(small) advantages by roleplaying (or improvising)?

[Rodyle]

Hello to all of you,

I've been dming my first full session of 4th edition in the last two days, and I have come across a few points. First are ones that are very useful to myself (set up a some social rules, learn to roleplay irl instead of just on the internet), but a few are partially beyond my control. One of them is that my players are just as awkward with roleplaying as I am. I'd love to help them overcome this, but just flat-out telling them to do so is probably a bad idea. My thoughts were to give (minor) bonuses (or even ars ludi style virtual rolls) for them roleplaying and/or improvising. For example, if they are fighting in a dig-site, they could kick sand into their opponent's eyes (as a minor action) for a +1/+2 bonus to their attack roll. Or perhaps if they lay out a good argument when talking to someone, they'd get a bonus on their bluff or diplomacy check.

And again, as with all my other ideas, I have no idea if this would imbalance the game, or if it would even work at all. Hell, it could be one of those unspoken rules no-one mentions because it's too obvious...

So, is this something that would something like this give my players incentive to start roleplaying, and is it advisable to implement?

EDIT: I also plan to use the old DnD approach to initiative in combat, with a few adjustments to decrease the length of combat encounters. I wanted to give all the mobs a single initiative and let all the players roll for themselves. The players with initiative with a roll higher than the mobs get go first, after that the mobs and when they are done all the players. However, that would probably ensue a lot of discussion on tactics for that round. Therefore I plan to implement that at the beginning of their turn, they have ten to fifteen seconds in which they plan their character's actions in silence and have them tell me what they're going to do after those are done.

[DMN]

One of them is that my players are just as awkward with roleplaying as I am. I'd love to help them overcome this, but just flat-out telling them to do so is probably a bad idea. My thoughts were to give (minor) bonuses (or even ars ludi style virtual rolls) for them roleplaying and/or improvising. For example, if they are fighting in a dig-site, they could kick sand into their opponent's eyes (as a minor action) for a +1/+2 bonus to their attack roll. Or perhaps if they lay out a good argument when talking to someone, they'd get a bonus on their bluff or diplomacy check.

Yup, the +2 rule should be used whenever possible.  You should probably tell the players that they will receive the +2 bonus for good ideas, role playing, funny jokes, wacky ideas, whatever gets them to open up.  This shouldn't be just to encourage role playing (although that's a good idea) but should be a standard technique for you as the GM, even after they get used to role playing.

And again, as with all my other ideas, I have no idea if this would imbalance the game, or if it would even work at all. Hell, it could be one of those unspoken rules no-one mentions because it's too obvious...

Nope, no imbalance.  I wouldn't call it unspoken either, especially with a new group.  The GM should tell the players that they will get these bonuses for whatever you deem appropriate, such as role playing or good/wacky ideas.  You can always tell them that their wacky idea has little chance of success, but let them role play their character as they see fit.  You can even retroactively give the bonus, if their idea merits it, and if they come close to the DC you set.

EDIT: I also plan to use the old DnD approach to initiative in combat, with a few adjustments to decrease the length of combat encounters. I wanted to give all the mobs a single initiative and let all the players roll for themselves. The players with initiative with a roll higher than the mobs get go first, after that the mobs and when they are done all the players. However, that would probably ensue a lot of discussion on tactics for that round. Therefore I plan to implement that at the beginning of their turn, they have ten to fifteen seconds in which they plan their character's actions in silence and have them tell me what they're going to do after those are done.

My personal opinion on this, especially for a new group of players, is to allow the players to talk about their ideas, if for no other reason to have them engaged.  If it bogs down, then you can tare back the table talk, but you want to encourage them to role play.  If they go off tangent and start discussing politics while in the middle of a fight, then you can step in.  Use the timer method rarely for critical decisions, like finding the secret door before the orcs bash down the door.  Use this technique for suspenseful moments, when the players have to know that their ass in on the line if they fail. 

It's all about pacing, which is one of my weakest GMing traits, so I offer it to you in the hopes I can remember to employ it myself.

Hope this helps.

DMN

[Telas]

Be very explicit about the bonus for thinking and roleplay; it's what you're encouraging, and +2 is only going to affect the outcome 10% of the time.  Could you give your definition of RP?  Are you expecting the players to be "in character" all the time, or is any "in character" time hard to get?

For initiative, if you're going to roll every round, be aware that a lot of things in D&D are built on the assumption of a consistent initiative.  I'm not sure how much will change (I'm not a 4E expert), but it's something to be aware of.

I've always allowed some above-game discussion of tactics.  I figure there are two possible explanations of it:
1. The players' discussion isn't the characters' discussion.  The characters are experts at their abilities, and already know what the players are talking about, perhaps because they've already discussed and trained for certain situations.
2. It's more fun.  If one player is lording it over the others, or demanding to call all the shots, then it's not more fun, and you should limit the discussion.

