What! Limper has a gripe?

[Aaron L]

1 XP per level for every 5 words spoken in character that do not violate alignment.

 

[Corinth]

Why would people who don't role-play spend their time playing a role-playing game?

Because the adventuring experience is actually a dynamic, multi-layered problem-solving scenario wherein the participants work with limited options and limited resources in order to overcome the obstacles and resolve the scenario. The "role-playing" aspect just presents another facet of obstacles and resources for a player to work with or around.

I already know the answer; I just want to see if anyone else is going to be honest about it...

I'd not be so certain about that if I were you.

 

[barsoomcore]

1 XP per level for every 5 words spoken in character that do not violate alignment.

Only words spoken in character? What about, "I fall to my knees and throw my arms out, begging for hong to stop posting links to absurd things that make me spew coffee all over my monitor?" Not a single word spoken in character. Do I get 0 XP for describing character's "in-character" actions? Or do we include those as well? And how do we count these words? And why would we not include words that violate alignment? Surely sometimes an alignment shift is the clearest sign of good role-playing -- your character changing over time. And why are long speeches more valued than short ones? What about a player who's playing a strong, silent type? Aren't they being MORE in character by being quiet and staying in the background?

Sorry, but this is not a trivial thing. Or at least finding a workable system is not a trivial problem. You may have been facetious in your suggestion, and I'm not posting all this as an attack against you or your idea, but just trying to point out how complex this problem really is -- and why it isn't included in the rules (aside from other problems with individual awards).

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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.

I said, making the story and interpersonal interaction as meaningful mechanically as combat is. By this, you grant XP, and you advance in levels, making it meaningful mechanically.

 

[hong]

1 XP per level for every 5 words spoken in character that do not violate alignment.

Munchkin!

1 XP per 10 words, minimum.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

In addition, the party's also gone adventuring while the Priest-type tended to temple politics.

In addition, the party's also gone adventuring while the Rogue enjoyed his honeymoon.

In addition, the party's also gone adventuring while the Psion oversaw the training of new acolytes.

In addition, the party's also gone adventuring while the Druid tended to the needs of The Order.

In addition, the party's also gone adventuring while the Fighter assembled a military to maintain his Barony.

In addition...

Sounds like a good solution. Limper can sit at home and feed the cats while the rest of the party goes off and slays monsters. Then he won't have to worry about splitting his precious XP with others.

Hell, he doesn't even need a DM for this.

He can just sit at home in his mom's basement with his character sheet, giving himself all the XP he wants, and not have to let anyone spoil his fun.

Or, as an alternative, he could quit his complaining, put a few more skill points in Diplomacy, and try playing the damn game.

 

[WizarDru]

I said, making the story and interpersonal interaction as meaningful mechanically as combat is. By this, you grant XP, and you advance in levels, making it meaningful mechanically.

Well, that's fine...but HOW? You seemed fairly adamant earlier that it be mechanical. For something to be like that, I would expect it to have ways to measured and gauged...and frankly, I don't see how.

Look at this way: tastes differ, and so do opinions. This discussion is an example, therein. Take a show like Babylon 5, for example. Some folks thought it was wonderful (such as myself), but others found the acting sometimes flat or cheezy...particulary since they didn't like some of the dialogue, which they felt didn't work for them. I may have found the character of Sheridan making a grand speech to the assembled races and preventing a riot to be inspiring, while another just found it insipid. The system you'd propose only would work if:

a) Everyone had the exact same tastes
b) everyone could agree what constituted 'good RP'
c) everyone could accept that DM would know how to quantify such number, or could agree to a system that would adequately reward players in the same way as the CR/Combat reward system currently works.

Now, if you have these conditions, it can work, I'm sure. But it still comes down to DM fiat, which is how I award my RP-ing XP awards...and there's really no mechanics involved there at all.

 

[Silverthrone]

[sarcasm]Sooooo glad you've arrived, Silverfish![/sarcasm]


Good way to show your posts are those of an intelligent person who should be taken seriously.

I can't believe you're actually trying to make a case by comparing RPGs to professional sports. No logical connection whatsoever.

