Quote from: RPGPundit;433848Unequivocally, yes.

My real debate, frankly, is whether socially retarded players should be given extra punishment for their retardation.

In any case, RPGs being a social game, rather than trying to handicap the socially capable among us with mechanical crutches and making actual RP meaningless in the face of Swine-mechanics, we should be issuing rewards for brilliant RP, for awesome speeches, for excellent debate, in the same way Feng Shui used to give you bonuses for thinking up ways of looking cool while doing things.

The worst that could happen is that socially retarded people could feel upset and leave our hobby.  In turn, maybe socially competent people might come along to replace them, once the stench of catpiss clears the room.
So fuck it.  I say reward good social RP, and punish the bad.

RPGPundit

priceless.

Quote from: Benoist;435855He or she doesn't have to. But it works better if he or she is. Why? Because it's a role playing game.

That's not what you've put forward at this point. You and Pundit's position is that they do have to do so, otherwise their participation is flat out disallowed or penalized.  

Quote from: Benoist;435855That's not what your posts show.

Which ones? The ones where I talk about how I only had one really bad GM or the ones where I describe coming the conclusions I have based on reading GM, participating in forums and mailing lists where others aired their woes, and watching what happened at other tables? Those posts?

I know, I know - you're suggesting that because I think many GMs do a poor job and that the traditional GM-player paradigm is counterproductive that I must have been molested by GM and couldn't possibly have drawn the conclusions I have any other way.

I imagine the whole subject is a touchy one for you, having been sexually molested by a loved one as a child. You were molested, right? I mean, I'm assuming you think pedophilia, molestation, and sexual predation are bad things, right? And we know the only way you could feel as you do is if you yourself were repeatedly victimized...

Quote from: Benoist;435855I already answered.

You mean you ducked the question. I understand why.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;436117That's not what you've put forward at this point. You and Pundit's position is that they do have to do so, otherwise their participation is flat out disallowed or penalized.

Nope.

Quote from: Seanchai;436117I know, I know - you're suggesting that because I think many GMs do a poor job and that the traditional GM-player paradigm is counterproductive that I must have been molested by GM and couldn't possibly have drawn the conclusions I have any other way.

Well, that's what you're showing. But please: tell us more about your molestation by the evil GM.

Quote from: Seanchai;436117I imagine the whole subject is a touchy one for you, having been sexually molested by a loved one as a child. You were molested, right? I mean, I'm assuming you think pedophilia, molestation, and sexual predation are bad things, right? And we know the only way you could feel as you do is if you yourself were repeatedly victimized...

You're projecting, here.

Quote from: Seanchai;436117You mean you ducked the question. I understand why.

Seanchai

Nope. I answered it. You just didn't like the answer is all.

Quote from: RPGPundit;435983And DIRECTLY RELATED to what we are there to do: Roleplay.

You left out the word "game." Conspicuously. We play roleplaying games. The roleplaying element is only one aspect of what we're there to do. We're also there to play a game.

You yourself noted above the impact the game has the character, in-character actions, roleplaying, etc.. I.e., "If you have a low charisma, it will still affect your capacity in terms of reactions or persuasion rolls."

This is important because a socially inept player can contribute to the game portion of the activity even if they don't contribute as strongly to the roleplaying portion. A socially inept person can play to his or her strengths while participating in the activity by relying more on the game element - i.e., Charisma modifiers, skill rolls - than the roleplaying one.

Quote from: RPGPundit;435983Swinging a sword is not directly related, only indirectly...

You're wrong. Speaking in-character is just one element of playing a character. Demonstrably, the player needs to control the character in such a way that his or her in-game actions reflect and are in accord with the character as well.

For example, paladins don't need to just speak the truth, praise their god and godness, et al., they actually need to do good. He needs to fight honorably, accept surrender, aid the weak, and so on. These are in-game actions.

Swinging a sword is an in-game action. Picking a lock is an in-game action. Casting a spell is an in-game action. Giving a speech is an in-game action.

However, you're suggesting only one of these need be performed. (When you say roleplaying, you mean play acting.) They're all in-game actions. They can - and should - all be used in-character and to illuminate said character. But one you single out for special treatment, even though it functions just like the others.