And in 4E, the players will need to coordinate their actions.  The system rewards synergy, and penalizes solo artists.

[Rick_TWA]

Keep in mind you may need to jot down some "personal rules" if you're having all the monsters go on a single initiative tick.

After all, that gives all the monsters a set of actions UNINTERUPTED BY THE PLAYERS.  That means if they concentrate their efforts, they can take down a soft target or badly damage a sturdy one, and the players can't react to heal, mark, move away, or anything. They're pretty much sitting there saying "Oh please oh please oh please don't let this attack kill my guy....." and biting their nails.

So you may want to set yourself a limit as to how many monsters can attack a given target, or how they react to certain circumstances, etc... to not abuse your players too much.

[Rodyle]

Wow. Quite a lot of posts...

My personal opinion on this, especially for a new group of players, is to allow the players to talk about their ideas, if for no other reason to have them engaged.  If it bogs down, then you can tare back the table talk, but you want to encourage them to role play.  If they go off tangent and start discussing politics while in the middle of a fight, then you can step in.  Use the timer method rarely for critical decisions, like finding the secret door before the orcs bash down the door.  Use this technique for suspenseful moments, when the players have to know that their ass in on the line if they fail.

Okay, so keeping the players on topic is more of a job for the DM. I can dig that.

Be very explicit about the bonus for thinking and roleplay; it's what you're encouraging, and +2 is only going to affect the outcome 10% of the time.  Could you give your definition of RP?  Are you expecting the players to be "in character" all the time, or is any "in character" time hard to get?

Well, I don't think there was any IC stuff in the session. I do have to admit that was due to me though: we kind of misplanned the session, which left them with no time to make up a background for their character. Not only that, but I found RPing outside of forums extremely hard for some reason, so I wasn't helping either. What I did notice though, that they'd have had a hard time rping even if it wasn't for me cocking things up.

For initiative, if you're going to roll every round, be aware that a lot of things in D&D are built on the assumption of a consistent initiative.  I'm not sure how much will change (I'm not a 4E expert), but it's something to be aware of.

I've always allowed some above-game discussion of tactics.  I figure there are two possible explanations of it:
1. The players' discussion isn't the characters' discussion.  The characters are experts at their abilities, and already know what the players are talking about, perhaps because they've already discussed and trained for certain situations.
2. It's more fun.  If one player is lording it over the others, or demanding to call all the shots, then it's not more fun, and you should limit the discussion.

And in 4E, the players will need to coordinate their actions.  The system rewards synergy, and penalizes solo artists.

Oh, I didn't plan to take the 'roll init. every round' aspect, but more the 'one turn per side' one. But yes, it is probably a bit hard on them to have such strict rules. It was more a knee-jerk reaction to the extremely long combat sequences: we did only three fights in about 5 hours of gaming.

    Reply with quote
Keep in mind you may need to jot down some "personal rules" if you're having all the monsters go on a single initiative tick.

After all, that gives all the monsters a set of actions UNINTERUPTED BY THE PLAYERS.  That means if they concentrate their efforts, they can take down a soft target or badly damage a sturdy one, and the players can't react to heal, mark, move away, or anything. They're pretty much sitting there saying "Oh please oh please oh please don't let this attack kill my guy....." and biting their nails.

So you may want to set yourself a limit as to how many monsters can attack a given target, or how they react to certain circumstances, etc... to not abuse your players too much.

Yes, that would be a problem... Would it help if I split both the party and the mobs into two separate groups? The three with the highest initiative check first and the other three in the other? I mean, with the initiative scores on the mobs it wouldn't be too difficult if I roll once for all of them and then split them into two groups as well.

[Telas]

Ah, I see...

RE: RP - I try to set an expectation that everything being discussed is somewhat in-character unless otherwise indicated.  Out-of-character 'signs' are crossed fingers, raising your head above a flat hand (it looks like raising your head above water), etc.  Otherwise, the other players are free to act on your statements. 

RP needn't be "in character".  We'll discuss things conversationally in colloquial English, not in stilted RPG-speak.  It's not something that really requires a lot of thought, once you realize that the character's point of view is not necessarily the player's POV.  (The character can't consult the Monster Manual, for instance.)

RE: Initiative - I'd go with the rules as written, and just use 'group initiatives' for the critters.  The boss has his own initiative, these orcs all share one, these two Ogres share one, etc.  Unless every single mook has their own initiative, I don't think it would slow the game too much.  4E is not a fast-paced game, in any sense of the word.  Over an hour for a combat seems to be the norm. 

[Rodyle]

Ah, I see...

RE: RP - I try to set an expectation that everything being discussed is somewhat in-character unless otherwise indicated.  Out-of-character 'signs' are crossed fingers, raising your head above a flat hand (it looks like raising your head above water), etc.  Otherwise, the other players are free to act on your statements. 

