How do you promote "good" roleplaying?

[Thalaba]

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.

No rituals - nor have I used much in the way of rules. It's all in the setting and NPCs.

1. Bring your NPCs alive with personalities - give even the bad guys good qualities. If find players are more reluctant to kill indiscriminately when the NPCs seem alive.

2. Don't give the NPC much in the way of good items or money. If the NPCs never have any loot, the PCs will stop looking at them as loot bags.

3. Keep your PCs poor! Don't place big treasure troves in the game, and keep horses, armour, etc expensive.

4. Don't reveal things to the players that the characters wouldn't know. If they find a magic necklace on the sorcerer they just killed - don't say "you find a magic necklace." - just tell them they found a necklace and describe what it looks like. Let them experiment with it or pay someone to figure out whether it's magical or not. Also, magic items should not be found for sale in the corner store.

5. Keep the monsters and enemies dangerous. Don't pull blows in a fight. If they feel that every fight is dangerous they will stop picking them indiscriminately. If the dice declare that a PC dies - then he dies.

If found in our games that the players quickly learned that the route to wealth did not lie through wealth (they lost it as fast as they gained it). It did not lie through combat (too risky). It could only be found by earning the respect of the locals and getting them behind the PCs. In a world such as this the roleplaying should just emerge from play.

If this advice doesn't help, could you maybe provide some examples illustrating specifically where things went wrong and what you'd like to change? There are a lot of players out there who simply don't want to roleplay much and would rather treat and RPG like a tactical wargame. If that's the case for your players, you may never be able to change them. All I can suggest is to try a mini campaign or two that focuses almost entirely on roleplaying and features little or no combat, no skill improvement roles, and where money can't really buy anything.

[Atgxtg]

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".

You would think that. BUt, alas it is not always the case. Right now I', running Pendragon, an RPG with a very detailed setting, and it really makes no difference as fas as said player is concerned. Yes, it has cost him in terms of his character7s success, weath and status. But even if it gets him killed (and it has come close to at times), he would just shrug, write up a new character and do the same things all over again.

In order for setting, role playing and other things to be a factor, the players have to be willing to respnd and adapt. If the players aren't going to adapt then you might need to drop them.

[rust]

Right now I', running Pendragon, an RPG with a very detailed setting, and it really makes no difference as fas as said player is concerned. Yes, it has cost him in terms of his character7s success, weath and status. But even if it gets him killed (and it has come close to at times), he would just shrug, write up a new character and do the same things all over again.

We once had a similar player. Since his character's behaviour caused problems

for the characters of the other players, their characters finally threw his charac-

ter over board during a sea voyage and strictly refused to accept any new cha-

racter of this player as a party member.

[Trifletraxor]

Are your players making their characters “evil, murder, hack & slash types” or are they just primarily concerned with accumulating power and min-maxing?

Their not "evil", unless that's what accumulates power.

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

Hehe, I like!

3. Keep your PCs poor! Don't place big treasure troves in the game, and keep horses, armour, etc expensive.

I thought I'd try the other approach. They just got more desperate when the treaseure was low.

5. Keep the monsters and enemies dangerous. Don't pull blows in a fight. If they feel that every fight is dangerous they will stop picking them indiscriminately. If the dice declare that a PC dies - then he dies.

No problem. Killed one last session. 26 metre fall and godbye!

f this advice doesn't help, could you maybe provide some examples illustrating specifically where things went wrong and what you'd like to change?

Might be an idea. They're not stupid, so it might work.

We once had a similar player. Since his character's behaviour caused problems

for the characters of the other players, their characters finally threw his charac-

ter over board during a sea voyage and strictly refused to accept any new cha-

racter of this player as a party member.

Meavil!

SGL.

[trechriron]

People always seem to leave an important factor out. What do the players want to play?

All of these suggestions are going to fail if the group wants to play a bunch of power-grabbing sociopaths. If you nerf their power-grabbing antics, you could very well be ruining their fun. It seems your idea and their idea of what the game is about are different.

The best suggestion so far is "talk to them". But that's not going to work until you know what you want from a game. Then you have to ask yourself, are you willing to compromise what you want to accommodate the group?

Example: You want a gritty fantasy romp where the characters develop over time becoming legendary heroes of the land.

Your players want to become the most awesome powerful characters of all time who can tame a dragon but with a thought and vanquish armies of evil beasties by flexing a bicep.

Not perfectly matched BUT not horribly apart either. Maybe if the players are willing to be more "heroic" in nature you can more willing to grow them into the powerhouses they want to be? By making them awesome, they can be more heroic, thereby helping you accomplish the game you want?

Otherwise, you have a significant conflict at the social level. You have to know what you want. The players have to know what they want. You all have to meet somewhere in the middle OR find like-minded people to play with. Sometimes people in a group need to go their separate ways in order to form a better group. Find players of a like-mind!

If you think you can "force" or "convince" your players to want something is folly. They have to want it. If you all can get on the same page everyone in the group should enjoy the game better.

