>giving players extra points at chargen for giving their characters real flaws
>giving players points during the game for roleplaying real character flaws
How do you make players create characters with real flaws AND ROLEPLAY THEM without resorting to contrived bribery systems that make no sense?
>>43972204
You can't. Players are animals.
>>43972204
Contrived extortion systems that make no sense?
I mean, if you're looking for ways to force your players to roleplay flaws, that implies they normally don't want to, in which case either majority rules or you end up alone.
If your players aren't interested in roleplaying without being rewarded for doing so, they aren't interested in roleplaying.
You may be able to train your players to create interesting characters on their own by gradually offering fewer rewards, but they are unlikely to stop treating your sessions like a video game any time soon.
>>43972204
Best season of digimon
>>43972204
Because roleplaying is a fantasy and not everyone wants to play Stumpy the Blind Gimp. It's also a problem when those roleplay flaws make your character an anchor and you weigh the party down because you're unable to carry your own weight.
>>43972408
This, desu. My players play flawed characters all on their own. I play with a small group, and only one doesn't want to gm. It is super fun.
>>43972204
>giving players extra points at chargen for giving their characters real flaws
Whatever you do, DON'T DO THIS. This is a terrible, horrendous idea.
Don't focus on flaws, OP. Flaws are more than often than not excuses for players to be little shits because 'my character is a kleptomaniac, so obviously he'd steal the fighter's coin-purse in the middle of the night'. Focus instead on good roleplaying, whether it involves character flaws or not. Give rewards to players who do a good job of RPing, who put effort into their characters and the game.
Savage Worlds has a system where you can get points from taking Negative Traits that can only be spent on Positive Traits.
It's completely optional.
>>43972204
The "points" system is just meant to encourage people to role play when they're not used to it. You should do what any socially competent person would do and have the players build a character with flaws and such, and say "we're not using points this time, but I hope we can continue role playing."
Instead of flaws that require roleplaying to realize, use flaws that have indisputable effects.
>My character is greedy
vs
>My character is mute
>>43972656
I think he means more ''My character lost an eye''
>>43972942
>How do I get my players to roleplay?
>Have them play a mute
Brilliant logic
Some of the best systems are bribing the players.
Hero Points, Bennies, Fate Points, Beats...
Any time you say "hey, if you do X I'll give you [a Hero Point/a Bennie/a Fate Point/some Experience/a point of Willpower]" that's a really good game mechanic because it encourages players to make the game more interesting by playing up some negative.
And why shouldn't you be willing to bribe the players? It's carrot and stick game design. Temporary penalties discourage characters from doing certain things while offering them bonuses means they'll do what you suggest.
>>43973005
Alright then. Don't give a character anything for having only one eye. If (for example) during play they land a critical hit and the player goes "Grogg shouts and recoils, some blood got in his eye and he can't see!" I would later give that player something for cool roleplaying and integrating their flaw in a non-obtrusive way. Likewise if they said "Wait, the bandits attack from the left? Grogg can't see left that well, maybe he should have a penalty to initiative?" I would give them something later.
Basically to earn something for good roleplay it has to make sense and not be super obtrusive or annoying. Bonus points if their character gets screwed over because of the character trait. Playing a lecherous character won't get you anything if you hit on NPCs all the time, that's just annoying. Getting swindled by a pretty face and waking up naked, chained to a bed with all your cash gone? That'll get you some points.
>>43973209
Because it implies that the players are untrustworthy little shits.
>>43973653
Yes, and? Most people are.
>>43973653
>Because it implies that the players are untrustworthy little shits.
Anon, with the people this hobby attracts, I could bet cash money that the percentage of 'natural twenties' would be in the low 10s if there wasn't systems to keep that in check.
>>43973273
>don't give them something for having flaws.
>instead, give them something for having flaws.
>>43973008
I'm suddenly reminded of R2D2 from Darths & Droids
>>43973845
One's window dressing.
The other is window dressing, mechanical self imposed gameplay implications, and playstyle changes.
The difference is effort.
>>43973653
No it doesn't. It implies that narrative should be in the hands of the players (including the GM) and that it should be a thing with actual gamefeel, not just "oh, I act like a jerk because it says JERK on my sheet"
>>43972204
Find players interested in it and, if your players aren't interested in playing it, then don't try to run it.
>>43974111
Both are mechanical incentives for giving your characters flaws. The difference is that one has a pre-established benefit, and the other relies on the GM arbitrarily handing out bonuses.
>>43973845
What >>43974111 said. Saying your character is an alcoholic is worthless. Getting so drunk you don't notice the assassin poisoning your drink is worth something. It's the effort and meaningful impact on the game that counts.
