PDA

View Full Version : I need to Rant



Eldan
2017-08-13, 03:25 PM
So. Fifteen years of roleplaying, DM and player. And for the first time, I've had a major row after a game ended.

I've felt a bit of a tension for a while in the game. Half the group, but especially one player, has barely been taking his nose out of the game books. He's spent real life hours just looking up monster stats for himself to polymorph into, or been re-reading his spells.

I've trying getting them engaged in combat, I've tried giving them NPCs to interact with, riddles, lore about the world, he just didn't seem to care much about anything.

And then, today, after the game, he started to rant. It started slow. "Well, it's sad that D&D is such a combat focused game." I was curious. "What do you mean by that?" "Well, there's so many spells and feats and it's all combat rules. There's barely any fluff. Unlike in systems X, Y and Z." "Have you actually ever read any campaign setting books? You've never really asked about the world i've written either. (puts hand down on full notebook on world details.)" "No, I haven't. But, you know, the skill system in system x is so much better. Or in that podcast I listen to, where they play 5th edition instead of third."
That went on for a while. He kept complaining about there's not rules for anything in D&D other than combat, I tried to show him a few examples where that wasn't the case, he flat out denied them and kept talking about how much better other systems were and how much pure talky roleplaying other groups had. I tried pointing out where they could have talked to the priest about his religion, or tried to talk to the courtiers, or even just played out information gathering instead of just throwing skill checks and how they mostly ignored roleplaying opportunities.

And... things got heated. In the end, he was shouting at me. While telling me not to take this personally, strangely enough. I was mostly just confused. This had, for me, come out of nothing and I wasn't even sure why he was criticizing it, when, to me, he had been the one not engaged in anything.

In the end, i just left. Pretty much mid-sentence. Walked out of the door. I'm bad at dealing with this kind of stuff. Still don't really know what his problem was. The other players left too, I talked with some of them outside, we're not sure what happened.

The additional problem... usually, this guy is a pretty good friend. We commonly play at his house. He hosts the board game evenings too. And I'm not sure what to do now other than just wait. I feel I've done something wrong and I don't know what.

redwizard007
2017-08-13, 03:36 PM
Give it a day or two to calm, and then talk to your friend. Go have a beer together. Make **** right.

If the problem is the game, and he is your friend, then the game should die.

If you can work through it, great. Offer to let him DM an alternative system, if that will help. If it is going to kill a friendship, then it's just not worth it.

Faily
2017-08-13, 03:39 PM
My sympathies. Sounds like a pretty rough moment.

Give it some time to cool down, then try to talk things out with the guy. Could be he wants to play something else than D&D, but he botched the delivery and things just came out wrong. Though I do agree with you that there is plenty of roleplay opportunities in D&D (while I haven't been at this for as long as you, my experience with different game-systems comes down to "no system will make you roleplay better, but systems do appeal more to personal preferences"), and over the course of 3.5/Pathfinder's existence, lots of options and rules have been presented to those who wish for more social interaction and intrigue.

I do hope it works out though, since as you said, the guy is a friend.

Nifft
2017-08-13, 04:41 PM
I'm guessing he's mad about something else -- possibly something unrelated -- and a rant in a podcast (or several) became his scapegoat.

Alternately, he may want to inflict change upon you (i.e. change the game you play) just to feel powerful because he's currently feeling helpless in some other aspect of his life.


In terms of resolution -- I agree with the previous posters. The problem probably isn't directly related to the game anyway, so let it blow over and then have a talk (or have some beers and talk about something else, just make sure you show that you're not upset or anything).

Lacco
2017-08-13, 04:46 PM
I... I must say that this reminds me - eerily - of a certain conversation at work. Similarities include starting completely calm, progressing via "don't take this personally" into full-blown tirade about how bad person I am. While saying that it's not personal.

I talked about it with one of our coaches... and he said that while I was offering answer/solution, the person was asking for validation of his opinions. And me giving solutions only made him more angry, since I - inadvertently - from his point of view - disregarded himself via ignoring his opinion.

I am sorry you had to go through something like that. It's always unpleasant for the GM to get into stuff like this.

EDIT: Oh, and sorry for offering advice instead of my sympathies. You have them.

