# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games >  Disinterested Play

## Catullus64

I've been thinking lately about certain moments that arise from time to time in RPGs, when the player characters aren't doing anything important and stakes are minimal. In Dungeons & Dragons and its descendants, these are usually moments in towns between adventures, or while travelling between adventures if the journey is relatively safe. I tend to really enjoy these moments, when utilitarian, goal-oriented roleplay stops, and what I would call _Disinterested Play_ arises. Examples of disinterested play, for me, would be a party of PCs:

Getting drunkSinging songsTelling stories with no pointSharing mealsChatting about their lives before the adventureFalling in lovePlaying gamesPulling pranks on each otherContemplating lifeDay-to-day practicing of a religionSightseeing (going places just to see what they're like)Doing mundane and low-stakes tasks & jobsArguing about trivial things

I have found that not everybody values these undirected moments of casual roleplay in their games; they feel a relentless sense that their characters should be working towards a goal, and that anything not goal-oriented should be skipped or abstracted into the background. They get restless when these moments last for more than a minute or two. Even ostensible 'down-time' should, in such a view, be directed at goals which support the main adventure.

For me, though, I have a hard time getting emotionally invested in an RPG story, however well-constructed and well-played, if it lacks these moments. I've often remarked that RPG parties tend to feel more like work acquaintances than friends, and I think a lot of that can be laid at the absence of support for such moments in the rules and structures of a game. 

Now, it's not a mystery as to why so many games don't focus on creating such moments. Most RPGs are _action games._ Even games that de-emphasize _combat_, like, say, _Call of Cthulhu_, are still generally oriented around high-stakes scenarios with highly goal-oriented rules and gameplay rhythms. I don't object to this; I like action-oriented stories as a rule. But I do think it would behoove even the most action-oriented games to provide some structure for players and game masters to create these moments, which add strong emotional investments in the outcomes of goal-oriented gameplay. 

Problem is, that's really hard to do. Reinforcing these moments with concrete penalties and rewards just turns this kind of disinterested play back into goal-oriented play, something to be optimized or 'won.' You can see rough edges where certain games gesture incompletely towards this kind of play; the Performance skill in D&D, when it's not being used as a mechanical lever for the Bard class a la 3.5e, tends to become something of an odd man out amongst the Charisma-skills, because unlike all the others, whatever they're called, it doesn't readily present itself as being useful in most goal-oriented contexts. Rules for food & water tend to only address the extremes of starvation and dehydration. I have a co-player who complains that getting drunk in _Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay_ provides no mechanical benefit, only mechanical penalties, a design decision that only makes much sense if you think about it in a context of disinterested play.

So it's difficult for game rules and text to encourage this particular style of play. Individual players and game masters can do more to work it in, but I think there is a problem of expectations at work here: the structures of RPGs as relentlessly goal-oriented tend to reinforce goal-oriented thinking, and cause players to view disinterested play as time-wasting or unrewarding. This is the problem I leave in your lap to contemplate. Do you enjoy what I here term disinterested play? What value does it have to you? What features of game systems have you found to either encourage or discourage it?

----------


## gbaji

> So it's difficult for game rules and text to encourage this particular style of play. Individual players and game masters can do more to work it in, but I think there is a problem of expectations at work here: the structures of RPGs as relentlessly goal-oriented tend to reinforce goal-oriented thinking, and cause players to view disinterested play as time-wasting or unrewarding. This is the problem I leave in your lap to contemplate. Do you enjoy what I here term disinterested play? What value does it have to you? What features of game systems have you found to either encourage or discourage it?


Have no strong opinion either way towards the play itself. In my game, it's common for PCs who have musical abilities to play them during downtime, for example (and perform is a useful skill for gathering a few coppers to pay for your dinner while spending a night at the local tavern). But yeah, most of the "in-between" stuff is handled off table, and when there's a lull at the table, it's usually filled with a few comments about what folks are doing, and that's about it. If someone wants to do something "interesting" during these times, that's not an issue, and can sometimes lead to other things. Character engages romantically with an NPC, maybe said NPC helps them out somewhat later on. Or becomes a recurring character. Or, and I may have done this once, turns out to actually be a vampire and has an impact on a future story (this one actually lead to the vampire actually falling in love with the character, which lead him to change his plans to include her, and actually made it easier for the PCs to thwart his plans). Or something else entirely can happen. Some relevant to "action play". Some not.


Having said that, I think the reason why disinterested play gets skipped over a lot is that it's often less group oriented and more individual oriented. Many players are not comfortable "roleplaying" out social situations. Talking to someone about something related to the task at hand is about as far as they go. Trying to get an entire table to roleplay out sitting at a table and having a conversation, or sharing stories, or singing songs is difficult, and I'm not sure how much value there is. Most players are more than content with a simple "We spend the evening hanging out, singing songs, drinking ale, and swapping old war stories" and then we move on.

IME, what happens if someone wants to actually roleplay these sorts of things out, is that they monopolize the table time telling their stories, and roleplaying their character, which is a lot of fun for them and fulfills the need/desire you spoke of in terms of "getting into" the RPG. But the rest of the table is sitting there doing nothing, maybe a bit uncomfortable. And honestly, we're already sitting around a table, maybe eating food, maybe drinking beverages. Why bother with the game? We could just do that as our own selves instead. Most players play these games to play out scenarios that they can't do themselves in RL. We can all do those downtime things already. What we can't do is cast mighty spells, or take on a group of brigands with our weapons, or defeat a dragon and get its treasure. So yeah, it's not a surprise that most players want to skip the "mundane" stuff and get right to the reason they wanted to play in the first place.

YMMV, but IMO it's going to be incredibly table specific how much detail and time folks are going to be willing to spend on this.

----------


## icefractal

> Many players are not comfortable "roleplaying" out social situations. Talking to someone about something related to the task at hand is about as far as they go. Trying to get an entire table to roleplay out sitting at a table and having a conversation, or sharing stories, or singing songs is difficult


That's my experience as well.  Casual / "natural" roleplaying can be more difficult to do well than roleplaying dramatic situations, IME, because you can't fall back on tropes or wow-factor from the decisions themselves - it's all in the execution.

That said, I do like downtime / non-goal-oriented play on a conceptual level, and usually feel the lack if there's isn't any.  It's just that it's very easy for me to hit a mental block when playing them out.  Also that experiential things (seeing a beautiful vista, eating delicious food) don't come through fully when your interface is text/speaking.  

What gives the same feeling, to an extent, is low-stakes situations where there's plenty of room to goof around and the question is less "can you succeed" than "what approach do you take". Gives the characters the room to express their personality even if it's not the most effective course of action, and provides a prompt for roleplaying less intimidating than an empty stage.

