Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gilean 01-02-06, 09:17 AM	Once in a while I hear this rubbish about roleplaying not being altered by the system. "It is the players, not the system!" is what people yell. Of course, they are wrong. ot in the involvement of players, they are critical, but system, too, is important. Instead of creating a thread for debating the matter, I offer this house rules as an argument. I dare people try it and not see an increase in roleplaying, especially among the players that usually roleplay less. Character features For each character one feature is determined. It can be a single word or a short phrase. For example, Just, Never trust a strager, Drunk, Impatient, etc. All features should be approved by all the players, including the GM, to avoid ones like Backstabber and Cleptomaniac, which can be disruptive. The point of the system is that PCs get rewarded when a feature hurts complicates things for the PC, or the group as a whole. For each scene in which the feature complicates the matters for the PC, and not in a good way, one Hero Point is granted. Hero Points are a resource that can be spent one by one, and each gives a reroll (like luck domain) as a free action that doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. Or some other appropriate thing, like actions points in Eberron. Experience is not used because the amount would have to be quite large in order to be significant, which would kill the wealth by level and other issues of balance. There is also another, more psychological, factor, but I won't go into it. One more thing is needed: a cap for the amount of stored Hero Points at once. Level + charisma modifier might be a good choice, for example. Why is this rule good? All interesting roleplaying thrives on conflicts. This mechanic rewards players for creating them, so it discourages turtling and reduces the burden a GM has for creating the conflicts. Another factor is that the features players write down gives good guidance on where to take the game. If someone has the abovementioned feature about Never trusting strangers, that someone is asking you to give interactions with strangers. Make some of them trustworthy to see if the player rolls with it and takes the Hero Points. Also, negative features are easier to get points from, as they are better at creating trouble. So less perfect heroes, more three-dimensional characters. Try it.
Bob Loblaw 01-02-06, 09:51 AM	I need to think some more about your house rule before I comment (it seems okay, but I want to make sure I give useful advice), but I would like to comment on the action point cap. I don't think it should be tied to any attribute. Level, or level +3, (Unearthed Arcana used 1/2 level +5 as the base which could also be used as a cap) or something like that. The reason I wouldn't tie it to any attribute is that a character with a low Charisma can be roleplayed well also and shouldn't be penalized for that. It would unfairly favor sorcerers and bard (and somewhat clerics and paladins) since those classes rely on a charisma.
Gilean 01-02-06, 10:38 AM	I don't think it should be tied to any attribute. Level, or level +3, (Unearthed Arcana used 1/2 level +5 as the base which could also be used as a cap) or something like that. The reason I wouldn't tie it to any attribute is that a character with a low Charisma can be roleplayed well also and shouldn't be penalized for that. It would unfairly favor sorcerers and bard (and somewhat clerics and paladins) since those classes rely on a charisma.Whatever floats your boat. It is an outline. I can easily justify it being keyed to cha, or not. Both ways should work. That is not the key point here.
Cymraegmorgan 01-02-06, 01:53 PM	Why is this rule good? All interesting roleplaying thrives on conflicts. :confused: In twenty-five years of gaming, that has not been my experience. Interesting roleplaying comes out of the players' sense and level of comfort with their fellows and their characters. It cannot be forced or coaxed, it comes out when it does, or the fun will be less for all involved.
Gilean 01-02-06, 01:58 PM	:confused: In twenty-five years of gaming, that has not been my experience. Interesting roleplaying comes out of the players' sense and level of comfort with their fellows and their characters. It cannot be forced or coaxed, it comes out when it does, or the fun will be less for all involved.In-game conflicts. Sorry for the confusion. In-game conflicts are what makes roleplaying interesting. (Though with certain systems that are made to support it, certain level of competition and conflict is good. As long as everyone knows that it is the point.)
wolfram_stout 01-06-06, 03:56 PM	The one law of psychology is that behavior that is rewarded tends to be repeated. So, yes if you give something good for roleplaying then you should see an increase in role-playing. However, your system is not encouraging real role-playing (in my opinion). It is rewarding the "role-playing" of one feature, not a well rounded character. You might as well just award an additional 2-5% xp bonus for good role-playing. Now, in the other systems I have played (namely GURPS) that supposedly all the xp is from role-playing it always turned into who could entertain the GM more, and that just sucked for playing a serious character. Does system matter in encouraging roleplaying? Yes, but only in a superfical way. Again that is my opinion, and my experience. The good role-players in my group are good regardless of system, the bad ones are bad in any system. Wolfram
Lina_Inverse 01-06-06, 06:54 PM	So i put psychopath on my sheet. I kill all the PCs in there sleep. I get 1 hero point per PC killed. Never reward incharecter conflict, D&D is a team game. This isnt paranoia.