JNAProductions
2017-08-13, 07:35 PM
*Offers hugs*

Sorry to hear that. Anything we can do to help out?

Hooligan
2017-08-13, 09:54 PM
Say nothing. Do not acknowledge the player when you sit down at the table next session. While making intense eye contact the entire time, assassinate his character and divide his experience amongst the other characters. Do not look at the dice. Do not look at the other game players. If you need something to do with your hands then shuffle through your DM notes, but do not look at the notes. Then find a different place to board game.

Hypersmith
2017-08-13, 10:14 PM
Say nothing. Do not acknowledge the player when you sit down at the table next session. While making intense eye contact the entire time, assassinate his character and divide his experience amongst the other characters. Do not look at the dice. Do not look at the other game players. If you need something to do with your hands then shuffle through your DM notes, but do not look at the notes. Then find a different place to board game.

I don't think that's a great way to deal with friends dude.

Anxe
2017-08-13, 10:43 PM
Say nothing. Do not acknowledge the player when you sit down at the table next session. While making intense eye contact the entire time, assassinate his character and divide his experience amongst the other characters. Do not look at the dice. Do not look at the other game players. If you need something to do with your hands then shuffle through your DM notes, but do not look at the notes. Then find a different place to board game.

Mmmm... Pure unadulterated sarcasm...

Martin Greywolf
2017-08-14, 02:35 AM
Well, other people already covered the resolution angle, so let me go straight to an aside: your friend is kinda right, DnD 3.5 IS terrible system for non-combat things, mechanically speaking. Yes, you can make it work, and make it work well, but you can do that with FATAL if you put in the work.

The problem with DnD 3.5 is that it offers no unified system for RP resolution the way it does for combat - you want to convince the guard to let you in, what DC is that? Do you, as a player, have a good way to gauge how likely he is to do that? No, you really don't, and there is very little mechanical variety there - sure, you can cast a spell, but that is basically an I win button in the social combat, and thus not very interesting.

In DnD 3.5 without house rules, you can't have a final battle of diplomacy between you and the bad guy that would include rising tension and dice rolling - you would need some kind of social HP for that, not just completely disjointed, binary checks. And while a good DM can make it work as is, sort of, a lot depends on how he feels about it without any solid framework.

When you compare it to something like FATE that uses three levels of detail in conflict resolution in everything, from talking, through chase scenes to combat, yeah, DnD 3.5 starts to seem a lot more lackluster. That said, with players unwilling to use it, even FATE can be reduced to murderhoboing.

My advice? Try a one-shot.

Mutazoia
2017-08-14, 02:48 AM
Well, you are going to have to work out the fall out of the argument yourself. We can give you all the advice in the world, but in the end, it's all up to the two of you to overcome this.

All I will venture to suggest, is a rule I use frequently: "Unless you are looking up something specific to a situation currently going on in the game at that moment, all books (game/rule or otherwise) remain closed."

I encourage my spellcasters to either know what their spells do, or get some 3x5 notecards and write down the specifics for the spells they have available. The only time a player should be looking up a spell, is A) when they get a new spell, or B) When they want to use a spell for a purpose not usually intended for said spell, and they need more detailed information.

Players should not be thumbing through the monster manual(s) at all. They [their characters] should have little to know knowledge of monsters that they have not encountered yet, and only general knowledge of one's they have. Access to that information for "polymorph purposes" is meta-gaming at best.

This rule should get people's noses out of books, do away with the destraction they cause, and get them to focus on the game at hand, so they won't miss all the role playing opportunities you are presenting.

Jerrykhor
2017-08-14, 03:24 AM
I think you have to tell him that just because there are no rules on non-combat stuff, doesn't mean its not in the game. Maybe he's that kind of people whose thinking are so rigid, that if they didn't tell you that you can do it, you can't.

The developers purposely left them without rules or fluff, so we can do what we want. It is their intent that every table is encouraged to make their own story, their own setting, their own house rules.

If he still doesn't listen to reason, I'd recommend a stone cold stunner and throw his unconscious body out of the place.

