Things that make you go NOPE in a game?

[Cluedrew]

4. Finally, this is something that makes me go NOPE purely as a GM. Namely, players who don't care whether the GM himself is having fun too.Not even as a GM, this drives me crazy as a player as well. Besides reasons like being a reasonably good person who wishes well of others and wanting to thank the GM for creating the game, I often signed up for the game the GM wants to run, so other people going against that gets in the way of my fun too.


I only have a problem with any of them when they're not skillfully written.I often say "the final indicator of the quality of a work is how well it is done" (yes, I'm saying quality=quality). And it is true, whatever good or bad elements are in the story, if it is brought together well, or otherwise, that will decide how good it is. Mind you some genes are not going to draw me in no matter how well they are done.

... Actually that last sentence is not quite accurate. I have thoroughly enjoyed A vampire romance story even though one of the two is usually enough to say NOPE, and put it down. ... So on topic, vampires (especially non-monstrous ones) and romance. I guess.

[Sith_Happens]

Here's one I'm surprised no one's said already: a GM going out of their way to deliberately kill off a PC for any reason (without that player being in on it).


oh! Here's annother one! Using Gold to solve all of life's problems.

[Snip]

While I understand the general sentiment, the one in the wrong in that example was whoever claimed that people on an inescapable prison plane have no use for money. That is literally the exact opposite of how economies work. Now, there could definitely be any number of reasons for gold in particular to not be the currency of choice there (matter of fact, given it's a prison plane I'm pretty sure they're legally required to use tobacco instead:smallwink:), but even then you could have it made into jewelry and look for someone still willing to buy such things (there will be someone, and they probably won't even be that hard to find given how rich they'd have to be).


Nopes that I actually take issue with:
*Telling me how to play my character. Barring a roll for SAN loss or hostile magical mind-control (and to me, nearly any attempt at mind-control is hostile), my character is mine.

Out of curiosity, what about a system where social skills work fully against PCs, provided that the mechanics for such are actually well thought out and don't just amount to de facto mind control magic? Because I can think of a few.


*Related to the above, retconning or adding descriptions to the information that has been presented to prevent any logical attempt to act on the initial information presented other than the one the DM wants.

Oh man, one of my IRL group's GMs does this and it's SO annoying, though in her case it's not usually that she's trying to railroad us so much as she thinks every plan should encounter obstacles but isn't good at improvising obstacles.

[Draconi Redfir]

While I understand the general sentiment, the one in the wrong in that example was whoever claimed that people on an inescapable prison plane have no use for money. That is literally the exact opposite of how economies work. Now, there could definitely be any number of reasons for gold in particular to not be the currency of choice there (matter of fact, given it's a prison plane I'm pretty sure they're legally required to use tobacco instead:smallwink:), but even then you could have it made into jewelry and look for someone still willing to buy such things (there will be someone, and they probably won't even be that hard to find given how rich they'd have to be).

the idea was that people who were sent there only had whatever was on them at the time, nothing else. there were very few raw materials to work with, so if you wanted a sword, you needed to find someone who had a sword when they were sent to the prison plane. Since everything is so limited, trading things for gold would be pointless, you can't do anything with gold. it would be more bennificial to trade that sword in exchange for some food, some armor, or some service such as assisance in building a house.

look up "stormworld" sometime if you haven't, same basic premise. People get warped away at random to a new world with nothing but what they have on them at the time. money and credit cards have no practical use, so they instead barter via trading goods, services, or more commonly water.

i mean really, given the world we were in at the time, the woman we threw gold at would have been equally as well off as if we threw a bunch of shiny pebbles at her.:smallannoyed:

[JAL_1138]

Out of curiosity, what about a system where social skills work fully against PCs, provided that the mechanics for such are actually well thought out and don't just amount to de facto mind control magic? Because I can think of a few.


Probably not. It's up to me if my character is persuaded, likes someone, dislikes someone, is intimidated, or believes someone.

(Using D&D skill names for convenience's sake)
If someone rolls great on Bluff, I can't tell they're lying--they're a good enough actor it looks like a Persuasion attempt instead. I might still not believe them, and simply think they're too good an actor for me to detect any obvious dishonesty, due to paranoia or having knowledge that contradicts them. If someone rolls great on Persuasion, they appear to be honestly attempting to persuade me of something they believe to be true or genuinely think the best course of action. I might still disagree. If someone rolls great on Intimidation, I might for example observe that they seem to mean their threat and that they appear to be certain they can back it up--they might even look like they can back it up as far as I personally can tell. I might not care,, feel defiance rather than fear (despite the fact that I think they mean it and can back it up), and say "bring it" regardless. Or I might think they're just a good actor who can make themselves look that way without any obvious giveaway that they're faking it, too. The odds are that I won't be illogical and will believe the observable evidence in front of me, but I din't want to be made to do so by the system.

