So as a DM, which is more important to you as far as your players go; players having rules knowledge and mechanical skill, or players who are good role players?
With mechanically skilled players they know all the rules, are efficient in combat and time spent, utilize good strategies and tactics, work well together, that sort of thing.
The roleplayers get into character well, can voice act, create interesting drama and social interactions, and help with narration.
Obviously both is preferable but if you could only have one or the other which would it be?
I think that both items develop as the players play and gain experience. It is in my opinion, the DM's job to encourage growth in both areas....the longer they play the better they get. I also encourage players to watch some live game play which helps in learning some of these skills.
Rules knowledge is something players rarely arrive at the table with. It's something that they usually learn over time.
I have equal fun with new players and veteran munchkins.
Roleplay skills are harder to learn. Typically, people either have them or don't, and they don't learn them in the way that they can learn the rules. So given a choice, I'd rather have the strong roleplayer, because they'll learn mechanics, while someone with good rules knowledge and no roleplay skills isn't likely to get better at roleplaying.
I'd also add that often, the best part of the D&D experience is when the DM deviates from the rules to create awesome encounters for the players.
In my last session the PCs were riding a Huge eagle, and being pursued by an adult dragon. I made it a skill challenge, where they each got to declare an action each turn to see if they could deter the dragon (which is a Homebrew mecha dragon and far too tough in their battered state to fight), which included things like using Enlarge on the eagle to increase its wingspan to speed it up, diving into trees to throw the dragon off, creating illusions to try to confuse it - none of which was really part of the rules. For fun I just declared that there was a branch coming right at them too fast to avoid and someone had to deal with it, the rogue threw his magical returning scimitar at it and took the branch out. Sticking to the rules would have just meant using the Chase rules from the DMG, and the players would have been caught and killed. Instead we created a brilliant exciting dragon encounter together.
That's what D&D is about. The rules only exist to help tell an exciting story, and that has been stated in the rulebooks for as long as they've existed.
I want players who have enough rules knowledge so the game flows smoothly, but this isn't competitive so rules mastery is something they can have, or not -- my method of encounter tuning is "they handled X well enough, guess I can upgrade to Y".
As long as they understand how to build and level-up their characters, and the basic Action Economy, that’s generally good enough for me. I try to know the rules well enough for everyone so I can help fill in the gaps for them.
They also don’t need to do voices or anything either, just play their characters. As my one close friend puts it, “know them well enough to tell you what’s in their pockets without having to look at their character sheets.” If you know your character that well, your RP will be fine whether you do voices or not.
As a DM, what I value more in my players than either their mechanical knowledge or RP skills is their investment in the game. As long as they really, really want to play, that’s what’s most important to me.
Roleplay skills are harder to learn. Typically, people either have them or don't, and they don't learn them in the way that they can learn the rules. So given a choice, I'd rather have the strong roleplayer, because they'll learn mechanics, while someone with good rules knowledge and no roleplay skills isn't likely to get better at roleplaying.
Actually, it's been my experience that people learn roleplay skills. The majority of my players didn't roleplay very much when they were learning, but by the end of the campaign they were very comfortable with it and very good at it. In fact, I am probably one of them!
I cannot discern which way I truly lean, but I do know that I'm more responsive to when players have little to no mechanical knowledge/skill. It's annoying af. Usually because it manifests as folks not paying attention to what I'm saying when I'm DMing and explaining their own abilities to them, or that they argue with me for ludicrous results. I'm often the one helping newbies make a character on the oneshot server I'm on, so I have tolerance with getting folks started and assisting them with learning, but when they don't try it really monday's my garfield.
I would agree with @IamPosta here and say attitude is more important than either. Willingness to play, and to make it an invested experience trumps specific knowledge or skills any day for me.
Generally, I expect my players to know their characters both in terms of rules and RP, but evidently some a stronger on the details of their actions, and others are more invested in the character's RP and motivations. Either works for me if the players are willing and eager to make it work - with a positive attitude.
