It's not my fault, I am just doing what the dice say my character would do!

[Segev]

The "soft ceiling" is a bad argument because it is is similar to saying that, since seat belts don't save 100% of lives in car crashes, they introduce a ceiling in severity of crash beyond which people die more often. While potentially technically true, as presented, the argument is being used to give a false impression that seat belts make more of a problem.

Similarly, thus, a "soft ceiling" argument that any RP-aiding mechanics lead to a "ceiling" on how much you can RP geared to suggest that RP-aiding mechanics are undesirable for that reason is relying on a false impression that such mechanics make it harder to RP past a certain point than lacking them would.

That is untrue; that would be a "hard ceiling".

It is either, therefore, a useless argument which contributes nothing, or a deliberately deceptive argument meant to convince by giving an impression contrary to the truth while claiming it is "a good argument" because it's true in the useless case. And then hoping nobody notices that that defense doesn't make it valid for the falseimpression about such mechanics that this bad argument gives.

[Talakeal]

Actually I think this debate actually stems from people using the word "ceiling" (and probably floor) differently.

On one side we have it been used at a "hard ceiling", a cap that you cannot go beyond or are punished for doing so. On the other we have a "soft ceiling", which is more like a point of diminishing returns. I did a quick skim over the last little bit and the arguments on both sides seem to make sense under that light.

Ok, say a game makes you pick three personality traits and gives you a "cookie" every time you act in accordance with them.

Now, for people who would have less than three personality traits normally, this raises the floor on RP.

For people who have more than three traits normally they will have to pick three that are the most important for them. Other traits can still be used, but don't get them a "cookie", this is a form of diminishing returns, what you are describing as a "soft ceiling".

The problem, for me at least, is that when one of a character's unwritten traits conflicts with one of their written ones. In this case the character will have to choose between making a choice that they feel is true to their character or one that gets them a "cookie". If the nature of the "cookie" is a strong enough motivator they will pick it more often than not, thus providing what could be called a "hard ceiling", a point by which characters not only don't get a reward for further character development, but are actively punished for it as they do not get a reward where a simpler character would.

[Segev]

Ok, say a game makes you pick three personality traits and gives you a "cookie" every time you act in accordance with them.

Now, for people who would have less than three personality traits normally, this raises the floor on RP.

For people who have more than three traits normally they will have to pick three that are the most important for them. Other traits can still be used, but don't get them a "cookie", this is a form of diminishing returns, what you are describing as a "soft ceiling".

The problem, for me at least, is that when one of a character's unwritten traits conflicts with one of their written ones. In this case the character will have to choose between making a choice that they feel is true to their character or one that gets them a "cookie". If the nature of the "cookie" is a strong enough motivator they will pick it more often than not, thus providing what could be called a "hard ceiling", a point by which characters not only don't get a reward for further character development, but are actively punished for it as they do not get a reward where as a simpler character would.

The same is true of a character who has to choose between social traits or vices and mechanically optimal choices that don't give in to the RP aspect.

Still a net gain, but a sign that the rule isn't yet perfect. Again, just because seat belts only save lives sometimes doesn't mean they're worse than not having them.

[ComradeBear]

Ok, say a game makes you pick three personality traits and gives you a "cookie" every time you act in accordance with them.

Now, for people who would have less than three personality traits normally, this raises the floor on RP.

For people who have more than three traits normally they will have to pick three that are the most important for them. Other traits can still be used, but don't get them a "cookie", this is a form of diminishing returns, what you are describing as a "soft ceiling".

The problem, for me at least, is that when one of a character's unwritten traits conflicts with one of their written ones. In this case the character will have to choose between making a choice that they feel is true to their character or one that gets them a "cookie". If the nature of the "cookie" is a strong enough motivator they will pick it more often than not, thus providing what could be called a "hard ceiling", a point by which characters not only don't get a reward for further character development, but are actively punished for it as they do not get a reward where as a simpler character would.

