This is one of my problems with this power, the extent of thought that needs to go into every use of it. I play a politico now and I find it such a huge letdown whenever I reduce this attack to a roll. Quite frankly, I can not think of how to employ a tirade in a firefight, much less how to invent one on the spot that pertains to the characters and setting. I have had minor successes in the past, but after a couple of months, I am finding it harder and harder to use this power.

I had thought about reskinning the power into something else. Wookies would be able to sub in a battle yell that would be frightening enough, but I am not a wookie, or anywhere near intimidating in appearance. I see this power simply being reduced to a regular coercion check often, which is fine for species and characters that are intimidating. For those that are not, this is a little trickier. I have found that my attempts often involve the muscle of my group being intimidating while I extract information, which is running almost too close to a negotiate check.

I am a force sensitive character, so I had thought about incorporating the force, but that would seem to lead to the dark side quickly if I had intent to harm the target. Ultimately, I want to reskin this power into a pseudo-psychic attack that demoralizes the enemy into simply not fighting.

Any ideas?

One of my players is having the same experience with Inspiring Rhetoric. When can it be used? When can't it be used?

We had one character using Coercion (along with the Strain-costing Intimidating) and the player felt that using Inspiring Rhetoric to 'cheer him on' felt a little contrived.

I was watching some Doctor Who the other night and I remembered this thread when one of my favorite "Beat the Bad Guys with words" moment rolled around. You want some scathing tirade, I give you Doctor Seven, master of making you feel terrible:

You empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

For RL examples, we can look to Mel Gibson, Alec Baldwin, and others.

Watch any episode of Scrubs. The character of Doctor Cox is pretty much a walking scathing tirade.

Just my 2 decicreds, since the suject has been brought to the top, but from my perspective, the name of the trait is simply a label, and one expression of the core mechanic.

You could, as easily and accurately, use the same mechanic and explain it with an implied threat, a comment that plants a seed of doubt, a lie that shakes their confidence...even some sort of seduction, or something completely non-verbal.

Generally, I would not allow an opposed social check if the roleplay is not sufficient, but I give leeway on how the player expresses themselves... He can describe how he is speaking, in contrast to monologuing.

Just my 2 decicreds, since the suject has been brought to the top, but from my perspective, the name of the trait is simply a label, and one expression of the core mechanic.

You could, as easily and accurately, use the same mechanic and explain it with an implied threat, a comment that plants a seed of doubt, a lie that shakes their confidence...even some sort of seduction, or something completely non-verbal.

Agreed. Whilst I think the best and most thematic use is the archetypal brow-beating you give someone, it doesn't rule out the short statement. For the opposite end of the spectrum recall Vader speaking to Ezra in Rebels: "Your master has deceived you into thinking that you could become a jedi".

It's not long, it's not meant to be witty. It's just the plain and confident statement that Ezra has been misled. How terrifying would that be to Ezra. Filled with dreams and self-belief in his destiny and then this dark figure knocks his teacher aside and calmly informs him he's been lied to, undermining him with pin point accuracy. There's no spittle-flecked invective, no sarcastic banter. Just the casual demolition of a child's dreams.

Vader's clipped statements are really the opposite end to, say, one of Malcom Tucker's rants, but I bet they knock off Strain points like there's no tomorrow. "You have failed me for the last time." Is there anyone those words wouldn't send into a cold sweat?

Generally, I would not allow an opposed social check if the roleplay is not sufficient, but I give leeway on how the player expresses themselves... He can describe how he is speaking, in contrast to monologuing.

I've seen this argued for and against a lot of times. I fall into the camp that would be against it since you never ask someone who wants to play a gunslinger to demonstrate their shooting skill and I feel very sorry for the person I have to demonstrate my surgical skills on because my character is a doctor.

Then again, I imagine ymmv on this, too. If you are lucky enough to play in a group of people who like to act out their characters' social skills, this sounds like it could be a lot of fun.