I would agree with @IamPosta here and say attitude is more important than either. Willingness to play, and to make it an invested experience trumps specific knowledge or skills any day for me.
Generally, I expect my players to know their characters both in terms of rules and RP, but evidently some a stronger on the details of their actions, and others are more invested in the character's RP and motivations. Either works for me if the players are willing and eager to make it work - with a positive attitude.
Oh sure oh sure. Yes the most basic thing is that the players show up wanting to play, are invested in the game, and are polite and respectful.
I was think more of if you could have something beyond that, would you want mechanically skilled players or good roleplayers
TL;DR: Because I was awful as a new player pretending to be rules lawyer, I will always consider being able to roleplay way more important.
As a player, when I was introduced the game I couldn't get my face out the books for weeks. (Who am I kidding, I still can't.)
Because of that, I had a better grasp of the mechanics than almost anybody around the table and was trying to be the rules lawyer. This is not a fun thing to play with when the rules lawyer isn't the DM who is a legitimately reasonable DM. I learned since then that I was a nightmare for the DM and kind of sucked the fun out of the game for everybody else.
I have watched Critical Role and played a lot in the last 8 years and I learned that roleplay is always better to have first. Immersion comes so much better through roleplay even when only 2 people at the table are any good at it, because they can bounce off each other and include everyone else in very natural and creative ways. The mechanics can easily grown accustomed to through playing, while everybody can help each other or learn together under the tutelage of the DM. I mean, obviously few people ever start with proficiency in either of these. Give them time to level up.
After all, it's about fun. The players will try to do something and the DM basically tells you how you can do it or that it can't be done. You don't really need much more than that to start.
If the player is making the effort to learn the mechanic (even if it takes 10 sessions) that is ok as I'm fortunate that my players will jump in and help others with the rules if there is some confusion or need clarification so it not all left to me to manage. If the player can give an ounce of RP that is more important to me when I run my games.
Good roleplay is wasted on me. If someone's voicing out their character, striking up conversation with NPCs, and playing to their character's strengths and weaknesses rather than player knowledge, I love that but I can't reciprocate. It'd be one thing for me to read a script but spontaneity doesn't really work for me. This isn't to say I'm jealous of good roleplayers and they're not welcome at my table, there's no doubt I'd love to have what they have, but I would suggest they find someone who can better accomodate them. I'd still be honoured to have them turn up to every session, and that might make things a wee bit easier for me.
I'm into dungeon crawl one-shots. Combat heavy, crunchy content that has little room for diplomacy, intrigue, or anything else I enjoy. I'd love to have the confidence to run a game like Vampire: The Masquerade, my preferred tone and engine, but I lack the ability to do it well enough to run my players through a story. So in the meantime it's dungeons with very clear ways forward, monsters to kill, things to loot, and traps to be smushed by.
I love admin. This might be part of the roleplaying aspect, of taking time to use items from your inventory for the sake of roleplay. That's neat, but I still want players to mark off rations, water consumption and other minutiae. I keep track of time and distance as best I can, which might weigh down a game that's supposed to run 4 hours long. Only in combat do I tend to put aside the rulebook for theatrics.
Were I a halfway decent roleplayer I'd doubly appreciate roleplay more than I would mechanical knowledge, but right now I'm way too socially inept to respond to good roleplay as a player, let alone DM. But when it comes to the combat, it's on, it's on like Donkey Kong.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
Roleplay is what gets players invested in the campaign. If they're not invested, they're not going to be motivated to bother learning *how* to do things in-game (mechanics). Why is more important than how, when it comes to player buy-in.
Roleplay is what gets players invested in the campaign. If they're not invested, they're not going to be motivated to bother learning *how* to do things in-game (mechanics). Why is more important than how, when it comes to player buy-in.
I disagree. A player could be heavily invested due to liking the system, rules and mechanics, without caring about roleplay at all. Maybe they just love excelling at combat and exploring the world, and find the roleplay cringy or tedious. Totally reasonable for a player to feel that way.
Not to say roleplay isn’t a way to get invested. Personally I’m a fan of both.