Yes. And the problem there is that the system is designed really stupidly. >.>
(I'm not blaming you, since the goal is to make a worst-case scenario)

But then again, a large part of your issue with them seems to stem from the mere possibility of uneven development of characters. (Correct me if I am wrong, of course.) The way to prevent that is group-based RP rewards and players playing in good faith and honestly.
For instance, some Hexcrawl campaigns have "Did we discover something significant?" As a group RP bonus. It doesn't matter who it is who makes said discovery, everyone benefits.

Building from that base could give you a solid option that doesn't bother your even progression sensibilities.

[Talakeal]

Yes. And the problem there is that the system is designed really stupidly. >.>
(I'm not blaming you, since the goal is to make a worst-case scenario)

But then again, a large part of your issue with them seems to stem from the mere possibility of uneven development of characters. (Correct me if I am wrong, of course.) The way to prevent that is group-based RP rewards and players playing in good faith and honestly.
For instance, some Hexcrawl campaigns have "Did we discover something significant?" As a group RP bonus. It doesn't matter who it is who makes said discovery, everyone benefits.

Building from that base could give you a solid option that doesn't bother your even progression sensibilities.

Actually a worst case scenario would be one where control of your character is taken away from you and you don't even get a choice in the matter. A close second would be something where you have to spend XP in order to RP.

But yes, I always run / design games with group based XP progression and prefer to play in them when possible.

However; then you get back to the problem I was having in my OP, you are deemed a problem player if you choose to RP a character over giving into peer pressure and choosing the "optimal" choice for the group.

[Green Elf]

I personally don't agree with dice over RP. The thing that is most important is rule 0 though. RULE OF FUN! Are those mechanics fun and is your RP decision fun? Choose the one that's fun.

(D&D 1e was called "Rules For Fantastic Fantasy War Games". That may apply to your situation. It's a bit redundant though.)

[The Glyphstone]

And that's a problem with the group, not the game. Good players understand that you occasionally make sub-optimal decisions for the sake of RP.

[Segev]

And that's a problem with the group, not the game. Good players understand that you occasionally make sub-optimal decisions for the sake of RP.

Why must I be punished by the game for playing in character?

[Max_Killjoy]

Why must I be punished by the game for playing in character?

To make an extreme example... if PC's in-character response to an attack is to turn his back, is it "punishment" when the PC gets stabbed by the attacker?

[Lacco]

Why must I be punished by the game for playing in character?

I prefer games that reward playing in character.

[Hawkstar]

To make an extreme example... if PC's in-character response to an attack is to turn his back, is it "punishment" when the PC gets stabbed by the attacker?

The punishment isn't felt by him, because he's deliberately turning his back to screw over the group, instead of doing what he's supposed to be doing with his character's skills and positions. Because this jackass decided to 'turn his back' (instead of Power Attacking the threat, Turtling and providing protection for the rest of the party, or shifting away then casting a control spell) "Because that's what his character would do", the rest of the party is fighting at a serious disadvantage and looking at a wipe. Because he chose to turn his back, the rest of the party got punished for it.

(The preceding paragraph is some sort of satire, but I'm not quite sure what view I'm satirizing with it, hence it's not Sarcasm nor Chief Circle)

[Cluedrew]

Why must I be punished by the game for playing in character?

I think playing a character who faces the consequences of their actions is part of the appeal for some people. I say this because the main plot hook in my group's games seem to be "Whatever stupid thing you do after the game starts." Of course that is stupid from an in-character perspective, from a game perspective they are great.

To Hawkstar: Now I wish there were formatting flags for [SARCASM] & [CHIEF_CIRCLE]... well using the parts will have to do.

[Stealth Marmot]

Why must I be punished by the game for playing in character?

If you cannot feel the consequences of having a trait, then the trait has no real weight to it.

[ComradeBear]

Segev's assertion is why many systems tend to give a carrot when a trait causes trouble. Yes, a bad outcome happens but is mitigated by getting the good thing.

One way to keep the system from becoming "screwup simulator" would be either of the following two options:
When a character's trait causes problems, the entire group gets a boon. (XP, rerolls, etc.) Include a cap so that people aren't just trying to get it as much as possible. The reason I say to provide rerolls is that once you're rolling, you aren't engaged in the fiction at the time. So if you spend one of your reroll points, you're not coming out of the fictional space to do so. You were already out of it and simply have a few seconds delay before slipping back in.

