- For character creation, I intend on letting everyone choose a race and class first, then select one ability to set at 18 (they can add their racial bonus, making it a 20). For every other ability, they roll 4d6 (and throw out the lowest die) in order.
This isn't *exactly* a house rule but everywhere I've played since 1E either uses a point based system or gives players a set of abilities to choose from and distribute how they choose. I miss the randomness of 1E. At the same time, I remember having a character whose abilities were all 7s, 8s, and 9s (it's called 3d6, people!). In addition to not being quite as fun to play, the character just didn't seem terribly... heroic. I'm hoping that giving the one 18 out will give the characters a sense of being the best and the brightest, even if they do have a couple of very ugly stats in the group.
The only thing I'm really concerned about here is randomness. Most of it should be workable, though. A guy with an 18 STR and a 7 CON might be reckless. I've known all sorts of people with high INTs and low WIS or CHA. A high WIS, low INT character might be a Forrest Gump type. Low scores are opportunities, not weaknesses!
- Revamping the action point system. I'm throwing out the rule that gives PCs 1 action point every 2 encounters. Instead, they still get the one to start the day with an AP but after that they acquire them by role-playing. The areas I'm considering rewarding RP:
== Alignment. Not just "acting good", though, in a place where there are no negative consequences to doing so. Self-sacrifice, etc.
== Personality. As part of the 4d6 thing, I have a bunch of character traits written down that are ability-appropriate (forex, a low-WIS character might be "impulsive", a high-CHA "narcissistic"). There are also racial personality traits and ones we associate with classes. I plan on giving each PC a list of 5 or 6 of these and having them choose 2. If they have any better personality traits they'd prefer to the ones I show them, they can have at it: mine are only suggestions.
== Backstory. In our last session, which came on the heels of a near-TPK (nobody died but 1 guy was at negative HPs and everyone else had less than 10 HPs), we went back to the scene of the action and ran into the same BBEG that almost killed us. One of the guys in the group, a ranger, ran away from the BBEG all fight, "choosing" to fight the minions and constantly griping about how the BBEG gave him nightmares and how just looking at him gives him the shakes (there was some of this before the battle as well). This was great, exactly the kind of thing I'd want to reward if I were the DM.
== Awesomeness. As you all know, every now and then somebody does something cool or hilarious that totally breaks up the action for a second and reminds you why you're playing the game.
Sooo yeah. I know that Paragon-level characters virtually rely on APs for sustenance, but by the time we get to that point (starting at level 1) I hope to have "trained" these folks well enough. The players seem receptive enough to RPing; I just don't think they've really experienced an RP-heavy campaign (nothing against my brother, who is fantastic at coming up with milieu and does a solid job with NPCs; it's just that I was in a really heavy RP group back in the day and know how rare those are).
Oh yeah, one last thing... I'm a bit of a writer and so one thing I'm going to really try hard at doing is using the aforementioned personality traits to color the information I'm giving to the players. Like if a greedy PC looks in a treasure chest, I might describe the loot as "a whole load of beautiful gold, a ring that has to be worth 50 gp all by itself at least, and a bunch of stupid weapons and potions". One of the things I really enjoy about writing is describing a scene in first person or limited third through the lenses of the character. Failed checks would give more of this kind of info than successful ones, of course. Not really a house rule either but something I thought I'd share.
. . . which brings on a related topic - if you want to encourage something you enjoy, the positive "look this is great" angle is going to be way more successful than "no, you can't do that".
IMO, let them optimise their characters. The character traits, backgorunds and your writing skills are much more positive as an approach. See if you can add some of the RP you'd like to the power game, without trying to take away their power game.
But you do have a point. The attribute thing might be something we try for the first run of characters and then if people don't like them after a session or two they can re-roll.
My brother runs a gaming group with his friends and me and I have insinuated myself as the backup DM. The guys in the group are great but they are a bit on the power-gamey side (my brother says he's horrible about this when he plays; apparently there was a DM they used to have who left town, and the other players are guys who used to co-PC with my bro). I have a couple ideas I'm strongly considering implementing to prevent min-maxing (which IMO creates stereotypical characters) and also to flat-out encourage roleplaying.
- For character creation, I intend on letting everyone choose a race and class first, then select one ability to set at 18 (they can add their racial bonus, making it a 20). For every other ability, they roll 4d6 (and throw out the lowest die) in order.
This isn't *exactly* a house rule but everywhere I've played since 1E either uses a point based system or gives players a set of abilities to choose from and distribute how they choose. I miss the randomness of 1E. At the same time, I remember having a character whose abilities were all 7s, 8s, and 9s (it's called 3d6, people!). In addition to not being quite as fun to play, the character just didn't seem terribly... heroic. I'm hoping that giving the one 18 out will give the characters a sense of being the best and the brightest, even if they do have a couple of very ugly stats in the group.
The only thing I'm really concerned about here is randomness. Most of it should be workable, though. A guy with an 18 STR and a 7 CON might be reckless. I've known all sorts of people with high INTs and low WIS or CHA. A high WIS, low INT character might be a Forrest Gump type. Low scores are opportunities, not weaknesses!
I would recommend against this system, but if your players like, who am I to stop you.
- Revamping the action point system. I'm throwing out the rule that gives PCs 1 action point every 2 encounters. Instead, they still get the one to start the day with an AP but after that they acquire them by role-playing. The areas I'm considering rewarding RP:
== Alignment. Not just "acting good", though, in a place where there are no negative consequences to doing so. Self-sacrifice, etc.
What if they aren't good? Also, do you provide clear definitions of what you consider proper alignment behavior to be so there are no misunderstandings or will this be a discussion sort of thing, where players can make their case why they feel they were acting according to alignment?
To be honest, I think you should leave alignment on the sidelines.
== Personality. As part of the 4d6 thing, I have a bunch of character traits written down that are ability-appropriate (forex, a low-WIS character might be "impulsive", a high-CHA "narcissistic"). There are also racial personality traits and ones we associate with classes. I plan on giving each PC a list of 5 or 6 of these and having them choose 2. If they have any better personality traits they'd prefer to the ones I show them, they can have at it: mine are only suggestions.
You run the risk of simply adding another power game aspect here. Did I act impulsive this session: check. Did I act slow this session:, nope, oh, better work that in so I can get my AP.
== Backstory. In our last session, which came on the heels of a near-TPK (nobody died but 1 guy was at negative HPs and everyone else had less than 10 HPs), we went back to the scene of the action and ran into the same BBEG that almost killed us. One of the guys in the group, a ranger, ran away from the BBEG all fight, "choosing" to fight the minions and constantly griping about how the BBEG gave him nightmares and how just looking at him gives him the shakes (there was some of this before the battle as well). This was great, exactly the kind of thing I'd want to reward if I were the DM.
That's not really backstory, just regular story, which is still good.
== Awesomeness. As you all know, every now and then somebody does something cool or hilarious that totally breaks up the action for a second and reminds you why you're playing the game.
Sooo yeah. I know that Paragon-level characters virtually rely on APs for sustenance, but by the time we get to that point (starting at level 1) I hope to have "trained" these folks well enough. The players seem receptive enough to RPing; I just don't think they've really experienced an RP-heavy campaign (nothing against my brother, who is fantastic at coming up with milieu and does a solid job with NPCs; it's just that I was in a really heavy RP group back in the day and know how rare those are).