Roleplay is what gets players invested in the campaign. If they're not invested, they're not going to be motivated to bother learning *how* to do things in-game (mechanics). Why is more important than how, when it comes to player buy-in.
I disagree. A player could be heavily invested due to liking the system, rules and mechanics, without caring about roleplay at all. Maybe they just love excelling at combat and exploring the world, and find the roleplay cringy or tedious. Totally reasonable for a player to feel that way.
Not to say roleplay isn’t a way to get invested. Personally I’m a fan of both.
Playing the part of an explorer is role-playing.
Role-playing isn't just related to social interactions and talking to each other.
Roleplay is what gets players invested in the campaign. If they're not invested, they're not going to be motivated to bother learning *how* to do things in-game (mechanics). Why is more important than how, when it comes to player buy-in.
I disagree. A player could be heavily invested due to liking the system, rules and mechanics, without caring about roleplay at all. Maybe they just love excelling at combat and exploring the world, and find the roleplay cringy or tedious. Totally reasonable for a player to feel that way.
Not to say roleplay isn’t a way to get invested. Personally I’m a fan of both.
Playing the part of an explorer is role-playing.
Role-playing isn't just related to social interactions and talking to each other.
Sure. I don’t disagree with that.
That said, your point? CharlesThePlant was arguing Roleplay gets players invested, I countered by saying not necessarily, some players just like how the game actually plays with little concern for roleplay elements like backstories and narration.
So as a DM, which is more important to you as far as your players go; players having rules knowledge and mechanical skill, or players who are good role players?
With mechanically skilled players they know all the rules, are efficient in combat and time spent, utilize good strategies and tactics, work well together, that sort of thing.
The roleplayers get into character well, can voice act, create interesting drama and social interactions, and help with narration.
Obviously both is preferable but if you could only have one or the other which would it be?
I think that both items develop as the players play and gain experience. It is in my opinion, the DM's job to encourage growth in both areas....the longer they play the better they get. I also encourage players to watch some live game play which helps in learning some of these skills.
Rules knowledge is something players rarely arrive at the table with. It's something that they usually learn over time.
I have equal fun with new players and veteran munchkins.
Roleplay skills are harder to learn. Typically, people either have them or don't, and they don't learn them in the way that they can learn the rules. So given a choice, I'd rather have the strong roleplayer, because they'll learn mechanics, while someone with good rules knowledge and no roleplay skills isn't likely to get better at roleplaying.
I'd also add that often, the best part of the D&D experience is when the DM deviates from the rules to create awesome encounters for the players.
In my last session the PCs were riding a Huge eagle, and being pursued by an adult dragon. I made it a skill challenge, where they each got to declare an action each turn to see if they could deter the dragon (which is a Homebrew mecha dragon and far too tough in their battered state to fight), which included things like using Enlarge on the eagle to increase its wingspan to speed it up, diving into trees to throw the dragon off, creating illusions to try to confuse it - none of which was really part of the rules. For fun I just declared that there was a branch coming right at them too fast to avoid and someone had to deal with it, the rogue threw his magical returning scimitar at it and took the branch out. Sticking to the rules would have just meant using the Chase rules from the DMG, and the players would have been caught and killed. Instead we created a brilliant exciting dragon encounter together.
That's what D&D is about. The rules only exist to help tell an exciting story, and that has been stated in the rulebooks for as long as they've existed.
I want players who have enough rules knowledge so the game flows smoothly, but this isn't competitive so rules mastery is something they can have, or not -- my method of encounter tuning is "they handled X well enough, guess I can upgrade to Y".
As long as they understand how to build and level-up their characters, and the basic Action Economy, that’s generally good enough for me. I try to know the rules well enough for everyone so I can help fill in the gaps for them.
They also don’t need to do voices or anything either, just play their characters. As my one close friend puts it, “know them well enough to tell you what’s in their pockets without having to look at their character sheets.” If you know your character that well, your RP will be fine whether you do voices or not.
