TheRPGSite

Unequivocally, 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

How about forced sterilization? It's pointless in 95 percent of cases, but the irony is awesome...

Seanchai

I believe anyone is capable of decent role playing. The question is how, as a GM, you create the environment that allows everyone around the table to bounce ideas and enthusiasm off of each other so that the group dynamics grow and get better over time, rather than create schisms between good and bad players at the game table.

Now, with that pointed out, I think that good role playing should be nurtured, and that lowest common denominator (LCD) game design, basically assuming that players suck and GMs can't run decent games on their own, filling the void with all sorts of mechanical clutter and "the rules are the game, the game the rules" bullshit, is complete, utter, hopeless crap. That's about it.

As a GM, it's your job to discover each player's comfort zone and carefully foster situations where the player's natural aptitude shines.  Out of game punishment should never happen, while in-game character punishment should only be a consequence of the player's actions in the game world; i.e., if the character does something really stupid in the game, then they are going to have to face the consequences of said actions.

I handle the player's social skill much like I handle stunting and/or creative tactics in combat. Craft a good story, deliver it cleverly, and I'll give you a bonus on that Deception roll. Tell a bad lie and you might have to deal with a penalty.

As for "punishing" the "socially awkward" players, well... if I don't like someone, I don't game with them, period. Perhaps you should do the same, Pundit, instead of trying too hard to be Teh Hardcorez (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=423606&postcount=43).

How would you not do this?

A social adept player can play his way past any mechanical rule so long as PCs have free will. The only way you could restrict it woudl be to reduce the game to a tactical minis combat and even then you would have to stop the the persuasive guy from dictating the tactics of the players.

Quote from: Benoist;433868I believe anyone is capable of decent role playing. The question is how, as a GM, you create the environment that allows everyone around the table to bounce ideas and enthusiasm off of each other so that the group dynamics grow and get better over time, rather than create schisms between good and bad players at the game table.

Now, with that pointed out, I think that good role playing should be nurtured, and that lowest common denominator (LCD) game design, basically assuming that players suck and GMs can't run decent games on their own, filling the void with all sorts of mechanical clutter and "the rules are the game, the game the rules" bullshit, is complete, utter, hopeless crap. That's about it.

Yeah, that.

Also, clever people are rewarded in chess and people with good body coordination and dexterity are rewarded in various ball games. So what? I suck at both of them, but why should I make a problem out of it?

Rewarded in what way? XP? Time in the limelight? Badges of honor? Something else?

And ditto; punished in what way?

Quote from: RPGPundit;433848My real debate, frankly, is whether socially retarded players should be given extra punishment for their retardation.

RPGPundit

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;433894And ditto; punished in what way?

Well, honestly, the socially adept tend to get laid much more often than the socially inept. As far as gaming? Once someone demonstrates that they are socially retarded, kick them out of your game.

Quote from: Seanchai;433853How about forced sterilization?

Seanchai

As long as you are first in line to recieve it.

Quote from: jeff37923;433896Well, honestly, the socially adept tend to get laid much more often than the socially inept. As far as gaming? Once someone demonstrates that they are socially retarded, kick them out of your game.

Poor geeks. No sex and now no rpgs....

But yeah, I'm totally with the don't-game-with-retards, but also with that there's a difference between being the catpiss-man and a bit socially inept.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;433910Poor geeks. No sex and now no rpgs....

But yeah, I'm totally with the don't-game-with-retards, but also with that there's a difference between being the catpiss-man and a bit socially inept.

Yeah, as Benoist is oft to say, "the excluded middle."

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;433910Poor geeks. No sex and now no rpgs....

But yeah, I'm totally with the don't-game-with-retards, but also with that there's a difference between being the catpiss-man and a bit socially inept.

Just remember, a nerd is a geek who has had sex.  :D

I don't game with catpissmen. I have a couple players who aren't the sharpest improvisors in the world, and there's no way in hell I'd penalize them in-game for that.

If we were all silver-tongued black belt Navy SEALS with twelve inch dicks and power moves on the dance floor we wouldn't be sitting around pretending to be silver-tongued black belt Navy SEALS with twelve inch dicks and power moves on the dance floor. Present company excluded, of course. I know you guys are practically the Colonial Marines with better fashion sense.

Quote from: Insufficient Metal;433920If we were all silver-tongued black belt Navy SEALS with twelve inch dicks and power moves on the dance floor we wouldn't be sitting around pretending to be silver-tongued black belt Navy SEALS with twelve inch dicks and power moves on the dance floor. Present company excluded, of course. I know you guys are practically the Colonial Marines with better fashion sense.

Now that's sig-worthy.  :hatsoff:

Quote from: Insufficient Metal;433920If we were all silver-tongued black belt Navy SEALS with twelve inch dicks and power moves on the dance floor we wouldn't be sitting around pretending to be silver-tongued black belt Navy SEALS with twelve inch dicks and power moves on the dance floor. Present company excluded, of course. I know you guys are practically the Colonial Marines with better fashion sense.

:D  Dude, that is sooo sig worthy!

Quote from: CRKrueger;433923Now that's sig-worthy.  :hatsoff:

Jinx! ;)

Quote from: Insufficient Metal;433920I don't game with catpissmen. I have a  couple players who aren't the sharpest improvisors in the world, and  there's no way in hell I'd penalize them in-game for that.(...)

Some of my players are more introverted by personality. I don't penalize them for that. Roleplaying IMHO is not the same as acting. Also, having to fittingly act out everything your character does would make it very difficult to play something very different from your real-life persona so I usually allow for players to "take the descriptive route" at times.

I had to look up what exactly is a cat piss man... I wouldn't allow smelly people or people that are disruptively socially awkward in my group. But what to do in a convention game where you suddenly notice someone's obnoxious body odeur?

Quote from: Insufficient Metal;433920If we were all silver-tongued black belt Navy SEALS with twelve inch dicks and power moves on the dance floor we wouldn't be sitting around pretending to be silver-tongued black belt Navy SEALS with twelve inch dicks and power moves on the dance floor. Present company excluded, of course. I know you guys are practically the Colonial Marines with better fashion sense.

Stop peeking in my fucking windows!

Seanchai

Quote from: Insufficient Metal;433920I don't game with catpissmen. I have a couple players who aren't the sharpest improvisors in the world, and there's no way in hell I'd penalize them in-game for that.

If we were all silver-tongued black belt Navy SEALS with twelve inch dicks and power moves on the dance floor we wouldn't be sitting around pretending to be silver-tongued black belt Navy SEALS with twelve inch dicks and power moves on the dance floor. Present company excluded, of course. I know you guys are practically the Colonial Marines with better fashion sense.

:hatsoff:

Quote from: Seanchai;433930Stop peeking in my fucking windows!

Seanchai

:teehee:

Quote from: The Butcher;433878I handle the player's social skill much like I handle stunting and/or creative tactics in combat. Craft a good story, deliver it cleverly, and I'll give you a bonus on that Deception roll. Tell a bad lie and you might have to deal with a penalty.

As for "punishing" the "socially awkward" players, well... if I don't like someone, I don't game with them, period. Perhaps you should do the same, Pundit, instead of trying too hard to be Teh Hardcorez (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=423606&postcount=43).

Agreed.  For someone that is so uncomfortable around people who are different, it seems a very odd choice to move from Canada to Uruguay.

Quote from: Insufficient Metal;433920I know you guys are practically the Colonial Marines with better fashion sense.

Is this a bad time to mention that I am selling 3 painted Colonial Marine figs from the Aliens RPG on eBay right now?

That would probably be tacky.  

Quote from: StormBringer;433947Agreed.  For someone that is so uncomfortable around people who are different, it seems a very odd choice to move from Canada to Uruguay.

I can only assume that Pundy gamed with the worst bunch of assholes in the entire Great White North during his high school years.  

I do lots of conventions and the whole "catpissman", stinky gamer and social freak meme is so bizarrely overstated on the internet.

Quote from: Spinachcat;433953I do lots of conventions and the whole "catpissman", stinky gamer and social freak meme is so bizarrely overstated on the internet.

In my experience, it's a phenomenon I associate most closely with gaming stores, the sort that have an open space for gaming, and regularly have a crowd occupying it, especially if you happen to be there during 9-5 working hours. It is there that I've seen the most stereotypically nerdy nerds. If Pundit was gaming in Calgary or Edmonton, I can think of a few places where this stereotype could have been reinforced, at least in the 90s.

Now, I can't say that agree that RPG rules themselves should punish social maladjustment. I think it really should be left to individual groups of players to decide what their level of tolerance is. Almost invariably, socially adept players are rewarded socially, anyway.

If, on the other hand, the question is asked if RPG rules should reward the manner of role-playing, and the in-game behaviour that the game is written for, then I would answer an unequivocal yes. On the third hand, if the question was whether any sort of playing or activity should be punished, then my answer would be more equivocal.

I always kind of felt that good role-playing and bringing cool ideas to the table was always a reward in-and-of-itself, regardless of whether the GM or the mechanics want to reward me for it.

Social validation is the reward for taking part in something social.  When I honestly surprise the GM, or the other players get a kick out of something my character did, that's my reward.  I don't want a fucking cookie, I just want to have fun.  That also means trying to help the people who are giving it an honest shot, and setting them up to do cool stuff if they're having a hard time by themselves.

It's a collaborative social endeavor, and everyone's goal is to have fun, so we should help eachother out and make the game the best it can be.

Quote from: Peregrin;433963I always kind of felt that good role-playing and bringing cool ideas to the table was always a reward in-and-of-itself, regardless of whether the GM or the mechanics want to reward me for it.

Social validation is the reward for taking part in something social.  When I honestly surprise the GM, or the other players get a kick out of something my character did, that's my reward.  I don't want a fucking cookie, I just want to have fun.  That also means trying to help the people who are giving it an honest shot, and setting them up to do cool stuff if they're having a hard time by themselves.

It's a collaborative social endeavor, and everyone's goal is to have fun, so we should help eachother out and make the game the best it can be.

Couldn't have said it better myself. You are on a roll, mister.

Quote from: Peregrin;433963I always kind of felt that good role-playing and bringing cool ideas to the table was always a reward in-and-of-itself, regardless of whether the GM or the mechanics want to reward me for it.

Social validation is the reward for taking part in something social.  When I honestly surprise the GM, or the other players get a kick out of something my character did, that's my reward.  I don't want a fucking cookie, I just want to have fun.  That also means trying to help the people who are giving it an honest shot, and setting them up to do cool stuff if they're having a hard time by themselves.

It's a collaborative social endeavor, and everyone's goal is to have fun, so we should help eachother out and make the game the best it can be.

I'd agree with this, and I'd go a step further.  Human beings are not actually Pavlovian, meaning that simple reward/punish incentives often don't produce the desired behavior.  For example, suppose the GM gives extra XP to the players he think demonstrate most "social skill."  I don't think this is necessarily going to make the group any more socially skilled.  

"Punishing" players who are introverted, shy, or otherwise less socially skilled isn't going to make them more social - it's just going to piss them off and make them less comfortable, along with everyone else.  I would instead give them encouragement and support in being more social.  If they're not interested in being more social, then they'll most likely lose interest and drop out.

Quote from: two_fishes;433961If, on the other hand, the question is asked if RPG rules should reward the manner of role-playing, and the in-game behaviour that the game is written for, then I would answer an unequivocal yes. On the third hand, if the question was whether any sort of playing or activity should be punished, then my answer would be more equivocal.

I find there's a fine line between rewards as a means to create waypoints for directing play and rewards as an attempt to assign an objective value to something subjective (player quality) as a replacement for social recognition. The latter type I find creates difficult social situations, instances of one-upmanship and competition rather than a collaborative focus on the in-game stuff.

