I'm running a homebrew 5E campaign with a group of (mostly) experienced gamers. Age is ranging from early 30s to mid-50s, with experiences ranging from a couple of folks (including me) who started playing 1E way back in the day to those who know only 3x and forward.
The good news: they're motivated, enthusiastic gamers. We have some challenges scheduling sessions due to real life obligations, but it's not been unusual to get decent sessions in at least twice a month (with each session going 5+ hours), and we have 3-4 people able and willing to DM.
The challenge: as a group, almost everyone tends to fall along the lines of being min/maxers, optimizers, and power gamers. I don't mean any of that pejoratively, though it is different from what I'm used. My previous group were all far less interested in the mechanics and "how can I roll the most damage dice" and more about giving the PCs at least a veneer of personality and life. My current group does essentially zero role-playing, outside of skill or ability checks for persuasion, deception, etc. An example: during the game, the two other "main" DMs refer to the characters either by class or just use the actual player names. I often don't even know the characters' names because they're used so infrequently. In my old group (1E), leveling up was done by milestones/DM fiat (due to many factors); while the new group keeps an eagle eye on XP earned and leveling up is a HUGE focus for them.
So I'd like to incent/encourage roleplaying - but I don't want to force anyone to do it, nor do I want to penalize anyone who's happier just rolling dice and killing monsters. I understand the value in and plan on presenting opportunities for it with NPCs, non-combat situations, and world-building. I also want to speak my players' language as much as possible. So I've thought about at least two ways, using mechanics/rules, to encourage it:
Use Inspiration, pretty much as described by the PHB/DMG (though with some minor tweaks), when someone RPs
Award bonus XP for RPing
To be clear: I wouldn't be doing this on the fly or without explaining it. I'd tell them I'm going to use Inspiration and bonus XP for RPing, especially when the player makes a "suboptimal" choice that's consistent with a character flaw or perspective. Or when interacting with an NPC, or even describing how they might cast a spell or even finishing off an opponent.
My goal is to provide incentive for the players to consider wielding the characters in a way that's more dramatic, more "realistic," rather than as a tool in which they can roll the most die for damage every time.
Any thoughts on additional ways to encourage RPing using existing or adapted mechanics? Or about even trying it with a group that's not naturally leaned that way thus far?
It sounds like you are in a multi-DM situation, as you make reference to the "two other 'main' DMs" - so you're in a tricky situation.
Did you have a "session zero", or something equivalent? It sounds like a player/DM mismatch. You need to get everyone at least aware of everyone's different approaches to the game.
There really isn't anything wrong with the way the group is playing. It's a style of D&D; sadly it doesn't appear to be your style. That's just a stylistic difference. No one is "wrong" here.
Player react to the world according to what works - so if you want to encourage RP, have the world RP at them. Make NPCs ( even shopkeepers and the like ) fully three dimensional, and act/react to the players as people. You might coax a little RP out of reticent players by asking "how exactly do you say that?" - but recognize that some people just hate talking in character ( which - as you seem to grasp - is not the same as role-playing your character, only one way to do it ), so don't force it.
I wouldn't give out bonus XP for role-playing - that's a slippery slope. Find other ways to encourage RP, by creating in game benefits- e.g. a player is willing to build a social bridge with an NPC; now that NPC can be an ally with practical adventure-solving information and/or resources that wouldn't have been available without that relationship.
An easy thing to do here - always and only refer to the character names, not the players, when you are DM'ing.
But first and foremost, have a discussion with your group. Make it clear that you enjoy a more RP based play, and see if they're willing to give it a shot. They may, especially as they seem to have other co-DMs which are willing to cater to the tactical war-gamer side of what they want.