Intimidation and/or Bluff example: If I'm playing Prince Humperdink (not that I would, but still), I might observe that Wesley seems dead serious about the "To the Pain" speech and that he looks well enough to stand. I might conclude from that evidence he absolutely will do that to me if I lose. And then decide "don't care, still going to try to kill you out of sheer bloody-mindedness" anyway. Or I might think he's a fantastic liar and isn't giving an ounce of indication that he's bluffing, and still believe he's lying against all observable evidence because I'm overconfident and/or illogical. It's likely that I won't, that I'll decide I believe him (since I can't observe any evidence to the contrary) and that I value my own skin too much to try to fight him anyway, and back down--but I don't want to be forced to back down by the game rules.


The system can tell me what I observe. It can describe the world. It can't tell me what I think, or feel, or how I react to the world it describes. If I'm told what I must think, how I must feel, or how I must react, and it isn't being done via some form of magic or madness (e.g., failed SAN check), that's a NOPE.

[Takewo]

Probably not. It's up to me if my character is persuaded, likes someone, dislikes someone, is intimidated, or believes someone.

(Using D&D skill names for convenience's sake)
If someone rolls great on Bluff, I can't tell they're lying--they're a good enough actor it looks like a Persuasion attempt instead. I might still not believe them, and simply think they're too good an actor for me to detect any obvious dishonesty, due to paranoia or having knowledge that contradicts them. If someone rolls great on Persuasion, they appear to be honestly attempting to persuade me of something they believe to be true or genuinely think the best course of action. I might still disagree. If someone rolls great on Intimidation, I might for example observe that they seem to mean their threat and that they appear to be certain they can back it up--they might even look like they can back it up as far as I personally can tell. I might not care,, feel defiance rather than fear (despite the fact that I think they mean it and can back it up), and say "bring it" regardless. Or I might think they're just a good actor who can make themselves look that way without any obvious giveaway that they're faking it, too. The odds are that I won't be illogical and will believe the observable evidence in front of me, but I din't want to be made to do so by the system.

Intimidation and/or Bluff example: If I'm playing Prince Humperdink (not that I would, but still), I might observe that Wesley seems dead serious about the "To the Pain" speech and that he looks well enough to stand. I might conclude from that evidence he absolutely will do that to me if I lose. And then decide "don't care, still going to try to kill you out of sheer bloody-mindedness" anyway. Or I might think he's a fantastic liar and isn't giving an ounce of indication that he's bluffing, and still believe he's lying against all observable evidence because I'm overconfident and/or illogical. It's likely that I won't, that I'll decide I believe him (since I can't observe any evidence to the contrary) and that I value my own skin too much to try to fight him anyway, and back down--but I don't want to be forced to back down by the game rules.


The system can tell me what I observe. It can describe the world. It can't tell me what I think, or feel, or how I react to the world it describes. If I'm told what I must think, how I must feel, or how I must react, and it isn't being done via some form of magic or madness (e.g., failed SAN check), that's a NOPE.

Then Sense Motive (in D&D) is a useless skill for PCs because it can't tell you how your character reacts?

[Mordar]

Then Sense Motive (in D&D) is a useless skill for PCs because it can't tell you how your character reacts?

No, it just relies on the integrity of the player to not "metagame" and play as if they do believe what the results of the sense motive believe, and not ham-fist some way to react contrary to what the character believes because the player believes otherwise. Probably happens a lot more following a DM die roll or an interaction with an NPC that isn't clearly identified as a quest-giver or throw-away.

Plus, it always can help when the player isn't sure what the character's take on the motive would be...

- M

[JAL_1138]

Then Sense Motive (in D&D) is a useless skill for PCs because it can't tell you how your character reacts?

It can't force me to react a certain way. It just tells me information. Assuming it's the same as 5e Insight (haven't played 3rd much or in a very long time, and there was no skill for it in 2e), it can tell me that I observe something in someone's tone of voice or body language that indicates they're lying [EDIT: or might give me information about whether they're hostile, e.g., may be getting ready to shank me in the kidneys]. Being better at it means I can get more evidence for or against my suspicions. It can't make me behave a certain way based on that. I might observe someone's lying to me and still play along so as not to blow my cover, for example. Or I might just not care, for whatever reason [EDIT: I might let someone try to shank me in tbe ribs because I have an item or spell on me that will hurt them if they try]. Except now I have evidence they've lied [EDIT: or intend to attack, or whatever]--or evidence that they haven't (or that if they have, they're better at lying than my ability to detect). All of which is useful information, but doesn't dictate my reaction.

[Draconi Redfir]

Here's a quickly growing one;

GM's ignoring a player.

Like, i get it, the GM has a favourite character/player, it happens. Hell, it happened to me as well when i GM'ed. But when it gets to the point where the favoured Character(s) are blazing through storylines and the less-favoured ones are just kind of standing still waiting for a progress update the whole time, then... it's just getting kind of silly. I'm sorry, but if a GM has time to give three status updates on the progress on one character, they have time to give at least half of an update to another.

