My only contribution to this topic would be to tread carefully with regards to peoples' comfort zones.

I game with a 6-member group that possesses 3 multi-decade gamers (myself included) who can RP til the cows come home. We use accents and gesticulations, and are prone to standing up to monologue like thespians.

Another member is new to table-topping, but has already warmed up to the RP thing and is digging in like a free buffet.

The last two are the focus of my attention here. One is a complete newbie who has social comfort issues, and the other is a new-to-tabletop nerd-grrl with similar social phobias. (sidebar: gotta love geeks/nerds/gamers, ultimate paradox of introverts and social outcasts who feel driven to pursue fundamentally social hobbies!)

These two people have a great time in most aspects of the experience, but are simply not comfortable doing voices or dialog. They stretch as much as they can, but simply can't do it, and feel uncomfortable. They contribute by understanding the situation/goals, and coming up with their characters' actions in a simple descriptive manner, ie. "I distract the guards by utilizing my natural feminine attributes. Once they are fully distracted, the rest of you can sneak by and open the side door for me when I make my way over there." No "RP" per se, but still a non-violent solution using skills and a clear character concept.

So in our D&D campaign, I had to accept that some players would do a full-on enactment of events including dialog and sometimes props, and some would simply summarize intention, goals and strategy. Neither method is wrong, and each way leads to the same conclusion.

You can't reward one style of play and punish another. Giving bonus XP/rewards to someone who naturally "acts" and offering nothing to another person who contributes in other equally valid ways only serves to reinforce bad self-esteem in social situations. This also lessens the fun factor for some players, who then feel they have to push beyond their own comfort zones so that they can get a "treat" of some kind for being the player you want them to be, and not the player they want to be.

The trick is getting those two styles of play to co-exist comfortably at the same table. Reward ideas and contribution, not the method of execution. As long as everyone contributes in some form and everyone is smiling and involved, the GM is doing their job. Don't let the RPers run table in every social encounter, and always equally praise the contributions of the whole table, provided they deserve it.

Overly simplified Example:

GM to RPer: What do you do?

RPer: Standing up from the table, I boldly proclaim that we are brave adventurers travelling all over this great land seeking treasure and the cause of freedom for all... (blah blah blah as the party tries to negotiate a fee for routing a cave full of orcs that are plaguing a village)

This goes on for a minute or two, with some dialog, until we wrap it up with an opposed skill check.

GM to non-RPer: Ok, so what are you doing while all of this is happening?

Non-RPer: I want to know if the magistrate is buying it.

GM: OK, gimme a check. *dice rolls*. Well, for the most part, you think he's sold, but you get the feeling he needs one last push.

Non-Rper: Well, then I say some stuff that appeals to his sense of family. About protecting them. Stuff about what lengths he would go to, to keep them safe. That kind of thing.

GM: OK, gimme the check you want to use for that, and let's see what happens.......

End of overly simplified example.

Both methods are used here, and both methods work just fine. However, I don't give a reward to the RPer and not the other, since both have contributed equally to the situation.

A reward for the successful negotiation could be that the magistrate offers a fee that is substantially higher than what the party was initially going to charge.

To summarize, just be aware that some people just aren't comfortable behaving a certain way, and they shouldn't be ignored or punished for it. The goal is having fun, and a good GM should be conscious of the many ways in which people go about it.

Comfort zones, man do I know what you mean (and I'm with you on your post, I agree with that stuff). A central issue with some of my current players. However, I find that stimulating them with rewards for good participation improves roleplaying, roleplaying the way I understand it.

To me, going first-person or third-person in the narrative (or a combination of the two), describing, performing or explaining, isn't such a biggy. I mean if they prefer to describe - that in itself is roleplaying in my mind, they're engaging with the role, but perhaps more as a narrator than an agent, than the character. That is still roleplaying, or it can be, as much as going full on first-person monologuing, crying, arm waving, shouting, angry voice, sad voice, standing up (and almost ruining one of my chairs and almost spilling coffee, beer and coke all over the table, ruining everyone's character sheet, etc) and declaring war, love or a good plan.