Cymraegmorgan 01-06-06, 07:01 PM	So i put psychopath on my sheet. I kill all the PCs in there sleep. I get 1 hero point per PC killed. Never reward incharecter conflict, D&D is a team game. This isnt paranoia. :clap: How about if I put Boring Wallflower on my sheet? I get 1 hero point everytime I fail to interact in a social situation, or have nothing to contribute. :D
Ruhl-Than Sage 01-06-06, 11:34 PM	Thats why he said that the features had to be approved. Read the original post before you start making snarky remarks.
Cymraegmorgan 01-07-06, 01:33 AM	Thats why he said that the features had to be approved. Read the original post before you start making snarky remarks. I read the OP, which is why I am making snarky remarks. The idea is lame, and forgets the most fundamental aspect of the game: fun. The game does not thrive on conflict, it thrives on mutual enjoyment. Those players that are naturally shy or not well spoken should not be hampered by such silliness. The reward of good roleplaying is the roleplaying itself. It occurs naturally as a group gets comfortable with itself. XP rewards or penalties for rp will always lead to bad blood in the end. And that is my honest observation after 25 years of playing D&D. It is a game, not a contest. Lighten up and have fun. Leave the reward/punishment system for role immersion to your sophomore level Theater classes.
Gilean 01-07-06, 04:36 AM	I read the OP, which is why I am making snarky remarks. The idea is lame, and forgets the most fundamental aspect of the game: fun. The game does not thrive on conflict, it thrives on mutual enjoyment. Those players that are naturally shy or not well spoken should not be hampered by such silliness.Conflict, as in in-game conflict. Fictional conflict. Not conflict among players.It is rewarding the "role-playing" of one feature, not a well rounded character.Oh, criticism. I am impressed. Feel free to let tham take, say, three features. More than that and it gets very hard to include them frequently.You might as well just award an additional 2-5% xp bonus for good role-playing.You get experience for roleplaying. You get experience for killing things. The latter is more effective way of getting experience, so it will be used. Exp awards are not the way to go.How about if I put Boring Wallflower on my sheet?And when it gets you into trouble, you are rewarded. So, if you are having fun playing a boring wallflower, you are thrilled. If you do not have fun playing a boring wallflower, why take a feature like that? I miss the problem. Maybe I should give an example. A character with a Run from Battle feature. That character has no obligation of running from battle. But, when he does it, he gets rewarded, as it almost always complicates the situation. So, it is more likely that he actually runs from battle. And, without group agreement, the trait won't get there. So no Cowards in heroic games.
Cymraegmorgan 01-07-06, 04:55 AM	And, without group agreement, the trait won't get there. So, it is not about role-playing, but about being peer-pressured into a niche? So if I have a concept another player doesn't like, no matter how unique and inventive my concept, I cannot use it. Talk about lowest common denominator....
Gilean 01-07-06, 05:57 AM	So, it is not about role-playing, but about being peer-pressured into a niche? So if I have a concept another player doesn't like, no matter how unique and inventive my concept, I cannot use it. Talk about lowest common denominator....And I usually play with my friends. Those guys with whom I can talk about things. The restriction is necessary, simply to drop Cleptomaniacs who are "just playing their characters". Note that you can, and should, have a more fleshes-out character. This rule helps remembering some aspects of them, and compensates for making "bad choices". I fail to see why you hate it so.
Lina_Inverse 01-07-06, 07:24 AM	Conflict, as in in-game conflict. Fictional conflict. Not conflict among players.Oh, criticism. I am impressed. Conflict between the heros and there antagonists. Intercharecter conflict will probably result in Interplayer conflict. If you want the PCs to kill and backstab each other might i suggest paranoia and not D&D?
Gilean 01-07-06, 08:18 AM	Conflict between the heros and there antagonists.Exactly. I could have been more clear, but that is what I meant. Oh, and Paranoia is not good. Though I haven't tried XP yet. And probably won't. BTW, it "their", not "there".
Lina_Inverse 01-07-06, 11:15 PM	Exactly. I could have been more clear, but that is what I meant. Oh, and Paranoia is not good. Though I haven't tried XP yet. And probably won't. BTW, it "their", not "there". No your encourageing interparty conflict. Since your rewarding causeing the group to suffer. This causes people to find traits that will make everyone else suffer and not himself.(Ie my psychopath example) This is fine for paranoia where your not heros but selfish *******s, But D&D your heros. I mean if you want a party of selfish *******s get it, but thats what your encourageing by rewarding by haveing people make there friends suffer. Paranoia is awesome, And XP is far more perfect than all previous versions(Espilly 5th edition but thats unhistory.)
Gilean 01-08-06, 05:14 AM	No your encourageing interparty conflict. Since your rewarding causeing the group to suffer. This causes people to find traits that will make everyone else suffer and not himself.(Ie my psychopath example) This is fine for paranoia where your not heros but selfish *******s, But D&D your heros. I mean if you want a party of selfish *******s get it, but thats what your encourageing by rewarding by haveing people make there friends suffer.The point of the system is that PCs get rewarded when a feature hurts complicates things for the PC, or the group as a whole.Which doesn't include the PC? Also, could you give an example where being a psychopath creates a complication?