For example, Exalted's stunt system has nothing to do with the themes of the game or what play is about other than being the most creative at the table, and I found that even my relatively complacent RPG group began competing amongst each other for that "3-die stunt" instead of focusing on the game at hand.  It became a meta-game affair of "win the favor of the GM" rather than "Let's have our characters do cool stuff in-game because it makes the game/fiction/whatever more fun."

Quote from: jhkimI'd agree with this, and I'd go a step further. Human beings are not actually Pavlovian, meaning that simple reward/punish incentives often don't produce the desired behavior. For example, suppose the GM gives extra XP to the players he think demonstrate most "social skill." I don't think this is necessarily going to make the group any more socially skilled.

Well, what I said is more-or-less my idealistic opinion of RP.  I've always focused less on the "game" aspect, and more on the in-game aspects of play.

I've seen people respond to reward cycles, I just don't think people always respond to them in a positive manner that aligns with what the designer actually intended or a healthy campaign.  I've noticed that people who focus more on gaming the system and whatnot often go out of their way to earn "Fate points" and stuff because of the advantages it gives them in combat or whatever, despite the fact that they were designed to reward other aspects of play.  Rather than focusing the game on the things you get rewarded for like they're supposed to, doing those things just becomes a way to farm for points to do stuff the player is actually interested in.

Quote from: Peregrin;433974I find there's a fine line between rewards as a means to create waypoints for directing play and rewards as an attempt to assign an objective value to something subjective (player quality) as a replacement for social recognition. The latter type I find creates difficult social situations, instances of one-upmanship and competition rather than a collaborative focus on the in-game stuff.

For example, Exalted's stunt system has nothing to do with the themes of the game or what play is about other than being the most creative at the table, and I found that even my relatively complacent RPG group began competing amongst each other for that "3-die stunt" instead of focusing on the game at hand.  It became a meta-game affair of "win the favor of the GM" rather than "Let's have our characters do cool stuff in-game because it makes the game/fiction/whatever more fun."

You're determined to make me equivocate, aren't you? ;)

Quote from: two_fishes;433980You're determined to make me equivocate, aren't you? ;)

Eh, I tend to over-think things and make them more complicated than they have to be.

Quote from: Peregrin;433963I always kind of felt that good role-playing and bringing cool ideas to the table was always a reward in-and-of-itself, regardless of whether the GM or the mechanics want to reward me for it.

They are to a degree, but when they occur in a vacuum, they start to become...less desirable. Hollow.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;433983They are to a degree, but when they occur in a vacuum, they start to become...less desirable. Hollow.

Seanchai

Could you expand on this a bit?

Quote from: Peregrin;433984Could you expand on this a bit?

I came to my current groups (which share a good deal of common members), I was used to describing my characters actions, both in and out of combat. For example, "Nicco backs up, lowers his head a bit, and lets arcane energy play over his hands for a minute, before sending it out in a bolt. That's Magic Missile for 5 points of Force damage."

My current group does not spend much effort on describing their actions (despite an expressed desire to do so).

After months and months of making myself happy by describing my actions as I saw fit, I realized a few weeks ago that I've stopped. Because doing so always feels...flat.

Seanchai

One thing that immediately comes to mind is how my best friend used to be, versus how he is now.

Now, he was not a CatPissMan, but he was a complete doormat. This carried over into gameplay, where he was an extra hand in combat, rather than an active participant in the game, because he had no confidence in his abilities or even his basic decision making skills. He was far from "socially adept".

Now, I could have just rewarded the other guys and ran him off, but then I would be a jackass.

Instead, when the opportunity arose, I ran some solo games for him...this led to him being forced to interact with the game world, to make decisions and so on...now, he's routinely in a leadership type position when we game...and certainly far more assertive, even when he's not.

As far as I'm concerned, the key has nothing to do with rewarding the socially adept and punishing the socially awkward, and has everything to do with figuring out who is trying to make an honest effort to play, contribute and have fun - even if they are having some difficulties with one or two of those -  and who is just there because no one else will let them hang out.

Quote from: Seanchai;433986I came to my current groups (which share a good deal of common members), I was used to describing my characters actions, both in and out of combat. For example, "Nicco backs up, lowers his head a bit, and lets arcane energy play over his hands for a minute, before sending it out in a bolt. That's Magic Missile for 5 points of Force damage."

My current group does not spend much effort on describing their actions (despite an expressed desire to do so).

After months and months of making myself happy by describing my actions as I saw fit, I realized a few weeks ago that I've stopped. Because doing so always feels...flat.

Seanchai

Ok, I see what you're saying.  

And yeah, without the social recognition from the other players for your in-game actions, there is no real reward in the long-term for that type of stuff.

Quote from: Peregrin;433974I find there's a fine line between rewards as a means to create waypoints for directing play and rewards as an attempt to assign an objective value to something subjective (player quality) as a replacement for social recognition. The latter type I find creates difficult social situations, instances of one-upmanship and competition rather than a collaborative focus on the in-game stuff.

Quote from: Seanchai;433986I came to my current groups (which share a good deal of common members), I was used to describing my characters actions, both in and out of combat. For example, "Nicco backs up, lowers his head a bit, and lets arcane energy play over his hands for a minute, before sending it out in a bolt. That's Magic Missile for 5 points of Force damage."

My current group does not spend much effort on describing their actions (despite an expressed desire to do so).

After months and months of making myself happy by describing my actions as I saw fit, I realized a few weeks ago that I've stopped. Because doing so always feels...flat.

Quote from: Peregrin;433991And yeah, without the social recognition from the other players for your in-game actions, there is no real reward in the long-term for that type of stuff.

Seanchai's example the sort of thing that I think could well be reinforced by an in-game reward mechanic. If the style of roleplaying you want to see is mechanically rewarded, then it's more likely to have a presence at the table. The comment about one-upmanship & competition intruding on play is well-taken, but those things can help collaboration if they don't get out of hand. There's never going to be one perfect recipe, of course.

Quote from: Peregrin;433991And yeah, without the social recognition from the other players for your in-game actions, there is no real reward in the long-term for that type of stuff.

I don't care about social recognition per se. (Every once and a while, people would take note of what I was doing, say it was cool, do so themselves for a time, etc..) It just isn't the modus operandi of the group and without others doing the same, it feels...flat. Hollow. Unimportant.

Seanchai

Quote from: StormBringer;433947Agreed.  For someone that is so uncomfortable around people who are different, it seems a very odd choice to move from Canada to Uruguay.

Uruguay has less social retards, not more.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;434002Uruguay has less social retards, not more.

fewer

Quote from: Peregrin;433963I always kind of felt that good role-playing and bringing cool ideas to the table was always a reward in-and-of-itself, regardless of whether the GM or the mechanics want to reward me for it.

Social validation is the reward for taking part in something social.  When I honestly surprise the GM, or the other players get a kick out of something my character did, that's my reward.  I don't want a fucking cookie, I just want to have fun.  That also means trying to help the people who are giving it an honest shot, and setting them up to do cool stuff if they're having a hard time by themselves.

It's a collaborative social endeavor, and everyone's goal is to have fun, so we should help eachother out and make the game the best it can be.

:hatsoff:
love the summation of the final line.

Quote from: Seanchai;433997I don't care about social recognition per se. (Every once and a while, people would take note of what I was doing, say it was cool, do so themselves for a time, etc..) It just isn't the modus operandi of the group and without others doing the same, it feels...flat. Hollow. Unimportant.

Seanchai

Well, I mean there's recognition as in, yes I see what you're doing, and there's recognition where enthusiasm for the in-game activity just resonates with everyone at the table on a deeper level -- where everyone is on the same wavelength.  If the other players aren't looking for the same thing in the game as you are, or don't want to concentrate on the same aspects of play, you're not going to get that deeper vibe.

Quote from: two_fishesSeanchai's example the sort of thing that I think could well be reinforced by an in-game reward mechanic. If the style of roleplaying you want to see is mechanically rewarded, then it's more likely to have a presence at the table. The comment about one-upmanship & competition intruding on play is well-taken, but those things can help collaboration if they don't get out of hand. There's never going to be one perfect recipe, of course.

Maybe.  I'm preparing to run a Burning Wheel campaign, so I'm definitely going to watch carefully to see how the reward system works in play (if it works at all with my group).

I don't see why we would want to marginalize any player from enjoying our hobby.  But I haven't gamed in Canada.  

If anything, I saw RPG involvement help socialize lots of borderline people in high school because without RPGs, they would have never left their computer.

Quote from: Peregrin;433963I don't want a fucking cookie, I just want to have fun.

No cookie for you!!!

I kind of play almost exclusively with the socially challenged. I once had an all Aspergers group.

As I see it RPGs are about fantasy. If Awkward Lofty wants to play a slick pimp I don't see a problem with it just like I don't see a problem with a complete weed playing a fighter or a Dyspraxic playing a ninja. A good game system allows you to play out your fantasy persona no matter how different he or she is from you.

That said I do require that my players at least try to roleplay. It makes it all the more funny when Awkward Lofty's Pimp Character gets the girl with one of his awful chat up lines.

Quote from: RPGPundit;433848My real debate, frankly, is whether socially retarded players should be given extra punishment for their retardation.

Well, it depends on what you consider retarded. If by retarded you mean a catpissman, well, you're doing well not playing with them.

If by retarded you mean a shy person, or someone who is not a fast-talker, then you are desperately wrong.

Quote from: The Butcher;433878I handle the player's social skill much like I handle stunting and/or creative tactics in combat. Craft a good story, deliver it cleverly, and I'll give you a bonus on that Deception roll. Tell a bad lie and you might have to deal with a penalty.

For me that's the whole of it. Even the most charismatic person can fail from time to time, and sometimes the most absurd lies are believed.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;433928Some of my players are more introverted by personality. I don't penalize them for that. Roleplaying IMHO is not the same as acting.

This has to be stressed.

Quote from: Spinachcat;433953I can only assume that Pundy gamed with the worst bunch of assholes in the entire Great White North during his high school years.  

I do lots of conventions and the whole "catpissman", stinky gamer and social freak meme is so bizarrely overstated on the internet.

Same thing here. I've met some through 25 years, but they are really few.

Quote from: Peregrin;433963I always kind of felt that good role-playing and bringing cool ideas to the table was always a reward in-and-of-itself, regardless of whether the GM or the mechanics want to reward me for it.

Social validation is the reward for taking part in something social.  When I honestly surprise the GM, or the other players get a kick out of something my character did, that's my reward.  I don't want a fucking cookie, I just want to have fun.  That also means trying to help the people who are giving it an honest shot, and setting them up to do cool stuff if they're having a hard time by themselves.

It's a collaborative social endeavor, and everyone's goal is to have fun, so we should help eachother out and make the game the best it can be.

Word.

Quote from: Seanchai;433986I came to my current groups (which share a good deal of common members), I was used to describing my characters actions, both in and out of combat. For example, "Nicco backs up, lowers his head a bit, and lets arcane energy play over his hands for a minute, before sending it out in a bolt. That's Magic Missile for 5 points of Force damage."

My current group does not spend much effort on describing their actions (despite an expressed desire to do so).

After months and months of making myself happy by describing my actions as I saw fit, I realized a few weeks ago that I've stopped. Because doing so always feels...flat.

Seanchai

Sounds more like the play-style of your fellow players is flat, not yours.

They 'express a desire to describe their actions' and then don't do it? That's like George Costanza: "I've always wanted to pretend to be an architect." :D

Lord Hobie

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;433989One thing that immediately comes to mind is how my best friend used to be, versus how he is now.

