TheRPGSite

I've been thinking about some simple "plug in" mechanics that can be added to just about any roleplaying game to give character design and development a little bit more depth.  To give you an idea of what I'm thinking about, consider the following example...

If you take just about any roleplaying game, you can make it more cinematic by adding a simple "Fate Point" mechanic.  Give players an allocation of Fate Points that they can use to gain bonuses or re-rolls in difficult circumstances.  Or you could build an "Adventure Deck", like the one used in Savage Worlds.  See the idea?  The whole Fate Point mechanic is simple and generic enough that you can add it to just about any game to make it a bit more pulpy.

So what if I want to add a little bit of drama, politics and intrigue to an otherwise simple game?  How do I create mechanics that support and encourage roleplaying?  Aspects from Fate work pretty well.  I don't see why you couldn't add Aspects to, say, Basic D&D.  So what else?

Where I'm going with this, is that there are a lot of very functional "old school" games going around that can still be a lot of fun.  But they aren't very good at encouraging new and inexperienced roleplayers to come out of their shell and generate really character driven moments.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkWhere I'm going with this, is that there are a lot of very functional "old school" games going around that can still be a lot of fun.  But they aren't very good at encouraging new and inexperienced roleplayers to come out of their shell and generate really character driven moments.

Gee, thanks Tiberious!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceGee, thanks Tiberious!

-clash

aaah... what?

I'm not so sure putting the role back in roleplaying is a simple matter of plugging in rules. However, if you want to try to encourage it with mechanics anyway, you could try the old Nature-Willpower mechanic from the Storyteller system, where you replenish willpower (or fate points or whatever) every time the character does something true to their nature.

My Iron Heroes/D&D3.5 group does a half-assed rip of Burning Wheel's Beliefs, Instincts and Traits.  We develop all of our BITs but there are no mechanical benefits to them.  However they do provide a nice way to briefly describe our characters and touch on a bit of background without writing a page of history.

I don't think game mechanics can do it. Oh, they can encourage it for the shy ones who sit quietly by the GM, but basically the player's either got it or they've not.

I mean, you get a player who'll roll up a RuneQuest character and have him just walk up to goatherds and hit them to knock them out and take their goats because he thinks his character's hungry, and he calls that "roleplaying - playing the role of someone who's hungry!" And then you get another player who gets the same system, and writes just a few lines describing his character's personality, and plays it to the hilt.

The mechanics can encourage the second guy, but will have zero effect on the first one. And really I don't think the second guy even needs the encouragement. At most you'd want some sort of personality and background stuff which could be put into the game mechanics so that the player can get a good idea of their character before they start to play them. That's something like GURPS' Disadvantages and Advantages, or Burning Wheel's Instincts. Just some stuff to get a good solid grasp of what the character's about, and back the player up a bit in play.

And then you also get the players who roleplay quite entertainingly, but they only have one character... Which is of course why I GM instead. And for the same reason, so should someone else I know who reads this forum, if that person ever manages to get their shit together instead of making feeble excuses all the time. :p

Quote from: Kyle Aaron. . . but basically the player's either got it or they've not.

It all boils down to this.

The idea that deep down everyone is a role player is poo. The fact is the majority of people have no desire to role play whatsoever and you are never going to encourage them to give it a try unless you offer them money or free X-Box 360's or something.

As for encouraging existing role players to get more into the role . . . Kyle's hit the nail on the head. Crap players are by nature crap players. And the reverse is true. Game mechanics and even weeks of stress torture won't change a thing.

What do you mean by "role"? Is it showing the personality, is it talking in first person, is it entertaining everyone else on the table by acting dramatically, or what is it what you primarily aim for when you say that you want to put the "role" into role-play?
These are all quite different things and demand quite different, sometimes contradicting solutions.

And I have to agree to Kyle: A mechanic alone does _nothing_ if the kind of action you want to further isn't of interest to the player. I've met enough players who don't give a damn about their combat XP and rather play out their bath house visits and cloth shopping tours to prove this.
However, a reward mechanic can really help to encourage if the player is generally interested into doing the thing you want to further.

