I never said that the player HAD to do a great long tirade.

Just that they should aspire to.

But a scathing tirade is just that, a long rant. Not a quick jib.

Sure, if your players don't want to prepare by jotting down a few good tirades, or don't have the ability to improv one, then by all means, accept a short quip as a substitute.

But don't change the meaning of scathing tirade to quick jib. Because that's not what it means.

Just like inspiring rhetoric doesn't mean a short motivational one-liner.

Sure, you can use it that way, just like you can get away with someone explaining their use of 2 advantages as "I give the enemy a black die on his chance to hit me next turn", but it would be far better to get the player to say "While I'm chasing the enemy and firing at him, I'm also dodging in and out of cover and vaulting over objects, making me more difficult to hit next turn".
In the same way it's acceptable to have a player go "your father was a hamster, and your mother smelled of elderberries" instead of an actual rant, but an actual rant would be preferable since that's what is actually called for.

And, certainly, if you're going to play a character that does this every battle, then having a few of the rants prepared to use would definately liven up the roleplay experience.

Unless that is too much preparation for the player... I know that some don't like to do anything outside the sessions.

But don't change the meaning of scathing tirade to quick jib. Because that's not what it means.

You're too hung up on the name. It's just color - an identifier and nothing more. By that reasoning, you could never use the Quartermaster class as anything other than a dude handing out equipment or that a Marshal has to be a gunslinger lawman on a frontier.

And, certainly, if you're going to play a character that does this every battle, then having a few of the rants prepared to use would definately liven up the roleplay experience.

Also, it gets back to the problem of if the player rants for two minutes of real time in the middle of the fight - even just once - he needs to shut the hell up and stop hogging the spotlight.

But don't change the meaning of scathing tirade to quick jib. Because that's not what it means.

You're too hung up on the name. It's just color - an identifier and nothing more. By that reasoning, you could never use the Quartermaster class as anything other than a dude handing out equipment or that a Marshal has to be a gunslinger lawman on a frontier.

And, certainly, if you're going to play a character that does this every battle, then having a few of the rants prepared to use would definately liven up the roleplay experience.

Also, it gets back to the problem of if the player rants for two minutes of real time in the middle of the fight - even just once - he needs to shut the hell up and stop hogging the spotlight.

It's not the same as getting hung up on the name of a class.

The name of a talent is part of its description. You wouldn't name it scathing tirade if it was just a nasty quip.

I have players that can spend ten minutes discussing what they're gonna do in their turn. Using two minutes to actually roleplay is hardly "hogging the spotlight" in my sessions.

It's not the same as getting hung up on the name of a class.

The name of a talent is part of its description. You wouldn't name it scathing tirade if it was just a nasty quip.

Soooo...when an Ace (Gunner) uses his "Exhaust Port" trait, it can *only* be used on an actual exhaust port? Or when a Technician (Mechanic) Uses "Bad Motivator", it can only be used to sabotage a motivator? And a Scoundrel using Side Step can only represent that increase in difficulty by actually sidestepping, and not, for example, buy doing something like creating some sort of diversion, or cutting a hose to fill the area around him with vapors, or putting an object (or person) between him and his attacker?

It's not the same as getting hung up on the name of a class.

The name of a talent is part of its description. You wouldn't name it scathing tirade if it was just a nasty quip.

No, by your logic, it is EXACTLY the same thing. The name of the career is part of it's description. Hell, one could argue that it's more intrinsically part of the archetype than Scathing Tirade is part of the talent.

Using two minutes to actually roleplay is hardly "hogging the spotlight" in my sessions.

Fantastic. Why are you dictating terms for the rest of us?

Speaks Binary.

A player of mine took this Talent once and exclaimed, "Cool! I can speak binary!" And I said, "Well, no.. It's more like you're the droid whisperer. You can inspire greatness in droids. You don't actually speak in binary... or machine code or fax machine scream."

The name of a Talent is simply a name, sometimes a very clever name that reminds you of something that happened in the movies, like Exhaust Port or Bad Motivator. If a player uses Scathing Tirade and has a reasonable suggestion of how he is using it, even if it is not an actual scathing tirade, it should be fine. The means should match the ends, though.