Plus this always leads to time-dilation side-effects, where favoured character gets a whole day's worth of progress done while less-favoured is struggling to even eat breakfast. suddenly favoured character returns home and what happens? Well looks like less-favoured just spent the ENTIRE DAY eating breakfast because the DM never got back to the player on whether or not their reflex roll to catch the falling bowl succeeded or not! and apparently that bowl has been falling for quite some time! because then favoured character can just walk in and catch the same bowl that started falling when they left the house ten hours ago!:smallannoyed:

[ElFi]

As a GM, there's a few player behaviors I won't tolerate.

Distracting yourself with a phone, iPad, whatever, even if you're not actively participating (surprised no one's said this yet). Unless they're one of those people who can't focus unless they're multitasking, but that's nobody I know.
Clogging up the narration with roleplaying that neither continues the plot nor sheds some new light on the character, especially after being told multiple times that the scene is changing.
Repeatedly bringing up some GM mistake I made a few sessions ago. It was funny at first, now it's starting to get insulting.
Refusing point-blank to actually make a backstory, multiple times. I kid you not, no less than two of my players do this.
Trying to put all of the power in the hands of the players. I know you don't want to get rail-roaded, but I wrote story notes for a reason, guys.

[Honest Tiefling]

Distracting yourself with a phone, iPad, whatever, even if you're not actively participating (surprised no one's said this yet). Unless they're one of those people who can't focus unless they're multitasking, but that's nobody I know.

What if the character cannot participate? I do this when my character has no way to enter the situation (dead, unconscious, not present, others are scheming) because it's a lot easier to not metagame if I don't honestly have the information to begin with.

Or refresh on spell descriptions during combat to be absolutely sure I'm using it right (I have a very poor memory) during other's turns to minimize the time I spend deciding on my own turn.

[Lacco]

Probably not. It's up to me if my character is persuaded, likes someone, dislikes someone, is intimidated, or believes someone.

If this works both ways (= a successful persuasion check on NPC does not tell the GM the NPC is persuaded/likes someone, etc.), then it's fair. And I would accept it - even if I would normally disagree.

[Draconi Redfir]

i'm one of those people who plays games on my phone while playing D&D, mainly i only do it to keep myself entertained, as i can listen to what the rest of the party is doing while i'm playing, and i always put the phone down the moment i hear my turn is up.

I don't know why i do it, i think maybe i just have trouble paying attention if i'm not constantly/regularly stimulated in some way, so by playing a game i'm actually more attentive then if i wasn't.

Really i only need my eyes and hands to play on my phone, and i only need my ears to listen to what the DM and others are doing. so i'm able to keep up with both. the games i play tend to be pretty simple and mind-numbing at best.

[Illven]

I suppose it would be a good idea to explain at the outset that,

"Rolling a 20 just means you got the best possible result. It doesnt make the impossible happen. So rolling a 20 on a diplomacy check doesnt mean the king will abdicate his throne to you and hand over the treasury. It just means he will laugh at your joke instead of having his guards slaughter you on the spot. Rolling a 20 while trying to sunder the world doesnt mean the world breaks into two clean halves, it just means you rolled the most damage possible and chopped into the ground, looking like a lunatic in the process."

If there's a rule like this, and a rule that a natural 1 always fails, that would be a nope for me.

[Mordar]

If this works both ways (= a successful persuasion check on NPC does not tell the GM the NPC is persuaded/likes someone, etc.), then it's fair. And I would accept it - even if I would normally disagree.

Exactly.

It is a tough line to walk, I think, between controlling PCs through skills or allowing "metagame" (for lack of a better word) to invalidate the NPC's skill. After all, as a PC I can't metagame out of being hit by the troll's claw and knocked unconscious, so why can I metagame out of being convinced the dashing bard is telling me the truth about the damsel and I really should help him sneak into the tower?

I don't know it well, but I understand Slayers RPG had a kind of "social" hit points system that might have been a nice compromise here...Bluff shouldn't be "save or die", but it would be neat if there were a system in place that modeled the back-and-forth of diplomatic battle as reasonably as games model the sword-and-shield kind of battle!

- M

[Cluedrew]

Probably not. It's up to me if my character is persuaded, likes someone, dislikes someone, is intimidated, or believes someone.You see this is... sort of a problem if you want to have any social conflict in a game. I mean I get where you are coming from, but at the same time try translating the statement into equivalent physical combat terms: "It's up to me if my character is hit, cornered by someone, is poisoned or collapses from damaged." Now, this is not exactly the same, but I think it shows the point. If we want people to lose you either need to take some control away or have enormous self control (which is hard).

