PDA

View Full Version : What OOC conversation is too much (I swear this isn't a rant)



the clumsy bard
2013-04-04, 01:42 PM
Recently I have been GMing a fairly large group in a pathfinder game.

The group is 7 Players and myself. We play weekly at one of the players house.

I have been having a couple of issues in game though.

As the GM everything is going ok, but our sessions last about 3 hours and lately I find that most of the sessions, let us say 50% of game time are being dominated by OOC planning / discussions.

Second I find some characters like to yada yada etc... situations that don't really lend themselves to this.

Example: - OOC conversation

3 sessions ago I asked everyone to roll Perception checks. Only 1 of the characters rolled high. Again this is 1 character out of 7. I informed him that he heard people speaking Elven in low voices in the woods nearby. He is the only character with Elven as a language. The party then began to discuss the implications and what to do if they were going to attack, or run away, or both. This conversation was all done OOC and involved most people discussing what to do for about 15-20 mins IRL. After the conversation continued I informed the players that there was no way they could continue talking this much about something without their characters actually discussing. I asked them to make new Perception checks and informed them that they now heard people speaking Elven and moving towards them from the woods.

Example 2 - Yada Yada etcing hard social situations

This happened recently. I have 1 character who speaks undercommon. The 7 PCs ran into someone who they were trying to interrogate and then have said interrogated creature lead them to its lair.

Now my issue is that the characters are all trying to say thing to the creature, but only 1 of them speaks its language...

I find it hard to allow characters to listen / threaten a creature when 1 out of 7 understands. My players assume that the character is immediately relaying everything back them like a translator... which I find unrealistic.

Then one character will say something like tell him if he doesnt co-operate I will cut off his ears... then the character wit the language looks at me and say I say exactly that... Should this annoy me? Am I being too picky in expecting my players to interact with each other and immerse themselves?

In the same line of things the same character will say I roll diplomacy instead of saying something that merits a diplomacy check...

Ok maybe this is a rant,

But can anyone suggest ways to make PCs more apt to be in character... or maybe a way to dissuade them from OOC talking?

NichG
2013-04-04, 02:16 PM
This is something you have to do at low level, before things like Telepathic Bond become an option, but...

Have NPCs react to OOC moments as if everything was said IC. Do this to absurd extent. Do not accept 'that was an OOC comment'. This is something more appropriate for a habit I've seen my players indulge every so often, namely to discuss 'what should we do with this NPC' right in front of said NPC (and I don't mean something like an interrogation, I mean that they OOC discuss offing the king while their characters are sitting at his dinner table).

Also, have real time and game time be the same thing outside of things like combat or other fast-paced scenes. If the players spend 2 hours discussing something, they've spent 2 hours discussing it IC as well. Combine with a few time sensitive scenes to drive the point home.

JusticeZero
2013-04-04, 08:31 PM
1: Don't let people plan OOC. After a sentence or two, politely remind of this. Have all planning past that be reacted to as IC and real time.

2: 'You're going to have to rephrase. The grammar doesn't quite translate.' If they don't, then the NPC hears some translator Mix is. Penetrate with words Google Translate to the return listens NPC.

scurv
2013-04-04, 09:44 PM
Expect some butt-hurt, But IF you are going to become more strict then do it all at once so the players can get over it. Rather then Draging it out.

Personally I think your gripes are quite valid. And Most players are guilty of it from time to time, You can be subtle about it and roll listen checks for the npc's when said player "Tells his friends" about what he heard and they begin to "Discuss it" And you would be perfectly in your rights to do so. Just do not be smug about it and do not make it personal in any way. It is about the Game, Not a power trip, Not putting them in their place (although that is a useful side effect)

Sometimes When I have a group that is doing to much auto translation, I will conduct some of the rp by note cards or in one on one. With or with out the other players watching.

Rhynn
2013-04-04, 10:46 PM
When only one PC understands something, pass notes.

This gets your players used to you passing notes to one of them, which can be used to great effect for evil surprises later on.

:smallamused:

dps
2013-04-04, 11:16 PM
Recently I have been GMing a fairly large group in a pathfinder game.

The group is 7 Players and myself. We play weekly at one of the players house.

I have been having a couple of issues in game though.

As the GM everything is going ok, but our sessions last about 3 hours and lately I find that most of the sessions, let us say 50% of game time are being dominated by OOC planning / discussions.

