What! Limper has a gripe?

[Bendris Noulg]

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.

No, you're reading what I wrote backwards, which my last post attempts to clarify (I'm inclined to think you want to misread it, but that's another issue). However...

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.

Which is why:

1. I agree that the rule is optional.

2. I specifically stated that an "official" rule for the matter wouldn't work.

All I've done is indicate that a mechanical benefit can be gained by RP fairly, and you yourself have listed how such a thing is possible. In fact, the first two are major considerations when I'm recruiting new Players.

Silverthrone, Bendris, and Limper: are you three the authority on what defines good roleplaying? For that matter, please enlighten us what your opinion of good roleplaying is. Define "good roleplaying" for us. Not as it applies to your own group, but as it applies to the hobby as a whole.

I've never indicated this, but I guess I'll take it on:

1. Creation and portrayal of a character that fits the setting and theme of the game.

2. Consistant Behavior routinely altered by Personality Evolution as befits the individual character in relation to game events.

3. Making decisions as your character would make despite meta-knowledge that such may infact be detrimental.

Difficult, yes?

No.

My point here is that opinions differ, and "roleplaying well" is subjective, just like "acting well" is subjective. One guy likes Denzel Washington, someone else prefers Dame Maggie Smith. Who's to say which person is the better actor? You?

The Academy. But as I said, this is D&D, not the Oscars.

Roleplaying is subjective. Furthermore, what works in one group doesn't work in another, and since this is not a spectator sport, and is not a hobby perpetuated by large groups of people at once, the definition of what makes good roleplaying is irrelevant. Instead, all that matter is whether the roleplaying is good enough for your group.

Actually, the problem here is that folks are ignoring Limper's real problem with this individual: He's not doing anything. He's not RPing, or Power-Gaming, or Meta-Gaming, or anything else. The individual seems to be there for one reason only: He's likely got nothing else to do.

You three have presented yourselves as an elitests, and if that works for you, I say snob away!

No, folks have twisted what we've said, ignored entire paragraphs to use a single sentance out of context, and used name calling (like elitists) to unduely discredit us through slanderous terms meant to inspire feelings of bigotry.

To put it another way: chill out, dudes. It's just a game.

Then why is it such a big deal to you?

 

[ForceUser]

Then why is it such a big deal to you?

Nice try. It's not. But it is to you, isn't it? Otherwise why keep coming back for more smackdown?

 

[Kestrel]

As to the guy that's a lump....

How is individual xp awards going to change the guy? Apparently he's catatonic to the game and wouldn't give a flying flip one way or the other about xp.


Boot him or if its that bothersome, leave yourself. It really has nothing to do with individual rewards.

 

[Silverthrone]

Good role-playing, however, is an entirely subjective game, and it's only personal opinion what constitutes success versus failure, and levels of success. Is the character who woos an NPC successfully, both garnering the party an ally and increasing his status better or worse than the player who secretly aids the kings spy network, and liasons with the grand vizier? Are either of these better or worse than the player who joins the nobility and wages 'court war' via politics? It's all interpetative. Professional sports ('pro-wrestling nothwithstanding) aren't.

That is exactly not what I am talking about. I mean the players who show up, speak in chracter, make descions based on what their characters know (Even if they know ahead of time that it would likely destroy their chracter but it seems logical from the chracter's stand point.), honestly talk their way into or out of situations instead of rolling a dice to determine success and genuninely cooperate in chracter with others to facilitate a more engrossing experince for all involved as opposed to the guy whose only contribution to the game is showing up, killing monsters and speaking only when he believes he didn't kill the monster quick enough, or announcing what dice he is rolling.

I mean roll players, whose only interest in the game is showing what a big ego they have by killing the monster or laughing at others when they are in chracter and gooflingly saying like an idiot that it is only a game.

The point of the disagreement was that the analogy itself was flawed.

Not falwed at all. Money for good performance is equated to XP for good performance. Therein is the analogy. It is simply that prfessional sports offers the simplest manner in which to make a comparison to the general circumstance of recieveing a reward for good performances.

Partially true? Please, tell me which part of that concept is untrue. Name one sport that NOBODY watches which supports professional athletes.

That is not what I meant either. It is only partially true because drawing a crowd is only a part of why they get paid., but that would be a rather capitolistic analogy involving investment in what amounts to a human stock market fed by the crowds hungry for low brow physical entertainment.