But be aware that there's a possibility that you're alone in this, and this is just a highly tactical group that concentrates mostly on the game part, and not the role-playing part. If that's the case, ask yourself if you're happy with that, or whether you should find a different group. Sometimes that just happens.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
No session zero for my campaign. I wasn't familiar with the concept until recently. (Again, for context: in my previous group, I was the ONLY DM for more than ten years, and all the players were far more casual about the game and mechanics than the current group. It's been a major adjustment for me.) I sorta just dived in, and have been doing a lot of adjusting and reflecting as we go.
Agreed that no one is wrong here. I tried to imply that clearly in my OP. It is a very different approach to the game than I am used to.
I don't expect my players to be doing things at the level of, say, the Critical Role players (and thank god, because there's a healthy amount of RPing on CR that I find just ridiculous). I'll never be Matt Mercer, so I don't expect them to be the equivalent of professional actors. That said, I am already trying to both model RPing for them in-game, as well as present opportunities for practical benefits (alliances, resources) that result from good RPing (meant inclusively).
Referring to character names only when I run the session is something I've done from the beginning. One of the other DMs has said he wants to do that more, but it really hasn't caught on with the other DMs thus far.
I'm going back and forth on the "talk to your group" approach. On one hand, yes, I'm generally in favor of clear, direct communications and expectation-setting. OTOH, sometimes people react oddly (and not always honestly) when the person in charge says "I'd like this to happen more often." They might initially agree but internally dislike it. I also don't want to appear to be criticizing the other DMs' styles, which I think is almost the inevitable takeaway. I've had a lot of fun in the group as a player, to be clear: none of the DMs have dinged me for being a bit more RP-y than anyone else. Because I'd like at the very least to continue as a player in the group, I want to be careful about coming across as "I don't like the way you run your game." I'm more inclined to just DM with a heavier emphasis on RP (as you and I noted above) as well as institute Inspiration (which I would be direct and explicit about) and just see how things go.
I've DM-ed for both experienced players as new ones, in both Adventure League and home settings. My personal advice would be the one you'd be most likely to find on a motivational poster; be the change you want to see. What I mean by that is, if you up the RP on your roles the players often follow suit. I try to make an accent for the NPC smith they're bartering with and give him something interesting beyond "well met traveler, are you interested in my wares?". For example, while in a small town of humans they met a Smith there which was a High Elf. And not only that, but half of his entire body was covered in burns, kinda like The Hound from Game of Thrones. While talking, I tried to keep the left side of my lip as stiff as possible. The party could harly understand me, but they knew that this was how the character spoke. And as politely as humanly (or in this case, tieflingy) possible, they tried to get me to keep repeating what I said. It was a memorable moment when the Dragonborn shamelessly asked "So what's with your face?"... The party gasped, the smith scowled, the dragonborn shrugged and negotiations were over. Good times :P
Also, to empower specific players it also sometimes helps to single them out. Like Vedexent mentions however, be careful with this. People might like playing the game silently enjoying the situations and focusing more on the combat, thats fine, that's how they enjoy the game. What I'd sometimes do is simply ask a player "So, you've just met this person who told you they've been orphaned at a young age and have been fending for themselves when they were young. How does that make (name of character) feel?" and if they player gives me enough to work with, I let another player "notice" this in his party member. "as you say farewell, (character A) you notice that (character B) is somewhat different in her demeanor. Her shoulders are a bit hunched and she stares a bit in the distance". That way the party has the opportunity to interact based on what their characters feel. Again, use this sparingly not all players enjoy this kind of spotlight! Especially if they made characters close to their own experiences things can be difficult for them. But it's a very useful DM tool to enhance the RP on the table.
Remember that combat also has plenty of RP opportunities; As the paladin notices how an ally is nearly felled by a single blow, yet they must choose between helping them and letting their current target go, perhaps even taking an opportunity attack to run to their ally's aid. Or when the sorcerer is all out of spell points but simply needs to blast the enemy with a fireball or any other spell that has an ally in the danger zone. Whatever the choices the characters make is as much an RP moment as when they talk to an NPC.