Now, he was not a CatPissMan, but he was a complete doormat. This carried over into gameplay, where he was an extra hand in combat, rather than an active participant in the game, because he had no confidence in his abilities or even his basic decision making skills. He was far from "socially adept".

Now, I could have just rewarded the other guys and ran him off, but then I would be a jackass.

Instead, when the opportunity arose, I ran some solo games for him...this led to him being forced to interact with the game world, to make decisions and so on...now, he's routinely in a leadership type position when we game...and certainly far more assertive, even when he's not.

As far as I'm concerned, the key has nothing to do with rewarding the socially adept and punishing the socially awkward, and has everything to do with figuring out who is trying to make an honest effort to play, contribute and have fun - even if they are having some difficulties with one or two of those -  and who is just there because no one else will let them hang out.

I have a number of players that grew up a lot and gained confidence, not only in gaming, but in generaly personality, based on some extra attention and encouragement over the gaming table.  
Somehow, helping them find their voice and comfort zone in this particular social endeavor carries over.
And as the GM, you often have the ability to enable this.

Good point.

I actually try to reward my shy/introverted players more than the others when they do contribute to the game more actively or rather more IC, thus encouraging them in a positive way, rather than "punishing" them when they take the back seat to more proactive players. If I am enjoying the game, they're enjoying the game and the extroverts also enjoy it, there's no reason to penalize anyone.

Now, stinky or annoying people won't even make it into "my" group as it would mean that I don't get to enjoy my own game. If I were ever to run a convention game I would probably anounce in advance that cat piss men are not allowed in.

Quote from: Lord Hobie;434080Sounds more like the play-style of your fellow players is flat, not yours.

Shrug. I try not to place value judgments on others' fun.

Seanchai

I've known players that could not RP to save their lives. But they were decent people and part of the social group that played at that table. To kick them out would have been mean-spirited and cruel. They literally could not engage in that level of social interaction.

Should you reward good RPing though? Of course. But I would never penalize those that can't pull it off.

Just like I think there are players who, tactically speaking, couldn't play a D&D wizard to save their lives, there are also players who couldn't play a socially adept character to save their lives.  I don't think that they should be shown special favours to compensate for that anymore than a bad wizard-player should.

RPGPundit

Pundit, still curious, what do you mean in the OP when you talk about reward/punishment? Is it in a purely xp/in game reward way or is it more of giving a person less/more room to shine or is it something else?

Cheers.

Quote from: Spinachcat;434054I don't see why we would want to marginalize any player from enjoying our hobby.  

To keep out lawncrappers.

Honestly, there is a type of Player whose enjoyment of gaming revolves around pissing off everyone else at the table. That is the kind of socially inept Player that I do not want in my games.

Quote from: jeff37923;434347To keep out lawncrappers.

Honestly, there is a type of Player whose enjoyment of gaming revolves around pissing off everyone else at the table. That is the kind of socially inept Player that I do not want in my games.

Not gaming with these people is the best way of reforming them, or forcing them to leave the hobby. Passive-agressive in-game bullshit "punishment" tells me more about the GM's issues than the player's.

I once had an introverted player create a member of what was left of a pirate crew  who was actually the highest in rank among them. Since he didn't portray his  character as particularly authoritative or proactive the others took the  initiative most of the time, with the ship's cook taking charge :teehee:.
Did I penalize this player for bad roleplaying? No. His character was  just not a natural leader in spite of his rank. Nothing particularly  implausible about that. You see it all the time IRL. It brought up  interesting questions regarding the character's background and actually  made for a fun experience.

Quote from: jeff37923;434347(...)there is a type of Player whose enjoyment of gaming revolves around pissing off everyone else at the table. That is the kind of socially inept Player that I do not want in my games.

There's also a type of GM intent on doing that. Neither players nor GMs of this type make for a fun game so I'll just avoid playing with them altogether.

Quote from: The Butcher;434364Not gaming with these people is the best way of reforming them, or forcing them to leave the hobby. Passive-agressive in-game bullshit "punishment" tells me more about the GM's issues than the player's.

Dude, totally.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;434333Pundit, still curious, what do you mean in the OP when you talk about reward/punishment? Is it in a purely xp/in game reward way or is it more of giving a person less/more room to shine or is it something else?

Cheers.

Well certainly giving bonus "RP" xp to players who do a good job of presenting their characters in the social context, and not giving it to those who are not capable of that, is one simple way to do this.
Another is that if you have "social" rolls in your game a player who does a good job actually interpreting his character's social actions should get a significant bonus and those who fail at that a significant penalty.
If you don't actually use rolls, then obviously increasing the number of successes for socially adept players and increasing failures for socially inept players. I don't care if "you think your character should be good at giving a speech", or should know how to convince someone of something; if you suck ass at doing it, and the things you make your character say make him someone who would be  unlikeable, that should have a real effect in-game.

RPGPundit

Guys hated playing wizards in my D&D games, because if they couldn't make a real fireball from bat guano and sulphur, I took away d6s from their damage rolls.

That taught them fuckers.

Quote from: The Butcher;434364Not gaming with these people is the best way of reforming them, or forcing them to leave the hobby. Passive-agressive in-game bullshit "punishment" tells me more about the GM's issues than the player's.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;434366There's also a type of GM intent on doing that. Neither players nor GMs of this type make for a fun game so I'll just avoid playing with them altogether.

You have to know who they are first. Usually that leads to a catch-22 of having to game with them before knowing that they are shitbags.

Then there is the decision of whether or not you can train this shitbag to be an actual social human being that gets along with the rest of the Players. Or you can just tell the shitbag to fuck off.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;434564Guys hated playing wizards in my D&D games, because if they couldn't make a real fireball from bat guano and sulphur, I took away d6s from their damage rolls.

That taught them fuckers.

+1

Wait, isn't this Reddit?

I encourage good play, rather than punish poor play.  I encourage the shy to become more socially adept & outgoing, which may require getting more domineering players to cede some limelight.  I tolerate the socially hopeless if they're not actively disruptive.

Quote from: S'mon;434586I encourage good play, rather than punish poor play.  I encourage the shy to become more socially adept & outgoing, which may require getting more domineering players to cede some limelight.  I tolerate the socially hopeless if they're not actively disruptive.

Not actively disruptive? I'd personally make this not disruptive, period. ;)

I do expect every player to contribute to the game in a constructive manner. But I accept that shy or introverted players will do this in a somewhat different fashion; they'll typically have their character do stuff instead of say stuff, for example. I do not encourage them taking the backseat and just tagging along all the time.

Quote from: RPGPundit;434560Well certainly giving bonus "RP" xp to players who do a good job of presenting their characters in the social context, and not giving it to those who are not capable of that, is one simple way to do this.
Another is that if you have "social" rolls in your game a player who does a good job actually interpreting his character's social actions should get a significant bonus and those who fail at that a significant penalty.
If you don't actually use rolls, then obviously increasing the number of successes for socially adept players and increasing failures for socially inept players. I don't care if "you think your character should be good at giving a speech", or should know how to convince someone of something; if you suck ass at doing it, and the things you make your character say make him someone who would be  unlikeable, that should have a real effect in-game.

RPGPundit

Yes.
I think this describes how Celtricia runs. Though the rolls and skills help, they only guide the RP along.  Players who have the soal graces to use said rolls and skills still have a huge advantage, but the skills modify the roleplay and the affect of the roleplay; but the roleplay is still the thing.

And we also give an RP bonus at the end of the session, so players who do a better job playing their characters within the setting get more experience.  this seems to work well.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;434564Guys hated playing wizards in my D&D games, because if they couldn't make a real fireball from bat guano and sulphur, I took away d6s from their damage rolls.

That taught them fuckers.

My point about wizards pretty much illustrates why this is the wrong analogy.  The right analogy is the guy who never knows which spell to memorize or when to appropriately cast them.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;434666My point about wizards pretty much illustrates why this is the wrong analogy.  The right analogy is the guy who never knows which spell to memorize or when to appropriately cast them.

RPGPundit

But what about the guy that knows WHAT to say, but not HOW to say it?

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.

I DO agree that the third guy in that position, the one who comes up with "Remember, when this is over, we can fuck their puppies" probably doesn't deserve the game system backing him up.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;434667But what about the guy that knows WHAT to say, but not HOW to say it?

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.

I DO agree that the third guy in that position, the one who comes up with "Remember, when this is over, we can fuck their puppies" probably doesn't deserve the game system backing him up.

Social ineptness does not mean that the Player does not know how to role-play. Social ineptness means that the Player does not know how to get along with other Players.

Quote from: RPGPundit;434666My point about wizards pretty much illustrates why this is the wrong analogy.  The right analogy is the guy who never knows which spell to memorize or when to appropriately cast them.

RPGPundit

You can teach someone had to manage their characters resources in a more efficient manner. I don't know of anyway to teach someone to be more socially adept. And that is what we are discussing. The *players* inability to make their *character* be socially adept. Some folks just aren't able to do that. It doesn't make them bad people. Nor should it mean that they are excluded from our hobby.

Quote from: jeff37923;434668Social ineptness does not mean that the Player does not know how to role-play. Social ineptness means that the Player does not know how to get along with other Players.

Read the OP...he's lumping people who can't make flowery speeches or have strong debate skills in with catpissmen who cannot get along with other people in general.

I'm arguing that allowing the system to prop up the former is fine...I have no problems letting the latter twist in the wind.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;434680Read the OP...he's lumping people who can't make flowery speeches or have strong debate skills in with catpissmen who cannot get along with other people in general.

I'm arguing that allowing the system to prop up the former is fine...I have no problems letting the latter twist in the wind.

Whoa, shit. I didn't catch that at all in the OP.

I agree with you that social adeptness or ineptness does not equate with good or bad role-playing. I know some excellent role-players that I would never allow in my home because they are shitbags, likewise I also know some incredibly crappy role-players who I feel lucky to have in my life.

Quote from: Tetsubo;434673You can teach someone had to manage their characters resources in a more efficient manner. I don't know of anyway to teach someone to be more socially adept.

Charm school, speech therapy, debate class and other such things are pretty well based on the concept that you can in fact teach someone to be socially adept.  Given that none of us were born particularly charming, it seems pretty likely that social skill is a combination of talent AND training.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;434777Charm school, speech therapy, debate class and other such things are pretty well based on the concept that you can in fact teach someone to be socially adept.  Given that none of us were born particularly charming, it seems pretty likely that social skill is a combination of talent AND training.

RPGPundit

I've had this argument many times.  I am firmly of the opinion that while genetics and natural talent come into play, over half of what we would place in the lexicon of 'Social Skills' is learned.

Quote from: LordVreeg;434831I've had this argument many times.  I am firmly of the opinion that while genetics and natural talent come into play, over half of what we would place in the lexicon of 'Social Skills' is learned.

I know for a fact that I'm much more socially adept, even adjusted for mere age, than I was as a kid or a teen. Proportionally speaking, I improved well beyond my "talent" because I came to understand the significance of it.

RPGPundit

I tell you what's lots of fun.

An austic GM running a game with a group entirely consisting of autistic people.

That was my first session of WoD Innocents and I had a right blast.

Yeah none of us were any good at social graces but to tell the truth neither were any of our characters on paper.

Plus they were all kids. Kids in my experiance are sociopathic little shits autistic or not.

Quote from: Ian Warner;434931I tell you what's lots of fun.

An austic GM running a game with a group entirely consisting of autistic people.

That was my first session of WoD Innocents and I had a right blast.

Yeah none of us were any good at social graces but to tell the truth neither were any of our characters on paper.

Plus they were all kids. Kids in my experiance are sociopathic little shits autistic or not.