----------


## Easy e

In some system, at the end of the session you hand out the rewards like Karma, XP, whatever the system uses, etc..... often times the group discusses handing out benefits for things like role-playing, best jokes/ideas throughout the session, etc. in addition to more goal oriented game play.  These discussion and hand-outs can incentivize RP and non-goal oriented play.  In these cases, players are less reluctant to engage in these _Disinterested Play_ scenarios.   

In addition, other games give some in game benefits either during play or in character creation itself that incentives creating/following the characters motivations, drives, burdens, or ties.  Again, these can create a situation where playing out these aspects of the game make more sense and help guide players to this type of play naturally.

----------


## Rynjin

With our group I've found it's best to allow these types of moments to arise naturally. Sometimes they happen, sometimes they don't, but I think every group is naturally going to have moments where players are conversing in character eventually.

Once it happens once, it's likely to happen again...so long as you don't force it, and so long as the GM doesn't forcibly END it. If the players feel like unstructured roleplaying is "off topic" they will likely stop doing it.

During these naturally occurring moments, as a GM I just step back and listen. Once there's a bit of a lull in the conversation I'll move things forward until the next natural stopping point.

Not having these moments naturally come up is not necessarily or usually a GM mistake, but it couldn't hurt to try to take a less active role as a GM in a session and just kinda see what happens.

----------


## Quertus

> Do you enjoy what I here term disinterested play? What value does it have to you? What features of game systems have you found to either encourage or discourage it?


Yes, such has value to me, as well. The best things to encourage such IMO are the GM simply presenting such scenarios, and players actively engaging in such.




> I do think it would behoove even the most action-oriented games to provide some structure for players and game masters to create these moments, which add strong emotional investments in the outcomes of goal-oriented gameplay.
> 
> Problem is, that's really hard to do. Reinforcing these moments with concrete penalties and rewards just turns this kind of disinterested play back into goal-oriented play, something to be optimized or 'won.'


Yeah, such incentives tend to detract from actual roleplaying. I prefer to play with people who roleplay for roleplayings sake.

That said, I guess the WoD end of season 1 XP for roleplaying _might_ encourage more people to think in terms of roleplaying than in terms of gaming the system. Shrug. Depends on the group, I guess.

----------


## Satinavian

> So it's difficult for game rules and text to encourage this particular style of play. Individual players and game masters can do more to work it in, but I think there is a problem of expectations at work here: the structures of RPGs as relentlessly goal-oriented tend to reinforce goal-oriented thinking, and cause players to view disinterested play as time-wasting or unrewarding. This is the problem I leave in your lap to contemplate. Do you enjoy what I here term disinterested play? What value does it have to you? What features of game systems have you found to either encourage or discourage it?


I am not sure there is much sense in trying to encourage them system wise.

Those moments either occur naturally or they don't. And if they happen, it is usually because players explore those details in, well, detail because that is interesting to them. A GM can do a bit about it with the general instruments of pacing. Most of this stuff won't happen if the main plot has an element of urgency and the players are really engaged with it. A GM can also modify the level of detail. 
Those work fine, but trying to force it will fall flat regardless. If done heavyhandedly, those nice side scenes only become boring busywork and everyone goes through the motion until the plot takes off again.
The best a system can do to make such stuff happen is to have a setting that is interesting to the players to explore beyond following the plot. Many such scenes get promted by peculiar but unimportant stuff that the PCs can interact with.

----------


## Pauly

My default setting as a player is disinterested play. Im much more interested in my characters doing cool and cinematic things than achieving victory in the scenario. I am actively following the plot and Im not doing stupid things for the lolz. Its just that arriving in style is more important to me than getting to the destination.

I used to be more hyper focussed on power curves, action efficiency and character optimization. When I was doing this I played very straight to the mission.  I cane to the realization that this style of play want actually fun for me

----------


## Phhase

Honestly, I think "disinterested" is a bit of a misnomer. Perhaps freeform? And when well done, I think it's organic moments like these that make up the scaffolding that holds up everything else and gives it life.

----------


## Jay R

You don't necessarily need anybody else to join you.  When I was playing Gwystyl, a gnome illusionist, I would occasionally use low-level spells just as potential pranks.  At one point, the party had climbed to the top of a small hill.  Gwystyl left behind a _magic mouth_, set to go off the next time somebody climbed it, which said, "if you wait up here for 24 hours of contemplation, you will learn something very important about who you really are."

He also routinely cast _prestidigitation_ at dinner, to improve the taste of the food.

I had a wizard research _Bigby's expressive single digit_ as a cantrip.

I once ran Pip, a pixie PC.  Pixies get _permanent image_ for free once a day.  He once found a narrow crack giving a view into a hollow in a large boulder.  So he cast a _permanent image_ of a large pile of gold and gems deep inside.

Pip saw a guy in town abusing a dog.  Later, Pip cast a _permanent image_ of a sleeping dog, cast over a rock, just in hopes that the guy would kick it.

For no particular reason, he once left a _permanent image_ of a moose stranded halfway up a cliff face.

Pip will also help others, but try to do it anonymously.  [This is pretty easy for somebody who is usually invisible.]  He once found a shoemaker in very poor straits, and used fabricate to make shoes out of the remaining leather the shoemaker had.  [I want to believe that in that world, the story of _The Shoemake and the Elves_ came from Pip's actions.]

My Ranger Gustav was in a party composed mainly of people from the largest city on the continent.  When anything bizarre happened, he made a point of saying, "I will never understand you city folk."  [I particularly enjoyed it doing so when it clearly had nothing to do with the city folk.]

You can do as much "disinterested play" (a poor term) as you like, as long as it doesn't interfere with the party's mission.  Just be sure that it's interesting to the people around you, since it is taking up some of their gaming time.

----------


## Catullus64

> You can do as much "disinterested play" (a poor term) as you like, as long as it doesn't interfere with the party's mission.  Just be sure that it's interesting to the people around you, since it is taking up some of their gaming time.


Well that's the real trick, ain't it? If the rest of the group isn't invested in this kind of low-stakes play, and doesn't participate in it, it will by its nature be disruptive and damage other people's fun, so there's a limit on how much you can just create this kind of play for yourself. Similarly, if the DM doesn't do anything to deliberately create space for this kind of thing, it can be very hard to indulge in it without interfering with the prepared material. 

So while it might seem counter-intuitive, I think this sort of disinterested play (a good term) needs spaces in the game to be purposefully set aside for it it it's going to flourish. A certain consensus about its value needs to be built in the group.

----------


## Bohandas

I wonder if anyone's ever made a _Seinfeld_ RPG

----------


## Tanarii

Sounds like downtime to me, not table time.

(Which seems to have been one of your points, not everyone is interested in it.)