Generally, I would not allow an opposed social check if the roleplay is not sufficient, but I give leeway on how the player expresses themselves... He can describe how he is speaking, in contrast to monologuing.

I've seen this argued for and against a lot of times. I fall into the camp that would be against it since you never ask someone who wants to play a gunslinger to demonstrate their shooting skill and I feel very sorry for the person I have to demonstrate my surgical skills on because my character is a doctor.

Then again, I imagine ymmv on this, too. If you are lucky enough to play in a group of people who like to act out their characters' social skills, this sounds like it could be a lot of fun.

The way I see it is that what we all really want is to be our characters and be in that actual world. The rules, the books, everything, are there to try and get us as close to that as possible. Now we can't really have physical fights to be our characters, so we have to leave that entirely to the rules. But we CAN speak for our characters and talk to each other as them. So we have less need to use rules as our intermediary between us and our character. In fact, it can get in the way when you give a great speech as your character but the dice give you a critical failure on your Leadership roll. So I will typically leave dialogue-y stuff to players to actually conduct themselves. But in order to avoid people being penalized for spending their points on Social skills and characteristics, I will translate that into boost dice for the roll. Do a convincing part with the dialogue, big boost dice. Best of both worlds, imo.

scath·ing [ skey-thing ]

adjective

• bitterly severe, as a remark: a scathing review of the play.
• harmful, injurious, or searing.

ti·rade [ tahy-reyd ]

noun

• a prolonged outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation: a tirade against smoking.
• a long, vehement speech: a tirade in the Senate.
• a passage dealing with a single theme or idea, as in poetry: the stately tirades of Corneille.

A Scathing Tirade has little to do with "my crew is going to kick your backside" and everything to do with showing your dominance through a severe outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation. Movies and books are filled with them. Gandalf's "You shall not pass" speech in Fellowship of the Ring was a scathing tirade, or Hitler's rantings toward his advisors in the movie Downfall . Or maybe Jack Nicholson's outburst in A Few Good Men .

You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a **** what you think you are entitled to!

See?

A "Scathing Tirade" here in Kansas would have been called a "tongue lashing". It's where you put someone in place not by the power of force, but by your sheer presence. Probably the example I like the best is Hub McCann's introduction to the punks at the watering hole in Secondhand Lions .

I'm Hub McCann. I've fought in two World Wars and countless smaller ones on three continents. I led thousands of men into battle with everything from horses and swords to artillery and tanks. I've seen the headwaters of the Nile, and tribes of natives no white man had ever seen before. I've won and lost a dozen fortunes, KILLED MANY MEN and loved only one woman with a passion a FLEA like you could never begin to understand. That's who I am. NOW, GO HOME, BOY!

I haven't had as much chance to use it as I'd like, but I think I'll be relying a bit more on these sorts of things in the future, as a GM. Sure, it takes a little role-playing setup, but it can be a powerful tool, if used right.

Thank you for this. A scathing tirade is far longer than an insulting quip.

Was thinking that myself when reading through this thread.

Kept thinking "but a tirade is supposed to be long" every time people put up their one-liners here.

This is one of my problems with this power, the extent of thought that needs to go into every use of it. I play a politico now and I find it such a huge letdown whenever I reduce this attack to a roll. Quite frankly, I can not think of how to employ a tirade in a firefight, much less how to invent one on the spot that pertains to the characters and setting. I have had minor successes in the past, but after a couple of months, I am finding it harder and harder to use this power.

I had thought about reskinning the power into something else. Wookies would be able to sub in a battle yell that would be frightening enough, but I am not a wookie, or anywhere near intimidating in appearance. I see this power simply being reduced to a regular coercion check often, which is fine for species and characters that are intimidating. For those that are not, this is a little trickier. I have found that my attempts often involve the muscle of my group being intimidating while I extract information, which is running almost too close to a negotiate check.

I am a force sensitive character, so I had thought about incorporating the force, but that would seem to lead to the dark side quickly if I had intent to harm the target. Ultimately, I want to reskin this power into a pseudo-psychic attack that demoralizes the enemy into simply not fighting.