Children are born evil.  Sweet and evil.  Society tries to solve this little problem.  
And yes, I am a parent.

But are you a Tiger Mother?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ian Warner;434931I tell you what's lots of fun.

An austic GM running a game with a group entirely consisting of autistic people.

That was my first session of WoD Innocents and I had a right blast.

Yeah none of us were any good at social graces but to tell the truth neither were any of our characters on paper.

Plus they were all kids. Kids in my experiance are sociopathic little shits autistic or not.

I 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...

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;434564Guys hated playing wizards in my D&D games, because if they couldn't make a real fireball from bat guano and sulphur, I took away d6s from their damage rolls.

That taught them fuckers.

Your guys couldn't make a simple fireball from bat guano and sulphur??

Dipshits.

;-)

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.

I think Tetsubo is right, but for the wrong reasons.

In a social interaction scenario at the table, i agree with pundit's view, however, i don't think i have ever met a player who didn't have a skill (or more enthusiasm) for something related to the game.

Therefore, the social retard gets punished for social situations in-game, but gets rewarded for the aspects that he's good at (and quite possibly enjoys more).

If we're simply talking about mentally challenged players and why we should all point and laugh at them, well the subject of the OP is in poor taste to start with.

Quote from: One Horse Town;435554In a social interaction scenario at the table, i agree with pundit's view, however, i don't think i have ever met a player who didn't have a skill (or more enthusiasm) for something related to the game.

Therefore, the social retard gets punished for social situations in-game, but gets rewarded for the aspects that he's good at (and quite possibly enjoys more).

That, I completely agree with. If someone wanted to play the game and was say, really good at solving puzzles, but really sucked in role playing, and explicitly didn't want to make much efforts to improve said role playing, I wouldn't encourage him to play say, a bard. Instead, I would encourage him to play a Magic User or Thief with Charisma as a dump stat.

Quote from: Benoist;435555Instead, I would encourage him to play a Magic User or Thief with Charisma as a dump stat.

To what end? The player still wouldn't be able to cast spells or pick locks.

Seanchai

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

Seanchai

Nope, but I would describe traps and locks, for instance, and depending how the player chooses to handle them, modifiers may be applied to such skills. Same thing with spells, where some particular descriptions, elements in the game that the MU might interact with, like altars, cryptic rituals or whatnot, which may land various effects depending on the way the player chooses to handle them.

But hey. I know that rubs you the wrong way. It's fine. You can run your games your way, and I'll run my games mine.

Quote from: Benoist;435613Nope, but I would describe traps and locks, for instance, and depending how the player chooses to handle them, modifiers may be applied to such skills.

In other words, you'd a) treat the characters differently based on the people playing them and b) use rules, even your own ad hoc rules, inconsistently to get the results you desire.

And people wonder how the asshole DMs meme got started and is perpetuated. It's funny that the old schoolers don't get why players want increasingly codified rules instead of such "DM rulings."

But, to be clear, it isn't your hypothetical game that rubs me the wrong way. It's the idea that this is how gaming should be done...

Seanchai

You've got an awesome way of completely misinterpreting stuff to fit your own conclusions, dude.
It's a known trick for me at this point, though. Can't say I'm surprised.

Quote from: Seanchai;435633In other words, you'd a) treat the characters differently based on the people playing them and b) use rules, even your own ad hoc rules, inconsistently to get the results you desire.

:rolleyes:

This is so wrong I don't even know where to start.

Treating your players exactly the same is a sure-fire recipe for a bland game at best (and disaster at worst). Different people engage different aspects of the same game, and it's the GM's job (within reason) to keep the combat-loving ass-kicker playing a Barbarian, the puzzle-solver playing a Thief and the method actor playing the Wizard equally entertained.

This in no way interferes with the GM's fairness and equanimity towards the players. It's all about offering your players (and their characters) interesting handles on the game world. To let them do their thing.

Quote from: Seanchai;435633And people wonder how the asshole DMs meme got started and is perpetuated. It's funny that the old schoolers don't get why players want increasingly codified rules instead of such "DM rulings."

Sure. Because God forbid that anyone actually likes new games for what they are. Everyone playing anything published post-1990 is issuing a statement against do-it-yourself, ad-hoc-ruled gaming and in favor of monolithic, inflexible game systems.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Seanchai;435633But, to be clear, it isn't your hypothetical game that rubs me the wrong way. It's the idea that this is how gaming should be done...

This is how gaming can be done; in fact. this is how I (and Benoist, and a few others) do it.

I'm sorry that you've had bad experiences with it. It's certainly not perfect or fool-proof. But I am lucky enough to game with a great group, and that's how we roll; it's dynamic, it's engaging (dare I say, immersive?) and I wouldn't trade it for the world.

"Tell us where the big bad evil GM touched you." :rolleyes:

Quote from: Seanchai;435534I'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 like this answer. I expect all at the table to do their best and that is the base line. I do not award for what I feel is the default. Do your best and throw it down...thats why we have attributes and stats etc. as a means to interact with the setting regardless.
And sometimes people are in a funk,like to participate for other reasons or are challenged in other regards.

I study and teach fighting arts including weapons and I have gamed with many who have a "fighter" PC who are totaly inept at describing any sort of emersive or realistic action. I do not punish them in game for that so why would I for something else?

The award for awesome roleplay is the respect of your peers,adding to the emersive experience and the smiles around the table!
I might buy someone a beverage or something though...as we remember tales of yore and the superlative play...
cool if y'all do otherwise!
:)

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

You just stole my line..... :D

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

So, if you happen to be good at doing speeches you don't have to bother about your character's speeching skill stat so much, because you'll get a lower difficulty anyway? And if you're not good at them, just put more points in your character's speeching skill so you won't have to worry too much about your own imperfect performance skills?

I dunno. I prefer if a player just describes the kind of speech he's planning on delivering and then rolls to see how well his character pulls it off. The third person in your example would have to describe in a bit more detail what he's trying to do before I even allow him to roll, though.

I don't really like long in-character speeches or monologues at the game table anyway. A matter of taste I guess.

What 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 don't necessarily want to hear speeches (or opera) at the table but I do appreciate it when people make a reasonable attempt at acting out their social interactions... haggling with merchants, chatting up barmaids... singing a few notes when rolling for their singing skill. It adds to the whole experience.
It's not about how well they do it so much as that they try... that they don't let that kind of fun languish in the abstract realm of the rules/dice.
I don't think it's so much a matter of reward/punishment from the GM as it is EVERYONE at the table making them feel comfortable and giving them space... but if a person doesn't enjoy a bit of bad play-acting I think wargames or boardgames might suit them better than RPGs.

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

That's a stupid golden rule, if you take it to mean "everybody absolutely must have fun at every single moment".  

RPGPundit

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.

One would argue that if there's a puzzle in an adventure, and some players are naturally better at constructive logic to solve it while others are worse, then I'd be "punishing" the poorer puzzle-solver by not letting him just solve it.

Or for that matter, if one player is a retard who casts fireball at the first kobold he sees, and then has no offensive spells when they're facing a menace that would have been more worthy of his spells, wouldn't I be "punishing" him for not being a tactical thinker by expecting him to fight a horde of orcs and not giving him a spare fireball spell to make up for his mismanagement?


"who you are as a person" affects all kinds of things about how well you're going to do at playing RPGs.  Its not my job to mollycoddle, nor is it the job of RPGs as a hobby to enact some Harrison Bergeron-style regime to prevent this reality.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jeff37923;435528For myself, the third would not be an automatic fail, but would have the worst difficulty number of the three.

That's fair enough, as an option.

RPGPundit

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. :)

Quote from: Peregrin;435854I 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.

I give out bonuses for both. Ideas are a more common contribution than actual speeches, but if the situation calls for "a paragraph-long gobbly-gook", and the player can deliver it... sure, why not.

Quote from: Peregrin;435854Look 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.

Ideally, yes, but it actually depends on which school you're attending. :D

In game solutions do not resolve an out of game issue.

If I have someone that is socially awkward and they are trying to be the social PC of a group, then I am going to be encouraging and supportive. They won't be punished in game for not meeting some subjective standard of social fitness.

I'm always inclined to give a bonus for exceptional play though, but I'm not going to punish those who are less able to provide that sort of thing. It smacks of elitism to me and I'll have no part of it.

Funny thing. Courtesans will be an almost totally social based game and yet our target audience is very much the socially inept.

Quote from: Seanchai;435831But 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: Benoist;435841It'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.

Interesting points here...

Ben.
Regarding the 1st. underlined comment above.
I make gestures in every game I play and have stood up to demonstrate movements etc. as have others I have played with. Some games mention gestures and postures as being good RP technique so this is not allways the case.

Would you grant a bonus if someone did these things even poorly?
What about facial expressions?
What about props like jewelry,clothing,pipes,weapons etc.?

2nd comment above. Does the description have to be the actual words or just the content and how they are delivered pertinant?

Someone could describe a killer idea for a speech covering all the relevent points and gesturing effectively (communication is primarily posturing/gesturing in some cases) but not do it the first person.

Example:
"I deliver a passionate speech to rouse the spirits of my companions, sighting home and brotherhood to unite them. As the dawn breaks I kneel and invoke Heklas aid..."(dice are thrown)

maybe I make a few faces and gestures while doing so, no real content but the idea is conveyed. I invoked emotions (home and comrades) and religion (Hekla) with timing (dawn) for effect.
How would you view (mod.) this?
Would that view change if I (player) had a stutter but my PC had a high Chr.?

Sometimes people play a PC because they like the idea and the mechanics of how they accomplish things. Some folk play a "class" that is missing in a group or are interested for other reasons.

What if a "Bard" relies on music for effect...should the player have to actualy bust out a tuba or whatever to get a bonus? How would you decide if they deliver a good tune asides from the att./skill and dice?
What if they brought a tape of someone elses playing?

One guy in the "Encounters" group I play in has a speech challenge but has great ideas and knows the game...should his character be punished for his challenge?
Maybe he plays a verbose PC with good skills so he can be an effective communicator (at least in his mind, which you reference in the post above).
via a well rolled d. while getting great mods. because he thought in character about how to get those mods!

This is an interesting thread eveyone! I have seen this sort of thing bandied about over the years...player ability/character ability and how they interact.
neat stuff
:)

Quote from: PaladinCA;435917In game solutions do not resolve an out of game issue.

If I have someone that is socially awkward and they are trying to be the social PC of a group, then I am going to be encouraging and supportive. They won't be punished in game for not meeting some subjective standard of social fitness.

I'm always inclined to give a bonus for exceptional play though, but I'm not going to punish those who are less able to provide that sort of thing. It smacks of elitism to me and I'll have no part of it.

good points IMO
can you clarify "exceptional play"? ie. delivery,plan or both?
:)

Quote from: skofflox;435927Ben.
Regarding the 1st. underlined comment above.
I make gestures in every game I play and have stood up to demonstrate movements etc. as have others I have played with. Some games mention gestures and postures as being good RP technique so this is not allways the case.

You're still role playing in your mind, though. What I meant by this is that role playing games are games of our imagination. We see, based on what's being described verbally at the table, or what we're looking at at the game table, whether it's a map, or gestures from other players, accents, etc.. we see what's happening in the game world using our mind's eye, as if we were there. That's what I meant by saying "this is a game played with your mind."

Quote from: skofflox;435927Would you grant a bonus if someone did these things even poorly?
What about facial expressions?
What about props like jewelry,clothing,pipes,weapons etc.?

I think these things are generally their own rewards. By which I mean that say, facial expressions, actually mimicking your character's traits as you speak, will affect group dynamics and create a dynamic that will be enjoyable in itself (assuming people are willing, of course). People will pick up on each others' cues, and that'll create a style of its own for the game table. And that's really enjoyable.