Cymraegmorgan 01-08-06, 07:45 AM	Which doesn't include the PC? Also, could you give an example where being a psychopath creates a complication? psy·cho·path n. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse. [Back-formation from PSYCHOPATHIC.] Makes backstabber look like a walk in the park. Can you give an example where this would not cause a complication? And I usually play with my friends. Those guys with whom I can talk about things. The restriction is necessary, simply to drop Cleptomaniacs who are "just playing their characters". This seems counter-intuitive. If they are your friends and easy to talk to, then having to place arbitrary restrictions seems out of lace. Note that you can, and should, have a more fleshes-out character. This rule helps remembering some aspects of them, and compensates for making "bad choices". :confused: I fail to see why you hate it so. I do not "hate" it. I think it is an overly flawed complication that adds nothing but bookkeeping to an aspect of the game best left alone. That is, as I have said before, Roleplaying is its own reward.
Gilean 01-08-06, 08:21 AM	psy·cho·path n. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse. [Back-formation from PSYCHOPATHIC.] Makes backstabber look like a walk in the park. Can you give an example where this would not cause a complication?We are talking past each other... PCs have fought through an orc tribe. One trie to surrender. Psychopath kills that one. No complication was created. So no rewards.This seems counter-intuitive. If they are your friends and easy to talk to, then having to place arbitrary restrictions seems out of lace."Arbitrary"? Think of it as a confirmation. Everyone creates characters and tells features they have. If everyone is fine, cool. If not, discuss the point and see how it will be played.:confused:A character with offensive habits, but good charisma. These are not seen often. Because they are a bad choice with no reward. But give the player a little encouragement by giving soem reward when they are hampered by these features, and two things happen. First, those that already did this are rewared and recognised for it. Second, those who didn't might start having some depht in their characters. This rule does not harm for playing additional features, so nobody is likely to stop doing it. And three or so features ought to be enough, often.I do not "hate" it. I think it is an overly flawed complication that adds nothing but bookkeeping to an aspect of the game best left alone. That is, as I have said before, Roleplaying is its own reward.Generally people like when their achievements are given credit to. This system does that. A bad thing?
Roxlimn 01-08-06, 09:46 AM	Quite frankly, I don't see the point. People who have fun roleplaying will roleplay a commoner, if they feel like it, and they're always chock full of all sort of character traits. I don't need additional incentives to make the game "more fun" for them. Getting to roleplay their characters and have these impact the game one way or the other is usually sufficient. On the other hand, some people don't like to roleplay their characters in any way, and I do not believe that I should be marginalizing them just because they like to play D&D in a different way. If they don't enjoy acting out roles, they'll only resent the ruling.
Gilean 01-08-06, 10:09 AM	On the other hand, some people don't like to roleplay their characters in any way, and I do not believe that I should be marginalizing them just because they like to play D&D in a different way. If they don't enjoy acting out roles, they'll only resent the ruling.Wherever the "acting" part came from... I'll give an example. A character who writes Never Retreat on the sheet. Other players agree. If said character, in spite of the odds, doesn't retreat, and gets imprisoned from that, he gets a point. Character screwed, player happy. Also, instant adventure seed: save the character. If the character dies, it would be reasonable to save the point for next char. It is a player reward, after all. Another: Sickly Sometimes the character fails a save against disease by player choice. If the situation is hectic, that's trouble. So, point for that. And it is something I don't see as a GM all too often.
Roxlimn 01-08-06, 10:17 AM	And again, I still don't see the point. If the player likes to roleplay, he'll roleplay "Never Retreat" whether or not you give him a bronie point. If he doesn't like for his character to act out "Rambo," he'll just get miffed everytime I give someone else rewards for basically doing their thing. So his thing is puzzles, why does he have to be interested in this character facet thing? Whatever, right? Also, your examples "Never Retreat" and "Sickly" are part and parcel of UA's optional "Flaws" system which allows roleplayers to more fully flesh out character details without giving them undue advantage. Also, not arbitrary.
Gilean 01-08-06, 12:15 PM	Also, your examples "Never Retreat" and "Sickly" are part and parcel of UA's optional "Flaws" system which allows roleplayers to more fully flesh out character details without giving them undue advantage. Also, not arbitrary.I know of flaws. I don't like them. They are of the restrictive side. If you want to debate the matter further, I'll make another thread. Of course, if your players are not of the kind to like this ruels, don't use it. That is the most basic social contract thing that applies universally to every rule everywhere.
wolfram_stout 01-12-06, 03:43 PM	This is not that bad on second thought. If a player doesn't like it he can pick something simple or something that will not come into play. Kind of like a no-blood no-foul. It does not really the players to do anything they don't want. It is somewhat like the White Wolf system that each game has something in the neighborhood of Trait or Role where you chose something that if it comes into play you get a willpower point. If your players like it great. I would be afraid my players that don't roleplay would play that one trait to the exclusion of all else. Wolfram