PDA

View Full Version : Need serious help with my group...



Tassyr
2013-11-12, 01:27 AM
So first off, I apologise if this is in the wrong place. I don't entirely know if it's correct, but there didn't seem to be a spot for it.

I really, really need help trying to figure out if I should abandon ship on this group, or try to fix it, or what. See, I've been trying to find a decent (online, Roll20, no voice) group for about five years now, and finally got what I THOUGHT was supposed to be one. We scraped up a GM who I've played with briefly before a nut torpedoed the campaign- he was amazing then!

... except now it's all going to hell. The GM is becoming a rulemongering nut. I'm still very new to pathfinder- this is my first attempt at the system in about two years, and most my experience is in D20 stuff- so I'm constantly having new rules dumped on me only AFTER they'd screw me over. Additionally, he doesn't put a single whit of effort into many of his poses, just sort of glossing over them- and can't seem to figure that ooc chatter should go in ooc chat- and that's not even going into the fact that he's using the NPC's to insult us occasionally when we don't remember the exact layout of a city, for instance. :smallfurious:

Additionally, one of the other members of the group keeps doing the same thing with their poses- no effort, minimal poses, ooc in the pose... meaning there's absolutely no immersion. :smallfrown:

Should I even try to fix this one, or should I just abandon ship? I mean, considering this is an -all text- format, I figured a detailed long pose was going to be the norm- but there's almost no RP here. It's almost all mechanics...

(and yes, I realise there's a good amount of venting in here, and apologise in advance for that too. I needed to get it off my chest a bit.)

Rhynn
2013-11-12, 01:49 AM
Talk to the other members, and if they agree, break off and re-form, maybe find a few new members.

Otherwise, leave.

Why spend your free time on something unpleasant to no benefit?

Tassyr
2013-11-12, 01:57 AM
Talk to the other members, and if they agree, break off and re-form, maybe find a few new members.

Otherwise, leave.

Why spend your free time on something unpleasant to no benefit?

Frankly part of the reason I'm even around in this one is it's the first campaign in years that's had a chance of going beyond a few sessions. Between the ADHD GM I had before and the utter lack of anyone willing to accept a new member... I've had -really- bad luck.

Souju
2013-11-12, 03:07 AM
can you explain this "poses" concept real quick? I use roll20 for pathfinder and never heard that term ^_^;

TuggyNE
2013-11-12, 03:35 AM
can you explain this "poses" concept real quick? I use roll20 for pathfinder and never heard that term ^_^;

I think it's a persistent typo for "posts", but don't quote me on that.

Tassyr
2013-11-12, 03:37 AM
can you explain this "poses" concept real quick? I use roll20 for pathfinder and never heard that term ^_^;

Well, a Pose is what your character does. For instance, from a Shadowrun thing I tried my hand at, where my character (An elf gun-nut, for lack of better terms) when asked if he had firepower covered, reacted thus:

"(name) stands up slowly, then drags the two heavy, metal briefcase-style containers up to the table. With a calm motion he flips them open, revealing the disassembled sniper rifle in one, and the assault rifle in a similar state in the other. Without a word he steps back from the cases and holds his left arm out to his side, making his jacket pull back to show off the shoulder-holster there, and the heavy pistol in it. "I think you can say that, yeah," he says, casually."

The problem in the thing I'm in NOW is that these poses go from that style to... 'The monster swings hard and misses, setting up for X's turn." Or such.

Spore
2013-11-12, 03:41 AM
You aren't asking for help, you want us to give you an excuse to abandon ship doesn't it? Not every DM is great at creating immersion. Be the first to describe your actions in detail. Be a pest and ask him to describe the monster's turn. "The monster hits for 20 hitpoints." "Well, how does it do that?"

Tassyr
2013-11-12, 03:58 AM
You aren't asking for help, you want us to give you an excuse to abandon ship doesn't it? Not every DM is great at creating immersion. Be the first to describe your actions in detail. Be a pest and ask him to describe the monster's turn. "The monster hits for 20 hitpoints." "Well, how does it do that?"

Actually I really wanted to know if anyone knew what to do here- I wasn't just asking for an excuse. x.x I was seriously curious if you guys thought this could be salvaged is all.

I'll try your tip next time, and see what happens. :)

Rhynn
2013-11-12, 04:33 AM
Well, a Pose is what your character does.

To be specific, it's what people do in chatroom RP (and, I suppose, to a lesser extent in forum RP), and to an extent in some MUSHes. It's more or less a term from both/either.

Very few people describe things to that extent in tabletop RP, in my experience, so it's not exactly unusual if people playing tabletop online don't really do it.

I personally dislike it as a concept, because most people aren't that good at writing (even if technically proficient), which is why I prefer MUSHes with advanced natural-language parsers and tabletop roleplay that focuses on decisions, not descriptions.

As for salvaging the game...


I'm constantly having new rules dumped on me only AFTER they'd screw me over.

Your GM is bad. You and the group need to talk about this: rules just can't come into effect unless they existed before you took an action. It's either blitheringly incompetent or outright spiteful for a GM to spring new and relevant rules on you mid-action. (Unless you meant that you are made aware of rules you weren't aware of but that were there all along, in which case you should probably either ask first, or read the rules more.)


and that's not even going into the fact that he's using the NPC's to insult us occasionally when we don't remember the exact layout of a city, for instance.

I'll take "outright spiteful" for five hundred. Unless you're being hyper-sensitive, your GM is a jerk.


Should I even try to fix this one, or should I just abandon ship? I mean, considering this is an -all text- format, I figured a detailed long pose was going to be the norm- but there's almost no RP here. It's almost all mechanics...

