What! Limper has a gripe?

[Tom Cashel]

Tom Cashel: When did effort equate to munchkin?

That was a joke, Limpy. I wasn't equating effort to munchkinism, I was equating the need for a reward to munchkinism. I don't even like the word "munchkin," since I personally believe that anybody can play their game any way they please, and if it works for them...great!

In all seriousness, I like the idea of giving a role-playing bonus, or a bonus for writing in-character journals, but I don't do it IMC. Mostly because I'm lazy and quite busy with other things when I'm not gaming. But if my players wanted it, I'd certainly consider adding such a bonus.

I just don't think that the so-called "dead weight" should be penalized. Give bonuses, but don't assess penalties. That's my take.

In any case, I do think that gaming is its own reward. If it's fun, that is...

So gaming is it's own reward and being good at it is it's own reward as well eh?

Then I suppose by that rational sports players should play for free. Gamiing is it's own reward.

Or if they do get paid, they should all get the exact same amount and no one should get MVP or Rookie of the Year awards because being good at something is it's own reward and deserves no further recognition.

Riiiiight.

That may well be how sports would be run if WOTC did them, of course since certain heights, weights and pieces of equipment offer unfair advantages, to preserve game balance all games would be played by people of the same height, same weight, in open fields (Differences in stadiums could cause unfair advtanges.) and butt naked.

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

I can't believe you're actually trying to make a case by comparing RPGs to professional sports. No logical connection whatsoever. Professional athletes get paid because they are the best at what they do, and because people enjoy watching sports. When spectators start showing up to RPGs, I suppose the professional role-player might emerge as a career.

Gaming is a hobby. 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?

D&D is an RPG. An RPG. That RP stands for Role Playing, and guess what it comes before. That's right, the word game. D&D is Role Playing first, game playing second. The utter idea of the pathetically and cravenly PC attempt to say there is no wrong way to play D&D and power gaming it like it was table top War Craft is just fine is nonsense. People who do it that way, are, by very definiton of what D&D is, playing it wrong and those who play correctly should get a bonus, esepcially if they are good at it.

If someone is so mousey, quite and shy they don't like acting or spekaing in front of a crowd, they areplaying the wrong game.

It is like if I was 3 ft tall and weight 60 pounds and then got angrey because I was rejected from being able to play for the NFL because I was too small. By moder 3e logic, the problem would be in the leaue's unfair hiring practices and they would have to change rather than me accepting that this is simply not for me.

It is pathetic, nearly sickening to one' stomach, and definately sad to see that the modern world of equality (What a false word that is.) make it's way into fantasy.

The old books had it right. Reward those who role play, punish those who don't because they are in fact doing it wrong.

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.

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. 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.

"It isn't a mistake to have strong views.
The mistake is to have nothing else."
--Anthony Weston

 

[Tom Cashel]

barsoomcore: I have. They keep coming back... I've been trying for years subtly or not so subtly to make them go away. Even if they avoid confrontation I like the rest of the group... the rest of the group are my friends. They wont go away and I am stuck with them because the rest of the group wont back me up... when the weak link whines behind my back they let them back to the table, why? Because they can't stand hurting someones feelings... if you can't guess that is not a weakness of mine. I've made them cry on at least two occasions... they keep coming back.

Maybe the person wants to play, but is also afraid to say anything with you around...ever think of that?

We used to have a player who tried to bully everyone else at the table. I asked her not to return ever again...it's amazing how those "shy," "quiet" people started getting involved once Ms. Bombastic had been removed.

No offense, Limper, but you might want to consider how your own actions and attitudes are contributing to the problem. And if you find that you are a part of the problem and not just the self-nominated solution....

...then see Hong's advice above.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Re: Re: Re: Reinstitute 1ed Training Rules

not a house rule. that was canon. it is in the DMG.

each point of your score meant another week training. which meant further expenses.

I might be wrong, diaglo, but I thought that was a random roll, not a reward given by the DM for good role-playing.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Having just gone through the whole thread from the start - Limper: just find another group.

You seem to be very unhappy with lots of things about this group and this player in particular, so why not either have a big talk about it and sort it out, see what everyone else has to say, or failing that, just leaving?

Surely there has to be at least one other gaming group in your area.

PS: Holy Bovine - ROFLMAO.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Limper, you should listen to Discordians.

Mostly because if you anger them they become soggy and hard to light.

Hail Eris!
Hail Hail!
Hail Yes!

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I'm suffering a "missed reference" problem here...

Look, I read the Illuminati Trilogy and took that as my sig - now I'm confused!

 

[diaglo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Reinstitute 1ed Training Rules

I might be wrong, diaglo, but I thought that was a random role, not a reward given by the DM for good role-playing.

it was not random. it was actually assessed by the DM. i wouldn't call it a reward, really.

you earned it. it was like a badge of honour or shame.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

but with this method, the best "player" is given the abilities to his "charcter" to kill baddies better than the "character" whose "player" roots around getting better with his sword ?

The proper way of looking at it is that the person that helps further enrich the role-playing aspect ends up with the better character for the game. After all, there are plenty of opportunities to get better at such things: Combat, practice, training, study, research, etc. etc. etc. RP Experience shouldn't replace Challenge XP, but there should be enough to show that RP is worth more than something that happens between combats for its own sake.

Thus, those that make the game better become better proportionate to their efforts. Those that sit like a lump progress at the same rate as, well, a lump.

Really, though, does that solve the problem? Is the party going to go on adventuring while their wizard sits back at the tower sifting through dusty tomes for new spells?

Always have, always will.

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...

 

[diaglo]

Re: Re: Reinstitute 1ed Training Rules

Really, though, does that solve the problem? Is the party going to go on adventuring while their wizard sits back at the tower sifting through dusty tomes for new spells?

in Limper's case it would work wonderfully. the lousy player would be spending all his time training. the rest of the group could then find a hireling, henchman, cohort, whatever to replace him.

it would send a message to both the DM and the player to try and get him to do more...

 

[WizarDru]

Always have, always will.

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.

And while the party is split, what do the players who don't have the DM's attention do, exactly? Is this PS/2 time, or is this a case where you do something through e-mail or a session without everyone showing up?

I don't know about you, but my group doesn't have so much free time that they can afford to show up to a game where they sit on their butts for three hours while I resolve a child custody issue with a dragon and party's paladin.