Second I find some characters like to yada yada etc... situations that don't really lend themselves to this.

Example: - OOC conversation

3 sessions ago I asked everyone to roll Perception checks. Only 1 of the characters rolled high. Again this is 1 character out of 7. I informed him that he heard people speaking Elven in low voices in the woods nearby. He is the only character with Elven as a language. The party then began to discuss the implications and what to do if they were going to attack, or run away, or both. This conversation was all done OOC and involved most people discussing what to do for about 15-20 mins IRL. After the conversation continued I informed the players that there was no way they could continue talking this much about something without their characters actually discussing. I asked them to make new Perception checks and informed them that they now heard people speaking Elven and moving towards them from the woods.

The way to handle this is you whisper to the person who passed the check to tell him what he heard (or given him a written note with that info). Then he can tell the rest of the party (or not, though I'll not hazard a guess as to why he would withhold the information) and they can make plans in-character as to what they want to do. In a situation like this, though, don't let talking be a free action--if they talk and plan for 15 minutes IRL, let 15 minutes go by in-game. So if they stand around blabbing for too long, they may find the situation that they were facing has changed to the point that their plans no longer fit so well.


Example 2 - Yada Yada etcing hard social situations

This happened recently. I have 1 character who speaks undercommon. The 7 PCs ran into someone who they were trying to interrogate and then have said interrogated creature lead them to its lair.

Now my issue is that the characters are all trying to say thing to the creature, but only 1 of them speaks its language...

I find it hard to allow characters to listen / threaten a creature when 1 out of 7 understands. My players assume that the character is immediately relaying everything back them like a translator... which I find unrealistic.

Then one character will say something like tell him if he doesnt co-operate I will cut off his ears... then the character wit the language looks at me and say I say exactly that... Should this annoy me? Am I being too picky in expecting my players to interact with each other and immerse themselves?

In the same line of things the same character will say I roll diplomacy instead of saying something that merits a diplomacy check...

Ok maybe this is a rant,

But can anyone suggest ways to make PCs more apt to be in character... or maybe a way to dissuade them from OOC talking?

I don't have a problem with the bolded part at all. If all the rest of the party is yelling at the one character with the language at one, that character is going to have to pick and chose what to say to the captive first. Similar to the first examle, give the captive's responce to that player only, and let him relay it to the rest of the party or not as he sees if.

Shadowknight12
2013-04-05, 02:30 PM
Am I being too picky in expecting my players to interact with each other and immerse themselves?

Yes. Your players are not obligated to have the same expectations or tastes that you do. Conversely, you are not obligated to have the same expectations or tastes as your players.

Next session, tell them you need to have an OOC chat with all of them and ask them if they'd be willing to engage in the kind of strict immersive roleplaying that you envision (and make sure you describe as clearly as possible exactly what you want, as you've been somewhat vague in this thread), or if they are more relaxed/informal players and roleplaying isn't their thing.

If it's the former, ask them how you can help them achieve immersion. If it's the latter, decide if you are willing to change your expectations or if you'd rather find another group.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-05, 02:51 PM
When only one PC understands something, pass notes.

This gets your players used to you passing notes to one of them, which can be used to great effect for evil surprises later on.

:smallamused:

Exchanging notes with players sounds like it should have a similar effect to asking for Will saves every so often.


And when only one of them knows something, then that player has to roleplay his character explaining it.

Saph
2013-04-05, 02:54 PM
I've found the best solutions to this are:

• Out of combat, OOC time is at least equal to IC time. If you spend 15 minutes planning, at least 15 minutes go by in-game. This means that if you spend too long planning a combat, your intended victims will move/spot you/go away.

• Everything is assumed to be said in-character unless specified otherwise. If the PCs discuss how to kill an NPC to their faces, this leads to interesting consequences.

• If the PCs can't make their mind up, move the plot along for them. Start a fight, fast-forward to the next scene in the adventure, point-blank ask them what they're doing, etc. Don't let things grind to a halt.

In my experience, if you stick to these rules, players will complain a little in the short term, but they enjoy the game more in the long term. Lots of players will say that they want to be able to spend as long as they like discussing things, but in practice I find that they don't really mean it. They like being free to take time to think about things when they're doing it, but they don't actually want to wait for 30 minutes every combat round while the rest of the party decides what to do. If it comes down to a choice between being rushed and being bored, most players prefer 'rushed'.

