PDA

View Full Version : When roleplaying fails...



Holice
2013-04-02, 04:26 PM
During a recent party adventure, we had player dispute on which way to travel. The party was split 3 v 2, and neither side could agree with the other. We ended up each going separate ways, but since both ways were non-combat oriented no one died or got in trouble.

However, had this been a combat situation/encounter, one side would have been decimated more than likely.

So now the age old question was asked why can't we use diplomacy and intimidate on players, so long as its used as an aid, not a mind controlling spell. Why won't wizard just say yes at the discretion of the GM, instead of being vague and unresponsive?

The number one reason I see against is that that it takes control away from the player from their character and that should never happen. But I ask, what if that player is not role playing their character properly? And by that I mean, there is a half ogre fighter who suddenly becomes a master strategist and detective, despite having a 6 in int and wis. Or the character from far away land raised by nobility suddenly knows exactly who to question in the slums for answers in a town he just arrived at yesterday.

I am all for role playing, but I feel the simplicity of a dice roll can keep a party on track and in character focused. And if you choose to not properly role play your character, than you deserve to have skills dictate your path, until you learn to be a better player and team member.

Tsriel
2013-04-02, 04:36 PM
It's because your GM can't take sides. Ever. As soon as he/she does, the stigma of picking favorites sets in. No GM ever wants that stigma. It's difficult to get rid of. GM was right to let the group try to work it out. Unfortunately, a compromise couldn't be reached and your GM wisely chose to not punish anybody for it. (In this case, via random encounter.)

As for use of skills against other players, it's not very good form as it often comes across as PvP. Tabletop RPGs aren't built with this kind of play in mind. As for keeping them focused, a simple "Given your capabilities, how exactly did your character come up with this?" should be enough to keep RP in check.

Grinner
2013-04-02, 04:49 PM
Because like it or not, the player characters are always special. It may not make sense intradiagetically, but remember that the game is ultimately just a game. It's a means of entertainment, not simulation.

scurv
2013-04-02, 04:54 PM
I tend to frown on the use of social skills on PC's Due mostly to the fact that I rather the Roleplaying Over the roll playing. One option to keep in mind is discontinuing that campaign. I have and have been in party's where there was a PC fall out and that is what the DM opted to do, Mostly to avoid drama.

Just keep in mind and I tell my players this, Once a social roll has been done, They have already started Player Vs Player. These groups tend to be (although not always) hardened killers and in the words of bill from kill bill


I'm a killer! I'm a murdering bastard, you know that. And there are consequences to breaking the heart of a murdering bastard

So this being said, Is that the type person you want to try your luck with intimidation or bluff rolls with?

But in pure group dynamics, Last time I had a DM tell me what my char was thinking and was going to do, I packed my books up at the table and left after about an hour of it.

NikitaDarkstar
2013-04-02, 05:06 PM
The only time I can see skill checks being used against other players is as an aid if the character is supposed to be very diplomatic/intimidating/otherwise convincing but the player is not. But the other player is still perfectly justified to an opposed roll, the discussion/argument still needs to be RP'd and the rolls is only there to help guide the reaction, not dictate it.

And even then it's sketchy, it's better used on NPC's.

icefractal
2013-04-02, 05:11 PM
Re: Social skill vs other players. There are two issues:
1) It should really be considered PvP, to the same extent that stabbing another PC or casting Dominate Person on them is PvP. For most campaigns, that's not desirable.

2) Even in a PvP game, the social skills are not actually balanced. It's really easy to get a giant bonus to Diplomacy or Intimidate that auto-wins against anyone that didn't massively buff their own skills. Even in a normal campaign this can be an issue (see "Diplomancer"), but then at least the GM can adjust the foes and the challenges to somewhat compensate. In PvP, this isn't an option.