Oh yeah, one last thing... I'm a bit of a writer and so one thing I'm going to really try hard at doing is using the aforementioned personality traits to color the information I'm giving to the players. Like if a greedy PC looks in a treasure chest, I might describe the loot as "a whole load of beautiful gold, a ring that has to be worth 50 gp all by itself at least, and a bunch of stupid weapons and potions". One of the things I really enjoy about writing is describing a scene in first person or limited third through the lenses of the character. Failed checks would give more of this kind of info than successful ones, of course. Not really a house rule either but something I thought I'd share.
Overall, the AP reward system just looks to me like this: As long as I play the game the way you want me to play, I get rewards. I think it's great that you want to add more roleplaying to the group, but I wonder if you aren't trying to fit a square peg (the group) into a round hole (your idea of what the group should be).
Roleplaying should be it's own reward. While I don't doubt that this system will add some additional RP, I think you run the risk of linking RP to tangible rewards and your players might be put off if they RP but don't get something for it.
Instead of creating a RP reward system, sit down with your players and talk to them about RP. Ask them what they want out of RP, if they are comfortable with RP, if they want to try bringing more RP to the table, etc. Reward RP with less mechanical things like NPC favors, additional information, titles or whatnot.
As DM, you set the attitude on RP. If you are positive and serious about RP in the game, your players will pick up on that. Encourage your players while they try to RP, be patient if they are slow, and provide feedback and let them provide feedback as well.
In the long run, I think you'll be better off working directly with your players to add more RP than buying RP with a reward system.
I see your point but at the same time handing out attributes seems to lead to min-maxing in this game, which leads to people playing stereotypical characters (i.e. stupid fighters, weak mages, low-DEX clerics). The game does have the periodic attribute raises and I intend to do things that will allow people to raise them on their own, outside of the normal character development process. Finally, that's also sort of a "let's try this out, guys!" moment in that I'm going to try and convince them that non-optimized characters != automatic death or less than full victory.
But you do have a point. The attribute thing might be something we try for the first run of characters and then if people don't like them after a session or two they can re-roll.
In defense of low Int Fighters and low Str Wizards, doesn't it make sense for someone to seek training in a field that utilizes their strengths. Or, from the other side, if you are smart but physically weak, why would you try to train as a Fighter or other Str using class?
In defense of low Int Fighters and low Str Wizards, doesn't it make sense for someone to seek training in a field that utilizes their strengths. Or, from the other side, if you are smart but physically weak, why would you try to train as a Fighter or other Str using class?
Well, you *do* get the 18 that you can put anywhere you want it. So the fighter in this case would for sure put that in his STR. What I don't like is that, at least in all the groups where people have given out attributes to distribute or had a points-based system rather than rolling for them, that fighter is almost invariably going to be stupid because, from a meta-gaming standpoint, INT doesn't matter so much.
Overall, the AP reward system just looks to me like this: As long as I play the game the way you want me to play, I get rewards. I think it's great that you want to add more roleplaying to the group, but I wonder if you aren't trying to fit a square peg (the group) into a round hole (your idea of what the group should be).
Yep, that's basically what it is. I wanted to find a way to reward behavior I like without a. tacitly condemning behavior I don't, or b. messing up the game balance. I guess you can't get away from part a. Still, my experience is that after 8 to 10 sessions people have a good enough idea of their character that they often do RP whether they realize it or not. I just want to find a way to jury-rig the process into starting a bit quicker.
Roleplaying should be it's own reward. While I don't doubt that this system will add some additional RP, I think you run the risk of linking RP to tangible rewards and your players might be put off if they RP but don't get something for it.
Obviously it has to be a case by case thing. The better RPers will find it harder to get APs, whereas someone who is a n00b or who hasn't really ever tried to RP will get easier bonuses.
Instead of creating a RP reward system, sit down with your players and talk to them about RP. Ask them what they want out of RP, if they are comfortable with RP, if they want to try bringing more RP to the table, etc. Reward RP with less mechanical things like NPC favors, additional information, titles or whatnot.
1. I like the symbolic gesture of handing out the little game token when somebody does something cool.
2. NPC favors, titles, and additional information are still game-unbalancing things. The last thing I want to do is foster an attitude of good RPing = more success. I like the AP thing specifically because it means that characters that are more compelling get to do things in battle that allow them to stick around longer. It's a similar concept to karma in some of the older games.
As DM, you set the attitude on RP. If you are positive and serious about RP in the game, your players will pick up on that. Encourage your players while they try to RP, be patient if they are slow, and provide feedback and let them provide feedback as well.
Of course I will be doing that as well. It takes a lot of tactics to foster RP.
In the long run, I think you'll be better off working directly with your players to add more RP than buying RP with a reward system.
And I'll be doing even better if I do both! Thanks for agreeing with me!!!!! ;)
Well, you *do* get the 18 that you can put anywhere you want it. So the fighter in this case would for sure put that in his STR. What I don't like is that, at least in all the groups where people have given out attributes to distribute or had a points-based system rather than rolling for them, that fighter is almost invariably going to be stupid because, from a meta-gaming standpoint, INT doesn't matter so much.
Having an 8 Int (lowest point buy stat) doesn't make you stupid. It doesn't make you a genius either, but your are hardly mentally handicapped; you are of average intelligence, that's it. Honestly, all a low Int really means is that you don't want to use it to calculate defense bonuses and any Int based skills probably aren't going to be your first choices for training.
Something else you can do that's longer term is to hand out XP; in 4th edition, you'll want to hand it out to the entire party when one person roleplays well, since there aren't really any ways to catch up if you're behind. This also makes the more combat-oriented types less likely to complain when someone's roleplaying his attempts to redeem a petty thief. The ones who can really get into it will do so, the others will be content to watch.
Having an 8 Int (lowest point buy stat) doesn't make you stupid. It doesn't make you a genius either, but your are hardly mentally handicapped; you are of average intelligence, that's it. Honestly, all a low Int really means is that you don't want to use it to calculate defense bonuses and any Int based skills probably aren't going to be your first choices for training.
Yes, definitely, and one of the personality traits I was looking forward to giving to low-INT players is "anti-intellectual". They'd not necessarily be stupid but would be philosophically or just impulsively against book learning. It'd make for some interesting experience situations.
But my issue isn't that an 8 INT makes you stupid, it's the way min-maxing invariably causes some character types to be low-INT. I should point out that these folks are pretty experienced at DnD; I don't think I'd try this tactic with people who were figuring out mechanics for the first time.
I've on occasion handed out extra AP for particularly good roleplaying; not just roleplaying established traits, but giving their character some development. (e.g, Declaring themselves responsible for a batch of orphans that they rescued in the last adventure, and then finding them a decent home, dropping in regularly to make sure things were okay, and then training a pair of them that wanted to follow in his footsteps a few sessions later.) Don't set fixed conditions, just award them when it feels appropriate.
Something else you can do that's longer term is to hand out XP; in 4th edition, you'll want to hand it out to the entire party when one person roleplays well, since there aren't really any ways to catch up if you're behind. This also makes the more combat-oriented types less likely to complain when someone's roleplaying his attempts to redeem a petty thief. The ones who can really get into it will do so, the others will be content to watch.
