Why is it that so few games actually build mechanics around roleplaying?
If I could think of systems that try such as ptba and Burning Wheel, these system more slash away at the aspects that are common within RPG's that steal focus away from roleplaying and they also build their player reward system off of roleplaying, however, they do not actually build an entire system of mechanics based off of roleplaying.
I'm working on a system that does this, it has mechanics and reward systems focused around roleplaying.
Conceptually, is this something you're opposed to or does the idea of attempting that interest you? The system I'm working on borrows a lot from these system but I feel fleshes out that the systems seem to focus on. It's a double edged sword, sure there is more crunch, but it also might cause more by the books GM's to run it ridgedly. Seeing as it's a system just for me to run, that's not such a problem.
Either way, the point of this thread is to talk about roleplaying specifically in relation to how it can be facilitated through game mechanics. Insights, opinions and verbal insults welcome.
 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
I mean you could give FATE a look
Not a fan of the dice mechanics of Fate honestly however, there is quite a bit about Fate I do like.
>Why is it that so few games actually build mechanics around roleplaying?
not needed.
/thread
>/threading your own post
How are you enjoying your time here tourist?
The last ten years have been fruitless and dry like your girlfriends vegana.
Touche. My wifes vegana is pretty damn dry.
In her defence, she's married to a guy who plays with plastic models for children.
>It's a double edged sword
you answered your own question
>Posting for a goddamn decade yet still a newbie
an hero pathetic, insecure cancer
Sorry too busy having sex with women. No time to memorize moronic image board rules. Eat shit triphomosexual.
It’s like an actual twelve year old. Is he gonna tell someone he fricked their mom next?
Attempting to codify roleplay never ends well, even simple things like PC flaws rely on very good players to not devolve into "that's what my character would do, trololol" shitfests.
Also nice digits.
>implying I have a gf
you don't need furry fart fetishes either, but you insert them in your games nonetheless
It's difficult to make mechanics for roleplaying.
As mentioned, FATE does a decent job of it, by basically itemizing your roleplaying...stuff. It gives you personality traits, hooks, etc., and rewards you for using them.
A game that does something similar to FATE in that way is Mechwarrior: Destiny, which is easily genericized but as written has a very strong emphasis on vehicle-scale combat.
Another thing you could try to do is have things like skills and special attacks and whatnot entirely defined through roleplaying. Your character doesn't have ranks in "Diplomacy", your character has "Raised by traveling diplomats with a lover at every embassy," indicating decent grasp of formal discussion and bargaining with broad general knowledge of customs and great seduction skills. The problem with that is it gets kinda bogged down; I saw a game like this (I wish I could remember the system; it might have been homebrew) which inevitably devolved into players arguing with the GM about how [random skill description] allowed them to perform [some action]. I think that have actual mechanics with bonuses for RP works better.
Incidentally, FATE has the Dresden Files expansion, which adds two different very intricate magic systems, if you want to run a fantasy game (especially one primarily centered around wizards).
In the system I'm working on, I have it so that features characters have are either fuelled by rewards gained through role-playing or empowered by them. These can be skills or combat abilities but other than that the skill list is a bit more ridged.
The mechanics I have in mind are descriptive and both alter the character mechanically as well as how the character is perceived.
There are Major traits which would be things such as the character race and background and there are minor traits that stem from major traits. For instance "I am Brooding (minor trait) because I am an Elf (major trait)."
Anyone can be brooding, however, by connecting brooding to elf you talk about what about being an elf would make their character brooding. If they can't come up with a good answer, they scrap it or attempt to attach it to another major trait.
Brooding would have also a mechanical impact on the character if the table wanted it to but it would always alter the way the character is viewed by NPC's.
Lastly, roleplaying the characters brooding nature would be a source of rewards when it facilitates an enjoyable moment at the table or helps establish or flesh out their character.
These rewards can be spent on stronger feature the character might have or to empower other abilities they might have.
For example, they might use the reward to go into a black rage making them faster, stronger and harder or they could use it to overchannel a spell getting additional or empowered effects on the spell.
>inspiration 5e
Yeah this is exactly how 5e inspiration works. I love using my inspiration to use combat swinging abilities and essentially apply metamagic to a spell.