----------


## Quertus

> Well that's the real trick, ain't it? If the rest of the group isn't invested in this kind of low-stakes play, and doesn't participate in it, it will by its nature be disruptive and damage other people's fun, so there's a limit on how much you can just create this kind of play for yourself. Similarly, if the DM doesn't do anything to deliberately create space for this kind of thing, it can be very hard to indulge in it without interfering with the prepared material. 
> 
> So while it might seem counter-intuitive, I think this sort of disinterested play (a good term) needs spaces in the game to be purposefully set aside for it it it's going to flourish. A certain consensus about its value needs to be built in the group.





> Sounds like downtime to me, not table time.
> 
> (Which seems to have been one of your points, not everyone is interested in it.)


I mean, when I have my character try to ask out the cute receptionist at the Pokémon daycare facility, or collect samples from the horrible monsters, or to try to make it to town in time for Avatar Day, its usually part of the main session. And if the group cant handle that - if their fun is damaged by someone else having fun - thats on them.

That said, I tend to try to have characters who have their own fun be less active at other times, sharing the spotlight, as it were. If you dont, its easy to see how one could mistake having a personality and caring about things with being a spotlight hog, I guess.

----------


## Jay R

> Originally Posted by Jay R
> 
> 
> You can do as much "disinterested play" (a poor term) as you like, as long as it doesn't interfere with the party's mission.  Just be sure that it's interesting to the people around you, since it is taking up some of their gaming time.
> 
> 
> Well that's the real trick, ain't it? If the rest of the group isn't invested in this kind of low-stakes play, and doesn't participate in it, it will by its nature be disruptive and damage other people's fun, ...


Not necessarily.  When Gwystyl set up a prank to get some stranger to spend all night on top of a rock, the other players thought it was funny, and they laughed.  Then we moved on.  No disruption; no damage to people's fun.  

The other players _enjoyed_ Pip casting an image of a sleeping dog over a hard rock.  Of course, that assumes that my free play will entertain them.  If it won't, then yes, it's disruptive, and I should stop doing it.  Role-playing games are inherently a cooperative venture.  My part of it should help entertain everybody.




> ...so there's a limit on how much you can just create this kind of play for yourself.


Yes, but it's pretty straightforward.  Make it interesting.  Keep it short.  Move on.  Like with any other part of an rpg, you can only hold the focus if what you do is interesting enough that they are glad they're playing.




> Similarly, if the DM doesn't do anything to deliberately create space for this kind of thing, it can be very hard to indulge in it without interfering with the prepared material.


I actually prefer for the DM not to "deliberately create space for this sort of thing".  That's like throwing people onstage with no warning and no script  and demanding that they perform.  I often can't think of anything to do.  But if the party goes into a tavern, or meets the local baroness, or camps by a stream, and I get an idea, I can make it happen.  The essence of free-play role-playing is that it is free-play.  If the DM sets it up, then it's on-demand.




> So while it might seem counter-intuitive, I think this sort of disinterested play (a good term) needs spaces in the game to be purposefully set aside for it it it's going to flourish. A certain consensus about its value needs to be built in the group.


Either I entertain people with my ideas and shenanigans, or I don't.  If I do, then that is the consensus about its value.  If I don't, then no prior consensus can help.

----------


## Satinavian

> Well that's the real trick, ain't it? If the rest of the group isn't invested in this kind of low-stakes play, and doesn't participate in it, it will by its nature be disruptive and damage other people's fun, so there's a limit on how much you can just create this kind of play for yourself. Similarly, if the DM doesn't do anything to deliberately create space for this kind of thing, it can be very hard to indulge in it without interfering with the prepared material.


If the group doesn't like this kind of play, you can't make them like it. Instead you have to give it up or searh a groups more fitting to your style.

And the Dms doesn't really have to create space. When it starts, he can just lean back until it is over, maybe occasionally portraying NPCs if those are involved or answer questions about the environment. The prepared material doesn't run away.

----------


## Tanarii

> Either I entertain people with my ideas and shenanigans, or I don't.  If I do, then that is the consensus about its value.  If I don't, then no prior consensus can help.


Shenanigans during table time aren't what's being discussed in the OP though.  It's taking table time to play out stuff that's normally during downtime, not during table time.  That's far more than a little bit of time for something entertaining during normal play time.  It entire extra scenarios the GM needs to add so this stuff can be played out, instead of being between session bookkeeping.

----------


## Catullus64

> Shenanigans during table time aren't what's being discussed in the OP though.  It's taking table time to play out stuff that's normally during downtime, not during table time.  That's far more than a little bit of time for something entertaining during normal play time.  It entire extra scenarios the GM needs to add so this stuff can be played out, instead of being between session bookkeeping.


Bingo. It also often involves the DM having to answer questions about their world, play NPCs in a manner that they may not have been expected, and pace their game such that this kind of low-stakes play still makes sense in the narrative. It's a different structure of play, rather than a dash of seasoning on goal-oriented play.

----------


## Tanarii

> Bingo. It also often involves the DM having to answer questions about their world, play NPCs in a manner that they may not have been expected, and pace their game such that this kind of low-stakes play still makes sense in the narrative. It's a different structure of play, rather than a dash of seasoning on goal-oriented play.


And just to be clear, even though it sounds like downtime to me and I wouldn't personally enjoy having to DM it nor be at a table that spent table time on it ... I don't think it's wrong for a table to want to make that stuff table time instead of downtime. 

I just personally prefer table time be reserved for goal-oriented play, as you call it.  At least as the underlying reason the scenario is being included as table time.  And if it's a sandbox world, I want the players to be focused on the primary thing driving play be creating their own goal oriented play within it.

----------


## Mechalich

Rather than 'disinterested' the OP appears to be describing 'slice of life' style roleplaying. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and slice of life tales are growing in popularity in both the fantasy and science fiction genre.

The tricky part here is that a narrative with any large amount of slice of life moments that exist purely to display some aspect of life in a fantastical world or function purely for comedy can be distracting from the overarching narrative. A common sample would be scenes of food consumption. Everyone has to eat, but generally in fiction mealtime only appears in the narrative when something important happens during the meal, usually some important conversation or interaction that either advances the plot or serves as critical character development. Slice of life moments that fail to advance the plot or characters in some way but instead simply delay the story are often regarded as filler, and for good reason (and in fact, a lot of explicit filler material devotes itself to slice of life scenarios).

The question, then, with regard to this kind of material in TTRPG campaigns, boils down to what is the campaign about? Does the inclusion of this kind of material serve a purpose in the story, or is it a distraction? This can be tricky to determine, since the ultimate goal of tabletop play is to have fun, and often 'have our characters do stupid comedy stuff' is well within the realm of fun even if it doesn't advance the story at all, especially if the campaign is being played at a fairly meta, comedic level. OOTS is a fairly good example here, actually, since the plot is largely subordinate to the joke and lengthy digressions are common (like the current strip, which is about having lunch). if by contrast, the table choses to play their epic quest (or whatever) straight, then tolerance for this sort of thing drops dramatically.