You make some good points. I don't intend on making the conditions "fixed"; in fact, I want them to be a little capricious (so that the players won't be able to rely on doing any one thing to ensure their daily AP quota is met) and, again, scale things to the ability of the player to RP (so that, in general, it'll be harder to earn those APs as the campaign gets going).
I don't want to reward an entire party for the actions of one player but at the same time I don't want the characters to level up at different points, which is why I rejected XP. Of course, RPing can lead to quests in their own right which can lead to XP for completing them.
I should also point out here that RPing isn't necessarily just something you do in between combat. Some of the best RPers I've played with were full-on combat guys. They'd be in character out of combat (though sometimes "in character" didn't have them do much) but once everybody rolled for initiative I can think of one guy in particular who would be getting an extra AP all over the place for his stuff (he had a great sense of spatial awareness and would describe in good, to the point detail how his character responded to his last hit). Monologuing is another great, often underlooked aspect of combat RP (which, again, I intend to help with by having my monsters do a lot of it themselves).
At the same time, I remember having a character whose abilities were all 7s, 8s, and 9s (it's called 3d6, people!).
Um... better late than never for finding this out; but page 8, 3.5 PHB (for example), under REROLLING;
"If your scores are too low, you may scrap them and roll all six scores aagin. Your scores are considered too low if the sum of your modifiers (before adjustments because of race) is 0 or lower, or if your highest score is 13 or lower"
It's in 1 edition, it must be in all of them.
== Personality. ...If they have any better personality traits they'd prefer to the ones I show them, they can have at it: mine are only suggestions.
Unearthed Arcana has traits for exactly this. Each trait gives a plus and a minus to particular skills. Basically the same idea, so it might be worth looking into, even if you are running 4e.
Or, from the other side, if you are smart but physically weak, why would you try to train as a Fighter or other Str using class?
Reply With Quote
That depends, how's your Dex? Dex fighters are completely valid after all. (in 3.5 at least, not sure how 4e works)
Other than that; I find the best way to get roleplaying started is to have mandatory back stories written before the campaign starts. It's sort of a no-braining some would think; but often overlooked when DMs look back and complain about lack of RP.
Um... better late than never for finding this out; but page 8, 3.5 PHB (for example), under REROLLING;
"If your scores are too low, you may scrap them and roll all six scores aagin. Your scores are considered too low if the sum of your modifiers (before adjustments because of race) is 0 or lower, or if your highest score is 13 or lower"
It's in 1 edition, it must be in all of them.
It's not in OD&D. So we started by rolling the stats and working out from the stats. It was the only way to build a functional character.
If someone wants to play a fighter and he puts 18 to Str and then rolls low Con, Dex and Wis, then he's just very limited as a fighter. His OA's suck, you pretty well prevented him from being any good in any weapon since those weapon specific feats probably needs a 15 to one of those secondary stats. You prevented him from choosing the Battlerage Vigour option. I don't see how someone with this character has any more motivation to role play than someone who uses point buy.
Be careful about the AP rewards for role playing. If players are not gaining any rewards for reaching milestones, they may decide that it's just not worth pushing onward more before taking an extended rest.
It's not in OD&D. So we started by rolling the stats and working out from the stats. It was the only way to build a functional character.
lol, yeah. It wasn't in 1e either. In 1e you got 3 highest of 4d6 IIRC, but they had to be rolled in order. I think even that might have been an optional rule (having misplaced my 1e PHB...). It was definitely ALL about rolling the dice, then figuring out what class and race might work with those stats.
The real danger with random stats isn't so much getting cripplingly low numbers. Those were at least interesting as long as you had some good ones to go along with them. The real danger RP-wise was the "Joe Average" character. What do you do with a PC that has 9-13 in every stat? Sure you can put them in a race that boosts the highest number(s) so maybe they have a BIT of something going on, but really you're neither very heroic nor easy to characterize. Obviously giving out an 18 avoids that for the most part, but you still mostly end up with a pretty narrow range of numbers in the other 5 stats. No reason a character like that CAN'T be RPed effectively, but people who aren't all that used to it usually do best when they have a couple of 15+ stats to build their idea of the character's personality on.
I can definitely see where the OP is coming from. Every dwarf fighter is likely to have identical stats (or very very close) to every other one. OTOH there are so many possible character builds and classes and race combinations out there, many of which have a variety of variations that you really aren't likely to see carbon copy PCs in a given campaign.
Randomness does not encourage role playing. It may discourage min/maxing to a certain extent. However, a min/maxer who does not role play well does not suddenly start to role play better if you limit his ability to min/max.
If someone wants to play a fighter and he puts 18 to Str and then rolls low Con, Dex and Wis, then he's just very limited as a fighter. His OA's suck, you pretty well prevented him from being any good in any weapon since those weapon specific feats probably needs a 15 to one of those secondary stats. You prevented him from choosing the Battlerage Vigour option. I don't see how someone with this character has any more motivation to role play than someone who uses point buy.
Be careful about the AP rewards for role playing. If players are not gaining any rewards for reaching milestones, they may decide that it's just not worth pushing onward more before taking an extended rest.
Your point about randomness != RPing is probably the #1 item in my "con" column.
As for the APs and extended rest, there's a simple method our group already uses to combat this (and which we did in 3.5 as well):
DM: Okay, that fight just ended. It's about 11 in the morning.
PC: Let's rest.
DM: You're not tired.
Now, if the players *really* feel that they need to rest, they can screw around for the rest of the day and go out of their way to avoid encounters (sometimes) and finally rest at night, but the players are sophisticated enough to realize that if they get to sleep after every taxing encounter the game gets too easy and they don't have as much fun. I probably wouldn't recommend this to beginning players or to guys you haven't trained properly.
As for DEX fighters, it would be really tough. There's a feat you can buy that allows you to use an attribute other than STR when determining attack and damage in melee but it only works on basic attacks. If you had an agreeable DM you could probably find a way to apply that to power attacks as well but it's definitely not RAW and could disrupt the game balance. If you're going to have a guy who specializes in ranged attacks, the 4E class for that is Ranger.
That depends, how's your Dex? Dex fighters are completely valid after all. (in 3.5 at least, not sure how 4e works)
As for DEX fighters, it would be really tough. There's a feat you can buy that allows you to use an attribute other than STR when determining attack and damage in melee but it only works on basic attacks.
In 4E, Dex fighters are called rogues.
Your point about randomness != RPing is probably the #1 item in my "con" column.
I do not understand what you mean by "'con' column."
As for DEX fighters, it would be really tough. There's a feat you can buy that allows you to use an attribute other than STR when determining attack and damage in melee but it only works on basic attacks. If you had an agreeable DM you could probably find a way to apply that to power attacks as well but it's definitely not RAW and could disrupt the game balance. If you're going to have a guy who specializes in ranged attacks, the 4E class for that is Ranger.
There are indeed dex fighters. Sword and Board plus heavy blades or polearm based fighters with high dex. Also requires a good wisdom usually. Obviously strength is still the primary stat for the to-hit number. This does illustrate the main game mechanical issue in 4e with rolled stats. There are a number of builds like this that would really LOVE multiple high secondary stats. With point buy you can only do it to some extent and have to suffer a 2-4 point drop on your primary stat. With random rolls you can luck out and have a character that is able to qualify for a lot of extra nasty feat combinations. Of course the guy that rolled low on most of his dice still has his 18 STR and with the right race can probably at least scrape together a 13 in some other stat, so he'll do OK.
