Quote from: Seanchai;435576To what end? The player still wouldn't be able to cast spells or pick locks.

Seanchai

To the end that a player shouldn't have to pick locks to play a thief, or cast spells to be a magic-user, but he should be able to effectively manage the class he chooses.  And guess what, if a player, through being "the person he is", does a bad job of handling the interpretation of a thief or a magic-user, the nature of the game itself will punish him.

Likewise, if you tell me you want to play a schemer of Machiavellian proportions,  or a charismatic orator of Shakespearian proportions, I don't expect you to actually end up as political advisor to a prince or to pen a classic monologue that will last through the ages, but you will damn well have to have some kind of capacity to know WHAT to say, WHEN to say it, and HOW to say it.  If you want to play a character who is loved by all, and then go around having your PC act like a dick or a boor to all and sundry, I will not let you roll a few dice to get off the hook.

RPGPundit

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;435690What if this was not about delivering a speech but about singing a piece of opera? Would you also have the players attempt a performance of that and apply difficulties to their rolls according to how well they did? That wouldn't make it very appealing for me to play, say, a talented and famous opera singer in a Cthulhu game.

I've never had someone play an opera singer in one of my games, but if they did I suppose I would be running it similarly to how I would expect to run a bard; I would want the player to be able to tell me how he is going to select and deliver his performance in order to best deal with the type of crowd he's got.

Let me use another example that isn't directly related to speech-making: in a sci-fi game, I had two different players who were both pilots.  Both were relatively quite talented mechanically speaking at their job.  Now, both of them wanted to give the impression, in game, of being "leaders", revered "ace pilots", and all-around badasses.  But one player did this by having his character take massive risks (to the point that his vehicle would regularly end up wrecked in the course of any given battle as he took on way more opposition than he could actually handle, but managing to walk away from his wreckage and having given far more than he got) coupled with this "charmer" kind of attitude and irreverence toward command, as well as being a "ladies man" and "one of the guys".
The other was extremely cautious in any danger situation, fighting very conservatively, constantly wanted to tell others that he was in charge and belt out orders (that were usually equally conservative and over-cautious), and this almost Frank Burns-ish by-the-book attitude toward rules and regulations.

They probably had, overall, similar kill counts, and player 1 certainly lost way more vehicles than player 2.  But obviously, player 2 was shocked that the one who was overall far more popular with everyone was player 1; he'd get constantly forgiven for his various pecadillos, because he always said the right things at the right time and gave the impression of being courageous; while player 2 was quick to blame and refuse to accept blame, was only tolerated by his superiors and disliked by his subordinates, and was generally seen as a bit of a pencil-pusher and a coward.  

The difference wasn't in their stats, but in the fact that player 1 actually understood how to present himself in a socially adept way while player 2 had no idea; he wanted to be revered and liked, but did nothing to accomplish it.  Note that its also not that the first one was the "bad boy" or that playing a "by-the-books" kind of guy will always lead to the sort of results player 2 had, its just that the WAY each portrayed their character led to these things.  A different player running the type of PC player 1 had would have found himself raked over the coals and seen as an incompetent blunderer, had they lacked the social adeptness to manage the huge amount of spin the guy depended on.  Whereas a different player running the "player 2" type character could have ended up being seen as a strong, dependable guy who cares about his job and his men.  

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;435750To the end that a player shouldn't have to pick locks to play a thief, or cast spells to be a magic-user, but he should be able to effectively manage the class he chooses.  And guess what, if a player, through being "the person he is", does a bad job of handling the interpretation of a thief or a magic-user, the nature of the game itself will punish him.

Likewise, if you tell me you want to play a schemer of Machiavellian proportions,  or a charismatic orator of Shakespearian proportions, I don't expect you to actually end up as political advisor to a prince or to pen a classic monologue that will last through the ages, but you will damn well have to have some kind of capacity to know WHAT to say, WHEN to say it, and HOW to say it.  If you want to play a character who is loved by all, and then go around having your PC act like a dick or a boor to all and sundry, I will not let you roll a few dice to get off the hook.

RPGPundit

But you will let a guy, say, use Charisma as a dump stat and get away with being persuasive in game because he happens to be a good orator? ('m assuming that would be the case, since you said that the guy giving the big speech would then get big bonuses to their roll)...for me (using D&D terms) having a Charisma of 8 or 10 and trying to get by on your natural charisma and/or oratory skills is at least as much of a roleplaying "sin" as playing a guy with a Charisma of 18 and relying on your die rolls to bear that concept out.