Now yes, I want to decide who my character is, which includes thing in that list you gave. But at the same time another player's concept might include being liked, disliked, intimidating or persuasive and I shouldn't take that from them. No more than I should take the world's greatest swordsmaster's ability to beat my character in a duel or the great detective's ability to track me down. And if my character is supposed to be good at those things too... well that's what dice are for.


As a GM, there's a few player behaviors I won't tolerate.
Distracting yourself with a phone, iPad, whatever, even if you're not actively participating (surprised no one's said this yet). Unless they're one of those people who can't focus unless they're multitasking, but that's nobody I know.For me this is a not a NOPE rather it is a warning flag when others get out there electronic devices. Anything beyond a quick glance and it is time to review the situation and make sure everyone is getting a share of playtime.


Trying to put all of the power in the hands of the players. I know you don't want to get rail-roaded, but I wrote story notes for a reason, guys.OK... NOPE. Alright not necessary, but if you want me to stick to your story notes, you might want to give a copy to me before the game.

[NoldorForce]

If there's a rule like this, and a rule that a natural 1 always fails, that would be a nope for me.That basically just goes back to the rule of thumb that you should only be rolling if something interesting can result from all possible outcomes of that roll. (Some games had gradations of success/failure, hence the specific language.) If you're not capable of succeeding at all (eg, trying to sunder the world) or not capable in an interesting way (digging a hole miles deep to make it easier to sunder the world), then you should just skip to auto-failing or at least knowing that you won't succeed. And if you're not capable of failing at all (eg, climbing over a short fence) or not capable in an interesting way (putting a fence together without external pressures), then you should similarly skip to auto-succeeding.

Traab's comment is a gentle reminder of exactly this sort of thing, which might otherwise be missed if you're looking at the rules in a purely mechanistic fashion. I'm sure that everything in the thread understands the concept here, but newbies to the field often aren't used to it.

[Max_Killjoy]

That basically just goes back to the rule of thumb that you should only be rolling if something interesting can result from all possible outcomes of that roll. (Some games had gradations of success/failure, hence the specific language.) If you're not capable of succeeding at all (eg, trying to sunder the world) or not capable in an interesting way (digging a hole miles deep to make it easier to sunder the world), then you should just skip to auto-failing or at least knowing that you won't succeed. And if you're not capable of failing at all (eg, climbing over a short fence) or not capable in an interesting way (putting a fence together without external pressures), then you should similarly skip to auto-succeeding.

Traab's comment is a gentle reminder of exactly this sort of thing, which might otherwise be missed if you're looking at the rules in a purely mechanistic fashion. I'm sure that everything in the thread understands the concept here, but newbies to the field often aren't used to it.


Comments I've seen in other threads make me wonder if some players don't take a VERY mechanistic view of the games and the rules.




Comparing the game to reality for a moment... in reality, one person can force a sword to hit another. A person cannot truly force another to believe what they're saying.

.

[JAL_1138]

If this works both ways (= a successful persuasion check on NPC does not tell the GM the NPC is persuaded/likes someone, etc.), then it's fair. And I would accept it - even if I would normally disagree.

When I DM, social checks aren't guarantees of success, in the sense of getting what you want out of a Persuasion deal or convincing someone to do something with a Deception. For example, if the guard was told "No one is allowed entry without credentials," they might believe you "forgot" yours, or "got mugged," or whatever... and still not let you pass, because they could be fined/fired/executed/whatever if they're caught bending the rules. (Not terribly likely--a good bluff in that situation would probably convince them you're legit, and if the chance of discovery or the penalty is low, get you in without a problem--but it's possible.) A raging berserker barbarian who's already decided to attack you probably doesn't care if you're intimidating or if you're trying to talk them down with reasoning.

They usually do result in success for plausible attempts, because NPCs more often than not are going to behave/believe rationally when presented with information that such a check tells, unless there's a really good reason not to, as above. They're not going to accomplish outlandish things, though--you don't get to roll great on Persuasion for "give me your entire inventory and the contents of the cash register" and get it because you Persuaded the merchant.

Against PCs, the only check I use is Deception. PCs will be persuaded or intimidated based on their players' analysis of the situation, not on a die roll. But my NPCs can roll to lie or conceal their intentions. All this gives the PCs is no evidence they're lying and/or the appearance of genuineness.

[ElFi]

<snip>
OK... NOPE. Alright not necessary, but if you want me to stick to your story notes, you might want to give a copy to me before the game.
You misunderstand me.

I don't have problems with players who like to go off the rails a little bit; hell, I love roleplaying games because they allow you to go off the script and do your own thing (which is something that video games will never be able to fully simulate). I'm referring to the kind of player who flat-out has no respect for the GM's story or setting. The kind who is told "you're all noble four-color superheroes saving the world" and hears "you're all bloodthirsty perverted vigilantes who can and will do whatever the hell they want". Basically, the person who believes that because they're a PC, they're entitled to do whatever they want, and I as the GM must bend to their whims without complaint.