Many players are not as verbally glib as they portray their characters to be. I'm an introvert, I know this to be true. It is perfectly acceptable to me for a player to describe what his character is saying without having to actually say it. This too is role-playing; I call it third-person role-playing. If I'm playing in your game and I use Scathing Tirade and you, the GM, want me to actually come up with a proper scathing tirade, then the group is going on a smoke-and-Coke break while I take a lot of time to craft a speech.

As a GM, I like giving out boost dice for awesome creativity or humor when players use Inspiring Rhetoric or Scathing Tirade or Speaks Binary or what have you. But it's for creativity or humor and not simply for first-person role-playing their speech.

No, by your logic, it is EXACTLY the same thing. The name of the career is part of it's description. Hell, one could argue that it's more intrinsically part of the archetype than Scathing Tirade is part of the talent.

Not true.

The Talent "Scathing Tirade" has a short rules description in the rules and no flavor text to speak of.

The Careers have a massive block of flavor text describing them.

That means that the name of the Talent is much more important to its description than the name of a career, simply because of the lack of further flavor description.

It could have been called alot of different things, from insulting quip to punishing remark, but it's not. It is called Scathing Tirade, thus implying that it is more than just a short one-liner.

Fantastic. Why are you dictating terms for the rest of us?

No, you can play the game any way you want.

But don't pretend that a scathing tirade means a short one-liner insult. Because that's not what the word tirade means.

I mean, for all I care, you can have blasters look like 50's rayguns and dissolve people. But that's not what it says in the rules and the descriptions of them.

Hell, you can say that the force is magic and the jedi are wizards.

That's up to you.

But you can't come on the forums and say that that is what they are called in the rules.

I've never said that you HAVE to have a 5 minute long speech every time you use the skill.

I've only said that a tirade is longer than a one-liner and I would have suggested to my players that they had a few actual tirades written down if they couldn't improvise them on the spot, for using that particular skill.

You know, for roleplaying purposes.

Speaks Binary.

A player of mine took this Talent once and exclaimed, "Cool! I can speak binary!" And I said, "Well, no.. It's more like you're the droid whisperer. You can inspire greatness in droids. You don't actually speak in binary... or machine code or fax machine scream."

The name of a Talent is simply a name, sometimes a very clever name that reminds you of something that happened in the movies, like Exhaust Port or Bad Motivator. If a player uses Scathing Tirade and has a reasonable suggestion of how he is using it, even if it is not an actual scathing tirade, it should be fine. The means should match the ends, though.

Many players are not as verbally glib as they portray their characters to be. I'm an introvert, I know this to be true. It is perfectly acceptable to me for a player to describe what his character is saying without having to actually say it. This too is role-playing; I call it third-person role-playing. If I'm playing in your game and I use Scathing Tirade and you, the GM, want me to actually come up with a proper scathing tirade, then the group is going on a smoke-and-Coke break while I take a lot of time to craft a speech.

As a GM, I like giving out boost dice for awesome creativity or humor when players use Inspiring Rhetoric or Scathing Tirade or Speaks Binary or what have you. But it's for creativity or humor and not simply for first-person role-playing their speech.

I'm perfectly fine with players describing what they're doing.

I'm just saying that a tirade is not a one-liner.

The Careers have a massive block of flavor text describing them.

That means that the name of the Talent is much more important to its description than the name of a career, simply because of the lack of further flavor description.

Talk about taking the ball and running to the wrong end zone!

It is just as valid to say, "Both Career/Specialization combos and talents have names as general identifiers...every bit of qualification and explanation beyond the core mechanics is simply a limitation on what that Career/Spec or Talent can be, and only serves to limit the scope from what would otherwise be wide open possibility."

Also, would you care to respond to the question about "Exhaust Port", "Bad Motivator", and other similar talents with specific names but broadly applicable mechanics?

But you can't come on the forums and say that that is what they are called in the rules.

According to the rules, we're both wrong:

The character may take the Scathing Tirade action by making an Average <><> Coercion check. For each Success, one enemy within short range suffers one strain. The character can also spend Advantage; for every Advantage spent, one target already affected suffers 1 additional strain.