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeAs for encouraging existing role players to get more into the role . . . Kyle's hit the nail on the head. Crap players are by nature crap players. And the reverse is true. Game mechanics and even weeks of stress torture won't change a thing.

I still think it's good to distinguish between good roleplayers and good players. It's that "social creative hobby" business again. A "good roleplayer" is someone who is able to bring across their character's personality, much like a good actor or good writer - good at the "creative" bit. A "good player" is someone who contributes to the fun of the group - good at the "social" bit.

It's possible to be a crap roleplayer and yet be an excellent player. That is, you're really terrible at describing your character or bringing them to life, but the session is a lot more fun because you're there. I've known lots of gamers like this, and I welcome them. After all, I am one myself - I'm only able to portray one kind of character for a long time, but can do quite a variety for short periods - so I just GM. But whether I GM or play, in general the group has more fun because I'm there. Thus, bad roleplayer, good player. More social than creative.

In theory it must be possible to be an excellent roleplayer while being a crap player - that is, portraying your character well but annoying everyone, to be creative while antisocial, or asocial - but I wouldn't really know because I never let crap players stay in my group, and if they're in a group I join, I don't stay.

I'm reminded of the words of the great moochava (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=984459&postcount=54),

Quote from: moochavaFor whatever it's worth, I don't actually support the bitch-slapping of players. I subscribe to the Lazy Bastard school of GMing, whereby the players come up with all the ideas and I hog all the credit. Laziness and tyranny are, in games, two mutually exclusive vices.

Now, players who just sit there and don't come up with ideas, those you should bitch-slap.

The only true gaming sin is to be boring. Game mechanics can help interesting people be more interesting, and cannot stop them being interesting; game mechanics cannot help boring people become interesting.

The rest of my response, taling about how it's good to reject unfit players, is in another thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=158046)

Quote from: Kyle AaronI still think it's good to distinguish between good roleplayers and good players.

Yes, you can distinguish between the two. In my experience, however, a good roleplayer is usually a good player. But, in the end, what I want is a good player because a good player makes the entire experience fun.

A roleplaying game is just a game. And the point of any game is to have fun.

Personally, I found that mechanics produce a focus on mechanics, not roleplaying. The type of mechanic isn't important.

Seanchai

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeAs for encouraging existing role players to get more into the role . . . Kyle's hit the nail on the head. Crap players are by nature crap players. And the reverse is true. Game mechanics and even weeks of stress torture won't change a thing.

I don't know if I agree.

What got me thinking on this topic was the thread on first roleplaying experiences.  And I realised that I can't recall any personality for any of the first half a dozen D&D characters I played.  Basic D&D is such a simple system, the mechanics just don't support anything other than the absolute basics.  And yet, I can pick up the notes for a one-shot Fate adventure I ran a years ago and immediately recall the personalities I'd devised for pretty much all the NPCs.

I'm the same guy... a little bit more experienced from when I first started playing D&D almost 20 years ago... but fundamentally the same guy.  Is experience the only thing different?  Or do the different mechanics allow me... or should I say, encourage me, to make more memorable characters?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI don't know if I agree.

What got me thinking on this topic was the thread on first roleplaying experiences.  And I realised that I can't recall any personality for any of the first half a dozen D&D characters I played.  Basic D&D is such a simple system, the mechanics just don't support anything other than the absolute basics.

And yet, those of us who created the game had characters that were distinctly different from each other's characters, and from other characters of the same player.  Sometimes it took a session or three to decide what a new character's personality was like, but often the fifteen-minute character generation would give rise to an idea.

We never included "role playing mechanics" because it never for the life of us occured to us that they might be needed, or even desired.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkIs experience the only thing different?  Or do the different mechanics allow me... or should I say, encourage me, to make more memorable characters?

Well, yes and no. You like to role play and you've been playing for almost 20 years. A crap gamer, on the other hand, plays for a month or two and then moves on to something else. You are dedicated to your hobby and open to it so you are looking for new things to inspire you and feed your like of the game. If you were a crap gamer, you wouldn't bother, and new mechanics wouldn't mean much to you.

