Forums of the Megaverse®

I found this comment on another topic & didn't want to derail it, so I made my own.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Giving out XP for Roleplaying is like giving out points in Basketball for dribbling.

So how do you as a GM reward or encourage role-playing?

As for me, here are a few of my rewards for people playing & staying in character:

1. Reaction - Simply put, NPC's tend to react more favorably. This could include bonuses for bargaining, intimidation, or gathering information. People will get much farther in my games if they actually role-play out a scene, rather than say 'I haggle with the dealer. I rolled a 15'.

2. Contacts - The NPC has a chance of becoming a re-occuring NPC, & specifically a contact for the PC interacting with them, if the player chooses to interact with them in the future.

3. Assistance - The NPC will go out of their way to aid the player, offering their own information & sometimes resources

4. Experience - Yes, I give exp rewards to encourage continued role-playing, so the game does not degenerate into hack & slash number crunching.

Theaos wrote:And i dont know about how things are in anyone else group.. but round here the best roleplayer in the group has a tendency to become the group leader by default.. that is a reward in and of itself

not all of us view that as a reward...I get tired of being the de-facto leader when I PC up...

Dribbing is rewarded in basketball, in as much as you avoid a penalty for just holding the ball.

Of course dribbling is repeating the same action over and over - when you want someone to be creative, you offer points for it, because you get what you pay for.

One nifty system might be to 'contract out' roleplay - don't give XP after they've roleplayed, offer XP to a particular player for them to then roleplay. Then leave them to it - here's the first important bit, they get the XP regardless of how crap you think they roleplay. You don't get to judge.

Here's the second important bit - if you think they were crap, offer them fewer and fewer 'contracts' for XP in future.

I personally hate roleplaying then getting shafted by the GM cause he didn't think it was good enough for some/any XP. I'd prefer to get an offer of XP, do the roleplay I think that reward deserves, and then he can just not offer me any XP latter if he's not happy.

There's nothing less conductive to roleplay than to put a bit of heart into it, only to get a really weak to absent reward. That just teaches you not to put your heart in it. But if you know the XP amount in advance and that you get it no matter what, you can just roleplay as the moment deserves.

Rewarding Exp for roleplaying is fine, and it's supported in the rules. But roleplaying is also it's own reward. That's what we're all really there to do in the first place. If someone doesn't want to roleplay in my roleplaying game then they don't deserve to be there. If someone is roleplaying badly or not in character enough I might suggest to them alternatives - playing a different character, changing the background of their current character to match their roleplaying, or going somewhere else to play Risk instead.

now .. while i don't tend to GM that much anymore, i did have a system where when it was time for experience points .. they would get minor highlights about the game in a fast recap .. and then the bonus exp would happen via IM

i had a Mod in a game, and while everyone gravitated to that char and did EVERYTHING that char did .. to the point of getting everyone stuck in the hole with them .. the other pc's sorta followed like lemmings and ended up falling on top of the char .. and then on each other ... a 18 foot deep hole in the ground .. designed mainly to slow people down if you didn't know the terrain ..

the mod got 'good sport' points .. and while the others sorta just sat about in the bottom of the hole with the slick muddy sides ... the mod was the only way to figure a way out. that one got the in game bonus points. everyone saw and saw WHY they got the exp .. and started to think.

the ever popular 'i shoot it in the eye' don't wash with me. nor does the fact of 'oh thats a *insert monster type NEVER SEEN by the char before* .. and then they suddenly know HOW to destroy it ? ... i DONT think so

so Exp being handed out IS up to the GM .. i say give more to those that actually do things IN char .. and less to those that choose to be a 'response or follower' type of player

I think you guys should consider something - just as much as someone can be poor at roleplaying, someone can also be poor at identifying good roleplaying.

Your using reward schemes that assume the GM is PERFECT at identifying good roleplaying. What if he, or more to the point, you, are imperfect at identifying it?