I enjoy when players go in-character, get up and show other players what they do (to whatever extent they are physically able/competent to do that), similarly I do enjoy it as much when a player narrates a scene, how his intended actions, succeeds or fails or is modified, by his roll, without ever going first-person, but going completely storyteller of his/her characters actions and the consequences.

So, if my players ask me, can I do that - I try to ask "How?" - not to be mean (although some of them do start to sweat once I ask that question), but I want them to tell me how they do it, or want to do, then I have them roll the dice, with appropriate boosts if they give me an incentive to (no not beer and chocolate, but ideas).

In this sense, to me, so called "roll players" becomes a rare type of player. Because, even if they would answer my "how?" with, "I have a talent/feat/ability" or some such nonsense, I shake my head (sometimes arrogantly, yes... I know, bad form), and ask again, but "How does your character do this?" sometimes I add like three or more examples of how the character could perform the given task. This helps motivate them too - particularly if they notice the rewards.

This also works in social encounters I find, I don't require my players to talk out every line as the character (if they find it hard or are at a loss of words, that happens a lot), if it makes sense, and their description/narration of how they want to do it is well executed and thought out, then modified by roll (I try to make the players also choose threats for their own checks) and some additional narration on their, and my, part. It works swell.

Of course there are players, and instances, where players will only go for "roll playing" against my desire and attempts to prevent it. Those players are also the ones that will always look at their character sheets and say loudly if their ranks/characteristics is average or lower, and therefore will not even attempt something, which would be in their characters nature to attempt, simply because of numbers. Number-players I call them, but I guess they're akin to "roll players": "but my player has a higher stealth score than you, I should scout ahead" ... my response is usually "say whuuut?"

*"wackydave, the dragon/hobbit/orc, stands up on his paws and asserts with full wing guestures, that this is the most informitive, and fun thread he has perused in a long long time. then hops down to the bridge of the star destroyer and swears at the schwartz! and how maybe it might be with you all if you are good little crunchy humans! and keep up the good advice, and fun examples and teach this old crusty dusty gamer a thing or two. then flies off into the sunset to eat the enterpise and it's crew. before killing all the cast members of dallas. old and new! lmao!"* ummmm thanks guys for enlightening this man on different ways to roleplay. i usually liked both the combat and story telling mode of roleplay yet it seems to me that i love etoe because of the way it is presented to the players. that they tell the story not the gm. i like that alot especially when creating campaigns and senerios for players. it tends to allow me to do fewer gaming chores and concentrate on guiding the game and allowing the players to tell me the story, i just give them the scenery. and with both old rpg'ers and new i tell them exactly that. you are writing the story. yet if all they wanna tell are war stories and dog fights i tend to allow that for awhile then throw in a senario where they cannot do battle at all ie. thier weapons are taken away. they are at a party, or their ship has broken down in space far away from an inhabited planet. etc.

edit,,, It is amazing of how people will find a way to roleplay when their characters are at mortal risk of dying from starvation, or lack of air, or something stupid, and inglorious. after all who wants to tell their friends that their character died because he/she couldn't find the control valve for the plasma fuel separation cell?

Many thanks for your compliments, wackydave. One thing I like about this community so far, is that the trolls seem to be in the minority here.

Players are amazing in general. They have a rare ability to consistently prove the adage that the "best laid plans of mice and men come to naught." [sic]

Half of my recent 4E campaign was written each session by the players because I didn't have a lot of personal time to flesh out a full adventure, or study a pre-written. Their spitballed speculations and questions about one item or conversation became the following weeks encounter, or gave me an idea of where to go. It was hilarious, and the players loved it.

So let's touch on another thing about role vs. roll players: The meta-gaming of "who has the highest *insert skill/ability/characteristic* here?"

I am finding that question all too common around my table lately, and would like some input into how to discourage that question without feeling like I'm wagging the finger all the time.

To add context, our table uses rotating GMs, and I have recently assumed the player role. So I would need some perspective on discouraging this behaviour as both a PC and a GM.