It doesn't actually mention anything about making the player say jack squat, beyond "I want to use scathing tirade". So I am wrong, you are wrong - but you're the only one around here that insist on tirades being one thing and one thing only.

But you can't come on the forums and say that that is what they are called in the rules.

According to the rules, we're both wrong:

The character may take the Scathing Tirade action by making an Average <><> Coercion check. For each Success, one enemy within short range suffers one strain. The character can also spend Advantage; for every Advantage spent, one target already affected suffers 1 additional strain.

It doesn't actually mention anything about making the player say jack squat, beyond "I want to use scathing tirade". So I am wrong, you are wrong - but you're the only one around here that insist on tirades being one thing and one thing only.

I'm at work and AFB - that was the text for tirade that I could find online in a short notice, and it may or may not be accurate - but even if it's completely wrong, I'm still pretty sure the book version says nothing about making the player say anything

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make here.

There is NO narrative description of what the talent does, hence the importance of its name.

If it was called "insult" or even "angry stare", you would be playing it comepletely differently.

Even though the rules would be the same.

You mistake my point here.

I should have written "that's what it's called in the rule BOOK" to make my point clear.

I wasn't describing its rules to you.

I was emphasising the importance of the name to you since there's no actual narrative description of what the talent does.

That's why the name is important for its function.

It's a scathing tirade.

Meaning harmful long speech

Not a short quip.

Best personal skill in delivering a scathing Tirade with the fewest words.

with just a look.

Highest Skill Attainable.

The Careers have a massive block of flavor text describing them.

That means, if you have to play EXACTLY how it is written, that you are even more locked in to what the text says. That you have no free will of your own.

Or it could be, you know, just a name for a thing.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make here.

There is NO narrative description of what the talent does, hence the importance of its name.

If it was called "insult" or even "angry stare", you would be playing it comepletely differently.

Even though the rules would be the same.

Fine. Then Bad Motivator can only be used on motivators, Speaks Binary lets you screech like a modem and Exhaust Port only works on vehicles that have an exhaust port.

The Careers have a massive block of flavor text describing them.

That means, if you have to play EXACTLY how it is written, that you are even more locked in to what the text says. That you have no free will of your own.

Or it could be, you know, just a name for a thing.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make here.

There is NO narrative description of what the talent does, hence the importance of its name.

If it was called "insult" or even "angry stare", you would be playing it comepletely differently.

Even though the rules would be the same.

Fine. Then Bad Motivator can only be used on motivators, Speaks Binary lets you screech like a modem and Exhaust Port only works on vehicles that have an exhaust port.

Don't be silly. Those talents have a much wider rule use than scathing tirade.

Those talents have a much wider rule use than scathing tirade.

Beyond just saying something like that and dismissing it, can you give any logical reasoning, at all, to justify why a name only means something when you decide it does?

Because using your own rationale, the same limitations that apply to Scathing Tirade also apply to Exhaust Port and Bad Motivator...and now you're just arbitrarily declaring that those cases don't count because they're inconvenient to your position.

This seems to be a common occurance in games. Some gamers want to play games with only the cruch rules as written and disreguard fluff when it comes to what is needed for the role play of an ability. Other gamers give weight to fluff, such as descriptions and titles, and want the role play to match the fluff. As much as I'm one of the individuals who helped start us down this derailment (and I have a firm opinion on this topic for this talent), can we agree that different tables will role play this talent differently (and continue the "proper way to play" talents discussion in another thread if necessary) and return this thread to (short and long) examples of Scathing Tirades in fiction?

To get us back on topic, and since the new Bond movie comes out this week, here's a couple examples from Goldfinger.

***** Galore: [pointing a gun at Bond, who has just emerged from the airplane lavatory] We'll be landing in twenty minutes. Do you want to play it easy, or the hard way? And this isn't a tranquilizer gun.

James Bond: Now, *****, you know a lot more about planes than guns. That's a Smith and Wesson 45, and if you fire at me at this close range, the bullet will pass through me and the fuselage like a blowtorch through butter. The cabin will depressurize, and we'll both be sucked into outer space together. If that's how you want to enter the United States, you're welcome. As for me, I prefer the easy way.