Any ideas?

Write down a whole bunch of long scathing tirades tho have handy for when you face an opponent and use the skill.

Doesn't matter that much if you happen to re-use them again from time to time, as long as it's not the same enemy.

After all, it's not your team mates that need to get scared, so it doesn't matter if they've heard it before.

Btw. here's a few scathing tirades:

(Warning! Foul language used in some, hence me putting them in Spoiler tags)

The way I see it is that what we all really want is to be our characters and be in that actual world. The rules, the books, everything, are there to try and get us as close to that as possible. Now we can't really have physical fights to be our characters, so we have to leave that entirely to the rules. But we CAN speak for our characters and talk to each other as them. So we have less need to use rules as our intermediary between us and our character

Eh...I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree with the direction in which you interpret it.

Sure, on a base level, we put a bit of ourselves into our protagonist. That's what makes us care about them. That being said, very rarely do any of us play a character that is anywhere close to being even half "us". I think that it's important to recognize what parts of a character are a reflection of self, but it should have no impact on the actual way the game works. On decisions your character makes? Sure. On how good they are at something? No. For that matter, the characters I typically draw up really only reflect a small portion of me, and often it's the good as well as the bad...with the majority of the character being very much separate from me, even to the point of species (though I *do* usually play humans) and gender (the vast majority of my best characters have been female, though I am male).

Right along with the idea that the best characters are the ones we put a bit of ourselves into comes the understanding that part of what also makes them compelling is that they represent a sort of "ideal aspect" that specifically is NOT us as well. It's a bit of the basic fantasy/escapism that has kept the business of writing good fiction profitable for those who are good at it since time immemorial.

That being said, I don't really think it's fair to pick and choose what aspects of gameplay we allow personal strengths and weaknesses to govern and which we do not. If you've got 4 people in a group and three of them are a stage performer, a systems administrator, and a lawyer...while the fourth one is a chef...if everyone is playing a military type rebel, I don't really think that the actor should get to enjoy being also good at pulling a con because of the player's skill, the sysadmin shouldn't also be a good slicer due to their technical ability, and the lawyer shouldn't be able to make any more of a convincing argument just because they have a background in it. This is for two reasons: first, it doesn't fit the character, and second, what about our chef? So his character's a good soldier, but he can also make a mean bantha stew?

Ultimately, what makes our characters compelling are the ways in which they reflect their player. What makes them interesting is the ways in which they don't .

As a GM, I don't really feel that it's appropriate to grant any sort of bonus or drawback that can't be applied across the board for every player, so while you may have the gift of gab, that doesn't mean you can use Presence as a dumping ground and let your own strengths shine through to cover, planning on picking up some good roleplay bonus to take up the slack. I think that a good counterpoint to that would be to suggest that the group go ***** shooting, and anyone who meets a certain score gets a bonus to their ranged combat checks. Now you have a slicer untrained in ranged [heavy] getting a nice bonus, along with the surgeon...but the sniper character is played by someone who's never picked up a shotgun, and now their character is effectively at a disadvantage because of their personal skill set.

Was thinking that myself when reading through this thread.

Kept thinking "but a tirade is supposed to be long" every time people put up their one-liners here.

If I were GMing and someone went Full Metal Jacket every time their turn came up and they decided to come out with the scathing tirade, I would tell them to shut the hell up and just roll.

Short quip = not dominating the table

full blown rant every turn = too much attention hogging.

Was thinking that myself when reading through this thread.

Kept thinking "but a tirade is supposed to be long" every time people put up their one-liners here.

If I were GMing and someone went Full Metal Jacket every time their turn came up and they decided to come out with the scathing tirade, I would tell them to shut the hell up and just roll.

Short quip = not dominating the table

full blown rant every turn = too much attention hogging.

If I were GMing and someone used scathing tirade every time their turn came up, I'd tell them to stop being so repetetive.