Maybe it's different for you, and you're more open to that kind of player. I dunno. We all have different limits.

[JAL_1138]

You see this is... sort of a problem if you want to have any social conflict in a game. I mean I get where you are coming from, but at the same time try translating the statement into equivalent physical combat terms: "It's up to me if my character is hit, cornered by someone, is poisoned or collapses from damaged." Now, this is not exactly the same, but I think it shows the point. If we want people to lose you either need to take some control away or have enormous self control (which is hard).

I disagree; it doesn't show the point. Those are descriptions of the world that don't dictate your character's internal response or emotional reaction, and only place physical restrictions on behavior. They don't "tell you how to play your character." They tell you what happens to your character.



Now yes, I want to decide who my character is, which includes thing in that list you gave. But at the same time another player's concept might include being liked, disliked, intimidating or persuasive and I shouldn't take that from them. No more than I should take the world's greatest swordsmaster's ability to beat my character in a duel or the great detective's ability to track me down. And if my character is supposed to be good at those things too... well that's what dice are for.

Their character concept only goes until it affects mine. They don't get to dictate that I'm persuaded by them (and I discourage social rolls by PCs against PCs to persuade or intimidate, though deceiving is another issue--and there again, it just shows you whether there's any evidence of a lie from their appearance and tone), or that I like them, or how I feel about them.

As a counter-hypothetical, what if my character concept were a paranoid misanthrope who has to be won over slowly by demonstrated trustworthiness if he's going to be won over at all; should they take that from me by having a character who can roll a few dice and make my character trust and like them?

[Fortuna]

Their character concept only goes until it affects mine. They don't get to dictate that I'm persuaded by them (and I discourage social rolls by PCs against PCs to persuade or intimidate, though deceiving is another issue--and there again, it just shows you whether there's any evidence of a lie from their appearance and tone), or that I like them, or how I feel about them.

As a counter-hypothetical, what if my character concept were a paranoid misanthrope who has to be won over slowly by demonstrated trustworthiness if he's going to be won over at all; should they take that from me by having a character who can roll a few dice and make my character trust and like them?

I tend to think this is precisely when social mechanics dictating PC responses becomes appropriate - provided that you have just as much chance to buy up your paranoid misanthrope skillset as they have a chance to buy up their likability skillset. I think this is getting a bit outside the scope of this thread, though; would you be interested in continuing it in a new one?

[Cluedrew]

You misunderstand me. [...] Maybe it's different for you, and you're more open to that kind of player. I dunno. We all have different limits.Actually you were right the first time, my first reading gave me a very different vibe than your expanded version, so the 'if' is untrue and the comment doesn't actually apply.

JAL_1138 & Max_Killjoy: "[Comments about social influence.]"

Me: "Yes but-"


I think this is getting a bit outside the scope of this thread, though; would you be interested in continuing it in a new one?... She's probably right. If we want to have a serious conversation about this we should probably move to a new thread. This is not a simple topic. There was too much martial/caster discrepancy in Get off my Edition.
I'd read a thread about representing social influence mechanically, and probably post. If one or two other people are interested we could move it over with a multi-post.

[JAL_1138]

I'd be interesting in a new thread on the subject (and I'd caveat my posts by saying that my reasons/positions boil down to preference, rather than a reasoned or even particularly internally-consistent philosophy on the subject, rather than any sort of statement that such systems are inherently or objectively bad, which I've not made clear in my responses here and for which I apologize), although it may be a while before I can post properly in it. RL time constraints over the weekend have kicked in.

[goto124]

And if you're not capable of failing at all (eg, climbing over a short fence)

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/363/915/95e.jpg

[Keltest]

Roleplaying being lied to is always tricky. On the one hand, you the player might have a good sense that youre being lied to. But your 6 int dwarf fighter could easily be taking them at their word.

Furthermore, there is a very good deal of "So what?" going on there. Ok, so you think youre being lied to. What are you going to do about it, punch the bard? As tempting and understandable as doing such a thing is, it probably isn't going to get you the answers you want.

[Sir Chuckles]

I recently had a run in with one of my least favorite things in PbP: The Pre-Game IC thread. For those that do not know, this is a generic festival, tavern, or similar setting where any and all applicants can act in character before players are selected. I have many issues with them in and of themselves, but that's for another time.

But this went beyond. This was a festival that ended with a tournament of single combat. The DM, rather starting the game with the accepted characters, is currently running eight instances of 1v1 PvP combat. Also note that everyone is 1st level, so the fights are rather silly. One was ended instantly via Color Spray, another went on for seven rounds of miss after miss. The game was slated to begin a week ago, and several players, both accepted and in the tournament, have already disappeared due to the extended wait.
To top it all off? The DM stated that they were going to accept two more players after the tournament, which still has seven more rounds to go.

Only reason I keep track of it is because there are grade-A examples for my table of how not to post in PbP (poor grammar, very poor post organization, and the classic single-action posts).