Bond talks her out of the gun threat by telling her what would happen (with movie physics) if she shoots him. They would both dies. He does soft-shoe it by agreeing to "the easy way" and talking through it as opposed to an angry rant, but the threat that they would all die is there and her backing down would be due to strain damage.

How about this other great exchange?

James Bond: Do you expect me to talk?

Auric Goldfinger: No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!

Goldfinger is quick and to the point. It's scathing in that nothing Bond can say will change his mind. I'd argue that Bond took strain damage and a setback die. Which is why he's shot with a tranquilizer gun. He rolled a passing deception on the mention of Operation Grandslam and convinced that other spies would be coming if he was killed, but rolled enough threat to be knocked out instead of just untied and left consious.

Sorry, knasser, everything you're saying seems to really just confirm exactly what I absolutely loathe [...] Frankly, I find that kind of attitude to be rather repulsive.

The approach seems very logically supportable to me. I give mechanical bonuses to those who role-play better and bring their talents to the table. Doing so encourages more role-playing and use of player's talents and thus makes the game more fun for me and my players. I have had people in my group who weren't very inclined to role-play initially or didn't role-play well. They didn't get upset when other people got rewards for making the effort to role-play. That, after all, would be a rather peevish attitude to begrudge other people the rewards of their talents; a sort of "why should you get something I don't" attitude. I think in olden times that was called Envy and was regarded as a bad thing. No, instead such people have generally enjoyed the role-playing of those sitting next to them just as much as I have, laughing, groaning, being impressed... Your position seems to depend on some notion of nobody should get more than anybody else. But none of my players are like that - they don't on the whole mind if someone else gets a bonus, they're happy for them. Now if someone else got a bonus for something they did just the same, they'd be annoyed - because that's partiality and double-standards, but everyone realises that effort and talent get rewarded and they also recognize they're all friends and on the same side. If people get upset in your group the way you are suggesting they would, then that to me says this isn't true of your group. If it were, then why does a player care that the player who goes to extra trouble gets something and if they don't they wont?

I don't see anything loathsome or repulsive in anything I've written. In fact, I see it as a lot of Good. I think you are perhaps bringing preconceived ideas to this and triggering off certain things I say like my setting overall good above "fairness".

I gave some XP to a player last week for doing a cool sketch of their character. They're a better artist than any of the rest of us, that is a talent they possess that most of the rest of us have never refined. So they're getting a mechanical advantage for the talents of their player that others don't possess. The result? The player is rewarded for enriching the game, the setting becomes that tiny bit more immersive, everyone liked it and it triggered a mini-discussion about what all their characters look like. We might end up with more art as a result, if we're lucky. Sketches, speeches, whatever - talent should be rewarded, imo, because that encourages it. I guarantee that nobody in my group was thinking "that's not fair, I should have got XP as well". Nor am I obliged to invent ways to give other people the same XP - that just cheapens everything.

You're free to describe my attitude as something you "loath" or my attitude as "rather repulsive". But unless you can tell me what in the above results in a less good game rather than a better game for all, I don't see a basis for it.

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 think a lot of what this comes down to is I actually have a more optimistic view of people than you do. Throughout this post and your previous, you keep going on about "natural talent" and the impression I receive is of someone who sees random dollops of skill points allocated and thinks its the GM's duty to correct the unfairness of nature by making sure all the disadvantaged kids get the same as the luckier ones. I find that patronizing to my players, to be honest. For a start, talent usually comes down to effort more than natural ability. If you go to the top levels of a field then maybe natural predisposition starts to take over. Most people probably couldn't beat Usain Bolt in a 100m even if they trained like crazy. But in anything less than the high reaches of a field, and barring actual disability, what matters is effort. I actually have some modest artistic talent. Why is that player a better artist than me? Because they practiced and developed their skills. That's effort. Why does this distinction matter to what I'm saying? Because I have no duty to reward lack of effort or make it equivalent to people who DO make the effort. You characterise my position as "Don't want to continue to get the short end of the stick? Change your personality". Sure, if you like. But I think that's a very negative outlook on life. As I say, I have more belief in people than you do, based on your approach to this. I view it as "overcome your shyness / inhibitions and find out that it gets you good things". Sure, factually they are similar, but one is the viewpoint of someone who expects good things to happen. Your arguments view everything as punishment, exclusion and dependency on natural talent. I call that false because I've never met someone who can't role-play or give a cool speech in character. I have only met people who have yet to try. So sure, I encourage them to try by whatever positive method I can. And positive methods include rewarding it when they do.