In a forum game, maybe (not usually, no), but a game being played real-time is going to be slowed down if everyone plays novelist.

FWIW, I think something like I stand up, pull out my gun cases, snap them open, and shrug back my jacket to show my holster and pistol. "I think you can say that, yeah." is a plain better way to express your example. Mediocre writers use a lot of words; good writers use the right few words. Lots of words does not make something good.

Tassyr
2013-11-12, 06:18 PM
FWIW, I think something like I stand up, pull out my gun cases, snap them open, and shrug back my jacket to show my holster and pistol. "I think you can say that, yeah." is a plain better way to express your example. Mediocre writers use a lot of words; good writers use the right few words. Lots of words does not make something good.

Honestly normally I wouldn't've used so many details- it's just that it was the party hadn't met before, and we'd not exchanged sheets either- it was just easier to pop it in there than to jump into ooc chat and explain everything in two separate areas.

Souju
2013-11-14, 12:47 AM
So that's what "poses" are...
Yeah I find em annoying. Then again I like to keep actions simple.


Mediocre writers use a lot of words; good writers use the right few words. Lots of words does not make something good.

Even in full-form prose writing, there are SOME things you wanna leave to the imagination.

"He stood up from his 18th Century wooden chair, which had his gun holster looped between the wooden bars like a woven garment from his childhood, and grabbed his Colt .38 Revolved from the table. His face creased in an angry glare, displaying the ravaged eyes of a man who had spent many years mining coal in the depths of the Earth as he leveled his pistol at the adulterous glutton who stood before him. With practiced grip, he pulled the trigger and reduced the tub of lard to something the coroner would require a shovel to handle."

...is annoying to come up with all the time.

"He stood up from his chair, grabbed his gun, and shot the fat man."

...gets the same point across without the unnecessary details.

Not to say a lot of detail can't be fun, but if this was the third time the character had done something like this, it can get tedious to READ as well as write.

Delwugor
2013-11-14, 09:12 AM
Rule of thumb about gaming group issues. First try talking it out with the people you have a problem with, or even as a group discussion if others feel the same way. If that doesn't work, look for the exit and find another group.

From experience I've found that prolonging a gaming issue just makes it worst and leads to even more frustration and bad feelings.

GungHo
2013-11-14, 09:46 AM
So that's what "poses" are...
Yeah I find em annoying. Then again I like to keep actions simple.



Even in full-form prose writing, there are SOME things you wanna leave to the imagination.

"He stood up from his 18th Century wooden chair, which had his gun holster looped between the wooden bars like a woven garment from his childhood, and grabbed his Colt .38 Revolved from the table. His face creased in an angry glare, displaying the ravaged eyes of a man who had spent many years mining coal in the depths of the Earth as he leveled his pistol at the adulterous glutton who stood before him. With practiced grip, he pulled the trigger and reduced the tub of lard to something the coroner would require a shovel to handle."

...is annoying to come up with all the time.

"He stood up from his chair, grabbed his gun, and shot the fat man."

...gets the same point across without the unnecessary details.

Not to say a lot of detail can't be fun, but if this was the third time the character had done something like this, it can get tedious to READ as well as write.

Or hear, for that matter, if you're on a skype game with a "thespian".

Airk
2013-11-14, 12:23 PM
So that's what "poses" are...
Yeah I find em annoying. Then again I like to keep actions simple.



Even in full-form prose writing, there are SOME things you wanna leave to the imagination.

"He stood up from his 18th Century wooden chair, which had his gun holster looped between the wooden bars like a woven garment from his childhood, and grabbed his Colt .38 Revolved from the table. His face creased in an angry glare, displaying the ravaged eyes of a man who had spent many years mining coal in the depths of the Earth as he leveled his pistol at the adulterous glutton who stood before him. With practiced grip, he pulled the trigger and reduced the tub of lard to something the coroner would require a shovel to handle."

...is annoying to come up with all the time.

"He stood up from his chair, grabbed his gun, and shot the fat man."

...gets the same point across without the unnecessary details.

Not to say a lot of detail can't be fun, but if this was the third time the character had done something like this, it can get tedious to READ as well as write.

Because these are TOTALLY the only ways to express this action, and no one would ever write something that contains emotive details without going completely overboard, ever.

"Rising from his chair with a look of fury on his face, he snatched his colt from its holster and fired five times into the face and body of the fat bastard across the table."

You'll note with amusement that that little paraphrase, which took me approximately 30 seconds to put together, gives more useful information (number of shots fired, relative location of target, etc.) to help frame the scene, but does so without necessary waste.

Strive to write well, people. It's worth your time.

And now back to your regularly scheduled bickering.

The Fury
2013-11-14, 02:01 PM
I'd say that yes, your GM could stand to be a bit more forgiving regarding rules enforcement with new players. Especially with a D20 player coming into Pathfinder-- Pathfinder is so similar to D&D 3.5/3.0 that the differences tend to blindside you when they do come up.
I have no idea if this will help but all the rules and mechanics for Pathfinder can be found here (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/gettingStarted.html). It might not address the deeper issues with the group but the GM will have a harder time screwing you over with the rules if you yourself know them. Of course, as with all cases like this, talk to the GM about that too.

Airk
2013-11-14, 08:22 PM
May I suggest that you verify that you are all on the same page? (http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-same-page-tool/)

Ceiling_Squid
2013-11-14, 08:42 PM
Because these are TOTALLY the only ways to express this action, and no one would ever write something that contains emotive details without going completely overboard, ever.

"Rising from his chair with a look of fury on his face, he snatched his colt from its holster and fired five times into the face and body of the fat bastard across the table."