Quote from: Tyberious Funkaaah... what?

People are either good roleplayers or they aren't. Some are awesome from the get go, and others take some time to develop, but the desire to be good roleplayers is in them from the start. It doesn't matter a whit whether there are mechanics to "support" AKA "force" roleplaying, as as good roleplayers do so for personal reasons. All you will do is piss off the non-good roleplayers, who will be forced to deal with something they have no talent for.

BTW, Roleplayers and Players, as others have mentioned, are orthogonal axes. You may have good Players who are not good Roleplayers, vice versa, people who are good at both, and those who are good at neither, who should be pushed out of the lifeboat at first opportunity.

-clash

Quote from: Old GeezerWe never included "role playing mechanics" because it never for the life of us occured to us that they might be needed, or even desired.

I find this comment particularly interesting, because I'm currently writing up my critique of Mongoose's new Traveller playtest document.  One of my more pointed commentaries is that their Event and Mishap tables -- outgrowths of the short-lived and misguided T4 from a decade ago -- are a wrong-headed attempt to do the roleplaying for the players.  The tables are ostensibly there to add variety and life during character generation by providing randomised events, but they're unnecessary.  In fact, they're redundant to the skill tables.  Worst of all, they actually detract from players' creativity.  The tables from the simple, original game were plenty inspirational in helping to differentiate characters.

!i!

Quote from: flyingmicePeople are either good roleplayers or they aren't. Some are awesome from the get go, and others take some time to develop, but the desire to be good roleplayers is in them from the start.

It's worth keeing our eyes open with the new players, since it can be hard to tell the difference between "can't roleplay well" and "...yet." As you say, that desire has to be there. It's possible for a group to kill that desire, or at least knock it out for a year or two. A lot of groups don't nurture people new to the group, it's just, "here's our group, fit in or fuck off."

That's another reason I try to run the short, closed-ended campaigns with the rotating membership - to keep us conscious that we're all new - at least to each-other - and keep us nice.

Quote from: flyingmiceIt doesn't matter a whit whether there are mechanics to "support" AKA "force" roleplaying, as as good roleplayers do so for personal reasons. All you will do is piss off the non-good roleplayers, who will be forced to deal with something they have no talent for.

I'm happy to piss them off a little bit, though. It helps me identify the players who need some nurturing, and the players who I won't invite for the next campaign.

As I said, I do think that there's a place for some roleplaying mechanics; but these won't make or let the non-roleplayers roleplay, it'll just help those who already can. Game mechanics are like accelerators on car - there's no point knowing where the accelerator is unless you already know how to drive, and want to.

Quote from: flyingmiceYou may have good Players who are not good Roleplayers, vice versa, people who are good at both, and those who are good at neither, who should be pushed out of the lifeboat at first opportunity.

Yet another reason for the short, closed-ended campaigns with rotating membership. "Look, we're pushing you out of the lifeboat, but there's another one over there, just swim for a little bit." What I find a good part of the time is that those people don't bother swimming to the other lifeboat. They either just let themselves sink into the sea of non-gamers, or they paddle around ours hoping to get back in some time. As I see it, that just means they're not that keen anyway. If you really want to be in the boat, you'll swim off and find your own.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkBasic D&D is such a simple system, the mechanics just don't support anything other than the absolute basics.  And yet, I can pick up the notes for a one-shot Fate adventure I ran a years ago and immediately recall the personalities I'd devised for pretty much all the NPCs.

You see, thats it basically.
The notes tell you, what their personalities are like, but they don't miraculously give you the ability to roleplay the personalities of these NPCs, they just help you remember them.
If you, like, wrote down a few key elements of your D&D characters personality you would have the same effect.

Its really that simple.

Yeah, I suppose I should have known that this was the wrong crowd for this type of question.  I mean games with several chapters devoted to combat are perfectly acceptable, but a few rules to help support good roleplaying?  Heaven forbid.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Tyberious FunkYeah, I suppose I should have known that this was the wrong crowd for this type of question.  I mean games with several chapters devoted to combat are perfectly acceptable, but a few rules to help support good roleplaying?  Heaven forbid.  :rolleyes:

Yawn.  

