He was also an excellent swordsman, the greatest huntsman in all the land, and undoubtedly the equivalent of a Nemesis character.

And why is an Emperor's Hand character being equated to Darth Vader now?

Ultimately I think if a player rolls really well, and thinks of a really cool description for what that roll means, and it works, then it would be a major bummer to deny the player doing this just because you think they shouldn't be able to, or because you have too much respect for the badassery of their opponent.

In my opinion, and I realize this is just my opinion, the player needs to feel like her character is the hero of the film, not an extra.

But if you trivialize the highly-trained, highly-skilled opponents (specifically the strong ones that matter, not the meat they cut through to get to them) by allowing them to drop their weapons because of one lucky roll without a **** good explanation, as to why, you also trivialize the "hero of the film" by making their enemies lame.

If you can describe how talking down to someone is going to make them drop their weapon or go prone, and it makes sense and isn't lame, go for it. But, as Nash said, don't let the mechanics drive the narrative; let the narrative drive the mechanics.

"I yell at him and he drops his lightsaber crying!"

No. What do you say to him? What would POSSIBLY cause him, a secretly trained highly powerful force user and adept of the dark side, expert of interrogation and torture, to lower his guard by talking to him ? That's not easy. Not even a little bit. But, if the player said something that blew my mind and made sense, then sure, I'll bite.

Hell, I suggested someone who was using a Computers check while engaged with a droid to spend his 5 advantages to inflict a critical injury on it by messing with his systems. I'm all about cool interpretations. But only if they make sense!

Do you force the character with a 5 in computers to describe how he reprograms the droid to mess with it? What if the player barely knows what a computer is and does, does that mean his character should be equally as inept? Not every player is that good at Improv. It's nice to ask them to try and explain, but to force them to sets a bad precident for your party and just encourages the shy ones to remain shy.

Actually, I was a player during that one shot, and I brought up that idea when he rolled a handful of successes but a LOT of advantages. The GM of that game was cool with it, and the player that rolled it took it and ran. This game is a team effort. If you have a shy player, hopefully they and the other party members can eventually work together and bring them out of their shell.

That particular player doesn't know the first thing about Star Wars besides that droids are robots, and that computers are run with, as he puts it, "Elf Magic." Yet, he was like "I'll introduce a virus by messing with his systems and stuff!"

Then, the GM was like "The droid temporarily shuts down to isolate and destroy the virus!" Since he rolled the "You're stunned for a round" critical injury. Team effort!

But something tells me that the person that suggests disarming a Sith Lord by talking to him is NOT going to be a shy person .

Actually, I was a player during that one shot, and I brought up that idea when he rolled a handful of successes but a LOT of advantages. The GM of that game was cool with it, and the player that rolled it took it and ran. This game is a team effort. If you have a shy player, hopefully they and the other party members can eventually work together and bring them out of their shell.

That particular player doesn't know the first thing about Star Wars besides that droids are robots, and that computers are run with, as he puts it, "Elf Magic." Yet, he was like "I'll introduce a virus by messing with his systems and stuff!"

Then, the GM was like "The droid temporarily shuts down to isolate and destroy the virus!" Since he rolled the "You're stunned for a round" critical injury. Team effort!

But something tells me that the person that suggests disarming a Sith Lord by talking to him is NOT going to be a shy person .

Then you haven't played with any of the people I've gamed with. Most people I've gamed with are not good socializers/talkers. So, the best they tend to do is suggest what their character would do and let the dice determine the success.

i.e. "I talk with the king and see if he'll loan us some stuff"

dice clatter...

or

"I sing a bawdy song to cheer my friends"

dice clatter

Well, the great thing about this system is that it can start to bring more introverted characters out of their shells

Endrik said:

But if you trivialize the highly-trained, highly-skilled opponents (specifically the strong ones that matter, not the meat they cut through to get to them) by allowing them to drop their weapons because of one lucky roll without a **** good explanation, as to why, you also trivialize the "hero of the film" by making their enemies lame.

Who is trivializing them? The player rolled a triumph. There's nothing trivial about triumphs in this game. And no one is suggesting there isn't a good explanation. In fact I think if the player couldn't come up with a detailed explanation for how it was done, I would, as a GM, feel responsible to help them with that explanation to enrich the story and make it fun, rather than telling them they can't do it because they weren't good enough at describing an action convincingly.

Maybe in the heat of the moment I would be better convinced, but I'm just not seeing how a triumph during Scathing Tirade is good enough to make an inquisitor drop their saber. Random thugs? Definitely. All for that. But I'm not sure about an Inquisitor.