Just my two cents...

Edited October 4, 2010 by trechriron
posted too fast, major rework!

[Atgxtg]

People always seem to leave an important factor out. What do the players want to play?.

Good point. Sometimes the players are expecting a different type of game than what the GM has in mind.

[Nightshade]

You would think that. BUt, alas it is not always the case. Right now I', running Pendragon, an RPG with a very detailed setting, and it really makes no difference as fas as said player is concerned. Yes, it has cost him in terms of his character7s success, weath and status. But even if it gets him killed (and it has come close to at times), he would just shrug, write up a new character and do the same things all over again.

In order for setting, role playing and other things to be a factor, the players have to be willing to respnd and adapt. If the players aren't going to adapt then you might need to drop them.

This is why I say that for the most part in-game responses to behavior you don't like are, fundamentally, pointless; if the player was the sort to really respond to that, you wouldn't need to do it. Players who want to play a particular way are going to continue to do so; all you'll do is turn it into a continued power struggle with them which no one really wins.

The only really functional thing to do is talk to the player and either come to a common ground where hopefully both can get what they want out of the game, or part company.

[Nightshade]

Good point. Sometimes the players are expecting a different type of game than what the GM has in mind.

It doesn't help that many players are used to getting, bluntly, no help from the GM in getting the kind of game they want, so they simply try to turn any game they're in into that sort of game.

I tend to write that off as another side effect of the top-down bias of the hobby, but that's probably just me being cynical.

[Eric L. Webb]

Here is an idea that just struck me to encourage your players to put a little more effort into RolePlaying their characters. The BRP rulebook includes the option Fate Points on page 176. This option allows characters to influence dice rolls, ignore damage etc.

Have your players define a small set of “personality traits” or “motivations” for their characters. Whenever the players role-play these traits well enough in game, you could reward them for good roleplaying by allotting them a few Fate Points. Therefore, the character that had cowardice as a motivation would get a few points for running away from danger, or acting like a coward in a tough situation. if a player had overconfident or cocky he might get some points for getting himself into a jam, or talking tough to someone he shouldn’t. This would also appeal to players who desire power in the game world, because having a bit of control over critical rolls is power.

I would also suggest just decoupling fate points from power points as the rule is written. Just make Fate Points a standalone characteristic for the purposes of roleplay reward.

Edited October 13, 2010 by eric71

[frogspawner]

This is why I say that for the most part in-game responses to behavior you don't like are, fundamentally, pointless; if the player was the sort to really respond to that, you wouldn't need to do it.

I sincerely hope the intransigent player described is very rare. I remain convinced a good game mechanic can do the trick in most cases.

It doesn't help that many players are used to getting, bluntly, no help from the GM in getting the kind of game they want, so they simply try to turn any game they're in into that sort of game.

Oh heck yes, I can relate to this - from the player side. Hence I'm keen that any Traits mechanic should be player-driven, not a way for the GM to puppet player-characters. And Carrot, not Stick.

Have you players define small set of “personality traits” or “motivations” for their characters. Whenever the players role-play these traits well enough in game, you could reward them for good roleplaying by allotting them a few Fate Points.

Sounds good! Sadly I don't use FPs, but this easy method should do just fine for others.

[Trifletraxor]

Seems like my problems are going away. After a near party wipe playing through the fist part of OpenQuest Savage North campaign, with only two characters barely escaping (with 1 HP left each!), the player of the most sociopathic character that got decapitated in the fights at Frosthold declared that he wants to play a "knightly" character next, totally opposite his former characters. The two who survived are currently under a charm by a priestess of a fertility/grain/healer goddess so they'll be on their best behaviour too, shellshocked from the experience and very happy to be alive.

SGL.

[rust]

Yes, it is rumoured that a (near) death experience can help a lot to focus one's

mind ...

[frogspawner]

...the player of the most sociopathic character ... declared that he wants to play a "knightly" character next...

It's a trick! He's been reading this thread and wants to deflect you from bringing in Traits rules, the Sociopath's Bane!

[Alex Sandoval]

Seems like my problems are going away. After a near party wipe playing through the fist part of OpenQuest Savage North campaign, with only two characters barely escaping (with 1 HP left each!), the player of the most sociopathic character that got decapitated in the fights at Frosthold declared that he wants to play a "knightly" character next, totally opposite his former characters.

SGL.

Did you use any of the mentioned tactics or was it just a deadly encounter that changed the players mind?

[simonh]

Have your players define a small set of “personality traits” or “motivations” for their characters. Whenever the players role-play these traits well enough in game, you could reward them for good roleplaying by allotting them a few Fate Points.

That's a nice idea. I'd make two modifications. One is to have a vote at the end of each session to allocate one FP to a player that the group feels role-played their character's motivations the best. This Makes it a democratic group decisions and eliminates yet another instance of top-down GM fiat, there's no reason a GM would be better at determining this than anyone else.