When running D&D I halve the usual xp awards for monster and treasure and then substitue it with rewards for roleplaying and good ideas. It works well for us as it really encourages the players to be switched on and looking for ways to contribute/roleplay well.  If someone is better than the rest, so be it.  They deserve to be rewarded and that in turn will hopefully inspires the others to try harder as well.

As others have said, if you are not good at improptu speaches and the like, don't play a bard (unless you want to challenge yourself).  Play to your strenghts, just like you would in any other game.

I get that approaches like this are more subjective than straight mechanical forms of task resolution and reward but the flip side is that with a good DM you can have a much more rewarding game.  Also, the rules, no matter how rigid or well enforced or constructed, can't turn a shit DM into a good one.

If you need the rules to protect you from the DM you are playing in a fucked up game.  Sorry.

I suppose the main point I am trying to make is that it in-character "acting" in games I run is usually not considered better than out-of-character description of a character's actions. I do, however, expect some involvement from the players, some colourful input, before I allow any rolling. I am fine with taking a little more time and effort to get such input from my more shy or introverted players. (Again, I am not talking about catpissman or socially obnoxious and disruptive people.)

In Pundit's example of the two pilot characters I think I would allow for the 2nd player to occasionally use his stats when convincing or persuading people displaying his obvious professional expertise (of course, still expecting a bit of the colourful input I mentioned) but not when it comes to how likable his character is to the other players. I guess that's where the influence the personality of the player has on how his character comes across takes over.


I have been in games where a player started some supposedly in-character monologue which, apart from arguably being disruptive or uninteresting, was actually highly unfitting for his character. I would not encourage this in one of my own games.

Quote from: Fiasco;435756(...)As others have said, if you are not good at improptu speaches and the like, don't play a bard (unless you want to challenge yourself).  Play to your strenghts, just like you would in any other game.(...)

This would imply that the best thing to do is create a character completely identical to yourself...

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;435783This would imply that the best thing to do is create a character completely identical to yourself...

Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar from it, in my experience. Say you've got some good analytical skills and love to solve puzzles. You also happen to be the sweetest guy around the block. You may decide to play a thief, solve traps, decipher complex puzzles and locks. Your character just happens to be one of the filthiest, most amoral guys in the party.

So, a part of who you are and what you like is syphoned into/through the character and interpreted a different way, if you will, but it is wrapped with all the other stuff that just isn't you.

Just an example.

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.

This is how I roll, too. I strive to reward player ingenuity, initiative and interest. And of course, if a good speech or clever lie gets a bonus, it's only fair a bad speech or a poorly-crafted story gets a penalty.

Quote from: RPGPundit;435502The 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.

But this I find dickish and gratuitous. If Stuttering Stan wants to play a charismatic warrior, and rouse his troops with a stirring speech before battle, just let him "play it safe" and roll the dice straight.

RPGs are not therapy. When I GM, I'm not there to help Stan overcome his stuttering, or his social awkwardness, or the mommy issues that make him stutter. This is the sort of passive-agressive bullshit I mentioned a few pages back, that tells me more about the GM's issues than the players'.

Quote from: Benoist;435649You've got an awesome way of completely misinterpreting stuff to fit your own conclusions, dude.

I haven't misrepresented a thing.

Let me ask: If an overweight, out of shape guy joined your group and wanted to play a fighter, would you a) recommend he play something else and, if he persisted, b) penalize each of his attacks because he is unable to do what he character is supposed to be doing in-game?

Quote from: Benoist;435653"Tell us where the big bad evil GM touched you."

That's your answer for everything, but at some point you're going to have to stop hiding behind such sophistry and face the reality that people don't disagree with you because they have personal problems or some terrible past.  

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPundit;435750...but you will damn well have to have some kind of capacity to know WHAT to say, WHEN to say it, and HOW to say it.

But apparently the thief player and magic user and fighter player get a pass in that regard as far as your concerned. They don't have to demonstrate that they are dexterous, willful, or physically robust.

Each of those players can use an unrelated capacity - whether that's their own intellect, descriptive ability, or facility and understand of mechanics - as an in-game substitute. In those cases, a more abstract description will suffice.

For example, not only can an out of shape gentleman who can't lift a sword much less actually direct it with any force or accuracy play a fighter, but he doesn't have to stand up, get out his practice sword, and demonstrate how he's fending off blows and landing those of his own.