Players walking out on you cause your crap at it isn't the best mechanism to counterbalance this point. You might want to think of reward schemes that don't rely on a perfect GM. Like mine did!

well .. i guess the GM could always state " .. i'm kinda tired .. you figure out your own EXP .. i'm outties''

its not much better than a player stating " i didn't like the EXP the GM just gave me, so i'm gonna double it. I deserve that much .. at least .. maybe more "

to my knowledge .. thats what the gent did ... sadly for him .. i dislike GM'ing for him .. my games don't let him rule the roost like other godcomplex chars enjoy doing to other GM's in the chatroom .. *shrugs*

Sounds like a good idea - the player can decide on a multiple of the amount of XP the GM gives.

The GM can look at the average multiple for each player at the end and see who he's compatable with in terms of gaming.

But you know, that'd open up the oh so horrible potential to realise your not really a good GM for some players (some - not saying all, but I bet that'll be read into it). With complete control over XP handout, you can deny that it's anything to do with you and it's something wrong with the player. But once they can decide stuff, they can decide what feedback you get - and that feedback can't be denied.

As long as your in complete control of handing out XP, you can try and panel beat players into a shape that matches yours - which means you never have to accept that perhaps, just perhaps, you should actually be gaming with other people.

Actually I'd never realised what the old 'GM hands out XP' does mechanically - it really does make the game 'play' about panel beating people into a matching shape. Wow, never saw it so clearly before.

Noon - are you kidding? with your first system, only one player would be getting xp eventually due to offering the "crap" players "fewer and fewer 'contracts' for XP in future. " sounds a lot like "panel beating people into a matching shape"....also, how does one go about contracting out xp for role playing? do the players only get to talk to npcs when you offer them a chance? what if a guy decides to talk to someone at random? do you stop the game and calculate how much xp you will offer him to play with his full role playing power? what about the "crap" players? if you arent offering them any chances to get xp how do they buy their gear and take jobs? or do they just not get xp for that stuff unless you offer it first, or if their performance was exemplary?

your second system would only serve to remove the munchkins/idiots from a game by showing the gm who thinks they deserve 10x more xp than the rest so he/she can kick them out.

both methods foster bad role playing imo. if you dont get enough xp to make you feel good, try a pc or console game instead(with cheats). if you are willing to only play half assed because you dont think you are getting what you deserve in terms of xp then you are bringing the whole game down. do you only play the game so your character will get xp/loot? how many xp do you deserve for a full power (not half assed), in character dialog with an npc? what is a full power interaction with an npc? do you somehow go beyond saying what your character would say? (how?)

you are right about some gms and players not being compatible though. i cant imagine playing with someone with an attitude of 'give me more xp or ill only play half assed'.

in my group the players actually like to play the game for what it is, not for the xp and loot they write on their sheets.

Only one player would get XP? No players would get XP if as GM you think their all crap. Again, its an indicator you shouldn't be playing with them.

The feature of the design is that you don't slap someone on the wrist for roleplay you don't think is good - cause maybe it is good roleplay and you shouldn't be slapping. You don't need to slap someone who isn't compatible with you, you just need to stop playing with them. Yes, your not going to be offering them more XP contracts. And? That's the same as deciding not to play with them because their not compatible - okay, so they have to sit through the rest of the session with you and no XP - that's still better than brow beating them into your mode of roleplay. Is there anything you can do to streamline the idea? Or did you just want to take a shot?

I don't know why you think someone can't roleplay with random NPC's or buy gear or take jobs without this contracted XP. You just wont get XP for it - which yet again means the GM shouldn't be playing with you.

your second system would only serve to remove the munchkins/idiots from a game by showing the gm who thinks they deserve 10x more xp than the rest so he/she can kick them out.

Well, if you weren't compatible with my roleplay style, I'd kick you out - whats wrong with kicking you out? PS: I'd politely kick you out, but yeah, it'd be a kicking out.

in my group the players actually like to play the game for what it is, not for the xp and loot they write on their sheets.

XP is a language for players and GM's to say what they think is important stuff. Giving it is just speaking in a very direct language "That thing your gunna do, it's important to me!".