The other is to limit everyone to a maximum of 2 FPs each. This prevents FP hoarding - use them or lose them.

Simon Hibbs

[Alex Sandoval]

People always seem to leave an important factor out. What do the players want to play?

All of these suggestions are going to fail if the group wants to play a bunch of power-grabbing sociopaths. If you nerf their power-grabbing antics, you could very well be ruining their fun. It seems your idea and their idea of what the game is about are different.

Players like these seem selfish and lazy to me.

They think about what THEY want, and ONLY about what they want.

Roleplaying is about a strory people can get caught up in, emersed in, and wrapped so deep into that you can forget for a few hours that there is a real life with jobs, bills, and other mundane stresses out there. Players that continually play in this selfish manner are not roleplaying, there going through the motions out of habit.

It takes no effort to think about only what you want. Be it a single player or a group that continously plays like this, you are fooling yourself if you think that is fun. It's like reading a book where the author hates all the characters they wrote. Sooner or later either you as a GM or the players will get bored and wander away from your game because their is nothing special there. You don't have to play a roleplaying game to experience selfish, self-centered stories, with abuses of power; we have miniture games, online games, and real life for that.

I personally am eager to get back into GMing and try the Alliance rules that influence NPC reactions. I feel these rules and tactics will help my GM style of showing the players that their characters are special but not an island. I always like the ripples on a pond analogy for gamming. Sooner or later the characters are going to do something, good or ill, that will ripple out and affect others in the story.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Alex Sandoval

[Conrad]

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.

Give the players what they want. But make the them work for it. They will enjoy it. Trust me.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Conrad
keepin' things short 'n' sweet

[simonh]

Players like these seem selfish and lazy to me.

They think about what THEY want, and ONLY about what they want.

[Trifletraxor]

Did you use any of the mentioned tactics or was it just a deadly encounter that changed the players mind?

It was just a random deadly encounter. But I've started turning up the "consequences" whenever they do something evil.

SGL.

[Alex Sandoval]

There's nothing wrong with being clear about what they want, but as rpgs are a social activity there does need to be some gave and take.

I don't see it as being selfish per se, maybe that's just what they want. As a GM I feel I have a responsibility to give the players what they want. I want to do what I want as well, but those desires need to be ballanced.

On the other hand if you give players actual reasons to play in character, or to treat their characters as more than vehicles for their egos, generaly speaking I think most players are ok with that...

At the end of the day though if nothing works, nobody is forcing you to play with these people. You have a choice.

First off I love being with my friends and players. I have never met a more imaginative and creative group of people who are this open minded, tolarant, and accepting. I tend to feel that way about gamers in general. I am fully aware of the game's role as a social gathering and I do choose to play with these people time and again.

It is the concept of "giving the players what they want", that if taken too far is nothing more than spoiling your players. If meat-grinders and Monty Haul start explaining your gaming sessions then it is doing little to encourage roleplaying.

I fully accept that as a GM you have the responsibility to make the game as enjoyable as possible for your players but you also have the responsibility to set the bar and help those players who view their characters as nothing more than vehicles for their egos. Doing this in a fair manner is utmost in my games.

A long time ago I was taught that you never tell a player "no", you just determine difficulty. This has always worked out great for me. If a character wants to do something that may seem outrageous then I will tell them how difficult it is going to be, such as "I'll need to see an 01 on your roll." Now no matter what the result of the encoutner the gaming group came out ahead. If the player fails, then they feel that they were at least given the chance and possibly a way to save face. If the player suceeds then it has altered the story in a way I had not intended and has enriched the story and the experience. When the court jester in our party convinced his cow mount to attempt a jump over a spiked pit along the narrow mountain road, the fearless dwarf jumps down a trap door's hundred foot shaft to catch himself with his axe's head on the last iron rung to escape a mob of goblins, and the major villian is one shot killed on their first meeting then these experiences are exceptional and memerable. The fact that the cow never made it, the dwarf had to search for over a month to find someone to heal his dislocated shoulder, or a whole adventure was wasted but made a power vacume that attracted three other villians to the players dosen't matter. What does matter is that these are memorable experiences that neither me nor my group will forget because they are exceptional, fair, and came with a feeling that they earned something.

[simonh]

It is the concept of "giving the players what they want", that if taken too far is nothing more than spoiling your players. If meat-grinders and Monty Haul start explaining your gaming sessions then it is doing little to encourage roleplaying.

In my experience, players want challenge and conflict not unearned rewards.

A long time ago I was taught that you never tell a player "no", you just determine difficulty.

It's a great approach. I try to avoid the "N" word as much as possible. "Yes but..." is much better, especialy when it's a realy big "But".

Simon Hibbs

[soltakss]

It's a great approach. I try to avoid the "N" word as much as possible. "Yes but..." is much better, especialy when it's a realy big "But".

I like "Yes, you could do that, if you really want to" because that scares the bejeezers out of them.