|
2 years ago ::
Sep 15, 2011 - 6:32PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 13, 2009
|
We are trying to get away from "roll" playing and back into "role" playing. Are any DMs having success in rewarding "role" playing?
How do you reward it and how are you judging it?
Too many pre-written adventures (almost all) are delve styled, meaning all combat, no story telling, no PC acting... When trying to make a sandbox adventure how would you handle a skill challenge without using many dice rolls?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 15, 2011 - 6:44PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
We are trying to get away from "roll" playing and back into "role" playing. Are any DMs having success in rewarding "role" playing?
How do you reward it and how are you judging it?
We judge it based on cool factor... I hear awesome and wow words and similar rewards those seem how we reward it, and my daughter sometimes claps. Oh and roleplaying is an internal phenomena putting oneself in to the role and feeling one is part of an ongoing story. It rewards itself and is actually not very detectable.
Perhaps you mean play acting... which is kind of like using an aiding others check on the other players roleplay (by affecting the atmosphere of play with how you present what your character is doing.)
Ok I do use DMs best friend and page 42 benefits on top of normal power use when the players are paying attention to things I present and integrate those things in to the description of what there character does including how they use there abilities... but that is rewarding attentiveness and inventiveness.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 15, 2011 - 6:53PM
#3
|
|
|
My one complaint about 4e (and I really do like the system and enjoy the heck out of to an obsessive level other than this) is the skill challenge as a substitute for roleplaying. The roleplaying seems to take, mainly, the form of lead-up to the point where we roll dice to see what the result of all the "acting" was. As a result, we seem to sort of rush through the roleplaying to get to the rolling. Maybe it's just because my group isn't entirely comfortable with the roleplaying, and we'll get more into it as we ease into our PCs and party dynamics more.
One thing I've seen another DM do (who had since abandoned 4E in favor of Pathfinder and WoD games) would be to give people bonuses to their rolls as a "reward" for convincing or deep roleplay. I also find myself having a hard time acting against the best, out-of-character interests of my party, even when it might be in-character for my character to do something foolhardy or detrimental to the goals of the party.
For example: we're in a tense situation with some potential allies who are suspicious of us. It might be very in-character for my PC to act surly and hostile toward these captors, but I find myself feeling pressured to just conform and act in our party's best interest even when my PC might, more realistically, behave differently.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 15, 2011 - 6:53PM
#4
|
|
|
I would just say the primary consideration is the player is going to have to interpret the situation and do something plausible. You can emphasize skill use more or less to taste. 4e skills are more about "what sorts of ways does this character act" vs anything else.
However, a lot of published adventures are not too sophisticated in this realm. I find that I just don't use a lot of published stuff. You can always break it down more along the lines of the guy with the high Diplomacy talking to someone that logically is going to listen to him and saying something reasonable probably doesn't NEED to role a check. You may find that you'll want to provide additional obstacles if you do a lot of that, since SCs are generally predicated on medium to hard checks mostly.
You can do as Garthanos suggests too. There are a lot of ways to fluff 'Aid Another' for instance. Nor is it really necessary for all the things the PCs do collectively to match one skill to invoke those kinds of bonuses. If the Half-Orc fighter is 'looking tough' and you want to convince someone that you're all pretty tough customers and you can handle some mission, then just grant a +2 or have him roll an Athletics check, etc.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 15, 2011 - 6:58PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Apr 13, 2009
|
Thanks, Garthanos,
Let the others at the table basically decide succeed or fail based on table reactions... OK.
I was thinking the reward would be similar to an appropriate skill challenge level as far as XP.
And yes I was implying more of the play-acting aspects of role-play. We are very burnt-out on rolling dice; The character does a fantastic job conveying what their character says and does and then biffs on the check. That hardly seems just.
@Abdul, @Bakha,
Those are very helpful comments.
Having the party really describe their words and actions to count as a check or to give themselves bonuses on an actual roll if one is needed.
If the character, themself, can convey the intent through their own mannerisms then use that as a possible success.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 15, 2011 - 10:21PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2010
|
This is not exactly a 'cure' for dice rolling but if your looking for more acting prior to dice being rolled then some tips that have worked for me. For starters your players never, ever, get to say they are making a skill check. The DM is the arbitrator of when you roll a skill check. The effect of this is the players must say what they are actually doing or role play what they are saying etc. This often results in the DM asking for some kind of a check to determine if what they are doing works but your players need to role play to get to that point. Another element I use is that I never tell the players that they are in a skill challenge and I use enough stand alone skill checks that they don't immediately know they are in one if I call for a skill check. This not only increases the amount of actual roleplaying at the table but, because it increases the immersiveness (due to the fact that they are role playing their characters) you get more players doing things that don't necessarily correlate with whatever their best skill is. Note that you do need to watch this element some what – if you punish them hard every time they don't happen to use some maxed out skill then they obviously will be more careful not to do any spontaneous role playing so you need to insure that they either have a reasonable shot at succeeding or at least make failure 'fun'. Its also important, especially in skill challenges, to narrate things in such a way that the players are leading the action and your 'reacting' without them scrutinizing their character sheets for their best skill. In circumstances where the characters are going to be reacting to you its usually best to use group checks. You can mix and match some what if you have some quick thinking players.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 16, 2011 - 3:42AM
#7
|
|
|
We are trying to get away from "roll" playing and back into "role" playing. Are any DMs having success in rewarding "role" playing?