Obviously, you have to make sure not to be a jerk about this. If a PC is in a legitimately life-threatening situation, give them a reasonable amount of time to think things through. And making OOC jokes is a big part of the fun of most games. But games need pace, and generally the one who sets the pace is the DM, meaning that it's up to the DM to speed things along when the party are taking forever and it's making the game drag.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-05, 03:33 PM
• Everything is assumed to be said in-character unless specified otherwise. If the PCs discuss how to kill an NPC to their faces, this leads to interesting consequences.


If the DM enforces this kind of thing, then he should be held to it as well. Like if a PC's OOC tongue-slip means he shoots the child, jumps off the building, and dies, then the DM's slip up should mean there really are a million gp in that chest, not just a thousand.

Or if he asks to pass the pizza, then everyone thinks the King is crazy because there's no such thing as pizza and he's in the middle of a grand ceremony.

Sebastrd
2013-04-05, 03:41 PM
The problem is that you seem to be "pausing" the game while they have their discussions. D&D isn't Xbox, and there is no "pause". The world continues to go about its business while the players have their comittee meetings, and it's up to you to drive that point home.


If only one character understands the language, pass that player a note instead of telling the whole table.

Have monsters and NPCs move on to somewhere else while the players are plotting. Better yet, have them finally rush in only to find that it's too late to stop the villain. While they were plotting, he finished the ritual, escaped, sacrificed the virgin, summoned the demon, etc.

NichG
2013-04-05, 05:26 PM
If the DM enforces this kind of thing, then he should be held to it as well. Like if a PC's OOC tongue-slip means he shoots the child, jumps off the building, and dies, then the DM's slip up should mean there really are a million gp in that chest, not just a thousand.

Or if he asks to pass the pizza, then everyone thinks the King is crazy because there's no such thing as pizza and he's in the middle of a grand ceremony.

The point of this isn't to create a new kind of challenge in the game, its to preserve the pacing and stop certain dull habits that are commonly found in committee meetings and board rooms, e.g. everyone saying something about everything and slowing down the process.

I don't see this as being a 'no takebacks' rule anyhow, its a 'no, you can't engage in OOC planning' rule. If we were to come up with the DM-equivalent, it would be making sure the DM's NPCs don't work with perfect silent synchrony and agreement (e.g. if the PCs are fighting a warband and the situation shifts, they should hear barked orders and the like).

Saph
2013-04-05, 05:32 PM
If the DM enforces this kind of thing, then he should be held to it as well. Like if a PC's OOC tongue-slip means he shoots the child, jumps off the building, and dies, then the DM's slip up should mean there really are a million gp in that chest, not just a thousand.

It's not about holding people to slips of the tongue, it's about immersion and pacing. Nothing kills a conversation faster than having everything put on pause while Player #1 gets into a long discussion with Player #2 about what they're going to do afterwards (leaving Players #3 through #6 waiting for them to finish). The best way to make the players feel as though they're actually talking to a real person is to run the interactions in real time.

Winter_Wolf
2013-04-05, 08:20 PM
I've played with either/both of these:

If you say it, your character says it. (almost everybody did it this way)
More rarely, player will state "I/my character says" then whatever the character says. (ONE player ever did this, everyone else did the first one)


I've never really been in a group that had problems with extended OOC conversation, though. We never had to formally make it a thing, but I see nothing wrong with making an "official" announcement.

Rhynn
2013-04-05, 11:21 PM
Exchanging notes with players sounds like it should have a similar effect to asking for Will saves every so often.


And when only one of them knows something, then that player has to roleplay his character explaining it.

That is the idea, yeah. Force the players to give out the information, which makes it less "official" and thus less objectively true, creating Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. :smallbiggrin:

And it conditions the players not to think that any time you pass someone a note someone is getting screwed over or has been replaced by a doppelganger, which eventually actually allows you to replace someone with a doppelganger (or charm them, or whatever) successfully.

Empedocles
2013-04-06, 12:42 PM
Simply limit OOC planning to a static amount - 2-3 minutes - after which point take everything they say OOC literally and have your NPCs respond as if it was said IC.

Jay R
2013-04-07, 12:30 AM
Just because the PCs pause is no reason for the NPCs to pause.