Once again, the poster was trying to point out to you that the analogy was no good. Pro athletes get paid ONLY because they draw a crowd. Whether or not they're any good at the sport in question is actually beside the point -- except that typically, the excellent athletes are the ones who draw the most attention.

That is an argument of which came first, the athelete's talent or the money hungry manager and public relations person whoring him for cash and making him appear far more talented or lucrative than his actual abilites allow for.

Or possibly, an attempt to refute your point. One or the other, I guess.

I would guess.

Sorry, just who is being saddled? Are WotC employees coming to your house with losers and forcing you to play with them?

By creating and marketing a system that encourages a certain type of behavior one eventually reinforces that behavior and makes the the standard. By that rational, WOTC is to blame because in years to come thanks to their blatant disrepsect for the old fan base and tradtions they will have reared a new generation of gamer devoted to stats and killing monsters as opposed to trying to find some self enlightenment or intellectual enjoyment.

Why shouldn't I collect rocks if I hate them? Keep an eye on the little suckers.

What people shouldn't do is attempt an activity they don't like, and then complain that they're not enjoying it. I might argue that people who dislike having to accomodate other people ought not to play games that are designed to be played by groups.

Designed to be played in a certain way which WOTC is changing, forcing on people as the new standard (By discontinuing the old.).

What? Wait a minute, go back to the top of the thread. WHO'S WHINING? Not the quiet shy one, no sir. It's the "I'm such a kickin' roleplayer" guy who's whining. I'm not whining. Hong's not whining. YOU'RE whining. THIS is whining. Stop it. It's unattractive.

I am merely giving evidence as to the fact there is a right and wrongt way to play D&D despite the modern PC spin put on it by a company who is so craven they would rather appear ignorant of good grammr to cater to pathetic section of the populace who actually cares to be offend by the usage of he, she, man, or woman to describe the unknown gender.

Then don't play 3E. That's a pretty simple solution, my friend. Don't like it? Don't play it. Wait, didn't you just say that?

Indeed I did, and I don't play 3e as it is written in the books. I use what I like of it and do not use what I do not like of it.

 

[Ristamar]

Originally posted by Bendris Noulg
The Academy...

Bleah. The Academy sucks. Now there's a bunch of elitist bastards...

 

[Storm Raven]

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

There is no logical connection. Hordes of people play sports every day for no cash whatsoever. Children, teens, and yes, even fully grown adults engage in thes activities for the sheer enjoyment of playing the game, with no prospect of financial reward of any kind.

Pro athletes are in an entirely different category, not because they are the best, but because people are willing to pay money to see them play. Saying that people need XP rewards for good roleplaying is not analogous to saying people need financial rewards to play baseball, people play baseball all the time with no prospect of any kind of financial reward.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Nice try. It's not. But it is to you, isn't it? Otherwise why keep coming back for more smackdown?

My point exactly! Why continue trying to lay a smackdown when such isn't such a big deal (nor possible).

 

[barsoomcore]

Actually, the problem here is that folks are ignoring Limper's real problem with this individual: He's not doing anything. He's not RPing, or Power-Gaming, or Meta-Gaming, or anything else. The individual seems to be there for one reason only: He's likely got nothing else to do.

Actually, that problem was dissected pretty efficiently many posts ago. Limper has spent ten years playing with someone whose style of playing he hates, and he wants to blame the rules rather than his inability to handle the social situation. I don't think there was anything else to that, and certainly Limper himself hasn't indicated that there was. So that one's done.

Let's move on, shall we?

No, folks have twisted what we've said, ignored entire paragraphs to use a single sentance out of context, and used name calling (like elitists) to unduely discredit us through slanderous terms meant to inspire feelings of bigotry.

Calling someone "elitist" is hardly slanderous. Elitism is defined as : The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. Isn't that EXACTLY what you are asking for? Favoured treatment due to perceived superiority? Okay, so you're elitist. People have specifically said (in fact in the very sentence you quoted) that that's okay. There's nothing wrong with being elitist, as people have said. Quit trying to turn the debate into name-calling.

Let's move on.

Now we're onto implementing a RP-based system of awarding XP. We are still awaiting your suggestions on how this would be done. I've in fact posted my means of doing this -- my 200 XP award for writing something between sessions. Does that solve your problem? You're welcome to it, if you like.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

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.