----------


## Quertus

Slice of Life scenes are great for the characters to get to know one another, to give you information to use to predict how the others will respond to suggestions like, we need to start going all Soylent Green if we want to live, or we need to starve to death to preserve our moral integrity.

Of course, thats the kind of play I prefer, gaming with roleplayers where each new party can have drastically different moral values than the last one, where feeling out and getting to know the other PCs actually matters, and where the campaign poses such dilemmas that Knowledge: party can actually matter.

----------


## Catullus64

> Rather than 'disinterested' the OP appears to be describing 'slice of life' style roleplaying. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and slice of life tales are growing in popularity in both the fantasy and science fiction genre.
> 
> The tricky part here is that a narrative with any large amount of slice of life moments that exist purely to display some aspect of life in a fantastical world or function purely for comedy can be distracting from the overarching narrative. A common sample would be scenes of food consumption. Everyone has to eat, but generally in fiction mealtime only appears in the narrative when something important happens during the meal, usually some important conversation or interaction that either advances the plot or serves as critical character development. Slice of life moments that fail to advance the plot or characters in some way but instead simply delay the story are often regarded as filler, and for good reason (and in fact, a lot of explicit filler material devotes itself to slice of life scenarios).
> 
> The question, then, with regard to this kind of material in TTRPG campaigns, boils down to what is the campaign about? Does the inclusion of this kind of material serve a purpose in the story, or is it a distraction? This can be tricky to determine, since the ultimate goal of tabletop play is to have fun, and often 'have our characters do stupid comedy stuff' is well within the realm of fun even if it doesn't advance the story at all, especially if the campaign is being played at a fairly meta, comedic level. OOTS is a fairly good example here, actually, since the plot is largely subordinate to the joke and lengthy digressions are common (like the current strip, which is about having lunch). if by contrast, the table choses to play their epic quest (or whatever) straight, then tolerance for this sort of thing drops dramatically.


Slice-of-life's not a bad analogy to use here, and shares a lot with what I'm seeking to describe and explore. The thought crossed my mind of using that term, but it's also wrapped up in genre conventions and works very much outside of TTRPGs. It's also typically used to describe a certain kind of story, and I'm not particularly interested in a whole game of disinterested play; I'm much more interested in how these moments add emotional weight to otherwise action-heavy, plot-driven games. 

I also think that having an occasional distraction from the main narrative of a game is pretty important. It provides breathing space so that tension and danger don't become exhausting, and it allows a chance to characterize and provide context to the stakes of the story. In that sense I think such moments absolutely serve the _story_ of an RPG even as they don't advance or otherwise service the _plot._ To borrow an analogy from a very popular piece of non-interactive media, _The Ember Island Players_ doesn't really serve any important role in advancing the _plot_ of _Avatar: The Last Airbender_, but that episode is actually pretty vital in allowing the audience to slow down, contemplate what's gone before, and get ready for the whirlwind of action and drama that is _Sozin's Comet_, and is thus vital to the _story._

----------


## Tanarii

I guess it depends on if you want to play a game, play a story, or play every moment of what your characters are doing. And various combinations of each.

Interestingly, it seems like those most interested in playing out downtime are doing so because they're most interested living in their characters 'lives'.  And those don't just stop because you're back in town restocking before the next expedition into the dangerous wilderness / dungeon.  Especially if they're having a blast blowing their hard earned loot carousing and living it up like an aristocrat.

In-so-far as personality based roleplaying goes, I'd much rather see what happens under stress.  How is character personality affecting decisions, and even party interpersonal interactions and group decisions, where the metal meets the meat?  And that stuff is out there in the adventure.  (Even if "out there" = an urban adventure.)

----------


## animorte

> I also think that having an occasional distraction from the main narrative of a game is pretty important. It provides breathing space so that tension and danger don't become exhausting, and it allows a chance to characterize and provide context to the stakes of the story. In that sense I think such moments absolutely serve the _story_ of an RPG even as they don't advance or otherwise service the _plot._ To borrow an analogy from a very popular piece of non-interactive media, _The Ember Island Players_ doesn't really serve any important role in advancing the _plot_ of _Avatar: The Last Airbender_, but that episode is actually pretty vital in allowing the audience to slow down, contemplate what's gone before, and get ready for the whirlwind of action and drama that is _Sozin's Comet_, and is thus vital to the _story._


Theres also the episode, _The Beach_ that this applies to. People from the opposite side, but also having their own learning experience during this downtime that doesnt particularly progress their story or goals. It still has valuable moments.

However rare they may be, I appreciate the points within a D&D game that resemble these examples. It can still be valuable in understanding how different PCs progress. Sure, thats not for everybody and the ratio is certainly in favor of active goal-oriented play. Theres nothing wrong with that.

----------


## Mechalich

See, I specifically said 'or serves as critical character development' for a reason. Actions that aren't directly related to the plot but that reveal character are important to the overall story progression. 'Slice of life' applies well to moments that just happen and don't involve much or in fact any character development (in a true slice of life series characters often begin as almost the exact people they started as). 

TTRPGs, because they are inherently collaborative, often have trouble dealing with character development, which is largely an individualized process and especially struggle to actually ensure moments that are intended to promote development actually do so as opposed to just rolling on past without achieving much of anything. A similar problem is found in filmmakers who use a lot of prompts and improve to produce scenes - then end up with tons of material that isn't actually useful. The difference is that they can simply cut it out of the final product, tabletop can't do that. This leads naturally to a preference for some level of plot to always be happening, because that way at least _something_ comes out of that period of table time. This is doubly so in low immersion games or action heavy games where the PC characters frankly, usually aren't very interesting anyway.

----------


## clash

Mechanically what I've done to encourage some of this roleplay is create a character bonding system shamelessly copied from [insert your favorite jrpg]. I use bonding points to track the relationship level of each character with every other character behind the scenes and confer minor combat bonuses when the reach certain milestones.

So far it's been working well. Characters tend to spend time growing their relationships, telling stories and having shenanigans with other teammates during downtime.

----------


## Catullus64

> Mechanically what I've done to encourage some of this roleplay is create a character bonding system shamelessly copied from [insert your favorite jrpg]. I use bonding points to track the relationship level of each character with every other character behind the scenes and confer minor combat bonuses when the reach certain milestones.
> 
> So far it's been working well. Characters tend to spend time growing their relationships, telling stories and having shenanigans with other teammates during downtime.


If it works, it works. My concern with implementing a similar system would be, aside from fears of evoking such mechanics in JRPGs, that it might therefore discourage actual, meaningful _conflict_ between PCs. I don't think it'd be my way of going about it, but it's cool to know that someone's found a way to successfully bring this kind of play to the fore.

----------


## animorte

> Mechanically what I've done to encourage some of this roleplay is create a character bonding system shamelessly copied from [insert your favorite jrpg]. I use bonding points to track the relationship level of each character with every other character behind the scenes and confer minor combat bonuses when the reach certain milestones.
> 
> So far it's been working well. Characters tend to spend time growing their relationships, telling stories and having shenanigans with other teammates during downtime.