If you're going to go all crybaby and complain because you didn't get the response you wanted, and start flinging about blanket statements and false dichotomies, could you at least throw out some NEW ones?

Quote from: J ArcaneYawn.  

If you're going to go all crybaby and complain because you didn't get the response you wanted, and start flinging about blanket statements and false dichotomies, could you at least throw out some NEW ones?

Huh?  Where's the false dichotomy?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkHuh?  Where's the false dichotomy?

Where in any of this thread did anyone state anything remotely resembling the conclusion you chose to jump to?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkYeah, I suppose I should have known that this was the wrong crowd for this type of question.  I mean games with several chapters devoted to combat are perfectly acceptable, but a few rules to help support good roleplaying?  Heaven forbid.  :rolleyes:

I didn't say that.

I said that rules for roleplaying would encourage but not enable already good roleplayers to roleplay more, but would have little or no effect on already poor roleplayers.

Likewise, rules for combat will encourage but not enable already good tacticians, but will have little or no effect on already poor tacticians.

Rules for roleplaying will not make the dull drongo into a lively creative person anymore than rules for tactics will make the "er... I shoot him!" guy into a Napoleon. They will, however, encourage the people who are already good roleplayers or tacticians.

It's the same as how rules for football can be designed to show the fitness and agility of fit and agile players - but no rules can make them fit and agile. They have to develop their abilities themselves. And in a casual hobby, very few people will make the effort, so we're left with their inborn talent. Hell, I know a gamer who has a whole group waiting for him to run a game, and he doesn't have any other gaming going on, but he still can't get his shit together to run the game. With that kind of laziness around, do you really expect that untalented gamers will make the effort to develop their roleplaying abilities? I don't. I expect only the already okay or good ones to make the effort to get better - the useless ones will stay useless.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's the same as how rules for football can be designed to show the fitness and agility of fit and agile players - but no rules can make them fit and agile. They have to develop their abilities themselves. And in a casual hobby, very few people will make the effort, so we're left with their inborn talent.

Sweet Singing Conan, I think that might be the most insightful thing I've read in years.

Kyle has emboldened me to say something that's been bubbling around in my mind for about six months.

Every "Types of Gamers" thingummy I've seen references the "Casual Gamer".  Sometimes, like Robin Laws, they'll actually say "Leave them alone".  More likely you get an Uncle Figgy who wants to turn Casual Gamers into "Mad Gamers".

Well, you know what?

After 35 years of roleplaying, I have reached the conclusion that the VAST majority of gamers are, in fact, "Casual Gamers".

And that they don't really give a ripping rat's ass about changing.  They don't WANT to be anything other than casual gamers.

Of course the vast majority of gamers are casual, just as the vast majority of people who have ever kicked a ball around are not "real" footballers - I thought everyone knew that, except for the Forger evangelists. Just because I lift weights does not make me a bodybuilder. Just because I play a little one-on-one shooting baskets with my buddy does not make me a basketballer. Just because I try to write a nice love letter to my woman does not make me a poet.

In any sport, there's a sort of pyramid of participation, with the "kick a ball around" people down at the bottom in their millions, and the "plays for a Serie A team" people at the top in their few hundreds. We could scale it out as something like below - the percentages are just illustrative.

[/COLOR]

Idiots like us blathering about gaming online and writing the occasional indie game are obviously "dedicated amateurs", but most of our game groups are at best "casual amateurs". And there really aren't any professional gamers out there - and no, the game designers don't count as professional gamers, anymore than the factory worker who makes the footballs counts as a professional footballer - making the materials for the thing and playing the thing are different; obviously there's overlap, since an interest in the thing may draw you into a job making materials for it - but Gygax, Jackson, Wieck and so on aren't paid to game, they're paid to write games - so they're not "professional" gamers.

