Player/Character Disparity

[magnificentmomo]

I agree that the game is all about having fun, but on the other hand if a player decides "I don't need to put points in intellect because I'm fairly smart and I don't need those points mechanically for this character" then its metagame. You should play the character on the sheet, and there are bonus points for a reason. I feel Exalted is more about the story, and the interactions and actions of the characters involved. It's not a "I play to win" mentality on either the PC or ST's part (that horrible mentality that plagues so many DnD games), to me its more of a "I play to play" sort of thing. All that zen "it's not the destination it's the journey" bullshit.

 

[Haku1]

Wait?


We don't play to win? How does that work? :wink:


I mean to win is to have fun, and having fun is winning...  :lol:


Thus everyone having fun, both ST and Player, that would mean the game is being beating and people are winning...  


But on a more sreious note, games should always be fun and should never end up being a social committment that you go to because you feel obligated. THAT in my eyes would be the one true loss in any rpg game.

 

[Halykan]

Re:

Grunting and slobbering is all fine and good if you want to present your character in that manner.  For a lot of players though, they don't want to come across as socially repugnant ignorami, they just don't feel the can benefit from purchasing stats for those things that they can present as a player.  Other times, a player will decide that they want to be something beyond what they can easily portrait, and so they purchase the points on their sheet and use them to a mechanical advantage.  If it comes down to a point where a roll is required, the savante players will fall by the wayside and the statted characters will shine - which is how it should be.  But if a game interaction doesn't warrant a roll, it doesn't really matter what's on the character sheet and it's all about the players behaving the way that they want and having fun doing it.  Your players will let you know what's important to them as they play - the challenge is exorcising the notion that it's up to you to tell them what's important based on the stats listed on a piece of paper.

It's not a "I play to win" mentality on either the PC or ST's part (that horrible mentality that plagues so many DnD games), to me its more of a "I play to play" sort of thing.

It's worthwhile in my opinion for players of the popular RPG systems around nowadays to recall that the universe of roleplaying games is larger than just the so-called "game" or "system" driven ones. That is, games with rules and dice to determine outcomes, etc.


I've always liked the Storyteller system because it strives to be a fairly streamlined system that doesn't get in the way of telling/playing a fun or interesting story. But - and I'm surprised to be saying this - I don't think that playing the "metagame" is a bad thing. I'm ok with my players choosing tactically sound methods in combat, with planning out the next few charms they'll buy with their experience to get the best return on their investment. We're playing an RPG with a system, and there is a level of tactical play involved in such a game, even though there is also a story/narrative layer.


Now, it's entirely possible for players who care only about the metagame to sabotage your narrative fun by being twinks and douchebags. This results, in my opinion, by using the system too much. I think it's healthy for a ST to ensure that there are many actions happening in-game are not rolled. In-character conversation is an excellent example of this, and roleplaying out social encounters is I think essential to an immersive story.


I also tend to use the old standard - awarding a bonus experience here and there for a character well-played. If one of your players is himself fairly adept conversationally and clever to boot, it might be natural for him to play a con man. But a taciturn Wyld barbarian? It's a challenge - and if the player manages to keep his in-character conversation consistent not only with his character's persona, but also his low Wits and Manipulation, I'd possibly toss him an extra experience for making do with a terse rejoinder instead of a witty repartee.


At any rate, I feel that generally speaking it's best to handle disparities between a character's stats and a player's abilities without rolls; and I also find it a convenient way to hinder those that like to abuse the system, by merely allowing the player's deficiencies to cripple his character (but I'm used to being smarter than most of my players).

 

[The zombie cat]

IQ is /supposed/ to be a measure of native inelegance. Not knowledge. But none of the tests work very well because inelegance can only be assessed threw application of knowledge and acquired skills. This is why people in third world countries consistently test poorly on standard western IQ tests. There not les intelligent, they probably don’t even know less. There education is just so radically different that they don’t know many of the basic things we take for granted. They know other things more relevant to there circumstances.


Back to the game


My problem isn’t so much with players with low social skills and characters with high. It is with players with exceptionally well formed logical arguments while there characters best social dice pool is 3. as a GM what do you do when a player gives a unarguably correct argument making a proposal clearly in the NPCs best interest but a 3 dice stunt still doesn’t give him a chance of success. Especially when the NPC has been established as being reasonably rational.


The other problem I have is as a player. When I am playing a social character and I can never actually say anything because it takes me a second to inhale before I can talk.


Edward

 

[Virjigorm]

I have run with players ranging in background and capability from (literally) scientists to the mentally disabled. I have found a really easy way to resolve this problem. I allow the player to do their best to figure out a puzzle or roleplay a situation, and then give them a roll to gauge the narrative outcome of the action. If the player comes up with a great monologue, but his 1 INT O Performance character rolls like crap, the whole thing comes out badly. On the flip side, the slow player with a highly capable character gets to do his best to figure it out, then roll for more clues and hints. Intelligence yields knowledge and reasoning that links information to come up with an answer. By giving a less intelligent player more information and telling them about the links in ideas, the ST can provide their character with the knowledge and intelligence the player lacks.


It only makes sense to let people give it their best try first, as this also builds player confidence when they succeed in the end. Forcing the dice and stats to determine the narrative outcome reins in the abusive players while making things fair across the group. I've even vetoed a smart players ideas after their dumb character fails a roll related to the knowledge or idea in question. While not my preferred way to go, that is the only way I know to penalize the "other" Twinks that fall into this behavior.

 

[Vanman]

The other problem I have is as a player. When I am playing a social character and I can never actually say anything because it takes me a second to inhale before I can talk.
Edward

I'm sorry. I have no idea what you meant by this last statement....

 

[Heaven's Thunder Hammer]

The other problem I have is as a player. When I am playing a social character and I can never actually say anything because it takes me a second to inhale before I can talk.
Edward

I'm sorry. I have no idea what you meant by this last statement....

MAybe he means other people jump in by the time he has taken a breath to speak.

 

[The zombie cat]

The other problem I have is as a player. When I am playing a social character and I can never actually say anything because it takes me a second to inhale before I can talk.
Edward

I'm sorry. I have no idea what you meant by this last statement....

MAybe he means other people jump in by the time he has taken a breath to speak.

thats exactly what i mean. its almost imposable to play a highly social character when you cant get a word in edgewise at the table. not so much a problem during actual social combat but when its just a social scene its a huge disadvantage to be a little slower to speak


Edward

 

[Cthulhu_Wakes]

Funny, I've rolled with a guy who constantly makes 'social characters' who talk in dice and all he waits for is combat and cheese.

 

[Virjigorm]

Funny' date=' I've rolled with a guy who constantly makes 'social characters' who talk in dice and all he waits for is combat and cheese.[/quote']
I think that was one of my "mentally disabled" players I was talking about.

 

[Cthulhu_Wakes]

And how!