When a trait causes problems, everyone except the person with the trait gets a bump. At the very least it prevents the rest of the group from getting mad.

There is also, of course, options like the Hx stat from Apocalypse World, which allows you to gain XP by becoming emotionally tied to other characters. (Or, rather, reward others for seeking emotional ties with your character.)

[Segev]

To make an extreme example... if PC's in-character response to an attack is to turn his back, is it "punishment" when the PC gets stabbed by the attacker?

Definitely. Which is why it would be a rare character trait in reality as well as games. It also likely is far more nuanced than any of these examples of social mechanics.

If he's doing it as a show of trust, he either already thinks it isn't a bad idea or his player is role playing that his character is fooled. Social mechanics would inform the player just how fooled his character is, and reward compliance somehow to counterbalance the risk, or punish refusal somehow to counterbalance the safety in not turning his back.

I prefer games that reward playing in character.

Indeed.

If you cannot feel the consequences of having a trait, then the trait has no real weight to it.

Consequences are not always all negative. People indulge vices which are nothing but mechanically bad for hem in most RPGs, in real life. To model the war between long term knowledge of what's good for you and short-term gratification earned by giving in to a vice, the consequences of not giving in (and of giving in) need to have as much positive to the player as they do to he character, at least relative to the longer term negatives.

[ComradeBear]

Consequences are not always all negative. People indulge vices which are nothing but mechanically bad for hem in most RPGs, in real life. To model the war between long term knowledge of what's good for you and short-term gratification earned by giving in to a vice, the consequences of not giving in (and of giving in) need to have as much positive to the player as they do to he character, at least relative to the longer term negatives.

Blades in the Dark has a great way of dealing with vices. Namely, characters accumulate Stress through their adventures. The only way to remove this stress is by indulging in that character's Vice. You have to make sure you don't overindulge, but your Vice is how you rid yourself of stress.

[Talakeal]

Blades in the Dark has a great way of dealing with vices. Namely, characters accumulate Stress through their adventures. The only way to remove this stress is by indulging in that character's Vice. You have to make sure you don't overindulge, but your Vice is how you rid yourself of stress.

What happens if you don't?

[Koo Rehtorb]

You spend stress to improve your odds on succeeding at things or resist the consequences of failing things. So if you don't clear stress you're going to be failing more than you should and will eventually take catastrophic consequences because of it.

Also if you fill up on stress you take a trauma. Four traumas and you retire.

[Talakeal]

You spend stress to improve your odds on succeeding at things or resist the consequences of failing things. So if you don't clear stress you're going to be failing more than you should and will eventually take catastrophic consequences because of it.

Also if you fill up on stress you take a trauma. Four traumas and you retire.

So I guess that is what Cluedrew would call a hard ceiling then?

[Kane0]

I play a Cleric of a god whose domain is struggle, perseverance and self improvement. His defining trait is taking on challenges just for the sake of it, but not to the point of suicide.
He's the kind of guy that would readily pick up a dagger to rush in and stab a demon, but would also sit down and discuss the best way to take on a fortress as to avoid losses.
I wonder, am I being 'that guy' when I regularly and willingly take on the greatest risk of any particular situation we find ourselves in?

[ComradeBear]

So I guess that is what Cluedrew would call a hard ceiling then?

No. Because it's not really an RP mechanic. There's a phase of the game called Downtime which takes place between jobs. You indulge your vice as a downtime activity. You don't get to indugle your vice during a job (since the job is the actual execution of a plan and should only take a few hours of in-game time. The planning and various smaller details play out during Downtime, and of course you can always spend stress to have a flashback that details how your character pre-planned for a twist that they would have anticipated, but you did not. (It is unlikely that you have the same amount of knowledge about the setting as your character does. They likely know MUCH more about it, and the flashbacks serve to help them be more competent at heists/assassinations/drug-runs than you are.)

RP doesn't really figure into the Vices in Blades in the Dark, but could be used as a basis for how to handle them better.