Anyway I thought this was obvious. The 90% of people who've ever tried rpgs and didn't go back, and the 4% hangers-on, they're just not interested in becoming better roleplayers, anymore than if I go and play one-on-one shooting hoops with my buddy we're interested in becoming better basketballers. We just want to compete a bit and work a sweat up.

That's why I say that game mechanics to encourage roleplaying will only help those already interested in being encouraged - the geeks, the dedicated amateurs. Unless you deliberately gather these people at a game table, if you just take whichever gamers come to you randomly, then you'll have a majority of hangers-on, casual gamers, and roleplaying mechanics will fall flat.

Again, this is not to decry roleplaying mechanics - as a dedicated amateur, I think they're fun. And it's not to single them out. For example, because I had in my group a number of hangers-on, casual gamers, I set aside GURPS - its strength is its detail and options, but because the players were largely casual, all that detail and those options weren't being used. I kept having to handwave things. If I'm going to blur over most of the rules anyway, why have them? Choose something simpler. That applied to all the rules, but especially the combat rules - most of the players weren't interested in all those tactical options. So why did I need them? I didn't, and now run something else. Thus, despite what Tyberious Funk says, I'm not defending lengthy combat rules and attack roleplaying game mechanics rules. I'm just saying, have stuff people will use. And what they'll use depends on them, rather than on the mechanics themselves. So roleplaying game mechanics are good for players who are roleplaying a lot and well anyway, not so good for those who aren't - just as detailed combat rules are not good for the tactically incompetent or indifferent.

I can think of a gamer I know who is a special case, in that he's on the cusp between being a casual amateur and a dedicated one. His casualness is shown by his neglecting the chance of running or playing in a game, despite being asked and invited to do both; his dedication is shown by his reading lots of game books and discussing them. In fact I would speculate that a lot of internet discussion - and argument - about rpgs is driven by this kind of "cusp" gamer, the one who is basically casual but thinks, "if only X changed, then I'd be dedicated." It's the casual gamer who feels a yearning to be dedicated.

Perhaps roleplaying mechanics (or detailed combat, or whatever) could help that "cusp" gamer by giving them the motivation to get their shit together and run or play in a game? I don't know. I'm sceptical.

As a dedicated gamer, I'd love to run a really in-depth and thespy game, or one with lots of details and challenging tactical combat - but the dedicated players just aren't out there, really. And I might even have lost a bit of that drive, myself. The other night I had some quite intense roleplaying with another player, and I was a bit taken aback, it was quite overwhelming. I think I'm like a footballer who's lost a lot of their fitness and agility from lack of practice. Is it permanent? I don't know, I hope not.

Quote from: Old GeezerAfter 35 years of roleplaying, I have reached the conclusion that the VAST majority of gamers are, in fact, "Casual Gamers".

Not to be rude, but seriously, you're just realizing that now? With whom have you been playing for 35 years?

It's why some of us take exception when folks talk about D&D, its affects and what should be done with it.

Seanchai

Quote from: Tyberious FunkYeah, I suppose I should have known that this was the wrong crowd for this type of question.  I mean games with several chapters devoted to combat are perfectly acceptable, but a few rules to help support good roleplaying?  Heaven forbid.  :rolleyes:

I don't think this is the wrong crowd - I just don't think roleplaying rules do anything useful.

Yes, I think combat and skills need to be delineated. Whether or not roleplaying is successful and apt is subjective. Was my portrayal of a bard convincing? Was Susan's tearful speech good enough to convince the king? Shrug. With combat, skills, etc., I think it's much, much easier to reach objective conclusions and consensus.

Also, I think the fallout from the application of combat, skills, etc., tend to have a greater effect on the player characters than roleplaying. Note: I said tend. Comat, for example, tends to have more lasting and drastic effects than a failed speech to the king.

That aside, I've never seen a mechanic that engendered roleplaying. I've seen mechanics that were supposed to do so, but they've only ended up creating a focus on mechanics.