Sounds like a very vague system of "GM gives you a reward when he decides you've acted in character". Which isn't particularly novel.
You only have a vague idea of the system because my post was (relatively) brief.
Getting rewards for role playing isn't novel. I even said so in my OP. The framework used however is more crunchy.
I didn't even go into the Fame attribute and Fame system and the various subsystems of Fame such as Reputation.
Believe it or not I'm not actually trying to make the thread about the system I'm working on, I'm only using it as an example of what I have in mind, so I wanted to be thorough in my explanation while staying as brief as possible.
Fair enough.
I think many games do include such mechanics, just very minimal ones. "Award XP for good roleplay" is very basic but also very common.
More elaborate mechanics aren't common because trying to quantify personality and behaviour is complicated, and against the general trend of minimalism. I'm also dubiuos that it will add much beyond the basic mechanics reinforcing behavour by rewarding it.
I think there's more potential for personality mechanics in systems like Pendragon's virtues, where you have to test against them or be forced to act according to their character rather than your whims.
>Make the roleplaying into tag based boardgame mechanics.
Doesnt that take the fun out of it?
Probably because you're using "roleplaying" to describe the parts of the game that don't have explicit rules. It's a very vague term that people use very differently.
>I'm working on a system that does this
Can you describe what you mean?
see
GURPS does it, there are traits, and the 'disadvantage' traits are full of roleplaying traits like Bad Temper, Charitable, Chronic Depression, etc. These are almost always disadvantages because they say "you must behave this way because it's who you are" A character with Bad Temper lashes out when under stress, if they fail to resist their Bad Temper. Other traits aren't resistable, such as no Sense of Humor. You don't resist it, you just don't have it, so your character won't laugh at jokes. The rules also say that npcs that notice this will have a reaction penalty.
What I loathe is things like FATE and BITD which misunderstand what roleplaying is supposed to be. Roleplaying doesn't inherently mean 'dialogue and play acting', all actions with character rationale are roleplaying.
But for too many people (and thanks to D&D), think that character rationale ceases as soon as mechanics are involved.
I actually think FATE is shit for roleplaying because the way that Fate Points work means you're often making decisions with narrative rationale, which is the opposite of character rationale.
This is a common misconception on how BitD is played. My blades in the dark game has zero dialogue in most sessions.
The trannies who hate on BitD are just 5e drones who have never stepped out of their containment game.
Look, I read the book, and it just boggled my fricking mind how it works. I get it. I had someone explain it to me, but it barely resembles an RPG.
Lets put the dialogue thing aside for a moment, because yeah I totally get how you could have a BITD session without dialogue for sure, in fact I understand how most sessions are dialogue-less, just because of how actions work. But what's so fricking weird to me is how you can even MAKE character decisions with rationale in BITD given that there's not really a situation to make those decisions in, there's just The Conversation, and nothing really exists until instantiated in the conversation via the Threat-statement and responded to Action-response.
It's still a game (unlike microscope) it just doesn't look like an RPG to me.
This is literally how I run every session.
Quantum everything. There is no railroad because there is now "plot".
It's a very difficult way to run as GM. Little to no prep but a lot of stress to run, it require a really good ability to improvise and requires players who aren't irritated by pausing for a moment to have a meta conversation. It also require a GM and players who are willing to have a more co-operative table. I straight up ask my players what a good consequence would be if I can't think of one and just go with it. That being said, I have 4 players and I'm extremely picky with who I let sit at my table.
If I don't like your voice I don't invite you again.
If you laugh at your own gay ass jokes, I don't invite you again.
If you mention any tabletop celebrities, I don't invite you again.
I genuinely find it hard to explain the virtue of this play style but it genuinely just feels more dynamic at the best of times at intellectually engaging at the very least at the worst of times.
>because there is now plot
I assume you meant no plot.
But yeah, because there's no SITUATION at all.
Quantum everything, like you say. I explained this to my players,
This is what I mean, like there's not a situation, no scenario that exists. There's not a world existing that they're interacting with. From what I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong, it's like a whole cloth authorship of "the fiction" as the gameplay itself.