[Talakeal]

No. Because it's not really an RP mechanic. There's a phase of the game called Downtime which takes place between jobs. You indulge your vice as a downtime activity. You don't get to indugle your vice during a job (since the job is the actual execution of a plan and should only take a few hours of in-game time. The planning and various smaller details play out during Downtime, and of course you can always spend stress to have a flashback that details how your character pre-planned for a twist that they would have anticipated, but you did not. (It is unlikely that you have the same amount of knowledge about the setting as your character does. They likely know MUCH more about it, and the flashbacks serve to help them be more competent at heists/assassinations/drug-runs than you are.)

RP doesn't really figure into the Vices in Blades in the Dark, but could be used as a basis for how to handle them better.

No, it certainly isn't. I downloaded the rules thinking there would be something there only to find a few vague sentances, was afraid I was missing so ething, because what I saw could have replaced "indulge vice" woth "take a long rest".

Out of curiosity, can you think of an example of a game withh a good mechanical system that encourages people to RP complex characters?

[Segev]

So I guess that is what Cluedrew would call a hard ceiling then?

A hard ceiling would put a limit on how much you can role-play. This does not.

[ComradeBear]

No, it certainly isn't. I downloaded the rules thinking there would be something there only to find a few vague sentances, was afraid I was missing so ething, because what I saw could have replaced "indulge vice" woth "take a long rest".

Out of curiosity, can you think of an example of a game withh a good mechanical system that encourages people to RP complex characters?

You can't overindulge on resting. Indulging your vices involves a roll, and potential risks. Indulging your vice is a gamble.

Taking a long rest is not. I'd re-read the rules for that.


On the second note, I've had no problems with PbtA systems in general. They encourage Roleplay just fine without really limiting it. Your Playbook will determine some generals about your personality, but nothing we don't expect. The Gunlugger is definitely NOT a pacifist, for instance. The reasons should be relatively obvious from the name. Brainers tend to be creepy or weird, but the How and Why of their puculiarities are up to you. Some brainers read your mind by staring into your eyes and caressing your temples. Others might do it, as one of my Brainers did, by wrappin their arms around you and placing their cheek against your cheek.... and just waiting a while. Some are more like doctors. Nothing REQUIRES that the brainer be creepy, mind you, but that playbook does it really well.

Skinners will be manipulative. (It's the socially-saavy manipulator class, after all) but they have an option on being beautiful or beguiling or a singer or a dancer, etc. That's up to them. (I've heard of a skinner who literally did on-stage torture as their art. So it's pretty open as far as options.)

What you get rewarded for is rolling certain highlighted moves (based on choices made at the start of the session) and for interacting with other characters/trying to learn more about them. (Generally speaking. Most xp comes from these two. But there are other sources as well.)

Most of my best roleplay has come out of Apocalypse World. *shrug*

Certainly leagues beyond what I ever got out of D&D.

All the rest of my best Roleplay came from Fall of Magic, but that's barely a system at all and more of a joint storytelling venture that features dice about once or twice per session.

[Talakeal]

I haven't actually read Apocalypse world. I read the quick play rules for Dungeon World (which is a fantasy variant of Apocalypse World iirc?) and found it to be a fairly generic fantasy RPG with tighter than usual constraints, so I didn't pursue the system too deeply, but if you think it has the best RP mechanics I will take a look at it.

You can't overindulge on resting. Indulging your vices involves a roll, and potential risks. Indulging your vice is a gamble.

Taking a long rest is not. I'd re-read the rules for that.

You really like to take me to task on everything I say being absolutely literally true :p

I didn't mean that vices were mechanically identical to long rests (nor did I specify which system I was talking about; there are several where taking a long rest is indeed a gamble as there is a chance of attracting wandering monsters while sleeping or of your wounds turning septic). I just meant that there didn't seem to be a strong RP element to the vices and that they were more or less a recovery mechanic with the vice's actual nature being mostly irrelevant.

[Koo Rehtorb]

One of the best reasons to read Dungeon World is that it's one of the best "How to GM well" guides out there.

[Quertus]

A system which rewards completion of goals penalizes couch potatoes (fair enough), as well as penalizing attempts to roleplay characters who always leave things half-done (surely you've met people like this, no?).

