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.....

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