Dr paradox
2017-08-14, 04:08 AM
Well, other people already covered the resolution angle, so let me go straight to an aside: your friend is kinda right, DnD 3.5 IS terrible system for non-combat things, mechanically speaking. Yes, you can make it work, and make it work well, but you can do that with FATAL if you put in the work.

The problem with DnD 3.5 is that it offers no unified system for RP resolution the way it does for combat - you want to convince the guard to let you in, what DC is that? Do you, as a player, have a good way to gauge how likely he is to do that? No, you really don't, and there is very little mechanical variety there - sure, you can cast a spell, but that is basically an I win button in the social combat, and thus not very interesting.

In DnD 3.5 without house rules, you can't have a final battle of diplomacy between you and the bad guy that would include rising tension and dice rolling - you would need some kind of social HP for that, not just completely disjointed, binary checks. And while a good DM can make it work as is, sort of, a lot depends on how he feels about it without any solid framework.


I can see what you mean by this, and yeah, D&D 3.5 isn't what you want for social boss-battles, but personally I actually value the fuzziness offered. I like how social and narrative solutions are left to be puzzled through by those components best suited to that kind of thing (human beings with imaginations) while just enough OTHER stuff is handled as cold hard mechanic to give everything a bedrock to rest on.

To put it another way, while I'm trying to bluff the dragon with an improv-theater approach, I like knowing that I am empirically and objectively screwed if I mess up. It's not for everybody, and It's certainly not the best for every situation, but that's why I primarily play D&D even though I'm more of a storyteller/roleplaying kinda guy.

Anonymouswizard
2017-08-14, 04:36 AM
I agree with the idea put forward that your friend was right, but wrong.

D&D is overly focused on combat, even fifth edition. This isn't a bad thing, as the lack of rules does give freedom, but it also gets to the problem of gameplay being unstructured. I personally prefer to go for games which reduce the amount of structure in combat, and possibly adds a bit more structure to noncombat conflicts (one of the reasons I like Fate, it does both).

However, I agree that you should talk to him about it after he's had a chance to calm down, it might just be that we wants to play system X, Y, or Z (to which my response would be 'we can play it if you want to run it', although I also have a large number of games I want to run). It's a very bad way to say that, but it's a possibility and shouldn't be discounted. People do get bored of D&D (it's certainly the game I'm also least enthusiastic to play).

Also, the idea of D&D being light on fluff is a bit funny to a GURPS fan, which manages to have books with a significantly lower fluff count (the corebooks have ten pages of fluff, and then books like Space or Ultra-Tech don't so much have fluff as 'this is how to represent this bit of fluff').

chainer1216
2017-08-14, 05:04 AM
Its always confused me when i see/hear people say DnD is bad for roleplaying.

I mean sure, the diplomacy/bluff/sense motive skills are kinda junk and very barebones in 3.5 but youd think having rules governing roleplay at all would be a bad thing in the first place, why isnt just...playing the roles out as organically as possible ok?

Anonymouswizard
2017-08-14, 05:23 AM
Its always confused me when i see/hear people say DnD is bad for roleplaying.

I mean sure, the diplomacy/bluff/sense motive skills are kinda junk and very barebones in 3.5 but youd think having rules governing roleplay at all would be a bad thing in the first place, why isnt just...playing the roles out as organically as possible ok?

It's not so much that it inhibits roleplaying, much more that it doesn't encourage it.

Many systems don't, and there's nothing wrong with that. I still like GURPS and Traveller, but I also like Unknown Armies and Fate. I also don't like rules that enforce roleplay, but rather ones that encourage acting in character.

I mean, in Fate whenever an Aspect causes a problem for you it's a compel, and a player is encouraged to ask for compels when their personality Aspects cause them problems. It's primarily intended to encourage letting bad stuff happen, but it does encourage you to roleplay according to your Aspects. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing, and significantly better than 'roleplay or take penalties' system.

Eldan
2017-08-14, 08:38 AM
I'm also in the "I like my social interaction light" camp. I don't like social encounters that are too... gamified? I think that's the word.

I'd like my players to talk and consider the NPC and make arguments. Not gain advantage, collect social tokens, compel weaknesses or add up successes.