A Pre-Game IC Thread is a mild "nope" from me, but the antics following have me almost withdrawing my application.

Also the DM enforces dropped/damaged weapons on a Nat 1.

Edit: Also, found out that the winner of the tournament gets added to the game.

[Cluedrew]

I made On Rolls Controlling your Character (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?490944-On-Rolls-Controlling-your-Character), because Everyday Mind Control seemed overly dramatic. Anyways it has a few new points in it. Read and enjoy.

[JAL_1138]

I made On Rolls Controlling your Character (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?490944-On-Rolls-Controlling-your-Character), because Everyday Mind Control seemed overly dramatic. Anyways it has a few new points in it. Read and enjoy.

Thanks! As soon as I can get back to a non-work PC, I'll post my thoughts in a more coherent (and hopefully less-abrasive, I feel like I've come off agressive, which I don't mean to) fashion than I have here. (to write as much as I'd need/want on the subject on my cell phone would likely make my thumbs fall off, and I kinda need them).

[Draconi Redfir]

Here's a quickly growing one;

GM's ignoring a player.

Like, i get it, the GM has a favourite character/player, it happens. Hell, it happened to me as well when i GM'ed. But when it gets to the point where the favoured Character(s) are blazing through storylines and the less-favoured ones are just kind of standing still waiting for a progress update the whole time, then... it's just getting kind of silly. I'm sorry, but if a GM has time to give three status updates on the progress on one character, they have time to give at least half of an update to another.

So this one is quickly growing to game-quitting nope levels. it's been two solid weeks now since I’ve last gotten an update to my character, to the point where i actually made my character react to the lack of response and go off on their own. I've brought this up three times now, including the in-character post i just mentioned, and none of them have been brought up or replied too in any way.:smallannoyed:

In the time I’ve been waiting for one reply, the DM has made Three replies for one character, four replies for a second, Two for a third, and one for a fourth character who isn't even able to be as active as i am due to real life issues.

Now I’m sorry, buuuut I’m calling bull**** here. There is no excuse for this, that's ten replies the DM has made now, not one of which they could bother to direct to me. if this was an issue of not knowing what to say? They've had two weeks to contact me about it. they've had two weeks to reply to my comments about it, they've had two weeks to even hint that they're still bothering with me.

So yeah. I'm preeeeety close to being done with the whole thing alltogether. I’m a patient man, so I’m going to wait a few more days just in case before bringing it up a fourth time. but if i still get nothing? My character is out. I'm removing them from the game full stop and they can take on the final boss on their own.:smallannoyed:


A real shame, i genuinely enjoyed this game too...

[Mr Beer]

So yeah. I'm preeeeety close to being done with the whole thing alltogether. I’m a patient man, so I’m going to wait a few more days just in case before bringing it up a fourth time. but if i still get nothing? My character is out.

Yep, you are patient. No way I'd be bringing it up a 4th time, I'd be gone.

[Draconi Redfir]

Yeah, funny enough it didn't even last a day. Late last night one of the other players replied ooc to my ic post, and i had to reply with the problem.

Nedless to say, the GM apparently found time to squeeze in a retort of their own and say they were too "busy" and "Frustrated" with my IC posts (and for some reason over two weeks, never thought to tell me about this even when i asked) and threw a small fit.

So i'm done! Made my last post just now, my character is out, good luck with the dragon!

[Final Hyena]

That's tough Redfir, I had a similar situation, except it was a game on skype, given how many games I was playing at the time and that no one commented my volume was fine, he just ignored me.

Everyone so often you come across games with *****, best to identify them early and leave.

[aReallyGreatAxe]

So this one is quickly growing to game-quitting nope levels. it's been two solid weeks now since I’ve last gotten an update to my character, to the point where i actually made my character react to the lack of response and go off on their own. I've brought this up three times now, including the in-character post i just mentioned, and none of them have been brought up or replied too in any way.:smallannoyed:

In the time I’ve been waiting for one reply, the DM has made Three replies for one character, four replies for a second, Two for a third, and one for a fourth character who isn't even able to be as active as i am due to real life issues.

Now I’m sorry, buuuut I’m calling bull**** here. There is no excuse for this, that's ten replies the DM has made now, not one of which they could bother to direct to me. if this was an issue of not knowing what to say? They've had two weeks to contact me about it. they've had two weeks to reply to my comments about it, they've had two weeks to even hint that they're still bothering with me.

So yeah. I'm preeeeety close to being done with the whole thing alltogether. I’m a patient man, so I’m going to wait a few more days just in case before bringing it up a fourth time. but if i still get nothing? My character is out. I'm removing them from the game full stop and they can take on the final boss on their own.:smallannoyed:


A real shame, i genuinely enjoyed this game too...

I'm sorry, I was lurking and came across this thread- lovely thread, by the way. Very useful.