Maybe you should start your Session Zero by having a discussion with you co-DMs?
Since you have at least one DM that's kind of on board with more RP, then you're not alone - which is a plus.
You don't have to be confrontational with the other DMs or players; you don't even have to agree on approach. The fact that the DMs might have quite different approaches could be a real benefit to the group. If you have one DM that is more detailed RP oriented, one DM that is more tactical combat oriented, and one DM somewhere in the middle, then your group really has a wide variety of game styles being offered them, and chances are really good that no matter what a player's approach to the game is, they'll be accommodated at some point - which is a real plus!
When I'm having my Session Zero with my players - even with long standing players, in a new campaign or setting - I make it really clear up front that for this session, no one is "in charge". We're all just members of a gaming group, having a bull-session about how we want the next campaign to run, and trying to find a common ground that works for all of us ( including me ) - I even go so far as to pick a different chair, so that no one is sitting in the "DM hot seat".
From your postings, I'd say:
Know what you want from the group or the game. Own that; don't be hesitant about it. Be willing to work out compromise positions on those aspects that are negotiable for you, but know the areas that are not.
Talk honestly with your group as "one among equals" - lay out your wants, and figure out everyone else's. Leverage the fact that you have 3 DMs, and that you can split out responsibility for meeting those wants among you. You might not cater to Bob the Power Gamer, but your co-DM will, and make sure both Bob and the DM know that's the expectation. Bob may be willing to RP a bit in your adventure arc, because he knows there's an arc coming up under a different DM which will really speak to his style.
Get a feel from each of the players how comfortable, and how willing, they are to role-play.
Stake out your territory, based on what everyone wants and is comfortable with. Have them know how you plan to run your game, based on what you want, how the players approach the game, and what everyone agreed with. Be firm, but don't beat them over the head with it. Chances are you won't find a good compromise balance right out of the gate, which leads to ....
Keep fine tuning, all the time. Maybe Bob will really like role-playing, much to his surprise. Maybe others will find they like it less than they thought they would - keep observing and adapting.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Well, I also recommend moving away from a kill-the-monster based XP system, and more towards a milestone system. I find that, when you remove the incentive of "kill the stuff for rewards," people naturally start finding their way towards other kinds of solutions.
Well, I also recommend moving away from a kill-the-monster based XP system, and more towards a milestone system. I find that, when you remove the incentive of "kill the stuff for rewards," people naturally start finding their way towards other kinds of solutions.
I've talked about doing this and was met with a lot of resistance. I agree that removing the "count every XP when its earned" helps shift the focus but that's a very big step for this group and I'm probably better off doing this in increments.
I'm running a homebrew 5E campaign with a group of (mostly) experienced gamers. Age is ranging from early 30s to mid-50s, with experiences ranging from a couple of folks (including me) who started playing 1E way back in the day to those who know only 3x and forward.
The good news: they're motivated, enthusiastic gamers. We have some challenges scheduling sessions due to real life obligations, but it's not been unusual to get decent sessions in at least twice a month (with each session going 5+ hours), and we have 3-4 people able and willing to DM.
The challenge: as a group, almost everyone tends to fall along the lines of being min/maxers, optimizers, and power gamers. I don't mean any of that pejoratively, though it is different from what I'm used. My previous group were all far less interested in the mechanics and "how can I roll the most damage dice" and more about giving the PCs at least a veneer of personality and life. My current group does essentially zero role-playing, outside of skill or ability checks for persuasion, deception, etc. An example: during the game, the two other "main" DMs refer to the characters either by class or just use the actual player names. I often don't even know the characters' names because they're used so infrequently. In my old group (1E), leveling up was done by milestones/DM fiat (due to many factors); while the new group keeps an eagle eye on XP earned and leveling up is a HUGE focus for them.