The game you describe to me, is a mute game. You've taken away that language as if it's bad to say what your excited about in direct physical quantities.

how to reward roleplay....i go by a simple theory....did the player participate in the non-combat parts of the game? or was s/he just a lump on the sofa? participation is good role play IMO...thats why my games are designed the way they are....combat is only a small part (usually the finale of the session) the rest is build up to that point.
"good" or "crap" role play is even more subjective than the XP system of palladium...so if a player steps beyond the preconcieved notions everyone in the group has of them then they get a larger reward .
I recall one player I had...I met him at work, we lived close to each other and he needed a ride home one night...for 3 or 4 weeks it was dificult to get this guy to string more than 5 or 6 words together...everyone in the game group was convinced he was just gonna be a warm body in a chair at the games....he turned out to be one of the best players I have ever had the pleasure to sit across the table from (once he warmed up that is.) heh....he will tell you the first time he spoke up in the game shocked him too...

"The feature of the design is that you don't slap someone on the wrist for roleplay you don't think is good "

isnt not giving out points or opportunities to role play slapping them on the wrist? im curious how you think gms slap players on the wrist at this point. previously you said "I personally hate roleplaying then getting shafted by the GM cause he didn't think it was good enough". how would you feel if the gm thought you were a boring player and didnt even give you any 'contracts' to earn xp? isnt that a bigger slap on the wrist than 'shafting' the player with less xp than he wants?

" Is there anything you can do to streamline the idea? "

i dont know yet, you didnt answer any of my questions so it still sounds to me like you are giving preferential treatment to certain players, and making the game suck for everyone else (who arent getting contracted xp offers). why not just give everyone the points they earn instead of not even giving certain players a chance to play? a good gm tries to make sure every player has a chance, regardless of their skill as players. it should be up to the player to decide if they dont want to role play, not the gm who isnt offering them any chances.

"okay, so they have to sit through the rest of the session with you and no XP - that's still better than brow beating them into your mode of roleplay"

by not giving them a chance to play their way you are 'brow beating them into your mode of roleplaying'.

"I don't know why you think someone can't roleplay with random NPC's or buy gear or take jobs without this contracted XP. You just wont get XP for it - which yet again means the GM shouldn't be playing with you. "

why would anyone even bother showing up knowing that you think they are 'crap' players and are not going to give them any xp for it? or if they had to interrupt you and the 'good 'players so they could go buy some gear and not earn any xp for it because you werent giving them any chance to play.

"Well, if you weren't compatible with my roleplay style, I'd kick you out - whats wrong with kicking you out?"

theres nothing wrong with kicking out a player if they are disrupting the game or making it suck for the other players. if someone was crying to me that their trip to magic shop was worth more xp than what i gave them, and telling me 'im only going to play at half my capacity if you dont give me more rewards' i would gladly see them to the door. if you need more loot/xp than im handing out i guess we arent compatible. im not going to give one person more rewards than the rest for doing the same thing (sitting at the table playing in character).

"The game you describe to me, is a mute game."

how can it be a mute game if every player gets the same opportunity to play? if you are going to shut out the 'crap' players by not offering them xp, you are muting those players. in my game everyone gets the same opportunities, and the same rewards based on playing in character etc. its up to the players to take them, not the gm to offer them. if anyone doesnt like how it works, they are free to stop coming out to game night.

The reward should be the fun of role-playing.

If the party prefers the number crunching hack and slash and would prefer to do more of that........

that's ok.

Too many GM's want to use the reward system as some sort of 'carrot' to lead the PC's to doing what the GM wants. That is not the best way to go. Instead, all of it is simply a tool of the fun, The GM's job is simple, just maximize the fun of everyone involved. Judging the Players as better or worse role-players than one another.... not fun.

t0m wrote:theres nothing wrong with kicking out a player if they are disrupting the game or making it suck for the other players. if someone was crying to me that their trip to magic shop was worth more xp than what i gave them, and telling me 'im only going to play at half my capacity if you dont give me more rewards' i would gladly see them to the door. if you need more loot/xp than im handing out i guess we arent compatible. im not going to give one person more rewards than the rest for doing the same thing (sitting at the table playing in character).