Even worse those systems that give you build points for taking disadvantages. We also ave a different group playing The Dark Eye and everyone in that group has a list of disadvantages. My mage hates getting up early and is proud. The fighter has problems following directions because he confuses left and right, and also he's a noble who hates commoners.

We each get build points for that to buy advantages. I really don't like that idea, that you have to bribe players to play characters with flaws.

Lacco
2017-08-14, 08:51 AM
I'm also in the "I like my social interaction light" camp. I don't like social encounters that are too... gamified? I think that's the word.

I'd like my players to talk and consider the NPC and make arguments. Not gain advantage, collect social tokens, compel weaknesses or add up successes.

Even worse those systems that give you build points for taking disadvantages. We also ave a different group playing The Dark Eye and everyone in that group has a list of disadvantages. My mage hates getting up early and is proud. The fighter has problems following directions because he confuses left and right, and also he's a noble who hates commoners.

We each get build points for that to buy advantages. I really don't like that idea, that you have to bribe players to play characters with flaws.

I also like the social interaction with rolling only if I'm not sure whether the arguments do really succeed with the NPC.

As for the flaws... I found they work well within the priority build systems - if a player is fine with being more powerful yet flawed, he can take them. And my players usually roleplay even the flaws they don't have on character sheet ("I am basically a Viking raider with small patience and no points in writing... so why am I the one drawing map?" *erases half of the map and randomly connects corridors, adds painting of bare breasts and beer*), so I have an easy job. But the flaws work well there because you can roleplay quirks (that have no mechanical impact) or you can take flaws (which impact your character's decisions). Works for me, not for everyone.

Anonymouswizard
2017-08-14, 09:40 AM
Even worse those systems that give you build points for taking disadvantages. We also ave a different group playing The Dark Eye and everyone in that group has a list of disadvantages. My mage hates getting up early and is proud. The fighter has problems following directions because he confuses left and right, and also he's a noble who hates commoners.

Yeah, I've been reading through Victoriana and it's weird. It gives you build points for three disadvantages (5 for taking one, 3 for taking a second, 2 for a third), which I'd normally dislike. It reminds me of my days playing GURPS, 'where's another 15 points of disadvantages so I can get Combat Reflexes'. I like Victoriana as it is totally trying to get you to take three disadvantages, as it then does the 'disadvantages give you Fate Points' mechanic that actually works out, the build points are there to point you towards what will grant you Fate Points (as you don't get bonus ones from anywhere else).

I've never quite got around to trying a system that charges for disadvantages, but it sounds like fun.

Conversely, I find that when I'm in a system that does 'bad stuff for more points' I'm trying to game the disadvantages. I'll take body odour, and because I'm effectively dumping Charisma anyway I'll take ugly, bad voice, bad breath, and so on. While if disadvantages give me tasty tasty metagame currency I'll pick ones that actually cause me problems, because I've learnt how vital Fate Points can be.

Faily
2017-08-14, 11:04 AM
I'm also in the "I like my social interaction light" camp. I don't like social encounters that are too... gamified? I think that's the word.


I agree so much with this. :smallsmile:

After having tried a few different systems that offered "social combat", I've found that I don't like it. At all. I much more prefer things light around the social aspects of a RPG, as I find that encourages active roleplaying and thinking of good arguments and ideas, rather than just "and then I attack him with my Charm-skill, he defends with his Composure-skill" (or whatever name for these things the system uses).

CharonsHelper
2017-08-14, 11:11 AM
I agree so much with this. :smallsmile:

After having tried a few different systems that offered "social combat", I've found that I don't like it. At all. I much more prefer things light around the social aspects of a RPG, as I find that encourages active roleplaying and thinking of good arguments and ideas, rather than just "and then I attack him with my Charm-skill, he defends with his Composure-skill" (or whatever name for these things the system uses).

I'll +1 as well.

I do think that mechanics can work well for social things which are inherently opposed (intimidation/negotiation/lying etc.) but for things like getting info and generally convincing someone to like you I prefer the mechanics stay very lite and/or nonexistent. (And that's just how I designed my system. :P)

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-14, 11:14 AM
If your player wanted to roleplay, he should have just engaged in the opportunities you offered and even endeavored to create some of his own.