Let's take oWoD's Nature and Demeanor for example. As descriptors, they work great. In encouraging folks to roleplay their characters, however...They're mechanics. They provide mechanical awards. That alone gets people thinking about mechanics, not roleplaying or immersion. Or what's worse, they get people thinking about how they can alter their roleplaying or in-game circumstances to get the mechanical reward.

If a roleplaying mechanic produced purely roleplaying awards, I'd feel differently. But I don't know how that would work and haven't seen it myself.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiIt's why some of us take exception when folks talk about D&D, its affects and what should be done with it.

Which makes you more than a casual gamer.:p  

A casual gamer doesn't care if people bitch about D&D. In fact, he isn't even aware that there are people who care enough to bitch about D&D - and if he is aware of those people, he doesn't want to associate with them.:haw:

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeWhich makes you more than a casual gamer.:p

Okay. Shrug.

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeA casual gamer doesn't care if people bitch about D&D. In fact, he isn't even aware that there are people who care enough to bitch about D&D - and if he is aware of those people, he doesn't want to associate with them.:haw:

If we meant "uninformed gamer" when we said "casual gamer," I think we'd just say "uninformed gamer."

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiNot to be rude, but seriously, you're just realizing that now? With whom have you been playing for 35 years?

1971-1974  The blokes what wrote the game
1975-1987  Univ of MN gaming club, every week almost without fail.  30 to 40 people.
1987-1999  Pretty much nothing
2000-2007  Star Wars d20 with a new crowd.

So I've pretty much been in the 'serious amateur' crowd all along.

Also, as Kyle hinted at, there's a LOT of rhetoric online about needing to 'convert' the casual gamer.

As a matter of fact, when I've suggested a pyramid such as Kyle's and suggested that the absolute casual dabbler and the near-pro fanatic amateur might not have fun in the same game, I got called nasty names.

Quote from: J ArcaneWhere in any of this thread did anyone state anything remotely resembling the conclusion you chose to jump to?

You mean I pushed some buttons to provoke some discussion?  Opps.  :pundit:

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's the same as how rules for football can be designed to show the fitness and agility of fit and agile players - but no rules can make them fit and agile. They have to develop their abilities themselves. And in a casual hobby, very few people will make the effort, so we're left with their inborn talent.

The rules of football do more than just showcase the fitness and agility of the players, they basically force players to have fitness and agility in order to be truly successful.  For example, the dimensions of the field pretty much mean there will be plenty of running involved.  So where are the equivalent RPG rules for this sort of thing?  

I think the difficulty with roleplaying is that there are no established guidelines for what constitutes a "successful" session.  So with football, it's pretty clear what a player needs to do in order to be successful, but with roleplayers there's no such clarity.  Which is probably why there are so many casual gamers.  They can turn up, do their thing and leave and never really think about whether they are actually any good at it.

Going back to football, there are a number of well established training drills to help players improve their strength, speed and so forth.  Is it possible to have an equivalent in RPGs?  

QuoteHell, I know a gamer who has a whole group waiting for him to run a game, and he doesn't have any other gaming going on, but he still can't get his shit together to run the game.

subtle :rolleyes:

You'll be happy to know that I'm currently distracted by much more important things... building up my stocks of homebrew!  I am slowly coming to the conclusion that roleplaying and beer go very well together.

Quote from: Old GeezerAlso, as Kyle hinted at, there's a LOT of rhetoric online about needing to 'convert' the casual gamer.

I'm tired of the idea that roleplaying is a religious experience and we need to convert the non-gaming heathens.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkThe rules of football do more than just showcase the fitness and agility of the players, they basically force players to have fitness and agility in order to be truly successful.  For example, the dimensions of the field pretty much mean there will be plenty of running involved.  So where are the equivalent RPG rules for this sort of thing?  

There are lots of them. As Old Geezer said, the completely casual gamer and the dedicated amateur, there are games one might have fun in but the other won't.

