[D&D 3.5] playing amongst the wargamers - advice wanted

[Vulpinoid]

I know this isn't the way a lot of GMs like to play the game, but...

You could always minimalise the XP bonus at the end of game for those players who ignore their Aspects. It's like getting XP bonuses (and penalties) for acting in alignment (or against alignment) in other systems.

Warn the players in advance that this is what your going to start doing, and say that it's an experiment to get them thinking more about their character's personalities rather than their character's statistics. If the majority of players agree to it, then you're fine. If the players generally don't want this, then you're probably just stick with a group who want to hack-n-slash.

If the group agrees to it, then lay down a set of ground rules.

For example:
"All players write 5 Aspects (or interesting character quirks) for their characters."
"All players only get 50% of the XP they would normally get unless they incorporate their Aspects".
"Each time a player incorporates a different one of their aspects into the game, they gain an additional 10% of their earned XP."
"If a player manages to incorporate all 5 aspects into their play session, they gain all of their earned XP, and a 10% bonus."

Some players will hate the idea, other players will enjoy the challenge of working in their aspects to get that extra bonus.

I realise that this goes against what a few people have talked about in this thread, where they seem to be saying that characterisation is it's own reward. I agree that characterisation makes a game special, and this is what I go for in my games, far more than any mechanical number crunching. But there are many people who just won't go for it unless they see a specific benefit from their performance.

If the groups really starts to enjoy the aspect and characterisation challenges, you can push the rules further. Perhaps offering 25% starting XP, and 15% per aspect incorporated (with a 15% or higher bonus for using them all).

This is similar to some of the ideas that I tend to use in my regular gaming group.

V

[Valvorik]

[contracycle]

Yes inasmuch as I strongly agree with all of that.  I think the issue extends as far as generic systems too - either the system and the play are both generic, or the generic system has to be rewritten as a specific system by the end user.  This is again the double sense in which "game" refers to the system and to the event.  It's not a bad thing for the system to be consistent in the abstract realm, but it sucks when those abstractions are not solidified in the local game-at-the-table.

I understand the idea behind these things, the desire to encapsulate everything into a consistent methodology, so that everything can be measured by the same yardstick.  But IMO what it produces is so bland and colourless as to undermine the fundamental act of exploration.  We tend to make character sheets too as if they were objective psychiatric profiles rather than use them as a form of self expression.

[Chris Peterson]

Since the Aspects are ignored because they have no game mechanic, then give them one. D&D already grants the GM the leeway to +2 or -2 on any roll. If your cautious paladin wants to search the barn, give 'em +2 on their Search roll. If the cautious paladin does something risky, penalize them with a -2.

Vincent Baker discussed something like this on his "Roleplaying Theory, Hardcore: Conflict Resolution vs. Task Resolution" blog: http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html#4