As an alternative to the original, how about one attribute at 18, one at 15, and then the other 4 rolled in order? That might still make it rough for characters that need 3 good numbers, and it starts to get back to that whole min-maxing thing that I'm trying to avoid, but there's still quite a bit of randomness that the players can only control to a certain extent (by choosing which abilities they really want to have high, and by choosing a race with good bonuses in the abilities they need). Also, 15 is low enough that it could easily be surpassed by a good roll or two using the 4d6 method.
As for DEX fighters, it would be really tough. There's a feat you can buy that allows you to use an attribute other than STR when determining attack and damage in melee but it only works on basic attacks. If you had an agreeable DM you could probably find a way to apply that to power attacks as well but it's definitely not RAW and could disrupt the game balance. If you're going to have a guy who specializes in ranged attacks, the 4E class for that is Ranger.
I suppose the first thing I have to ask is why you feel the need to "fix" or "avoid" the min maxing. The character's obviously enjoy doing it. It shouldn't get in the way of roleplaying in the slightest. I think you should let them do their min maxing, and encourage roleplaying in other ways.
As for the "Min maxing leads to stereotypical characters", I hardly find that true. Firstly, it makes little sense in any way for a Fighter to be weak, as you have admitted. The least useful capability for anyone involved in melee combat is Intelligence, and even more, Charisma. And this is from a roleplaying perspective. Strength, toughness, reflexes, noticing a crack in the enemies' defense, etc, all make far more sense for a Fighter character, from a strictly RP perspective. Anyway, let me tell you a bit about the Fighter. The Fighter is going to want a high strength, pretty obviously. But his other stats can vary widely based on what weapon he wants to wield, and if he wants to Multiclass. A Fighter multiclassing into Swordmage would WANT a high intelligence.
DnD has created a mechanic wherein everybody is created equal so that nobody can complain that they don't matter in the gaming world (in fairness, this was an issue in 3.5 with the CoDzillas and such). Well, everybody isn't created equal. I like the idea of a campaign where one guy is your standard square-jawed hero, good at everything but especially good at what he's chosen to excel in, and another guy is pretty average except that he's one of the 3 or 4 smartest people in the city. The guy with the hero stats is, for me, a less interesting character if anything; to me, he'd be the kind of guy whose primary use outside of combat is for the rest of the party to use as a measuring-stick.
From a roleplaying standpoint, too, it's easier to RP weakness than strength. How do you RP competitiveness when you win all the time, for example? There are still plenty of ways the hero can RP - that'd be a great stat block to start modelling a reluctant hero, for example; imagine a guy who just wants to take over his dad's farm but keeps getting pushed into saving the village because he's invariably the best man for the job. But contrast him with the low-CON fighter. Why does an unhealthy man take up the profession of war? My idea was that perhaps he's not unhealthy but reckless. Others might have different ideas (perhaps he's fat! That'd explain the low Endurance skill), and that's okay with me. I know it's anathema to creating a backstory, at least prior to coming to the gaming table, but while these guys are decent RPers they don't tend to do that so much. Anyway, I know as a writer that the big disadvantage of having a big backstory is that you feel compelled to include it. Don't get me wrong; if someone did put something like that together I would be *sure* to get every single aspect of it involved in adventuring sooner or later, but at the same time I don't really need a PC remarking that this particular orc encounter reminds him of his 3rd girlfriend that he dated between the ages of 18 and 21, except if the remark actually had something to do with the plot or theme or was funny.
I completely disagree. From a roleplaying perspective, there is no reason per se why a fighter ought to be stupid or uncouth, except that the player doesn't want to hurt his character's STR by spending points in a non-class attribute. IRL the closest analog to a fighter in the modern day is, I guess, the professional athlete. Many athletes are anything but low-CHA and you can even find some smart ones in there if you look hard enough (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar comes to mind - maybe he's not going to get a degree in nuclear physics any time soon, but the man has written several books and is extremely erudite).
DnD has created a mechanic wherein everybody is created equal so that nobody can complain that they don't matter in the gaming world (in fairness, this was an issue in 3.5 with the CoDzillas and such). Well, everybody isn't created equal. I like the idea of a campaign where one guy is your standard square-jawed hero, good at everything but especially good at what he's chosen to excel in, and another guy is pretty average except that he's one of the 3 or 4 smartest people in the city. The guy with the hero stats is, for me, a less interesting character if anything; to me, he'd be the kind of guy whose primary use outside of combat is for the rest of the party to use as a measuring-stick.
From a roleplaying standpoint, too, it's easier to RP weakness than strength. How do you RP competitiveness when you win all the time, for example? There are still plenty of ways the hero can RP - that'd be a great stat block to start modelling a reluctant hero, for example; imagine a guy who just wants to take over his dad's farm but keeps getting pushed into saving the village because he's invariably the best man for the job. But contrast him with the low-CON fighter. Why does an unhealthy man take up the profession of war? My idea was that perhaps he's not unhealthy but reckless. Others might have different ideas (perhaps he's fat! That'd explain the low Endurance skill), and that's okay with me. I know it's anathema to creating a backstory, at least prior to coming to the gaming table, but while these guys are decent RPers they don't tend to do that so much. Anyway, I know as a writer that the big disadvantage of having a big backstory is that you feel compelled to include it. Don't get me wrong; if someone did put something like that together I would be *sure* to get every single aspect of it involved in adventuring sooner or later, but at the same time I don't really need a PC remarking that this particular orc encounter reminds him of his 3rd girlfriend that he dated between the ages of 18 and 21, except if the remark actually had something to do with the plot or theme or was funny.
Really? From a roleplaying perspective, if I was a stupid and uncouth person, I would choose to be a Fighter. Think of it this way, it's not that all Fighter's are stupid and uncouth, it's that if you are stupid and uncouth, Fighter is probably a better profession for you than Bard or Wizard.
As for the middle paragraph, no accounting for tastes I guess. While I love the whole "ordinary person thrust in an extraordinary situation" or the "supernatural things happening to ordinary people", DnD, at its core, is about EXTRAORDINARY people. Somebody's sig here says something like "DnD is about extraordinary people who happen to supernatural things", and I quite agree with that statement, and not just because I find it funny. The game tends to be less fun when one person is far out powered by another person. Maybe you enjoy playing a weakling, but I'm sure your player's do not, as evidenced by their choice to minmax. A powerful, competent character can be Roleplayed just as compellingly as a pathetic loser, if not moreso. In addition, by your own volition you admitted that Min-Maxing can create character's with flaws. Don't you view this as a good thing?
If it IS easier to RP a weakness than a strength, what does it matter? DnD is about strengths, and most characters WILL have weaknesses. Your point doesn't really make sense. Besides, roleplaying a strength can be fun, and don't you want to encourage your player's to roleplay WELL, not just mediocrely? And sure it's fine to create a low Con Fighter, but not only will it make the game more difficult for you (and your party), and potentially disrupt balance, but it's not for everyone. Your player's clearly LIKE to optimize, at least a bit. Whether they're optimized or not should have no bearing on their capability to roleplay. I just think it's a very bad idea to try to prevent them from doing what they enjoy and force them to do something you enjoy. If you'd like them to do it, just encourage them to do it and provide incentive, don't make it harder for them to do something entirely unrelated.