For example, FATE 2.0 is a game whose mechanics focus on roleplaying. And in our games, you've seen that the players who enjoy it are those who enjoy roleplaying, the dedicated amateurs. The casual gamers just don't get it. "Um, Aspects? I'll be Strong and Agile." That's a game in which the players have to have good roleplaying skills for it to be truly successful, otherwise it just falls flat. Whereas something lke RuneQuest works well whether the players are thespian geniuses or morons.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI think the difficulty with roleplaying is that there are no established guidelines for what constitutes a "successful" session.

Sure there are. It was successful if it was two or more of "fun", "interesting" and "fulfilling." If it was one or none of those, it was a flop. Now, those are not written down in any rpg I know of, but that's because they're instinctive for most. When it's one or none of fun/interesting/fulfilling, you find your fellow players drifting off.

Now, how to make it fun, interesting and fulfilling, there are no established guidelines for that because people vary so much in what they like. That's why you get books like Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering, where he tries to lay out, "well, people like different stuff, but you can categorise them into these different things they like, and then once you know what they want, you can give it to them."

Quote from: Tyberious FunkSo with football, it's pretty clear what a player needs to do in order to be successful, but with roleplayers there's no such clarity.  Which is probably why there are so many casual gamers.  They can turn up, do their thing and leave and never really think about whether they are actually any good at it.

I don't see why having some objective measure of overall roleplaying ability would help in any way. Are you saying that there should be no social football clubs, where people who know they're useless at it play and have fun anyway? I assume not - I am assume you'd say that people should play with those of a similar ability, or slightly greater ability to challenge themselves. In football, the teams themselves sort out the selection of those who are able and those who aren't. If you're really good, you probably won't be happy in that useless social team - you'll go looking for a more talented and able team. Likewise, if you're a good roleplayer, you won't stick around in some game group where the players say, "wake me when it's time to roll for combat."

Quote from: Tyberious FunkGoing back to football, there are a number of well established training drills to help players improve their strength, speed and so forth.  Is it possible to have an equivalent in RPGs?  

I don't really see how. It's because we don't have that "professional" level in the thing. Football's training drills didn't come from the Monash Monday Melons, they came from Sydney FC or wherever.

However, you can improve your roleplaying ability by practice with those who are better than you, as many social chess or scrabble players do with those hobbies. You have to choose the right people for that, though. If you go to the Monash Monday Melons and talk about getting better at football, a good number of them will say, "why are you trying to ruin our fun?" They don't want to get better, they just want to have fun today. Same with the groups of casual roleplayers.

I'm having a bit of experience about this myself at the moment, both as a student and a teacher, so to speak. I'm roleplaying in a group with someone more thespy than me, he's had his character fix on mine, and so each session demands extra effort for me. I'm there planning ambushes and his character's talking to mine about, "how do you handle the blood on your hands?" and so on. I'm playing with a better roleplayer than me, and learning from him.

On the other hand I have a gamer friend coming around tonight specifically because he wants me to - in his words - teach him how to design a campaign and GM. Now, I am not a masterful GM, but I know more about it than him so again that's like chess or football - to improve, you just have to play with someone better than you, they don't have to be awesome, just a bit better than you to challenge you and make you think.

So on the one hand I'm playing in a game where I'm being challenged to be better, and on the other hand I've had someone ask to come and talk to me so he can be challenged and get better. This learning is happening. It's not "drills", it's just playing or talking with people who are better than you. It's what I've always said, that rpgs have an informal apprenticeship system, people are brought into them by and learn to be better from other gamers.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkYou'll be happy to know that I'm currently distracted by much more important things... building up my stocks of homebrew!  I am slowly coming to the conclusion that roleplaying and beer go very well together.

The group's waiting for you. You know me, you want a group, I can get you one within a fortnight. In the rpg group free market, whether you keep that group is up to you and your GMing :D

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI am slowly coming to the conclusion that roleplaying and beer go very well together.

I'm Old Geezer, and I approve this message!

Quote from: Old GeezerI'm Old Geezer, and I approve this message!

Seconded! :D

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI'm the same guy... a little bit more experienced from when I first started playing D&D almost 20 years ago... but fundamentally the same guy. Is experience the only thing different? Or do the different mechanics allow me... or should I say, encourage me, to make more memorable characters?