Aaaannnnndddd.....GO!

yeah! that is a toughy for me, but i guess as a player i am guilty of it too cause i want the player best equipped to have to roll for the check in question but if i am not around then the next best character should do it. and i am very guilty of both doing it as a player and allowing it to happen as a gm. as long as the group is doping the same thing. I mean they are all discussing who should fly the ship, or splice the computer. seems to me the ones who wanna fly the ship are not the ones qualified to do it. and so forth. so i have also been guilty of doing that as a gm to get the pilot in the pilots seat. but i think i need more info first like is it a discussion where one person wants to splice a computer and another character is complaining that his stats are higher so he should wait till he arrives and let him splice the computer? or is it a no one wants to do it so they discuss that they are not qualified to do it? both of those situations i would allow the computer expert walk through it with the rookie over com-link and give the rookie a boost die for that. but if not then i would make it an urgent thing that has to happen right now, or else all data will be lost, or the ship will hit an asteroid. but generally speaking characters would act like real people in the real world and would brag about their skills to their companions in the get to know each other phase so that there would be no need to know who has the highest stat for any given task.

What you're saying (I think), is that the party should come up with a good narrative reason for why they are hunting through each others' sheets to find the person with the best modifiers/ranks to perform a given task.

Cool. I think I can work with that.

My group just has a tendency to approach a situation (use knowledge-based skills for example), huddle up and compare sheets and decide that PC 'X' has the highest ranks in the most appropriate skill so they will be the PC to attempt the given challenge. There is no narrative or contextual correlation. To me, that gets into the realm of "roll-playing."

Are there any other specific "roll-playing" conundrums out there, beyond the kill it with fire/all combat all the time problems that started this thread?

Really, having "Roll players" is good. If just rolling dice is fun for them, it makes life a lot easier as a GM. Do what your players like. If this is just shooting people, do it. If this is being very overpowered and dominating in combat, then do it. If this is role playing, then do that.

I'm still very new to GMing( i have played other RPGs) but I have a bounty hunter who wants to shoot everything up. Well last week they went on a bounty looking for a swoop ganger who regularly hangs out in a Swoop gang bar. He's also a new player so he doesn't understand role playing so much. I put him in situations where he was greatly outnumbered and he knew if a fight started he wouldn't win. he slowly started picking it up and the only combat that happened was after a fellow player got the mark drunk and lured him back to the marks apartment alone where they ambushed and stunned their target in 2 rounds. The bounty hunter thoroughly enjoyed it and both players said they learned that they had more options at their disposal now.

Lots of good advice here. I'm in the same boat as you. Just moved to WA and missing my regular crew. My solution was to frankly starve myself of GMing for a while. I play occasionally at a few of the local stores and have been scouting for role players and not roll players. I've been seeking out coworkers and others who cross my path, whom may have never gamed before or were turned off to it early on, because they have only experienced roll playing. I'm just about ready to set a date and invite a bunch of people to "demo" my style of gaming. Some of them lean a little towards roll play.. but the numbers are in favor of the more imaginative types and that's what it comes down to. In my original crew we had a rules lawyer in the party, but he kept us honest and he played the combat monkey (everyone needs a Jayne now and then).. so it can work. I just seek a majority of my players to be role players.

It's taken me a little over half a year to get to this point.. but it's worth it in my opinion. I enjoy miniature tabletop battles, but it doesn't scratch that creative gaming itch... Nothing less will do for me.

As far as your crew is concerned, it sounds like things are heading in the rift direction.. some might never get into it, but others might surprise you. I at one point signed on to a 2nd ed DND game my boss was running. I blew their minds (and was mocked a little bit) for having a 3 page backstory for my character and speaking "In Character". A few never really got into it (actually threatened to quit I'd they had to role play) but a year later my boss had let me use his house to run a werewolf game. I show up he had a fire pit going in the backyard a pelt slung over his back and he was chewing on a rare steak.. I realized I had created a role-playing monster...

Best of luck to ya, glad it sounds like they are coming around, keep us appraised.