Seriously, it's not something you should use every frikkin' turn.

The way I see it is that what we all really want is to be our characters and be in that actual world. The rules, the books, everything, are there to try and get us as close to that as possible. Now we can't really have physical fights to be our characters, so we have to leave that entirely to the rules. But we CAN speak for our characters and talk to each other as them. So we have less need to use rules as our intermediary between us and our character

Eh...I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree with the direction in which you interpret it.

Sure, on a base level, we put a bit of ourselves into our protagonist. That's what makes us care about them. That being said, very rarely do any of us play a character that is anywhere close to being even half "us". I think that it's important to recognize what parts of a character are a reflection of self, but it should have no impact on the actual way the game works.

You say immersion / ability to be your character should have no impact on the way the game works. Elsewhere you talk about how it is unfair. It CAN be unfair. I fully agree. But I set a priority on immersion and getting to be your character more so than I do on fairness. I do care about fairness - which is why I still allow the social roll and simply modify it by what a player says or their ideas for how they will manipulate / inspire / intimidate whoever they're talking to. However, I will not play a game of cutting everyone down to the height of the lowest blade of grass. If I have a talented speaker in my group, someone witty or bold or engaging and they're better able to play a socially adept character than someone else in that group, then they're going to be better at it. I'll be giving them boost dice for role-playing the dialogue in a fun or impressive manner, I'll modify a difficulty if they come up with an insightful way of exploiting the villain's psychological failings. Such a player will have an advantage over a player who is socially inhibited, can't or wont role-play or talk in character. This is absolutely true.

And I am totally fine with that. I am totally fine with that because both I and that player are enjoying someone really becoming part of that world. As I wrote, we can't test someone's Athletics by dangling them off the roof to see if they'd really climb the tower, or break out the swords to see how a battle between two warriors would go. But we can talk as our characters, think as our characters and that gets us closer to being our characters. I'm not going to forego all that or deny a player all that because someone sitting next to them is shy or lacks confidence. And not recognizing that effort and immersion discourages that effort and immersion. If a player gives some rocking bit of dialogue and I'm just waiting for them to finish so that I can roll a dice and see what they really said, they're rapidly going to stop bothering. And I would not blame them. So it gets rewarded. Nice dialogue? Here, have a Blue. Really awesome speech? Fantastic, here's an upgrade or two. And you know what also happens when you do that? Other people in the group raise their game and they enjoy themselves more as well, because they want the fun and the XP and the boost dice that they see other people getting. Call it Trickle Down Enjoynomics, if you must.

So is it unfair? Sure. And I mitigate that by still using the rolls which are based off people's skills. But don't tell me "it's unfair" as if that proves I shouldn't do it. Because I'm not one of these people who puts "Fair" on some pedestal and worships the blasted thing. I've seen way too much sacrificed on the altar of "Balance" and "Fairness". D&D 4e springs to mind.

Yep, I like the way I do it and I encourage everyone else to as well. It's very liberating. It's very fun.

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion and to run your game however you see fit. I wasn't necessarily saying you're wrong and you shouldn't do that , rather I was just explaining why I disagree , as well as why I personally feel it's wrong and wouldn't do that .

From my perspective, that's implicitly telling everyone in my game, "unless you're a great public speaker, you're getting penalized in my game, because everyone here that is a good public speaker is going to get a bonus, regardless of how they've designed their character, and it's a bonus you'll never get, even if you specifically want to play a character who's a great speaker...sorry, but that's just how it is".

Your way isn't objectively any more right or wrong than my method, I was just explaining why I don't do things that way.