I remember a game of Vampire where all my friends basically showed up dressed as their characters. That was totally awesome. I don't remember giving out specific XPs for that, but it was a one shot so I'm not sure what happened afterwards. If you ask them about the experience, that was an awesome game for everyone involved, though, that's for sure.

Quote from: skofflox;4359272nd comment above. Does the description have to be the actual words or just the content and how they are delivered pertinant?

I would guess both. You can feel when someone's into the game or not. Nobody's asking anyone to be Al Pacino or Baudelaire when role playing or describing your actions. At the same time, anyone's able to actually play the game, and you know... be into it. You can see that. I'm much more likely to play the game with people who are into it than play it with people who seem bored and just bitch: "the rules on page XX say that this and this and say that I have a right to it. Give me my modifier already!"

Quote from: skofflox;435927Someone could describe a killer idea for a speech covering all the relevent points and gesturing effectively (communication is primarily posturing/gesturing in some cases) but not do it the first person.

Example:
"I deliver a passionate speech to rouse the spirits of my companions, sighting home and brotherhood to unite them. As the dawn breaks I kneel and invoke Heklas aid..."(dice are thrown)

I would stop you right at the "I deliver a speech" and would tell you: "No. Do it. Speak. What do you tell them?" It's a role playing game. You're not an author composing a story. You're your character right now. Play him.

Quote from: skofflox;435927maybe I make a few faces and gestures while doing so, no real content but the idea is conveyed. I invoked emotions (home and comrades) and religion (Hekla) with timing (dawn) for effect.
How would you view (mod.) this?
Would that view change if I (player) had a stutter but my PC had a high Chr.?

Well first, you're not in control of the environment. I am, as GM. You're in control of what your character says and does. Play your character. That said, if I feel you're into it, you're role playing your guy, you're passionate about it, that is totally the sort of detail I might add to your role playing by describing what's going on around you when appropriate. And that sort of passion is enough for me. I don't give a fuck whether you're a stutterer or whatnot. If you play your character, you're into it, I will feel it. Others will feel it. And yes, you'll get a bonus for that.

Quote from: skofflox;435927Sometimes people play a PC because they like the idea and the mechanics of how they accomplish things. Some folk play a "class" that is missing in a group or are interested for other reasons.

What if a "Bard" relies on music for effect...should the player have to actualy bust out a tuba or whatever to get a bonus? How would you decide if they deliver a good tune asides from the att./skill and dice?

I would never require that kind of thing, but IF the player wants to sing his songs himself, or even better, brings a fucking lute to the game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_K5zRA2APo&feature=related), then by god, that'd be awesome. Would I reward this? Yes. You don't have to, but if you make the extra effort for it, I'm going to reward it. If it makes the game better for everyone involved, I'm going to encourage it.

I've actually seen this. A guy was playing a Werewolf in a huge 50+ players multi-table WoD game once and he actually brought his Scottish bagpipes. He was the skald for the pack, and when the werewolves went to war against the Vampires in town, the whole group moved from one table to the next, all growling and menacing and all, with the guy in tartan playing the bagpipes for real. That was AMAZING. Totally awesome.

Quote from: skofflox;435927One guy in the "Encounters" group I play in has a speech challenge but has great ideas and knows the game...should his character be punished for his challenge?
Maybe he plays a verbose PC with good skills so he can be an effective communicator (at least in his mind, which you reference in the post above).
via a well rolled d. while getting great mods. because he thought in character about how to get those mods!

I would let him play a character like this and not penalize him for a speech impediment. At the same time, I would encourage him to talk, interact with others. If the other players are human beings, they'll let him play too and not hold it against him. If they do, that'll be very bad form, grounds for me to kick their ass out of the group, actually. I would let this player grow into his RP. I would actually make him role play the character rather than roll the dice, in any case. I would want him to feel welcome in pushing onward, forward. That's for sure. What matters is that you're into it, see? From there, the passion works its magic. That's all there is to it.

And therein lies the major difference, in my opinion. Some of us think that it's okay if people just suck at what they do. They are assumed to not be able to do any better, ever, and thus, they somehow should be cattered to. Others like me think that nothing's impossible to anyone, and that people who want to participate in this game actively should be welcome to do so. One is the fatalist, pessimistic, mediocre-is-enough attitude, and the other is the you-can-always-do-better attitude. I still can do better. I still learn everything I can from what works and what doesn't work when I run the game and play my characters. I think everyone's capable of this. The question is whether you are willing to do it, or not. If you're not willing to do it, you should not be surprised if your game sucks in the end.

Quote from: skofflox;435928good points IMO
can you clarify "exceptional play"? ie. delivery,plan or both?
:)

Thanks.

What I mean by exceptional...

When someone says or does something during the game and other people at the table go "Oh wow", "Ah", or "Yeah!" In other words, you know it when you see or hear it. When someone hams it up and leaves the table wanting more. That's pretty exceptional right there. A player that does that deserves to get a mechanical bonus for their effort, if there even need be a mechanical aspect to it at all (that's another debate).

.

Quote from: Benoist;435941I think these things are generally their own rewards. By which I mean that say, facial expressions, actually mimicking your character's traits as you speak, will affect group dynamics and create a dynamic that will be enjoyable in itself (assuming people are willing, of course). People will pick up on each others' cues, and that'll create a style of its own for the game table. And that's really enjoyable

.

I concur (as I intimated in a past post)...could this not be extended to social skill delivery as well? A good speech is it's own reward in that it brings enjoyment,greater depth of character and RP skill/technique to the table thereby raising the game to a higher lvl., so to speak.
So why give a mechanical/xp bonus (or whatever) in any situation involving delivery?

QuoteI would stop you right at the "I deliver a speech" and would tell you: "No. Do it. Speak. What do you tell them?" It's a role playing game. You're not an author composing a story. You're your character right now. Play him.

My example was assuming the player did/would -not- play in first person for whatever reason...some players never go that route. I do not exclude them from my games as they may come around at some point or enjoy and contribute to the game in other ways. You may be more picky in this regard!

Given that, would you give a bonus for the example delivery of speech?

(As an aside,I would hope that by others playing 1st person the shy would be inspired to as well. I would not stop the game and draw attention to their style.)

QuoteWell first, you're not in control of the environment. I am, as GM. You're in control of what your character says and does.

absolutely...this question presumes "trad. play".
Surely I could time my speech for the dawn and just confirm that it's clear out, if you did not allready say so, before delivering! That was my assumption in framing the question. ;)

Thanks for taking the time to answer! Great stuff to ponder...:)

Quote from: skofflox;435966.

I concur (as I intimated in a past post)...could this not be extended to social skill delivery as well? A good speech is it's own reward in that it brings enjoyment,greater depth of character and RP skill/technique to the table thereby raising the game to a higher lvl., so to speak.
So why give a mechanical/xp bonus (or whatever) in any situation involving delivery?

Because I'm role playing as well, and the mechanics are just a tool to help the game unfold, not a substitute to it. If you want to convince an NPC of something, then by all means, try to be convincing when you role play your character, and I'll react accordingly, modifying the probabilities to your roll, if any, accordingly.

Quote from: skofflox;435966My example was assuming the player did/would -not- play in first person for whatever reason...some players never go that route. I do not exclude them from my games as they may come around at some point or enjoy and contribute to the game in other ways. You may be more picky in this regard!

Given that, would you give a bonus for the example delivery of speech?

(As an aside,I would hope that by others playing 1st person the shy would be inspired to as well. I would not stop the game and draw attention to their style.)

I'm more picky about that. I would insist on the player using first person and actually role playing the situation as if he were the character. I would just ask him or her to act it out. That doesn't mean I would be harsh about it, but I'd rather encourage the player to do it. Repeatedly, if necessary. I'd expect the player to get my point after a while, that this is about role playing your character, not writing a story.

Quote from: skofflox;435966absolutely...this question presumes "trad. play".
Surely I could time my speech for the dawn and just confirm that it's clear out, if you did not allready say so, before delivering! That was my assumption in framing the question. ;)

That is totally possible. What you could do for instance is talk to me GM apart, and explain to me what you want to do with your speech, that you're timing it so that the dawn helps the delivery and such. Then we come back to the game table, you deliver your speech and role play your character, and I'll participate by describing the sky at this opportune moment(s). That sort of thinking is totally welcome.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;435752But 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.

If you have a low charisma, it will still affect your capacity in terms of reactions or persuasion rolls.  The example for this would be Claudius from the "I, Claudius" miniseries.  The guy is a brilliant guy, but has very bad charisma; once in a while, though, he pulls of moving someone because of his oratory capacity and generally good nature.

Also, two characters with CHA 8 are not necessarily going to have the same situation vis a vis how other react to them.  The guy who's CHA 8 and works hard at being likeable anyways is going to have an easier time of it overall than the guy who has CHA 8 and acts like a social retard.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;435971I'm more picky about that. I would insist on the player using first person and actually role playing the situation as if he were the character. I would just ask him or her to act it out. That doesn't mean I would be harsh about it, but I'd rather encourage the player to do it. Repeatedly, if necessary. I'd expect the player to get my point after a while, that this is about role playing your character, not writing a story.

Not that I think it's impossible to play third person and not being your character, by the way. But playing face-to-face in first person is a mean towards an end, rather than the end itself. Differences come in the form of a play-by-posts game for instance, where one would switch back and forth between first and third person - I know I do that, for instance. And there, it's impossible to actually say your speech out loud, unless you do so in your mind as you write it, which I do sometimes when I play in PbP. Even in PbP you can usually feel people who are in the game and those who aren't, with all the grey areas that implies as well.

But yeah. I'm talking about first person role playing as a mean to an end, here, not an end itself.

Quote from: RPGPundit;435978If you have a low charisma, it will still affect your capacity in terms of reactions or persuasion rolls.  The example for this would be Claudius from the "I, Claudius" miniseries.  The guy is a brilliant guy, but has very bad charisma; once in a while, though, he pulls of moving someone because of his oratory capacity and generally good nature.

Also, two characters with CHA 8 are not necessarily going to have the same situation vis a vis how other react to them.  The guy who's CHA 8 and works hard at being likeable anyways is going to have an easier time of it overall than the guy who has CHA 8 and acts like a social retard.

RPGPundit

Totally, on both counts.

Quote from: Seanchai;435831It's ridiculous and ridiculously punitive.

Seanchai

And DIRECTLY RELATED to what we are there to do: Roleplay. Swinging a sword is not directly related, only indirectly; talking in your character's voice is.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Peregrin;435854...earns more points than some paragraph long gobbly-gook with fancy words.  

Someone who spoke out a paragraph-long speech of gobbledygook and fancy words would probably be a prime example of a socially inept player.  The point isn't who can be the biggest loudmouth, or use the most sophisticated vocabulary; its who can actually understand how to act in a given situation and how to understand what the NPCs around you are expecting or wanting or demanding.
And if you have that social competency, you can often get more done without giving a one-sentence speech than someone who Just Doesn't Get It could with 12 pages.  

This happened in one of my games too; the player characters were confronting a "Big Bad Guy", who was basically holding the whole galaxy hostage and is pretty much too powerful to defeat in combat.  Player A, let's call him, is a guy who has put huge amounts of points into Diplomacy and a big-time charisma guy.  But he fails to understand the fundamental motivations and interest of Big Bad guy, because he really doesn't care.  So he rolls, gets like a 40, and I tell him he still fails; because all he did was threaten the Big Bad and offer him nothing that he wanted, and therefore didn't really use diplomacy at all.