Don't give them something for having flaws. Instead give them something when those flaws matter.
>>43974358
Arbitration is the GM's job. If you don't trust your GM to arbitrate your game then you have a bigger problem at hand.
>>43972204
Character flaws that will negatively affect your character in a major way is justifiable .
Rewarded good roleplay isn't exactly bad practice especially if that roleplay might not be the best course of action but it fits their character, but I don't generally give points for RP cuz some people arn't as good at RP as others and I'd feel that's unfair to them.
>>43975277
It's not about the quality or quantity of RP, I think. It's about putting in effort. I'll give an example, two players from my current game. The first talks a LOT, is the 'face' of the party, makes a lot of the decisions, and brings his character's tragic backstory up all the time. The second talks very little, doesn't make a lot of decisions, and is generally pretty reserved, and it takes a special moment or a serious decision for him to speak up. I give them equal RP bonuses, because they're both putting in the same amount of effort into the game, it's just a lot harder for the second player since they're more introverted.
>>43972204
Well, in heroquest everything works on an opposed roll system, so with flaws it just means sometimes the opposed role is one of your character's own flaws.
>>43972204
Hard knock answer, OP. Find players who want to roleplay.
My best bet is looking up theater groups or writer's workshops and joining in. Drama folks and (to a lesser extent) writer folks tend to be better at making interesting characters who roleplay well.
>>43975137
Things like "has one eye" can easily have mechanical maluses baked in (such as penalties to perception and ranged attacks) that don't require any arbitration, and if you let your player take points for things like "is a drunk" then don't ever make it come back to bite them then that's a failure on your part as a GM, not the concept of flaws for XP.
>Arbitration is the GM's job
The problem is that you don't solve the issue of "bribing the players," it's just now the bribe isn't a sure thing. In both cases you're giving the players a means by which they can be fucked, but now there's no assurance they'll get anything for it. What if the GM decides not to give me anything for roleplaying my one eye? You're still giving them stuff for having flaws, but now they aren't 100% sure they're actually going to get stuff so why would they?
Additionally, the idea of flaws being something only the players bring into play doesn't sit well with me, and I also don't like the idea of the GM going "You're getting fucked for your flaw, but I'm also giving you bonuses later because your flaw is happening." Then it's just the GM throwing around modifiers.
>>43972204
Use option A and require every PC takes -X points worth of flaws. It's a campaign requirement, no points for you.
PCs have flaws. It's not a mechanical reward/bribe. The flaws, often having hardcoded rules, aren't just ignorable. Making everyone take the same value of flaws keeps people from trying to pass off "has swanky colored hair" as a flaw with the same depth and drawback as guilt complex, a phobia, etc.
>>43972204
Find good players.
>>43976084
I had a longer counterargument to this post but I think I'll summarize it with the following:
You should play flawed characters because you enjoy the character, not because you get bonus points to optimize your build. Explicit mechanics for disadvantages are problematic because it allows players to take disadvantages that don't matter and use the points to improve qualities that DO matter. Players invoking character flaws to hinder their own characters is great roleplaying when used in moderation. Good GMs should reward good roleplaying, and to place restrictions on how and when GMs reward or don't reward roleplaying hinders their freedom significantly and 'gamifies' the roleplaying process.
>>43973653
It implies you can reward people for being good, not that the people require the reward to be good.
>>43972204
You're implying that experience points are a system that makes sense in the first place. Most game systems are simply abstracts used encourage certain behaviours. Hit Points for example, serve play by controlling the overall pace of a fight, despite not really making any sense.
That's not so different from encouraging certain roleplay decisions with experience bonuses. It's a concept that can be implemented poorly or effectively, but the concept itself isn't inherently bad.
>>43972204
Just make an atmosphere where players trust you not to dick them over because they aren't super optimized.
Power gaming is about insecurity. Players need to know showing weakness won't result in getting eaten alive.
>>43972204
I played the Dresden Files RPG once. Contrived bribery for players to roleplay their flaws is pretty core to it. When a character roleplays their flaws, you give them a fate point which they may spend at a later time to invoke the flaw of an enemy or one of their own positive traits to help with rolls.
The way GURPS does it is still the best. You get points at chargen for taking flaws, because they reduce your character's mechanical efficacy.
However, if you don't RP your flaws, you get no or very limited pints per session. And, if you take quirks too far, the GM may require you to upgrade them to Odious Personal Habits.
My DM's homebrew system makes people take some flaw, then docks experience gained if you act against it(like, my flaw is "Strong sense of justice, refuses to attack the innocent." Cue us invading a goblin cave, but being all sneaky, until we found a stolen coin-pouch, outing them as dirty thieves we were free to slaughter at will).
