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

If I come across as a little defensive, hydrospanner's post does feel like an attack on me. SnowDragon's less so, though comments like "Well I wouldn't want to play at your table either" do shade that way. As to HappyDaze's "Smells like..." Well once I had it explained to me what they were talking about, that's basically just a put down as well. So sure, I'll defend myself - who wouldn't?

A little long though - yeah, that is something I'm prone to. Sorry!

Ofcourse your defensive, because we are saying we dislike your method of reward the "Able" over the "Unable".

We have a right to disagree with and dislike that and there is nothing wrong with saying that.

Now Hydrospanner may have taken that to an extreme that could be considered a personal attack, But it doesn't invalidate her main point.

You reward Thespianism. You judge people based on their ability to be able to Act and Entertain you. So people who Can't do that well need not apply.

You can take offense all you like at the description, but it doesn't change the truth of it. It isn't an attack, it is a statement that describes exactly what you are doing.

You are rewarding players beyond the scope of the game based on the pleasure their thespianism gives you. And that can be defined as encouraging your players to "Pander" to you.

Me saying I wouldn't want to play in that type of environment is also not and attack. It is a statement of personal choice.

You might as well not have game stats, because if a character has a presence of 1 and no skill in charm, My thespian ability to Act Like "Mark Anthony" should be Irrelevant, I am not playing a Mark Anthony Character.

I wouldn't want to play at a table where I was being judged on my ability to entertain you. I am there to have fun and enjoy a game communally, You are changing that dynamic by handing out rewards beyond the scope of the game based on their ability to entertain you. That promotes Sycophancy. Which I do not want to be a part of.

Note, I have Lost Players at my table over the years because I was unwilling to be affected by bribes and butt kissing, and then expecting to get bennies for their character because they bought me a Comic book, or brought me my favorite candy bar . But all the rest of the Players stayed because they Knew I was not being affected by such pandering to me. Your Candy bar is aplayers thespian ability to entertain you. I wouldn't want to be a part of that. that isn't an attack that is a statement of preference.

I'm not trying to put anyone down, but the role of a gamemaster is not generally accepted as being one that has the right (nor the responsibility) to develop the players' real-life skills and talents in the direction of the GM's choosing. Gamemastering is not schoolmastering, and I would chafe under such a style being employed by a GM. GMs run the game, they don't run the players.

Ofcourse your defensive, because we are saying we dislike your method of reward the "Able" over the "Unable".

Willing vs. not willing. Engagement vs. non-engagement. Not "able" over "unable". It's my opinion that everyone I have gamed with is capable of role-playing, of speaking immersively in character, of cool speeches and snappy dialogue. And I have gamed with some people who really struggled with this to begin with and ended up coming out with some really great stuff and enjoying that they did so. Both you and hydrospanner keep introducing words like unable. I've never gamed with such a person. It's just a question of time for someone to settle in and feel comfortable acting like the others are. And every time they come a little bit more into it they find that it results in better things - better in game and better in their enjoyment.

You might have a point if any of the players I've been through with this objected. But none do. None of them begrudge other people being rewarded. None of them have not enjoyed things more when they found they had to up their game to fit in with those around them. So I speak on behalf of my group. We like it. And to correct how you began your post, I'm not defensive because you are saying you dislike how I run my game, it is because things like "repulsive" "loathsome" and "wouldn't play at your table" are being thrown around.

We have a right to disagree with and dislike that and there is nothing wrong with saying that.

Have I said that you are wrong to speak? When people have replied I have engaged with what they said and answered it in specifics with logic and supported defences of my views. I don't believe at any point I've responded that people shouldn't talk to me. Please do not strawman that I have.

Now Hydrospanner may have taken that to an extreme that could be considered a personal attack, But it doesn't invalidate her main point.

Again, nor did I say anywhere that they were wrong because of their personal attacks or language. I replied with argument and supported opinion just the same as I would have otherwise. I only observed that the aggression explained why Col. Orange said I sounded a little defensive. Which I consider fairly reasonable. It's not as if I have gone on the offensive and insulted people in return or said their table wouldn't be good enough for me. I've just defended that I think my approach results in more fun and immersion.