Maybe the high INT fighter really wanted to be a wizard but there was no way he could get the training required. Instead he worked out a whole bunch and became a fighter.
I think though that what min/maxers generally forget is that the game really doesn't punish you much for being less than an optimal character build. A fighter could take the MC feat that gives them arcana and ritual casting. Now they can put their high INT to work for them. Sure they'll need a high STR and that INT might overall have been more useful in CON, but they can still get by and they'll gain some advantages still. In any case if a DM were to simply slaughter these non-maxed characters and say "well, you could have handled that if you maxed your character out" then obviously that game isn't about role play in the first place. At the very least that DM can't complain. OTOH if a DM provides appropriately challenging encounters and makes sure to let the PCs play to their strengths a good bit, then it should not matter. The more interesting non-maxed PCs will work fine.
Obviously a campaign with nothing but optimized characters in it will eventually have less variety, some usable character concepts will never be tried. The real question is only whether or not a given group will stick to optimizing or not. So far I haven't found that most players actually care too much about optimizing. They like it when they have powerful characters, but when the focus is largely on story and world even the more munchkinesque players can be pried loose from their high DPR mega-builds.
I completely disagree. From a roleplaying perspective, there is no reason per se why a fighter ought to be stupid or uncouth, except that the player doesn't want to hurt his character's STR by spending points in a non-class attribute. IRL the closest analog to a fighter in the modern day is, I guess, the professional athlete. Many athletes are anything but low-CHA and you can even find some smart ones in there if you look hard enough (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar comes to mind - maybe he's not going to get a degree in nuclear physics any time soon, but the man has written several books and is extremely erudite).
I would say that many professional athletes probably have no low stats of any kind. This is probably no the type of characters you want in your game where they have few weaknesses.
DnD has created a mechanic wherein everybody is created equal so that nobody can complain that they don't matter in the gaming world (in fairness, this was an issue in 3.5 with the CoDzillas and such). Well, everybody isn't created equal. I like the idea of a campaign where one guy is your standard square-jawed hero, good at everything but especially good at what he's chosen to excel in, and another guy is pretty average except that he's one of the 3 or 4 smartest people in the city. The guy with the hero stats is, for me, a less interesting character if anything; to me, he'd be the kind of guy whose primary use outside of combat is for the rest of the party to use as a measuring-stick.
The mechanics in 4E are designed to ensure that in combat different characters that perform the same role are more or less equal in power. However, you will notice that 4E character classes excel in the combat role that they are designed for, but are not that good in roles that they are not designed for. A fighter makes a very poor leader.
From a roleplaying standpoint, too, it's easier to RP weakness than strength. How do you RP competitiveness when you win all the time, for example? There are still plenty of ways the hero can RP - that'd be a great stat block to start modelling a reluctant hero, for example; imagine a guy who just wants to take over his dad's farm but keeps getting pushed into saving the village because he's invariably the best man for the job. But contrast him with the low-CON fighter. Why does an unhealthy man take up the profession of war? My idea was that perhaps he's not unhealthy but reckless. Others might have different ideas (perhaps he's fat! That'd explain the low Endurance skill), and that's okay with me. I know it's anathema to creating a backstory, at least prior to coming to the gaming table, but while these guys are decent RPers they don't tend to do that so much. Anyway, I know as a writer that the big disadvantage of having a big backstory is that you feel compelled to include it. Don't get me wrong; if someone did put something like that together I would be *sure* to get every single aspect of it involved in adventuring sooner or later, but at the same time I don't really need a PC remarking that this particular orc encounter reminds him of his 3rd girlfriend that he dated between the ages of 18 and 21, except if the remark actually had something to do with the plot or theme or was funny.
You strike me as a person who likes the role playing aspect of D&D very much. I think you really want other players to also experience great role playing. The reality is that not everyone is going to enjoy role playing a much as you. Not everyone is going to like playing characters with major weaknesses that they have to overcome. Some players will not take too kindly to feeling penalised because they cannot role play up to a certain standard. Making someone unable to do some non-roleplaying thing is not necessarily going to make them role play better.
From my personal experience as a purely min/maxer that has incorporated the role playing element in my play, I'll tell you what has and what has not got me to role play more. First of all, giving me XP rewards doesn't make me role play more. It's nice when the DM says he gave me XP because I accomplished something via role playing. However, I do not feel I tried to role play more to get that XP. I do not play my character to look for XP at any opportunity.
Preventing me from min/maxing does not make me role play more. Simply, you cannot prevent me from min/maxing short of handing me a character that I did not make. As long as I get to make some decisions on how to build my character, I can min/max it. The more you restrict me, the more turned off I will be. I'll tell you I will not role play more or better if put in such a situation.
What will get me personally to role play more or better is just being in an environment with a good DM that can set the scene, tell a good story, etc. It took me many months playing with such a DM who is able to weave a good and intricate story. At first I was overwhelmed by how good a storyteller this particular DM was. I mostly just sat there listing in awe. Eventually, I took a more active role in the game interacting with the NPC's in the game. Eventually, I was able to put my character into the story and role play him in that environment. I felt the reward for role playing is the joy I felt in helping mold the story. When I started I enjoyed the story that the DM is able to tell. Now, I enjoy being a part of telling that story through my character. For me, my role playing became its own reward.
I don't remember exactly when I started to really role play in those sessions or what specifically led to it. I kinda just happened to me after being in that environment for many, many sessions. I still min/max my character and get to realise the benefits of min/maxing when the dice hit the table. I also realise the benefits of role playing whenever I feel involved in the story.
Other players will likely be different. It is difficult to know what buttons you can push for them to start role playing. I am pretty sure that preventing min/maxing is not the way to go though.
Good luck. I hope your players are able to enjoy the role playing side of D&D as much as you and I.
Both viewpoints have something to be said for them. While it may be reasonable to assume that most strong but not so bright or charismatic heroes would gravitate towards becoming fighters real people and real life are not nearly so simple.
Maybe the high INT fighter really wanted to be a wizard but there was no way he could get the training required. Instead he worked out a whole bunch and became a fighter.
I think though that what min/maxers generally forget is that the game really doesn't punish you much for being less than an optimal character build. A fighter could take the MC feat that gives them arcana and ritual casting. Now they can put their high INT to work for them. Sure they'll need a high STR and that INT might overall have been more useful in CON, but they can still get by and they'll gain some advantages still. In any case if a DM were to simply slaughter these non-maxed characters and say "well, you could have handled that if you maxed your character out" then obviously that game isn't about role play in the first place. At the very least that DM can't complain. OTOH if a DM provides appropriately challenging encounters and makes sure to let the PCs play to their strengths a good bit, then it should not matter. The more interesting non-maxed PCs will work fine.
Obviously a campaign with nothing but optimized characters in it will eventually have less variety, some usable character concepts will never be tried. The real question is only whether or not a given group will stick to optimizing or not. So far I haven't found that most players actually care too much about optimizing. They like it when they have powerful characters, but when the focus is largely on story and world even the more munchkinesque players can be pried loose from their high DPR mega-builds.
I don't think you quite understand me.