So, TL;DR - using social skills against other PCs is only slightly more legitimate than using Candle of Invocation shenanigans to spam Dominate Person against them until they fail the save. Not something that most campaigns benefit from.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-04-02, 05:16 PM
The one situation i can see for allowing PvP social rolls is when the disagreement is in-character, rather than out-of-character, and is clearly going no-where. In such a situation, I might step in an say "OK, Grok and Grag argue for a while longer. If you guys don't mind, how 'bout we settle it with a Charisma check?"

TheIronGolem
2013-04-02, 05:26 PM
But I ask, what if that player is not role playing their character properly?
What makes you a competent judge of whether another player is roleplaying their character "properly"?


And by that I mean, there is a half ogre fighter who suddenly becomes a master strategist and detective, despite having a 6 in int and wis.
This example is too vague to be useful, especially since a low INT/WIS character can still be quite clever and shrewd at times. Goblins, for example, are often depicted as being short on INT/WIS but are perfectly capable of using teamwork and ambush tactics, even against smarter prey.


Or the character from far away land raised by nobility suddenly knows exactly who to question in the slums for answers in a town he just arrived at yesterday.
That's a different sort of problem, and you won't solve it by violating player agency with a die roll. The GM's job here is to say "you don't know that, find another way to do this".


And if you choose to not properly role play your character, than you deserve to have skills dictate your path, until you learn to be a better player and team member.
Again, who are you to say someone isn't roleplaying "properly"? If Bob and Alice want to go back to town to heal and resupply but Carol and Dave want to press on and find the dragon's lair, why does one pair have to be "doing it wrong"? Do you think properly-roleplayed characters in a group can't disagree on what to do next or decide on independent courses of action?

NikitaDarkstar
2013-04-02, 06:21 PM
The one situation i can see for allowing PvP social rolls is when the disagreement is in-character, rather than out-of-character, and is clearly going no-where. In such a situation, I might step in an say "OK, Grok and Grag argue for a while longer. If you guys don't mind, how 'bout we settle it with a Charisma check?"

TThis is basically what I meant. I was going on the assumption that the argument was an IC one, not an OOC one. :)

Traab
2013-04-02, 06:34 PM
When the team is more or less evenly divided, flip a coin to break the deadlock. No favoritism involved and everyone agrees to do what the coin says. This side steps any problems with mind controlling fellow players and lets you leave that can of worms standing upright instead of kicked over.

kyoryu
2013-04-02, 08:10 PM
In Burning Wheel, you'd just do a Duel of Wits between the parties. That works well. Charisma monkeys get to actually lead, the larger party gets an advantage, and even the "losing" side usually gets something in the way of concession.

The other option is to just let them go off and get slaughtered. If they don't value teamwork, let them pay that price.

Seriously, this is almost a social contract issue. The party works together to keep the game going.

Jenfrag
2013-04-02, 09:17 PM
It's because your GM can't take sides. Ever. As soon as he/she does, the stigma of picking favorites sets in. No GM ever wants that stigma. It's difficult to get rid of.

I know this stigma and I've observed that GM's really don't want it,it's just so hard to handle.

dps
2013-04-02, 11:58 PM
Again, who are you to say someone isn't roleplaying "properly"? If Bob and Alice want to go back to town to heal and resupply but Carol and Dave want to press on and find the dragon's lair, why does one pair have to be "doing it wrong"? Do you think properly-roleplayed characters in a group can't disagree on what to do next or decide on independent courses of action?

Yeah, the title of the thread would be more accurately "When players can't agree..." than "When roleplaying fails...". Disagreeing on the course of action can just as easily be in-character as OOC.

tommhans
2013-04-03, 02:20 AM
we use dices occasionally to either convince a guy in the party that is for example against his moral view(we tortured a guy and dragged him behind our caravan to a town.) so i threw a persuade check and critted :D so that got decided and agreed upon quickly ^^ (that npc we tortured actually ended up helping us in a fight in the end and becoming a true hero to our quest, we let him go in the free after we killed all the orcs :) )

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-04-03, 03:06 AM
The number one reason I see against is that that it takes control away from the player from their character and that should never happen.
Well, that boat sailed when they wrote the rules so that every single creature capable of feeling fear reacts the exact same way to fear, every time, without fail. While it's not ideal for one to lose control of one's character, a system of fair and expedient rules often takes precedence over gripping psychological realism. When this is acceptable and when it is not acceptable should be decided by the DM and players.

