood debt and blood feud.

If the characters harm someone in a way that is seen as dishonourable or other-

wise unacceptable by the society, the relatives and friends of the victim have

the right to demand a compensation from the characters, and if they refuse to

pay this compensation, a blood feud must begin - the relatives and friends of

the characters' victim will kill the family members, friends and allies of the cha-

racters.

Until now I have had only one player who did not understand this concept and

had his character ignore it. As a result this character was killed - poisoned - by

his own sister, because his family had decided that they had to get rid of him to

restore their honour and end the blood feud.

By the way, an interesting quote from Wikipedia about a society that is known

for taking the blood feud obligation seriously, the Greek Mani:

In the era of the Ottoman Empire's rule, the seasoned Albanian soldiers of Ali Pasha

burnt and pillaged the Peloponnese until they got to Mani, the Albanians were stopped

frozen out of fear upon having to come face to face with a Maniot so they were seen

dropping their arms and retreating while repeating the phrase "marr armët e mia por

nuk mua" (Take my arms, but not me), even Ali Pasha himself never entered Mani for

this reason. During the World Wars, Benito Mussolini's Italian regiments from Sicily,

Calabria and Venice refused to enter Mani, saying that they would rather face cannon

fire than a Maniot. The last vendetta on record required the Greek Army with artillery

support to force it to a stop.

Edited September 20, 2010 by rust

[pansophy]

It is a difficult question. Usually I do not punish the players for being the bad guys in a RPG. It might be the way they want to play it and it might be the way they experience fun. The question is, if the way they like it overlaps with yours. So I think you should probably ask them, what their intention is and how they would like to have the way a game moves on.

That said, rules wise I let the characters feel the impact of their actions. In one group it went that bad the player group was refused entry into some cities as they were well known for the trouble they attract. It was that moment I came up with this Allegiance rules and set the "Worship Evil" to 75% . They were complaining at first, but after I told them what it means they understood their actions have consequences. After a while I introduced more and more Allegiance groups (one for each major player in the world) and they could work on their ratings.

It went out quite good. The Allegiance rules did a wonderful thing, because I did not need to work out relationships and detailed impacts of their actions, but I simply could roll on the Allegiance to see wether the NPCs recognise the group or not - and what they knew of them.

In one adventure it was like this: The players were known for their evil doings in a city, but as they were also high ranked in an other group, the guards let them in. The players had to hand over their weapons and heavy parts of their armour to enter the city and were under constant surveillance. This caused more trouble than intended but was very useful to show them how their actions impact the world around them.

Their mission was getting complicated more and more and finally they had to behave like "good citizens" - there was simply no other way.

Overall, in the beginning I was ... "emotionally upset" about their actions, but after the Allegiance rules came in, I got a lot of fun out of it. It wasn't that I played against them, no, it was more that I enjoyed them seeing to get over to roleplaying the situations they got themselves into.

After about two sessions they changed from a slaying group of bandits to a more or less (probably less) group of friendly adventurers. But it was fun, I did see their intention to "not care about others" changing to "I need to do this to archive my goal".

That said, they sill murdered, robbed or stole from others when in the wild, but they tried to cover their tracks now. I had a nice session where they had to get rid of an other band of adventurers which had set out for bounty hunting - and the players were the targets. It was a game of cat and mouse, many many sessions long, ending very tragic for the PCs in the end. But it was a good ending, and the players (and I) loved every session of it.

You can play the bad guys sometime, but even then you have to play by rules - rules of the society and people around you.

[Rob Thomas]

You want the players to be gritty, they are playing evil. This is not a game issue that can be dealt with by slapping the characters around. Odds are they will only escalate their evil acts or get mad at you for being "unfair".

To deal with this you need to talk to your players, explain what you are looking for out of the game and feel like you are not getting. Hopefully, they will meet you somewhere in the middle and change their play style. If not, maybe it is time to let someone else GM for a while or look for players who want the same thing out of the game you do.

