Quote from: Emperor Norton;653742I'm surprised at how much people here will rail at people for not trusting the GM to make up rulings and modifiers on the fly that are good and fun, but don't seem to trust the GM to hand out special points.

You either trust your GM or you don't. Its the same issue.

I don't think this is a binary.  

To take a parallel outside of gaming, I could trust someone as a good friend to look out for me, but still not want to let him manage all my money (for example) because I think he's a bad financial planner.  

I'm often not fond of systems which call for the GM to decide how good each player's role-playing is, and judge (for example) whether given choices were in-character or out-of-character.  In a traditional RPG, role-playing is what the player's spend 100% of their time doing.  Having the GM second-guess them is a poor use of the GM's time and attention, in my experience both as a GM and as a player.

I am fine with the GM handing out Karma points, as I trust them to hand out XP. For me the bigger issue is what the karma points are supposed to reward. Some games have criteria that are more in line with karma points as a concept than others.

Quote from: jhkim;654279In a traditional RPG, role-playing is what the player's spend 100% of their time doing.  Having the GM second-guess them is a poor use of the GM's time and attention, in my experience both as a GM and as a player.

There are no systems in which a player spends 100% of their time roleplaying, if there were it would be called RPing not RPGing. If they have a character sheet in front of them and are rolling dice, welcome to metaland. Optimal 'GM as setting and rules' systems are perforce simple, otherwise the GM would be worn down too quickly, so you sacrifice depth for the variable factor that is the GM's ability.

Let me flip this on its head - do you trust your players to look after their corner, roll the dice straight and play according to the rules? If not, why are you playing with them?

And another sacred cow dies.

Quote from: The Traveller;654283There are no systems in which a player spends 100% of their time roleplaying, if there were it would be called RPing not RPGing. If they have a character sheet in front of them and are rolling dice, welcome to metaland. Optimal 'GM as setting and rules' systems are perforce simple, otherwise the GM would be worn down too quickly, so you sacrifice depth for the variable factor that is the GM's ability.

Let me flip this on its head - do you trust your players to look after their corner, roll the dice straight and play according to the rules? If not, why are you playing with them?

And another sacred cow dies.

By 100% role-playing, I don't mean that they are 100% acting and thinking in character - rather that nearly all of their time is looking at the game events from the point of view of their character.  The point was just to contrast with the GM, who is doing lots of other things during play, so only a fraction of their attention can be devoted to tracking how each player is role-playing.  

Yes, when I am GMing, I trust my players to roll the dice straight and play according to the rules.  I don't go checking whether they've added up their modifiers correctly and so forth.  

It's from this same principle that I don't try to second-guess how they play their character.  Hence, I mildly dislike systems that suggest I should monitor and judge each players actions for how good their role-playing is and dole out points accordingly.  No big deal - I'll just usually substitute the same reward for everyone.

Quote from: jhkim;654288Hence, I mildly dislike systems that suggest I should monitor and judge each players actions for how good their role-playing is and dole out points accordingly.  No big deal - I'll just usually substitute the same reward for everyone.

I agree with this. The problem with the GM uber alles viewpoint is that even a perfectly well meaning GM might come up with two different answers to the same question on two different nights depending on how much coffee they've had, how recently they've eaten, what movie they watched yesterday and so on. Roleplaying in particular is subjective in that way. It was less a response than a general broad comment to be honest.

Quote from: jhkim;654279I don't think this is a binary.  

To take a parallel outside of gaming, I could trust someone as a good friend to look out for me, but still not want to let him manage all my money (for example) because I think he's a bad financial planner.  

I'm often not fond of systems which call for the GM to decide how good each player's role-playing is, and judge (for example) whether given choices were in-character or out-of-character.  In a traditional RPG, role-playing is what the player's spend 100% of their time doing.  Having the GM second-guess them is a poor use of the GM's time and attention, in my experience both as a GM and as a player.

I particularly dislike "xp awards for good roleply"

Why?

Because I think the player should be allowed to roleplay as they desire. (Within the bounds of acceptable behavior and goodwill among the gaming group)

I do not think the GM should be deciding if a player is roleplaying their character "Correctly"

A player not roleplaying 'enough' is a different issue.

I am also not fond of xp awards for 'doing what the gm wants you to do, or doing what the gm thinks is cool, or for amusing the gm'

I do not mind group xp awards for characters acheiving a goal the players wanted to work toward.



To me, awarding a bennie or bonus xp for being the first player to crack a good joke at the table is like a gm giving a character a magic sword for fetching a mountain dew for the gm.

I totally give xp to players for bringing snacks to the session.

While this shouldn't be the lone (or even main) thing to get xp on, I think being entertaining is massively important in a pastime that is, fundamentally, about entertainment. Not everyone is or can be entertaining because it's more complicated than just quoting Monty Python (I wish more people realised that), but people who are make it really, really fun to be around. And I am happy to reward that because all of us are enjoying ourselves.

Of course, other people are free to do it as they wish.

Quote from: Bill;654387I particularly dislike "xp awards for good roleply"

Why?

Because I think the player should be allowed to roleplay as they desire. (Within the bounds of acceptable behavior and goodwill among the gaming group)

I do not think the GM should be deciding if a player is roleplaying their character "Correctly"

This should be a group thing, not a GM only thing.

For example if a player in a GURPS campaign takes disad points for cowardice then behaves bravely in the game constantly, it should be the entire group that notices this not just the GM.

"XP" in GURPS is awarded exclusively for roleplaying. Its all about playing the character you chose to create.

I tend to award the same character points to everyone in the group rather than grade individual players on thier roleplaying. Instead, awarded character points go to buying off ignored disadvantages bit by bit. So if a player takes a disad and ends up not really playing it, then it gets bought off from earned character points instead of the player being awarded less points.

Quote from: Bill;654387I particularly dislike "xp awards for good roleply"

Why?

Because I think the player should be allowed to roleplay as they desire. (Within the bounds of acceptable behavior and goodwill among the gaming group)

I do not think the GM should be deciding if a player is roleplaying their character "Correctly"

A player not roleplaying 'enough' is a different issue.

I am also not fond of xp awards for 'doing what the gm wants you to do, or doing what the gm thinks is cool, or for amusing the gm'

and yet you hate the idea of PCs not roleplaying social interactions in keeping with the DM's interpretation

Quote from: jibbajibba;654413and yet you hate the idea of PCs not roleplaying social interactions in keeping with the DM's interpretation

? No idea what you are referencing.


My players are free to roleplay as they desire with no meddling from me.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;654396This should be a group thing, not a GM only thing.

For example if a player in a GURPS campaign takes disad points for cowardice then behaves bravely in the game constantly, it should be the entire group that notices this not just the GM.

"XP" in GURPS is awarded exclusively for roleplaying. Its all about playing the character you chose to create.

I tend to award the same character points to everyone in the group rather than grade individual players on thier roleplaying. Instead, awarded character points go to buying off ignored disadvantages bit by bit. So if a player takes a disad and ends up not really playing it, then it gets bought off from earned character points instead of the player being awarded less points.

I don't want players telling each other how to roleplay correctly either.

I agree about no points for a disadvantage that is 'not effecting gameplay'

There's nothing inherent in karma, action points, or other "extra dice" mechanics that automatically imply a "weak system"; there are of course plenty of weak systems that do use these mechanics, but there are also tons that don't.  Similarly, there's quite a few systems that are really excellent and use these kinds of mechanics.

RPGPundit