Now, had he actually been capable of understanding what the Big Bad guy wanted (and it was no surprise, several of my other players got it right away), he could have easily gotten what he wanted, by convincing the Big Bad guy that he'd be getting what he wanted too.  No great speechmaking skill would have been required on the player's part, but the ability to communicate what the social situation actually demanded, which was: A) don't make empty threats at the being of Cosmic Power and B) Try to understand what the being of cosmic power actually wants to see if you can offer him a nicer scenario than the one he's currently running with.

So taking into account how players make SOCIAL DECISIONS is just as valid as taking into account how they make tactical decisions.  Had a "fighter" player in that situation told me that he was charging the Big Bad naked despite knowing that said big bad could disintegrate him with a glance, I would not have had the guy do a "warrior" roll to see if he would somehow succeed, or ignore the fact that said warrior had just made a massively boneheaded mistake. If he's tactically retarded, in an RPG, he pays for it.
So if you're socially retarded, why shouldn't you pay for it just as much?

RPGPundit

In that context, you should.

I don't see why it's a such a big deal to some people when you put it that way.  Mechanics shouldn't circumvent decision making on the player's part.

Quote from: Peregrin;435990In that context, you should.

I don't see why it's a such a big deal to some people when you put it that way.  Mechanics shouldn't circumvent decision making on the player's part.

No, they should actually enable them to make better decisions and aid in the interplay, not the opposite.

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).

Quote from: CRKrueger;436340If 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).

This is pretty much where I'm at.

If the best the player can offer is "I wanna really try to win her over, compliment her, blahblahblah", especially if I know it is a comfort issue and not a laziness issue (and I don't tend to play with complete strangers, so I have an idea usually) I'm okay with letting him roll Persuasion or Charisma or whatever is relevant for the game.

However, if they don't have the sense not to say "Hey, ever take it in the poop chute without lube?", then yeah, smack that crap down. Unless we're intentionally playing the goofiest, most off-color game we can.

Quote from: CRKrueger;436340I never really have any problems in this area however, I don't play with catpissmen.

In practice, now, that's what it really comes down to.

Quote from: StormBringer;436196In other words, if not for the Harijans, RPGs would be mainstream!

While its true that this does not necessarily follow, it is also true that getting rid of the Lawncrappers wouldn't make RPGs any LESS mainstream.  And that it is likely that for at least a certain number of people, one of the reasons they've never gotten into RPGs is the often-reported qualities of the worst types of people who play it and are sufficiently tolerated by the hobby to end up becoming our de facto "poster children", much to our detriment.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;436342This is pretty much where I'm at.

If the best the player can offer is "I wanna really try to win her over, compliment her, blahblahblah", especially if I know it is a comfort issue and not a laziness issue (and I don't tend to play with complete strangers, so I have an idea usually) I'm okay with letting him roll Persuasion or Charisma or whatever is relevant for the game.

However, if they don't have the sense not to say "Hey, ever take it in the poop chute without lube?", then yeah, smack that crap down. Unless we're intentionally playing the goofiest, most off-color game we can.

So let me see if I got your position straight here.  What you'd be saying is that if someone:

a) says nothing, just rolls = no bonus

b) says something really stupid = penalty, or failure?

c) says something that's very clever = no bonus?

Isn't that a situation then where you're really actively discouraging trying to bring anything into the game other than straight die-rolling? Aren't you basically making an argument for Forge-Swine style "gamism" then, and reducing the RPG to an utterly mechanical "wargame" even in non-combat elements, just as surely as if nothing you did or said apart from rolling a d20 (or whichever) had any effect whatsoever in the likelihood of your character's success?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;436429So let me see if I got your position straight here.  What you'd be saying is that if someone:

a) says nothing, just rolls = no bonus

b) says something really stupid = penalty, or failure?

c) says something that's very clever = no bonus?

Isn't that a situation then where you're really actively discouraging trying to bring anything into the game other than straight die-rolling? Aren't you basically making an argument for Forge-Swine style "gamism" then, and reducing the RPG to an utterly mechanical "wargame" even in non-combat elements, just as surely as if nothing you did or said apart from rolling a d20 (or whichever) had any effect whatsoever in the likelihood of your character's success?

RPGPundit

I cannot possibly argue for Forge-Swine "gamism" since I don't obsess pathetically over the Forge and what they may or may not be doing to our dice when we're not looking. Seriously, if I did not visit this site and read threads by you and a handful of posters I would have no idea about the Forge.

Like I said earlier in the thread, my concern is with figuring out who is there to genuinely contribute and make an honest effort into having a good time, and who is there because no one else will let them hang out.

I do assign bonuses and penalties where appropriate...but sometimes I, and everyone else around the table, are absolutely fine with abstracting some (or even most, depending on the group, campaign and/or game system) social interactions down into a couple of die rolls short sentences instead of turning every opportunity for interaction into community theatre for an audience of us. Because, while it is ROLE-PLAYING...it is also still a GAME...and if people at my table want to play a character who is smarter than they really are, or braver than they really are, or stronger than they really are, or more charismatic than they really are - if I think they are generally there to hang out, have a good time, and not be asshats, then I have no problem letting them use the system to accomplish that.

On the other hand, if I have a guy at the table who is a great tactical thinker, and he's made a character who should be utterly clueless, but he's really just used it as a dump stat, I'm not going to let him bypass that under the excuse of "I'm role-playing", unless he was pretty clear that his character concept was Idiot Savant Tactician or something.

Now, I have no idea if this is "Forge-Swine Gamism", since the only people I ever hear talk about The Forge is you and a handful of posters here. Something like ten years ago, I stumbled up "GNS Theory", read it, called it bullshit and went on - it has been a complete non-factor in my hobby life ever since...my first and only rule as GM is making sure that everyone at the table (including me) has fun, unless their fun comes from crapping on everyone else's.

Quote from: RPGPundit;436427While its true that this does not necessarily follow, it is also true that getting rid of the Lawncrappers wouldn't make RPGs any LESS mainstream.  And that it is likely that for at least a certain number of people, one of the reasons they've never gotten into RPGs is the often-reported qualities of the worst types of people who play it and are sufficiently tolerated by the hobby to end up becoming our de facto "poster children", much to our detriment.

RPGPundit

I really have to agree with this.

Many times in the pub, I've mentioned that I am a gamer and all of the worst stereotypes are brought up and I am told, in essence, "You are a gamer? You don't act or smell like a catpissman or a lawncrapper." Which shows me that the stereotype has become the de facto poster child for our hobby.

I think they should be rewarded in cash money. Rewarding them in RPGs will probably frighten them off.

-cl;ash

Quote from: flyingmice;436472I think they should be rewarded in cash money. Rewarding them in RPGs will probably frighten them off.

-cl;ash

I'm all for the cash, honestly. When are you running your game, again?

Quote from: Benoist;436476I'm all for the cash, honestly. When are you running your game, again?

That wasn't me, that was my sock-puppet cl;ash. Note the sig! I claim plausible deniability. He's paying the cash, ask him!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;436478That wasn't me, that was my sock-puppet cl;ash. Note the sig! I claim plausible deniability. He's paying the cash, ask him!

-clash

Damn! That bastard is sneaky! :D

Quote from: jeff37923;436445I really have to agree with this.

Many times in the pub, I've mentioned that I am a gamer and all of the worst stereotypes are brought up and I am told, in essence, "You are a gamer? You don't act or smell like a catpissman or a lawncrapper." Which shows me that the stereotype has become the de facto poster child for our hobby.

Over the years I've met individuals who regularly read rpg setting based fiction books (ie. Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, etc ...), but who have absolutely zero interest in playing any rpg games.  Quite a few of these individuals thought gamers resembled the catpissman or lawncrapper stereotypes, and they absolute refused to be associated with such people.

Quote from: flyingmice;436478That wasn't me, that was my sock-puppet cl;ash. Note the sig! I claim plausible deniability. He's paying the cash, ask him!

-clash

Most authours employ the utterly trite and wildly overused device of randomly placing apostrophes all over the name.  J'onn J'onzz, most of Anne McCaffrey, piles of Star Wars names...

Cl;ash is taking the bold new direction of using a semi-colon!  This will sweep the literary world within months.  ;)

Quote from: StormBringer;436491Most authours employ the utterly trite and wildly overused device of randomly placing apostrophes all over the name.  J'onn J'onzz, most of Anne McCaffrey, piles of Star Wars names...

Cl;ash is taking the bold new direction of using a semi-colon!  This will sweep the literary world within months.  ;)

cl;ash is too brilliant for his own good. I may have to put him down. The last thing a sockpuppet needs is to attract attention.

-cl;ash

Quote from: StormBringer;436491Most authours employ the utterly trite and wildly overused device of randomly placing apostrophes all over the name.  J'onn J'onzz, most of Anne McCaffrey, piles of Star Wars names...

Cl;ash is taking the bold new direction of using a semi-colon!  This will sweep the literary world within months.  ;)

Just like the gratuitous use of umlauts in heavy metal names.  :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_umlaut

Quote from: RPGPundit;436429Isn't that a situation then where you're really actively discouraging trying to bring anything into the game other than straight die-rolling? Aren't you basically making an argument for Forge-Swine style "gamism" then, and reducing the RPG to an utterly mechanical "wargame" even in non-combat elements, just as surely as if nothing you did or said apart from rolling a d20 (or whichever) had any effect whatsoever in the likelihood of your character's success?

Isn't this a bit of a hypocritical argument from you? Haven't you always been a champion of the beer and pretzels approach to gaming, claiming those who try to raise it above those aims and its roots are Swine? You're not becoming a Swine, are you?

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;436295I'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.

It's a roleplaying game when someone swings a sword, picks a lock, and casts a spell, too.

Yet the player swinging the sword doesn't have to get up and perform - he or she just rolls the dice. The player picking the lock doesn't have to get up and perform - he or she just rolls the dice. The player casting the spell doesn't have to get up and perform - he or she just rolls the dice.

Why? Why do people have to speak in character if they want their character to speak?

We could say it was because actions don't have the same impact on roleplaying and character that speech does. However, that's just not the case. For example, we often require that a player's selected actions to be consistent with the character. And actions can strongly demonstrate character - i.e., if a martial character chooses not to attack a target because it's weak or poorly armed.

We could say that speech has to be performed because it's easy to do so and the others are not. Although I'm not sure that pantomiming it terribly difficult. Moreover and more to the point, for the socially inept, it isn't easy.

The best I can come up with that some don't mind being inconsistent.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;436590Why? Why do people have to speak in character if they want their character to speak?

Because it's a role-playing game.

Quote from: Benoist;436593

Quote from: SeanchaiWhy? Why do people have to speak in character if they want their character to speak?

Because it's a role-playing game.

First, that's not a reason, that's just a label.  

Though I would be curious...  What would it be called if I play D&D where we make decisions for our characters, roll dice, and do everything else except speak as our characters?  i.e. We say "I ask the barkeep what is new in town." as opposed to "Ho! Barkeep!  What news is there in the town?"

Quote from: Seanchai;436588Isn't this a bit of a hypocritical argument from you? Haven't you always been a champion of the beer and pretzels approach to gaming, claiming those who try to raise it above those aims and its roots are Swine? You're not becoming a Swine, are you?

Seanchai

I think you might be confusing me with a cheetoist.  

As for me; I don't think that RPGs are "high art" or deep intellectual pursuit. What I do think is that in RPGs you should engage in actual roleplaying.