On a different note, I, personally, don't like telling GMs what my goals are, so that I can "come by them honest".

As a simple example, one (2e D&D) campaign started with the characters being abducted from their various homeworlds. My character, Armus, collected soil samples from everyone's boots, and a single gold piece from each PC. As we encountered new characters, he continued this process. Later, he collected sand from a moving island, an angel's hair, scales and blood from several dragons, something I'll describe as a shard of a TARDIS, etc etc. When I had everything I needed, I presented my formula to the DM. Armus used his collected components to craft a not-so-cubic Cubic Gate, with each face tied to a different prime material world, so that he could get everyone home.

Personally, I would not have felt the same sense of accomplishment if the DM had been seeding my desired components throughout the campaign, knowing what I was trying to do, and how. And the same goes for anything else any of my characters have ever accomplished.

On a side note, despite my preferences, I've tried working with GMs to make certain things happen. For whatever reason, I've never had much luck trying to engineer a game with a GM. Saying that I would like X out of a game pretty well guarantees that I will not get X. So there's that.

So, the system you described penalizes certain styles of character, and certain styles of play, none of which (aside, perhaps, from the couch potato), seem inherently antithetical to to a good game.

Any reward system, by virtue of being less complex than human behavior, will display favoritism for certain play styles, and certain styles of character.

So perhaps calling it a floor and ceiling is a bit misleading. But there is a limit to how accurately one can portray their character before they run afoul of the rewards system, unless their character is perfectly in sync with the rewards system. When that reward is individual XP, this is a problem if the system really cares about equality (D&D 3.x); not so much when balance matters less (World of Darkness).

Now, if the party gets group rewards this removes the imbalance issue, at least. Everyone gets a cookie when you "do a good job" / push the button.

Personally, I prefer the idea of the group deciding what the group enjoys, and rewarding that, instead of the system hard-coding what gets rewarded. This puts the style that gets rewarded in the hands of the group, where it belongs.

Now, if role-playing is rewarded in some other way... Hmmm... Let me take this slowly.

I don't like the idea of people confusing role-playing with disadvantages, any more than I like them thinking role-playing is the talky bits, or role-playing is acting. So I don't like the idea of rewarding people (or the party) when characters' disadvantages come up in play. It feels like Pavlovian encouragement for wrong thinking.

But if everyone gets a cookie whenever Quertus casts Wall of Text, whether or not that is advantageous in the current situation, I think I'm fine with that.

If the fact that the system might penalize some in character decisions makes a ceiling, then every system that lacks social mechanics has a ceiling inherently, since "selling" another character's social influence or eve your own character's vices with nothing to mechanically enforce it nor reward/counterbalance the negatives means that the ceiling is inherent. You can push beyond it with effort, but only by playing the game part of the game deliberately worse.

This is an interesting idea. It's not the way things feel to me. Hmmm... yes, some role-playing, such as my signature wizard for whom this account is named, being tactically inept seems strictly disadvantageous. Of course, should he ever acquire a reputation based on his tactical ineptitude, his foes might start to underestimate him, not target him in combat, etc. Most parties would pay good money to not have to worry about protecting the wizard, yet Quertus could achieve that for free.

Quertus being verbose, with a penchant for large, obscure verbiage is neither inherently disadvantageous nor inherently advantageous. It is merely indicative of his particular style of communication. Similarly, different characters having distinct targeting priorities in combat is certainly role-playing, but, barring omniscient (and, perhaps even prescient) battlefield awareness, this is not necessarily significantly functionally different in play than just playing a war game.

systems that reward you for acting in a certain way for the purpose of encouraging rp will by definition discourage you from RPing in a way that falls outside of said certain way.

Agreed. This is... smarter than what I said.

Yeah, seems like you kinda became a Quertus-replacement for the discussion through agreeing with some of their arguments.

We are plural. We approve.

I tend to point out faulty logic as what it is, and will point out simple things like "making an Always/Never claim is a bad idea unless you're 100% certain there are no exceptions." Which is what you were doing. (All RP rules introduce a Floor AND a Ceiling.)

