Quote from: Omnifray;435085I know at least two [very high functioning] autistic people who are perfectly decent roleplayers and more immersed and more convincing than many non-autistic people. One of them explained to me that officially autistic children are not supposed to be given fantasy books because they might have trouble telling fact from fiction (I once saw a girl with Asperger's Syndrome - who I'm not counting as one of the autistics I know - actually bite someone in a vampire-based quasi-LARP because she took the instruction to bite the girl and drink her blood a bit too literally - apparently she drew blood...). I wonder whether that tendency is connected with deep immersion on their part as adults playing RPGs. As a tendency they really throw themselves into the part. Regarding wider social graces, one of them is very charming in non-roleplay contexts and the other one certainly isn't generally charmless even if he does exhibit some interesting behaviours...

Oh yeah we're not charmless. Infact some of us are quite charismatic.

Unfortunately the only famous examples I can think of were mass muderers :S

There's a kid with PDD-NOS at my work I'd definitely NOT invite to an RPG.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;434667I may be able to give a rousing, Braveheart speech to my compatriots while my buddy just knows he should say something REALLY inspiring about not giving up...I think it's fine if that guy uses his Persuasion skill or whatever to compensate for his lack of oratory.

If you had to choose to play in a campaign in which everyone always chose the former option versus one in which everyone always chose the latter option, which game would you join?

Quote from: bombshelter13;435219If you had to choose to play in a campaign in which everyone always chose the former option versus one in which everyone always chose the latter option, which game would you join?

It probably depends on the players.

In a pinch, though, I'd say the latter. We're here to play a game, not to perform community theatre in a circle jerk.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;434667(...)I may be able to give a rousing,  Braveheart speech to my compatriots while my buddy just knows he should  say something REALLY inspiring about not giving up...I think it's fine  if that guy uses his Persuasion skill or whatever to compensate for his  lack of oratory.(...)

Quote from: bombshelter13;435219If you had to choose to play in a campaign in which everyone always chose the former option versus one in which everyone always chose the latter option, which game would you join?

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;435276It probably depends on the players.

In a pinch, though, I'd say the latter. We're here to play a game, not to perform community theatre in a circle jerk.

Yes, I'd prefer the latter and I'd actually consider the former disruptive to the game and tell the player to get to the f%#$ing  point. Furthermore, the guy delivering the speech IC would still get to make an opposed Persuasion roll to see if anybody was actually impressed enough by it; to me it seems fun and plausible that even the most... passionate speech might fail to have an effect since not everybody is equally susceptible to such political dramatics.

See in my game, the first guy, the one who makes an impassioned speech, would get to make their check at a lower difficulty number.
The second, who made a poor speech, would make their check with a higher difficulty number.

The third, who didn't make a speech at all but just said "i roll diplomacy to convince them, i make a speech", would fail automatically.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;435502See in my game, the first guy, the one who makes an impassioned speech, would get to make their check at a lower difficulty number.
The second, who made a poor speech, would make their check with a higher difficulty number.

The third, who didn't make a speech at all but just said "i roll diplomacy to convince them, i make a speech", would fail automatically.

RPGPundit

The Golden Rule of role-playing games is, 'Everyone should have fun'. How does this accomplish that?

Quote from: Tetsubo;435503The Golden Rule of role-playing games is, 'Everyone should have fun'. How does this accomplish that?

So everyone succeeding equally no matter what they do at the game table, how stupid/smart, how eloquent/annoying, etc, somehow makes it more likely that people will have fun playing the game? I'm sorry, but this, to me, is really not the case. Sounds like "everyone equal, everyone succeeds, everyone special" bullshit to me.

Quote from: Benoist;435508So somehow, everyone succeeding equally no matter what they do at the game table, how stupid/smart, how eloquent/annoying, etc, somehow makes it more likely that people will have fun playing the game? I'm sorry, but this, to me, is really not the case. Sounds like "everyone equal, everyone succeeds, everyone special" bullshit to me.

I'm not saying that. But this call by the Pundit is punishing the player for being who they are as a *person*. Some people simply can't interact like that. It isn't going to happen. This ruling harms the person playing the character. I can't agree with that.

Quote from: Tetsubo;435510I'm not saying that. But this call by the Pundit is punishing the player for being who they are as a *person*. Some people simply can't interact like that. It isn't going to happen. This ruling harms the person playing the character. I can't agree with that.

This still sounds like bullshit to me. We all are judged as persons based on what we do every single moment of every single day. If you want to succeed at eloquent tasks in a role playing game, then try to role play. What you do as a player at the game table does matter in determining the outcomes of such actions. Just play the game.

If instead you want to roll dice all game long, go play Descent.

That's my POV on the subject.

Quote from: Benoist;435511This still sounds like bullshit to me. We all are judged as persons based on what we do every single moment of every single day. If you want to succeed at eloquent tasks in a role playing game, then try to role play. What you do as a player at the game table does matter in determining the outcomes of such actions. Just play the game.

If instead you want to roll dice all game long, go play Descent.

That's my POV on the subject.

Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose the Pundit takes a similar position.
I'm out.

It's okay. I'm just going to add this: why do you think RPGers have so many stories of people getting over their shy behaviors, speech impediments, and so on? Because they actually played the game and made an effort to have fun with everybody else. They didn't get the "it's fine if you suck, you are who you are" treatment. They rose to the occasion, made a difference for themselves - and they loved the game for it.

The whole idea that if you really suck you should be cattered to by an RPG is something that really makes me cringe, personally.

Quote from: RPGPundit;435502See in my game, the first guy, the one who makes an impassioned speech, would get to make their check at a lower difficulty number.
The second, who made a poor speech, would make their check with a higher difficulty number.

The third, who didn't make a speech at all but just said "i roll diplomacy to convince them, i make a speech", would fail automatically.

RPGPundit

For myself, the third would not be an automatic fail, but would have the worst difficulty number of the three.

I'm with Tetsubo.

I do think folks who aren't naturally good at some of the more social aspects might enjoy stretching their wings, so to speak, and might also find success in those areas around the table.

But I don't think they should be required to do so if they don't feel comfortable with the idea. I don't think that one concept or paradigm of fun - being social - should dominate the table. If someone is not so social, but is playing because they enjoy solving mysteries or rolling dice or whatever, that's okay, too.

Personally, I'm not at the table for the betterment of man. I'm there to have fun with people I like. As I like them, I want them to be comfortable and to have fun. If that means they stay well within their comfort zones, shrug.

And as far as having to play characters that are like yourself, first and foremost, doesn't that defeat the purpose of roleplaying? Second, does this mean that the player needs to be able to cast spells to play a wizard? To pick locks to play a thief? To brawl to play a fighter?

Seanchai

I'm currently writing two very social heavy games. Actually scratch that. One social heavy and one PURE SOCIAL game. So long as "declare and roll" isn't the default and an attempt is made at narration and dialogue I don't mind how poor the player's social skills are. Seeing as they're both comedy games it only makes it funnier.