So, what's your problem with a player sitting out just one session with no XP before you part ways? One session and your writing paragraph after paragraph of defensiveness - over one session.

how can it be a mute game if every player gets the same opportunity to play? if you are going to shut out the 'crap' players by not offering them xp, you are muting those players. in my game everyone gets the same opportunities, and the same rewards based on playing in character etc. its up to the players to take them, not the gm to offer them. if anyone doesnt like how it works, they are free to stop coming out to game night.

Wait, how many other people in this very thread have said 'I give out XP after they roleplay good'?

You seem to be comfortable with that but have a problem here - tell me how you reconcile that?

Here's an idea: have the players decide who was the best role-player during a session. There's probably a lot of systems that could be used, but the following system, adapted from the world of dance competitions, might work well. This may be particularly appropriate as the system tries to correct for individual judge bias and lets each judge weigh various factors/impressions personally, possibly seeing something they like/dislike that nobody else noticed.

Each player, by secret ballot, ranks everyone in the group from #1 to #N on how well they role-played that session. The person who gets the most #1 votes gets the greatest XP bonus (on top of "regular" XP). Then discarding that person, the person with the most votes for #2 or better gets the second most. Discarding those two people, the person with the most votes for #3 or better gets the third most. And on down the line. The GM breaks any ties.

Example: Alice, Bob, Chuck, and Diane are the players, and they get to rank everyone in the group at the end of the night. The votes go something like this:

Best role player: Chuck got 2 votes, Bob and Diane each got 1. Chuck gets 100 points.
Second-best or better: Bob got one vote, Diane got 3 votes. Diane gets 75 points.
Third-best or better: Bob got two votes, Alice got two votes. GM breaks the tie in favor of Alice. Alice gets 50 points.
Bob is the only one left, he gets 25 points for being the fourth best.

Obviously the amount of of XP to dish out for each place is up to the GM or group. But this gives everyone a chance to rate eachother's role-playing, and thus encourages everyone to role-play better because they know they're being evaluated by eachother, not just the GM. Sure the system is open to possible abuses if there are cliques in the group, but if that's the case I'll wager the group isn't going to be playing together much longer anyway, so it's not a long-term concern. You can also add variations if you feel it necessary, like the GM being able to bump any individual up or down a maximum of one spot, if they felt strongly that the voting was incorrect.

While the paperwork/tallying can be a bit toilsome, it's no more difficult than learning the rules of skill rolls or combat resolution, so it shouldn't take too long. I'd encourage a GM to first figure out the regular XP to be given to each player, tally the role-playing bonuses and add them in, and then award each player's total XP for the session. This keeps the GM from biasing their base XP award ("Chuck's getting the most role-playing bonus, but I don't think he deserves quite that much so I'll not give him quite as much base XP"), and ensures no player knows how the voting went, to avoid any potential infighting from such a bonus system.

Brent

So after the first vote, you have a second vote and the person who won the last one can't be voted for again? I must try that out some time. BUT I have to say, I'm a bit of a wuss - instead of an absolute last place I'd have it that voting ends when there's two people left - in your example Bob and Alice wouldn't be voted on.

That way when your last, you have someone else to comiserate with

As I said, probably a bit wussy, but while I like there to be a winner, I also like there to be someone else to share the burden of last place with, heh!

my groups have a voting process too (sort of) they get to question my choices on the individual scores...(oddly enough no one ever questions their own xp....)

Noon wrote:So, what's your problem with a player sitting out just one session with no XP before you part ways? One session and your writing paragraph after paragraph of defensiveness - over one session.

my problem is that your method would make most of the people i play with not want to come back. it doesnt offer everyone a fair chance to play.

You seem to be comfortable with that but have a problem here - tell me how you reconcile that?

i still dont really understand your method because you still havnt answered any of the questions i asked in my first post in this thread. im trying to figure it out and point out to you that from what i can see it seems like a great way to alienate players and make them not want to play any more.

I view the points as simple cause and effect. If you don't do X then you get bupkis. If you do a passable job then you get passable XP. If you knock my friggan socks off by tearing up in game or getting into heated IC speaches, or even write a kick ass story for your PC then you get the buku points. If all you want to do is just fart around and kills stuff you will get points to. Like at least making the fort of showing up, skill use, hopefully good judgement ect.