Well, by virtue of the complexity of human behavior, I am 100% certain that any rules set that correctly maps human behavior will be more complex than most gamers would care for. Similarly, any "behavior encouragement" will not encourage role-playing; rather, it will encourage a particular style of role-playing a particular style of character. I am also fairly certain that, given infinite time, you could find a simple system that I cannot find fault with, because it speaks to my particular biases. I am also 100% certain (99% certain?) that gamers have brains that are inherently by definition complex enough to model human behavior. Granted, the whole floor / ceiling bit might not be the most intuitive way to express this otherwise mathematical concept.

My Artificial Intelligence courses taught me the math, not how to translate that to a discussion about role-playing. That I'm struggling through on my own.

If you mean here "You did X behavior so here is a cookie," then yes. It will have a ceiling. But that is only one way to encourage RP among many. (Also literally the worst way.)

Sorry if you've explained this and I missed it, but what ways of encouraging role-playing are there, what do you consider best, and why?

The "soft ceiling" is a bad argument because it is is similar to saying that, since seat belts don't save 100% of lives in car crashes, they introduce a ceiling in severity of crash beyond which people die more often. While potentially technically true, as presented, the argument is being used to give a false impression that seat belts make more of a problem.

Similarly, thus, a "soft ceiling" argument that any RP-aiding mechanics lead to a "ceiling" on how much you can RP geared to suggest that RP-aiding mechanics are undesirable for that reason is relying on a false impression that such mechanics make it harder to RP past a certain point than lacking them would.

That is untrue; that would be a "hard ceiling".

It is either, therefore, a useless argument which contributes nothing, or a deliberately deceptive argument meant to convince by giving an impression contrary to the truth while claiming it is "a good argument" because it's true in the useless case. And then hoping nobody notices that that defense doesn't make it valid for the falseimpression about such mechanics that this bad argument gives.

Hmmm... To attempt to parallel... Every time I've worn a seat belt, I've died. I have come to understand, at least somewhat, why that is. I have found alternatives to seat belts that don't kill me. These alternatives have many advantages. Because some people associate seat belts with safety, they are unable to move beyond seat belts.

That's the best I can do at making that example for what I'm saying.

Ok, say a game makes you pick three personality traits and gives you a "cookie" every time you act in accordance with them.

Now, for people who would have less than three personality traits normally, this raises the floor on RP.

For people who have more than three traits normally they will have to pick three that are the most important for them. Other traits can still be used, but don't get them a "cookie", this is a form of diminishing returns, what you are describing as a "soft ceiling".

The problem, for me at least, is that when one of a character's unwritten traits conflicts with one of their written ones. In this case the character will have to choose between making a choice that they feel is true to their character or one that gets them a "cookie". If the nature of the "cookie" is a strong enough motivator they will pick it more often than not, thus providing what could be called a "hard ceiling", a point by which characters not only don't get a reward for further character development, but are actively punished for it as they do not get a reward where a simpler character would.

And this. When you reward something, you inherently detract from what is not that. When you limit your reward system to something manageable, it will inherently miss rewarding some parts of something as complex as human behavior.

[Floret]

We are plural. We approve.

Your gender is unnkown to me, and therefor you are adressed in a neutral way. But if you want to be plural, just pretend all those are Plural-"you"

A system which rewards completion of goals penalizes couch potatoes (fair enough), as well as penalizing attempts to roleplay characters who always leave things half-done (surely you've met people like this, no?).

(Note: In the following post I have reverted to what I called you out for and used "roleplaying" for... what I think is at least something close to what you are talking about, and not my own definition. Just fyi.)
I have. In some parts am one myself. I don't think I'd make a good RPG character, though. But I think there may be a different problem here again standing between us: The thing about RPGs being more than just one hobby.
And for the way I play them? I don't think "As realistic a person as possible" is, even if it might be achievable, an actually desirable goal. I find an interesting character, that can actually drive story, encounters, setting and other characters in interesting ways due to how they play off of each other much more rewarding. And for that, "As realistic a person as possible" might actually be a hindrance in some ways. "As realistic a person as possible" for me either hinders immersion or makes me revert back to "just myself, but in (insert genre)" more often than I'd like to, along with some other things I can't quite put into words. For actually playing a character, I personally strongly value the ability to "get into character" over the realism of the character itself.

