frogspawner

True, Pendragon Traits isn't the smoothest mechanism - but that's just a rules-design problem (which I for one am working to improve). Hence what I actually recommended to the OP was a simple after-the-event tally, which doesn't have any in-game mechanic or effect. Not interfering with RP at all, just taking notice after it happens. But reminding players that acting gung-ho doesn't necessarily mean they're 'winning'... Yes, that's what's wanted. And hopefully, a simple 'RP Tally' could do just that.

Oh yes! For NPCs, and then for 'semi-PC' Dragonewts in Wyrms Footnotes (#14, 1982?). Pendragon made Traits core for PCs, and made them famous. But, OK - BRP/RQ had them first.

Well I haven't. All I recall seeing is praise for Pendragon's innovative traits system, and people using it for other settings. Were those critiques from players who'd prefer to forget the RP and just 'burn stuff', perhaps?

I've just realized that the Pendragon game system (a close BRP relative, source of the Personality Traits) is very much built around giving rewards for 'Good RP'. It's not about 'winning any way you can' - acting honourably is most important. OK, the role of Arthurian knights is pretty well-defined, but it's a good starting point. Using a similar system with a bit more flexibility could do the trick, encouraging those 'interesting and memorable scenes' you want. And I don't recall anyone saying Pendragon is the GM 'puppeting' players...

Fine. I just thought you were fixing D&D's mistakes, that's all... (PS: I didn't see gorgon on the list).

Or pick the one you like and your players don't. Ditto.

Might I suggest one more name-change? Medusa to Gorgon

Interesting. Why don't they join us here?

Of course, you're right. And I'm reminded this is why we have a GM - to be the arbiter. That sounds good! But that doesn't. Really, the occasional bit of mayhem might be fun, but this is the sort of thing there should be a mechanism to discourage (or preferably, stop). Hmm, but if the players veto the GM's preferred setting (due to not enough mindless violence for their 'taste') then his fun is already ruined. The GM should say what's what - that's fair because he does the work. GMs should not have to run systems, settings or situations they dislike.

If you must, but discussing it would probably make "an issue" of it - better just to put an RP mechanism in place, and the job's done. If they continue to play, then they have agreed! Trying to make them agree beforehand is pointless - would such players admit their style is flawed? Of course not.

Good RP is hard to pin down, like 'quality'. Won't you help us try to identify some of it's elements? Clearly it's not the WotC definition above, and I don't think it's 'Kill things and take their stuff' either (which a couple of the OP's players seem to be doing). If a GM thinks his game is suffering due to poor RP, surely it's his duty to encourage a better RP style? (Or do 'a rather large number of people' really disagree with that idea?)

So - anybody care to have a stab at defining 'good roleplaying'?

So, it needs to be clear to everyone what constitutes good roleplaying. And I hope everyone here will agree it's not 'playing the tactical combat role expected of your character class' (which seems to be what WotC are trying to re-define it as with 4E). Systems for the GM to reward Good RP will help players learn the true meaning.

And was it the "play to win" guys who tended to miss out on the awards? If so, hurt feelings or not, it may be exactly what's needed.

How about awarding a "Victory Point" to players when they do some interesting/memorable RP? Keep a League Table of VPs, with whoever's at the top having the title of "Current Campaign Winner" or some such.

Well, Clark Ashton Smith's Zothique has been mentioned before, and is old and related to Cthulhoid stuff, so fitting. But I reckon we should all get behind the Chronicles of Future Earth ('Urth'?), when it comes out...

Good one. But I'd say the Commanding character has to be the other's superior/commanding officer in the team hierarchy, for these beneficial effects of their 'training' to kick-in. (Interesting. You may get PCs wanting to be lower-ranks, so they can get the bonuses. And oh the resentment when their Officer keeps failing his Command rolls...!)

Ah, if only each side's rolls were Independent then it would be so much simpler...

Male Male Female Female Age Height(") Weight(#) SIZ Height(") Weight(#) SIZ 2 32-34-37 24-28-35 2 31-34-37 22-26-34 2 3 35-37-41 28-32-40 3 34-37-40 26-30-40 3 4 37-40-43 30-36-45 3 36-40-43 28-35-48 3 5 39-43-46 32-40-55 3 39-42-46 32-40-55 3 6 42-45-49 35-45-62 4 41-45-49 36-46-64 4 7 44-48-52 40-50-70 4 44-48-52 38-50-72 4 8 46-50-55 45-56-80 4 46-50-55 44-55-84 5 9 48-53-57 48-65-96 5 48-52-57 48-64-96 5 10 50-55-60 55-70-110 6 49--57-59 52-72-112 6 11 51-56-62 60-80-130 7 51-60-65 58-80-130 6-7 12 53-59-64 65-90-140 7 54-60-65 66-90-146 7-8 13 56-61-67 70-100-155 7-8 57-62-67 72-100-160 7-8 14 58-64-70 80-110-170 8-9 58-63-68 80-110-170 8-9 15 61-67-72 90-124-184 10 59-64-68 86-115-180 9 16 62-68-74 100-135-196 10 59-64-69 92-120-18 10 17 63-69-75 106-142-205 11 59-64-69 96-122-190 10 18 64-69-75 114-148-215 11 60-65-69 98-125-192 11 19 64-70-75 116-152-218 11 59-64-69 98-128-196 11 20 64-70-75 120-155-224 12 60-65-69 100-128-196 11 Any better?

I prefer to figure Resistance Rolls like this... Doing something that involves (say) Strength requires a STR x 5 percentile roll. If it's opposed (e.g. by an enemy's Strength or an object's Size) then modify it +/-5% per point the opposing Stat is under/over 10. That's it. (And the numbers are the same as on the Resistance Table.) Howzat?

The case in point is Single Weapon (probably 2-handed) versus Weapon & Shield/Secondary Weapon - so he would get to parry. Does this 'Delay Rule' (which frankly I was unaware of before) not apply under the Strike Ranks system? If it does, then the single-weapon wielder could delay one SR if necessary to avoid the problem (and then we're back to the same case as under Dex Ranks). Interesting point that the higher-Dex combatant wouldn't have to worry about it - leading to higher-Dex characters favouring single weapons, perhaps? That sounds possibly realistic.

Near enough. But it hardly matters. If as Rosen points out, a higher-Dex combatant can delay (with two weapons or weapon & shield) until the Dex-rank of his (single-weapon-wielding) opponent - then the "can't parry on the same Dex Rank as attacking" rule IS significant. (Which is what began this little argument, if I remember correctly, so long ago...)

Yes really. If PCs and NPCs all typically have Dex in the range 11-16 (as you said), then your opponent will have the same Dex as you about 1 time in 6.

That certainly sounds better than having to start from scratch with new characters.

In which case, this effect would occur about 1 per 6 blows under the Dex Rank system - often enough to mean something! I'd suggest using the other pro-Shield rules as well. But even on it's own, this rule is a good dis-incentive to using two-handed weapons (such as the halberd example given).