3 sessions ago I asked everyone to roll Perception checks. Only 1 of the characters rolled high. Again this is 1 character out of 7. I informed him that he heard people speaking Elven in low voices in the woods nearby. He is the only character with Elven as a language. The party then began to discuss the implications and what to do if they were going to attack, or run away, or both.

DM: As soon as you started talking about them, the elves stopped talking. You hear the sound of swords being drawn.
Players: (some complaint)
DM: As soon as you try to communicate with each other in listening range of somebody else, they will react. You know that; it's what you just did.


Then one character will say something like tell him if he doesnt co-operate I will cut off his ears... then the character wit the language looks at me and say I say exactly that... Should this annoy me? Am I being too picky in expecting my players to interact with each other and immerse themselves?

DM: I'm sorry. I wasn't listening to your private conversation. What, exactly, do you ask him?
DM: (If another player answers) He doesn't understand you. (To player who can speak to him.) What do you ask him?
Player: Just what he said.
DM: I'm not listening to him, because the NPC I'm running cannot iunderstand him. What do YOU ask him?


In the same line of things the same character will say I roll diplomacy instead of saying something that merits a diplomacy check...

DM: OK, roll your die with a -6 circumstance Penalty for not actually saying anything in the situation.
Player (some random complaint)
DM: You can't roll a combat die without telling me what weapon you are using and who you're trying to hit, and for the same reason, you can't roll a diplomacy die without telling me what diplomacy you are trying. Would you want to actually role-play some diplomacy and then roll the die?

scurv
2013-04-07, 01:02 PM
I like strict DM's It keeps the stupid down.

Waspinator
2013-04-07, 02:57 PM
Yeah, OOC planning of IC actions should be kept to a minimum. Unless you want them talking while holding their breath.

http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0006.html

the clumsy bard
2013-04-08, 03:42 PM
Thanks for all the suggestions everyone!

I am going to have my game tonight. I will let you guys know how it goes.

I have pre prepped notes on descriptions (they are going into a cave and only half the group has darkvision :P) and perception check results.

Hopefully it goes ok!

valadil
2013-04-08, 09:05 PM
Sometimes players just want to chat because they're friends with each other and only meet up at games. To deal with this I have separate game and chat time. If the game starts at 7:30, everyone comes over at 6:30. We eat and chat for an hour. When it's out of everyone's system we start the game.

the clumsy bard
2013-04-09, 10:52 AM
@ valadil

I am not complaining about that type of OOC talking...I understand that... hell I think I was the worst offender in previous games when I was not the DM!

So I had the game last night and...

Using cards and writing things down worked fantastically!

However I will more then likely try and see how it works again next week seeing as how 3 of my 7 players were not there :P

BWR
2013-04-10, 09:08 AM
The obvious but cop-out answer: too much is when people think it's too much.

There seem to be two types of OOC floating around, game-related and non-game related. The second is fine. Lots of times, friends want to talk to friends about things, and game time is convenient.
The first is worse. Characters spending time discussing intricate plans when they have no in-game opportunity is not exactly cheating, but pushing it in my book. I usually allow my players a minute or so to talk amongst themselves - that's fine - but much more and I tell them to make up their minds. When it comes to making up plans on the fly, I'll usually allow the players more time than the characters have. If the PCs are smart, observant and experienced then they can usually make up better plans than their players could in the same amount of time.

Barsoom
2013-04-10, 04:42 PM
Example: - OOC conversation

3 sessions ago I asked everyone to roll Perception checks. Only 1 of the characters rolled high. Again this is 1 character out of 7. I informed him that he heard people speaking Elven in low voices in the woods nearby. He is the only character with Elven as a language. The party then began to discuss the implications and what to do if they were going to attack, or run away, or both. This conversation was all done OOC and involved most people discussing what to do for about 15-20 mins IRL. After the conversation continued I informed the players that there was no way they could continue talking this much about something without their characters actually discussing. I asked them to make new Perception checks and informed them that they now heard people speaking Elven and moving towards them from the woods.
Easy solution here: while the PCs are yakking, roll Perception checks for the Elves. If they succeed, they will act appropriately, possibly ambushing the PCs. Heck, even if they don't succeed in their perception checks, something might happen - maybe the Elves have a scout running the perimeter, or they just decide to move away, etc. Basically, time does not freeze when players talk OOC.




