frogspawner

Most were objections that the trait system is a coarse tool for the job, and overly mechanistic. In other words, most of them were on the part of people who thought it actually got in the way of roleplaying, rather than helping it.

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'...

This is not the GM telling players how to roleplay their characters, this is the setting reacting to character actions.

Yes, that's what's wanted. And hopefully, a simple 'RP Tally' could do just that.

Wikipedia says that Pendragon came out in 1985 and Griffin Mountain came out in 1981. Griffin Mountain had Personality Traits for RQ/BRP way before Pendragon did.

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.

I've seen many, many criques of Pendragon's traits system on just that grounds over the years.

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 feel like the purpose of play is to have lots of fun by role playing in an interesting and stylized fashion, so as to create many interesting and memorable scenes. I feel like I want the players to change their play style to suit the game, but I also don't want to puppet them just to see the scenario play out. Is there a delicate and appropriate way to address this?

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...

Nah, has to be medusa. I agree, it should be gorgon, and should have always been gorgon. But D&D decided...

Fine. I just thought you were fixing D&D's mistakes, that's all...

(PS: I didn't see gorgon on the list).

Try both, then pick the one you/your players like.

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

As for myself, I don't use localized Hit points at all. I prefer general hit points with a StormBringer-like "major wounds" system.

Ditto.

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

Interesting. Why don't they join us here?

The problem is there is no constant/unique definition of what good roleplaying is since it can change based upon the game, the GM, the group, the setting, etc.

Of course, you're right. And I'm reminded this is why we have a GM - to be the arbiter.

In my games, "good roleplaying" means playing a character everyone "likes" (as a character concept), like it should/could act, AND have some fun.

That sounds good!

Unfortunately my players think that power-crazed tapping addicts and humakti are "fun" so the games revolve around "killing things, their stuff and their families and burning it all so noone takes it".

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).

Well, and if the players decide that this setting would be "too lame" for their taste, then that's

it. I will not attempt to convince them to play something they are not really interested in, as I

really hate to referee for unhappy or frustrated players - it ruins my fun, too.

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.

I would like to add "provided that his players agree to try a different style of roleplaying"...

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.

No, it helps the player learn what the GM defines it as.

I don't particularly see that the GM should be the arbiter of what constitutes good roleplaying. And I think a rather large number of people feel the same.

I don't see as its either necessary or desirable for everyone to be lockstepped as to what is the appropriate way to play the game, even within one group.

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'?

However, in these cases the players define what "good roleplaying" is, and if their de-

finition is not the same as the referee's definition, this can backfire badly.

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.

I gave that a shot one time and it led to some hurt feelings. I enjoy that sort of thing as well, but if someone goes a few sessions without being awarded anything, it can lead to some interesting conversations, so I avoid it. I like it a lot as a PC though.

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.

I feel like the purpose of play is to have lots of fun by role playing in an interesting and stylized fashion, so as to create many interesting and memorable scenes. I feel like I want the players to change their play style to suit the game, but I also don't want to puppet them just to see the scenario play out. Is there a delicate and appropriate way to address this?

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.

Although something else, something older like John Carter of Mars by E R Burroughs would be interesting.

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...

... house ruling the Command skill to work with PC's...

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?

Or alternatively swings at the same time and accepts that neither gets to parry.

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.

That's only true if all those result occur equally often, which I never said nor implied.

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...)

Not really, depending on the character involved; a character with a 15 Dex would rarely have it come up.

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.

The players then get to make a few minor changes to the characters and the story picks back up twenty years later. An option to consider.

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

...most characters, PC or not, will land in the 11-16 range of ...dexterity...

In which case, this effect would occur about 1 per 6 blows under the Dex Rank system - often enough to mean something!

Of course the real issue is that this doesn't favor a shield per se; it just favors having something to parry with offhand, but if anything the current rules tend to favor that being another weapon, not a shield.

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).