So I'd like to incent/encourage roleplaying - but I don't want to force anyone to do it, nor do I want to penalize anyone who's happier just rolling dice and killing monsters. I understand the value in and plan on presenting opportunities for it with NPCs, non-combat situations, and world-building. I also want to speak my players' language as much as possible. So I've thought about at least two ways, using mechanics/rules, to encourage it:
To be clear: I wouldn't be doing this on the fly or without explaining it. I'd tell them I'm going to use Inspiration and bonus XP for RPing, especially when the player makes a "suboptimal" choice that's consistent with a character flaw or perspective. Or when interacting with an NPC, or even describing how they might cast a spell or even finishing off an opponent.
My goal is to provide incentive for the players to consider wielding the characters in a way that's more dramatic, more "realistic," rather than as a tool in which they can roll the most die for damage every time.
Any thoughts on additional ways to encourage RPing using existing or adapted mechanics? Or about even trying it with a group that's not naturally leaned that way thus far?
It sounds like you are in a multi-DM situation, as you make reference to the "two other 'main' DMs" - so you're in a tricky situation.
Did you have a "session zero", or something equivalent? It sounds like a player/DM mismatch. You need to get everyone at least aware of everyone's different approaches to the game.
There really isn't anything wrong with the way the group is playing. It's a style of D&D; sadly it doesn't appear to be your style. That's just a stylistic difference. No one is "wrong" here.
Player react to the world according to what works - so if you want to encourage RP, have the world RP at them. Make NPCs ( even shopkeepers and the like ) fully three dimensional, and act/react to the players as people. You might coax a little RP out of reticent players by asking "how exactly do you say that?" - but recognize that some people just hate talking in character ( which - as you seem to grasp - is not the same as role-playing your character, only one way to do it ), so don't force it.
I wouldn't give out bonus XP for role-playing - that's a slippery slope. Find other ways to encourage RP, by creating in game benefits- e.g. a player is willing to build a social bridge with an NPC; now that NPC can be an ally with practical adventure-solving information and/or resources that wouldn't have been available without that relationship.
An easy thing to do here - always and only refer to the character names, not the players, when you are DM'ing.
But first and foremost, have a discussion with your group. Make it clear that you enjoy a more RP based play, and see if they're willing to give it a shot. They may, especially as they seem to have other co-DMs which are willing to cater to the tactical war-gamer side of what they want.
But be aware that there's a possibility that you're alone in this, and this is just a highly tactical group that concentrates mostly on the game part, and not the role-playing part. If that's the case, ask yourself if you're happy with that, or whether you should find a different group. Sometimes that just happens.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
No session zero for my campaign. I wasn't familiar with the concept until recently. (Again, for context: in my previous group, I was the ONLY DM for more than ten years, and all the players were far more casual about the game and mechanics than the current group. It's been a major adjustment for me.) I sorta just dived in, and have been doing a lot of adjusting and reflecting as we go.
Agreed that no one is wrong here. I tried to imply that clearly in my OP. It is a very different approach to the game than I am used to.
I don't expect my players to be doing things at the level of, say, the Critical Role players (and thank god, because there's a healthy amount of RPing on CR that I find just ridiculous). I'll never be Matt Mercer, so I don't expect them to be the equivalent of professional actors. That said, I am already trying to both model RPing for them in-game, as well as present opportunities for practical benefits (alliances, resources) that result from good RPing (meant inclusively).
Referring to character names only when I run the session is something I've done from the beginning. One of the other DMs has said he wants to do that more, but it really hasn't caught on with the other DMs thus far.
I'm going back and forth on the "talk to your group" approach. On one hand, yes, I'm generally in favor of clear, direct communications and expectation-setting. OTOH, sometimes people react oddly (and not always honestly) when the person in charge says "I'd like this to happen more often." They might initially agree but internally dislike it. I also don't want to appear to be criticizing the other DMs' styles, which I think is almost the inevitable takeaway. I've had a lot of fun in the group as a player, to be clear: none of the DMs have dinged me for being a bit more RP-y than anyone else. Because I'd like at the very least to continue as a player in the group, I want to be careful about coming across as "I don't like the way you run your game." I'm more inclined to just DM with a heavier emphasis on RP (as you and I noted above) as well as institute Inspiration (which I would be direct and explicit about) and just see how things go.