If anything, the inquisitor might toss their saber aside or stow it and focus on force powers, since they want to destroy that person in particular with their own powers. But I definitely don't think I'd just let them drop it out of fear or something.

Maybe in the heat of the moment I would be better convinced, but I'm just not seeing how a triumph during Scathing Tirade is good enough to make an inquisitor drop their saber. Random thugs? Definitely. All for that. But I'm not sure about an Inquisitor.

If anything, the inquisitor might toss their saber aside or stow it and focus on force powers, since they want to destroy that person in particular with their own powers. But I definitely don't think I'd just let them drop it out of fear or something.

I agree that the task should be described, as that is the whole spirit of the game. I just think if the roll is that good, and the player wants to do it, it's the GM's job to make it work and make it make sense.

I suppose we just have different styles of GMing, which is okay.

Okay, I went back to RAW, and I don't think Scathing Tirade is meant to stack with the normal use of Coercion. A Triumph on a normal Coercion check shifts the target's allegiance to that of a "subjugated ally". However, Scathing Tirade allows an Average Coercion check for the purpose of the target suffering Strain . Scathing Tirade drops the difficulty to something standard rather than using the target's Discipline. In the case of an Imperial Inquisitor, stacking the effect makes it ridiculously easy...no doubt such a character would have a higher level of Willpower or some Discipline ranks.

So I'd say the player was not making a normal Coercion check, and should not have benefited from the Triumph in that way. At best they'd maybe give an ally a boost because of the distraction, add a couple extra points of Strain, or whatever.

Otherwise...for anyone with a couple ranks in Coercion, Scathing Tirade is better than Mind Trick. Think about that.

Who is trivializing them? The player rolled a triumph. There's nothing trivial about triumphs in this game.

Well, hang on. Yes, Triumphs are great, but 1/12 isn't that infrequent, and a couple of skill ranks drops that to a little under 1/6. Do you really want a game where every few rolls something that beggars belief happens?

Okay, I went back to RAW, and I don't think Scathing Tirade is meant to stack with the normal use of Coercion. A Triumph on a normal Coercion check shifts the target's allegiance to that of a "subjugated ally". However, Scathing Tirade allows an Average Coercion check for the purpose of the target suffering Strain . Scathing Tirade drops the difficulty to something standard rather than using the target's Discipline. In the case of an Imperial Inquisitor, stacking the effect makes it ridiculously easy...no doubt such a character would have a higher level of Willpower or some Discipline ranks.

So I'd say the player was not making a normal Coercion check, and should not have benefited from the Triumph in that way. At best they'd maybe give an ally a boost because of the distraction, add a couple extra points of Strain, or whatever.

Otherwise...for anyone with a couple ranks in Coercion, Scathing Tirade is better than Mind Trick. Think about that.

Who is trivializing them? The player rolled a triumph. There's nothing trivial about triumphs in this game.

Well, hang on. Yes, Triumphs are great, but 1/12 isn't that infrequent, and a couple of skill ranks drops that to a little under 1/6. Do you really want a game where every few rolls something that beggars belief happens?

I don't believe the action is unbelievable with the proper narration. And yeah, if a player has invested enough skill ranks, then they should get a return on that. They should feel awesome--what they are good at should feel like it is working very well when it works very well.

I don't believe the action is unbelievable with the proper narration. And yeah, if a player has invested enough skill ranks, then they should get a return on that. They should feel awesome--what they are good at should feel like it is working very well when it works very well.

I completely agree, but the Awesome MUST be tempered with believably or it will trivialize everything and make it not matter because if you start making the PCs think that they can get away with ANYTHING they want, even if it would logically have retarded consequences (like murdering with the force a senator and bluffing the cops into thinking he killed himself and was secretly a jedi) then the level of silly in the campaign will vastly outgun the serious in it.

I am a strong proponent between the balance of silly and serious, light and dark. We must preserve the balance.

I don't believe the action is unbelievable with the proper narration. And yeah, if a player has invested enough skill ranks, then they should get a return on that. They should feel awesome--what they are good at should feel like it is working very well when it works very well.

I completely agree, but the Awesome MUST be tempered with believably or it will trivialize everything and make it not matter because if you start making the PCs think that they can get away with ANYTHING they want, even if it would logically have retarded consequences (like murdering with the force a senator and bluffing the cops into thinking he killed himself and was secretly a jedi) then the level of silly in the campaign will vastly outgun the serious in it.

I am a strong proponent between the balance of silly and serious, light and dark. We must preserve the balance.

I must reiterate I don't see what is unbelievable or silly about the action described, particularly since in the original example, so far as I know, the action was not described.