Example 2 - Yada Yada etcing hard social situations

This happened recently. I have 1 character who speaks undercommon. The 7 PCs ran into someone who they were trying to interrogate and then have said interrogated creature lead them to its lair.

Now my issue is that the characters are all trying to say thing to the creature, but only 1 of them speaks its language...

I find it hard to allow characters to listen / threaten a creature when 1 out of 7 understands. My players assume that the character is immediately relaying everything back them like a translator... which I find unrealistic.

Then one character will say something like tell him if he doesnt co-operate I will cut off his ears... then the character wit the language looks at me and say I say exactly that... Should this annoy me? Am I being too picky in expecting my players to interact with each other and immerse themselves?This is a tricky one. Players don't like to feel excluded from a conversation. If I were you, I wouldn't insist on limiting the interaction like that. Just, you know, let it slide.

Which is, by they way, a reason why I hate language-based challenges. They often just end up with anyone who doesn't have that particular language sitting out.

Jay R
2013-04-10, 09:43 PM
The obvious but cop-out answer: too much is when people think it's too much.

Or when it interferes with the simulation of a situation, even if all the players think it's OK for them to interfere with the simulation of a situation.


The obvious but cop-out answer: too much is when people think it's too much.

There seem to be two types of OOC floating around, game-related and non-game related. ... The first is worse. Characters spending time discussing intricate plans when they have no in-game opportunity is not exactly cheating, but pushing it in my book.

"Cheating" is the wrong word, because people don't think they're cheating when they have no intent to cheat.

The issue is whether they are coordinating actions when their characters are not able to coordinate actions. That's interfering with the simulation of a situation.

GoddessSune
2013-04-11, 12:24 AM
let us say 50% of game time are being dominated by OOC planning / discussions.

Second I find some characters like to yada yada etc... situations that don't really lend themselves to this.

I'll just note that the best thing you can do is simply not set up both of your examples in the first place.

Example 1 The idea of saying ''Ok, Bill here is cool and is the only one playing with all the game information, and all you other six players must sit there and pretend like you don't know anything'' is just not a good thing to do. It's a DM fantasy to have ''secret information'' and build a plot and story around it(Not that you can't do it, with very good and experienced players, but you can't just wish it to happen.)

It's often best to just let everyone hear things and such.

Example 2 And again, it's best to just have everyone speak common. Ever notice that almost every single TV show and movie ever made (in America) has every single character speak perfect modern English. Even if they are say an ancient god, alien or from a time period hundreds or even thousands of years before English was even spoken. Ever wonder why they do it? It's to avoid ''yada yada'' problems....

TypoNinja
2013-04-11, 12:40 AM
Simply limit OOC planning to a static amount - 2-3 minutes - after which point take everything they say OOC literally and have your NPCs respond as if it was said IC.

I like the idea of limiting the amount of OOC planning that can go down, but I don't like the idea of deciding that everything spoken is IC. For two reasons.

First, I got my start on a PBeM/forum RP group, and it had no backend rule system, it was pure RP. There were just some courtesy based rules. And the most scared rule for those kind of things is; You don't do something with somebody else character without their permission, its rude, and you'd probably get the responses wrong anyway. So to me, you trying to say "Your character does X". My first thought is "Like **** he does, its my character I'll choose what he does and says".

Secondly, its a goddamn game, busting out Robert's Rules of Order is going to suck the fun out of it real fast. I've been in exactly one game with a DM who decided that everything spoken was IC. It didn't come off as something to help RP, or keep order, nobody appreciated it. It make the DM seem like an uptight prick, who was just looking for procedural reasons to mess you about.

Additionally, it hinders actual game play, phrases like "You take 6 damage" and "Everybody makes reflex saves" or even "What's your initiative" are all OOC discussions. So is important bits like asking for clarification of a description the DM just gave. Or even far more mundane concerns like "One moment, gotta use the can".

That kind of strictness works in an online media, you can have an OOC thread separate from your IC thread, with a bunch of people around a table, no it doesn't work.

If its dragging out tell people they need to decide now, and if they don't proceed with them on the receiving end of a surprise round, simply ask for initiative rolls to get things moving.

Unless that's exactly the kind of extremely strict and immersive experience your players want I'd avoid attempting to implement it.