I've DM-ed for both experienced players as new ones, in both Adventure League and home settings. My personal advice would be the one you'd be most likely to find on a motivational poster; be the change you want to see. What I mean by that is, if you up the RP on your roles the players often follow suit. I try to make an accent for the NPC smith they're bartering with and give him something interesting beyond "well met traveler, are you interested in my wares?". For example, while in a small town of humans they met a Smith there which was a High Elf. And not only that, but half of his entire body was covered in burns, kinda like The Hound from Game of Thrones. While talking, I tried to keep the left side of my lip as stiff as possible. The party could harly understand me, but they knew that this was how the character spoke. And as politely as humanly (or in this case, tieflingy) possible, they tried to get me to keep repeating what I said. It was a memorable moment when the Dragonborn shamelessly asked "So what's with your face?"... The party gasped, the smith scowled, the dragonborn shrugged and negotiations were over. Good times :P
Also, to empower specific players it also sometimes helps to single them out. Like Vedexent mentions however, be careful with this. People might like playing the game silently enjoying the situations and focusing more on the combat, thats fine, that's how they enjoy the game. What I'd sometimes do is simply ask a player "So, you've just met this person who told you they've been orphaned at a young age and have been fending for themselves when they were young. How does that make (name of character) feel?" and if they player gives me enough to work with, I let another player "notice" this in his party member. "as you say farewell, (character A) you notice that (character B) is somewhat different in her demeanor. Her shoulders are a bit hunched and she stares a bit in the distance". That way the party has the opportunity to interact based on what their characters feel. Again, use this sparingly not all players enjoy this kind of spotlight! Especially if they made characters close to their own experiences things can be difficult for them. But it's a very useful DM tool to enhance the RP on the table.
Remember that combat also has plenty of RP opportunities; As the paladin notices how an ally is nearly felled by a single blow, yet they must choose between helping them and letting their current target go, perhaps even taking an opportunity attack to run to their ally's aid. Or when the sorcerer is all out of spell points but simply needs to blast the enemy with a fireball or any other spell that has an ally in the danger zone. Whatever the choices the characters make is as much an RP moment as when they talk to an NPC.
Hope this helps :)
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
Maybe you should start your Session Zero by having a discussion with you co-DMs?
Since you have at least one DM that's kind of on board with more RP, then you're not alone - which is a plus.
You don't have to be confrontational with the other DMs or players; you don't even have to agree on approach. The fact that the DMs might have quite different approaches could be a real benefit to the group. If you have one DM that is more detailed RP oriented, one DM that is more tactical combat oriented, and one DM somewhere in the middle, then your group really has a wide variety of game styles being offered them, and chances are really good that no matter what a player's approach to the game is, they'll be accommodated at some point - which is a real plus!
When I'm having my Session Zero with my players - even with long standing players, in a new campaign or setting - I make it really clear up front that for this session, no one is "in charge". We're all just members of a gaming group, having a bull-session about how we want the next campaign to run, and trying to find a common ground that works for all of us ( including me ) - I even go so far as to pick a different chair, so that no one is sitting in the "DM hot seat".
From your postings, I'd say:
Good luck :)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Thanks, Vedexent. That's helpful and reasonable.
Well, I also recommend moving away from a kill-the-monster based XP system, and more towards a milestone system. I find that, when you remove the incentive of "kill the stuff for rewards," people naturally start finding their way towards other kinds of solutions.
I've talked about doing this and was met with a lot of resistance. I agree that removing the "count every XP when its earned" helps shift the focus but that's a very big step for this group and I'm probably better off doing this in increments.