I went through the rulebook with my players and their reaction was visceral. My players love roleplaying, a lot. They did not want to play BITD. Why? Because they don't consider it roleplaying. I don't consider it roleplaying. As far as I can see, it's a storytelling game. I don't mean that as a pejorative, it just looks like a game where you tell stories together, not a game where you roleplay.
I should add, I don't think that having a plot = roleplay, it sure as frick doesn't. If you invest all the storytelling authority in the GM then it just sucks. I've seen storygamers, the kind that like BITD and similar, complain about how the GM has too much authority in trad RPGs. I want to say to them that they're playing it wrong, because you shouldn't be storytelling in an RPG, but they hear "no rp only mechanics!"
A situation, a scenario is required for roleplaying. Roleplaying is actions with character rationale, and for rational actions to be taken there must be a scenario to take them in.
The way I run games, and how some others do is simple, and it traces back to the roots of RPGs.
I establish the scenario. The factions, their forces, goals, and motivations. Also the world, to an extent that is necessary (broad strokes and important locations is enough).
The players make their characters, with goals that align with some faction, or oppose others. You get it.
Then we play the game. I am the GM so I play the 'NPC' leaders and factions, who have various forces and tools at their disposal, and the players play their PCs. There is no plot. There is no narrative, there are just characters making choices, communicating, making plans. The only 'outcomes' I keep in mind is what the character I am playing, wants. Whatever happens, happens, the dice fall where they may.
It's very fun, and apart from the setup, it's actually very EASY too!
i've never been much a fan of roleplaying mechanics. For me the act of roleplaying is an inevitable consequence of controlling a character and being allowed to make choices that affect them and those around them. The DM describes you this fictional character in this fictional setting they inhabit, and you are asked what you would do if you were in that character's shoes, that's already roleplaying in a nutshell. These FATE-mechanics that allow you to shift reality itself if you did a funny voice often enough is for me a bit too far removed from reality.
What I like to do as a DM to encourage roleplaying is to build a connection between the player and the player character, and then build off of that. First I almost always start adventures with a sort of Act 1 that enforces why the player characters are the way they are in the first place. A sheltered princess for example might have the opportunity to explore her palace, only to be caught by guards at every opportunity who force her back into her room. After a few minutes the player will be just as pissed off at this situation as the player character, and they will jump at the first opportunity to answer a call to adventure, both in- and out of universe.
Second, I implement lots of character-based choices and stick to their consequences. A group of adventurers might be hired to take out an evil wizard, but that evil wizard could give them a counteroffer. Maybe a rare one-of-a-kind-item, or maybe even something of emotional value if the campaign has gone long enough to establish something like that. Inevitably that proposition will result in a debate where the players weigh up the pros and cons of each decision, and even try to come up with alternative solutions that's as favourable to their character as possible.
When the motivations and goals of players and the player characters completely align, that's in my experience when one has reached peak roleplaying.
very good description.
To be fair, I also don't consider BitD roleplaying.
Which is why I find it absurd that people call it a "theatre kid" system.
That claim has literally zero basis in reality.
What do you think it is then? I'm fascinated by this. I've wanted a word to describe how these things are different, like as different as an FPS is from an RTS in vidya, but people just freak out when I say that it's not an RPG.
It's like a table top 4X game in a way but it has about as much in common with an rpg then it does with an actual 4x game. It's hard to pin down.
I haven't played Blades, but I've been talking to a guy who runs it, though it's not his fave game, but he INSISTS it's an RPG and doesn't get the difference between my GURPS games that I prepare in the manner explained here
and how Blades works.
I don't think it's a bad game either, but I guess I'm sick of people stuffing every tabletop game that's not a boardgame or a wargame into the RPG space and insisting that they're RPGs too.
The way I see it Blades in the Dark isn’t an RPG, it’s a collaborative crime drama/heist movie generator. The emphasis on the group meta-discussion rather than in-character roleplaying, the players having more authorial control over scenes, and the mechanics pushing the players to play recklessly and get into dangerous situations all support that idea. And from watching actual plays by both the creator and regular players, people even use cinematic terminology/framing, such as describing what the “camera” is currently focused on.
I don’t think it’s a bad game by any means, my group and I had fun with it, but I don’t think it’s really an RPG in the traditional sense.