>>43976314
>Explicit mechanics for disadvantages are problematic because it allows players to take disadvantages that don't matter and use the points to improve qualities that DO matter.
You're the GM. Say no. Surely you make sure no one takes ranks in Knowledge: Nature in your urban campaign, why wouldn't you also make sure their flaws are relevant?
>Good GMs should reward good roleplaying, and to place restrictions on how and when GMs reward or don't reward roleplaying hinders their freedom significantly and 'gamifies' the roleplaying process.
There is no way to mechanically incentivize flaws without "gamifying" it. Even at it's base the notion of "your weakness here will make you better here for arbitrary reasons" is gamey, but even beyond that players will inevitably try to play to your expectations to earn those sweet flaw bonuses. If you don't want to "gamify" flaws, then don't tie them to mechanics.
>>43972204
You don't, because insisting people self flagellate themselves by fucking themselves over and getting nothing but hardship for it is a fast and easy way to make sure they don't fuck themselves over.
What a shocker.
>>43976879
>The way GURPS does it is still the best.
Good fucking lord, no.
>>43972204
>I want my players to roleplay
>how do I do this?
People do things because they're fun, or because they are incentivised to do so.
Therefore, you need to incentivise roleplaying, disincentivise NOT roleplaying, or find players who wish to roleplay without needing a push.
>WITHOUT a retarded bribe system
So, disincentive or screening your players.
I would go with the former - find some folks who discuss their characters strengths, weaknesses, life goals and fears/enemies with them (A SWOT analysis), and pick ones that seem like they'll be entertaining to hear and see.
Alternately you can disincentivise not roleplaying by being dismissive of people without interesting issues or personalities, for example ignoring the all powerful wizard holed up scribing scrolls in favour of the bard's chasing of the beautiful yet out of reach princess.
As an extreme measure, you can disincentivise lack of roleplaying using firearms. I find that kneecapping players has a very high negative reinforcement value in the short term though it may create deleterious issues for your game in the longer run.Blowjobs provides great positive reinforcement value if you do want to bribe.
>>43972204
If you have players who are interested in FUN they will do this themselves, sometimes.
>>43972204
a character does not need to have flaws to be roleplayed
the system itself should keep them from being mary sues
>>43981661
This. You don't need your characters to be blind schizophrenic peg-legs, you just need them to have limits. It's fine for heroes to be heroic.
>>43973653
If you trust your players to role play without you bribing them why do you need a system to force them to role play? This may be the dumbest discussion I've seen on /tg/ today.
The idea of adding "flaws" to characters as an afterthought is kind of bullshit. Flaws never exist in a vacuum, they arise from personality traits and goals that come in conflict with other characters / the game.
Loyal character? Make 'em choose between the object of their loyalty and the greater good. Flirty character? One of these days they'll accidentally seduce the governor's wife. Tough, loner character? Put them in a situation where they have to lead and convince other people. Altruistic, principled character? One day they'll get "screw you, you righteous bastard, I didn't need your 'help'!" from an NPC whose life they've accidentally fucked over.
Tl;dr: get people to play up their characters' "positive" or "distinctive" traits -- which is usually easier to do -- and then throw problems at them.
As a player I had a bad habit of min-maxing my builds a lot more than the other players in our group so my DM asked me to find some way to tone it down, so instead of stating and then building a persona, I did it in reverse.
I have my character a physical disability so I couldn't be an overpowered dps machine like I usually am and it ended up being one of my favorite characters to play. Ask your players to build around a flaw and it might work out better than bribery.
>>43972942
>greedy
If I were to encourage flaws, I'd ban any murderhobo traits as options.
>>43972204
You mindbreak them until they obey only your commands.
Tradeoffs that both work towards character definition, like the attempts made in the homebrew eclipse phase pathotronics for instance
Eg. Depression
negative: hits you with one or more symptoms; need more sleep, penalty to physical roles, or in more narrative system, depression like conditions that must be roleplayed
positive; a cynical disposition aids resistance against mind-altering attacks
>>43976314
Way too late but whatever.
Counterpoint: I would like to play a character who is good at x and y, yet the system does not allow for this - that is unless I take flaw z.
>but that's just min-maxing
x is swordfighting and y is cooking skill.
>>43973008
One of the most beloved NPC's of my group is a mute guy the players instantly liked.
The DM has to play charades whenever we ask that guy anything.
Why is it only 'roleplay' if your character has some kind of flaw that cripples him? Why is it deep and growing to force players to play something they don't want to?