You reward Thespianism. You judge people based on their ability to be able to Act and Entertain you. So people who Can't do that well need not apply.

You can take offense all you like at the description, but it doesn't change the truth of it. It isn't an attack, it is a statement that describes exactly what you are doing.

You are rewarding players beyond the scope of the game based on the pleasure their thespianism gives you. And that can be defined as encouraging your players to "Pander" to you.

Actually, you keep re-phrasing what I have written and coming up with emphases that don't sound right to me. Firstly, yes, as GM and host it is my privilege to invite who I choose and I could do that. But you're not describing my attitude and I don't recognize it. Throughout the above and elsewhere you keep denigrating what I say for wanting players to "pander to me". Ignoring that over and over again whenever I have talked about my approach that I talk in terms of the benefit to the group. Everyone enjoys it when the game becomes more immersive and dramatic or funny or real. If you're not interested in those aspects of a role-playing game then the other sources of fun it provides can be as easily obtained with a board game with a lot less effort. We're here because we want to be characters in a wonderful story. And that's what I strive to supply. Please don't try to make it all about me. I know that it makes it easier to criticize my position if I am portrayed as focused only on myself because then I'm inherently a Bad Guy, but it is not accurate and that has been clear from my first post. You can go back and re-read if you doubt it. I have been consistent throughout.

Me saying I wouldn't want to play in that type of environment is also not and attack. It is a statement of personal choice.

A little above you said that hydrospanner's personal attacks on me didn't mean they were actually wrong. I'll point out that something being a personal choice doesn't make something not an attack. You can critique someone's position or engage them in debate without repeating that you would reject an (unoffered so far) invitation to play in my group. We have fun. It seems extreme to say that you would refuse to play with us because you saw one of my players getting a couple of blue dice for giving an awesome piece of in-character motivation. I mean, it's your privilege. But I find it hard to believe you would really get up and walk out of my house at my "lack of taste" (your words, I think?) over it. So yes, it does come across as a little rude. I think anyone saying essentially that your game isn't good enough for them comes across as somewhat antagonistic. I mean if it were because I run a horror game and you don't like horror, that's a bit more of the "personal choice" banner you try to put this under. But "you are tasteless" feels different. I find that needless.

You might as well not have game stats, because if a character has a presence of 1 and no skill in charm, My thespian ability to Act Like "Mark Anthony" should be Irrelevant, I am not playing a Mark Anthony Character.

This is a complete disconnect from what I have written. At the kindest, it's an absurd exaggeration of what I have said to the point it doesn't remotely resemble what I have actually said that I do. I have explicitly stated what I actually do as using the characters' stats as they have been built / purchased and then sometimes throw on a bonus dice or two for making the extra effort to impress us with an example of what the character is actually saying and for doing that well. If you invent my own position for me, then I'm not really needed here. Please confine yourself to disputing with my actual position. The cartoon depiction of my attitude is not accurate to what I wrote nor an honest illustration of some principle. Like most things in life, degree matters. What I do to the degree I do it, is beneficial and fun for the group. Misrepresent what I do or pretend I do it too some mindless degree of your own imagining is not honest and I think you know that.

I wouldn't want to play at a table where I was being judged on my ability to entertain you. I am there to have fun and enjoy a game communally, You are changing that dynamic by handing out rewards beyond the scope of the game based on their ability to entertain you. That promotes Sycophancy. Which I do not want to be a part of.

Again, while not saying that I don't set my own enjoyment as a factor because I do, you're trying to change what I wrote every time from immersion and rewarding player talents at the table from it being good for the group, which is what I have been talking about (quite explicitly and clearly).

Note, I have Lost Players at my table over the years because I was unwilling to be affected by bribes and butt kissing, and then expecting to get bennies for their character because they bought me a Comic book, or brought me my favorite candy bar . But all the rest of the Players stayed because they Knew I was not being affected by such pandering to me. Your Candy bar is aplayers thespian ability to entertain you. I wouldn't want to be a part of that. that isn't an attack that is a statement of preference.