Blaming the system for "not supporting RP" is missing the boat entirely, and he's conflating a lot of different issues into one angry incoherent rant.

Anonymouswizard
2017-08-14, 01:17 PM
I agree so much with this. :smallsmile:

After having tried a few different systems that offered "social combat", I've found that I don't like it. At all. I much more prefer things light around the social aspects of a RPG, as I find that encourages active roleplaying and thinking of good arguments and ideas, rather than just "and then I attack him with my Charm-skill, he defends with his Composure-skill" (or whatever name for these things the system uses).

....that's a gross oversimplification of social combat systems. The idea is generally to go beyond that, adding structure to trying to convince someone, and stopping social stuff from being 'okay, now we've done the roleplay make your charisma check'.

Because people love saying it about combat, A GOOD SOCIAL CONFLICT SYSTEM DOES NOTHING TO INHIBIT ROLEPLAYING. In fact it can encourage it through it's guidance, allowing roleplay to twist and turn with the abilities of the characters as well as the roleplayers, and allows a strong start to make winning easier.

In Fate if I make a good roll in a social conflict I my opponent takes Stress and potentially Consequences, and I get a free invoke on Consequences I inflict. Looks like that strategy worked, maybe I should continue it.

Otherwise you end up with either 'one roll wins all' or 'the smelly, dishevelled and uncharismatic Fighter successfully convinces the Duke that he should send his armies to fight the dragon, and that a bath isn't necessary'.

Florian
2017-08-14, 01:52 PM
Its always confused me when i see/hear people say DnD is bad for roleplaying.

Well, thatīs because it is. D&D has always had too much of a focus on the mechanical aspects and then added spell effects on top of it.

BRC
2017-08-14, 01:55 PM
Well, thatīs because it is. D&D has always had too much of a focus on the mechanical aspects and then added spell effects on top of it.

That doesn't make it "Bad for Roleplaying". That just means that it doesn't have many RULES for roleplaying.

You can roleplay with exactly zero rules. We grew up doing that as children. In fact, arguments can be made that RP-focused mechanics just get in the way, and so a system that barely touches Roleplay mechanically is better than one that strictly codifies social interactions.

A Rulebook contains Mechanical Aspects. That's what it's there for. They don't need to dedicate a section to playing pretend.

Quertus
2017-08-14, 02:45 PM
If your player wanted to roleplay, he should have just engaged in the opportunities you offered and even endeavored to create some of his own.

Blaming the system for "not supporting RP" is missing the boat entirely, and he's conflating a lot of different issues into one angry incoherent rant.

This. Is your player normally so incoherent that "just role-playing" and making cogent arguments are beyond his capabilities? If so, then I can see where a system where he is able to punch people in the social with his character's charisma skill might be desirable for him.

As to your specific issue, I agree with those who say that that's more going on here. Not being engaged, flipping through books, engaging in irrational human behavior, blowing up at a friend? Yeah, this points hard to more going on - whether or not that "more" has anything to do with the game. It's up to y'all's social dynamics as to who should do what when, but, never having been one for formalities, I'll side with the "let him cool down, then take him out for a beer" crowd.


I... I must say that this reminds me - eerily - of a certain conversation at work. Similarities include starting completely calm, progressing via "don't take this personally" into full-blown tirade about how bad person I am. While saying that it's not personal.

I talked about it with one of our coaches... and he said that while I was offering answer/solution, the person was asking for validation of his opinions. And me giving solutions only made him more angry, since I - inadvertently - from his point of view - disregarded himself via ignoring his opinion.

I am sorry you had to go through something like that. It's always unpleasant for the GM to get into stuff like this.

EDIT: Oh, and sorry for offering advice instead of my sympathies. You have them.

I... I just love that, like most of the rest of us, you repeat your mistake of "helping" on the "wrong" frequency. At least you caught it this time! :smallwink:

Me, I'm just a ****, and have no tolerance for those who cannot accept my comments in the spirit that they were given. Out of respect for the OP, I have spent the willpower to not engage in the many tempting side conversations, at least until I've addressed the topic of their rant.

Faily
2017-08-14, 04:11 PM
....that's a gross oversimplification of social combat systems. The idea is generally to go beyond that, adding structure to trying to convince someone, and stopping social stuff from being 'okay, now we've done the roleplay make your charisma check'.