As a DM, what I value more in my players than either their mechanical knowledge or RP skills is their investment in the game. As long as they really, really want to play, that’s what’s most important to me.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Actually, it's been my experience that people learn roleplay skills. The majority of my players didn't roleplay very much when they were learning, but by the end of the campaign they were very comfortable with it and very good at it. In fact, I am probably one of them!
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
I cannot discern which way I truly lean, but I do know that I'm more responsive to when players have little to no mechanical knowledge/skill. It's annoying af. Usually because it manifests as folks not paying attention to what I'm saying when I'm DMing and explaining their own abilities to them, or that they argue with me for ludicrous results. I'm often the one helping newbies make a character on the oneshot server I'm on, so I have tolerance with getting folks started and assisting them with learning, but when they don't try it really monday's my garfield.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
I love that.
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
I would agree with @IamPosta here and say attitude is more important than either. Willingness to play, and to make it an invested experience trumps specific knowledge or skills any day for me.
Generally, I expect my players to know their characters both in terms of rules and RP, but evidently some a stronger on the details of their actions, and others are more invested in the character's RP and motivations. Either works for me if the players are willing and eager to make it work - with a positive attitude.
Oh sure oh sure. Yes the most basic thing is that the players show up wanting to play, are invested in the game, and are polite and respectful.
I was think more of if you could have something beyond that, would you want mechanically skilled players or good roleplayers
TL;DR: Because I was awful as a new player pretending to be rules lawyer, I will always consider being able to roleplay way more important.
As a player, when I was introduced the game I couldn't get my face out the books for weeks. (Who am I kidding, I still can't.)
Because of that, I had a better grasp of the mechanics than almost anybody around the table and was trying to be the rules lawyer. This is not a fun thing to play with when the rules lawyer isn't the DM who is a legitimately reasonable DM. I learned since then that I was a nightmare for the DM and kind of sucked the fun out of the game for everybody else.
I have watched Critical Role and played a lot in the last 8 years and I learned that roleplay is always better to have first. Immersion comes so much better through roleplay even when only 2 people at the table are any good at it, because they can bounce off each other and include everyone else in very natural and creative ways. The mechanics can easily grown accustomed to through playing, while everybody can help each other or learn together under the tutelage of the DM. I mean, obviously few people ever start with proficiency in either of these. Give them time to level up.
After all, it's about fun. The players will try to do something and the DM basically tells you how you can do it or that it can't be done. You don't really need much more than that to start.
If the player is making the effort to learn the mechanic (even if it takes 10 sessions) that is ok as I'm fortunate that my players will jump in and help others with the rules if there is some confusion or need clarification so it not all left to me to manage. If the player can give an ounce of RP that is more important to me when I run my games.
I value mechanics more for a number of reasons:
Were I a halfway decent roleplayer I'd doubly appreciate roleplay more than I would mechanical knowledge, but right now I'm way too socially inept to respond to good roleplay as a player, let alone DM. But when it comes to the combat, it's on, it's on like Donkey Kong.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
Roleplay is what gets players invested in the campaign. If they're not invested, they're not going to be motivated to bother learning *how* to do things in-game (mechanics). Why is more important than how, when it comes to player buy-in.
I disagree. A player could be heavily invested due to liking the system, rules and mechanics, without caring about roleplay at all. Maybe they just love excelling at combat and exploring the world, and find the roleplay cringy or tedious. Totally reasonable for a player to feel that way.
Not to say roleplay isn’t a way to get invested. Personally I’m a fan of both.
Playing the part of an explorer is role-playing.
Role-playing isn't just related to social interactions and talking to each other.
"I play D&D as a tactical wargame and the roleplaying is just the fluff used to bridge the combats" is a real play style.
Sure. I don’t disagree with that.
That said, your point? CharlesThePlant was arguing Roleplay gets players invested, I countered by saying not necessarily, some players just like how the game actually plays with little concern for roleplay elements like backstories and narration.
Exactly. Nothing wrong with that either. Heck, some sessions that is my mindset.