As someone running BitD right now, I understand where you guys are coming from, but I would never say that Blades aren't an RPG, rather that they are a very specific subtype of it.
Yes, it does attach a set of rules and a more formalised structure to acts of roleplaying and creating the story, but those things are in there purely to encourage certain types of roleplaying and stories, the type this game was specifically designed for (and the type it assumes you want to experience considering you've chosen it). For many players it's not easy getting out of their everyday mindset, morality and common sense to play as someone completely different. These rules are there to build the right tone and to steer them in the right direction (right for the convention assumed) without outright telling them "you have to do that or act like this" - ultimately, they still have full control of their character and can do whatever they want. I can't speak for other groups, but there is definitely plenty of roleplaying in mine - moreso when we're playing BitD than in case of most other systems in fact and I think the system does help in that
As for the whole strategic component of the game - well yeah, it is very game'y, but ultimately it's just a framework that helps to plan out what will happen on next sessions, which are absolutely roleplaying focused. So once again, I do agree that games like that are unusual, perhaps a weird sub-genre of its own, but I would honestly sooner call modern D&D with its ridiluously mechanical combat and video game-like rules "not an RPG" than Blades
> rather that they are a very specific subtype of it.
I'm leaning it to being a tabletop game but not an RPG. Like where's the situation to roleplay in? It's not there, you make it up, you generate it, don't you?
D&D, GURPS, they both trace back to wargames. People were roleplaying in wargames before RPGs existed, and they still do.
>Like where's the situation to roleplay in? It's not there, you make it up, you generate it, don't you?
I must admit that I don't understand what you mean. Like, in pretty much every RPG you make up, imagine, the fictional situation going on and roleplay the characters in it. How's BitD any different in that aspect? You also make up a situation (usually some form of heist or other criminal operation, but can also be a deal going on, characters doing stuff in town or just hanging out in a lair) and roleplay it. The optional scenario generation tools it has are no different than random tables found in many RPGs, including the very oldest ones (in fact, they are literally random tables).
Clamber out of your own ass you fricking gay
Yep. Reads like a moron who just makes shit up about systems he hasn’t played and assumes it to be the truth.
In my system you get a +1 to checks if you actually call out the name of the move you're trying to do.
I double dog dare you and everyone ITT to define roleplaying.
I'll take you up on that.
Roleplaying is expressing your character through actions, dialog and monolog. This can be in or out of character. The opposite of roleplaying is doing exactly what you would do or responding in exactly the way you yourself would want to respond as opposed to what you believe your character would do or say.
If a character is too close to the players personality or too close to everything they wish they were, this is at best bad roleplaying and more often than not, doesn't qualify for roleplaying at all.
Roleplaying at its best weights the importance of your own vision of the character only slightly above what the tables vision of your character is. If there are 4 players and a GM, then the GM and 3 other players should each have their opinion weighed at 17.5% value when determining who your character exactly is and your own opinion at 30%. That additional weight you give on your own opinion is for subverting expectations and playing out your characters development. You are in charge of your character but if the table doesn't really get your character, they will care far less about them.
That is the issue with modern tabletop. Players never give a frick about the characters of other players at the table and that is just seen as usual.
I basically agree with you. But now with this definition the goals in the OP are nonsense. A game that's built mechanically around roleplaying would mean its built around player characters doing things, which is what all RPGs do already. Except for the part where you b***h at players for reminding you of themselves.
I am OP. How are the goals nonsense?
At character creation and during play you define the character and all of their traits and you are rewarded for acting according to those characteristics.
That is not every RPG.
If I make my character "misogynistic", I don't get rewards for talking down to women in DnD.
Yet if I make a D&D character that's a murderhobo like the devs pretend they didn't intend, I will get rewards for acting like a murderhobo.
As DnD should and deserves to be played.
Still, could you reframe your argument, because I don't really understand it.
All RPGs are about PCs doing things (roleplaying) so the assertion that they don't support roleplaying is baffling. Most RPGs reward players for doing things, so rewarding players for doing things is neither novel nor worth having a thread about. Even the idea that players acting in character should get XP for it isn't new, plenty of people play like that.
This is a purposefully obtuse position you're taking.