Personally, I don't see too much problem with skill checks being used against players, but perhaps that's coming from a table where PCs making bluff checks against the party has become enough of a running joke that I don't associate it with PVP the way others seem to. Granted, I would probably use diplomacy more as a guideline the players should follow ("As much as you trust your survival skill over his, he was very convincing") than anything else, and I don't really see any way around intimidate being a very aggressive skill to use, but otherwise using social skills on one's party doesn't seem too problematic, to me.

scurv
2013-04-03, 05:29 AM
Well, that boat sailed when they wrote the rules so that every single creature capable of feeling fear reacts the exact same way to fear, every time, without fail. While it's not ideal for one to lose control of one's character, a system of fair and expedient rules often takes precedence over gripping psychological realism. When this is acceptable and when it is not acceptable should be decided by the DM and players.

Personally, I don't see too much problem with skill checks being used against players, but perhaps that's coming from a table where PCs making bluff checks against the party has become enough of a running joke that I don't associate it with PVP the way others seem to. Granted, I would probably use diplomacy more as a guideline the players should follow ("As much as you trust your survival skill over his, he was very convincing") than anything else, and I don't really see any way around intimidate being a very aggressive skill to use, but otherwise using social skills on one's party doesn't seem too problematic, to me.


That also requires a level of maturity to both respond like adults and not abuse in the first place. I have seen players who expect social rolls to have the same power of influence as high end mind controlling spells and psionics. Besides Something i tell my players to keep in mind about Hurk the barbarian He might very-well respond to manipulation lies or intimidation by taking his two handed axe to your face. Their are two edges to nearly every skill, And in social rolls that is one that is all to often over looked.

Holice
2013-04-03, 12:43 PM
I appreciate the critiques and criticisms here, most of them add good perspectives to their respective "side" on the issue.

It really comes down to the fine line between meta gaming and role playing, and it bugs me when people intertwine the two. And it may be nonsensical, to ever believe that you can truly play an rpg without people having their characters think as they would. And I just personally feel that like in real life(think JFK, MLK, or even Obama) charisma is one of the greatest attributes to gain people to your way of thinking, and having them do what you want. But when you're at a table with others, they just know you as a friend/co-gamer and forget just how charismatic your character is.

And @ Irongolem
It really isn't that difficult to tell if someone is role playing a character properly.
And your example with the goblins is no different than a pack of wolves hunting or a few lioness chasing their prey into an ambush. Just because animals show this kind of instinct, we do not assume they are intelligent by human standards. So while some "groups" can show resemblances of tactics, I was more referring to a dumb and unwise character knowing exactly what book to look in to find the secret cipher to a scroll, without having been previously told what to do by a much more intelligent person.

Flickerdart
2013-04-03, 12:50 PM
there is a half ogre fighter who suddenly becomes a master strategist and detective, despite having a 6 in int and wis
"They think they can outsmart me. Maybe, maybe. I have yet to meet one who can outsmart bullet."



Or the character from far away land raised by nobility suddenly knows exactly who to question in the slums for answers in a town he just arrived at yesterday.
Gather Information doesn't take that long, and the game of court intrigue is the same everywhere. If you think that nobles don't have dealings with unsavoury elements when it is convenient or necessary to do so, then you have another thing coming.

Saying that someone is not role playing "properly" is incredibly presumptuous of you. Why should you get to dictate who their characters are and how they behave?

scurv
2013-04-03, 01:51 PM
I think much of the disagreement here is based on how groups use the rolls to progress their sessions

I know some groups that for every gather information check you do, You will be given a few clues by the DM and it is on you to rp though trails

I know some groups that will say roll it once and be done with it.

Now I am not saying ether is a bad style. But it can be hard to be in one camp and try to understand the other.

