> That's the crux of the matter: Some people who advocate
>more freeform roleplaying don't seem to realise that we're not all
Oscar
>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
Powered by hypermail