You'll note with amusement that that little paraphrase, which took me approximately 30 seconds to put together, gives more useful information (number of shots fired, relative location of target, etc.) to help frame the scene, but does so without necessary waste.

Strive to write well, people. It's worth your time.

And now back to your regularly scheduled bickering.

Absolutely agreed. Also provides emotional context for the character.

Pare it down too much, and you look just as boring. I guess its better to be profoundly unimaginative than it is to be an indulgent thespian, but it kills me when people don't even put token effort into descriptive roleplaying.

SouthpawSoldier
2013-11-19, 11:13 AM
OP; I've experienced woes with my RL table as well. See my thread, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313278) I feel your pain. I HOPEFULLY will be getting a text-chat Roll20 game going soon here; shooting you a PM.

I think your issues with lack of flavor can be addressed. The suggestion of "...how does he do that" is a great one. As far as the DM not being clear, I'm not really sure what to suggest. There's only so much you can research on your own. In a RL game, you could easily OOC ask questions prior to actions ("how would I do ______", "would _____ work mechanically", etc.) but I'm not sure how feasible that is in a text-chat Roll20 game.

Also make sure the DM isn't throwing house rules at you; my biggest frustration is house rules that aren't clear ahead of time (note to every DM, ever: WRITE YOUR HOUSERULES DOWN). A good DM will make sure you understand houserules and fundamentals ahead of time. I've even heard of sime requiring players to sign statements of understanding, but that seems excessive.

Airk
2013-11-19, 01:45 PM
I think your issues with lack of flavor can be addressed. The suggestion of "...how does he do that" is a great one. As far as the DM not being clear, I'm not really sure what to suggest. There's only so much you can research on your own. In a RL game, you could easily OOC ask questions prior to actions ("how would I do ______", "would _____ work mechanically", etc.) but I'm not sure how feasible that is in a text-chat Roll20 game.


The way this works in a text-chat or PBP or whatever game is simple. You make a rule ahead of time:

"If you don't explain how you do it, you fail."

People will start explaining REAL FAST.

Rhynn
2013-11-19, 02:24 PM
"If you don't explain how you do it, you fail."

I use the opposite in tabletop, where possible: "If you explain how you do it, you don't have to roll." E.g. if you say "I search the room," you might need to pass a very hard skill check to find the box hidden under a loose stone under the bed. If you say, "I check under the bed for loose stones" you don't need to roll a check at all.

Why punish when you can reward?

SouthpawSoldier
2013-11-19, 02:50 PM
Rhynn, if I won the lottery, I would pay you to move to be my DM. Seriously impressed by that policy. Trick is making sure smart players don't use better techniques than their characters would know. Imagine how much beter games would be if EVERYONE applied that.

"I hit it with my sword"=Roll attack.

"I execute a moulinet, using my 5ft step to pass on his offhand side" =Roll damage.

Rhynn
2013-11-19, 02:58 PM
Rhynn, if I won the lottery, I would pay you to move to be my DM. Seriously impressed by that policy. Trick is making sure smart players don't use better techniques than their characters would know. Imagine how much beter games would be if EVERYONE applied that.

Well, as I said, I apply it where possible/feasible; it mostly doesn't apply in combat, and mostly applies in social situations, searching, disarming traps, etc. Sneaking and hiding can also be handled that way - choosing obviously great cover or otherwise excellent methods can make for an automatic success.

The key, to me, is to not punish players who aren't good at describing something or at thinking up specifics for some activity: they still get to roll. But anyone who puts in the effort will get some "free successes"...

Directly opposed activities, like combat, are definitely something where I still stick to dice rolls. (In some games, I just skip making rolls for non-opposed activities; partly, in the case of e.g. Artesia, because the PCs have very little chance to fail an unopposed roll at anything they're halfway good at.)

Airk
2013-11-19, 03:08 PM
Well, as I said, I apply it where possible/feasible; it mostly doesn't apply in combat, and mostly applies in social situations, searching, disarming traps, etc. Sneaking and hiding can also be handled that way - choosing obviously great cover or otherwise excellent methods can make for an automatic success.

The key, to me, is to not punish players who aren't good at describing something or at thinking up specifics for some activity: they still get to roll. But anyone who puts in the effort will get some "free successes"...

Directly opposed activities, like combat, are definitely something where I still stick to dice rolls. (In some games, I just skip making rolls for non-opposed activities; partly, in the case of e.g. Artesia, because the PCs have very little chance to fail an unopposed roll at anything they're halfway good at.)

The reason I don't like this is that it 'punishes' players who know less about the subject. Why is the thief played by the player who spent some time in the military and learned techniques for avoiding detection better than the thief played by the guy who doesn't have that kind of experience? Unless you set the bar for "Free success" dangerously low, this sort of issue is going to pop up with some regularity. This treads on the same dangerous ground as "My character has a 20 charisma and +17 in Diplomacy, why do I get a penalty for the fact that I, the player, am not an orator on par with Churchill?" Players should be able to play any sort of character without feeling penalized for their own lack of knowledge.

Sure, you can claim "I'm not penalizing you, you still get to roll" but that's garbage. In a system where you can auto-succeed by doing something, having to roll is a penalty. And with this house rule in place, that's exactly what this system is. What's more, it's a 'soft' rule, where it's an arbitrary decision by the GM what is 'good enough' and that can lead to problems.

I'm not a fan. The advantage of the "If you don't describe how you do it, you fail" mechanism is that you CAN make the bar for 'what's an adequate description' low enough that everyone can be expected to reach it without causing a massive explosion of auto-successes. And it improves the overall quality of your game, because people -will- step up to explain more, and people who are good at explaining stuff will just naturally do a better job. Whereas rewarding people for a higher level of description means that you'll occasionally get higher levels of description, but that people who feel like they can't get the auto-success probably won't try. Or if they do, you're on your way to bitterness when you tell them they didn't do a good enough job.