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.

See here you've gone beyond challenging what I actually wrote and imputing that it is probably because people "pander to the GM's likes and dislikes". I've never said anything to suggest that and you're slipping into subtle disparagement. Unless you're classing "speaking well", "being witty / clever" or "speaking as your character" under "pandering to the GM", then you should retract the above. It's no counter-argument to anything I've written. What I have seen, if we're going anecdotal, is people improve at role-playing because they see they're in a group where that is how you "win". And if someone "gets frustrated and quits" because other people are better at performing than they are and that's treated as a rewardable positive, then they're putting that on themselves. Again, this is coming down to our fundamental different view on people. If such a person quits, I regard that as their choice. They could have overcome their shyness / inhibition / whatever and done the same thing as other people. You view it as them being driven out because they're an unfortunate soul who lacks the ability to do what other people do. I don't believe that for a moment. I believe that they can. They just need incentive. If they genuinely can't deal with other people getting nice things without feeling it's unfair and quitting, then they're a curmudgeonly individual that would be happier if they mature a little bit, imo. Nobody pays me to GM. I want to game with people who are friendly and sharing and not all about themselves.

And as to "it makes absolutely no logical sense to reward a character for their player being a performer" I've already lain out the logical sense behind it my previous posts - it encourages people to perform. Which is a good thing for the group. The only people I can think of who don't enjoy it when a player gets really into character and gives entertaining or impressive dialogue are those miserable people who get upset because another player has the attention or got ahead of them somehow. And who wants people like that in the group?

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.

Sure, if you don't want to continue this discussion then just don't reply. No worries and enjoy your game. But if you're going to call what I do loathsome and repulsive, that inclines me to reply. I would recommend that all GMs do as I do, because it leads to a fun and engaged group who bring whatever they have to the table.

Knasser, Though I don't agree with everything said by Hydrospanner,

I do agree that it is a bit unfair to overly reward one player who is a good actor, public speaker, or just more extrovert and exhibitionist. Especially if i doesn't fit the character they are playing.

Not everyone has that type of personality and ability to do that.

Part of Roleplaying is playing something that Isn't you.

And this is part of WHY RPGs have rules for determining the success of an action. Not based on the Players personal ability of actually doing that action.

So if I play a "Face" character, that is really good at negotiation, But I am actually horrible role playing a Negotiation, Because I just don't know how or don't have the personality to do that. My characters skills and abilities are supposed to Represent that, and Make up for that Lack in me as a real person. So I should Not be penalized because of what I said my character was going to say was a terrible way to do it.

On the other side of the coin, if a Player, who is really good at that personally, is playing a character with a presence of 1 and no skill in negotiation. Thy should not be overly rewarded for because they Are a good orator or negotiator and can come up with something Perfect for the situation.

If Both made the Effort to come Up with something to say for the negotiation, Rather then just saying "my character tries to negotiate, What is the difficulty", Well then Both should get 1 boost die, No more, No less. They both tried. If the one who isn't good at it Doesn't want to try to RP it, then no boost die, sure.

But the Other guy shouldn't get extra experience, or Get Better results and bonuses, beyond what is suggested in the Book, Just because they are able to come up with something AWESOME to say. Their Character Sucks at negotiation, How awesome they are at describing the situation and coming up with awesome negotiation statements, should play a part in it.

If it does, that just tells the other player that he isn't wanted at the game because he isn't up to snuff.

I do enjoy it when people get into the game and actually try to interact, But I don't Judge their acting ability or their personal ability to come up with awesome ideas or things to say. What I do judge is participation. If you reward people based on their Personal ability to Act and Speak awesomely, well then, I wouldn't want to play at your table either. Not because I can or can't do such things, But because I wouldn't find such bias towards players fair or tasteful.

people come to the game to have fun, Not to be judged on their thespian skills.

Knasser, Though I don't agree with everything said by Hydrospanner,

I do agree that it is a bit unfair to overly reward one player who is a good actor, public speaker, or just more extrovert and exhibitionist. Especially if i doesn't fit the character they are playing.