Quote from: RPGPundit;435983So taking into account how players make SOCIAL DECISIONS is just as valid as taking into account how they make tactical decisions.

Absolutely. But decision isn't performance. Saying, "I flirt with the princess and roll an 18," is a decision with mechanics behind it. Requiring players to play act out said flirtation has nothing to do with the decision that's been made, in this case, to flirt rather than some other option.

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;436118Nope.

Yep. For example, "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."

Quote from: Benoist;436118You're projecting, here.

Did your psychologist teach you what projection meant while treating you for molestation at the hands of your uncle? Is that why you keep bringing up the bad touching doll, because that's how therapy has taught you to deal with problems? Point to a doll?

Seriously, that's your chain of logic. If you think it's bunk, stop using it.

Quote from: Benoist;436118Nope. I answered it. You just didn't like the answer is all.

Naw. I'd be happy with the answer either way, but you skipped out on answering. You decided that, despite being a direct analog of what you'd say, it wasn't applicable. Not at all sly, but definitely understandable given the alternative.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;436124Yep. For example, "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."

You should address this to Pundit, not me.

Quote from: Seanchai;436124Did your psychologist teach you what projection meant while treating you for molestation at the hands of your uncle? Is that why you keep bringing up the bad touching doll, because that's how therapy has taught you to deal with problems? Point to a doll?

Seriously, that's your chain of logic. If you think it's bunk, stop using it.

Well, you seem to be talking out of experience, so don't let me stop you.

Quote from: Seanchai;436124Naw. I'd be happy with the answer either way, but you skipped out on answering. You decided that, despite being a direct analog of what you'd say, it wasn't applicable.

"It's not applicable" is an answer. You just don't like it.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;436055priceless.

No kidding.  Like there is a line around the block at the FLGS of socially adept people just waiting for the less able to clear out so they can grab a seat at some gaming table.

The 'socially capable' people are already engaging in other activities, like watching sports and hanging out at the pub.

Quote from: StormBringer;436157The 'socially capable' people are already engaging in other activities, like watching sports and hanging out at the pub.

There are socially capable people playing role playing games, just like there are socially inept people playing them. You can enjoy watching sports, hang out at the pub and play role playing games. It's like somehow people who enjoy role playing games can't possibly enjoy other things as well, and are de facto antisocial people. Seriously, what the hell?

Quote from: Benoist;436168There are socially capable people playing role playing games, just like there are socially inept people playing them. You can enjoy watching sports, hang out at the pub and play role playing games. It's like somehow people who enjoy role playing games can't possibly enjoy other things as well, and are de facto antisocial people. Seriously, what the hell?

Exactly.  The socially 'capable' people are already playing.  There isn't a hue and cry coming from these people to get table space.  Pundit's argument is predicated on the fact that if we just get rid of these undesirables, the gaming tables will be flooded with well-adjusted people to no end.

In other words, if not for the Harijans, RPGs would be mainstream!

Quote from: StormBringer;436196Exactly.  The socially 'capable' people are already playing.  There isn't a hue and cry coming from these people to get table space.  Pundit's argument is predicated on the fact that if we just get rid of these undesirables, the gaming tables will be flooded with well-adjusted people to no end.

In other words, if not for the Harijans, RPGs would be mainstream!

Ahhh I see now. Well no, RPGs won't be mainstream anytime soon, ESPECIALLY considering new media and all the sorts of entertainment that are WAY easier and more "hip" to get into today. That's not going to get any better, honestly.

Quote from: Benoist;436128You should address this to Pundit, not me.

Do you disagree Pundit? Because the reason I'm bringing it up with you is because a) you've been agreeing with his ridiculous assertions in this thread and b) yours was the post I responded to.

If you don't at all agree with him, then there's no need to continue.

And as for Pundit, I have separate discussion with him.

Quote from: Benoist;436128"It's not applicable" is an answer.

We both know, however, that it is applicable. An overweight, out of shape player running a fighter and a shy, socially inept player running a bard are direct analogues. You tried to choose option three for a question with two options because you knew either one of them would make you look like an inconsistent ass of a DM.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;436282Do you disagree Pundit?