Because people love saying it about combat, A GOOD SOCIAL CONFLICT SYSTEM DOES NOTHING TO INHIBIT ROLEPLAYING. In fact it can encourage it through it's guidance, allowing roleplay to twist and turn with the abilities of the characters as well as the roleplayers, and allows a strong start to make winning easier.

In Fate if I make a good roll in a social conflict I my opponent takes Stress and potentially Consequences, and I get a free invoke on Consequences I inflict. Looks like that strategy worked, maybe I should continue it.

Otherwise you end up with either 'one roll wins all' or 'the smelly, dishevelled and uncharismatic Fighter successfully convinces the Duke that he should send his armies to fight the dragon, and that a bath isn't necessary'.


Yes, I admit it was a gross oversimplification of most social combat systems, mostly because I did not want to get into details on specific systems.

And yes, I understand that they are supposed to provide structure to convincing someone, but in my experience, it ends up actually more with the players leaning more on gaming the mechanics of the social combat-rules, rather than attempting to roleplay through a social situation. Each to their own. And sure, you could make the same argument that people are gaming the combat-rules, but then again most of us aren't actively swinging swords or shooting arrows at the gaming-table, right? :smallwink:

SIFRP has a its own social combat, called Intrigue. You have your own social combat HP and you are basically making "attacks" at that Social HP. Engaging in Intrigue was perhaps the most frustrating thing I ever did as a player in SIFRP, because it *did not matter* what I the player was saying as means of arguments, suggestions, or ideas, because in the end it came down to just rolling the dice and letting those determine the outcome, rather than allowing the player's actions to give bonus or penalty to the total of the roll (which I often experience GMs doing for D&D/Pathfinder when it comes to Diplomacy; present what you're saying, and recieve circumstance-bonus/penalty to the total of the roll from that).

Ars Magica has Debate rules, which are again a form of social combat. You have to choose between three forms of "attack", and the defendant chooses between three forms of "defense". And... well, it works, if you just want to roll the dice and see who wins/loses. Personally, I hated the debate-rules, and would much rather take a few minutes to prep myself for a proper debate, and roleplay a proper debate.

Both of these systems I personally found to be stifling and frustrating to deal with as a player, and yeah, I personally would've preferred to roleplay my presentation/diplomatic approach and then finish it off with one single skill check. But it seems we prefer different strokes, and that's ok.

Cluedrew
2017-08-14, 04:26 PM
First, sympathies to Eldan.

Second, I have found systems that do social mechanics well, but they look nothing like combat rules.

Anonymouswizard
2017-08-14, 05:03 PM
And yes, I understand that they are supposed to provide structure to convincing someone, but in my experience, it ends up actually more with the players leaning more on gaming the mechanics of the social combat-rules, rather than attempting to roleplay through a social situation. Each to their own. And sure, you could make the same argument that people are gaming the combat-rules, but then again most of us aren't actively swinging swords or shooting arrows at the gaming-table, right? :smallwink:

Ah, that argument. But if my character with 18 charisma has the same ability to talk as me, with my speech impediment, poor ability to pick words, slow ability to transform my thoughts into words, then a character with 18 Strength shouldn't be able to lift more than I can or wield a sword better than me.

Because that argument should cut both ways. If you're basing one bit of your character's stats on my abilities go the whole hog, or except that maybe my character can word it better than I can.

I'd ****ing hate your games, because I'd never be able to convince anyone. Sure I can roleplay, but I'm going to be slow picking my words and not very IRL persuasive.


SIFRP has a its own social combat, called Intrigue. You have your own social combat HP and you are basically making "attacks" at that Social HP. Engaging in Intrigue was perhaps the most frustrating thing I ever did as a player in SIFRP, because it *did not matter* what I the player was saying as means of arguments, suggestions, or ideas, because in the end it came down to just rolling the dice and letting those determine the outcome, rather than allowing the player's actions to give bonus or penalty to the total of the roll (which I often experience GMs doing for D&D/Pathfinder when it comes to Diplomacy; present what you're saying, and recieve circumstance-bonus/penalty to the total of the roll from that).