Plenty of logical connections. Both are games enjoyed by the people who play them. Claiming pro sports are anything more is silly. It is grown men playings games and getting paid for it. If you actually think for a minute, you might notice an analogy between cash for the athletes and XPs for the players, that was the point


Professional athletes get paid because they are the best at what they do, and because people enjoy watching sports.

The first part of your statement proved everything I said. They get a reward for being the best, therefore proving that a reward is warrented. As for being paid because people like sports, that is only partially true.

When spectators start showing up to RPGs, I suppose the professional role-player might emerge as a career.

This is irrelvent to the point I made. Your trying to spin a different angle on my original post by insinuating I compared role playing games to professional sports in so much as it somehow equivaltes on it's ability to draw a crowd, prestige, or monetary rewards when only the last part of that is partially true being I drew an analogy between the payment of ahtletes for a job well done and XP awards for superior role players.

Looks like an attempt to discredit me and influence other posters who may skim only what I read or take your own word for my intent due to knowing you better, but alas, it is pretty see through.

Gaming is a hobby.

Never said it wasn't. Never made an analogy that it wasn't.

A small hobby, in the greater scheme of things. Why alienate players who don't, for whatever reason, role-play quite as well as others?

Because it is a hobby of playing a role playing game and if you cannot or will not role play, then you are in the wrong hobby. Why punish those people who actually can and are willing to do what the hobby intends by saddling them with someone who is playing the wrong game?

If I hated rocks, should I be a rock collector? I don't think so. If you cannot role play or do not want to role play, find a new hobby that fits.


Your complete intolerance is what's sickening. Your post represents everything that's wrong with the gaming community, and why the popularity of RPGs expands at such a frighteningly small rate.

Your point of view represents what is wrong with the role playing community. Too many concessions made to those who really do very little for the game. To much giving into to whiners who want everything fair and balanced to make up either for their inability to role play properly or their lame attitude that everything has to be computer game simple. It's the dumbing down of a hobby that was once the province of the intelligent to reach a generation of lip drooling vidkiddies with their heads stuck in a computer monitor or television set.

Again, why should players be alienated? Role-playing is a skill that can be learned...the shyest people can be drawn out and become quite good at it.

Sure, give them a chance, but if they do not shape up after a few sessions, then they should leave. Trying to change the entire game just to suit them is silly and it is exactly what 3e did.

[But if you rail against them and tell them they're no good at it (either in so many words or by "punishing" them), they won't stick around long enough to improve. They'll just find another hobby.

Which is exactly what they should do.

 

[barsoomcore]

I said, making the story and interpersonal interaction as meaningful mechanically as combat is. By this, you grant XP, and you advance in levels, making it meaningful mechanically.

I understand. You mean making it meaningful within the mechanics of the game system, rather than making it a mechanical system itself.

Well, if it's not mechanical in and of itself, it's not actually a rule, is it? Rules by definition being mechanical. I guess what you're saying is that yes, what you would have liked is a sentence in the DMG saying "Why not hand out XP for good role-playing?" I assume there isn't one, and I shrug at the issue of whether or not it should have done.

Somebody pointed out earlier the difference between role-play awards and individual awards. I want to make clear that I'm not opposed to role-play awards, though I think it's fruitless to try and come up with a system for generating such award that's anything other than completely dolt-simple (I use a simple 200 XP for anyone who writes something to do with their character). What I'm opposed to are individual awards, based on one player's actions in the game.

So I have no opinion on the question of "Should the DMG have mentioned role-play awards?" I am opposed to the idea that the DMG should have included ideas on individual awards.

 

[hong]

Your point of view represents what is wrong with the role playing community. Too many concessions made to those who really do very little for the game. To much giving into to whiners who want everything fair and balanced to make up either for their inability to role play properly or their lame attitude that everything has to be computer game simple. It's the dumbing down of a hobby that was once the province of the intelligent to reach a generation of lip drooling vidkiddies with their heads stuck in a computer monitor or television set.

Helloooo Bugaboo!

I loved your proposal to pay DMs, by the way.