Why is getting A LOT of players to actually roleplay during a role-playing game like pulling teeth?
You'll realize this someday:
99.9% of players are shit people who are miserable to be around and ruin everything.
They can never, and will never, care about your game as much as you do, and they just want to be catered to while they act bored and uninterested.
>tfw solid group of responsible adults who love their roles and characters and have been strong for 5 years running
Fun Fact: If you insist that you and/or your group is the exception to the rule, the truth is you're not and you're just too shit to realize how shit you are, and since you're a group of shit people getting together and being shit together, you have fun, but that doesn't make you a good group or good players.
Never said they weren't having fun or their fun was bad.
I said they're shit players, because it's statistically more likely that a group of shit people has fun together and is convinced they're not shit than there being a group of actually decent players.
People have different standards for what constitutes roleplaying. You might be into putting on accents and acting out your character's emotional turmoil, but your players might prefer to dispassionately describe their character approaches whatever fictitious conundrum you've put to them. Find a happy medium.
It turns out I can have multiple hobbies and activities, and allocate my time to make that possible and enjoyable. It's a novel concept, I know.
Turns out RP is way easier to schedule, and so the players end up much more invested, when you just run an online chatgame.
You know you're implicated in your own statistical argument right?
Also it seems like you think good is a qualitatively measurable part of rpgs that is independent of fun. That's fucking retarded.
well actually these days I mostly do play through text on the internet, and it's interesting to see how you get a different quality of RP from it. In-person games are still fun in a way sitting at the computer doesn't quite match though.
Hey I'll be a retard all day, whatever makes you happy honey, but I don't got a ruptured colon trying to furiously backpedal from being called out on being a bitter angry nerd.
The group I play with just finished the story that took 4 years to tell.
We just started a new campaign.
6 experienced players rp so much that sometimes the DM wants us to shut up. Good times.
I agree. It's just too hard to have an ideal group who can also come in person every week for a game. Much easier for everyone when it's coordinated text online. Brings a lot more detail to the game as well.
>tfw the party starts to just yammer, bully, and banter at each other for like 10 minutes
>the palpable relief that gives you a precious second to scramble notes around and maybe type in the occasional NPC quip to fuel them further
>playing pretend is really embarrassing for an adult
>implying you're not playing pretend to being a responsible adult just to through the day until you finally die
Then I'm laughing with you because I love having a successful long-running game that I look forward to playing in every week.
>curry should be so hot you need ten minutes between each bite
Only if you're a britbong who thinks that food having tiered flavor profiles is badwrong. Or you're some pleb who refuses to eat any curry type other than Japanese.
>nationalism-fueled culinary dick-waving fight
Oh dis thread gonna be good
Yeehaw cowboy, let's turn eating into another competition! Why does everything need to be a dick measuring contest for you burgers? It's not enough to have a beer, it needs to be a triple IPA that's more hops than wheat.
PS, that floppy yellow stuff you put on everything isn't real cheese.
Yeah, normal people join Drama Club to just hang out and laugh, not to act.
Normal people collect Warhammer armies to just pelt them at eachother's faces, not to learn the rules.
This is what normal people do. If you're not doing that, you're wrong.
It's okay anon. Whatever those people did to you in the past, they can't hurt you anymore.
A lot of it has to do with WHY the player is at the table. RPGs offer a quite wide range of experiences.
A lot of players are there to basically do tactical combat, have cool class combinations, roll big numbers and win fights. They enjoy playing badasses, or they like the "puzzle solving" aspect of, like, trying to figure out traps or the system mastery aspect of CharOp.
Others are there to be parts of stories they like, to see what the GM's come up with this week and follow a narrative. Neither one of this is right or wrong (you could also argue there are even more reasons to play), but the former is less likely to "roleplay" (according to the typical definition) compared to the latter, and even then the latter is going to be roleplaying better LATER ON in the game than they are at the start because it takes a while for numbers on a sheet to become "a character"
You want an approximately correct answer?
Because you don't know them well enough that they feel comfortable acting weird.
You question implies that you've been trying many groups. Probably you're playing at conventions or online. The intimacy level is that of a co-worker, if even.
If you want people to role-play you have to play with your friends AND give them time to get comfortable with the concept.
You know you can roll dice online, right? I don't care how hard somebody types *teleports behind you*, I tell them the actual results as the GM based on them numbers.
I do dig some free form faggotry outside of combat though, and combat embellishment is always fun.
The other replies to your post are very revealing. None of them are able to rebut you, they just try desperately to seem cool and casual in their replies despite the MASSIVE cognitive dissonance they must be feeling.
>inb4 "s-s-s-s-samefag..." defence
>Also, it generally takes another player, not the gm, to get someone to rp.
Bullshit. Have you even played anything other than vidya? Players interact with GM-acted NPCs all the time.
Who hurt you anon?
Protip: People have different playstyles and games they want to play. If you're "getting" your players to roleplay while you're GMing you are probably literally the worst. You don't even get good RP that way. Find a different group. You have the internet, you have no excuse.