Sounds horrible, but you're SUPPOSED to be applying circumstantial modifiers in most social conflict systems based on what you say, like you're supposed to apply them in combat based on positioning, terrain, ect.


Ars Magica has Debate rules, which are again a form of social combat. You have to choose between three forms of "attack", and the defendant chooses between three forms of "defense". And... well, it works, if you just want to roll the dice and see who wins/loses. Personally, I hated the debate-rules, and would much rather take a few minutes to prep myself for a proper debate, and roleplay a proper debate.

Oh boy, an hour of debating about stuff none of use really understand. It sounds like a horrible system, but so is having to participate in a debate I'm not prepared for.


Both of these systems I personally found to be stifling and frustrating to deal with as a player, and yeah, I personally would've preferred to roleplay my presentation/diplomatic approach and then finish it off with one single skill check. But it seems we prefer different strokes, and that's ok.

That's fine, but please don't lump all social conflict systems together. There's many, ranging from rubbish to good, just like physical conflict systems. Again, you're forcing me to base my 18 Charisma character's abilities on my RL array of social disabilities and speech problems.

Faily
2017-08-14, 06:11 PM
I'm just going to stop you early there and say that it was my personal preference as a player (my arguments was about what I prefer as a *player*). My personal preference, as a player, is in social situations to roleplay my character (and no, that doesn't suddenly make my Charisma 9 Witch into a skilled diplomat).

If I were your GM, or your co-player, difficulties such as speech impediments would be respected and not be used against you, just as we never force players who aren't interested in roleplaying out diplomatic scenes to do so. But what works with my groups here is that at the very least tell the GM in broadstrokes what you are trying to accomplish and how (like "I kinda want to be authorative and remind him that that he'd best not mess with us, uhm, mention like the Big Bad Guy we took down last year", ok roll Intimidate and get a +3 circumstance bonus since he did hear about you taking down the BBG).

IMO, groups should adjust and work out amongst themselves how to best accomodate players and GM alike. If there are players in the group who have impediments that can make certain situations difficult (mine is math, btw, I used to need a lot of help with it but roleplaying games have actually helped me overcome a lot of my difficulties with numbers), it should be taken into consideration by the group. This is, in my experience and opinion, something that contribute to building a healthy gaming-group that will stay with you for a long time. Especially even more so if you are social with members outside of the gaming-sessions.

As for the Ars Magica example above: we had always before in our Ars Magica sessions relied more on us players roleplaying situations like the debate-scenario... until the one who was currently GMing wanted to introduce the new Debate rules that came with one of the splatbooks. The majority of the group were not happy at the end of that session in having what normally could've been interesting roleplay-scenarios reduced to a series of rolls. But again, that is the preference of that particular playgroup.

GungHo
2017-08-15, 09:29 AM
I am going to agree with others that said that this person may have had a bad day. I would add that it's also likely that he drank some podcast & forum koolaid at some point in the past and it's now taking effect. You pushed the issue a bit by forcing him to interact and you got the anger ball. It may or may not ever repeat again, but clearly this guy didn't like your attempts at engagement. It's up to you to decide if you want to entertain him by making a change to your game or not. I wouldn't suggest continuing the fight or making a big deal about it, because disagreements happen between friends, but those disagreements are rarely worth not being friends.

Florian
2017-08-15, 09:53 AM
That doesn't make it "Bad for Roleplaying". That just means that it doesn't have many RULES for roleplaying.

You can roleplay with exactly zero rules. We grew up doing that as children. In fact, arguments can be made that RP-focused mechanics just get in the way, and so a system that barely touches Roleplay mechanically is better than one that strictly codifies social interactions.

A Rulebook contains Mechanical Aspects. That's what it's there for. They don't need to dedicate a section to playing pretend.

I think you confuse "mechanics for roleplaying" with "social combat". The former should enhance roleplaying, the later give an alternative to roleplaying, if needed.

Take the different Courtier schools in L5R as an example. Some give you hints and tipps about the NPC you deal with, like the Scorpion school telling you what personal flaws they potentially have, or the Crane school knowing general gossip about a person.

This are mechanics that will actually help you roleplaying a "scheming Scorpion".