That's not to say I never give bonuses (whether a boost or two here and there for some extra XP), but I do it for good roleplay in general, not specifically good speaking. It could be for good speaking, but that could/would apply differently. In that case, it'd be because the character, not the player, was given to convincing speech, and the player either narrated the speech well or went over what their character would say and emphasize. So, for example, they might say something like, "Fred the Diplomat goes on to explain to the delegation from Ukio that their concerns over security are certainly valid and that he will do everything in his power to make sure they receive a small picket fleet for security...on top of the tariffs they'd get for every shipment of foodstuffs into the core. And since he's already learned that the governor's wife is Chandrillan, he adds that he will personally recommend a fleet captain from her homeworld." That's a nice touch that shows attention to detail. I wouldn't require them to stand up and deliver a monologue for the same reason I wouldn't require a player running a sniper to pull off a 700 yard shot: whether or not the player can do it is not germane to the issue of whether or not the character can do it (and by extension, that sniper, with no social skills, would also have a decent chance at swaying the minds of the delegation from Ukio simply because the player who drew him up was a decent public speaker)...and for me, singling out social skills as the one area where it suddenly matters is just playing favorites among the players.

Again, if your players are cool with it, that's totally fine to do it the way you do, it's just not something that I'd choose to do, and I feel that my reasoning for that decision is solid. Didn't mean to step on your toes, just to explain what I felt was a very valid counterpoint that other GMs should consider.

If I were GMing and someone used scathing tirade every time their turn came up, I'd tell them to stop being so repetetive.

Seriously, it's not something you should use every frikkin' turn.

Why not? What's the difference between a gunslinger dropping a ton of points into their profession so they can shoot the wings off a fly at 500 yards and a politico dropping a ton of points into being freaking Don Rickles (kids, ask your parents).

"Geeze, stop shooting all the time. You're being repetitive! Do something else!" sounds just as ridiculous.

If I were GMing and someone used scathing tirade every time their turn came up, I'd tell them to stop being so repetetive.

Seriously, it's not something you should use every frikkin' turn.

Why not? What's the difference between a gunslinger dropping a ton of points into their profession so they can shoot the wings off a fly at 500 yards and a politico dropping a ton of points into being freaking Don Rickles (kids, ask your parents).

"Geeze, stop shooting all the time. You're being repetitive! Do something else!" sounds just as ridiculous.

Because it's a very odd skill to use every time.

It's certainly not anything like any of the examples you gave.

If you have a character whos only skill of use is "scathing tirade" then you've basically got a character that goes around throwing long and filthy insults at people at all times.

And then you should definately roleplay that.

You certainly shouldn't make the skill completely different by changing its narrative mechanics just to make it easier on yourself.

That would be like changing "inspiring rhetoric" to just be the player going "JUST DO IT!" in their worst Shia Labeuf impression.

Hardly living up to the name of the talent.

And that's also a talent that I'd be very surprised if someone was using each time it was their turn.

Because, it's really not a talent you need to use every turn.

Fluff does not equal rules. A title is fluff. Therfore, don't change rules based upon a talent's title.

It's not cool when fluff is used to nerf game rules. Players expect to be able to use a talent (or item, skill, ect) the way the rule crunch is written. Especially on a talent that just isn't that good anyway.

For the record, my first EotE character was a Scathing Tirade using politico. It was my go-to move in combat and I never attacked with a weapon. I wasn't very effective in combat, but it was a blast running around distracting the bad guys with Scathing Tirade turn after turn.

Because it's a very odd skill to use every time.

If that's the player's focus, then let them use it, let them go to town.

And then you should definately roleplay that.

Which is why I advocating using quips over long monologues. Hell, I'd let a player go with a high level "We're facing stormtroopers? I call them defective clones that were bred in a dirty incubation tube!" if the player wasn't feeling creative.

That would be like changing "inspiring rhetoric" to just be the player going "JUST DO IT!" in their worst Shia Labeuf impression.

So I take it you require your snipers to lay out in detail how they're compensating for wind and the curve of the earth while exchanging detailed information from their spotter?

We're not actors*. if a player goes "I say something encouraging like 'I believe in you!'", that's fine. If they can come up with something more, that's fine too.

*strangely enough, neither is Shia Labeouf

And that's also a talent that I'd be very surprised if someone was using each time it was their turn.