Noon wrote:So after the first vote, you have a second vote and the person who won the last one can't be voted for again?

Not quite. Basically, each player writes on a ballot their ranking of the other players in the group, from best to worst. There is no second round of balloting, it's all done at once. What I meant by "discarding that person" is that nobody can win multiple places in the vote.

For simplicity, in the example I wrote, pretend that "Ballot A" was cast by Alice, "Ballot B" by Bob, etc. In this case, Alice voted that Chuck role-played the best, Diane second, herself third, and Bob was the worst. Bob voted that Diane role-played the best, Chuck the second-best, himself the third, and Alice the worst.

To determine who gets first place, you see who got the most votes for first place, then remove them from further consideration. To see who gets second place, you see of the people left who got the most votes for second place or better, then remove them from consideration. For third place you see who got the most votes for third place or better, then remove them from consideration. Continue until you're at the end of the party.

And just as you indicated, there's not a necessity to carry this all the way to the end and grant everyone points. In a four player group, perhaps you'd only grant points for first and second place, just as you said. In an eight player group, perhaps just the top three or four (it kind of becomes "noise" when you're ranking the bottom players anyway). Players should probably feel free to abstain as well (i.e. "I think Chuck and Alice are #1 and #2 respectively, but I'm not going to vote for #3 and #4 because they're about the same") -- it doesn't really affect things all that much, and avoids a lot of excess tallying when people don't really have a strong opinion.

Whether you take it all the way to the end, or just award for the top few doesn't really matter. I think if you have people assess eachother's role-playing, that makes everyone concious of doing a good job at it throughout the session -- it's always on their mind. I can't help but think that would bring up the overall level of play in the group. I do think a secret ballot is important, and that it's important to add the bonus into the XP grants rather than call them out seperately, just for the sake of group harmony.

And the system I mentioned is just one possibility -- though not a half-bad one, and pretty easy to tally up once you've done it two or three times.

Brent

If you have to convince your gamers to stay In-Character than there is something wrong.

We also have one guy in the group who always gets out of Character. If my boys are more out of character than actually in-character I simply tell them if they want to do anything different than gaming that's okay. That's all they need to know to get back In-Character and to stay in-character.

All those extra stuff would only bring up jealousy like "Hey, why did he get more XP than I did?!"

or "Why do you think that he is a better gamer than I am"

Gaming is suppossed to be fun, not suppossed to be a Challenge of who games the best.

If you are a player who isn't interested in RPing and the play is the thing, then the points won't matter or at least it shouldn't, and there is no problem. If you just want to skate along and do minimal work to stay in character then that will be reflected in your points. But the person who digs into the characters head and developes it to the nth degree, are you saying that they don't deserve more points for RP? Are yous aying that they aren't better at it than your bruisers or players who are in chaaracter but just within the confines of Disposition, alignment, Race and Class? But usually this doesn't come into affect either,..

I mean like the Vengeful Principled character? How is that played?
How is a ranger different than a mercenary? Is it just skills? Or is it the type of person who would pursue each path? the philosophies involved?
Is a principled wolfen knight different than a principled dwarven knight? Why why not? The deeper you go into character the more points you should get. And sometimes this will hurt or even destroy the groups plans because they didn't take into effect the personal thoughts/feelings of a given character, and this may lead to PC deaths. Which may be frustrating and against group goals but makes for great stories. If you simply want to play a game that doesn't deal with all this personality stuff leave alignment PB MA Social Skills Non Combat or Combat Related skills out or better yet play a fantasy board games. There a lot of them out there that look pretty cool. But this is a role playing gamem, where there is a role to be played.

Nelly wrote:If you have to convince your gamers to stay In-Character than there is something wrong.

We also have one guy in the group who always gets out of Character. If my boys are more out of character than actually in-character I simply tell them if they want to do anything different than gaming that's okay. That's all they need to know to get back In-Character and to stay in-character.