> If it works, it works. My concern with implementing a similar system would be, aside from fears of evoking such mechanics in JRPGs, that it might therefore discourage actual, meaningful _conflict_ between PCs. I don't think it'd be my way of going about it, but it's cool to know that someone's found a way to successfully bring this kind of play to the fore.


Yes, to both of these very much so. When I got Strixhaven, they gave a really neat perspective on how to approach a living world within. Ive applied some of those concepts to my play ever since.

----------


## Easy e

I find "downtime play" really frustrating and boring, but love "disinterested play" where the players interact with each other. Confusing.  

Role-playing out a shopping trip in town?  Boring as all heck to me.  Role-playing what we are doing and talking about around the fire while resting?  Super fun.  

The difference?  No idea?  The first is basically task management with a layer of role-playing to slow task resolution down.  The second is pure role-playing and getting into character for no reason other than to be in character.  No idea why one drives me nuts and the other doesn't.

----------


## kyoryu

For this type of play, I usually "make space" in my (mostly improvised) games by using a scene/sequel structure, cribbed from writing advice.

Scene:  "I am going to do <x>, do I succeed?"
Sequel:  "With the new information I learned in the scene, what do I do now?"

By creating explicit sequels in a game, and making sure they're rooted in an actual place, you create the _environment_ for "disinterested play" to occur, without actually putting anyone on the spot.  You're allowing space without forcing it.

That spot can be a bar, camp, whatever.  It doesn't matter.  Of course, that also works better if you're less linear in your game structure, since more linear game structures usually don't have the "okay what do we do" step as that's laid out one way or another.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> If it works, it works. My concern with implementing a similar system would be, aside from fears of evoking such mechanics in JRPGs, that it might therefore discourage actual, meaningful _conflict_ between PCs. I don't think it'd be my way of going about it, but it's cool to know that someone's found a way to successfully bring this kind of play to the fore.


My bard put on a concert in a major city that included no combat and no enemy: this was good fun.  There was a reenactment of King Kong/Fay Wray (our halfling polymorphed into a giant ape) among other things.  Good time was had by all.

----------


## animorte

> My bard put on a concert in a major city that included no combat and no enemy: this was good fun.  There was a reenactment of King Kong/Fay Wray (our halfling polymorphed into a giant ape) among other things.  Good time was had by all.


We had a similar circumstance in which the Bard and Sorcerer put on a light show using various spells to make up for the fact that the fireworks display stuff was stolen. (We did a 4th of July one-shot.) We proceeded to hunt down the culprits the following morning. Fun first!

----------


## Quertus

> I guess it depends on if you want to play a game, play a story, or play every moment of what your characters are doing. And various combinations of each.
> 
> Interestingly, it seems like those most interested in playing out downtime are doing so because they're most interested living in their characters 'lives'.  And those don't just stop because you're back in town restocking before the next expedition into the dangerous wilderness / dungeon.  Especially if they're having a blast blowing their hard earned loot carousing and living it up like an aristocrat.
> 
> In-so-far as personality based roleplaying goes, I'd much rather see what happens under stress.  How is character personality affecting decisions, and even party interpersonal interactions and group decisions, where the metal meets the meat?  And that stuff is out there in the adventure.  (Even if "out there" = an urban adventure.)


Hmmm 8 kinds of fun, Expression?

Now, Im going to botch something Ive heard said on the subject: if youre normally laid-back, but one day youre angry about something, thats fine. But someone whos never met you before is likely to walk away with the impression that youre an angry person.

Or my version of that, if you want to tell the story of someone beaten at their strength, first, you must establish that its a strength, show the character succeeding at it (Kiss the Girls being my go-to example thereof).

Point is, how being forged in the fire _changes_ someone cannot be shown unless you first establish a baseline that theyre changing _from_.

And, personally, I like getting to know the other PCs, to notice when their actions are out of character.

When things get bad, and my character gets really quiet, that only means something if you know that theyre normally more outgoing. More so, if my character not making the joke you expected, and looking very serious is the first sign you have that anything is amiss (youve turned into such a fetching creature).




> Yes, to both of these very much so. When I got Strixhaven, they gave a really neat perspective on how to approach a living world within. Ive applied some of those concepts to my play ever since.


I only saw / learned this existed yesterday. What can you tell me about it? Is it worth getting? Just for the living world bit?




> I find "downtime play" really frustrating and boring, but love "disinterested play" where the players interact with each other. Confusing.  
> 
> Role-playing out a shopping trip in town?  Boring as all heck to me.  Role-playing what we are doing and talking about around the fire while resting?  Super fun.  
> 
> The difference?  No idea?  The first is basically task management with a layer of role-playing to slow task resolution down.  The second is pure role-playing and getting into character for no reason other than to be in character.  No idea why one drives me nuts and the other doesn't.


Its common enough, that X for its own sake is much more enjoyable than X as a detriment to Y, but my hobbiest interest in psychology is insufficient to give it a name.

And, while I agree with you / while my experience matches yours, I offer the counterpoint that roleplaying in combat doesnt give me negative feedback. I _suspect_ its the magnitude of the change: we could say I pay to upgrade my sword from +1 to +2, vs spending 15-30 minutes on a single player exchange. Compare to spending 30 minutes in combat, vs spending 35 minutes in combat, but with witty dialog, in-character choice of actions and the chance that combat only took 15 minutes when the foes actually agreed to surrender due to our obviously superior banter skills.  :Small Big Grin: 




> For this type of play, I usually "make space" in my (mostly improvised) games by using a scene/sequel structure, cribbed from writing advice.
> 
> Scene:  "I am going to do <x>, do I succeed?"
> Sequel:  "With the new information I learned in the scene, what do I do now?"
> 
> By creating explicit sequels in a game, and making sure they're rooted in an actual place, you create the _environment_ for "disinterested play" to occur, without actually putting anyone on the spot.  You're allowing space without forcing it.
> 
> That spot can be a bar, camp, whatever.  It doesn't matter.  Of course, that also works better if you're less linear in your game structure, since more linear game structures usually don't have the "okay what do we do" step as that's laid out one way or another.


Are you saying, reusing a setting piece can evoke roleplaying? Thats as close as I can come to interpreting what youve said, and Im not sure if Im even in the right ballpark.

----------


## kyoryu

> Are you saying, reusing a setting piece can evoke roleplaying? Thats as close as I can come to interpreting what youve said, and Im not sure if Im even in the right ballpark.


No.  I think it may help, but that's not what I was saying.

I'm saying "if you create slower spots in the game where things are more 'decide what to do' than 'do it', and make sure they explicitly take place in a location vs. kind of glossing over that, then you create a fertile ground for this type of play, if you're interested in it.  However, it doesn't force that."