I'd handle it differently. It would really depend on the particular player and situation IMO. I'd encourage the player to handle it by actually role playing and not only roll, that's for sure. Why? Because it's a role playing game. But I don't think I would just handwave it and make him fail outright. I would talk about it with the player and encourage him to do better by actually playing the game.

Quote from: Seanchai;436282We both know, however, that it is applicable.

Nope. It's not.

Thanks for the clarifications Ben.!

seems to me the definition of RPG does not have much to do with talking/acting in character as a default.

here's my take on it...
Role: fictional persona etc.
Playing: the act of 'doing' ie. participating (rolling the dice is 'playing' your role though it might not be 'expressing' it much!)
Game: codefied system of interaction for relaxation/fun usually with obvious goals

Sure, speaking/acting "in character" (ie. per the att./skills etc.) adds to the experience for some and I do it as much as possible when playing and enjoy it more when others do as well. I usually play with like minded/skilled folk.. but if some don't play that way OK!
If I join a group that has less of this I may very well tone it down a bit if I want to continue in the group for other reasons.

In a large group not so much an issue if a few players interact less in character. If in a game with only 1 player then that would suck...I would not do it except to learn the mechanics of a system or to coach someone in RPing.
 
Some games encourage it some don't (just as some Trad Games say you are playing to create stories when obviously that is contentious).
I lead by example and leave it in the other players court.
As a "DM" I do not keep reiterating it at the table and would not punish anyone if that was outside their current comfort zone. Hopefully that zone gets expanded.

As I said before.
The respect of my peers, smiles of the other players and adding to the atmosphere are reward enough.
It's cool that others do it differently.
excellent thread all!

Quote from: skofflox;436301Thanks for the clarifications Ben.!

seems to me the definition of RPG does not have much to do with talking/acting in character as a default.

Totally. I agree. That's what it comes down to.

Quote from: skofflox;436301here's my take on it...
Role: fictional persona etc.
Playing: the act of 'doing' ie. participating (rolling the dice is 'playing' your role though it might not be 'expressing' it much!)
Game: codefied system of interaction for relaxation/fun usually with obvious goals

Sure, speaking/acting "in character" (ie. per the att./skills etc.) adds to the experience for some and I do it as much as possible when playing and enjoy it more when others do as well. I usually play with like minded/skilled folk.. but if some don't play that way OK!

Yeah see, I'm not seeing it that way at all. Your distinction between "role" and "playing" seems to me very weird. To me it's "role-playing" + "game." Not "role" + "playing" + "game." Thus role-playing game: a game in which you play a role. In which you engage in role-playing. If you are not playing your character, i.e. act like your character, be your character, then to me, you're not playing a role playing game.

For me, the whole idea of a role-playing game is to do something you don't do in real life.  In combat, I don't use my combat skills, I use my player's combat skills. Social skills should be used in the same way.

However, there is always that line between player knowledge/ability and character knowledge/ability.  Should military players get the advantage of their real tactical knowledge in setting up an assault even if their character is a bookworm, or should they just stay silent while the rest of the players make the plan or just rely on a skill roll?

I always tell players that they have skill specialties in real life.  If they want those specialties to manifest in their character, then their character must have the skills or backgrounds necessary for them to use their experience.  If an actor wants to have his fighter give a great rousing speech, then his character better have some oratory skill, or he's going to roll his lousy skill dice (with bonuses of course depending on what he said and how he said it).  Your character is not you.

The inverse is also true, you don't have to have any tactical skill to be able to set up a decent assault plan and if you roll mightily, the GM should fill in some things you probably forgot or didn't know.

Social skills, however, are always the hardest because they impact role-playing directly.  For some it's a roleplayingGAME and for others a ROLEPLAYINGgame, with most of us somewhere in the middle.

If some catpissman wants his character to seduce a courtesan-assassin and has the character skill to do so, let him roll.  If, however, he opens his cheeto-stained mouth to issue the creepiest and most-pathetic come-on ever known, he's going to get pithed with a stiletto.  As Peregrin said, skills should never override the stupidity of the player.

I never really have any problems in this area however, I don't play with catpissmen (and have only encountered one bonafide catpissman in 30 years of roleplaying).