Since how ever intensely I get into character, for the purposes of immersion, to play someone other than yourself? At least I personally have to be able to first reduce that character down to one central character trait, or maybe in extreme cases two or three, and then "let the character take it from there". I find it useless to develop a character in great detail before play, because they consistently develop themselves in play. Now, maybe my method is just weird (But far from self-developed).
To be fair, what results from this are characters, in the right moments indistinguishable from a real person. They might as well be real people. But they are not, they are somewhat overdrawn, which lends itself perfectly to intense character interaction. Since real, reasonable people can get somewhat boring if everyone is. No conflict if everyone constantly tries to compromise. (Alright, maybe this is more "not every real person would make for a great game character", but if we start filtering, where to stop? And why not overdraw a bit, to make the effect of the filtering just that bit greater?)
...Maybe my Roleplaying is just weird.

But with this method, one might be able to glean why I personally find no issue with such mechanics.

Well, by virtue of the complexity of human behavior, I am 100% certain that any rules set that correctly maps human behavior will be more complex than most gamers would care for. Similarly, any "behavior encouragement" will not encourage role-playing; rather, it will encourage a particular style of role-playing a particular style of character. I am also fairly certain that, given infinite time, you could find a simple system that I cannot find fault with, because it speaks to my particular biases. I am also 100% certain (99% certain?) that gamers have brains that are inherently by definition complex enough to model human behavior. Granted, the whole floor / ceiling bit might not be the most intuitive way to express this otherwise mathematical concept.

My Artificial Intelligence courses taught me the math, not how to translate that to a discussion about role-playing. That I'm struggling through on my own.

Oh, I find the terms to not be the problem, if I do not misunderstand them horribly.
But I would challenge the assumption that all gamers have brains that are complex enough to model human behaviour. This may be nitpicky, but: They are for sure complex enough to exhibit human behaviour. But to accurately simulate another person that is not "They, but in (Insert genre)"? This is a task I don't think many are up to. I know I am not, even with those characters I have literally stood in the shoes of. (For what I do instead, see above)

And this. When you reward something, you inherently detract from what is not that. When you limit your reward system to something manageable, it will inherently miss rewarding some parts of something as complex as human behavior.

Do you, though? Yeah, you elevate the rewarded thing over the things that are not the rewarded thing.
But: A player who plays the bare minimum, will be elevated by that. A player who plays somewhere above, will be unaffected, since they do appearantly, without such a system, still play a complex character. Now they are being rewarded for some parts of that, those they deem most important. I cannot see the fault in this.
I mean, by what you are saying, the "roleplaying" seems to be its own reward for you. Why complain when you get cookies for some of it?
I stand by my point of "If the system doesn't punish you for going above a certain limit, there is no actual ceiling". Everything else is player willingness to go beyond what the floor prescribes.

[Talakeal]

I stand by my point of "If the system doesn't punish you for going above a certain limit, there is no actual ceiling". Everything else is player willingness to go beyond what the floor prescribes.

The difference between withholding a reward and applying a punishment is purely semantic.

For example, in the World of Warcraft Beta they had an exhaustion penalty, where if you played too much you got half XP. People hated being "punished".

So, they halved all baseline XP rewards and then put in a "rested bonus" where you got double XP based on the amount of time you were online.

[Cluedrew]

Out of curiosity, can you think of an example of a game withh a good mechanical system that encourages people to RP complex characters?

Not really. Playing a character (as in more than a stat block) yes but in my experience they tend to be simpler games and so can only encourage so much complexity.

Still I think after you get people in the right mindset they can start progressing from there. Even other people in the group can set an example (the example can just be ignored) about how the game can be played. Attitude is important, so a system that says "'Who your character is' is more important than 'what your character is'" might be all you need.

... FATE I guess? I haven't gotten to play FATE yet but I have liked what I have seen of it.

On ... Positive vs. Negative Punishment: I think those are the terms. Anyways people do react slightly differently to applying a penalty and withholding a reward. Especially in this case when you can earn the reward and do extra for no cost, as opposed to having to stop before you get in trouble.