GM: "Okay, you've just defeated the bandits and returned to town.  You have learned <xyz>.  What do you do now?"
Player: "Well, maybe we should...."
GM: "Okay, so where are you having this conversation?"
Player:  "Um, I guess in the tavern?"
GM:  "Okay, cool.  You're in the tavern at a corner table.  There's an _awful_ bard playing some sappy songs.  It's a fairly busy night, though, and there's a lot of traffic...."

It's a narrative lull, so nothing is on fire requiring players to DO NOW.
It's a concrete location, so there's stuff to prompt roleplay.

However, disinterested play is totally not required, and if the players just wanna talk over their plans, nothing is preventing that.  It's _actively_ supported (in that the GM is declaring stuff to prompt it or work off of, "hard edges" if you will), but it's in no way mandatory.

(Passive support would, to me, just be like letting players decide to go to the tavern if they want to.  "Requiring" would be stuff more like mechanical incentivization or even just forcing NPC interactions on them.)

----------


## animorte

> I only saw / learned this existed yesterday. What can you tell me about it? Is it worth getting? Just for the living world bit?


Most people have a concern with the power creep anything Ravnica from what Ive gathered. That aside, I personally think its worth it. I will admit Im a fan of M:tG and Harry Potter, throw them both into my favorite game and Im sold. Anyway, back on topic (sorry about that).

The system is structured to include various jobs, extracurricular activities, and NPCs that you will meet in each one. Each of those NPCs will consistently be found in their own selection of jobs and extracurriculars. They also each have a character profile that includes these things as well as the results of what type of relationship you may develop with them. They call it a bond boon/bane Here are some benefits or quite-the-opposite examples whether you are on their good or bad side.

I love the UA Influence Action and how it is developed because of this.

Weve been talking a bit about it over here.

----------


## gbaji

> Compare to spending 30 minutes in combat, vs spending 35 minutes in combat, but with witty dialog, in-character choice of actions and the chance that combat only took 15 minutes when the foes actually agreed to surrender due to our obviously superior banter skills.


Yup. Finding ways to insert PC personality bits into "action scenes" is a great idea as well. It serves to spice things up a bit, but also has the benefit (mentioned earlier, but I can't remember by whom) that it establishes what "normal" is for a character in such a situation also, which might just be useful when/if some mind affecting spells are in use at some point. Yeah, bit more mechanical than true "out of action" situations, but still valuable and fun IMO.

Your comment reminded me of a recent scenario where I was playing basically a roguish character whose religion is all about "being stylish" in an Errol Flynn kind of way (dashing swordsman type of thing).  And yes, he actually has a "banter" skill. He was in a group of mixed power levels (something we do in our game), and while decently skilled, was definitely down near the bottom in terms of actual combat power level. Light (but stylish!) armor, using a rapier and main gauche for weapons. And we ran into the main baddie, who was a Wyrm. Er... Yeah. Even with someone else casting a decent protective spell on him, he was basically getting wiped by the occasional breath weapon, and more or less had zero chance of doing anything useful. After bravely trying to advance with the group, and getting hit with an attack that knocked him back to the starting point (we use reach rules, so some large critters like giants and dragonish things can often hit you for several rounds before you can work your way close enough to attack. Add in knockback rules, and attacking things like this can be a huge deal), I realized he was completely out of any healing, had fallen far behind everyone else, and would basically die if he continued.

So he "bravely" took cover behind a wall (right next to someone's cat familiar who sensibly didn't even go into the room - yes, I'm dumber than a cat), and spent the rest of the battle occasionally casting some endurance boosting spells on folks (breath attack also drained fatigue) and made absolutely certain to roleplay the heck out of him "encouraging" everyone in the battle. Basically did a running dialogue of the battle, complete with "oohs, and ahhhs" as people got clawed, bitten, and tailed(?) and otherwise whacked and tossed around, shouting encouragement the whole time. It was amazingly fun, despite having very little actual effect on the battle. The rest of the group had fun as well, laughing along the way.

So yeah, any opportunity to get a bit of "fun roleplay" in there helps IMO. My rule of thumb is that if I can't do anything effective in a round, roleplay your character being ineffective to the hilts. You know, just to remind the rest of the party that you are still there. Might come in handy when treasure divvying is happening. Or something. "Wait. Don't you remember how I single handedly instilled fighting spirit and bravery into the rest of the party during the battle? Why, if it wasn't for me helping direct the battle, we surely would have lost!"




> GM: "Okay, you've just defeated the bandits and returned to town.  You have learned <xyz>.  What do you do now?"
> Player: "Well, maybe we should...."
> GM: "Okay, so where are you having this conversation?"
> Player:  "Um, I guess in the tavern?"
> GM:  "Okay, cool.  You're in the tavern at a corner table.  There's an _awful_ bard playing some sappy songs.  It's a fairly busy night, though, and there's a lot of traffic...."
> 
> It's a narrative lull, so nothing is on fire requiring players to DO NOW.
> It's a concrete location, so there's stuff to prompt roleplay.


Yup. That's a great idea. Give's players an opportunity to do some RP, without pushing it on them if they don't feel like it. IME, there are typically some players who love to take opportunities to do this sort of RP, and others who are always like "Let's get on to the next thing". This allows the former to kinda sneak some of that in, under cover of "we're discussing our plans".  So serious folks can go back and forth on the next plans, while the RP folks can talk about whatever else they want to do while hanging out in the tavern.

Though, with my regular group, it's a tossup between whether they'll boot the local bard and take over the nights entertainment, or just decide to start a rip raging barfight. Or both!

And, at the risk of dipping back into "on focus" play, these situations can also be a great way as a GM to drop in "things for players to pursue". Don't want to do it all the time, otherwise the players will come to expect that "if we sit in a bar and play it out, something plot significant will happen", but I've been known to just roll with whatever the players decide to do and create some small little thing right on the spot from time to time. Maybe they spot a couple having an argument. If they intervene, maybe one of them decides to carry a grudge (and make up who/what that may involve). Perhaps they overhear the equivalent of Mr. Pink, Brown, and Blonde sitting around planning a heist. Or they notice the local protection payment pickup going on. None of these require the PCs to get involved at all, but they could choose to do so.

And just to nullify this trope, I once had my party traveling through an otherwise uninteresting portion of a kingdom, where "nothing interesting is happening". So basically, they'd travel along the road, occasionally seeing other folks, but always just "normal folks doing normal things". And they'd stay at an Inn, but it was just a regular Inn with regular people. Made a huge point of "nothing interesting is happening". Oh... they tried to make interesting things happen, or discover interesting things, overhear interesting things, etc. But to no avail! It was actually fun having them roleplay in an environment where everything was just bland and boring, where the most interesting conversations were about the weather. And yes, after a point, they too started roleplaying how bland and boring everything was (pretty sure there was a chorus of Eeyore voice play going on at one point). I even invented a chain of Inns that were all exactly identical (and boring), just to mess with them more. To this day they still talk about "that boring area of <whatever kingdom>. Let's never go there again!", all while laughing about it.