At this point, I'm pretty much just making commentary on the general stance I take towards role playing more so than just this particular case. But, in this particular case, I would personally just require a very good collective reason made by the GM and the players. I know it could be done, but it would REALLY depend on what the player said and what the situation at hand was.

And, again, if a player is an introverted one that isn't really good at talking/making up role playing stuff on the spot, then they probably *shouldn't* be playing a Politico that needs to talk to deal damage. They should probably play a wookiee that beats people.

At this point, I'm pretty much just making commentary on the general stance I take towards role playing more so than just this particular case. But, in this particular case, I would personally just require a very good collective reason made by the GM and the players. I know it could be done, but it would REALLY depend on what the player said and what the situation at hand was.

And, again, if a player is an introverted one that isn't really good at talking/making up role playing stuff on the spot, then they probably *shouldn't* be playing a Politico that needs to talk to deal damage. They should probably play a wookiee that beats people.

But that seems very restrictive, and could even be seen as discriminatory to some. I play with a some people who like to describe what their character does, but don't necessarily like to talk in character. I know one player like this in particular who loves to play characters who can talk their way out of anything. Very cerebral, social characters.

I believe one should embrace players with this kind of play-style and let them play the kinds of characters they want to play.

All that said, I agree it depends on what the player says and what the situation is. That's the spirit of this game in particular and the narrative dice.

At this point, I'm pretty much just making commentary on the general stance I take towards role playing more so than just this particular case. But, in this particular case, I would personally just require a very good collective reason made by the GM and the players. I know it could be done, but it would REALLY depend on what the player said and what the situation at hand was.

And, again, if a player is an introverted one that isn't really good at talking/making up role playing stuff on the spot, then they probably *shouldn't* be playing a Politico that needs to talk to deal damage. They should probably play a wookiee that beats people.

So, you're suggesting the players have to be like their characters to play them? I thought the whole point of playing a role-playing game was to take on the role of SOMEONE ELSE. The character lives in a different galaxy with the ability to travel from world to world as cheaply as we currently hop on an airline to get somewhere else. Why should the player be forced to play something simply because they aren't articulate as the character? isn't that the whole point of the CHARACTER having its own skills and characteristics? Because it isn't YOU.

You guys both bring up valid points, but I'm not saying just be yourself. I'm saying that you should be your character.

Role playing is, essentially, small-scale acting. I encourage people to try roles they aren't comfortable with, but I also encourage them not to try roles that they wouldn't enjoy. Yes, a Politico could be played by an introvert that doesn't describe exactly what he is saying. But, if you ask that player to elaborate, and to give examples of what he is saying, you eventually engender better role playing results from that player.

But it is important to remember that not all actors should play every roll. Yeah, you *CAN* play whatever you want, but there are some roles that shouldn't be played by everyone. For example, a thirteen year old girl, in most cases, probably shouldn't play the seasoned mercenary veteran in a film. That just wouldn't make sense, unless there's an explicit reason why the thirteen year old girl is a seasoned mercenary veteran.

On the same notion, players that want to be the group's social center of attention probably shouldn't play a marauder. Someone that wants to beat people to death probably shouldn't play a Scholar. Someone that wants to play a non-combatant merchant probably shouldn't play a Hired Gun. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that introverted, quiet players shouldn't play politicos, a class focused purely on talking to people. I mean, they can. At the end of the day, I'm going to let people do what they want within reason. But they would probably have way more fun playing something else, unless they were specifically focusing on improving their social role playing skills. There are just better ways to do it, in my opinion. It is like how I would never suggest a beginner DnD or Pathfinder player play a druid. They are way more complicated than a beginner player should have to deal with. Can they? Yes. Will they have more fun playing a fighter or a more simpler caster? 9 times out of 10.

And I'm not demanding that they be 100% uber in character all the time either. I stammer and stutter while role playing all the time. But I try to speak in character and say what my character says as much as possible. But if I was a player that doesn't do that (which is fine, no biggie, whatever) I probably shouldn't play someone that is going to be the spokesperson for the group.

TL;DR: It is way better to have a player say "Well, what about the illicit pirate trade route that you opened to the Outer Rim?" than "I try to talk him into a corner by mentioning his illegal activity with pirates." It is more immersive for the players and the GM, and while the latter style of play is fine, such players probably shouldn't play characters that are chronically going to be the center of attention unless they are trying to get better at role playing.

Role playing is, essentially, small-scale acting.