Also stop playing DnD or whatever if you are. This system is not conducive to good RP.
Think OP just needs an incentive for people to roleplay. I've used incentives before that helped people role play.
For example. If your game involves rolling dice for non combat actions (intimidation, bartering, climbing, etc) then let them use words rather than dice. If they can give a good enough argument to your NPC or describe their action well enough you give them an automatic success, if they don't then you get them to roll a die.
I've found this system encourages role playing by taking away random elements and giving an advantage to players who do role play.
The point of the matter is that players who want to roleplay will roleplay regardless of incentive. You're only going to fuck with their roleplay by providing intrusive "incentive".
And players who don't want to roleplay wont roleplay well regardless. Trying to twist their arm into doing something they don't want to do only winds up with neither party getting what they want and nobody has a good time.
>But I'm the GM! My fun is important to!
Absolutely. Find a different group that actually suits your playstyle, rather than trying to force your friends to do something you want them to. It really isn't as difficult as many make it out to be and I'm a socially awkward introvert.
I personally have a hard time getting in a role because I'm afraid to speak up. Like I can roleplay with text, but I'm just scared to roleplay with voice and I want to break out...anyone know this?
This is edger than my 40k shark-man character with 5 knives.
I don't understand why so many people are so insistent on people roleplaying when they don't want to. The best GMs I've had have insisted on getting a feel for the players before writing up the setting, and sometimes you have to find where your group sits on the scales between action and immersion. I've recently been running a group, and I find they react far better to interesting combat and encounter with only minimal interaction with important and interesting characters. It also seems to have a lot to do with the engine: if you say you're running a combat heavy rpg like d&d and expect people to make a noncombat character you may need to have your head surgically removed from your anus.
>if you say you're running a combat heavy rpg like d&d and expect people to make a noncombat character you may need to have your head surgically removed from your anus.
Seems a bit stupid to conflate expecting people to roleplay with expecting people to make a noncombat character in a game that's generally about characters fighting in life or death situations.
But the point about expecting people to roleplay when they don't want to is a pretty valid one. Everyone comes to the table to get a different need (or needs) fulfilled. It's hard to change player behaviour, and sometimes you're going to have to work towards appeasing the audience you've got, rather than the audience you wish you had.
They stop your character?
How can your character be in-character?
>The point of the matter is that players who want to roleplay will roleplay regardless of incentive. You're only going to fuck with their roleplay by providing intrusive "incentive".
This. My friends and I realized this after playing AdEva, which has roleplaying incentives built in. You get luck points for roleplaying aspects of your character's personality/interests which you decide on during chargen. It sounds good on paper, but soon enough we realized it's actually disrupting RP, because we were forced to work those aspects into conversations as often as possible to regenerate luck.
>Do theatre for over a decade.
>Doing stuff on and off stage
>Think improve is the best thing since sliced bread
>Actually get to play the rpg books I've been reading for years at uni
>Move to fast, hit walls of mums and ahhs
>GMs love it but accidentally overshadow others
Having to regulate yourself for the good of the game is the worst feeling but can be vital.
A lot of people don't actually understand what "American cheese" is and assume it's that fake, plastic "American flavored cheese product" that Craft makes.
American Cheese is a blend of Cheddar and Colby. It is processed in that they are blended together, but it's definitely not "fake".
Happens to tons of people.
I've been playing/GMing for years over table but I'm experimenting with a small text-only group.
Really cool to use narrative punctuation and everyone stays in character. Far easier to say/do what I would have said over the noise of 5+ people at the table.
I've been having major problems keeping a roll20 game going.
People just ghost like crazy. Sometimes they have a legit complaint, or the game isn't for them, they say as much and leave. That's somewhat fair, although they knew fully well what to expect going in. But others... they'll be completely involved, posting stuff in the forums, chatting with the others, then poof, gone. Having such a procession of characters arriving and leaving is just wrecking the narrative to justify it all. It's harshly demoralizing.
Because you keep killing our associated NPCs, scuffle your feet or purposefully talk over us when we talk "too long" IC, accuse us of holding up the campaign when our PCs don't follow obviously dangerous IC clues like good little sheep and meme about snowflakes whenever we deviate from the sword and board fighter.
It's not a good time to be a role player.
Because people would rather talk about food and post reaction faces than get into the philosophical discussion about what 'good' is. I think that 'good' is situational, so your statement was both true and false depending on the circumstances.
Someone is going to get booty-barbed real bad by your insensitive comment!
I don't even know where to begin with, your statement is so fucking retarded you could give it to liberal arts majors and even they wouldn't be able to find a way to twist it around and give it any 2deep4u sense other than you being more assblasted than Hitler finding out the jews raised the cost of gas.
IMHO you need at least one player that is actually roleplaying, then you can get the rest in on it. It can be awkward to start something when you are only one side of the conversation, and it typically feels forced from your end too.
Having your players answer some basic questions about the characters, their personalities and goals should also flesh out the voice they will want to give them too.