Dimers
2017-08-15, 11:08 AM
I'd like my players to talk and consider the NPC and make arguments. Not gain advantage, collect social tokens, compel weaknesses or add up successes.

What would you suggest for a player who wants to get practical value out of an interaction but sucks at the "considering NPCs and making arguments" thing?

My question probably won't help you with the issue you're experiencing, but it might help me avoid the same on occasion.

denthor
2017-08-15, 11:49 AM
I am missing something. This player is upset at no talk? Am I correct on that statement.



2nd He is listening to a podcast?

Since I have never heard a podcast of anything I have to guess it is like a radio broadcast. Am I correct?

If I am correct then on both statements then what your friend is hearing with out pictures like television or movie is just dialogue. He is equating this fight scenes and all told in a graphic style for those not there.

Example : in our group we have had a player say

"I use my acrobatic skill to jump to the top of the stairway banister. Jump to the Chandelier and swing across the room doing a double somersault in the air. Land on my feet and prepare for the next round of combat .

Or

Investigation a cleric of fire is taking sanctuary in temple of water priest. Why? There used to be a temple of fire priests in this town. That was destroyed when they banned those priests from being in the town.


Talk talk in a podcast.

Do I understand?

EldritchWeaver
2017-08-16, 10:36 AM
2nd He is listening to a podcast?

Since I have never heard a podcast of anything I have to guess it is like a radio broadcast. Am I correct?

Podcasts derive their name from the iPod, which allowed to play MP3s of all kinds, including the audio of interviews, playsessions, radio playshows... So a podcast is a broadcast played on iPods. This was generalized to name any audio-only content being consumed on any device, which didn't fall under an existing category like music.

GungHo
2017-08-17, 08:04 AM
Podcasts derive their name from the iPod, which allowed to play MP3s of all kinds, including the audio of interviews, playsessions, radio playshows... So a podcast is a broadcast played on iPods. This was generalized to name any audio-only content being consumed on any device, which didn't fall under an existing category like music.

To add further context, a lot of these podcasts are issue/subject-matter-oriented. There are ones about Star Trek and episode by episode reviews of those shows. There are ones about Star Wars. There are ones about politics. There are ones about comedy. There are are ones about science news. And there are ones about roleplaying. The roleplaying podcasts may be audio recordings of playing sessions or may be interviews of people in the roleplaying industry. They may also be like spoken blogs where people are providing their opinions regarding roleplaying games, rules, etc.

daniel_ream
2017-08-18, 04:48 AM
Not much to add beyond the usual comments about rules mechanics.


Some players enjoy system mastery. The more rules a system has, and the more it has for a particular topic, the more that game will attract people who enjoy optimizing those topic rules. Over time, this will lead to a public perception that a game is "about" the most mechanically detailed topic in that game - regardless of the intent of the designers. This will attract even more of those players, and dissuade people who are interested in topics less detailed in the rules.
One purpose for rules is to provide a framework for resolving topics that the players themselves might not be very conversant with. The notion that every player is personally smooth and charming enough to seduce the Faerie Queen, BS the King's Spymaster, or wheedle an extra three crowns out of the corner hrung merchant is as silly as the notion that every player is intimately acquainted with small unit tactics, the occult correspondences of rare stones, or how not to step on a nightingale floor[1].
There's nothing special about combat that requires detailed or "impartial" mechanics, and there's nothing special about social interaction that requires it to be improv theater.



[1] Walk slowly on the edges of your feet, as close to the walls/support beams as possible

Quertus
2017-08-21, 10:05 AM
There's nothing special about combat that requires detailed or "impartial" mechanics, and there's nothing special about social interaction that requires it to be improv theater.

This is true. As a matter of personal preference, I require both to be highly detailed. Combat, I'm ok with stopping at the level of detail I've seen in RPGs. But my requirements for social interactions are too complex to be handled by any system I've played with, so improv theater is required.

dps
2017-08-21, 06:25 PM
Clearly, your alleged "friend" must die. I can hook you up; I know a guy who knows a guy. He's not cheap though, and he'll want half in advance, half when the job's done. And I'll want a finder's fee.









































:smallbiggrin: