Okay, so as per some of my comments in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=18236&page=8), I've been feeling like 4E plays more like a board game than an RPG. I posted my reasons in that thread and have since bowed out of the discussion of whys and hows. And no, none of the house rules I used were meant to change the type of gamer I had, I just wanted to ramp up the role-playing and description instead of focus on pure combat.
This thread is a play report of our 4E session with a few house rules I was hoping would ramp up the role-playing a bit. The rules I added were:
Aspects from Fate, really just the negative side of things.
Fate points from Fate, as the rewards for role-playing Aspects, I used them as a re-roll or a +5 to a roll and spending two would get you an extra action, essentially an Action point. Characters earned one Fate point after each encounter to replicate the normal process of earning Action points. Fate points replaced Action points.
Stunts from Exalted, the straight +1 through +3 bonus for describing a characters action in more than game terms, etc.
The group is 7 people total. Four long-time gamers (one is me), one returning (after 10+ years) gamer, one adult new to gaming, and an 11-year-old new to gaming. The last two are the wife and child of one of the long-time gamers. The group has played a little over a year with one DM running most of it, and two others (hi!) filling in with a game now and then.
We don't have any power gamers in the group. No munchkins, no optimizers. The group is fairly solidly in the casual gamer, butt kicker side of things. One of the long-time gamers leans toward being a tactician, but not hardcore.
How'd they react to the rules? Mixed bag.
The returning gamer simply ignored the house rules and went about his business. The two new gamers dug the Aspects/Fate points bits, but weren't comfortable with trying to use Stunts. Given time and comfort with gaming, I think they'd use the hell out of them as they're both imaginative. Of the three remaining long-time gamers (I'm the fourth and DM), it was mixed. One guy really got into all of the house rules, played up the Aspects, used stunts fairly regularly, and loved burning those Fate points. The other two used Fate points but didn't bother with the Aspects or Stunts.
Definitely learn more about the gamers at the table after last night. Before I had the impression there was some bits of method actor or storyteller lurking in the group. Nope. These are all casual butt-kickers, pure and simple. They'll role-play their characters... as long as it doesn't get in the way of kicking ass.
What made it a disaster of a session was my desire to help make the game feel less like a board game an more like a role-playing game. In hopes of doing so, I focused less on combat (there was still some), and had more role-playing and skill challenges. I've never, ever, had someone tell me they were bored after a session I've run, until last night. I've never, ever, had someone tell me they were bored during a session I've run... until last night.
Blerg.
Things I learned last night:
1. Listen to the group as they're talking to each other, they throw around some really interesting and off-the-wall ideas of what's happening and why. Could write three or four really interesting adventures just on the stuff they were throwing around last night.
2. Know, don't assume you know, what type of gamers you have before running a game. I thought I knew, but didn't really.
3. A good mix of straight out combat, role-playing, and investigation is the best way to go instead of focusing on any one of those to the exclusion of the others. Even the butt-kickers were getting bored with pure combat all night, which is one of the sparks that had me go off on this mostly failed experiment.
Quote from: Grognard;407094Things I learned last night:
1. Listen to the group as they're talking to each other, they throw around some really interesting and off-the-wall ideas of what's happening and why. Could write three or four really interesting adventures just on the stuff they were throwing around last night.
Yessir, most definitely. Some of the most successful and fun sessions I've run were based off of player ideas. I once changed some of my secret notes halfway through a session based on the input of a player, and it remains to this day one of the best sessions I've ever had the privilege to GM, and the players were visibly excited by what was happening in the game.
Player input is a very powerful tool, even if you have to poke some people to get them to say what they really want out of the game.
Also, yeah, I also find 4e plays best when you mix up the types of encounters and you just keep things moving.
I would call that a successful playtesting rather than a disaster. Experiments are valuable when you gain knowledge from their results.
Well live and learn.
People grow at their own pace - I wouldn't give up all hope. Trying to change them will probably mostly just piss them off though.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;407134Well live and learn.
People grow at their own pace - I wouldn't give up all hope. Trying to change them will probably mostly just piss them off though.
Since there's no smilie with that I'll just assume you failed a reading check.
Quote from: Grognard;407094And no, none of the house rules I used were meant to change the type of gamer I had, I just wanted to ramp up the role-playing and description instead of focus on pure combat.
You referring to this?
Which, no, I didn't see on first pass. And, also, fuck you too.