As a personal anecdote, just tonight I was in a game where for 3 rounds in a row everybody whiffed every attack, PC's and monsters. Our rolls were just that bad. Everybody Players and DM alike could barely roll we were all laughing so much. Are you going to say our game would have been improved had the DM said "Everybody misses their next turn and is flat footed due to laughing."? The game itself is not the goal, having fun is the goal. Preserving game integrity at the expense of fun is not a desired outcome.

TuggyNE
2013-04-11, 01:07 AM
The game itself is not the goal, having fun is the goal. Preserving game integrity at the expensive of fun is not a desired outcome.

Thread won, we can all go home now. Good show all!

NichG
2013-04-11, 01:09 AM
The point of the restrictive rules is to discourage bad habits, not to create some idealized entirely-IC experience. Clearly there's a difference between 'I roll for initiative' and 'So guys, what do you think about us all attacking this guy while he doesn't expect it?'. The practical difference is that the second is communication of information the characters cannot share, which impacts their actions. So either you say 'the guy looks surprised a moment and draws his weapon' because he heard that, and everyone gets to have the information they have, or you have to say 'okay guys, you can't attack him now because that would be metagaming' (or you ignore it, which is obviously causing dissatisfaction with the OP).

Jay R
2013-04-11, 03:14 PM
Decades ago (1E, when it was the most modern version), I was playing with a group for the first time. We were in a dungeon, opened a door, and saw a red dragon.

They then spent twenty minutes deciding whether to attack or close the door. My suggestions that we had to decide now were ignored.

That's too much OOC conversation.

Having grown tired of waiting for the DM to handle it, I finally said, "My PC runs in and attacks it from the left. My henchman runs in and attacks it from the left."

Start of melee. End of problem.

Janus
2013-04-12, 05:27 PM
My friends and I were once playing a game (this was like our... third time or so seriously RPing).
A servant was leading the PCs to an audience with the baron. The PCs rightfully smelled the trap a mile away and started discussing their plans in front of the servant. I like to imagine they got into the main hall loudly discussing who would rush the baron and take him hostage.

I said, "Um... the servant's staring at you like :smalleek:."

We agreed that we were going to enforce heavier RP rules as we continued. Like I said, we hadn't played very much and we were all still getting a hang of the rules and gameplay.
Shame that real life got in the way of us continuing to play together. :smallfrown:

Jay R
2013-04-15, 10:21 AM
A servant was leading the PCs to an audience with the baron. The PCs rightfully smelled the trap a mile away and started discussing their plans in front of the servant.

Let your adventurers make this mistake.

People who live in castles assume that there is always a servant within hearing; people visiting one are very likely to forget this.

Amphetryon
2013-04-15, 03:00 PM
The game itself is not the goal, having fun is the goal. Preserving game integrity at the expense of fun is not a desired outcome.When these two things appear to be directly at odds (when playing the game as it stands is not fun, as is arguably the OP's concern) the distinction seems a bit disingenuous. Preserving fun is unlikely when fun is already not being had by all. Preserving fun at the expense of game integrity seems to me like an indication that the participants should be engaging in another activity - be it PS3, Poker, or Parcheesi - where the activity in question need not be sacrificed on the altar of "having fun."

TL;DR - If the game isn't fun, then you should do something else, not pretend you're playing a game you're not in order to preserve "fun."

Barsoom
2013-04-15, 03:23 PM
TL;DR - If the game isn't fun, then you should do something else, not pretend you're playing a game you're not in order to preserve "fun."Who are you to say what is the game we're playing and what it is not? D&D is a very multifaceted game, and that's its main appeal.

- Kick down the door, slay the monster and take its treasure? That's D&D!
- Politely knock on the door and engage in a deep philosophical discourse with the monster? That is also D&D.
- Set the door on fire while laughting maniacally and eating pretzels by the handful? That, my friend, too, is D&D.
- Finally, discuss for 20 minutes what to do about the door, with one eye on the TV? Yup, D&D too.

Granted, not all of them are forms of D&D you like, or for that matter, forms of D&D I like, but to claim it's "pretending to play a game you're not" strikes me as a bit pretentious.

Amphetryon
2013-04-15, 07:10 PM
Who are you to say what is the game we're playing and what it is not? D&D is a very multifaceted game, and that's its main appeal. I'm saying that the OP doesn't find the current state of affairs in his D&D game fun, unless there's some nuance to the opening post that I've missed. Advice centered on keeping the fun is all well and good, except that - from what I read of the OP - the fun's not there to keep, and instead needs to be found.