----------


## animorte

> Yup. Finding ways to insert PC personality bits into "action scenes" is a great idea as well. It serves to spice things up a bit, but also has the benefit (mentioned earlier, but I can't remember by whom) that it establishes what "normal" is for a character in such a situation also, which might just be useful when/if some mind affecting spells are in use at some point. Yeah, bit more mechanical than true "out of action" situations, but still valuable and fun IMO.


Absolutely. I like seeing several people with experiences trying to incorporate their characters personality and motivation into the active parts of the game.

----------


## Sparky McDibben

As others have pointed out, "disinterested" isn't the best term. I think what you're going for is "free play." If you have some time (and haven't already seen it), I'd recommend this video from Folding Ideas. 

The relevant bits are from 1:34 to 18:00, but the whole video is frankly worth watching as a discussion of play priorities and gaming aids.

Now that the semantics are out of the way, I _love_ these scenes! Both in media and in gaming, they are some of my favorite scenes. I find them vital for characterization, audience engagement (the PCs in any non-streamed game), and establishing stakes. 

I'll point out that I tried to make space for this exact thing in my sci-fi pointcrawl. Relevant thread here. It did not go well; one of the commenters on that other thread (and on this one) mentioned that without very specific prompts, free play is very hard to roleplay. I think that if you want these scenes, you really, _really_ need to lay the groundwork. Unless one of your players is willing to step up and have a scene together with another character, turning the PCs loose for free play typically results in them staring at you, unsure of what to do next. 

*Spoiler: Wild Speculation*
Show

I'm fully theorizing (as I've never been able to pull this off heretofore), but laying the groundwork in this context is dependent on what kind of scene you're looking to have.

Do you want two PCs to have a scene and establish a bond? Might want to lay some groundwork by highlighting key background elements and letting the PCs know (outside of the game) that it's completely OK if they want to pull another player into a quick scene. For example, if you know that they have a connection via backstory, bring that up during play, then give them the opportunity to have that scene later on. 

If the players don't take the bait, that's fine; they've just let you know that free play isn't something they're interested in.

Want them to invest in an NPC? That's even easier; the NPC can just approach the PC and have a conversation. I find that's usually easier, since waiting for players to interact with NPCs that aren't Plot Relevant (TM) can take *checks notes* never. 


I'm really interested in your experiences cultivating this kind of play, Catullus; let me know how you've pulled this off, 'cuz I need all the help I can get!

----------


## Catullus64

> I'm really interested in your experiences cultivating this kind of play, Catullus; let me know how you've pulled this off, 'cuz I need all the help I can get!


The closest I've come to having a consistent device to insert it was with my Bard/Rogue PC in a friend's 5e game. I like composing songs and poems in my spare time, so I wrote a whole bunch for this guy. Some of them were for his Bard spells, but most were just old stories, love songs, sailor's tunes, marching ditties, dirty epigrams, hymns to the setting deities. The other players were pretty much always cool with taking a break from whatever we were doing and listening to a song or poem. It really made the game feel kind of like _The Lord of the Rings._ The DM would start to ask me, in tavern or camp, if I had one to share, and it became a kind of cue for an interlude of this kind of play: the Fighter told war stories, the Cleric player invented daily rituals for his god, the Barbarian flexed his culinary muscles.

But that's hardly generalizable! Not everyone likes writing songs and poems, and not everyone is going to have the same tolerence for them being.

----------


## Mordante

> My default setting as a player is disinterested play. Im much more interested in my characters doing cool and cinematic things than achieving victory in the scenario. I am actively following the plot and Im not doing stupid things for the lolz. Its just that arriving in style is more important to me than getting to the destination.
> 
> I used to be more hyper focussed on power curves, action efficiency and character optimization. When I was doing this I played very straight to the mission.  I cane to the realization that this style of play want actually fun for me


I am exactly the same. Combat or lost of action is often boring compared to disinterested play. 

Sessions where there is almost no dice rolling can sometimes be the most memorable sessions

----------


## Mordante

> Shenanigans during table time aren't what's being discussed in the OP though.  It's taking table time to play out stuff that's normally during downtime, not during table time.  That's far more than a little bit of time for something entertaining during normal play time.  It entire extra scenarios the GM needs to add so this stuff can be played out, instead of being between session bookkeeping.


Why would things like this "normally" be regulated to downtime? Often when one player has some solo social interaction, the rest of the party can do in character things that don't required a DM. Thing like chatting to each other, cooking a meal, gardening, getting drunk together etc.

----------


## MoiMagnus

> What features of game systems have you found to either encourage or discourage it?


Having play with peoples full of "social anxiety or similar issues", I'd say that one major issues is to manage to keep enough separation between players and PCs for the players to still feel comfortable playing. A GM accepting and encouraging struggling players to rely on "narration" rather "talking", or even "third person narration" rather than "first person narration", can really help a lot.

Another point is that if players are not interested in "down-to-earth" things like sharing meals, that doesn't mean you cannot find some similar scenes that capture their interest. They might react better to cartoon-like interactions, here is a few examples at our table : 
+ one PC known to make pretty bad mistakes while being overhaul a great tactician outside of those huge blunders was immortalised in a painted portrait with him having an "Eureka !" moment while his advisors were having a facepalm.
+ another PC of royal bloodline had a very high rate of death of their bodyguard, which means that when bodyguard number 27 (or whatever its number was) actually survived a major confrontation he was generously rewarded.
+ there was a few moments where a PC and a rival NPCs were making assassination attempt against each other for fun (never serious ones)

Obviously, that's not everyone's cup of tea. But the point is that even if players found a common interest in the more technical and "game" part of the game doesn't mean they communicated and harmonised with each others what they like and expect from the "roleplay" part of the game. And there are probably tables where while an agreement can be found for the former, tastes are too different to find an agreement on the latter.

----------


## gbaji

> Why would things like this "normally" be regulated to downtime? Often when one player has some solo social interaction, the rest of the party can do in character things that don't required a DM. Thing like chatting to each other, cooking a meal, gardening, getting drunk together etc.


Because if this is done at the table, what happens more often than not is that the one player doing the solo social stuff and the GM are interacting, and the rest of the _players_ are sitting around twiddling their thumbs wondering why they bothered to drive to game night, or log in to play. It's wasting their time. Unless you really do have a table completely full of players who just love sitting around just roleplaying their characters with each other (somewhat of a unicorn scenario in my experience), the rest of the players (or at least some of them) are going to feel left out.