Now of course, all of this is in a vacuum, and if it works for your group, great, but as a rule for universal application, I would be wary of this.

Rhynn
2013-11-20, 12:31 AM
The reason I don't like this is that it 'punishes' players who know less about the subject.

It explicitly doesn't, though; it's not a punishment mechanism, it's a reward mechanism. If you use your brain and get specific, you get extra.

What punishes players is stuff like:


"If you don't explain how you do it, you fail."

People will start explaining REAL FAST.

Both require the player to have knowledge of what their character is doing!


"My character has a 20 charisma and +17 in Diplomacy, why do I get a penalty for the fact that I, the player, am not an orator on par with Churchill?"

But no penalty is levied, at all. By your stated approach, the PC automatically fails if the player doesn't describe how they speak. By my approach, the player can go "I use Diplomacy to get my way" and roll and probably succeed; or they can engage the situation with roleplay and possibly succeed automatically. And it's not even about the oration: it's about their choices. I don't expect them to give a good speech, I expect them to e.g. recognize some good leverage to use.

Deaxsa
2013-11-20, 02:21 AM
Well, as I said, I apply it where possible/feasible; it mostly doesn't apply in combat, and mostly applies in social situations, searching, disarming traps, etc. Sneaking and hiding can also be handled that way - choosing obviously great cover or otherwise excellent methods can make for an automatic success.

The key, to me, is to not punish players who aren't good at describing something or at thinking up specifics for some activity: they still get to roll. But anyone who puts in the effort will get some "free successes"...

Directly opposed activities, like combat, are definitely something where I still stick to dice rolls. (In some games, I just skip making rolls for non-opposed activities; partly, in the case of e.g. Artesia, because the PCs have very little chance to fail an unopposed roll at anything they're halfway good at.)

...Well, i don't know about you guys, but I'm taking notes.

Knaight
2013-11-20, 03:07 AM
On the main topic: You aren't going to "fix" a group in which you're the newcomer. You've found that your preferences don't fit with theirs, and no gaming is better than bad gaming. Bail.


It explicitly doesn't, though; it's not a punishment mechanism, it's a reward mechanism. If you use your brain and get specific, you get extra.

What punishes players is stuff like:

That's really just a matter of framing. In either case, there are two levels being operated at. The better one involves specific description, the worse on vagueness. If you set the worse one as the default, you can frame either as a reward mechanism (for instance, you could claim that a player can get themselves a chance to succeed through description), and if you set the better one as a default you can frame either as a punishment mechanism (if you don't make a description, a chance of failure is imposed). There isn't actually a meaningful difference here.

That said, I do think the odds being improved through specifics help, provided that it's not just description, but actually involves smart and unconventional methods that would work better than the brute force approach to something. In short, I have no issue with tactics and strategy making lives easier. It's just that it is, in effect, also the system punishing methods which don't rely on tactics or strategy.

Airk
2013-11-20, 10:59 AM
It explicitly doesn't, though; it's not a punishment mechanism, it's a reward mechanism. If you use your brain and get specific, you get extra.

This is semantics; If I write a game system where you automatically succeed under condition X, or have to roll under lazy condition Y, it's a penalty to be bumped down to "Have to roll"

This is essentially what you've done.


Both require the player to have knowledge of what their character is doing!

False. You method requires this because you want the players to do something -smart-. My method does NOT require this. I only require that the player use their imagination and make an effort to describe their action. How 'correct' their description is doesn't enter into it as long as they are making some sort of effort.

Essentially, to put it in game mechanics mode, you are requiring the player to have a +5 skill bonus for the character to get an auto success. I am requiring the player to not have a 0, or, at least, to make the effort to make something up even if they don't know anything about the task.



But no penalty is levied, at all. By your stated approach, the PC automatically fails if the player doesn't describe how they speak. By my approach, the player can go "I use Diplomacy to get my way" and roll and probably succeed; or they can engage the situation with roleplay and possibly succeed automatically. And it's not even about the oration: it's about their choices. I don't expect them to give a good speech, I expect them to e.g. recognize some good leverage to use.

If that's the way you want to phrase it, I think these systems are not actually exclusive, and that using BOTH would present better results than doing either one by itself. However, they address different situations.

Your idea is basically rewarding players doing things in a 'smart' way.
My idea is the penalize players who make no effort to give any description of what they are doing.

Describing what you are doing is not equivalent to doing something 'smart'. "I climb up on the balcony, wave my banner high, and give a rousing speech to rally the knights to my cause!" is describing what you are doing. (as opposed to "I roll diplomacy.") "I call upon the knights by reminding them of how their honor has been impugned" is doing things the 'smart' way, but has barely more descriptive power than "I roll diplomacy."

You are incentivizing something different from what I am incentivizing. You are incentivizing "smart" play. I am incentivizing additional description, regardless of whether it is "smart" or not.

It depends on what you want. What you are doing is not really appreciably different from the old "Situational bonus" idea, where if the player can 'justify' a bonus, they get one. It doesn't encourage roleplaying, it just encourages cleverness. Heck, sometimes, roleplaying means doing the LESS optimal thing because that's how your character would act in this sort of circumstance. Your method actively discourages that. The point of mine is simple - you will not be judged on WHAT you say (unless it's seriously stupid and you are obviously mocking the fiction by, I dunno, trying to pick a lock with your nose). You are just being asked/required to actually SAY something more than a simple mechanical task.

Gavran
2013-11-20, 12:28 PM
Forcing an auto-fail encourages people who don't want to/aren't comfortable roleplaying to leave the group. Rewarding roleplaying actually encourages some of those people to roleplay. Positive reinforcement is always better.

Of course, this is all assuming "more roleplay" is an actual objective good which is not the case.

I question the sensibilities of anyone who thinks a description of all the attacks that are made in a typical combat is remotely interesting when done like a "story." Sometimes "I use X power" is better than the umpteenth iteration of "I swing my sword" with a few adjectives changed.

SouthpawSoldier
2013-11-20, 01:00 PM
Sure, it can be overdone. But if the goal of the attack isn't just to deplete HP (boring), but to actually cause a specific effect (striking the wrist to disarm/disable), I think it's worthwhile.

It all boils down to the DM. IF the DM likes narrative, and it encourages the group to be imaginative (cutting supports out from under an enemy, instead of just smacking them with a blad) then even better. If it bogs the game down, lighten up on the narrative.

It irritated me to no end when I built a kobold trapper, and PLAYED the character, and the DM gave me no reward for it. Or playing a diplomancer bard, and being expected to do the usual crossbow/buff game in combat. Why can't I sue for peace and make treaties with every encounter? If they're intelligent, my character would try to talk his way out of the fight. That's WHO he was, but I was expected to play as WHAT he was.

On the flip side, being expected to narrate his conversations instead of just stating the idea and talking points wasn't good enough made out of combat play difficult. I should be able to say "I negotiate for _____ using ____argument), and roll. Instead, my roll was totally ignored, and I was expected to act out the converation.

If a player can explain a concept or action, that shows they're getting into the story and game.

Airk
2013-11-20, 01:05 PM
Forcing an auto-fail encourages people who don't want to/aren't comfortable roleplaying to leave the group. Rewarding roleplaying actually encourages some of those people to roleplay. Positive reinforcement is always better.

The problem is that the solution as written does not encourage roleplay, it encourages 'cleverness'. And it penalizes players who are less good at RPing.

My solution means that only people who are BITTERLY OPPOSED to roleplaying are penalized. If they REALLY can't be arsed to make any sort of effort to describe what they are doing, yes, they will be penalized. And then hopefully they will leave, because I don't want people who cannot be arsed to engage with the fiction AT ALL in my games.


Of course, this is all assuming "more roleplay" is an actual objective good which is not the case.

Of course this will vary from group to group, but I think it is pretty much an objective truth that if the objective of the game is, in fact, roleplaying, then some roleplaying is better than zero roleplaying.


I question the sensibilities of anyone who thinks a description of all the attacks that are made in a typical combat is remotely interesting when done like a "story." Sometimes "I use X power" is better than the umpteenth iteration of "I swing my sword" with a few adjectives changed.

And I question the sensibilities of anyone who would run a game that is to be a 'story' in a system that requires you to make lots and lots of individual attack rolls and devotes most of its system mechanics to 'powers' whose only purpose is to help get the other guy's hitpoints to zero faster than he can yours there. :)

Of course, this has very little to do with the discussion either, since Rhynn has already stated that she(?) doesn't apply her method in combat. I generally would, but not in a game like D&D. But then, I don't really run D&D if I'm looking to roleplay, either.

Airk
2013-11-20, 01:06 PM
If a player can explain a concept or action, that shows they're getting into the story and game.

Yes, exactly. This level of "minimum barrier to entry" penalizes no one except the people who clearly have no interest in getting into the game in the first place.

Rhynn
2013-11-20, 01:50 PM
It's just that it is, in effect, also the system punishing methods which don't rely on tactics or strategy.

I have absolutely no problem with that. :smallbiggrin: On the most basic level, that should be the case in combat in any game where combat matters. I think expanding that to other things is a perfectly good idea.

I want my players to think and make conscious, deliberate choices. To me, that's the essence of RPGs - not acting at the table. I suppose that means I emphasize the game part.

I mostly couldn't care less about how elaborately my players describe actions, or how articulately they deliver their characters' lines (or even whether they speak in-character or not); that's all up to the player, and dependent on their own skills. I do find, though, that when I encourage them (with rewards, i.e. positively, rather than with threats of punishment, i.e. negatively) to engage the game-world intellectually, they do get more invested and end up acting things out in more detail, and relating to the world and its characters better.


she(?)

:smallbiggrin: He, to be accurate. Both I and my namesake (the giant demigod who trawls the oceans of Corum Jhaelen Irsei's world for his lost Eye) are male.

Gavran
2013-11-20, 01:54 PM
The problem is that the solution as written does not encourage roleplay, it encourages 'cleverness'. And it penalizes players who are less good at RPing.

My solution means that only people who are BITTERLY OPPOSED to roleplaying are penalized. If they REALLY can't be arsed to make any sort of effort to describe what they are doing, yes, they will be penalized. And then hopefully they will leave, because I don't want people who cannot be arsed to engage with the fiction AT ALL in my games. I wasn't really referring to that system specifically so much as the general concept. It is of course, an absolutely fair point that you may not want those players in your games - I can certainly see how it might harm your immersion and that's worth avoiding even if it means excluding certain friends for those games. I don't think you're portraying the different kinds of players very well (particularly given your next statement here), but frankly that's just not a very big deal. If you were trying to sell an RPG system or something, I'd advise you to be more aware of the people who don't value roleplaying in the same way as you, but it's pretty irrelevant to your own personal gaming.



And I question the sensibilities of anyone who would run a game that is to be a 'story' in a system that requires you to make lots and lots of individual attack rolls and devotes most of its system mechanics to 'powers' whose only purpose is to help get the other guy's hitpoints to zero faster than he can yours there. :)

Of course, this has very little to do with the discussion either, since Rhynn has already stated that she(?) doesn't apply her method in combat. I generally would, but not in a game like D&D. But then, I don't really run D&D if I'm looking to roleplay, either.