If that is your argument, I'll reframe my question to Why is it that so few games actually build mechanics around roleplaying (outside of class features for fighting/adventuring and getting experience for killing monsters/getting coin)?
However, everyone else on this site will understand what I'm saying without this additional information.
Go argue with someone you actually disagree with.
>If that is your argument, I'll reframe my question to Why is it that so few games actually build mechanics around roleplaying (outside of class features for fighting/adventuring and getting experience for killing monsters/getting coin)?
Plenty of games still do that, Ryuutama, Wanderhome, every PBTA and their mother, what you really want to ask for is games that reward players for Acting, and I think there's still games for that already.
I mentioned PTBA but they only have rewards systems for roleplaying, not more fleshed out mechanics then *exp for doing these kinds of things* or *gain resource when you do these kinds of things*. They're a lot more lose.
And no, it's not acting, stop attempting to auction me off as a "theatre kid", it doesn't have to be IC dialog or monolog.
If a player takes a trait such as "risk adverse" and they decide to use that trait as an explaination for why they're not going to delve into danger to help a player character who will otherwise die.
That add drama to the table that with the right people is enjoyable. He doesn't need to break into a monolog about leaving them. They just need to act according to the traits that they define when creating their character and that they add to their character over the course of playing.
That is my idea of more crunchy roleplay focused mechanics.
If mechanics more like that exist, point me in the direction. I didn't say "why are there no games...", I said "why are there so few games..."
Fria Lagan experiments with that stuff for their in-house engine. Forbidden Lands has a pride roll - you write down what your character is most proud of, and if it applies to your roll you can add a huge bonus. But you can still fail, and if you do, you lose your pride and have to play an entire session before taking a new one. PCs get experience points by answering questions from a checklist that focus roleplay to what the devs pictured for the game.
I told you why I think most games don't bother and gave an example of one that did better than, "You're in character, have a sweetie".
I also disagree that these are mechancis for roleplay. The whole game is mechanics for roleplay. These are specifically character personality mechanics.
Disadvantages/Flaws are incredibly common in many games. GURPS, Unisystem, JAGS, Spycraft, MURPG, WEG d6 and Mini Six, V:tM and other White Wolf games... And that's just on my shelf.
To me, that sounds like it has two inherent problems:
1. You getting rewarded relies on the GM. There's realistic no way to fully codify the things that will reward you.
2. Given the type of situations the players will be put into, certain traits will be more likely to be triggered and thus rewarded. A prostituteish character, for example, has far fewer opportunities to play that trait in a typical adventure than a brave one, for example.
Neither of those are compelling flaws in the slightest.
ok
What you're complaining about is just a matter of shitty players, find better players or try to improve your players by running shorter and more varied scenarios.
My table as of recently is a dream. I have no complaints. I have played with a staggering number of players over the short time I've played tabletop and the vast majority are terrible. Honestly perhaps as low as 1/50 players are a pleasure to play with for me.
Then why are you here, making posts about how self inserters are shit roleplayers?
Everybody knows already, it's a decades old topic at this point.
wanted to give a definitive answer.
It helps to explain what roleplay isn't when explaining what roleplaying is. I know people know, but I'm saying it in the context of explaining what roleplaying is exactly and explaining why self inserting and mary sueing ISN'T roleplaying.
Besides, everyone agrees that self inserting is bad, but few actually understand what self inserting is, I've seen plenty of people who do nothing but self insert while nodding along when people condemn the practice.
For example, I've been accused of self inserting or making a mary sue character because I created a character who was, exotic, strong, intelligent, dextrous and charismatic.
It was blades in the dark ironically, an Iruvian man (Persian basically).
For many people they would role their eyes at the concept of someone having all of that going for them and had accusations of making a mary sue when I was in an argument with a player at that table post game. However, it's not a self insert as the character doesn't hold any of my values or traits I believe I possess. Do I want to be strong, smart, dextrous and charismatic? Yes I would like those things but that can be said for most people and their characters.
The character had personality flaws I wouldn't want and that grounded them. They were immature, egocentric, egotistical they didn't have a strong will, they got by due to a reckless disregard for danger and adrenaline seeking, but that didn't make them brave or mentally strong, he was a complete degenerate and he simped for a prostitute
Meanwhile people can role up to a table with *literally me except a level 5 bard* and never get called out for it.