I am not saying there are no High Int Fighters. It makes sense for there to be some. I have no problem with that. Hell, High Int Fighters can be OPTIMIZED. Almost ANY character can be optimized. It's not like some character concepts can't be optimized, unless those concepts are concepts where the character is intended to suck. What I AM defending though, is the "stereotypical" uncouth and dim Fighter. An uncouth and dim Fighter is not automatically bad roleplaying. You can play very interesting uncouth and dim characters. In fact, if you're clever, you can even make a very smart and well spoken fighter, who MECHANICALLY has low Int and Cha, because, say, he hits mental blocks whenever he tries to do a variety of complex tasks. That adds a lot of RP potential as well, especially in tense situations, you could do a lot of RPing him "struggling to get over the blocks".
But if you have a far less than Optimal character, the game WILL punish you. For example, if you have a low score in your Primary Attribute, you will never, ever hit, unless the DM intentionally cripples every single encounter just to pander to you, and unless your allies are likewise gimped, they will then hit EVERYTHING and NEVER miss.
And for the last paragraph, I don't see where the idea comes from that Optimizing is somehow going to cripple your creativity. If anything it increases it due to the fact that you it makes you think a lot about your character concept.
Again, for the OP, encouraging Roleplay is GREAT, but don't punish or try to stop Optimization. The two are not mutually exclusive, and all stopping Optimization will do is make your players unhappy, which probably will make them enjoy the roleplay LESS.
...because as much as I hate to say it, my experience with dangling carrots WRT RPing differs from yours. I'd *love* to live in a world where I can just act like a loon for 5 hours at a stretch and eventually get the PCs to do the same. To an extent, that is, you're 100% correct, a *huge* part of getting PCs to roleplay. That being said, I have been involved in games that directly encouraged roleplaying (actually by awarding XPs, something I, as mentioned, don't want to do for several reasons) and the end result was the most RP-intense game I ever played. It probably had the potential to make some people really ****** at the game, but the GM was great in a way I'd like to emulate: XP rewards were based on how hard someone tried moreso than how well they played. If you were brand new to the campaign and you just said something funny or what have you, the bonus was yours. If you'd played for six months and got anachronistic a few times despite otherwise RPing well, you didn't get the bonus that time around (I plan on allowing a bit more than that GM did WRT anachronisms both because I'm guilty as hell of throwing them into the game and because they often make more sense than making up some weird remark that may or may not make game sense, or by holding one's tongue).
Yeah, those are great points. I'm now leaning towards either giving the players a block of 6 stats to choose from or letting them go straight-up with RPGA (using the Character Builder, this is easy enough). I still like the AP thing, though...
...because as much as I hate to say it, my experience with dangling carrots WRT RPing differs from yours. I'd *love* to live in a world where I can just act like a loon for 5 hours at a stretch and eventually get the PCs to do the same. To an extent, that is, you're 100% correct, a *huge* part of getting PCs to roleplay. That being said, I have been involved in games that directly encouraged roleplaying (actually by awarding XPs, something I, as mentioned, don't want to do for several reasons) and the end result was the most RP-intense game I ever played. It probably had the potential to make some people really ****** at the game, but the GM was great in a way I'd like to emulate: XP rewards were based on how hard someone tried moreso than how well they played. If you were brand new to the campaign and you just said something funny or what have you, the bonus was yours. If you'd played for six months and got anachronistic a few times despite otherwise RPing well, you didn't get the bonus that time around (I plan on allowing a bit more than that GM did WRT anachronisms both because I'm guilty as hell of throwing them into the game and because they often make more sense than making up some weird remark that may or may not make game sense, or by holding one's tongue).
I suggest the standard Point Buy in the CB, yeah.
That's what I'm kind of saying.
REWARD your Player's for good RP, instead of stopping them from doing other things, and (in my experience at least) you will have a much easier time of things. Who knows, you may even get your party really into it. For me there's nothing better than a party that is full of interesting, well rped, and also well made and run characters.
Roleplaying should be it's own reward.
Encourage roleplaying by roleplaying yourself.
If players don't want to roleplay, they won't.
If you want to "train" your players to roleplay, you should really use positive reinforcement. I understand that you think your AP system is a positive reinforcement schedule, but in fact it is a punishment system. You deny your players their APs until they meet your behavior. So in fact you are punishing your players even before they have a chance to meet your standards.
This is a notoriously ineffective method of training. There are a couple of factors as to why:
1- Not all players will need APs the same amount.
Some players will be fine with one AP until it really hits the fan. Leaders especially will not need APs as frequently or as urgently as Strikers. Because most classes are completely effective without APs (that is they only "need" APs to nova and/or speed up combat) you actually run into the problem of satiation. Simply put, a player who has a pizza doesn't want a piece of candy as much as the player who didn't eat dinner.
2- It is impossible to reward promptly, efficiently and fairly.
You can try, but it can't really happen. Mostly because "good roleplaying" is very subjective, you've even said you would hold different players to different standards, this is not good. The reward would probably come when a scene is winding down, not at the height of the desired behavior, which is not ideal. (This is under the assumption that you enjoy roleplaying and would not want to break up the action, which also is destructive to your plan)
TL;DR You can't have separate speed limits for all of the occupants of a car, and only ticket 2 of the riders a half mile after they stopped speeding.
3- Players will notice every time you do not reward roleplaying, you will not.
It'll happen, you'll miss something, or not even think of handing an AP over, you didn't even mean to miss it. The slighted player will become jaded, and feel that s/he is being treated unfairly. The other player may notice and feel the system is unfair. This will cause people to give up. That is bad.
This is just scratching the surface. This is not a good conditioning schedule at all.
More importantly than whether or not your plan will actually do what you desire (train your players to roleplay) there are real problems as to what will occur with these rules.
Those who picked classes that lean heavier on roleplaying will have less mechanical support than those who did not. Leaders tend to be more "roleplay heavy" classes, (bards, clerics and tactical masterminds [oh my!]) they also tend to be classes who do not need APs as much as other classes.
Roleplaying will not be encourage, scene stealing will. If the rogue is having a moment meeting their long lost father the fighter should keep his mouth shut and let the rogue play out the scene. If the fighter doesn't have an AP and expects a combat soon, the fighter is talking. Good roleplaying requires people who are willing to be minor players for some scenes. A penalty imposed on the players that can only be alleviated by roleplaying will ensure that no one will be a minor player in any scene.
Players will view roleplaying as a chore. Roleplaying is no longer a focus of the game, it is a route to gain power in combat.
[b]Your version of fun is not better than your players version of fun.[/b]
There is no reason to hinder the players fun (combat) because they do not find the roleplaying aspect of D&D as fun as you do.
I really see your side of things. I've tried to get players to roleplay by offering carrots, and brandishing sticks. It doesn't work. If a player doesn't like to roleplay, a gold plated turnip isn't going to make them like roleplaying. The only thing that will make them like roleplaying is having fun while roleplaying. I can say from experience these rules are a bad idea.
Vivid descriptions, fascinating NPCs and an engaging interactive storyline are the best tools at your disposal to encourage roleplaying.
Beyond that, which portions or RP are you wishing to promote? Are you wanting players to play act in character voices? If so are you willing to punish a character who plays a low charisma character as a shy wallflower? Are you assuming you know the motivations for the character actions. There is a reference in acting to 'business'. It refers to the non-verbal things an actor does to portray the character. Are you considering the characters actions and motivations and do you feel that you have enough of a grasp of the inner workings of each character to secong guess the player's choices?