Fair. Mind, this thread is about expecting lots of roleplay from people who are playing a game like D&D.

For what it's worth, the reason I'll play a game that's a story in D&D is because I enjoy both aspects - the gaming and the cooperative storytelling. It's not very troubling for me to enjoy both in one game, and combat happens to be a quite convenient place to split the two. I won't for a second pretend there aren't better systems out there for a heavier roleplay focus though.

SouthpawSoldier
2013-11-20, 02:06 PM
Take FATE for example (specifically Dresden Files). Instead of hit points, all damage results in status effects that affect the narrative; cut above the eye making it hard to see for a round or two, taking a jab to the jaw making you a little woozy; flat numbers are boring. That's my one big gripe with 3.X et al; unless its a golem, it's not made from clay. A successful hit is going to do something, slice a tendon, cause a mini-concussion, bleed, etc.

On a related note, One of the few house rules my DM has used that I like has to do with healing. Instead of different levels of healing spells giving x, y, or z, HP, they heal different severity of injury. Keeps a healer with Pathfinder's "cantrips" from spam healing 1 HP. Instead of stacking, he was justt healing the same hit point over and over again.

Done using narrative, a level 0 healing spell=surface stiches, level 1 sets a broken bone, level 5 heals internal injuries, etc. The trick there is instead of using flat numbers, you have to figure HP as a % of full health, and come up with statuses that match the degree of injury, then how that injury happened during combat, etc. It can bog down the game, if not planned out well.

Hiro Protagonest
2013-11-20, 02:11 PM
My solution means that only people who are BITTERLY OPPOSED to roleplaying are penalized. If they REALLY can't be arsed to make any sort of effort to describe what they are doing, yes, they will be penalized. And then hopefully they will leave, because I don't want people who cannot be arsed to engage with the fiction AT ALL in my games.

Then you better word it differently. Because the way you worded it makes it sound like you're punishing ambivalence or nervousness, not those who are out to undermine your integrity. It sounds to me like you're saying that when a guy goes "Um, I cast Sleep", you go "it fails, because you didn't roleplay properly". It also sounds like you're doing the same thing he's doing, except his way will let the PCs succeed more often. And the human mind is a fickle thing, it doesn't matter if two things look the same, if one is rewarding good behavior while the other is punishing those who are too nervous or just want to spend some time with friends, the punisher will get rejected.

I will acknowledge that your methods work as a process of elimination with a small, intimate volunteer group setting where you don't necessarily want all the volunteers, like TTRPGs. Most of the time though, it will not work as a method of teaching. It is also a bad idea to invite your friends to such a group.

Airk
2013-11-20, 02:45 PM
Then you better word it differently.

Oh yes, I had "better." On pain of scorn. :smallsigh:


Because the way you worded it makes it sound like you're punishing ambivalence or nervousness, not those who are out to undermine your integrity. It sounds to me like you're saying that when a guy goes "Um, I cast Sleep", you go "it fails, because you didn't roleplay properly".

Well, I think you've figured it out now, hm? Anyway, the original posting was addressed to someone who was whining about how to 'make' people roleplay in his text based game. That calls for a somewhat more harsh attitude than face to face. In a text based medium, you always have enough time to at least make an effort, and no one has to worry about being 'shy' or sounding 'stupid' for trying to roleplay. ESPECIALLY not when the rules -say- "you must roleplay."



It also sounds like you're doing the same thing he's doing, except his way will let the PCs succeed more often. And the human mind is a fickle thing, it doesn't matter if two things look the same, if one is rewarding good behavior while the other is punishing those who are too nervous or just want to spend some time with friends, the punisher will get rejected.

Yup. The human mind will pretty much always perceive that they are being punished, which is why the auto-success method is just going to frustrate people who aren't good at it. They'll sit off the side and let other people who are auto-succeeding do everything, and eventually probably just leave because they're not contributing.

It's even worse if you allow auto-successes on things the character normally wouldn't even be good at/wouldn't even have a chance of succeeding on. Player knowledge should not trump someone's character concept.



I will acknowledge that your methods work as a process of elimination with a small, intimate volunteer group setting where you don't necessarily want all the volunteers, like TTRPGs. Most of the time though, it will not work as a method of teaching. It is also a bad idea to invite your friends to such a group.

Actually, nothing here really has anything to do with teaching. If you are -teaching- using a method like the one I suggested, you stop people and say "Right. So how you do it?" and when they make a good faith effort to answer that, you run with it and make it awesome by playing off what they gave you to make the game experience cooler than it would've been if you'd just said "You succeed." That is how you teach. This is not about being an asshat. This is about getting people to try to roleplay (Which, if you will recall, was the circumstance for which the advice was originally given, not whatever arbitrary environment you care to extrapolate to.) And that's not going to happen if there's some arbitrary bar of how "well" you need to do it to qualify for a success.

Again. It comes down to this:

Rhynn method: "Does the player know enough about this to auto succeed?"
Airk method: "Does the player put forth a good faith effort?"

One of these is infinitely easier to qualify for than the other.

Rhynn
2013-11-20, 02:53 PM
Rhynn method: "Does the player know enough about this to auto succeed?"

That's really misrepresenting the reality of it, IMO. It's "does the player take time to think about it?"

The main examples I gave - searching, talking, maybe stealth - are really not very affected by any kind of special skills or expertise, and are things anyone can reason through. They're highly contextual: you have to think about the specific situation. You might say this "punishes" stupidity (as if that's some single inborn trait), but that's sort of an unavoidable fact of life: if you don't think things through, you're going to do worse...

