So, your players aren’t playing in character. Maybe they simply prefer playing in third person, which is fine in itself. But when this combines with using their character like a piece in chess, only describing their actions vaguely, and not separating player and character knowledge, it might become more than some GMs are willing to tolerate. (If this is normal for your group and you find it fun, I’m afraid this column is pretty much something you don’t need).

So, assuming you are one of said GMs, and at least some players in the group are exhibiting the above behaviour, here is what you could do. That’s the experience of my last campaign with newbies.

Your PC is not a chess piece, or I’m not interested in running a game with it

First, the problem with the “PCs are chess pieces” attitude needs solving before anything else. Personally, I make them declare motivations for their characters. They can change them, but a character is only complete and ready to play when I see them written. I also tied this with the XP system, so they had to keep the character’s motivations in mind in order to earn XP… and it’s kinda hard to keep think about the PC as a playing piece when you see him or her having desires, dreams and fears! Periodically ask them what the PC is thinking. Give them a chance for some retrospection. If you can, make them narrate something about the past of their characters. There is such a mechanic in SW (Savage Worlds), and you could totally steal it.

Also, stamp on any references to MMORPGs, even in joke. In my experience, they are indicative of the “chess piece” attitude. Explain kindly that no, there isn’t a healbot character, there is no “speak to me” button above the NPCs head. And of course, lead by example – give the NPCs some motivations, desires and mannerisms! Assuming the above helped them consider their characters as more than “avatars” in an online game, keep reading.

OOC info is not for your IC convenience

Second, we get to the meta-gaming problem. Well, here we take a page from the storytelling games, they’re rather good at bringing forth the behaviour they want! It’s only that they want you to provide story hooks and opportunities, and we want to encourage in-character roleplaying. It only means we’ve got to modify their ideas to suit a different goal, but the basic idea of using rewards and penalties is sound. However, instead of providing rewards and dishing penalties to those that don’t give you fodder for the story, do so with the people that separate the in-character and out-of-character knowledge.

I had establish a metagaming penalty in the XP. Don’t use it lightly, but when a player gives you an example of blatant meta-gaming, like going to help another character that got in trouble in another location, where they couldn’t see him or her… time to dock some XP at the end of the session. It might also be a hidden penalty – if almost everyone else is getting XP for roleplaying (which is part of the XP allocation for many games), and you aren’t…well, many people would get the hint. Of course, I also explain why you’re not getting the reward. “It’s off-set by the meta-gaming penalty” is the truth, after all.

Even more importantly… as long as they gain something by meta-gaming, people would be tempted. But if they use character knowledge, ready to suck the XP penalty, and find out what they knew is a problem wasn’t such a big deal? Maybe someone they didn’t know (or didn’t expect to get involved) helped the unconscious party member that they expected to be bleeding out? And you just missed a tough fight where the other party members had to retreat?

For the GMs that dislike stuff happening for OOC reasons: I’m one of you, so I’m not advising you to devise NPCs just to drive a lesson. But it’s not “doing it for OOC reasons”, if the NPCs have IC reasons to help! And as PCs tend to get either glory, notoriety, or both, somebody is bound to want to get them as allies.

(And believe it or not, after the above, one of my players turned from an avid meta-gamer into “the girl that reminds everybody to keep in character”. She’s also getting much more XP bonuses for good roleplaying ever since).

I attack with my sword!

And last but not least, we have the “I hit him” problem. Now, I can understand not describing your actions in combat… it bores me as a GM, but I’ve had to accept that not everybody has a keen interest in how your character is swinging, or back-flipping, or whatever.

But when the same happens in social interactions, I’m much less lenient. After all, they all know how already to interact socially!

(Yeah, I know there are exceptions in the hobby. I simply don’t invite them to our games. Or if I do, it’s because I have decided I’d drop them a few pointers, and get the group to do the same. Yes, I’ve seen people improving).

Anyway, the answer here is “stunts”. Make people describe what they’re doing. When they describe adequately, give them a small bonus, or some kind of “bennie” meta-game point. If they go above and beyond what you would expect, give them a LARGE bonus, or give the opponents a penalty. Warning, don’t just waive rolls away, unless it’s for relatively unimportant stuff! This could lead to people neglecting the skills they have OOC to spend the points elsewhere – not something you want, generally! Besides, a bonus is plenty, if you’re rolling in front of the players… and it has the advantage that even a bonus still needs to be backed up by skills. So people tend to invest in what they want the character to be good at.

(As for what is “roleplaying adequately”, I agree with John Wick’s approach, and use the “depending on their own abilities” tracker. This means the kendoka in the group has to describe a sword swing much better than the untrained guy to get the same bonus. However, he has an easier time getting a bonus to describe a seduction attempt, compared to someone who’s got an out-of-game social skills. Above all, this “levels the playing field”, so everyone can play any kind of character equally efficiently.

Of course, you could also take the other approach. Adequate description gives a standard roll, outstanding gives a small but important bonus, sub-par gives you a slight penalty, and outstandingly poor doesn’t allow a roll. It all depends on the tone you’re going for).

And with that, this month’s column is at its end. I realize many of you might have read nothing new. That’s fine; I just wanted to gather advice that has worked for me – repeatedly – in one place, so it might be useful for someone else.

Necessary Disclaimers

First, the above is assuming you’re not playing a game where using meta-game information is part and parcel of the rules. Some people like that, others don’t. This column is for those games where meta-gaming is against the spirit of the social contract, and is assuming you aren’t playing something like FATE, or PDQ. And mind you, the author of this column likes FATE a lot! He just doesn’t want to play FATE when we’re playing, say, ORE, BRP, GURPS, or Savage Worlds. Hence this column was born.

Second, someone has mentioned that there are people that roleplay naturally in character, because that’s what they’re here for. Other people don’t, and don’t care to, because it’s not part of the reason they’re in the group. You don’t need to push the “naturals”, and frankly, any attempts to make the latter to roleplay is either doomed to fail, or likely to make them enjoy the game less.

But there are also the third kind of players, that would roleplay if you could “pry them out of their shells with a good iron bar” (and right now, I wish I could remember where I’ve read this, but it’s a really apt description). These are the people this column is useful for. Or at least I hope it’s useful for them.