This is only one way to play a tabletop RPG. I don't like to play this way, many of my players don't either. Frankly, and I mean no offense because I know how much fun it can be, I am usually embarrassed to take on the role so fully that I am actually acting at the table without a hint of irony or humor, or playing with someone who is. This is a matter of preference, of course, and I have players who like to be in character a lot too, but if you start to treat this as a requirement or a matter of course, or a standard of playing, then that is where our opinions will widely diverge on everything that follows.

For example ...

Yeah, you *CAN* play whatever you want, but there are some roles that shouldn't be played by everyone. For example, a thirteen year old girl, in most cases, probably shouldn't play the seasoned mercenary veteran in a film.

In a film . But in a tabletop RPG? I couldn't disagree more. A thirteen year old girl should play anyone her heart chooses to play. Good on her for playing, and using her imagination.

And further ...

On the same notion, players that want to be the group's social center of attention probably shouldn't play a marauder. Someone that wants to beat people to death probably shouldn't play a Scholar. Someone that wants to play a non-combatant merchant probably shouldn't play a Hired Gun. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that introverted, quiet players shouldn't play politicos, a class focused purely on talking to people.

The journey you're taking here doesn't line up with your conclusion. If I want to play a certain kind of character that is good at certain things, yes, I should choose a career that helps me out with that. But this is completely different from choosing a character that is good at things which I, as a human being, am not good at.

Player: "What career is good at combat? I want to be able to shoot things."

GM: "Choose the Hired Gun or the Bounty Hunter."

_______

Player: "I want to be a social character who is good at talking."

GM: "You shouldn't do that because you are not social, and not good at talking."

_______

See the discrepancy here? One might similarly discourage a player from being a Hired Gun on account of the player having no experience with firearms.

Again, I don't mean it as a requirement. I just see it as a goal that all role players should strive to perfect. It is a difficult skill. I'm hardly a master at it. I would definitely not ever claim to be. But, I see role playing experiences across the board improved by players giving it their all, and I would say that trying to truly become your character is giving it all.

Also, that example of the thirteen year old not playing a seasoned mercenary veteran was supposed to be in reference to actual filmography, not role playing. Hell, in role playing, that would be awesome. ESPECIALLY if they acted the part. Talking about it would be cool, but DOING it would be even better.

Again, I don't mean it as a requirement. I just see it as a goal that all role players should strive to perfect. It is a difficult skill. I'm hardly a master at it. I would definitely not ever claim to be. But, I see role playing experiences across the board improved by players giving it their all, and I would say that trying to truly become your character is giving it all.

Also, that example of the thirteen year old not playing a seasoned mercenary veteran was supposed to be in reference to actual filmography, not role playing. Hell, in role playing, that would be awesome. ESPECIALLY if they acted the part. Talking about it would be cool, but DOING it would be even better.

I think role playing experiences across the board are improved by players acting in character only for players and GMs who enjoy doing this. For others, the experience is not improved.

I'm glad the thirteen year old girl example was only about filmography, but we're not auditioning for a film here, we're talking about tabletop RPGs. You weren't speaking figuratively about RPGs?

No, but that point was just as an enhancement to the whole "role playing is acting" thing. I would never stop someone from playing a role playing character they wanted, but if the character was something I didn't think they could handle, I might give them an alternative recommendation, purely for their own benefit. People will enjoy playing a character that they can become. I've honestly never met anyone that has had more fun playing a character they can't try to jump into from time to time than playing a character that they could. They do call it "Role Playing" for a reason, not "Role Describing." I just don't see how that's a possibility, and in most cases, if your group collectively disagrees, I would say that it is an outlier, not a precedent. I'm not in any way saying that that is a bad thing. Just interesting and, in my own personal opinion, a little strange. I think that you guys would honestly really enjoy it if you kept working at it a bit more. It can be embarrassing at first, but once you realize that everyone's doing it, you realize that it is just actually really fun. XD

It's not really my play style. I'll talk in character at select points, I'll engage in light role-playing, but it's just not really my thing. And at my table, not everyone is doing it, because that's not how they usually play either. Either way is okay. I tell new players to do whatever they are comfortable with.

You said "if the character was something I didn't think they could handle, I might give them an alternative recommendation, purely for their own benefit."

But you seem to be basing the criteria of what a player can and can't handle on acting ability in this case. If so, I don't think this is an okay thing to do. A player might play different from how you would prefer the player to play, but that doesn't mean the player can't handle the character.

I am a firm believer that RPGs are not something which people are good at or bad at. They are something which people enjoy or don't enjoy.

Heh, I think it is safe to say that we really are vastly different in how we approach this, then, because I definitely think that people have a good/bad rating on role playing. That rating is far from static, but I've seen far too many excellent and far too many terrible role players to think otherwise. It is idealistic and great to think that there's no good/bad scale, but there is, at least in my opinion, which is quite different from yours.