I'm going to assume
you failed a Wis check when you were working out your rules mods, since what you wrote notwithstanding, you're quite evidently trying to manipulate your players into something they're not using Pavlovian rewards.
Hey, I guess that strengthens what I was talking about earlier: that fate mechanics, stunts and all are all fine and dandy on the page, but in practice, few gamers are really willing to try them, or care to bother at all. As for "encouraging roleplaying", well, in the vast majority of my experiences in this domain, that simply did not happen. If ever, actually.
Talking to your players and knowing and sharing expectations and all, however, can go a LOOONG way towards striking the right mood and synergy at the game table. Communication between players of the game wins over rules Every. Single. Time. on this one.
Quote from: Benoist;407226Hey, I guess that strengthens what I was talking about earlier: that fate mechanics, stunts and all are all fine and dandy on the page, but in practice, few gamers are really willing to try them, or care to bother at all.
FATE's not a system that everyone groks right away (though people who approach it with the right frame of mind often "get it" much more quickly), but I think the problem is trying to apply those mechanics overtop of a system that isn't designed to handle that sort of thing. 4e's approach is almost counter to what FATE tries to achieve, and trying to do this with a returning gamer who has no interest in the houserules (and a few people who may not have a lot of experience with FATE or systems driven by stunts) and you've got yourself a problem.
My own group had only played d20 until 2003 or so, but when Exalted 2e came out, they absolutely loved the stunt system and were doing lots of cool stuff with it.
That said, there's nothing stopping me from doing a butt-kicking action game with FATE, but the way you go about it is going to be a little different than 4e's tactical web/string-of-encounters design.
Mostly I'd just blame this on a bad mixing of ruleset ideas.
Quote from: Benoist;407226As for "encouraging roleplaying", well, in the vast majority of my experiences in this domain, that simply did not happen. If ever, actually.
In my experience, those being "encouraged" come to resent it...
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;407234In my experience, those being "encouraged" come to resent it...
Seanchai
No one has to play a game they don't like.
If I don't want aspects, I won't play FATE.
If I don't want to be forced to use extensive teamwork during encounters to succeed, I won't play 4e.
Every game has some sort of buy-in required on the players part, some concession they have to make for the game to "work." Which is why it's important to establish if everyone is on-board with the game's assumptions before play begins.
Quote from: Peregrin;407235Which is why it's important to establish if everyone is on-board with the game's assumptions before play begins.
I completely agree.
I'm not sure if this is the case with the OP or not, but it's been my experience that in these cases:
1. The objective of getting the players to roleplay more isn't always expressed before the game begins or expressed clearly.
2. The scope of the objective isn't always explained or explained clearly.
3. Or players who don't really want to roleplay imagine that the objective won't be translated in play or translated into play to such a degree that it'll effect them.
Not knowing the OP or his players, I can't say if that's the case here, but it's been my experience that when the GM tries to get the players to roleplay more, it usually ends in the game dissolving and various members not feeling too terribly charitable about one another because of problems caused by 1, 2, and 3 above.
Personally, I think the only way to get a group of players who roleplay more is to go out and find new players who enjoy roleplaying.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;4072571. The objective of getting the players to roleplay more isn't always expressed before the game begins or expressed clearly.
2. The scope of the objective isn't always explained or explained clearly.
3. Or players who don't really want to roleplay imagine that the objective won't be translated in play or translated into play to such a degree that it'll effect them.
Our group is largely really open and communication is free flowing. I explained that I thought at times the game was feeling like a board game and wanted to give out these bonuses to encourage them to engage the role-playing side more. No one freaked or objected, most of them simply nodded and we got on with it.
I also explicitly set up the Fate points to model the gain of Action points so if players decided not to engage in the Aspects and role-playing, they weren't forced to.
And again, it was a mixed bag of how well people took to the house rules. If anything, I think I'll drop the Aspects, but keep the stunts and "Fate points" / tweaked Action points (+5 or a re-roll; two for an extra action; gain one after each encounter) as the players seemed to like that bit of extra control. Maybe add the always 10 or better bit from hero points out of DCA/M&M3e.
I've gamed with these people for over a year, and I assumed there was bits of other gaming styles under the surface (storyteller, method actor, etc), but no. They're solidly butt kickers. Which I learned the hard way, and I think why the Aspects didn't go over well, and neither did shifting the focus from combat to role-playing and skill challenges.
Oh well. I've started to take the attitude that it's a learning experience instead of an out-and-out failure. It's like Rome, you have to give the mob what it wants. There's alway next time.