Players join games with GMs specifically to interact with and experience the GMs setting/adventure. That's why they signed up. As a GM, you need to be aware of this fact. They could just text each other (or zoom/skype/whatever) if they just want to interact amongst themselves. It's interaction with the GMs "world" that they're getting together to play for. The GM has to be extremely aware of this, and make any solo/offscreen stuff during play sessions very brief as a result.

If a single player wants their character to go off and do something solo that requires the GMs interaction, that's a perfect scenario for that player to contact the GM, on their own, off table, off session, and have a conversation or side session where that play is conducted and resolved. Don't take time at the table during game time for this stuff. I strongly support this sort of play as a GM, and love when my players come to me with ideas of things they want to do, or conversations they want to have, basically going off and "doing something interesting". But yeah, I ask them to contact me during off play time to deal with it. Otherwise, it's that one player monopolizing the table game time. Which is often not terribly fun for the rest of the players.

If something does come up during the game session that involves one PC interacting in some social way with an NPC or three and the GM is managing this, what I do is allow "table talk" (I actually always allow this). The rest of the players are "involved" in that they're watching the session and can talk player to player with the one actively involved. They can make suggestions (and sometimes snarkily give intentionally bad, but funny, advice) and otherwise kibitz along with the whole thing. This "involves" them, even if their own characters aren't directly involved. IMO, that's much better than just telling them to go sit by themselves and "go RP something".

----------


## Sparky McDibben

> Do you enjoy what I here term disinterested play? What value does it have to you? What features of game systems have you found to either encourage or discourage it?


Hey Catullus, have you tried anything like this?

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress...gn-bluebooking

----------


## Mordante

> Because if this is done at the table, what happens more often than not is that the one player doing the solo social stuff and the GM are interacting, and the rest of the _players_ are sitting around twiddling their thumbs wondering why they bothered to drive to game night, or log in to play. It's wasting their time. Unless you really do have a table completely full of players who just love sitting around just roleplaying their characters with each other (somewhat of a unicorn scenario in my experience), the rest of the players (or at least some of them) are going to feel left out.
> 
> Players join games with GMs specifically to interact with and experience the GMs setting/adventure. That's why they signed up. As a GM, you need to be aware of this fact. They could just text each other (or zoom/skype/whatever) if they just want to interact amongst themselves. It's interaction with the GMs "world" that they're getting together to play for. The GM has to be extremely aware of this, and make any solo/offscreen stuff during play sessions very brief as a result.
> 
> If a single player wants their character to go off and do something solo that requires the GMs interaction, that's a perfect scenario for that player to contact the GM, on their own, off table, off session, and have a conversation or side session where that play is conducted and resolved. Don't take time at the table during game time for this stuff. I strongly support this sort of play as a GM, and love when my players come to me with ideas of things they want to do, or conversations they want to have, basically going off and "doing something interesting". But yeah, I ask them to contact me during off play time to deal with it. Otherwise, it's that one player monopolizing the table game time. Which is often not terribly fun for the rest of the players.
> 
> If something does come up during the game session that involves one PC interacting in some social way with an NPC or three and the GM is managing this, what I do is allow "table talk" (I actually always allow this). The rest of the players are "involved" in that they're watching the session and can talk player to player with the one actively involved. They can make suggestions (and sometimes snarkily give intentionally bad, but funny, advice) and otherwise kibitz along with the whole thing. This "involves" them, even if their own characters aren't directly involved. IMO, that's much better than just telling them to go sit by themselves and "go RP something".


It really depends on the type of game I think. We exclusively play f2f, all of us sitting together. Not sure if any of the players in my group have/use Zoom or Skype outside of their professional environment. Currently I'm in 3 3.5 groups these are all friends groups, not sure if I would ever want to play RPGs with random strangers. All of the games are very sandbox games. The GM creates the world or setting and then it's up to the players to interact with the world. The GM can tell what is going on in the world hint at things the players can do but it it up to the players to act on them. In one group where we switch GMs once in a while the players decided they wanted to set-up a roof tile production site. To create a steady stream of income to pay for the adventures they want to do, to pay for local taxes and the personnel they have. I think we did 3 complete sessions on this, where to get clay, where to get potters, transport, design, testing.

We certainly don't have combat every session.

For me DnD is foremost an open world Role Playing Game, where characters can do what they want and the GM builds the world around them.

----------


## gbaji

Because I was responding to this statement:




> Why would things like this "normally" be regulated to downtime? Often when one player has some solo social interaction, the rest of the party can do in character things that don't required a DM. Thing like chatting to each other, cooking a meal, gardening, getting drunk together etc.


It's specific to "solo social interaction".




> It really depends on the type of game I think. We exclusively play f2f, all of us sitting together. Not sure if any of the players in my group have/use Zoom or Skype outside of their professional environment. Currently I'm in 3 3.5 groups these are all friends groups, not sure if I would ever want to play RPGs with random strangers. All of the games are very sandbox games. The GM creates the world or setting and then it's up to the players to interact with the world. The GM can tell what is going on in the world hint at things the players can do but it it up to the players to act on them. In one group where we switch GMs once in a while the players decided they wanted to set-up a roof tile production site. To create a steady stream of income to pay for the adventures they want to do, to pay for local taxes and the personnel they have. I think we did 3 complete sessions on this, where to get clay, where to get potters, transport, design, testing.


This is not solo social interaction. This is the entire table working together on something. Absolutely, that "something" does not at all have to be combat. But if something is only interacting with just one PC, and it's going to take more than a few minutes of time, it's something you should think about taking off table (or finding some way to get the rest of the players involved like I mentioned earlier).

Maybe I misinterpreted what you were talking about, but when you use the words "solo  social interaction", I think in terms of one player, playing one character (that's solo, right), off by themselves and roleplaying out a social interaction with an NPC. It could be negotiating for better terms on their tile business or something, but if that one player chooses to RP that 'In character" for an hour or so, and is in no way involving the rest of the players, then that's going to cause problems for everyone else.

Hence why I suggested keeping such intereactions either short, or to involve the other players (even if just in active table talk), so that they don't get bored. So yeah, I'm not saying disallow this play, but structure it so that it has more of a group feel and "includes" the rest of the players in some way.

What I'm tring to head off here is the occasional prima-dona type player (we've all seen this) who feels compelled to basically dramatically orate the equivalent of a couple acts from _Richard III_ every time they are roleplaying "talking to the local innkeeper about the weather" or something. That sort of color can be super fun, but it gets old old old quick. Unless the rest of the players really just enjoy watching someone else do this (and sometimes they do!), the typical reaction is increasing annoyance and a desire to "get on to the part where something actually happens". It's a balance IMO. Too little of that color makes the game feel very stiff and mechanical and the characters are just stats on a sheet. Too much? Players get tuned out. And absolutely, the balance is going to be different depending on the makeup of the table. I don't think I've ever played with two different groups where the "feel" was exactly the same in this regard.

----------