Play with people who aren't shitlords.
>>43972204
>How do you make players
Stop right there. Stop thinking this way. Games are to be fun for everyone, and if you're trying to force them to do something then you suck as a GM and/or need a different group.
>>43982034
But this tampers with player's agency.
>>43972408
It's not like you have to decide between being mary-sue perfect and being a cripple.
In my experience, when people are new they go an make characters that are everything good they want. As you grow more experience you lose that innocence and realize how fake and shit that sort of "roleplay" is.
>>43989283
Eh, not necessarily. It's just the group doesn't fit him.
It's kind of a pain to GM for people who are shitlords.
I'm not saying they don't have the right to be shitlords, but it doesn't make you a bad GM to avoid them, or try to help them grow out of it.
>>43990026
Kind of how I see it as well. I'd think that it would be better to provide a number of situations where the player can play to the traits they wanted in, for them, a positive way. After doing that for awhile, you can throw a 'problem' if you like. But even after that I think you should go back to providing a more positive player/character trait scenario.
What previous anon said came across more as 'never let the player actually play his character the way he wants, make him challenge and play ways he did not want his character to play'. In the end, in my opinion, such strategies just mean that the player changes the actual personalities of the characters to fit the way the GM is making him play.
>>43989164
Saying a flaw crippled someone is calling everyone alive crippled.
If those players object to anything else other than playing perfection embodied, then one of three:
-GM gives up because he can't be asked
-GM concedes and tries to have fun, or at least endures it
-GM concedes and tries to teach/train the players slowly.
>>43989212
this
You don't need to force players to have flaws, all you need is to be smart enough to recognize when a players character has a flaw and bringing it to the forefront.
Lets say a player has a wizard and there wizard is just flawless. That character is only flawless if YOU make them flawless.
I can't tell you the number of times I have had a player who thought they had a unbeatable wizard, only to exploit that arrogance. "I am SURE that demonic artifact is completely controllable especially with your stats."
Hell the classes themselves have flaws that are easy enough to exploit and fun to RP as well.
The Paladin being at risk of falling, Barbarians being stupid, bards hitting on everything. ect.
>>43990319
>tries to teach/train
This is the part I really object to. Because the assumption that backs that up is that there is some sort of right/good fun that must be sought after as part of some true path. Bullshit.
Who the hell is this autist GM to decide he is so righteous that he must teach/train other people how to roleplay the his proper best way because flaws are the true art. More than just a bit creepy.
That GM thread?
>>43975511
>Drama folks and (to a lesser extent) writer folks tend to be better at making interesting characters who roleplay well.
Yeah but why would you ever want to willingly inflict theater kids upon yourself?
>>43991581
To avoid a case of wish-fulfillment shitty- character making
>>43991270
Not the guy you're responding to, but holy shit are you an uppity asshole.
If a group can't learn, grow and change together, challenging their ideas on who their characters are and putting themselves into the shoes of someone else, what is even the point of playing? If no one learns anything and they leave play with precisely the same attitude and opinions they had going into the game, then they've gotten nothing from it. As a GM, controlling your players is bad. Encouraging them to grow and letting them have the same effect on you is very, very good.
>>43972204
You don't. Either they understand characters are defined in many ways MORE by their flaws--the things that make them interesting--and they want to RP this out, or they don't.
To put my 2 cents in, the type of game your playing matters.
The goals, styles, and dynamics of a game can differ a lot, and there isn't a 'right' way to play, but certain types lend themselves to working with flaws in different ways.
If you're playing a combat/exploration heavy game with lots tactics, strategy, and clear enemies to be beat, people aren't going to like flaws because they make them worse at accomplishing the goals of the game.
They might grow into acting out the characters flaws if they become more invested in the story and their characters traits, but that's and investment that has to grow. The style of the game rewards playing as smart as possible.
If your playing a horror game in which character death is part of the fun, then players are likely to play up their flaws, possibly leading to their demise, because that's part of that story.
If you're playing a game more about interpersonal interaction, and growth, then flaws are something that might need an integration into the system, but you don't need to reward people for taking them, but character reward and growth will likely involve those flaws.
>>43993230
I play because I enjoy hanging out with a group of people I like and playing a fun game for a few hours every week or so. I don't really give a shit about "learning" from roleplaying, I play to relax and bullshit with people I enjoy spending time with.
Make the flaws basic as fuck
Just make the player roll a dice to resist doing it
It they fail they do it
I.E "Sadist"
If the player finds them self in a scenario that they can just hurt someone who can no longer fight back...
Even if its a little thing like rubbing the blade over the skin over and over.