But that's apparently reversed 180 degrees when we get to someone who wanted to play a diplomatic, verbal character. They get actively punished if the character's forte isn't in their own wheelhouse.

It's ridiculous and ridiculously punitive.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;435824I haven't misrepresented a thing.

Let me ask: If an overweight, out of shape guy joined your group and wanted to play a fighter, would you a) recommend he play something else and, if he persisted, b) penalize each of his attacks because he is unable to do what he character is supposed to be doing in-game?

It's a nonsensical idea. Role playing games are games you play with your mind. In the case of a fighter, what matters is your tactical smarts, your ability to use your own positioning, your allies, order your men-at-arms around, think outside the box, your ability to describe what your character does and how he does it, etc.

Dude. If you don't want to use your imagination and role play your character, you shouldn't play a role playing game in the first place. You should play some CoD, some Descent or Magic the Gathering instead.

Quote from: Seanchai;435824That's your answer for everything, but at some point you're going to have to stop hiding behind such sophistry

Right back at ya, cupcake: one of these days, you'll have to stop hiding behind your warped version of reality where every GM is out to screw the players and realize that you need to be a functional social being before playing an actual role playing game.

Quote from: Benoist;435841Role playing games are games you play with your mind.

Then why can't the player wanting to play a verbal character do the same? Why does he or she have to actually be charismatic and socially adept?

Quote from: Benoist;435841In the case of a fighter, what matters is your tactical smarts, your ability to use your own positioning, your allies, order your men-at-arms around, think outside the box, your ability to describe what your character does and how he does it, etc.

That's a convenient argument belied by reality. And your past arguments. Since when are fighter characters generally intelligent? Since when are they usually tacticians and leaders?

Let's face it, neither the fighter character nor the fighter player needs to be particularly bright as they just run up and hit things. Yes, they might need to shift or flank or whatever, but that hardly takes tactical genius. It's certainly nothing on the order of having to come up with a speech to the king when you're socially inept.

Quote from: Benoist;435844Right back at ya, cupcake: one of these days, you'll have to stop hiding behind your warped version of reality where every GM is out to screw the players and realize that you need to be a functional social being before playing an actual role playing game.

If I remotely believed that, you might be on to something. I've told you time and time again that my own personal experiences with GMs have been largely benign, mostly because the vast majority of time, I was the GM.


That aside, you didn't answer the question: If an overweight, out of shape guy joined your group and wanted to play a fighter, would you a) recommend he play something else and, if he persisted, b) penalize each of his attacks because he is unable to do what he character is supposed to be doing in-game?

They're yes or no questions. Which is it? Yes or no?

Seanchai

I give points for ideas, not for being well-spoken or charismatic.

"I bring up his awkward relationship with the countess and how they've been caught alone on several occasions"

...earns more points than some paragraph long gobbly-gook with fancy words.  Your character's charisma takes care of...well...the charisma, but you're responsible for the ideas behind what they say.  Just like someone can have a general idea of how to play a fighter without actually knowing the minutiae of Western martial arts.

But this is true even of highly mechanical games or story-games.  You're always responsible for the ideas behind your words.

Look at it this way:  you're likely to fail an exam in university no matter how fancy your words are if you do not have solid ideas contained within.  And the gap between someone with average writing skills and solid ideas and an well-written person and solid ideas really isn't that much...because they both have solid ideas.  If the ideas are better, you get a better grade.  Fancy words don't do much, practically speaking, so long as your text isn't completely devoid of coherence.

Quote from: Seanchai;435851Then why can't the player wanting to play a verbal character do the same? Why does he or she have to actually be charismatic and socially adept?

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

Quote from: Seanchai;435851Let's face it, neither the fighter character nor the fighter player needs to be particularly bright as they just run up and hit things.

Ask thedungeondelver about that.

Quote from: Seanchai;435851If I remotely believed that, you might be on to something. I've told you time and time again that my own personal experiences with GMs have been largely benign, mostly because the vast majority of time, I was the GM.

That's not what your posts show.

Quote from: Seanchai;435851That aside, you didn't answer the question: If an overweight, out of shape guy joined your group and wanted to play a fighter, would you a) recommend he play something else and, if he persisted, b) penalize each of his attacks because he is unable to do what he character is supposed to be doing in-game?

They're yes or no questions. Which is it? Yes or no?

Seanchai

I already answered. See my previous post.