Had a player once who started playing a elven monk who wouldn't talk. He didn't know why at the time from the character's perspective, he just knew that his previous attempt at a trash talking rogue had frequently been undercut by the rest of the party and so he wanted to take a different approach. The vow of silence eventually was worked in as back story to her being raised in a monastery away from her kind. A monastary allowed for her to come of age with some sort of continuity and structure outside of the elven homelands (this was when elves still took 100 ore more years to reach adulthood). As the story evolved, it was decided the reason for this training and the vow was to prep her to infiltrate drow society, teaching her to quiet her mind against the telepathic intrusions of the drow priestess caste. It made for great story. But it wasn't all planned, it evolved organically out of the characters choices.
ROLEPLAYING begets more roleplaying. Trying to force it with either carrots or sticks is BAD DMing rooted in 'i know the one true way' and 'you're doing it all wrong' thinking. IMO of course.
I don't think you quite understand me.
I am not saying there are no High Int Fighters. It makes sense for there to be some. I have no problem with that. Hell, High Int Fighters can be OPTIMIZED. Almost ANY character can be optimized. It's not like some character concepts can't be optimized, unless those concepts are concepts where the character is intended to suck. What I AM defending though, is the "stereotypical" uncouth and dim Fighter. An uncouth and dim Fighter is not automatically bad roleplaying. You can play very interesting uncouth and dim characters. In fact, if you're clever, you can even make a very smart and well spoken fighter, who MECHANICALLY has low Int and Cha, because, say, he hits mental blocks whenever he tries to do a variety of complex tasks. That adds a lot of RP potential as well, especially in tense situations, you could do a lot of RPing him "struggling to get over the blocks".
But if you have a far less than Optimal character, the game WILL punish you. For example, if you have a low score in your Primary Attribute, you will never, ever hit, unless the DM intentionally cripples every single encounter just to pander to you, and unless your allies are likewise gimped, they will then hit EVERYTHING and NEVER miss.
And for the last paragraph, I don't see where the idea comes from that Optimizing is somehow going to cripple your creativity. If anything it increases it due to the fact that you it makes you think a lot about your character concept.
Again, for the OP, encouraging Roleplay is GREAT, but don't punish or try to stop Optimization. The two are not mutually exclusive, and all stopping Optimization will do is make your players unhappy, which probably will make them enjoy the roleplay LESS.
Well, I agree that whether or not your character is optimized or not has no bearing on roleplay. And I don't think somehow your character being built counter to the dictates of mechanical optimization is better. The dumb fighter can be roleplayed fine, sure.
I think what the OP was starting with when discussing sets of attribute scores was the tendency for all characters of a certain class to dump specific stats. This does tend to happen in most games. How many highly intelligent fighters are there in 4e games? I'd say very very few. Obviously if your primary stat is low then your character is gimped in combat, but I don't think anyone was suggesting that. All I suggested was that a character which is optimized in an unusual way could add interest to the game even though they might be marginally less effective in combat.
I think one of the problems with a lot of D&D games is that combat performance is so much of a focus that it DRAGS players into min/maxing for that specific feature of their characters. DMs who put more thought into other aspects of the game will find that the players doing combat min/maxing are actually LESS optimal than ones who mix in more of a focus on other aspects of their characters. If I run a game (which I do) which uses a lot of skill challenges of various types, sometimes puts PCs in a position where they can't rely on the bard to be Skilly McAwesome and cover for their lack of putting resources into skills etc then all of a sudden a lot wider range of character builds become optimum.
I agree I don't think creating house rules to make players build their characters in a less 1 dimensional way is the way to get anything good to happen. It simply takes having the players play in a game where that greater flexibility is worth more than another +1 to hit. On top of that I don't consider it to be some kind of DM coddling of the players just because they don't build combat encounters that are the Nth word in supreme difficulty for the most superiorly combat optimized character. Simply put the difficulty factors for various types of play in a wide variety of encounter types should overall be pretty much even. Skill challenges and combat for instance should be equally dangerous and provide equal rewards and have equal plot significance overall.
My personal experience is that RP happens when the DM has a really fun and engaging story and world and when they RP well themselves. There are also a lot of different styles of interesting roleplay. Not all of them are focused on play acting or constant unbroken play in-character. If the DM gives cookies to players for RPing the way he believes it should be done that DM risks crushing other techniques that may work better for and be more fun for the players.
For instance in my game my players are not all that much into constant immersion. It just doesn't do it for them. We talk OOC all the time and there is plenty of discussion of rules and tactics and what is going on with the plot and what choices they have, etc. At some point things will settle down into IC interactions and a scene will play out. Some scenes play out entirely IC, others go back and forth. I always describe things from the PCs point of view and give them a clear indication of how NPCs are acting, etc. I wouldn't dream of trying to make my players stay constantly IC or reward them less for not doing so. They are always indicating they're having a good time and they always come back for more games. More than that they have interesting character concepts, backstories, etc. They have a strong sense of who their characters are and they play them consistently to their personalities etc. They just don't spend a lot of time play acting.
- For character creation, I intend on letting everyone choose a race and class first, then select one ability to set at 18 (they can add their racial bonus, making it a 20). For every other ability, they roll 4d6 (and throw out the lowest die) in order.
I'dd suggest an 18 and 5 times 6+2d4 ...
([3-1]d6 can still be unstable (granting multiple 18's or very low stats)
If you want to encourage RP, let the players answer a few questions (does you character have sibblings ? are his parents alive ? what does he want from is life ? ... )
Then play into those questions (a sibling/parent is kidnapped , ...)
I see your point but at the same time handing out attributes seems to lead to min-maxing in this game, which leads to people playing stereotypical characters (i.e. stupid fighters, weak mages, low-DEX clerics). The game does have the periodic attribute raises and I intend to do things that will allow people to raise them on their own, outside of the normal character development process. Finally, that's also sort of a "let's try this out, guys!" moment in that I'm going to try and convince them that non-optimized characters != automatic death or less than full victory.
But you do have a point. The attribute thing might be something we try for the first run of characters and then if people don't like them after a session or two they can re-roll.
Rolling for attributes and not being able to assign them the way you want is another separate issue. Yes you do prevent some stereotypical characters where the same class always has the same dump stats. However, you also prevent players from playing a character they want to play.
Another thing is that it can be difficult to play characters in a way that matches their mental attributes (Int, Wis and Cha). I feel that I have at least average intelligence, but I would likely be unable to role play someone who has 18-20 Int fairly well. I would not rate my Cha very high at all, so in now way will I be able to come close to role playing a character with Cha 18 or 20 convincingly.
-Action points. Sounds like a decent idea. Probably will go over well enough.
-Personality. Personally, I think this will hinder roleplay way more than help. "OK Bill you have to be compulsive or a jokester, pick." "But I was hoping to go for the stern silent type." "Too bad..." OR "Bill, I said be compulsive" "I thought I was??" If I was asked to play in a game with this, I would either totally ignore it, or not play.
-The last thing. Sounds like it will only work in a Play by Post game. At the table the party opens a chest. "John you see a pile of gold, and some stupid weapons." "Bill you see a great sword, and some gold." "Why don't we see the same thing?"
A decent method to encourage RP in my group, which was very combat heavy when I first started to DM, was to reward them for doing a between session character journal and posting it to a wiki. It gets them thinking about their characters interpritations of the events during the game.(I give an extra action point in 4e.)