Not everyone has that type of personality and ability to do that.

Part of Roleplaying is playing something that Isn't you.

And this is part of WHY RPGs have rules for determining the success of an action. Not based on the Players personal ability of actually doing that action.

So if I play a "Face" character, that is really good at negotiation, But I am actually horrible role playing a Negotiation, Because I just don't know how or don't have the personality to do that. My characters skills and abilities are supposed to Represent that, and Make up for that Lack in me as a real person. So I should Not be penalized because of what I said my character was going to say was a terrible way to do it.

On the other side of the coin, if a Player, who is really good at that personally, is playing a character with a presence of 1 and no skill in negotiation. Thy should not be overly rewarded for because they Are a good orator or negotiator and can come up with something Perfect for the situation.

If Both made the Effort to come Up with something to say for the negotiation, Rather then just saying "my character tries to negotiate, What is the difficulty", Well then Both should get 1 boost die, No more, No less. They both tried. If the one who isn't good at it Doesn't want to try to RP it, then no boost die, sure.

But the Other guy shouldn't get extra experience, or Get Better results and bonuses, beyond what is suggested in the Book, Just because they are able to come up with something AWESOME to say. Their Character Sucks at negotiation, How awesome they are at describing the situation and coming up with awesome negotiation statements, should play a part in it.

If it does, that just tells the other player that he isn't wanted at the game because he isn't up to snuff.

I do enjoy it when people get into the game and actually try to interact, But I don't Judge their acting ability or their personal ability to come up with awesome ideas or things to say. What I do judge is participation. If you reward people based on their Personal ability to Act and Speak awesomely, well then, I wouldn't want to play at your table either. Not because I can or can't do such things, But because I wouldn't find such bias towards players fair or tasteful.

people come to the game to have fun, Not to be judged on their thespian skills.

I think you need to take what I have written as a whole, not simply my arguing against the attacks made by hydrospanner. (And if someone calls my attitude loathsome and repulsive, I believe "attack" is a legimate term to use). Right in my first post I wrote how I use bonuses as a supplement to the actual traits of the character. A person who invests no points in social skills but plays their character as Mark Antony might occasionally get some bonus dice from me because they've entertained me, but they're still going to be rolling with a couple of green as their base. Similarly if someone has YYYG they're going to have a reasonable chance. They might not get much extra if all they tell me is "I roll Leadership to make her side with me", but they still get what they've paid their points for. It's just "I roll Leadership to make her side with me" isn't much fun for anyone. So sure, if they lead off with "I come to bury Palpatine, not to praise him..." I give them bonuses.

That's what I originally wrote and which set Hyrdospanner off. So if you're judging me by the post I wrote in reply to them about how I think it's absolutely fine and good to give some rewards for a player bringing their talents to the table, recognize that you're reading my rebuttals and what I actually said I do from the beginning. I wont be damned because how I actually run things gets buried in having to justify that. Now if you genuinely have a problem with what I do, then you wouldn't enjoy my group and you wouldn't be invited back anyway if you grumble about someone else being rewarded for their talents. I have no space at my table for people who get twisted up over other people getting a couple of bonus dice because they go for it. As I said, I don't believe in The Person Who Cannot. I only believe in those who are willing or not.

As an aside, someone isn't going to get XP for playing their character as funny and charismatic if they've dump-statted all their social traits. They will get XP if they deliberately mess up social encounters because their character is socially inept. But either way, they have to role-play to get those XP. And that means putting in the effort. So yes, the introvert is going to come off worse. Why is it damning to reward people for engaging, immersing us in their character? Isn't there a time-honoured tradition of giving out XP for doing this?

Or is the reason my attitude is "loathsome" and "repulsive" because I talk in terms of results, not rewarding people for trying? Haven't I said over and over that I believe when people try they succeed? Because that is what I have seen. Try and you will get there. I have a lot of faith in people. As they get better, the rewards increase. And as a result, they get better. I have seen this first hand where people want the XP or the bonus dice and go from being somebody who wont even speak in character to someone who is really entertaining in-character speaking. It works. Who cares if it's "fair"? It reeks of this attitude some people have that they would rather have a smaller slice of cake themselves, so long as everyone else's is the same size, than a larger slice but which is smaller than someone else's. I will always choose more cake for all.