And elaborating on what or how your character is socially communicating is not the same as actually doing it; in essence, you ARE still trying to play someone more charismatic than you are; because its one thing to think up something clever to say, or get a sense of the right way to say it, and entirely another if you were trying to do the exact same thing in the types of high-pressure situations that happen in-game.  Its one thing to give a little speech in front of your GM in your character's voice, it woudl be another thing entirely to pull off the same speech in front of a broken army surrounded by 1200 French Knights coming to kill you all.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Seanchai;436590Why do people have to speak in character if they want their character to speak?

Quote from: Benoist;436593Because it's a role-playing game.

Quote from: jhkim;436603First, that's not a reason, that's just a label.  

Bullshit.

Go look up the definition of role-playing game.

Quote from: jhkim;436603First, that's not a reason, that's just a label.

Just a label, really? Interesting.

Quote from: jhkim;436603Though I would be curious...  What would it be called if I play D&D where we make decisions for our characters, roll dice, and do everything else except speak as our characters?  i.e. We say "I ask the barkeep what is new in town." as opposed to "Ho! Barkeep!  What news is there in the town?"

"Something else?"

It'd be an RPG.

At least according to the old-guard.  But Gygax used to separate the game/puzzle/exploration bits from "role-playing", viewing them as complementary pieces and competing bits in terms of "balanced" gaming.  As such he also thought too much emphasis on role-playing took away from the more player-challenge (game) elements.

Also, I don't know when the idea that speaking as your character is necessary for role-playing came about.  I've only encountered that meme in specific immersion-focused circles in the 90s, but never with the old-guard of D&D.

Quote from: RPGPundit;436427While its true that this does not necessarily follow, it is also true that getting rid of the Lawncrappers wouldn't make RPGs any LESS mainstream.  And that it is likely that for at least a certain number of people, one of the reasons they've never gotten into RPGs is the often-reported qualities of the worst types of people who play it and are sufficiently tolerated by the hobby to end up becoming our de facto "poster children", much to our detriment.

RPGPundit

I dunno if this is terribly accurate, but at least it is somewhat reasonable.  If that is the reason, it stands that teaching some players more social grace would be beneficial.  If it ends up just being a matter of personal taste, I am not one to either direct or judge anyone in their choice of who to invite to their table.

I really feel that this whole discussion has gone in some sort of excluded middle la-la-land where either you shouldn't do any role-playing at all or you must role-play all the fucking time for everything. This is ridiculous, honestly.

Quote from: Benoist;436632I really feel that this whole discussion has gone in some sort of excluded middle la-la-land where either you shouldn't do any role-playing at all or you must role-play all the fucking time for everything. This is ridiculous, honestly.

/me points and laughs!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;436636/me points and laughs!

-clash

/me points and laughs back! :D

Quote from: jeff37923;436617Bullshit.

Go look up the definition of role-playing game.

I don't give a damn what some dictionary says.  A dictionary definition has nothing to do with why I play - it's just a label.  

I play games because they are fun.  Sometimes it's fun to talk in my character's voice - but it can also be fun to play out other stuff without talking in my character's voice.  I've even played a mute character and had fun doing it.  

None of this had anything to do with the label.  I play RPGs because they're fun.  Let's try two reasons to speak in my character's voice:

1) You should speak in your character's voice because for all players, it's always more fun to speak in their character's voice.

2) You should speak in your character's voice because it's not a role-playing game unless everyone speaks in their character's voice.  

If it were true, #1 would be a legitimate reason to do something.  #2 is just stupid.

That's not the point dude.

Honestly. I like to go have a shit from time to time. Hey! It's fun! Looky here! I'm having a shit!
Doesn't make having a shit a role playing game, though.

If you have fun not playing a role playing game, good for you! Awesome!

More to the point, you know that "role-playing" part in role-playing game? Well, that's supposed to be part of the fun when you play the game, too. If you don't enjoy role-playing, you're welcome to play whatever the hell it is that you enjoy, story-gaming, miniatures wargames and otherwise, but it ain't role-playing.

Quote from: Benoist;436632I really feel that this whole discussion has gone in some sort of excluded middle la-la-land

Dude. TheRPGsite is Excluded Middle La-la-land. :D

Quote from: The Butcher;436681Dude. TheRPGsite is Excluded Middle La-la-land. :D

This is often true.

Quote from: The Butcher;436681Dude. TheRPGsite is Excluded Middle La-la-land. :D

OK. I stand corrected. :D

Quote from: PaladinCA;436684This is often true.

There's no such thing as "often true." It's either the Truth, or a Lie. Are you with me or against me, for fuck's sake?

:D

Quote from: jhkim;436656I don't give a damn what some dictionary says.  A dictionary definition has nothing to do with why I play - it's just a label.  

I play games because they are fun.  Sometimes it's fun to talk in my character's voice - but it can also be fun to play out other stuff without talking in my character's voice.  I've even played a mute character and had fun doing it.  

None of this had anything to do with the label.  I play RPGs because they're fun.  Let's try two reasons to speak in my character's voice:

1) You should speak in your character's voice because for all players, it's always more fun to speak in their character's voice.

2) You should speak in your character's voice because it's not a role-playing game unless everyone speaks in their character's voice.  

If it were true, #1 would be a legitimate reason to do something.  #2 is just stupid.

Well, it's not a nominal level question pundit was asking.
it's a ratio one.

Much of the point of this thread has been what advantage do you give for players who can roleplay their characters.  Sure, one can handewave sometimes and sometimes say, " I ask the bartender...", but the OP seems to be more about how much we penalize that approach, since it is not roleplaying at that second, and how much advantage does the socially-adept player get?

Quote from: RPGPundit;436612What I do think is that in RPGs you should engage in actual roleplaying.

I agree. Where I disagree, however, is the idea that the only thing that's roleplaying is speaking out loud in character.

Let me ask: Should the in-game actions of a character match the stated and demonstrated personality and traits of said character? If I'm playing a merciful paladin, should I really ride by a starving widow and children without offering them food or money to buy food?

Quote from: RPGPundit;436612...in essence, you ARE still trying to play someone more charismatic than you are...

People try to play characters who are stronger than they are. People try to play characters who are more dexterous than they actually are. People try to play characters who are wiser than they actually are. People try to play characters who are more intelligent than they actually are. People try to play characters with greater constitution than they actually have.

Should people be disallowed from all such mismatches or does it only matter in the case of charisma, social aptitude, verbal skill, etc.?

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;436743People try to play characters who are stronger than they are. People try to play characters who are more dexterous than they actually are. People try to play characters who are wiser than they actually are. People try to play characters who are more intelligent than they actually are. People try to play characters with greater constitution than they actually have.

Should people be disallowed from all such mismatches or does it only matter in the case of charisma, social aptitude, verbal skill, etc.?

Seanchai

No, that was my point.  Go back and read the post you quoted again: I was saying that even a well-spoken player is STILL trying to play someone more charismatic than he is, and it is therefore no different than someone playing a warrior stronger than he is, or a thief more dexterous than he is.  It invalidates your whole argument.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Seanchai;436743I agree. Where I disagree, however, is the idea that the only thing that's roleplaying is speaking out loud in character.

Let me ask: Should the in-game actions of a character match the stated and demonstrated personality and traits of said character? If I'm playing a merciful paladin, should I really ride by a starving widow and children without offering them food or money to buy food?

Exactly.  Some people seem to be saying that if regardless of whether you help the orphans or not, that isn't role-playing.  The only role-playing, to some people, is talking in your character's voice.  

Quote from: LordVreeg;436738Well, it's not a nominal level question pundit was asking.
it's a ratio one.

Much of the point of this thread has been what advantage do you give for players who can roleplay their characters.  Sure, one can handewave sometimes and sometimes say, " I ask the bartender...", but the OP seems to be more about how much we penalize that approach, since it is not roleplaying at that second, and how much advantage does the socially-adept player get?

I agree.  I wasn't replying directly to Pundit.  I was replying to jeff37923 (and indirectly to Benoist).  

The core of the disagreement is linked, though, in the idea that there is no role-playing in describing your character actions - that the only role-playing is speaking in your character's voice.  i.e. It doesn't matter what your character *does* - the only role-playing is what he *says*.

Quote from: jhkim;436767The core of the disagreement is linked, though, in the idea that there is no role-playing in describing your character actions - that the only role-playing is speaking in your character's voice.  i.e. It doesn't matter what your character *does* - the only role-playing is what he *says*.

That's the strawman that is being built right now, you mean.

I do not believe there is no role-playing involved in describing what your character does. I do however believe that speaking for your character is better in terms of role-playing than describing what your character is trying to say (depending on situations - it's not always the case). This to me is part of what makes role-playing enjoyable, and I will encourage it from players around the table.

Nobody's asking you to be act like a professional actor. But you have to be willing to act, at least.
Otherwise we're not playing the same game.

Quote from: jhkim;436767I was replying to jeff37923.  

The core of the disagreement is linked, though, in the idea that there is no role-playing in describing your character actions - that the only role-playing is speaking in your character's voice.  i.e. It doesn't matter what your character *does* - the only role-playing is what he *says*.

Then let me reply to you.

 It matters what your character does and says, because you are acting the role of that character. Not playing the character as a game piece by describing its actions, acting the role.

Go look up the definition of role-playing. Not your own personal definition, but the commonly accepted definition of the term that is used everyday.

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

So I guess all your players are stuck playing themselves?

Quote from: jhkim;436767The core of the disagreement is linked, though, in the idea that there is no role-playing in describing your character actions - that the only role-playing is speaking in your character's voice.  i.e. It doesn't matter what your character *does* - the only role-playing is what he *says*.[/QUOTEUnderstood.
No stress.

But the ides of why the previously in-use term of 'role-play' was used for this past time is based on the idea of assuming a role.  Not just from an omniscient perspective, but the idea is to assume the role, to immerse.

So I don't make people roleplay everything, But my systems are all 'declare-roleplay-roll-recover' .  The roleplay gives a bonus or minus, normally a bonus, andoften leads to chains of this array.  It you rolplay it, I reward with experience and a better chance of success.

Quote from: Benoist;436772That's the strawman that is being built right now, you mean.

I do not believe there is no role-playing involved in describing what your character does. I do however believe that speaking for your character is better in terms of role-playing than describing what your character is trying to say (depending on situations - it's not always the case). This to me is part of what makes role-playing enjoyable, and I will encourage it from players around the table.

Nobody's asking you to be act like a professional actor. But you have to be willing to act, at least.
Otherwise we're not playing the same game.

I bolded the last sentence.  You said, and seem to still be saying, that if I have my character do things - but I don't talk in my character's voice, then I am not role-playing and thus what I am doing is not a role-playing game.  

That inherently means that you don't consider that anything of what my character actually *does* counts role-playing.  

So either:

1) What a character *does* can count as role-playing, so a player who doesn't talk as their character may still be role-playing - just a different style of role-playing.  

2) What a character does isn't role-playing, so as you say if a player doesn't talk as their character, they aren't role-playing.

Quote from: jhkim;436807That inherently means that you don't consider that anything of what my character actually *does* counts role-playing.

No. That is not what that means.

It means, if you are not willing to act, to actually speak at some point for your character, the two games we are each playing do not involve the same type of activities, do not feel the same, are not the exact same thing. That's what that means.

You are jumping to conclusions from there, disregarding all that's been said BEFORE the bolded sentence in the process.

Quote from: jhkim;436767The core of the disagreement is linked, though, in the idea that there is no role-playing in describing your character actions - that the only role-playing is speaking in your character's voice.  i.e. It doesn't matter what your character *does* - the only role-playing is what he *says*.

Nonsense. Of course what your character DOES matters; just like it matters what he says, when he says it, and how.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;436821Nonsense. Of course what your character DOES matters; just like it matters what he says, when he says it, and how.

Right.  That's what I'm saying, Pundit.  I was arguing against Benoist on this.  