Well, I agree that whether or not your character is optimized or not has no bearing on roleplay. And I don't think somehow your character being built counter to the dictates of mechanical optimization is better. The dumb fighter can be roleplayed fine, sure.
Good that we agree.
I think what the OP was starting with when discussing sets of attribute scores was the tendency for all characters of a certain class to dump specific stats. This does tend to happen in most games. How many highly intelligent fighters are there in 4e games? I'd say very very few. Obviously if your primary stat is low then your character is gimped in combat, but I don't think anyone was suggesting that. All I suggested was that a character which is optimized in an unusual way could add interest to the game even though they might be marginally less effective in combat.
I don't quite agree with the 1st part of this point. Any Fighter multiclassing into a variety of classes might want Intelligence or Charisma, in addition to a couple other niche things. Plus, 4e Point Buy you have at MOST 1 "weak" stat, and sometimes none. And I agree that optimizing in interesting ways makes the character more interesting. I just think that that's a behaviour that tends to reward itself, and definitely shouldn't be "forced" in any way, including randomized stats.
I think one of the problems with a lot of D&D games is that combat performance is so much of a focus that it DRAGS players into min/maxing for that specific feature of their characters. DMs who put more thought into other aspects of the game will find that the players doing combat min/maxing are actually LESS optimal than ones who mix in more of a focus on other aspects of their characters. If I run a game (which I do) which uses a lot of skill challenges of various types, sometimes puts PCs in a position where they can't rely on the bard to be Skilly McAwesome and cover for their lack of putting resources into skills etc then all of a sudden a lot wider range of character builds become optimum.
I dunno about that. I suspect it may be true in some cases though. Really, the main thing here is that people know what there games will be like, and create their character with that in mind. You don't create a optimized Dragon Slayer in a Setting without dragons. It's probably not a good idea to make a character who can only succeed in Combat in a Political Intrigue campaign, etc. I find in 4e though, that balancing the two is relatively trivial, and you rarely have to sacrifice either. This might just be me though.
I agree I don't think creating house rules to make players build their characters in a less 1 dimensional way is the way to get anything good to happen. It simply takes having the players play in a game where that greater flexibility is worth more than another +1 to hit. On top of that I don't consider it to be some kind of DM coddling of the players just because they don't build combat encounters that are the Nth word in supreme difficulty for the most superiorly combat optimized character. Simply put the difficulty factors for various types of play in a wide variety of encounter types should overall be pretty much even. Skill challenges and combat for instance should be equally dangerous and provide equal rewards and have equal plot significance overall.
I agree with a lot of this. Again, I think the game should be tailored for the player's and vice versa. If the player's are all only average combatants, give them average challenges. My point though was that if 2 members of the part are AMAZING in combat, and 2 suck balls, then all Combat Encounters will either challenge the first two and slaughter the 2nd two, or challenge the 2nd two and be child's play for the first two.
My personal experience is that RP happens when the DM has a really fun and engaging story and world and when they RP well themselves. There are also a lot of different styles of interesting roleplay. Not all of them are focused on play acting or constant unbroken play in-character. If the DM gives cookies to players for RPing the way he believes it should be done that DM risks crushing other techniques that may work better for and be more fun for the players.
Agreed.
For instance in my game my players are not all that much into constant immersion. It just doesn't do it for them. We talk OOC all the time and there is plenty of discussion of rules and tactics and what is going on with the plot and what choices they have, etc. At some point things will settle down into IC interactions and a scene will play out. Some scenes play out entirely IC, others go back and forth. I always describe things from the PCs point of view and give them a clear indication of how NPCs are acting, etc. I wouldn't dream of trying to make my players stay constantly IC or reward them less for not doing so. They are always indicating they're having a good time and they always come back for more games. More than that they have interesting character concepts, backstories, etc. They have a strong sense of who their characters are and they play them consistently to their personalities etc. They just don't spend a lot of time play acting.
:D But yeah, I agree with you, pretty much.
And yes, it is always an issue when you have players with a wildly divergent level of skill at any particular part of the game. It has ever been so and it will ever be so! At least 4e seems to control that better than 3.x did without the need for player restraint and DM guidance.
Overall the main thing I do miss with rolled stats was the possibility of the fun of having a character with some really serious weakness. Some of the most fun PCs in OD&D/1e were characters like Blog, the half-orc fighter with 18/00 STR, 2 CHA, and 4 INT. Not that it was a very deep character, but the player had a lot of fun with that and managed some pretty good RP.
-Random stats. I suggest you do point buy, that said if you want a random consider letting each player roll 4d6 drop the lowest 1 time. (You can roll any more rolls the group needs) Then have all the players use the set. IE, John rolls a 14, Bill a 18, Sue a 16, and Jim a 6. You still get random stats which you think will up roleplaying (i disagree) and everyone has equally as powerful stats. You will probably have to rebalance some minor stuff on the monsters though.
-Action points. Sounds like a decent idea. Probably will go over well enough.
-Personality. Personally, I think this will hinder roleplay way more than help. "OK Bill you have to be compulsive or a jokester, pick." "But I was hoping to go for the stern silent type." "Too bad..." OR "Bill, I said be compulsive" "I thought I was??" If I was asked to play in a game with this, I would either totally ignore it, or not play.
-The last thing. Sounds like it will only work in a Play by Post game. At the table the party opens a chest. "John you see a pile of gold, and some stupid weapons." "Bill you see a great sword, and some gold." "Why don't we see the same thing?"
A decent method to encourage RP in my group, which was very combat heavy when I first started to DM, was to reward them for doing a between session character journal and posting it to a wiki. It gets them thinking about their characters interpritations of the events during the game.(I give an extra action point in 4e.)
That last point is a really neat idea. For the personality bit, I'm basically giving some of the people who take forever to make decisions a few choices if they don't want to come up with something on their own. I'm okay with a quiet character but I don't want "quiet" as one of the traits they take. You can be quiet and something else. Most people are a lot of things, actually.
To the second to the last point, yeah, I see myself having to explain this a couple times once we get into things. "Bob, what do you care about weapons? You told me your character was into solving problems with arcane power and talk instead of swords. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to you a mace and a big rock mean about the same thing to you."
To the second to the last point, yeah, I see myself having to explain this a couple times once we get into things. "Bob, what do you care about weapons? You told me your character was into solving problems with arcane power and talk instead of swords. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to you a mace and a big rock mean about the same thing to you."
I just see you being corrected very often. I don't know that I have ever seen a DM who knew his PCs personalities and opinions better than their players.
"Yeah he is, but if you remember he was a war wizard in training before adventuring and so he did see the guys in armor all the time. "
"Yeah, but if you remember, his brother went off adventuring with his fathers mace years ago, and thats what prompted my PC to adventure in the first place, looking for a lost brother. He definatly knows what a mace is."
"Yeah, but he isn't an idiot, a rock and a crafted metal rod with a heavy bit on the end is sure to at least be valuable. So who cares what it is, we can pawn it back in town, especially since my arcane insights tell me its magic"
"Your right, I don't know what a mace is for, but I do pick up that its magic, and thats the part i am interested in. I don't care what it does, but just that its magic."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am 90% nerd, 10% Geek, 40% Awesome, and 100% bad at calculating percentages.