I have also seen plenty of role players taking on character concepts too great for their own role playing skills, either mechanically or socially. The ideas that come in to making their characters might be brilliant, but in translation, something is lost. And that's not just if they don't talk in character. That's something of an advanced technique. It is just that they either aren't putting out the effort to learn and get better, they are taking on something too advanced and complicated for a player of their skill level, or they are just trying to ham it up to get laughs out of the crowd while not contributing to the story, and actually derailing other people's attempts at progressing story. "Plot Allergy," we call it around here. I've seen all three of these things happen.

The first group is often brought in to role playing by others, and they aren't truly committed to playing beyond satisfying their friend/boyfriend/girlfriend/sibling/etc. that wanted them to play. Most of the time, they'd probably rather be doing something else. This could also just be because the player doesn't like how the campaign is running, or they but heads with other players or the GM.

The second group are often new players that want to do extremely complicated things (espeically in d20.) Often times this just happens when people bite off more than they can chew mechanically or socially in character. In DnD, Paladins and Druids are common culprits of this syndrome.

And, the last group is just the natural evolution of the class clown. Pretty typical stuff.

All of these people would be, in my opinion, varying levels of "bad" role playing. None of these things are permanent problems, and all of them can be addressed, either by changing characters or attitudes. But, ignoring the problems just because you don't want to hurt feelings doesn't help increase everyone else's enjoyment at all, and that's a problem.

And I still just find it difficult to believe that you don't think role playing is your thing in a table top role playing game. It is mildly puzzling, but I suppose to each their own.

While we certainly do disagree, I think it's possible part of our disagreement is stemming from very different ideas about what the term "role-playing" means.

I think you are essentially taking the name very seriously and literally, and talking about role-playing in terms of it's actual denotation as a form of acting, while still fully aware that there is a game and rules attached.

Conversely, I take "role-playing", in the context of this discussion, this forum, this website, this hobby, to refer to the act of playing a unique type of game with friends--actual, literal role playing being very much optional.

So you've got parameters for what makes good and bad role-playing. I'm on a whole different wavelength. My primary, essential, and **** near only consideration is whether everyone is having fun. I'm not saying you don't like to have fun, I'm just saying I have absolutely no unit of measurement with which to judge the skill of a person playing an RPG. It doesn't enter into my mind, because I'm not thinking on these terms at all. I think about how well a person might understand what they can do in a game, and how they can do it, but I think about this because it's important to me that everyone grasps the rules and is having a good time.

I would say you heavily emphasize the R.P. and I heavily emphasize the G.

So we're not going to agree on this.

And I still just find it difficult to believe that you don't think role playing is your thing in a table top role playing game. It is mildly puzzling, but I suppose to each their own.

You're having trouble because you think of role playing as acting. I think of role playing as playing an RPG. These are not necessarily one and the same to me.

The term "role-playing" to me reflects and encompasses all aspects of the game, and I don't believe there is any wrong, right, or better way to do it, per se.

A fair assessment, though players having fun is and always will be my number one priority as well. We will both agree on that part. All of my suggestions are based off of my own personal experiences that have led me to believe that players will have fun if they, and their fellow players, get more in to it. If your players have the same amount of fun doing a more detached system of operations, then all the power to you. As long as you are, as you say at the end of the day, having a good time, then it was all worth it.

I do recognize that it is a game as well. I'm a mechanics guru as much as I am a role-playing guru. But you are right. I am a storyteller at heart and the story, immersion, and gameplay itself is a very close second after the player's enjoyment. It just seems like different groups like different things, though. And that's totally fine. The fact that different GMs and players like you and I can adjust their system of play to fit their groups of friends attests to the malleability and sick-nastyness of this system as a whole, honestly.

Well said.

OP jumping back in here after a few days of Shadowrun Returns. First off to settle what seems to be a main sticking point in this particular case, the player in questions is most definitely not a shrinking violet. This particualr player had invested most of his xp in various social and knowledge skills so as to be the teams "face." So in combat he usually takes a backseat roll, which I think was starting to wear on him. During the roughly 5 minute debate on the roll he did not come up with any reasonable {in-game} explanation of why his idea should work. He simply kept returning to the idea that a Triumph should let him do what he wants. Which is probably my fault as several of the other players are new to rpgs so I encourage them to describe what their advantages and triumphs accomplish and am pretty generous with the results.

So to sum up, in this case what we did this past sunday was have a table discussion of the effects and limits of triumphs and despairs. Which might be a good idea for any other groups with players who are new to rpgs, or who are coming from much crunchier systems where the rules are more concrete.