From: Simon Hibbs (simonh@msi-uk.com)
Date: Tue 04 Aug 1998 - 13:49:56 EEST
Ashley Munday :
> That's the crux of the matter: Some people who advocate
>more freeform roleplaying don't seem to realise that we're not all
>Wilde able to drop dry scathing wit off our tongues at a moments
notice.
>However, a lot of us play adventurers that can, hence the Oratory
skill.
This is a good point. To be fair it applies more to the examples and
advice given in the rules to GMs rather than to the game mechanics
themselves. This side of RPG writing is IMHO at least as important as
the quality of the rules.
> Sure, give bonuses for good roleplaying, but don't
>penalise the poor bugger with a speech impediment.
True. Just as a player with little or no experience of combat should
still be able to have a character that can be effective in a fight, so a
player with no experience of public speaking should still be capable of
playing a politician.
However, I think it is desirable that players who understand close
combat tactics should be able to apply that knowledge effectively in the
game, just as I believe that eloquent players should be able to apply
that talent to good effect.
I believe that HW does have scope for players to take sensible tactical
decisions, and I hope that further development of the text will provide
more advice on how to referee this effectively. Encouraging referees to
give players bonuses on their die rolls for good ideas and innovative
tactics, with illustrative examples, should be quite sufficient.
During one playtest my character was confronted by one of the trouble
people and accused of desception. I got streight back at her and
(metaphoricaly speaking) nailed her to the floor. If the referee had
demanded that I make a roll, and if I had failed the roll, I would have
felt cheated. That sort of thing can happen in any game though, the only
way round it is to teach good GMing style.
Simon Hibbs
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 17:15:44 EEST