[MA] Tactical genius Character is penalised because the Player is tactically ignorant

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Akahige

So if your GM constantly gives bonuses to the Robin Williams of your role-playing group while leaving everybody else to cope with their own pathetic social frailties, does that make it a case of bad GM-ing rather than one of inappropriate players?

That depends . . ..
Is your Robin Williams player playing a Robin Williams-like character? Is he playing to his strengths? Did he buy the relevant social skills at relevant levels? If he's playing someone who has those abilities and he can reflect them, then you're in for a more entertaining night and he deserves the bonuses.
Now, if he's playing the shy loner without social-skill-one, and he's using his natural ability to steal the spotlight and get bonuses when it's out of character then if the GM allows it, that's bad GMing.

[jspade]

Originally Posted by Kromm

PS: So does anybody actually have and like Martial Arts, or is it doomed to be known as "the book with the Tactics rules that are unfair to sausage-like 'roleplayers'"?

I not only have and like it, the mere fact of my having it turned a totally sucky day into a great one. I've been anticipating this book -- and especially the Tactics rule -- for months. I'm overjoyed to finally have it in hand.

[Xplo]

Originally Posted by Akahige

So if your GM constantly gives bonuses to the Robin Williams of your role-playing group while leaving everybody else to cope with their own pathetic social frailties, does that make it a case of bad GM-ing rather than one of inappropriate players?

You know, if my group had Robin Williams in it, we'd probably all be too busy laughing to give a damn that he's getting more bonuses. But it doesn't. I bet your group doesn't either.

And really, that's the problem with this whole thread. These situations that some of you come up with, where some guy gets treated unfairly because he's some kind of freak with mental or social abilities utterly unlike anyone else at the table, are absurd logical extremes that don't reflect gaming as it exists. Seriously, if your games are being ruined because Bob gets a +1 more often than you do, some major self-examination is in order.

[Kyle Aaron]

My approach as a GM is that if a player gives an entertaining/interesting/reasonable description of any skill their character is using, they get a bonus on their skill roll. If they give a boring or no description, they get no bonus but no malus either. If they give a description which goes contrary to the intent of the skill - eg, "I tell the boss to go to hell, but use Diplomacy to do it," I first advise the player that their character's skill lets the character know that doing that will be counterproductive; if the player insists on doing it anyway, then they get a malus to their skill roll.

My game sessions thus reward entertaining and intelligent people, punish people who are obnoxious, and neither reward nor punish people with no ideas at all.

Originally Posted by Akahige

So if your GM constantly gives bonuses to the Robin Williams of your role-playing group while leaving everybody else to cope with their own pathetic social frailties, does that make it a case of bad GM-ing rather than one of inappropriate players?

Complaining that an entertaining and intelligent person has an unfair advantage in a roleplaying game session is like complaining that a fit and agile person has an unfair advantage in a football match.

I don't go to football matches to watch clumsy klutzes stumble around gasping for breath, and I don't go to rpg sessions to watch socially clueless morons muttering and staring blankly.

A good GM, and good players, will bring the best out in their fellow players. It's a rare person who has nothing entertaining to say, and no good ideas at all. Almost every person has their strengths, and part of being in a game group is about trying to help the other person express their strengths. That said, in the end it's a roleplaying game group, not group therapy or education. We're there to have fun, not develop as human beings. You get out of it no more than you put into it. My experience is that most people labelled as "stupid" or "boring" in fact just aren't making any effort. They're not paying attention or don't care much. Fellow players can encourage them, but in the end they have to be willing to make the effort.

[Captain-Captain]

Originally Posted by Akahige

So if your GM constantly gives bonuses to the Robin Williams of your role-playing group while leaving everybody else to cope with their own pathetic social frailties, does that make it a case of bad GM-ing rather than one of inappropriate players?

Bingo. I have said the rules were vague because "The leader’s player must describe how such tactical factors as cover and formation altered the outcome." isn't specific. The examples above clarify nicely but going on the text alone, I would probably held to a higher standard. The OP here definitely read this as a high level of tactical descriptiveness.

So we have legitimate /E /A and /VH interpretations. Anyone want to come with a /H interpretation to complete the set?