[Trifletraxor]

It is a difficult question. Usually I do not punish the players for being the bad guys in a RPG. It might be the way they want to play it and it might be the way they experience fun. The question is, if the way they like it overlaps with yours. So I think you should probably ask them, what their intention is and how they would like to have the way a game moves on.

The thing is, they're not "evil" in that sense, they just seem to lack the drive to to anything that's not connected to increasing their power.

The Allegiance rules did a wonderful thing, because I did not need to work out relationships and detailed impacts of their actions, but I simply could roll on the Allegiance to see wether the NPCs recognise the group or not - and what they knew of them.

...

Overall, in the beginning I was ... "emotionally upset" about their actions, but after the Allegiance rules came in, I got a lot of fun out of it. It wasn't that I played against them, no, it was more that I enjoyed them seeing to get over to roleplaying the situations they got themselves into.

After about two sessions they changed from a slaying group of bandits to a more or less (probably less) group of friendly adventurers. But it was fun, I did see their intention to "not care about others" changing to "I need to do this to archive my goal".

That said, they sill murdered, robbed or stole from others when in the wild, but they tried to cover their tracks now. I had a nice session where they had to get rid of an other band of adventurers which had set out for bounty hunting - and the players were the targets. It was a game of cat and mouse, many many sessions long, ending very tragic for the PCs in the end. But it was a good ending, and the players (and I) loved every session of it.

You can play the bad guys sometime, but even then you have to play by rules - rules of the society and people around you.

Hmmm... Alliegiance could be a thing to use. I'll have to look into those rules more.

To deal with this you need to talk to your players, explain what you are looking for out of the game and feel like you are not getting. Hopefully, they will meet you somewhere in the middle and change their play style. If not, maybe it is time to let someone else GM for a while or look for players who want the same thing out of the game you do.

That could be a good idea. I'll do that during the next char-gen, see if someone can be tricket into playing out some other motivations.

Thanks guys!

SGL.

[RosenMcStern]

Go the RuneQuest way. Have the players play within their social groups, and not as freebooters. They will have to adapt to their group's value system, or struggle to change it. In both cases, they will have to check their morals and behaviour in order to obtain what they want (more combat effectiveness).

Check the clan/tribe approval of their actions whenenever they try to sell or buy anything, even a dozen eggs for breakfast. Enforece this with major material benefits, especially the ones that cost something to the benefit provider. Will the Shaman burn out his own POW for an outlaw? Certainly not.

Once they appreciate the advantages of getting more cool stuff by pleasing their fellows'ethic sense instead of just killing and cashing in the loot, the trick is done.

[Rurik]

You could always try rewarding them in game for good roleplaying. Give them the things they want as rewards for roleplaying. Don't present them with tough NPC's with good equipment, present them with more numerous poorly equipped foes. The loot factor of 20 pointy sticks is not so much. Then set up situations where roleplaying leads to rewards - you must convince the shaman that your intentions towards the tribe are good before she will give you the magical doodad needed to kill the beast (which is tough but has no treasure). So you have combat, a quest, a beast, etc, but the most powerful rewards come from roleplaying - not killing.

I personally haven't had the problem you have with your players in many a year - since before 'kill it and take it's stuff' was seen as a problem, so I don't actually have experience running a game like this way, but I imagine it could work. Positive re-inforcement and all. I agree that 'punishing' players for bad behavior will probably result in the game not being fun for them (or anyone involved ofr that matter). And the point of the game is to have fun. Different people want different things from their games. Hopefully you can find a way to give your players what they want while still getting what you want out of your games (it is, sadly, entirely possible that what they want to get out of gaming and what you want are incompatable - but hopefully you'll find a way to make it work. Good Luck!).

[frogspawner]

The thing is, they're not "evil" in that sense, they just seem to lack the drive to to anything that's not connected to increasing their power.

'Power' being not just POW, but any skills and such?

A game-mechanic for traits which augmented their skills would be that sort of power. So then they'd want to go out and act in their chosen personality, in order to get it - wouldn't they?