What I think you're struggling with is the same thing I've been struggling with.  What parts of my game are inspiring creation and what parts are just mechanical or setting fluff?  What parts are encouraging or discouraging role development and what can I do to try inspire players to create a role for their character.  Sometimes mechanics can assist or get in the way of that but they don't change that goal.  

Basic D&D is a good example of this.  It provides enough framework to encourage this in play.  Oddly enough, there are enough verbal, visual, setting and mechanical elements that provide a shared cornerstone for the players to identify with.  What I've experienced is that those tropes have pushed me and other players to our creative limits off that shared cornerstone.  We're still getting a lot of the same things in play even if the mechanics or setting changes.  The easy way is to try something else but i've been experimenting with updating the cornerstone so that once again it is intuitively familiar yet undefined in the players imaginations.  I don't know if my assumption is correct but the exploration of the idea has definitely taught me a lot about what elements encourage that for me.  I know I want this role of characters and setting to develop in play not before or after even if it is something I enjoy as a player sitting by myself.  If that sort of development is happening outside of the group it has the potential to clash because the other players are not given a chance to identify with it.  That includes setting and characters.

First off, Mr. T Funk, go right ahead an push buttons.  IMO, that opens the door to emotional discussion, debate, and even some choice name-calling.  I try to leave myself out of the name calling parts, but it is to be expected when other people, just as passionate, take an oppossing view...or worse yet, have their points taken different than their intentions.

For myself, I find that there are mainly two extremes to ROLE-playing as far as the rules go.  There are either no rules to engender it in the game, or the game has taken every attempt at roleplaying and turned it into a roll; hence the expression roll-playing.

Both of these absolutes can be argued ad nauseum by either side....my opinion is that both work to an extent, depending upon your type of game, but it is not the system that makes roleplaying as much as it is the atmosphere.

However, I do find that the disclusion of roleplaying mechanics tends to bring foster more role playing than a die roll.  If one has to simply roll a die (or some dice) to be diplomatic, or intimidating, there is no real need for the player to play the role, they simply cast the dice.  this also sometimes has a sort of "reverse discrimination" effect where those that are truly roleplayers are handicapped, or penalized for their great in-cahracter play by having to cast the dice.

I feel, that rather than dictate the focus of playing the role through stated rules or arbitrary rolls, that a game system should erward those that play well, and encourage the more adept and experienced players in helping htose that are considered not-real-good roleplayers.

It is very difficult for a system to do this, but it is much easier to foster within a group.  

A lot of this responsibility will fall to the GM.  If the player simoply states that they "use diplomacy to attempt to persuade the king to grant them an award of arms", that is not enough.

the GM should counter with something like: "That's very interesting and a great idea.  Now, exactly how would Brunar the Barbarian do this?"

Depending upon the answer the player will eventually speak OOC about the details.  After being smiled upon and naodded to, the GM than states something like: " Now say it just like you think Brunar would."

Roleplaying ensues.

At my game tables, we used to have a "floater" token go about the table.  I (the GM) would hold it until somebody did a fine batch of roleplaying.  (The token can be anything, but it must be small and something fun, and hopefull silly.  We got great mileage out of rubber dragon that was designed to sit on one's shoulder)

When the first great bought of reolpaying would come, I would hand out the floater to the person that just did a great deed of roleplaying.   Eventually, everyone started a ritual where we all stood up and clapped.  When the player holding the floater saw another great bought of roleplaying they would turn over the floater to the other player (and receive a poker chip), pointing out exactly why this a good bit of roleplaying on the part of the recipient.  

Very soon, the casual gamers got into playing the role more than rolling the dice, and it wasn't long before everyone was attempting to outdo each other in playing the role.

Of course, the fact the the poker chips meant a bonus to the player in question edified this.  

I think by choosing your ganme, or your house rules, to promote good roleplaying will foster an environment for good roleplaying.  And yes, certain exceptions can be made for those that are not lithe of tongue, nor broad of vocabulary; but still, playing the role is what roleplaying is about, isn;t it?