Multiple legit interpretation with only one correct interpretation proves vagueness, at least in my book.

It's abusable in that glib fast talker with poor tactical sense gets to star' yet again with descriptions which may be witty and even memorable. ("I give my sheild a spin, and the pattern is kind of hypnotic - Not enough to actually hypnotize, I'm afraid (no skill for one thing) but it's a distraction.") but are barely tied to reality or logic while the genuinely tactically oriented guy who fumbles when he has to talk in character, usually resorting to "My character he ah tells her that" even when speaking player to GM.

("My character he laughed when the Orc screamed. You know that scene in when Bruce Lee or maybe it was Bruce Li or Bruce Le or Bruce Ly used in that movie? Well it irritates to hear it. My character's voice, it annoys the orc.")

If I've done my job right here I can assign you to pass one and fail the other and be reasonably sure "My character, he ah fails".

Now time passes. The game session is over, you're updating the characters on your computer because one or more of your players will lose their copies and it's less trouble to print them out. It dawns on you that you CANNOT rotate a shield. There are two straps. Your arm in in one, your hand holds the other. Rotation doesn't work well under those conditions and changing them takes turns based on the DB of the shield.

And looking over "My Character"'s sheet you notice that... DAMN! He had acting at 14, Fast Talk at 15, Voice Advantage and Impersonate at 17. He actually had both the ability to pull of what he described and likely anticipated the need to pull off this distraction during chargen.

If I've done my job right you've concluded a) the passing grade went to the wrong character and b) I'm being blatantly manipulative here. Hopefully Entertaingly blatantly manipulative, but blatantly manipulative nevertheless.

So the tactical player gets screwed and the gilb player rewarded. What else is new?

[Rupert]

So you're saying that the rules are at fault because you, the GM, forgot something? Besides, if the player had bought those skills, and figured he'd be using them, wouldn't they pipe up if they thought you'd forgotten to allow for them? Mine sure as heck would.

[hal]

Originally Posted by David Johnston

Please. Saying "Julian's shield is giving Fred partial coverage" or "Fred is outflanking Julian's attacker so he has to retreat to avoid getting blindsided" isn't the same thing as actually arranging Julian and Fred so that's possible.

You lost me there. Care to repeat differently so it makes more sense?

[Captain-Captain]

Originally Posted by Rupert

So you're saying that the rules are at fault because you, the GM, forgot something? Besides, if the player had bought those skills, and figured he'd be using them, wouldn't they pipe up if they thought you'd forgotten to allow for them? Mine sure as heck would.

Elementarty Sherlock. "My Character's" player has English as a 3rd language. It's his native tongue! We've all encountered players who... really have trouble communicating. Hopefully not as bad as this guy but we as a hobby do get very bright people who never picked up on communication or... hygiene. For better or worse, they are a part of our community. I'd hate to see a fun little optional rule become just one more way to slap these people down.

The GM is in the middle of a combat YOU the player are supposed to convince HIM your entitled to let the other player get a reroll the way the rules are set up.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Captain-Captain

Elementarty Sherlock. "My Character's" player has English as a 3rd language. It's his native tongue! We've all encountered players who... really have trouble communicating. Hopefully not as bad as this guy but we as a hobby do get very bright people who never picked up on communication or... hygiene. For better or worse, they are a part of our community. I'd hate to see a fun little optional rule become just one more way to slap these people down.

Roleplaying is a hobby involving communication. I'm not asking for Shakespeare or Tolstoy, but I do think I'm within my rights asking the players to be able to tell me what their characters are doing.

Expecting people who are unable to communicate effectively to be able to partake in social activities is a bit like expecting people with no legs to be able to run Marathons.

It's not discrimination that some hobbies demand different skills than others. It's just a fact. People have to pick hobbies that suit them or risk being at a disadvantage when their handicap is a factor.

[David Johnston]

Originally Posted by hal

You lost me there. Care to repeat differently so it makes more sense?

The real tactical genius doesn't just know what he wants to do. He knows how to do it. The player doesn't have have to actually know tactics in any real way to give some vague description of the PC getting to use trees for cover or cooperating with another player.