What! Limper has a gripe?

[Kestrel]

I agree...roleplaying should be awarded. I said that in my previous post. It should be a large award that is split evenly by the players, just like combat xp is. Individual awards are the ones that I have a problem with. Individual awards just have the tendency to lead to favoritism and disagreement among the players, which is best avoided, in a group based game.

Players that demand individual awards are simply ones that want special recognition, hence the cookies.

 

[barsoomcore]

I agree with the rules being optional, and thus agree that no one has to do it; I just don't agree with folks indicating their own reasons for disliking such rewards as reason why such rewards should never be used by anyone.

Wait a minute. You're saying, "People who disagree with me should not have the nerve to suggest that they might be right."

I'm not insisting that people never use individual rewards. I am saying that I think individual rewards are unfair and a poor way to run a game. I think they breed discontent, one-up-manship and hard feelings -- none of which I am eager to generate within my game.

If you think they're great, I disagree with you. I think you're wrong and I'm right.

That doesn't mean I'm going to stop you from using them. Go right ahead. Tell me how it works out. But don't tell me that my reasons for thinking they're bad aren't reasons why you shouldn't use such rewards. You may disagree with my reasons, or you may have OTHER reasons for using these rewards -- but my reasons DO give me the right to say that I think such rewards should never be used by anyone.

Because they're bad.

Now have a cookie.

 

[Fenes 2]

All the PCs in our campaigns level at the same pace - no matter the quality of the roleplaying, puzzle-solving, leadership or any other ability of the player. No matter the attendance. One of our players is currently serving in the army, and will probably not be back to play for 40 weeks - and we play weekly. When he returns his PC will have the same level as the rest of the party.

I do not consider a roleplaying campaign a competition, I just want to have fun. Installing a pecking order in a roleplaying group is not my idea of fun.

As far as earing a level/reward as a player goes... rofl. The DM could kill my PC anytime, anyplace in the campaign, and I could do nothing about it. I cannot beat the DM, and "earn" something - everything is "given out".

You may beat your friends at Battletech or any other strategy game, but no one beats a DM - as long as the DM does not use all his ressources, i.e. DM fiat or limitless power, he is not really trying.

 

[WizarDru]

This isn't about giving grand speeches or being over-acting hams; This is about becoming more involved in the story and rewarding Players for such efforts, thus making the story and interpersonal interaction as meaningful mechanically as combat is. After all, if a system for rewarding RP was ever "officialized", would it stop those that don't RP from advancing? Would it even slow them down?

Congratulations on having more free time than some of us, and living relatively close to your players...some of us aren't as lucky as that. I have two kids, and my wife and all my other players all have full time jobs, as well. Could we and have we had half-sessions, one-on-ones and e-mail conversations? Sure. Are they as rewarding as live play? Not for us.

That said, how are you proposing such rewards are implemented in a 'meaningful mechanical' way? Who defines 'good' roleplaying versus 'bad'? How do you quantify it's value? I'm not talking about peacably bypassing an enemy, I"m talking about all the different issues that role-playing would entail. If you have a system, and it works for you, then good. I don't see how one could be provided that didn't alienate some players for their chosen style of interaction.

Different RP-ing styles come across differently. Some people are intentionally hammy, and some aren't. Some are melodramatic, and some are stock serious. Which is better? Your reference to 'grand speeches and over-acting hams' gives off an air of 'I don't know real roleplyaing...but I know what I like'. It sounds more like pure DM fiat than anything else.

If you have fun that way, and everyone thinks it's a fair system, then go nuts. But there's a reason it's provided as an optional system...and that's because I'd wager that more D&D players like it that way.

 

[diaglo]

well to go back to the original topic/ poster.

the one-on-one suggestions, the variations of roleplaying, the changing styles were for LImper's benefit. whether he uses these is another matter.

 

[WizarDru]

well to go back to the original topic/ poster.

the one-on-one suggestions, the variations of roleplaying, the changing styles were for LImper's benefit. whether he uses these is another matter.

But that's just it: he's not looking for ways to do these things different...he's looking for a way to force his DM to do things differently.

 

[Aaron L]

For Silverthorne:

The quote is from the new Tenchi Muyo! comic, first issue.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Wait a minute. You're saying, "People who disagree with me should not have the nerve to suggest that they might be right."

I'm not insisting that people never use individual rewards. I am saying that I think individual rewards are unfair and a poor way to run a game. I think they breed discontent, one-up-manship and hard feelings -- none of which I am eager to generate within my game.

I don't think you're wrong. You could very well be right in regards to how doing so would effect your game.

If you think they're great, I disagree with you. I think you're wrong and I'm right.

See, here's the difference: I don't think your wrong. I just don't think you're universally right.

Congratulations on having more free time than some of us, and living relatively close to your players...some of us aren't as lucky as that. I have two kids, and my wife and all my other players all have full time jobs, as well. Could we and have we had half-sessions, one-on-ones and e-mail conversations? Sure. Are they as rewarding as live play? Not for us.

Seems we have a lot in common (although I'm one kid up on you), but definately not the way we've chosen to manage our schedules.

That said, how are you proposing such rewards are implemented in a 'meaningful mechanical' way? Who defines 'good' roleplaying versus 'bad'? How do you quantify it's value? I'm not talking about peacably bypassing an enemy, I"m talking about all the different issues that role-playing would entail. If you have a system, and it works for you, then good. I don't see how one could be provided that didn't alienate some players for their chosen style of interaction.

Effort and character portayal. It's a RP Award, not an Oscar.

Different RP-ing styles come across differently. Some people are intentionally hammy, and some aren't. Some are melodramatic, and some are stock serious. Which is better? Your reference to 'grand speeches and over-acting hams' gives off an air of 'I don't know real roleplyaing...but I know what I like'. It sounds more like pure DM fiat than anything else.

I'll reward for anything that is in-character, represents character growth, and doesn't resemble a USA-Up-All-Night movie.

If you have fun that way, and everyone thinks it's a fair system, then go nuts. But there's a reason it's provided as an optional system...and that's because I'd wager that more D&D players like it that way.

Probably true... RP Optional does seem to be the way of things now-a-days.

 

[hong]

Probably true... RP Optional does seem to be the way of things now-a-days.

So, um, would you mind if I called you a RP Nazi? Not that I normally use the term, but the thought did occur to me after reading this post.

 

[barsoomcore]

See, here's the difference: I don't think your wrong. I just don't think you're universally right.

Well, that's where you're wrong. I am ALWAYS universally right. I took a Feat.

But seriously, I DO think you're wrong. I think some things are true or not true, and it is true that individual awards cause all the problems I listed.

Effort and character portayal. It's a RP Award, not an Oscar.

I'll reward for anything that is in-character, represents character growth, and doesn't resemble a USA-Up-All-Night movie.

Yeah, but what about the mechanical point you were so adamant about:

This is about becoming more involved in the story and rewarding Players for such efforts, thus making the story and interpersonal interaction as meaningful mechanically as combat is.

How is what you just described in any way mechanical? I mean, if it's just "Hey DMs! Why not hand out XP for role-playing?" -- well that hardly seems like something that even needs to be in the rules. And it's certainly not mechanical.

But I'd be interested in seeing a mechanical system for awarding Role-Playing XP.