The damage I do against minions insulting them and hitting them in the strain is MUCH better than me shooting them. Plus it's area affect, with a moderate roll.

And considering that fights tend not to drag on much past 6 or so rounds anyway. Throw in some movements between minion groups, an inspiring rhetoric, and that's pretty much the whole combat.

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion and to run your game however you see fit. I wasn't necessarily saying you're wrong and you shouldn't do that , rather I was just explaining why I disagree , as well as why I personally feel it's wrong and wouldn't do that .

It was more that you began by describing my position as something other than what I said. I said people want to be their characters. You wrote extensively about how people don't necessarily make their characters like themselves. That's not the same thing.

From my perspective, that's implicitly telling everyone in my game, "unless you're a great public speaker, you're getting penalized in my game, because everyone here that is a good public speaker is going to get a bonus, regardless of how they've designed their character, and it's a bonus you'll never get, even if you specifically want to play a character who's a great speaker...sorry, but that's just how it is".

Well to be accurate it's not "unless you're a great public speaker you're getting penalized". It's your ability relative to other people in the group as you can only be penalized in relative terms. It's also something that depends on which direction you're looking at it from. It is equally true to write it as "if you're a great speaker and really bringing that to your character, you get rewarded". I start from a position of rewards follow actions and if someone does something cool, they get rewarded. I don't start from the position of "if you don't do something cool you're being penalized". Because the latter is inherently discouraging, to my mind. Even though in relative terms the quantifiable difference between the two (for example, a bonus boost dice that one gets and another does not), is non-existent.

But yes, I find ways to mechanically reward good role-playing. And I also consider someone talking effectively in character as an instance of good role-playing. If one person says: "I give an inspiring speech" and the other player begins: "There may come a day, when the courage of Man fails...", then I know which I get the most out of as GM, which the other players get the most out of; and which I want to most encourage. Is it fair that one player in the group might be slower-witted or inhibited than other players? No, but then I figure they're not going to improve by other people holding back to their level. And similarly if the player who makes the cool speech sees that it doesn't, in the end, make any difference, they're going to stop doing it both because you're telling them it has no value and because it's weird to think you're making a cool speech but reality (as defined by the game) saying otherwise.

Your way isn't objectively any more right or wrong than my method, I was just explaining why I don't do things that way.

I think it is objectively better. It leads to greater immersion and role-playing. Of course if those are not sought as goals of play, then that statement doesn't stand. But I think it's generally accepted that these are goals of play and so I argue that it is. I think not rewarding the talents that players bring to a game leads to disengagement.

That's not to say I never give bonuses (whether a boost or two here and there for some extra XP), but I do it for good roleplay in general, not specifically good speaking. It could be for good speaking, but that could/would apply differently. In that case, it'd be because the character, not the player, was given to convincing speech, and the player either narrated the speech well or went over what their character would say and emphasize. So, for example, they might say something like, "Fred the Diplomat goes on to explain to the delegation from Ukio that their concerns over security are certainly valid and that he will do everything in his power to make sure they receive a small picket fleet for security...on top of the tariffs they'd get for every shipment of foodstuffs into the core. And since he's already learned that the governor's wife is Chandrillan, he adds that he will personally recommend a fleet captain from her homeworld." That's a nice touch that shows attention to detail.

This is something I do also. There's no disagreement with what I do in the above.

I wouldn't require them to stand up and deliver a monologue for the same reason I wouldn't require a player running a sniper to pull off a 700 yard shot:

I don't require them to stand up and deliver a monologue. I just said I reward them if they do and it's cool. I've had players monologue in character at me when arguing with an NPC and it's been great. And to acknowledge that it's great, I gave them a bonus to the subsequent roll.

whether or not the player can do it is not germane to the issue of whether or not the character can do it (and by extension, that sniper, with no social skills, would also have a decent chance at swaying the minds of the delegation from Ukio simply because the player who drew him up was a decent public speaker)...and for me, singling out social skills as the one area where it suddenly matters is just playing favorites among the players.