In all fairness, the situation is being a little misrepresented in the above posts.

I am a new-ish player in the aforementioned game, but I have read all of the previous threads.

If you were to look at your character's current storyline, the average post length is far greater than that for the others, on both your part and the DM's. And this is great! I've enjoyed your character's story- from her budding friendships to great losses. I'm sorry our characters paths do not cross very often, as I think they would play off of each other quite well.

But still, posts take time, longer posts more so. When a DM is particularly pressed for time and posting from mobile, said longer posts often will be gotten to later, and occasionally slip through the cracks. Half-written posts have often languished for a week or more on my computer in the desert of open tabs, when I'm absolutely certain they were sent. I've needed that "Axe, did you forget about us?" message more than once.

The 'ten other posts' were much shorter, often a sentence in length, and mostly confirmations of what had already been established in a diplomatic situation.

The crisis could have been easily averted with an OOC post "Hey [DM], did you miss my post?".

Edits, sadly, do not notify.

There are also some preexisting tensions in the group, which I am not sufficiently informed to comment on.

[Draconi Redfir]

So what, people don't just check the ooc thread every so often?:smallconfused:

seems to kind of defeat the point...

[aReallyGreatAxe]

So what, people don't just check the ooc thread every so often?:smallconfused:

seems to kind of defeat the point...

It's more that a typical check consists of "oh, any new posts?"

I am speaking only for myself in this matter though. If you check for edits, more power to you! You are more thorough than I.



Back on the topic of the thread, I once was in a game where someone became bored and summoned skeletons singing "Queen" tunes.

In the middle of a tense hostage negotiation. *facepalm*

[Sith_Happens]

the idea was that people who were sent there only had whatever was on them at the time, nothing else. there were very few raw materials to work with, so if you wanted a sword, you needed to find someone who had a sword when they were sent to the prison plane. Since everything is so limited, trading things for gold would be pointless, you can't do anything with gold. it would be more bennificial to trade that sword in exchange for some food, some armor, or some service such as assisance in building a house.

Sure you can. You can give it to the guy whose sword you want, and then he can give it the next day to the woman with the Haversack he's been in dire need of, and then she can give just some of it a week later to the butcher in exchange for some meat, and so on. The only thing the extreme scarcity of all the above goods does is make them cost far more.

Pure barter economies pretty much last until the point that enough people get tired of trying to barter with each other all the time. And bartering is a pain.

That said, I'll reiterate that the DM could easily have decided that the currency of choice on the prison plane was something other than the usual precious metals (with any number of possible justifications as to why), which would have caused the same problem to the PCs of "Your gold is no good here" without blatantly ignoring the reasons why money exists as a concept in the first place. And as a matter of fact D&D has implicit rules support for that sort of situation via the existence of "trade goods" (these (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/wealthAndMoney.htm#wealthOtherThanCoins) being the rules for such if we're talking about 3.X; note in particular the part at the beginning where the use of trade goods instead of coins is stated to be common).


I recently had a run in with one of my least favorite things in PbP: The Pre-Game IC thread. For those that do not know, this is a generic festival, tavern, or similar setting where any and all applicants can act in character before players are selected. I have many issues with them in and of themselves, but that's for another time.

But this went beyond. This was a festival that ended with a tournament of single combat. The DM, rather starting the game with the accepted characters, is currently running eight instances of 1v1 PvP combat. Also note that everyone is 1st level, so the fights are rather silly. One was ended instantly via Color Spray, another went on for seven rounds of miss after miss. The game was slated to begin a week ago, and several players, both accepted and in the tournament, have already disappeared due to the extended wait.
To top it all off? The DM stated that they were going to accept two more players after the tournament, which still has seven more rounds to go.

Ouch, I had a similar thing happen a while back now; I was in a large (10 people initially) play-by-post game of Beast: The Primordial where we'd decided to rotate GMing duties... And also decided it would be fun to play out the circumstances under which assorted pairs of PCs first met each other as a set of semi-freeform vignettes. Which ended up dragging on for ~4.5 months because we couldn't quite seem to reach a consensus about when it was time to cut that off and start the first actual story already. Cue slow but steady player attrition over that period until the three of us left finally decided that the game was dead.


It's more that a typical check consists of "oh, any new posts?"

I am speaking only for myself in this matter though. If you check for edits, more power to you! You are more thorough than I.

This is precisely why I've decided not to feel bad about double-posting in OOC threads if it's been long enough since the first post and I have something else important to say.

[Draconi Redfir]

Sure you can. You can give it to the guy whose sword you want, and then he can give it the next day to the woman with the Haversack he's been in dire need of, and then she can give just some of it a week later to the butcher in exchange for some meat, and so on. The only thing the extreme scarcity of all the above goods does is make them cost far more.

Pure barter economies pretty much last until the point that enough people get tired of trying to barter with each other all the time. And bartering is a pain.