Yeah. Sure. Nothing elitest about that attitude. So terribly sorry that RPG's are no longer "the province of the intelligent." I'll be sure to keep all of my lip-drooling vidkiddy friends away from your yachting events, too.

Originally posted by Silverthrone
...honestly talk their way into or out of situations instead of rolling a dice to determine success...

That same argument was raised when 3rd edition first came out. "WHAT A POWERGAMEY PIECE OF CRAP! This absolutely kills roleplaying!"

The argument was as flawed then as it is now. The diplomacy skill is not a replacement for roleplaying. It represents the nonverbal things that can effect the outcome of a conversation - body language, demeanor, etc - things that can't really be roleplayed effectively but definitely are important.

Originally posted by Silverthrone

That is not what I meant either. It is only partially true because drawing a crowd is only a part of why they get paid., but that would be a rather capitolistic analogy involving investment in what amounts to a human stock market fed by the crowds hungry for low brow physical entertainment.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "capitalistic analogy," but yes, it is 100% true. If a crowd doesn't show up, there's NO MONEY TO PAY THE PLAYERS WITH. Drawing a crowd is the ONLY reason professional sports exist.

Oh, and it's good to know you're not one of those elitists who feel that sports are "low brow." Sorry for slandering you, again.

Originally posted by Silverthrone
That is an argument of which came first, the athelete's talent or the money hungry manager and public relations person whoring him for cash and making him appear far more talented or lucrative than his actual abilites allow for.

I can't touch this one with a ten foot pole without getting even further into politics than I've already gotten.

Originally posted by Silverthrone

By creating and marketing a system that encourages a certain type of behavior one eventually reinforces that behavior and makes the the standard.

There's nothing in the system that encourages any type of behavior. It's a set of rules. What you do with them is your own business.

Originally posted by Silverthrone
By that rational, WOTC is to blame because in years to come thanks to their blatant disrepsect for the old fan base and tradtions

RTToEE, Manual of the Planes, Fiend Folio, Greyhawk as the default setting...yeah...they've certainly forgotten their roots.

Originally posted by Silverthrone
they will have reared a new generation of gamer devoted to stats and killing monsters as opposed to trying to find some self enlightenment or intellectual enjoyment.

Sounds to me like you're the generation devoted to stats, if this whole XP thing is so "unfair" to you. Those of us who are "enlightened" enough to realize it's just a game are perfectly happy with everyone showing up, eating some pretzels and drinking a few beers, and just having a good time. We don't worry about "picking up the slack" for another player or competing to see who has the most XP. We just have a fun time.


But then again, I'm sure elitist snobs like you would consider beer and pretzels a "low brow" snack.

Slander, my ass.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Actually, that problem was dissected pretty efficiently many posts ago. Limper has spent ten years playing with someone whose style of playing he hates, and he wants to blame the rules rather than his inability to handle the social situation. I don't think there was anything else to that, and certainly Limper himself hasn't indicated that there was. So that one's done.

Let's move on, shall we?

Oh, please...

Calling someone "elitist" is hardly slanderous. Elitism is defined as : The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. Isn't that EXACTLY what you are asking for? Favoured treatment due to perceived superiority?

When have I asked for that? Find a single post of mine where I have done so? In this thread? In any thread?

Oh, how about that. I've supported RP awards, awards based on effort and not on ability.

So, yes, the term is slanderous, deceitful, and intended entirely to discredit an entirely valid stance.

Okay, so you're elitist. People have specifically said (in fact in the very sentence you quoted) that that's okay. There's nothing wrong with being elitist, as people have said. Quit trying to turn the debate into name-calling.

When I get an apology for being called a slanderous term by a bigot.

Let's move on.

Now we're onto implementing a RP-based system of awarding XP. We are still awaiting your suggestions on how this would be done. I've in fact posted my means of doing this -- my 200 XP award for writing something between sessions. Does that solve your problem? You're welcome to it, if you like.

I've actually stated that a universal rule doesn't work, so prompting me for one is yet again an invalid attempt to discredit me for a stance I'm not making.

Nice try.

Boy, sounds about as farfetched as all that slander that the "liberal media" is doing against those poor, innocent conservatives. Care to look at the evidence again?

No, I want to see the evidence against me. The post of another does not make me an elitist, but validates my point: By using Silverthrone's post against me, his words are being taken out of context in that they are being used to make me appear an elitist.

I ask again: What did I post in this vein?