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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jim Hague" data-source="post: 2684832" data-attributes="member: 17550">Against my better judgement...No.  Wrong.  You're oversimplifying the stances.  Allow me to explain.I fully realize that there are different play styles and degrees of roleplaying.  My contention previously is that dispensing with the mechanical fallback of social mechanics leaves far too much room for GMs, good and bad, to either make a mistake or cheat their players out of a satisfying experience...for that matter, such problems can end up with the GM not having a satisfying experience.Social skills, when appropriate, are the great leveller in roleplay - you can have someone who's an excellent player, with a kickass concept, who never slows the game down with rules arguments...but is a poor 'roleplayer'.  They just don't grasp the improvisation or the threatrical side of the game.  Are these people, who can't 'act' to save their lives, to be penalized by not having the fallback of the mechanics?  What about the tyrolean player, who, again, is very excited to be there, wants to participate...and is left floundering by the wayside when the GM pays more attention to the forceful, charismatic player?Should pure mechanics rule the day?  Hardly.  If anything, I'm very much in agreement with Henry in his stance - mechanics come in where appropriate.  Allowing 'pure' (player-driven without regard to mechanics or character statistics) roleplay to drive the social aspect is, IME, asking...no, begging, for trouble.As for the 'elitist' stance?  Well, as I said, I appreciate the honesty displayed, but I find the attitude repugnant, even if I agree with other ideas that poster's had.</blockquote>

Verification