That said, I'll reiterate that the DM could easily have decided that the currency of choice on the prison plane was something other than the usual precious metals (with any number of possible justifications as to why), which would have caused the same problem to the PCs of "Your gold is no good here" without blatantly ignoring the reasons why money exists as a concept in the first place. And as a matter of fact D&D has implicit rules support for that sort of situation via the existence of "trade goods" (these (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/wealthAndMoney.htm#wealthOtherThanCoins) being the rules for such if we're talking about 3.X; note in particular the part at the beginning where the use of trade goods instead of coins is stated to be common).

And what if Gold was equaly, if not more rare in the plane then everything else? Would it still make sense for a people to use gold as a currancy when they had maybe only a hundred peices of it total? Keep in mind that a vast majority of the plane's residents were not sent there willingly, and likely had been stripped of most of their posessions beforehand. Our party was different as we made the decision to go there ourselves.

[Sith_Happens]

And what if Gold was equaly, if not more rare in the plane then everything else? Would it still make sense for a people to use gold as a currancy when they had maybe only a hundred peices of it total?

That is a good example of one of the "many possible reasons" I alluded to in my third paragraph as to why something else might get used instead.

[Draconi Redfir]

Ahh i see, my mistake then. sorry.

[cobaltstarfire]

Being lied to OOC is a thing that will rather irritate me, it is something that I have left a game over before. It might depend on the nature of the lie though, it's only happened once so far.


Most of the lying I've experienced IC was between PC and NPC's, I don't think I've encountered PC's straight up lying to other PC's, though sometimes there were secrets (lying by omission I suppose). I like secrets, and I don't mind lying to NPC's, but I'm not sure I could stomach actively lying IC to other players? I do suspect it could bother me to be lied to IC, but it might not, probably would depend on my mood, and how things played out. I could imagine a long IC lie turning out to be awesome or highly entertaining once it came out too.

[Draconi Redfir]

makes sense there. i could see maybe not telling the truth ooc if you've got a plot twist coming up that you doin't want to spoil for the others, but otherwise yeah. outright lying to someone ooc is a dink move.

[Max_Killjoy]

Being lied to OOC is a thing that will rather irritate me, it is something that I have left a game over before. It might depend on the nature of the lie though, it's only happened once so far.


Most of the lying I've experienced IC was between PC and NPC's, I don't think I've encountered PC's straight up lying to other PC's, though sometimes there were secrets (lying by omission I suppose). I like secrets, and I don't mind lying to NPC's, but I'm not sure I could stomach actively lying IC to other players? I do suspect it could bother me to be lied to IC, but it might not, probably would depend on my mood, and how things played out. I could imagine a long IC lie turning out to be awesome or highly entertaining once it came out too.


Depends on the nature of the game and the nature of the relationship between the PCs.

Even within one company's products set in the same world, vampire PCs lying to each other is significantly different from the typical werewolf PCs in the same pack lying to each other.



makes sense there. i could see maybe not telling the truth ooc if you've got a plot twist coming up that you doin't want to spoil for the others, but otherwise yeah. outright lying to someone ooc is a dink move.


The flip side is that players shouldn't use the "but we're OOC now" tack to try to pry in-character secrets or deceptions out of other players (and I've had a player try to do that in one of my games, years and years ago...)

.

[cobaltstarfire]

Depends on the nature of the game and the nature of the relationship between the PCs.



And that wasn't the case in the one time I left a game over being lied to.




The flip side is that players shouldn't use the "but we're OOC now" tack to try to pry in-character secrets or deceptions out of other players (and I've had a player try to do that in one of my games, years and years ago...)

Yeah, I can understand that. I don't usually like to let people look at my character sheets, and I am not usually eager to reveal certain kinds of background information on my character that the other members of the party wouldn't know. If they want to try to figure out they're welcome to do so in character though. It'll probably be more interesting at any rate!

[Sir Chuckles]

Ouch, I had a similar thing happen a while back now; I was in a large (10 people initially) play-by-post game of Beast: The Primordial where we'd decided to rotate GMing duties... And also decided it would be fun to play out the circumstances under which assorted pairs of PCs first met each other as a set of semi-freeform vignettes. Which ended up dragging on for ~4.5 months because we couldn't quite seem to reach a consensus about when it was time to cut that off and start the first actual story already. Cue slow but steady player attrition over that period until the three of us left finally decided that the game was dead.

The PvP tournament is still going on. It just started the semi-finals.
I also found out that the DM will be automatically accepting the winner of the tournament to the game, as well as two more players, despite the accepted list already being 5 people.
The problem with this? The game was advertised as a roleplay heavy villagers campaign, and the DM stating that they wanted the winner of the tournament because they wanted to ensure the party had some combat ability. However, the current 5 people accepted are a Cloistered Cleric, Wizard, Druid, another Cleric, and another Wizard.

I withdrew my application.