Airk
2013-11-20, 03:05 PM
That's really misrepresenting the reality of it, IMO. It's "does the player take time to think about it?"

The main examples I gave - searching, talking, maybe stealth - are really not very affected by any kind of special skills or expertise, and are things anyone can reason through. They're highly contextual: you have to think about the specific situation. You might say this "punishes" stupidity (as if that's some single inborn trait), but that's sort of an unavoidable fact of life: if you don't think things through, you're going to do worse...

Fair enough; But it seems like a pretty narrow scope if that's the case, especially when you consider that it's not that far from the sort of 'situational bonuses' that many RPGs already make allowances for.

Scow2
2013-11-20, 03:16 PM
Actually, I prefer Rhynn's method. You don't have to know what you're doing, but you better be able to bluff it and you can still auto-succeed. In fact, a lot of games take the "You don't have to roll if you describe your actions" as built into the rules.

It's the difference between "I try to convince the king to help us!" "Roll Diplomacy." and "I'm going to convince the king to help us by murdering him with Power Point Presentations outlining the [extent of the help we need], the [expected return on investment], [reminder of an ancient oath he is sworn to uphold], [unspoken implication that we can turn his entire castle into a crater if he doesn't agree], and [evidence gathered over adventures to clarify the importance of getting the help, or assuring success]."

The former is "Alright, what are the odds your character has the knowledge and skill to present the case? Roll it!" The latter has the player systematically removing variables that reduce certainty of the outcome. Of course, there's always the chance that a player can completely screw up and get an auto-fail instead of autosuccess by explicitly doing something Boneheaded... though most DMs clarify that before it hurts them.

You only roll a dice if there is uncertainty in the outcome. If the process of the actions removes that uncertainty, then there's no need to roll a die. While it may 'infringe on the fun of someone who can't be assed to explain things', it's even more fun being able to put real knowledge to use for an in-game advantage. A player character is even more an extension of the player than a 'seperate person", and using Out-of-Game knowledge ("Why does your starship captain know how to make and operate a bamboo cannon?" "I dunno. You're the one who just finished reading about the history of gunpowder and stuck me in an arena with sulphur, charcoal, and saltpeter explicitly called out!")

If anything, someone playing a character they don't actually know how works might be intrigued and start learning more about how to play the archetype, and being rewarded with an auto-success for putting real-world ranks in Knowledge(What The Hell You're Talking About) feels really great.

Airk
2013-11-20, 03:44 PM
Again, I don't think the Rhynn method encourages roleplaying. It just encourages 'smart play', which is not the same thing.

Neither of these things is inherent superior, but they are different.

Garimeth
2013-11-20, 04:14 PM
You only roll a dice if there is uncertainty in the outcome. If the process of the actions removes that uncertainty, then there's no need to roll a die.

BAMCIS.

Also, I don't see how having more real-life knowledge of something is going to make it more likely. Let's look at some of the examples Rhynn gave that arebeing argued against particularly in the context of the "milatry guy playing a rogue" example:

1. Searching: if you say "I search the room," you might need to pass a very hard skill check to find the box hidden under a loose stone under the bed. If you say, "I check under the bed for loose stones" you don't need to roll a check at all.

How does that require any kind of specialized real life training? You could simplify the player's statement even more. "I search the room, oh and I want to check for hidden passages and compartments." Check, you find the box under a loose stone.

2. Stealth: Any special skill you have in real life is not transferring here. "I'm gonna sneak up on this guy, making sure to stay out of his field of vision, not step on sticks or leaves, make sure any shiny objects on my person are obscured, and that any metallic or hard surfaces on my gear or clothing can not clank or other wise make noise." Check, roll stealth vs. his perception.

"I'm gonna sneak up on this guy" Check, roll stealth vs. his perception.


Not to mention some cases will be obvious player knowledge, and I would bet Rhynn doesn't allow it....

"So this ship has cannons right?"

Yep.

"I add rifling to the bore."

No.

Knaight
2013-11-20, 04:55 PM
BAMCIS.

Also, I don't see how having more real-life knowledge of something is going to make it more likely. Let's look at some of the examples Rhynn gave that arebeing argued against particularly in the context of the "milatry guy playing a rogue" example:

1. Searching: if you say "I search the room," you might need to pass a very hard skill check to find the box hidden under a loose stone under the bed. If you say, "I check under the bed for loose stones" you don't need to roll a check at all.

Though I'd call searching an interesting one. Or, more accurately, it's about as boring as it gets, and is exactly the sort of thing that abstracted rolls are an absolute godsend for. Scrow's Diplomacy example is actually interesting, as that is largely about tactics, searching is generally just a matter of making the longest list possible.

There are exceptions here. If a character is trying to get (or get back) a specific item and vanish before guards show up, and have a limited number of things they can search that they must prioritize based on their understanding of the character, the search list might have value again. Most of the time though, it just seems like a time sink.

Scow2
2013-11-20, 07:58 PM
Though I'd call searching an interesting one. Or, more accurately, it's about as boring as it gets, and is exactly the sort of thing that abstracted rolls are an absolute godsend for. Scrow's Diplomacy example is actually interesting, as that is largely about tactics, searching is generally just a matter of making the longest list possible.

There are exceptions here. If a character is trying to get (or get back) a specific item and vanish before guards show up, and have a limited number of things they can search that they must prioritize based on their understanding of the character, the search list might have value again. Most of the time though, it just seems like a time sink.Yeah... it's one of those things where, in theory, you want the player to tell you what he's doing, and don't want to just let him give a noncommital, unengaged response - you want to know what the character is actually doing (And by RAW in 3.5, you can only search a 5' square at a time).