And no, I can't simply make the smaller slices the same size as everyone else's because it is the rewarding behaviour (more cake) that encourages it. Or are people disputing all of human history and basic psychology in arguing that rewarding something doesn't encourage something? I refuse to give people "pity XP" elsewhere. If a GM did that to me, I would feel awful and kind of insulted. And I treat players the same as I would wish.

If you reward people based on their Personal ability to Act and Speak awesomely, well then, I wouldn't want to play at your table either. Not because I can or can't do such things, But because I wouldn't find such bias towards players fair or tasteful.

There is this common strain here that "fairness" and balance is more important than anything else. I reject that and if someone wants to dispute with me over it then they should show why it harms things more than lack of it benefits something else . I would rather be in a group with Jodie Foster, Nicholas Cage, James Purefoy and Tina Fey and find myself not getting as many blue dice, than I would enjoy finding myself in a bunch of people mumbling "Leadership roll" and grabbing the dice. Why? Because firstly because hearing someone give great dialogue in a game is more fun for me as a player than knowing I got the same number of dice as them - I mean how petty would that mean I was? Secondly, I myself will be far more engaged and raising my game amidst a bunch of people like that than I would otherwise. I might not do it as well , but I will do it better. And that to me means I'm having more fun and feeling better about myself.

I'm sorry but I can't see sitting back and not doing the same and then getting upset with others for my own behaviour as anything but my own problem. Remember, whilst I accept that there are some differences in natural talent, overwhelmingly I believe that effort and willingness are what makes the difference to "talent" below the level of very skilled professionals. Is it my fault that the guy who did the character portrait is a better artist than I am? Well yes it is. They put in the effort and time to do that and I did not. So they get rewarded. It's not game-breaking, it's not crazy preventing anyone else from being good at something if they aren't a BAFTA winning actor. It's just saying "I really like what you did there, we all thought it was cool. That gets rewarded in this place."

I'm pretty cool with that. It produces the environment that I want. And yes, the environment my players want as well. If someone's reaction to Jodie Foster and Nicholas Cage in their group is not "I'm enjoying this" but rather "it's not fair", then maybe I should have invited someone else for their seat who would enjoy it. And I can't not reward the talented without disincentivising that behaviour. That's how I run things.

Something smells of liberal arts elitism to me...

Something smells of liberal arts elitism to me...

What is Liberal Arts Elitism?

EDIT: Actually, what is just "Liberal Arts"? I'm unfamiliar with this term. Searching online just says

"1.

NORTH AMERICAN

academic subjects such as literature, philosophy, mathematics, and social and physical sciences as distinct from professional and technical subjects."

I'm at a loss how mathematics and physical sciences are not technical or professional subjects and I can't see how it relates to this, anyhow. Seems to be an American thing?

In this case it refers to providing a game with an agenda beyond simply having fun, much as liberal arts teachings seek to make "a better person" through knowledge and assumption of manner, your gaming sounds like it's trying to make "better gamers" as you've defined them rather than what the individual players may want. In my eyes, that's not what the social contract of a gaming group is for.

I thought his response was quite good. A fraction defensive, a little long, but the sentiment and reasoning were sound.

Personally I like a small benefit being given to players who try to inject colour when describing their turn. And it's a team game remember, those benefits are likely going to help the less descriptive (or shy!) players, too (ending conflict faster, spending advantages to gift boost dice, etc.).

If a GM still feels a player is getting overshadowed, there are plenty of ways to encourage them to have fun. Storylines that put the spotlight on them. Tasks they're better at than anyone else. NPCs who respect what they're good at and will be impressed by them. Gadgets that suit them more than others.

EDIT: Actually, what is just "Liberal Arts"? I'm unfamiliar with this term. Searching online just says

It's something you take in college when you dont want to take a real course load and want a career asking people if they''d like fries with that.

EDIT: Actually, what is just "Liberal Arts"? I'm unfamiliar with this term. Searching online just says

It's something you take in college when you dont want to take a real course load and want a career asking people if they''d like fries with that .

Or teaching Liberal Arts?