Yeah. I was kind of thinking about implementing something like that. It would make the distinction between the two a lot easier for everyone, especially the ones without role playing experience.

RP needn't be "in character".  We'll discuss things conversationally in colloquial English, not in stilted RPG-speak.  It's not something that really requires a lot of thought, once you realize that the character's point of view is not necessarily the player's POV.  (The character can't consult the Monster Manual, for instance.)

Oh, god no. I wasn't even considering using Ye-Olde-English (or Dutch). And I think I made them clear that there's a clear barrier between character and player knowledge by making the evil 'lock find a mirror, and then asking him if he was going to tell the others. It's not something that I intent to do any more, but it was indeed a nice moment to let them realize that distinction.

RE: Initiative - I'd go with the rules as written, and just use 'group initiatives' for the critters.  The boss has his own initiative, these orcs all share one, these two Ogres share one, etc.  Unless every single mook has their own initiative, I don't think it would slow the game too much.  4E is not a fast-paced game, in any sense of the word.  Over an hour for a combat seems to be the norm. 

Ouch... That's going to be a pain: we're not a group that has a lot of opportunities to come together, so every session counts. I guess I'll just have to make every single encounter interesting then, I guess. If that is indeed the case, I do think that there's no harm in using the official rules indeed.

[Rick_TWA]

Yes, that would be a problem... Would it help if I split both the party and the mobs into two separate groups? The three with the highest initiative check first and the other three in the other? I mean, with the initiative scores on the mobs it wouldn't be too difficult if I roll once for all of them and then split them into two groups as well.

I usually use one roll per monster TYPE, but you can further split or condense that depending on number of types and size of groups. If you're worried about the number of monster initiatives, you might try using fewer more challengin monsters rather than changing the way initiative works.

[Telas]

This may help, as well.  It was written for D&D 3.5, but should apply to 4E as well.

http://www.gnomestew.com/gming-advice/speeding-up-combat

[Elkor_Alish]

Dude, just personal advice, steer away from the carte blanche mechanical stuff like +2 to rolls and damage.

I generally apply the Rule of Groovy to RP initiative. Kids don't have the stats to pull anything over on their parents, and yet how much shit did you get away with growing up? If someone at the table says something particularly persuasive, and it sounds groovy, wave the roll and give them an automatic success. That will encourage their participation and lend itself to a better session. If someone throws some water on the stars that an advancing enemy is charging up, give them a class appropriate bonus. Using 3.5 examples, because I am about to start 4.0 and don't know a hell of alot about it (Spellplague killed my interest in Faerun), attacks of oppourtunity to your Rogues, move up a fighter's initiative so he is top of the chain, give a caster a free action, but something that adds flavour. Give them their moment of being a stupendous badass, and you'll see more of it.

[VV_GM]

Elkor_Alish - Welcome to the tavern!

That is one approach, but some groups aren't going to like foregoing the rules for the story. I happen to like the risk of rolling a 1, or the thrill of a nat 20 no matter what happens through RP. I like it when the GM says "You need to roll a 20 for that to work." or "Anything but a 1 and you succeed." I love that little extra tension, and it can be a great time when that 1 or 20 is actually rolled.

I say keep the mechanics if that is what the group enjoys. It always comes down to what the group enjoys, and a good GM learns how to read the group and then tailors the game accordingly.

[ebrillblaiddes]

I wouldn't phrase it as "+2 for roleplay"...my way of looking at it is, if the player describes a physical action (e.g. kicking sand in an enemy's eyes), and the character is physically capable of it (e.g. not tied up), the action happens, and if common sense says that action has an effect (e.g. the enemy can't see to hit as accurately or dodge), then that effect gets into the game as bonuses or penalties.  On the flip side, there can also be unintended consequences--for example, if it's windy, there might also be a chance of stuff getting in the character's eyes.

[Telas]

Welcome to the forums, ebrillblaiddes.

I'd modify that slightly, with "...there's a chance the action can happen...", make it a die roll, and make sure that it's not a 'free action'. 

Otherwise, the player's going to do it Every. Single. Damned. Time. 

[ebrillblaiddes]

Well, the action wouldn't work at all, some of the time (clean hard floors, for the kick-dirt-in-eye trick) and might sometimes not work right or backfire (like in a windstorm), so it wouldn't be good strategy for them to do it every time.  If they started abusing it I'd put them in increasing numbers of situations where it isn't helpful to them.

If they do it every single damned time but only when it's a good idea, well, that's called tactics and I don't think it's a bad thing.  Although even in that case recurring baddies might pick up the trick too.

Whether I made them roll for it or not would depend on if there was any actual complexity to the action; I wouldn't want to get so tangled up in the dice that players started cracking wise that they were rolling to touch their own elbow, which I've actually heard of.