All those extra stuff would only bring up jealousy like "Hey, why did he get more XP than I did?!"

or "Why do you think that he is a better gamer than I am"

Gaming is suppossed to be fun, not suppossed to be a Challenge of who games the best.

Nelly wrote:We also have one guy in the group who always gets out of Character. If my boys are more out of character than actually in-character I simply tell them if they want to do anything different than gaming that's okay. That's all they need to know to get back In-Character and to stay in-character.

Well, this is exactly the same thing - it tells you how much you are playing the game, Vs not playing it. Yes, it's not binary like your example (where they are playing or they are not) and there are ratings.

But you know, sometimes I come to a game tired from the working week - I'm just not up to it as much as other people. Frankly that means I wont be playing the game as much as they are. I don't deserve to be recognised as playing the game as much as everyone else. But as a problem, your talking about players who want to be recognised as playing the game as much as everyone else, when they did not. That isn't a problem, they are the problem.

Noon's primary arguement here seems to be this:
GMs are not always perfect, so why have a system of giving out experience that is determined solely on the GM's opinion of the players.

Am I right here Noon?

If that's the case and the players don't respect his opinion then why are they having him run in the first place? Find another GM or read through the adventure manual themselves and bypass the gm all together.

KillWatch wrote:If that's the case and the players don't respect his opinion then why are they having him run in the first place? Find another GM or read through the adventure manual themselves and bypass the gm all together.

Inside, we already know that no GM is perfect judging this, because they are merely human. You can't shop around for a perfect human. They aren't in stores...till 2008!

If your making the leap to simply respect his opinion rather than think he's perfect at judging this, what's wrong with the idea of respecting multiple peoples votes?

Basically if just one person judges it, the game revolves around that one person. When multiple people judge it, the game revolves around a sort of amalgum of them, an average. I like playing a game which revolves around multiple people more than one person.


The ineffible GM: My arguement basically starts and ends at 'GM's are not perfect at judging the quality of roleplay'. If anyone still wants to think they're perfect, or respect their opinion, or use some voting system, whatever.

However, along with my arguement I've posted my preference, which is some system that makes the valuing of roleplay centered around multiple people, rather than just one. This is my preference and I'm gunna pimp it! Can't say it's an arguement though!

those are good props but it isn't role playing

I'm talking about the actual act of role playing. Showing up with beer nuts or a prop isn't RPing. I'm not saying don't give him points, and I'm sure it's pretty kick ass but it isn't role playing. It's game enhancement, plot development ect

Basically, as much as some people say they are pro roleplay, I bet there are places where if they had to game, they wouldn't enjoy it. Try running a game and roleplaying in an abotour or outside at night when its windy and pouring down rain and your in regular clothes.

The fact is, evironment controls whether its actually fun to roleplay.

And game system is actually part of a players environment.

Consider whether it's actually fun to roleplay in the system your using, for everyone. Maybe you like standing out in the rain at night - why do you expect everyone else to have a great love for it though?

as long as we could keep our sheets dry that soudns awesome

Time to playtest it then.

I usually give out 25 XP to all players for keeping in character.

If a player was really on the ball and not only stayed in character but roleplayed exceptionally well (ideas, acting, etc) I will reward them with some extra XP.

I am going to throw out some crazy ideas.

1) Ditch XP.

XP is all about leveling up. So forget about the XP and simply give the heroes a level when they deserve one. One per story arc sounds good.

You can even be direct about it. "When you guys save this town from the Xiticix menace, you will level up" or "When you avenge your dead mentor, you will get a level" Thus the expectation and reward is on the table.

2) Ditch roleplaying.

First, set expectation down with the players. If you want props, accents, plot hooks, or histories - tell them in advance of the campaign. Say "I want these things, do you want these things too?" If yes, great. If no, then maybe a new group is needed or you need to be okay with what they define as fun.

RPGs are our hobby, not our job or career or future personal development. If someone just wants to play Crazy Igor the Dwarf every week and uses Igor's personality for everything from HU to Nightbane, then you must choose if you like the guy enough to keep playing with him. For him, the "lack of roleplaying" is his fun and he should not be XP penalized.