Quote from: Benoist;436812No. That is not what that means.

It means, if you are not willing to act, to actually speak at some point for your character, the two games we are each playing do not involve the same type of activities, do not feel the same, are not the exact same thing. That's what that means.

Obviously they are not the exact same thing.  What I was arguing against was your claim that it wasn't roleplaying if I didn't talk in my character's voice.  

I'm saying that deciding on actions (including social ones) that are appropriate to your character is roleplaying.  Therefore, someone who says what his character is doing is roleplaying, but it is not the exact same kind of role-playing as talking in your character's voice.  Conversely, I have played in a handful of games where the only thing you do is talk in character - i.e. you never describe your character's action, because the only thing that happens in the game is talk.  This also is not the same kind of role-playing as what happens in a traditional tabletop game like D&D, but it also is role-playing.

I can't believe you people are having a flame war over "it's not a RPG if you don't talk in a funny voice."

If this isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel, I don't know what is.

Quote from: The Butcher;436859I can't believe you people are having a flame war on "it's not a RPG if you don't talk in a funny voice."

If this isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel, I don't know what is.

I can only agree, yet I'm compelled to get involved because I'm stunned that not only is there support for funny voice-ism, but that some believe it's actually required.

I find it frankly embarrassing when people at a game table start with the thees and thous and calling NPCs "knave" in whatever they consider an elvish accent.  I doubt I could stick with a group where it was the norm.

Quote from: Hairfoot;436865I can only agree, yet I'm compelled to get involved because I'm stunned that not only is there support for funny voice-ism, but that some believe it's actually required.

I find it frankly embarrassing when people at a game table start with the thees and thous and calling NPCs "knave" in whatever they consider an elvish accent.  I doubt I could stick with a group where it was the norm.

Same here. In my group(s), "direct" in-character speech (preferrably without archaic affectations) is encouraged ("Halt! In the name of King Azoun!"), but "indirect" discourse ("I command the bandits to halt, in the name of King Azoun"), most of the time, is fine.

Like a few other baffling differences I notice between my own playstyle, and that of what I perceive to be the vocal majority of theRPGsite users, I ascribe this to (1) the high proportion of "casual" players in my group, and (2) the inevitable rhetoric polarization (a.k.a. "excluded middle" problem/fallacy) that graces almost every disagreement in this site. Pundy is particularly fond of pulling "excluded middles" as a rhetoric dirty trick.

This usually leads me to not caring a whole lot to the issue at hand, as I no longer have the time or inclination to get all worked up over such things. I guess that makes me a Cheetoist. Ah well.

Quote from: Hairfoot;436865I can only agree, yet I'm compelled to get involved because I'm stunned that not only is there support for funny voice-ism, but that some believe it's actually required.

Holy shit this thread really is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Is this some sort of contest of who's going to misinterpret what the other's saying the best?

I don't see "speaking for your character" as an equivalent for "funny voice-ism, thous and thees." Unless you are using those and have the ability to be believable using them, I don't see the latter working too well towards the goal of immersion. It seems immersion in the game world through the act of being your character is getting completely lost, here.

Speaking for your character is a conduct of that. Though you might say "I'm gonna ask the barkeeper for another beer" and not get an eyebrow raised on my part, if you're starting saying "I'm trying to convince the guards that I'm the son of the sultan," you bet your ass I'm going to ask you to role-play it out. And no, you don't necessarily have to use funny voices and all that.

You guys do know what actually role-playing your character means, right? You've actually done it before, haven't you?

Quote from: RPGPundit;436764No, that was my point.  Go back and read the post you quoted again: I was saying that even a well-spoken player is STILL trying to play someone more charismatic than he is, and it is therefore no different than someone playing a warrior stronger than he is, or a thief more dexterous than he is.  It invalidates your whole argument.

I'm not sure what you think is happening is actually happening. Because if you're okay with and recognize this mismatch, there's no point in penalizing socially inept players other than to be an ass to socially inept players ('cause you're socially inept yourself).

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;436772I do however believe that speaking for your character is better in terms of role-playing than describing what your character is trying to say (depending on situations - it's not always the case).

I agree. However, what I don't agree with is the idea that in character speech as a requirement instead of an option is a betterment.

Quote from: Benoist;436772But you have to be willing to act, at least.

Because not acting wrecks the game? Because you can't roleplay without acting?

You can say you have to act because it's a roleplaying game if you wish, but it's a roleplaying game, not an acting game.

Moreover, there's still that whole game component.

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;436911Though you might say "I'm gonna ask the barkeeper for another beer" and not get an eyebrow raised on my part, if you're starting saying "I'm trying to convince the guards that I'm the son of the sultan," you bet your ass I'm going to ask you to role-play it out. And no, you don't necessarily have to use funny voices and all that.

But if I said, I'm going to swing my sword at the guards, it's okay to just declare and roll...

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;436911You guys do know what actually role-playing your character means, right? You've actually done it before, haven't you?

You aren't the one to tell me what it is.

This is a really strange "conversation."

Quote from: Machinegun Blue;436918You aren't the one to tell me what it is.

No, I indeed am not.

To me in character speech is a sign of the intensity of role playing at the very moment it happens. It doesn't have to define a whole game session. Some players speak in first person a lot, some don't. Often the ones who prefer third person descriptions are aware of their limited capacity of acting and are indeed making the game better this way rather than breaking the suspension of disbelief of others with their bad acting.

When a PC is asking for direction in a city street, the random interaction with the random city dweller isn't very important. GM and player can do it "first person" or "third person" and that's just fine, it's not meant to be intense character interaction, just a mean to convey information during the game.

During a more intense scene (say the party meets the King and try to convince him that his kingdom is in danger) I'd like to see more in character speech, more involvement from the players. I try to encourage it by speaking in character myself. It usually does the trick. But still some players can't go there, or not all the time, or they don't feel it tonight, or the subject at hand is little overwhelming on an emotional level, whatever... It's fine.

In character speech is the cherry on top of the cake: I'd rather have it than not but I won't expect some absolute standard from fellow players. That's why at best I can encourage it by example and stop playing with people who don't act enough for me to enjoy the game.

The suspension of disbelief for all players at the table is the common good. If it's better achieved by good acting and subsequent bonus to the die roll, cool. Or maybe was there no roll at all and some nice intense role playing? Or maybe Joe delivered a formidable description of his character's arguments and tone without acting it and we all rolled with it because it was very convincing? It's about spontaneity and individual talents in the service of the game, not about RPG dogma.

Yes I love in character speech and acting at the table. Doesn't mean I have to be fanatic about it and enforce it with resolution rulings.

I'm sorry I fell for the trap and the whole excluded-middle rhetoric.

Thanks boulet for the post.

Quote from: boulet;436949To me in character speech is a sign of the intensity of role playing at the very moment it happens. It doesn't have to define a whole game session. Some players speak in first person a lot, some don't. Often the ones who prefer third person descriptions are aware of their limited capacity of acting and are indeed making the game better this way rather than breaking the suspension of disbelief of others with their bad acting.

When a PC is asking for direction in a city street, the random interaction with the random city dweller isn't very important. GM and player can do it "first person" or "third person" and that's just fine, it's not meant to be intense character interaction, just a mean to convey information during the game.

During a more intense scene (say the party meets the King and try to convince him that his kingdom is in danger) I'd like to see more in character speech, more involvement from the players. I try to encourage it by speaking in character myself. It usually does the trick. But still some players can't go there, or not all the time, or they don't feel it tonight, or the subject at hand is little overwhelming on an emotional level, whatever... It's fine.

In character speech is the cherry on top of the cake: I'd rather have it than not but I won't expect some absolute standard from fellow players. That's why at best I can encourage it by example and stop playing with people who don't act enough for me to enjoy the game.

The suspension of disbelief for all players at the table is the common good. If it's better achieved by good acting and subsequent bonus to the die roll, cool. Or maybe was there no roll at all and some nice intense role playing? Or maybe Joe delivered a formidable description of his character's arguments and tone without acting it and we all rolled with it because it was very convincing? It's about spontaneity and individual talents in the service of the game, not about RPG dogma.

Yes I love in character speech and acting at the table. Doesn't mean I have to be fanatic about it and enforce it with resolution rulings.

Good post.
I do enforce benefits for 1st person roleplaying, as well as RP exp awards, but the effects are the same.  When the result matters, my players are rewarded/bonused for going into 1st person.   They don't have to...I just try to make it the best choice, and this seems to work.
But when it matters less, they spend a lot of time in third person.

Pundit: Understanding your reward/punishment mechanism for these situations, do you hope that your punished players will soon buck up to the role play challenge?  I mean debate classes and etiquette schooling could take some time to master for socially improved behavior.  

Or do you hope they get tired of being dumped on and eventually leave your game?  Is there a possibility that they suck at one aspect of the game and excel at another, but your distain for their lack of skill in one area overshadows the rest of their potential?

Hi Venosha!  Glad to see you back! :D

Quote from: Seanchai;436912I'm not sure what you think is happening is actually happening. Because if you're okay with and recognize this mismatch, there's no point in penalizing socially inept players other than to be an ass to socially inept players ('cause you're socially inept yourself).

Seanchai

You'd penalize socially inept players for the same reason that you would penalize tactically inept players, or resource-management-inept players, or awareness-disabled players.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Venosha;437024Pundit: Understanding your reward/punishment mechanism for these situations, do you hope that your punished players will soon buck up to the role play challenge?  I mean debate classes and etiquette schooling could take some time to master for socially improved behavior.  

Or do you hope they get tired of being dumped on and eventually leave your game?  Is there a possibility that they suck at one aspect of the game and excel at another, but your distain for their lack of skill in one area overshadows the rest of their potential?

If I hoped people would leave my game, I'd just kick them out.  The idea is for them to get the point and hopefully shape up and understand that just saying "I roll my +14 diplomacy" is not enough in and of itself.

RPGPundit

Also, I don't believe anyone here is arguing that "one should ONLY say things in character voice, and never say what you do"; that's just a straw man the other side is trying to haul out here.

I think its safe to say that everyone who has spoken in favour of the OP here has been arguing that you should describe what you do AND speak in character voice.  My original point was not even limited to speech-making; you can fuck up social interaction in an RPG without ever saying anything, or long before you do, by DOING stuff that requires no speech at all, at the wrong time, in the wrong way, or to the wrong people.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;437071You'd penalize socially inept players for the same reason that you would penalize tactically inept players, or resource-management-inept players, or awareness-disabled players.

No. I don't care if folks "roleplay" at the table - that's their choice to make. Moreover, I don't seek to penalize players. I don't use penalties in some Pavlovian gaming table experiment to change their personality.

Quote from: RPGPundit;437072The idea is for them to get the point and hopefully shape up and understand that just saying "I roll my +14 diplomacy" is not enough in and of itself.

I'm not sure a few sessions of D&D is going to magically turn someone who is socially inept into a charismatic character actor.

Quote from: RPGPundit;437073Also, I don't believe anyone here is arguing that "one should ONLY say things in character voice, and never say what you do"; that's just a straw man the other side is trying to haul out here.

When you argue that players need to roleplay or be penalized and don't consider third person descriptions of what a character says or does either a) roleplaying or b) sufficient to avoid the penalty, yes, you absolutely are arguing that players must speak in-character.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;437164When you argue that players need to roleplay or be penalized and don't consider third person descriptions of what a character says or does either a) roleplaying or b) sufficient to avoid the penalty, yes, you absolutely are arguing that players must speak in-character.

Seanchai

I am indeed, I don't deny it; what I have issue with is the completely incorrect idea that I think that its the ONLY thing that should be happening.

RPGPundit