(TFT) Roleplaying talents --> Michael's suggestion: roleplay your armourer

[Michael Taylor <MichaelTaylor1@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by INTERNET:tft@brainiac.com
>>>>>By  Michael's reasoning, EVERY one of Paul's characters would 
>>>>>By Michael's reasoning he would never get the full advantage of
Diplomacy, New

Hold it! Who is this Michael who thinks this? How did my reasoning go from
"Players are given bonuses according to how well they roleplay" to "Players
cannot use any talent they do not personally possess?" This word "reason" -
I do not think it means what you think it means!


>>>>>>  This is an extreme example perhaps.  

Granted, so understand that my responses are not only intended for this
literal example, but speak to the point of the example. 

>>>>>>  What I did was I prompted the player, when ever he was going to
make a
>>>>>>  After a couple real years of hints and help, he could roleplay 
>>>>>>  a military type pretty well.

This actually seems like bullying to me. Or at least "coercian". You dont
get to play the kind of commander *you* want to play. You get to play *my
version* of what a commander should be like. 

>>>>>>  However Michael specifically said you shouldn't 
>>>>>>  prompt players.  (His example was about facing and 
>>>>>>  maneuver's even tho the player's character was a 
>>>>>>  competent fighter.)

No, in general, I dont think you should. You are actually rewarding the
player not for roleplaying - but for parrotting the behavior that you think
is appropriate. 

So your player would make a lousy commander in real life. So what? Does
that mean he should make a lousy commander in a fantasy game? 

James Kirk would make a lousy commander in real life. But he's a GREAT
commander for purposes of entertainment! The best! 

So is your player character an entertaining commander? Can you make it
work? Are you just going to ignore his +1 Initiative Bonus because you
*personally* dont think the player is a a good commander? 

I think the GM should be more 'impartial' than that. He should reward the
players for their effort - for TRYING to be entertaining - not for playing
*exactly* the way the GM thinks they should behave. 

(My personal example is from a superhero game - one of the player's
modelled his character on the GM's favorite superhero. So from then on that
character was always the leader and was always favored - because he played
the way the GM felt a 'real' superhero should play). 

>>>>>>  He said that Melee
>>>>>>  and Wizard rocked, but ITL sucked because characters
>>>>>>  were too much alike.  

This is one of my pet peeves and why I feel that there are always at least
*two* camps of players. 

Personally I think that James Bond, Captain America, Batman and Luke
Skywalker all have exactly the same character sheet. But they are played
very differently by their players. And that *roleplaying* is what makes
them different and interesting characters. Their stats and equipment lists
are secondary. The games I like embrace the philosophy of a the mechanics
are merely a starting point to solve "shot-you-no-you-didn't-disputes". 

But many players feel that they cannot imagine anything about their
characters unless it is reflected in the rules or they get points for it.
The rules have *become* the game to the exclusion of their ability to
imagine. They don't want to acutally have to *think* about Diplomacy. They
just want to pay the points and have the GM cover for them!  Hero 5th
Edition was just released for gamers like this!

>>>>>>  If you are punished each time you try to play 
>>>>>>  character's BEYOND your personal abilities, then your 
>>>>>>  choices of characters become just a little narrower, 
>>>>>>  IMHO.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why stats and talents are only the
*beginning* of a character. How a player plays it is where the REAL keys
are the GM should use to propel the game. 


Thanks!
Michael
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"