It's not so cut and dry.
I suddenly feel a lot better about my group
Roleplaying is when you play an RPG. There's no other sane definition of roleplaying. The idea that some RPG mechanics are for roleplay and some aren't is moronic.
>your elf gains XP for acting like an elf
Wow, OD&D must be the most RP focused RPG because your treasure hunter gets XP for treasure hunting. Except for 3.5, where your murderhobo gets XP for killing shit. Seriously though, yes you should reward players for doing what the game is about, this is common sense and as old as published RPGs. Good luck with your elf drama voice acting circlejerk, you have some hardcore competition.
>Theater kid
>voice actor
these are immediate signs of someone who has been doing the same thing over and over for however many years with an unenthusiastic group. They do not enjoy tabletop all that much but they don't enjoy all that much in live at all. By contrast they love tabletop.
This is important, I'm not even saying IC roleplaying heavy games have to be your preferred games, but pooh pooh'ing the concept and those who prefer it or even just enjoy it is a sign of someone who hasn't actually experienced all of what tabletop has to offer and is just upset that people enjoy the game in a way that is different from them.
I'm not even any different, I also get upset at people enjoying things in a way that is different to me, however, I actually can produce a better fricking argument for why my antipathy towards those people is rational.
While I generally fully agree that RPG systems should encourage roleplaying and I support such projects, from my experience good players will roleplay well no matter the game. A very crunchy or "game-y" system may potentially somewhat distract them from it, but they generally will perform well and don't need further mechanical incentive to roleplay, an rp focused system won't make them improve, at most it will direct them towards certain styles of roleplaying or certain actions. Or help build a specific atmosphere, but this is something that more crunchy games can do as well
However, I feel that such games are great for bad or struggling roleplayers and can help a lot in making them roleplay better and generally improve
>actually build mechanics around roleplaying?
because what a lot of people today see as roleplaing does not require mechanics. Have you ever heard of improv theatre having a lot of rules/mechanics?
Propably not.
Way too many people who could not make it in theatre turn to RPgs and call it "playing a game".
No they don't! They play an attention seeking figure. Or rather are attention seeking themselfs and project onto their pawn.
You never need any system, but just a background/setting in which you can come up with some personal theatrics!
Cause it's overly-gamey and anti-fun. Having an actual conversation with an NPC is interesting. Rolling dice to determine what was said, how forcefully/ convincingly/etc. is neither fun nor interesting.
Roleplaying is not playacting conversations. When will you morons learn.
You can keep screeching about it all you want, low IQ Black person. A conversation is more engaging as an actual conversation, rather than a series of explanations of the ideas each character is trying to convey, or just fricking dice rolls. If you disagree, you're a fricking moron. That's your choice, but I don't really want you obnoxious, no-fun-allowed, joyless autistic anywhere near me or my table.
>A conversation is more engaging as an actual conversation
Nobody said otherwise. The roleplaying does not stop when you aren't negotiating with an NPC.
Even AD&D 2e back in the day had optional roleplaying related xp rules. As a fighter, you got xp for doing fighting stuff, as a wizard you got xp for doing wizard stuff, etc.
>Why is it that so few games actually build mechanics around roleplaying?
Because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what role-playing is.
You think role-playing is table acting. It is not. "Wizard" is a role. In D&D, this role is defined by its extreme weakness in direct combat and its ability to use the widest range of magic items and to wield high utility spells.
Proper role-playing for a wizard does not mean effectively improving your interaction with a merchant, proper role-playing for a wizard means knowing what your spells can do, how you can use them to advantage the party, and understanding that your ROLE is to be a support for the fighting men and provide utility to the party by overcoming obstacles using magic.
Blah, blah, blah. Blow it out your ass.
>Why is it that so few games actually build mechanics around roleplaying?
D&D
If you need mechanics to RP you are moronic. Just act it out, toss a few dice with a few skills or whatever, and let the RPG handle actually important stuff. Combat and travel.
Roleplaying is supposed to be a symptom imo, then it becomes more genuine.
If your game is good enough, people will roleplay by themselves.
There needs to be an interest there first, before someone actually cares to invest themselves deeper.
Ask yourself "what makes people roleplay?"