[seneschal]

Hmmm, if the only thing that concerns them is increasing their personal power by any means necessary, regardless of the consequences to the people around them, then they are, by any sane definition, evil. They've already joined the Lex Luthor/Victor Von Doom/Sauron/Skeletor fan club, bought the T-shirt, have the poster on their collective bedroom walls. After all, the Big Bad doesn't see himself as a ruthless tyrannical murderer; he's only well-focused on achieving his personal goals. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet, step on a few fingers or skulls while climbing the ladder of success. Besides, think of all the good they could potentially do once they gain ultimate power. It'll all work out for the best in the end, surely!

[rust]

It could also be the solipsism problem, the players' conviction that only their

player characters are real, and all of the other characters of the setting are

just fictional ...

[Atgxtg]

You need to reward and cultivate the behavior you want and discoruage the behavior you are trying to eliminate. THere are variious ways to accomplish that.

One way is to come up with challenges than can be solved through role-play. For example the group comes across a dragon or other big nastie, and it is preventing them from completing a goal in some way. Now the group could try to slug it out, or maybe they can work an arragment with the big nasty to let thenm accomplish thier goal (or at least get the big nasty to no longer pose an obstacle),

Maybe there is something in thre area that knows a way around the big obstacle, and the PCs could discover it through roleplaying, and bypass the obstacle.

THe trick is to show them how they can accomplish thier goals in a more desirable (to them) fashion via roleplaying.

Unfortunately some players treat the game as a power trip and don't care about anything that doesn7t involve "plusses" to game stats. With such players you can try to get them to roleplay, but they might not respond.

Some players just like to roll dice and kill things.

[Daxos232]

I would suggest trying to give them an emotional attatchment or relationship of some kind. An npc brother, sister, family member or wife or husband. I had an player who always wanted to steal, drink, and go wenching whenever he got to town, and he was a paladin type character. So I had one of those wenches become his wife, which worked out great. Taking care of her caused the PC to shape up his act, as well as everyone else in the party.

They can also be used for motivation. When the PCs wife got captured by an enemy, the PC role played more about his duty to get her back and get justice.

You could also do something dramatic in lines of consequences for unwantonly violent behavior. One group I had killed peasants indiscriminately in the wilderness during their travels. They went to a village, were proven to be the killers, and they got attacked by mobs of pitchfork wielding peasants. They ran into a house, which the peasants set on fire and burned the PCs alive.

The PCs learned a lesson from that one.

[frogspawner]

One group I had killed peasants indiscriminately... the peasants set on fire and burned the PCs alive.

Brilliant! My hero! The perfect solution! But not all DMs will dare use this utterly correct approach.

A small campaign area might help. So there are more likely to be such relationships and... consequences.

[Trifletraxor]

Go the RuneQuest way. Have the players play within their social groups, and not as freebooters. They will have to adapt to their group's value system, or struggle to change it. In both cases, they will have to check their morals and behaviour in order to obtain what they want (more combat effectiveness).

That is a good idea. I'm currently on route to move them into the republic of Tharda on Hârn (which will in effect be Rome - so I'm going to use BRP Rome and Cthulhu Invictus for inspiration). The plan is to include more political intrigue, and maybe make them wealthy enough so that it's not longer a prime goal for the characters.

Hopefully you can find a way to give your players what they want while still getting what you want out of your games (it is, sadly, entirely possible that what they want to get out of gaming and what you want are incompatable - but hopefully you'll find a way to make it work. Good Luck!).

It's my old gaming group, and we've run some quite fun campaigns before. It's only lately I've had some problem with the motivations of the group, but it might be that character generation is done too quickly, so the players don't get into character enough, or it might just be a motivational problem from my side.

'Power' being not just POW, but any skills and such? A game-mechanic for traits which augmented their skills would be that sort of power. So then they'd want to go out and act in their chosen personality, in order to get it - wouldn't they?

Yes, but I still haven't found such a mechanic.

I would suggest trying to give them an emotional attatchment or relationship of some kind. An npc brother, sister, family member or wife or husband.

Something along the lines of what Paolo suggested. Sounds like a good idea, I'll work on that one.