No, it isn't "my candy bar". And stating that because I reward things that make everything more fun for everyone I am seeking "bribes and butt kissing" and "expecting bennies", surrounding myself with sycophants and demanding that players "pander" to me, yes - that does come across as an attack because it's saying a lot of negative things about me that are not what I do nor is it reasonable to turn what I have written into those things. You're being pretty rude, actually, but trying to pass it off as just "a statement of preference". If I accused someone of a list of unpleasant things, ad hominem, and then said 'but it's not an attack, I'm just stating my personal preference to not associate with a person such as yourself', it would no less be rude. Just to be clear on that. You're welcome to debate for as long as you wish, and I will continue to do so regardless of your tone. But it's unnecessary for this to get personal.

I'm not trying to put anyone down, but the role of a gamemaster is not generally accepted as being one that has the right (nor the responsibility) to develop the players' real-life skills and talents in the direction of the GM's choosing. Gamemastering is not schoolmastering, and I would chafe under such a style being employed by a GM. GMs run the game, they don't run the players.

I don't see throwing in some extra dice or rewarding cool role-playing with bonus XP as an attempt to teach people. But I suppose to a mild extent it is. Nobody has to change their behaviour in any way they don't want. There are no beatings at my table. (not that I remember, anyway). I'm just in favour of giving some bonuses to people who bring cool things to the table. Obviously that incentivises such behaviour, but it's pretty overt and hardly a Machiavellian scheme of psychological manipulation. It has resulted in some people who hardly ever role-played at first doing a pretty job of it and finding they really enjoyed it. That's a good thing. You wouldn't really chafe if I gave you an extra Blue dice to your Negotiation roll when you out-snarked Princess Leia, would you?

Here, lets see if I can pick TWO fights in this thread!

You know, I kind of agree with knasserII. If a player has a memorable WWE moment on the mic, a stunning zinger, a exceptionally clever plan or something that otherwise is awesome, I'll gladly kick them a blue (perhaps 2, depending on the circumstances) for their roll.

I do this mostly because A) I try and be generous with the blues and B) one die isn't really going to break the game. Conversely, while I try and be generous with the blacks, too - I would never throw a black at a player for mumbling their way through negotiations or being otherwise uninspired.

I don't think I'd hand out experience for drawings and extra curricular activities, but I am thinking of next time we get a game going, paying out 10 or so experience for a detailed background finalized (well, as final as these things can be) in my hand.

Welcome to the side of Evil and B.F.Skinner's school of GM'ing. (Apparently. ). What voltage do you use on your shock collars? I go for around 50-60v, myself.

Willing vs. not willing. Engagement vs. non-engagement. It's my opinion that everyone I have gamed with is capable of role-playing, of speaking immersively in character, of cool speeches and snappy dialogue.

Everyone "You have Gamed with" may be capable of immersive play, capable of possibly saying something to snappy and cool.

But that is Not the Norm. kudos to you for having an exclusively thespian group.

I, however have had my games open to All and let people who want to play and have fun join my games regardless of their "capabilities' in the art of drama and thespian skills. I have had some people who have absolute no imagination what so ever, and that was cool. They "tried" and I gave them points for trying. But I let the roll decide their success not their Ability to twitter my fancy due to a fine twist of phrase.

Welcome to the side of Evil and B.F.Skinner's school of GM'ing. (Apparently. ). What voltage do you use on your shock collars? I go for around 50-60v, myself.

You know, I was thinking of upgrading to the full on Running Man exploding collars when I get my Christmas bonus. I hear they're quite effective!

There's also the fact that one person's "snappy and cool" is simply "annoying and cliche" to another.

Willing vs. not willing. Engagement vs. non-engagement. It's my opinion that everyone I have gamed with is capable of role-playing, of speaking immersively in character, of cool speeches and snappy dialogue.

Everyone "You have Gamed with" may be capable of immersive play, capable of possibly saying something to snappy and cool.

But that is Not the Norm. kudos to you for having an exclusively thespian group.

I, however have had my games open to All and let people who want to play and have fun join my games regardless of their "capabilities' in the art of drama and thespian skills. I have had some people who have absolute no imagination what so ever, and that was cool. They "tried" and I gave them points for trying. But I let the roll decide their success not their Ability to twitter my fancy due to a fine twist of phrase.