In practice... "You get this kind of nonsense (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=54)"... assuming the DM allows those kinds of shenanigans.


BAMCIS.

Also, I don't see how having more real-life knowledge of something is going to make it more likely. Let's look at some of the examples Rhynn gave that arebeing argued against particularly in the context of the "milatry guy playing a rogue" example:

1. Searching: if you say "I search the room," you might need to pass a very hard skill check to find the box hidden under a loose stone under the bed. If you say, "I check under the bed for loose stones" you don't need to roll a check at all.

How does that require any kind of specialized real life training? You could simplify the player's statement even more. "I search the room, oh and I want to check for hidden passages and compartments." Check, you find the box under a loose stone.

2. Stealth: Any special skill you have in real life is not transferring here. "I'm gonna sneak up on this guy, making sure to stay out of his field of vision, not step on sticks or leaves, make sure any shiny objects on my person are obscured, and that any metallic or hard surfaces on my gear or clothing can not clank or other wise make noise." Check, roll stealth vs. his perception.

"I'm gonna sneak up on this guy" Check, roll stealth vs. his perception.


Not to mention some cases will be obvious player knowledge, and I would bet Rhynn doesn't allow it....

"So this ship has cannons right?"

Yep.

"I add rifling to the bore."

No.

1. The character knew where to look, and had no reason to fail. Merely saying "I search the room" has a chance of the character overlooking the stuff under the desk.

2. A roll may not be necessary. Most games have bad stealth rules anyway (Opposed checks are mathematically terrible). The game avoids using a broken subsystem, the scene gets more flavor, the character acts in an awesome way, and the player feels awesome for being able to apply his knowledge of how stealth works, even if he lacks the real-life skills to do it.

3. "What are you going to rifle it with?"

Rhynn
2013-11-21, 01:40 AM
I think both Garimeth and Scow2 definitely get it. :smallbiggrin:

Knaight, I agree that individually trying to search every square inch of a room is going too far; obviously, this isn't some kind of rule applied blindly. Once it starts going that way, or if the hiding place is something crazy inobvious, you can always call for the dice to be used. Honestly, I am very much thinking about really simple circumstances here: if you go "oh, I check the chest for a false bottom" and the box has one, I don't see any need for a roll. Similarly, finding something hidden under the mattress or a secret door concealed behind a bookshelf could either be a roll or just stating that's where you look.


Also, I don't see how having more real-life knowledge of something is going to make it more likely.

Exactly. The circumstances I specified are, in my opinion, ones that you really can't have a lot of specialized skills for. I'm not talking about letting a player describe a chemical process (although I have let a PC in a modern game create a home-made bomb with no roll because the player could describe the basics - something the PC would have had exactly as much opportunity to know).

How silently you tiptoe up behind somebody is a matter of character skill; stealth, as I suggested, is more of an edge case, and rolls would be pre-empted not by describing how you're avoiding leaves and stepping on the balls of your feet first (things the character would have to know/be good at), but by (as Scow2 put it) removing uncertainty: creating a great big distraction, taking out a light, etc.


Not to mention some cases will be obvious player knowledge, and I would bet Rhynn doesn't allow it....

Yup, I don't let PCs suddenly invent gunpowder or build a steam engine or the like just because the player can explain how. It's really not so much about understanding how something works as it is about using your own reasoning to engage a situation.

I suppose you could say it's about what you're doing, rather than about how you're doing it. (A subtle difference.)

"I attack him with my sword" vs. "I parry, step inside his reach, and swing my pommel into his face" is about how. I don't expect my players to go all out here (and in e.g. combat it could slow things down unnecessarily).

"I search the room" vs. "I look under the bed and behind the tapestry" is about what. I do like my players to go all out here. (Even at the risk of AGC-style shenanigans, although I think those are easy enough to avoid if there's basic trust.)


The latter has the player systematically removing variables that reduce certainty of the outcome.

This is a really great way to put it.

Basically, this whole approach was born from wanting my players to get involved with the world in detail, and it's sort of organic: if the player describes doing something where there really is very little room for uncertainty, I don't see any need to use the dice. If there's something hidden under the mattress and the player says they lift it, it makes no sense for me to have them roll - it'd be ridiculous for them to miss it. If the player just says "I search the room" I have them roll, and if they succeed, the PC thinks to check under the mattress.

Your diplomacy example is excellent, too, and exactly the sort of thing I look for. Just saying "oh, I want this from them" means you roll, leaving things up to chance and the numbers your PC has been given. Actually engaging the situation, thinking about things, making decisions on what to present, can get you what you want. Now, it's entirely possible there'll still be a roll - I might judge that there was a flaw in the decision or presentation that risks all of it. That's the key: dice rolls resolve uncertainty.

So it's not a guarantee, and that's because it's not just a reward system (it's not even something I explicitly tell my players!): I want that level of engagement to be a goal unto itself, and I think that once the players get used to it, they enjoy it more, and want to play that way. To me/my group, RPGs aren't about acting and they aren't about winning fights or using high numbers: they're about making decisions to overcome challenges, and these decisions and challenges create a story.

No doubt if someone wants to encourage acting things out in more depth, there are other methods that work better. And yes, in a text-based medium, other approaches might work better, although I personally wouldn't do things that differently. (Mostly because, honestly, most people aren't that good at writing prose, and I'd prefer to focus on decisions over "poses.")


This stuff is really starting to look like it should be in its own thread...

Lorsa
2013-11-21, 08:31 AM
This stuff is really starting to look like it should be in its own thread...

Yes please. It isn't really relevant to the topic at hand anymore, and there are some people who might want to join in that doesn't read a thread about someone asking for help with his group.