You could also do something dramatic in lines of consequences for unwantonly violent behavior. One group I had killed peasants indiscriminately in the wilderness during their travels. They went to a village, were proven to be the killers, and they got attacked by mobs of pitchfork wielding peasants. They ran into a house, which the peasants set on fire and burned the PCs alive.

I like it!

SGL.

[frogspawner]

Yes, but I still haven't found such a mechanic.

Do you not like the one we're currently thrashing out in the (now rather hi-jacked) Alternative Experience System thread, then?

[Trifletraxor]

Do you not like the one we're currently thrashing out in the (now rather hi-jacked) Alternative Experience System thread, then?

Oh... The discussion has moved far ahead! Yes I do like what I see!

[frogspawner]

Oh... The discussion has moved far ahead! Yes I do like what I see!

Glad to be of service!

[sdavies2720]

Oh, I missed the memo...are we to hijack this thread too?

Steve

[Atgxtg]

Brilliant! My hero! The perfect solution! But not all DMs will dare use this utterly correct approach.

Well, it doesn make it difficult to sustain a campaign.

The lquestion is: did the PCs learn form it and changed thier behavior?

I7m running a camapign now with one player who just wants to roll dice and kill things. HE honestly doesn't care about role playing, get involved with the NPCs, or care much about anything other than fighting things. He has been gaming for about 30 years, and hasn7t changed despite the efforts of several GMS to try and get him more involved in the game.

Some players jjust don't want to roleplay or get invloved in the game.

[Eric L. Webb]

I used to run a fantasy campaign with a group of players that were only concerned with increasing their power. They didn’t care about role-playing at all. They only wanted to fight and kill bad guys and collect more and more power. So I introduced an overpowered Cyclops NPC who would show up all the time and say, “You want power? I’ll show you TRUE power!” and then stomp the hell out of them and leave. Nah, I didn’t really do that.

I seriously think that introducing some more meaningful NPC’s might be the answer. People that the characters care about, feel sorry for, or truly hate, but can’t kill…at least not initially. Then again, killing things and collecting better gear is just some peoples play style, that is what they like. Many players I have gamed with like CONSTANT hack & slash action, and action usually involves combat and dangerous scenarios. And if they weren’t presented with these, they would create their own, like the killing random villagers thing mentioned earlier. I had a player who stole stuff and picked fights every chance he got, the guards would come, he would fight then run away, get arrested; throw the whole “planned” adventure off course. One technique is to put the players into situations that will get them killed if they insist on action and make role-playing the “only” recourse. Allegiance system is another option. Making the setting grittier is another good idea. Are your players making their characters “evil, murder, hack & slash types” or are they just primarily concerned with accumulating power and min-maxing?

[frogspawner]

I had a player who stole stuff and picked fights every chance he got, the guards would come, he would fight then run away, get arrested; throw the whole “planned” adventure off course.

How about asking such players to bring along a spare character "to avoid interrupting the game when the troublemaker is executed" ?

Hopefully that would be enough, and you wouldn't have to use the spare. But if it wasn't and you did, it still works.

[GianniVacca]

I7m running a camapign now with one player who just wants to roll dice and kill things. HE honestly doesn't care about role playing, get involved with the NPCs, or care much about anything other than fighting things. He has been gaming for about 30 years, and hasn7t changed despite the efforts of several GMS to try and get him more involved in the game.

That's where the setting is important. In Glorantha, a PC that kills indiscriminately would be chased by the relatives of the dead person looking for weregild if the dead was a Barbarian, or by the Lunar police, if the dead was a Lunar citizen, to be tried and jailed/crucified. In Imperial China, a murderer would be tracked by the police constables of the local magistrate. If he managed to kill them, he'd be then tracked by martial artists who'd like to be "the one who killed the famous assassin".

[dragonewt]

In Glorantha, a PC that kills indiscriminately would be chased by the relatives of the dead person looking for weregild if the dead was a Barbarian, or by the Lunar police, if the dead was a Lunar citizen, to be tried and jailed/crucified.

Don't forget; spirits of reprisal, tattle-tale divination, begrudged dragonewts and Zorak Zoran death gangs.