Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5084949" data-attributes="member: 4937">I agree.I require a player to choose the position of his character relative to a foe, and the path of movement he wishes to take, and the manuevers he wishes to attempt as implicit preconditions to the proposition, "I attack my foe." What this means is that a player who is tactically challenged or spatially learning disabled, has some difficulty playing a character who is supposed to be a master tactician.  Now, it may be that if the character has taken various advantages that give a bonus to the die that this at least partially mitigates the player's bad choices, and the character by dent of raw skill at combat might still be successful despite the player's bad choices, but the game is a meaningless simulation if the player is deprived of those choices.  You might as well run it on a computer and watch the outcome for all the participation you are having.Social skills are the same thing.  Yes, it is true that someone with social phobias, extreme shyness or stuttering will have difficulty roleplaying someone who is socially gifted and sauve.  It's also true that by virtue of the characters raw skill at diplomacy, bluffing, and what not, that the character may still succeed at this task if it is gamely attempted.  In fact, the person with shyness, stuttering, poor body language and so forth has a far better chance of playing a socially adept character than the spatially challenged player has of playing a master tactician.  This is because things like stuttering interfere only with the style of the message, not with its content.  If the socially inept player delivers a speech with well thought out and wisely chosen content, the fact that he stuttered his way threw it should have no negative consequences on the in game outcome of the speech.  The same is not true of making poor tactical decisions, which is a matter of substance and not only delivery.  The socially inept player is only required to make a brave attempt at playing his character.  He doesn't actually have to be charismatic.  He need only deliver well chosen content.   Shyness isn't nearly as big of a barrier against playing a charismatic character as, to put it bluntly, being an anti-social jerk who can't even manage to pretend to be something other than continually insulting, angry, and offensive (to the NPC's).  Once the socially inept player delivers a diplomatic message, his character through the power of the dice and a big bonus to your diplomacy skill transforms it into a stirring speech.  The important thing is therefore the attempt to be diplomatic and consider the goals and feelings of the NPC.As for why we are at the table, the answer obviously is to have fun.  But I would suggest that there is a deeper level to RPing that goes beyond simply having fun.  RPing is practice at life.  The shy socially inept player who continually is forced to make brave attempts at communication may eventually find that not only does the task become easier in the game, but that that he himself has 'put points in diplomacy' and communication in real life becomes easier.  Likewise, the spatially or math challenged player who spends time imagining spaces in his head so as to see the place where the most tactical advantage can be obtained may eventually find that his skills in map reading, geometry, and so forth have improved.  I don't want to overstate the value of these things, because pretending to do something is no substitute in the long run for actually doing it, but speaking from personal experience I've seen players 'put skill points' in tasks that they had trouble with in real life and put those skills to real use in real situations latter.  If I may say so, I believe that running tables as a game referee taught me small group leadership skills that served me well in other situations.</blockquote>

Verification