As to your repetition of "I let the roll decide", you're ignoring twice in a row now what I've actually said that I do. That has to be wilful by this point. It's disappointing.

As to you having gamed with some people who have "absolutely no imagination whatsoever", I have never met such a person. The hypothetical people that I am discriminating against become more exaggeratedly incapable with each iteration. I have never gamed with someone who has no talent. Occasional people who are initially shy or don't make any effort, yes. But no-one who is incapable of wit or drama. I suppose in order to justify a case that I am discriminating against people, it is necessary to have a victim who can never get any reward and for the same reason it must not be their fault. So the milder I am, the more hypothetically unfairly this victim must have been dealt with by nature. But I'm not going to be damned for hypotheticals. Yes, despite your astonishment, I have never had someone in any of my groups for all the long years of GM'ing, that is incapable of "immersive play" or "possibly saying something snappy and cool", to use your words.

Welcome to the side of Evil and B.F.Skinner's school of GM'ing. (Apparently. ). What voltage do you use on your shock collars? I go for around 50-60v, myself.

You know, I was thinking of upgrading to the full on Running Man exploding collars when I get my Christmas bonus. I hear they're quite effective!

Used to, dear chap, used to. But it was devilishly hard to keep a cleaner on staff after game night.

Whew - okay, finally. Got a chance to read the other part of the thread while I wasnt at work. Let me expand on a couple of points on why I'm okay (and on the same page more or less) as knasserII:

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,

Is it unfair? It could be, I guess. Not in my current group, since we're all pretty good with the mouth skills (and boy that came out wrong) - but lets say we've got an non-real life talking person in the group. Odds are he's going to have something he can bring to the table - clever planning skills for tatics, great at thinking on his feet in a crisis or whatever. If you make me go **** as a GM for whatever reason, you're probably getting a blue.

I hand them out like candy. I try and justify them as often as I can, at least as much as the blacks (Hey - gotta make those "Remove one black from X" talents come in handy) - so you may not get one on the talking skill, but you'll get one later on for sure.

Another aspect of "is it unfair" - is one blue really altering the paradigm that much? Hell, even if The Mouth goes and lays the hard core smack down on your candy ass and I give him a full upgrade - it's only once in a while, not every single turn.

Okay, we'll turn it this way: as a player would I feel cheated if Billy just got a blue because he was awesome? Hell no! I was probably just as entertained as the GM was. If the GM didn't give him a Blue of Awesome, I'd say something! "That was great! Give the man a bonus!" We are all here - players and GM - to tell an awesome, epic story that will shake the pillars of heaven. Why would I feel cheated if someone else got a bonus because they were brilliant?

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

with just a look.

Highest Skill Attainable.

You rootie poo candy ass, the Highest Skill Attainable in Scathing Tirade is not The Look, but the People's Eyebrow.

You rootie poo candy ass, the Highest Skill Attainable in Scathing Tirade is not The Look, but the People's Eyebrow.

The Rock ain’t got nuthin’ on Leonard Nimoy.

Of course you should be wary of using Scathing Tirade against those with too many levels of Adversary, because it is possible to roll a Despair...

The Topic title actually says it all. I think scathing tirade is a powerfull skill but as said somewhere else it needs to well played. You have to act out the tirade and the GM could grant the roll. I don't think the roll should be granted without any spoken word by the PC.

It can't be just the dice it needs a story and the PC needs to bring it convincingly.

My question here is....What would you say to convince the GM to grant the roll?

Watch a lot of episodes of the Equalizer (with Edward Woodward). Though granted a lot of his social interactions were more coercive than scathing tirades. Still just substitute a few names, the "Empire" for the "Company" and you're on your way. And he has that English accent which is very suitable for if your background was say an ex-Imperial agent.

---

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

More of an embarrassing tirade ;-)

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

More of an embarrassing tirade ;-)

Despair happens.

This thread needs to be redone as part of Desslok's mini-series.

Because if there's one thing my players never tire of, it's killing stormtroopers by using harsh language on them.

And thus it was so!