Social interaction is singled out because we can . We can't meaningfully simulate flying a YT-1300. There isn't an opportunity for adding extra immersion to that through player behaviour. If there were, I would probably do it, but I can't think of any convenient way. But I can do that with social interaction and thus improve immersion in the game.

Again, if your players are cool with it, that's totally fine to do it the way you do, it's just not something that I'd choose to do, and I feel that my reasoning for that decision is solid. Didn't mean to step on your toes, just to explain what I felt was a very valid counterpoint that other GMs should consider.

I understand. But what I want to enjoy in the game is people really getting into the role of their characters. And I'm quite happy to sacrifice equality (which I regard as an artificial construct) to get that. Equal opportunity is what you will find at my game. Any player is welcome at any time to rant, insult, put-down, suck up to, flatter, diss and confuse my NPCs. In fact, I will scatter some bonus dice around to encourage them to do so. And I will also do that for a good effort. I know not everyone is Natalie Portman. But if someone is willing to step up, open their mouth and BE their character, they get my respect and possibly some Boost dice. However, yes, if someone can pull off emoting like Portman, then they will get more. I figure they've earned it. Perhaps that is at the root of our different attitudes. You have talked in several places about what a player is able to do. I talk pretty much only in terms of what they're willing to do. I find the latter a far more significant factor in overall outcome. If someone emotes like a skilled orator, I put that down to effort, not fate. And discrimination on effort is fine by me. A good thing, in fact.

And then you should definately roleplay that.

Which is why I advocating using quips over long monologues. Hell, I'd let a player go with a high level "We're facing stormtroopers? I call them defective clones that were bred in a dirty incubation tube!" if the player wasn't feeling creative.

<snip>

We're not actors*. if a player goes "I say something encouraging like 'I believe in you!'", that's fine. If they can come up with something more, that's fine too.

I'm a big fan of Desslok's second example here. Although, I try to go a bit further and would try to say something like "I say something encouraging like 'I believe in you' and go on to list some examples of where I saw that character kick butt to inspire." That way I as the player get the point across that the character is saying something more than "just do it".

As knasserII said above, reward good play. Give an extra blue die if a player does something awesome, like say the entire Scathing Tirade speech. Don't penilize a player because they are not an improv master.

Sorry, knasser, everything you're saying seems to really just confirm exactly what I absolutely loathe about the system of rewarding the character for one specific strength of a player that you just happen to want to recognize (especially when it doesn't even necessarily have any bearing on the character they're playing). To me, it's basically saying, "If you're a good public speaker or performer, you will get special treatment in my game. If you don't happen to have that specific natural gift, sorry, but you're not going to enjoy the same freebies and bonuses that I'm handing out to everyone else. Don't want to continue to get the short end of the stick? Change your personality."

I've seen new people to RPGs get frustrated and quit because of similar stuff. When all the "old hands" get rewards and perks (usually because they've been around the GM long enough to figure out how to pander to their particular likes and dislikes) and they're left out in the cold (often with a flippant "well you need to get better at this if you want to succeed"). Beyond that, it makes absolutely no logical sense to reward a character for their player being a performer. Regardless of any sort of creativity shown, attention to detail, or any other strength of the less emotive player, their very personality is all that's needed to deny them the perks enjoyed by those who just happen to have a different personality.

I do give out bonuses for good roleplaying, but it's distributed in a way that doesn't penalize people for having a certain personality (or more accurately for not having a certain personality). They'll see rewards for having their character stay true to character, for embracing their flaws and insecurities as much as their special skills, and if they aren't exactly smooth and polished in getting that across, that's fine, as it's the thought behind it, not the delivery, that really counts (for me).

And I'm quite happy to sacrifice equality (which I regard as an artificial construct) to get that.

Frankly, I find that kind of attitude to be rather repulsive.

I can see from something like that being said that we're not likely to see eye to eye on an issue like this, so there's not much point in our continuing to directly address one another on the matter. Good luck in your game, I guess.