TypoNinja
2013-04-15, 07:23 PM
Who are you to say what is the game we're playing and what it is not? D&D is a very multifaceted game, and that's its main appeal.

- Kick down the door, slay the monster and take its treasure? That's D&D!
- Politely knock on the door and engage in a deep philosophical discourse with the monster? That is also D&D.
- Set the door on fire while laughting maniacally and eating pretzels by the handful? That, my friend, too, is D&D.
- Finally, discuss for 20 minutes what to do about the door, with one eye on the TV? Yup, D&D too.

Granted, not all of them are forms of D&D you like, or for that matter, forms of D&D I like, but to claim it's "pretending to play a game you're not" strikes me as a bit pretentious.

*applause*



D&D is not a rigid game, like Chess. Never should anyone tell you you are playing the game wrong. You may have piles of house rules that somebody else doesn't like, but as long your group is having fun you are doing it right.

If that means the OOC and IC switch on and off at the drop of a hat while the Players decided what to do next, so be it.

There may even be good justifications for it.

I'm not a tactical genius, though I've played one a couple of times, just because my 30 int wizard with knowledge checks of "yes" in a dozen skills should be able to come up with a master plan in seconds doesn't mean I personally can. So how do we smoothly represent that I'm smarter than some small towns combined? I'm not an idiot, but I'm also not 30 int smart, its not going to be a fair game if I'm told that I have six seconds real time to think before the monsters attack.

Jay R
2013-04-15, 10:49 PM
Never should anyone tell you you are playing the game wrong...

... except the people you play with, who need to tell you if the way you're playing it is causing trouble for them.

Never should anyone tell you that you are not doing something wrong if you are detracting from what other people want to do in a co-operative venture.

TypoNinja
2013-04-15, 10:54 PM
... except the people you play with, who need to tell you if the way you're playing it is causing trouble for them.

Never should anyone tell you that you are not doing something wrong if you are detracting from what other people want to do in a co-operative venture.

And isnt that exactly what I said if you finish the sustenance you quoted?


but as long your group is having fun you are doing it right.

Jay R
2013-04-16, 10:29 AM
And isnt that exactly what I said if you finish the sustenance you quoted?

No. You said not to let anybody tell you, but if it's right the players will know.

I said that if it's wrong, the players should tell you.

Not telling you and telling you are different.

VanIsleKnight
2013-04-21, 10:52 PM
I've had a few somewhat relevant experiences while gaming, especially with large groups.

Sometimes something would come up that only one player was able to respond or react to, be it a rare language or a voice he could only hear or a dream or even just leaving for a 'little while' to do something on their own.

This would almost always result in anywhere from 5-30 minutes of that one player getting a bunch of 1 on 1 time with the DM where everyone else at the table would start to lose interest, become bored, fiddle, chat with the other players, etc.

More than once one or more players would leave the table to do other things while the DM would resolve whatever was going on with the spotlighted character. This would happen with different DM's, and different players.

Engaging in activity that puts an individual player and the DM together in the spotlight is something I'd advise against, if possible.

Mr Beer
2013-04-22, 01:41 AM
I don't tend to ruthlessly enforce conversations where technically only 1 person can really understand what's being said but if nothing else, it makes sense to stop people having 20 OOC minute planning sessions when they wouldn't be in a position to do anything like that.

So move them along when you think they've gone over what they can reasonably do or say 'OK, everything you say, your character says' and so on.

I have previously used the 'you say it, your character said it' rule, but it was 2 players only with limited gaming time. After some initial bitching, they were fine with it and it solved a lot of 'you're not roleplaying properly' issues. I wouldn't do it now with my current group though because it's more explicitly social and I care a lot more about the game being fun than right.

TuggyNE
2013-04-22, 02:18 AM
I have previously used the 'you say it, your character said it' rule, but it was 2 players only with limited gaming time. After some initial bitching, they were fine with it and it solved a lot of 'you're not roleplaying properly' issues. I wouldn't do it now with my current group though because it's more explicitly social and I care a lot more about the game being fun than right.

An excellent attitude to have in general. :smallsmile: (And sound reasoning, too.)