How do you reward it and how are you judging it?
Too many pre-written adventures (almost all) are delve styled, meaning all combat, no story telling, no PC acting... When trying to make a sandbox adventure how would you handle a skill challenge without using many dice rolls?
Here's my suggestion:
Determine the objective, the scenes that the players have to go through to get to that objective, and then present the problem to the party.
For example:
My lover's character was sent out by his master to harvest some mushrooms for a friend of his. He then was to bring the mushrooms to the master's friend. No details on the mushroom's appearance were given (I let her [the player] determine the details herself).
It was fun seeing the roleplaying that was going on at this point, as the PC and his master were arguing on where the mushrooms can be found.
When the PC was heading to the forest where the mushroom was located, I had him roll his Nature to allow him to save time in reaching the most likely area the mushrooms would be in, then I had him roll his Endurance to check his fatigue from searching the area, as well as Perception to actually find the thing. When he found that the mushrooms were, in fact, on a cliff, he decided that he leave the actual harvesting to his companion (who had a much better chance at getting to the cliff face).
- - - - -
It's not much, I reckon, but the idea is there: there's an objective, there are a few specific effects pre-determined, then I leave the players to fill in the details.  If they're finding it hard to be that creative -- or if there's conflict to be resolved, like Endurance checks to determine if a player loses a healing surge or not as a result of strenuous activity -- I'd allow/require rolls, to keep the game moving... but of course the game gets more interesting and fun -- especially in the social skills sort of challenges -- if, instead of rolls, you determine the success or failure in a challenge based on their performance and how they interacted with the NPCs (or even with fellow PCs).
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 16, 2011 - 3:47AM
#8
|
|
|
This is not exactly a 'cure' for dice rolling but if your looking for more acting prior to dice being rolled then some tips that have worked for me.
For starters your players never, ever, get to say they are making a skill check. The DM is the arbitrator of when you roll a skill check. The effect of this is the players must say what they are actually doing or role play what they are saying etc. This often results in the DM asking for some kind of a check to determine if what they are doing works but your players need to role play to get to that point.
I really like this idea. I wonder how I could bring it to my group (I'm not the DM) tactfully, without making it sound like I'm trying to control things?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 16, 2011 - 3:57AM
#9
|
|
|
This is not exactly a 'cure' for dice rolling but if your looking for more acting prior to dice being rolled then some tips that have worked for me.
For starters your players never, ever, get to say they are making a skill check. The DM is the arbitrator of when you roll a skill check. The effect of this is the players must say what they are actually doing or role play what they are saying etc. This often results in the DM asking for some kind of a check to determine if what they are doing works but your players need to role play to get to that point.
I really like this idea. I wonder how I could bring it to my group (I'm not the DM) tactfully, without making it sound like I'm trying to control things?
What BeaverDuck explains is exactly what I do.
I tell them, right from the beginning of the campaign and before each session, "Always tell me what your characters are doing in character. Never tell me that you are making a skill check. Based upon your actions, I will decide what skill check best fits." It works, and the players love it. They rarely know that they are even in a skill challenge when one is taking place. It's completely fluid narrative shared between DM and player.
Occasionally, there will be times where we disagree on which skill is appropriate, but it's rare when it happens and never takes longer than 30 seconds to iron it out.
From a player's perspective, simply suggest it to the table. It's not about control at all, it's about presenting something new that will add more atmosphere to the game.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 16, 2011 - 5:11AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
And yes I was implying more of the play-acting aspects of role-play. We are very burnt-out on rolling dice; The character does a fantastic job conveying what their character says and does and then biffs on the check. That hardly seems just.
I came up with a great solution for this in my group, because we also noticed how silly this was. Have the roll come first. Effectively, you quickly get the roll out of the way, and then comes the acting. So, instead of Billy (playing the Bard) giving a great speach and then rolling a 1 (forcing you to come up with a crazy reason why he failed), he rolls the 1 first, and then gets the joy of roleplaying a failure. Because lets face it: roleplaying failure is just as fun as roleplaying success.
The other option is to not require a roll at all. This works for many people, but I personally don't prefer it most of the time. First of all, it rewards people who are good at acting over those who are not, and I like to reward the character as much as the player. Secondly, people never choose to roleplay failure, and I feel this is an important aspect of character development. No one gives the perfect speach every time, but that is how the Player of the Bard tries to describe his actions.
So, roll first, then act.
As for a reward, I would suggest talking to your players. Find out what they want for motivation.
|
|
|