As for social rolls, It can be problematic to use them, But some groups thrive on them. ((although if you want an education in them, nwn2 persistent world servers can be quite educational)) I tend to use them for an aid to put the rp on a short duration train track. But I also keep the spell description from charm person in mind as a guide to good sense.



This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming

So if one is attempting to do a check to get the opposing party to do something that is against their grain, Such as abandon a life long quest/obsession, obvious suicide, killing their lord (depending on alignment, Although considering some adventures that is something they do before breakfast) Or anything that is opposed to their well-being. Then It pushes the boundary of what smooth talking can accomplish with one roll. Just keep that in mind when asking the druid to burn the forest, Or the greedy thief to give up their gold.

kyoryu
2013-04-03, 03:07 PM
I think much of the disagreement here is based on how groups use the rolls to progress their sessions

I use rolls when a) it is unclear what the outcome is and b) there's an interesting possibility either way the roll goes.

For me, player arguments about which way to go fall under both of those categories. And frankly I'd rather roll a couple of dice, or model it as a mental conflict in Fate, or a Duel of Wits in BW, and *get on with the game* than sit around and listen to two people not budge an inch for an hour.

Delwugor
2013-04-03, 03:20 PM
During a recent party adventure, we had player dispute on which way to travel. The party was split 3 v 2, and neither side could agree with the other. We ended up each going separate ways, but since both ways were non-combat oriented no one died or got in trouble.
Can you please explain how this is not good roleplaying?

TheIronGolem
2013-04-03, 04:32 PM
And @ Irongolem
It really isn't that difficult to tell if someone is role playing a character properly.
And your example with the goblins is no different than a pack of wolves hunting or a few lioness chasing their prey into an ambush. Just because animals show this kind of instinct, we do not assume they are intelligent by human standards.
That is exactly my point; "dumb" creatures can and will do very clever things that let them get the better of smarter ones. So it's perfectly legitimate for that 6-INT ogre (who, compared to those animals, is a genius) to use good tactics in a fight. In fact it may well be the reason he's otherwise dumb; fighting is all he thinks about. Low mental scores don't automatically mean a character should just blindly smash his way through every combat.


So while some "groups" can show resemblances of tactics, I was more referring to a dumb and unwise character knowing exactly what book to look in to find the secret cipher to a scroll, without having been previously told what to do by a much more intelligent person.
This example is much like your previous one about the noble somehow zeroing in on the right underworld contact, in that it's a problem, but not one that can be solved by employing social rolls against the character.

We're still waiting to hear how the party split you referred to was a problem with someone not roleplaying properly.

Terraoblivion
2013-04-03, 04:48 PM
I have to wonder what could be so big that these people would risk leaving their companions over it and enter potentially dangerous situations. It sounds like either players doing their own egocentric thing, a major ethical or ideological question they faced or something where everybody involved were almost completely certain they wouldn't face significant trouble along the way. If it's the latter, there's no problem as it was just a simple diversion that was genuinely not intended to be a challenge. If it's the second then it is likely good roleplaying as long as it was a choice that couldn't be deferred to a later, safer situation and all parties were strongly ideologically invested in it.

If it was the first, though, then you'll need to work with the rest of the players to find more compromising characters who put things like friendship, safety and loyalty over getting their way.

However, it's hard to say much without knowing what the argument was about.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-04-03, 04:49 PM
Just because animals show this kind of instinct, we do not assume they are intelligent by human standards. So while some "groups" can show resemblances of tactics, I was more referring to a dumb and unwise character knowing exactly what book to look in to find the secret cipher to a scroll, without having been previously told what to do by a much more intelligent person.

Well, if we're going to assume that the less intelligent a character is, the closer to a non-human animal the character becomes, it's perfectly reasonable for that character to solve plenty of puzzles and mysteries that leave the "intelligent" characters baffled; consider how susceptible to "framing effects" decision making studies have demonstrated even the most intelligent humans to be, while animal behavior studies have found largely oppositional results when trying to trick many "less intelligent" animals with framing effects.

Jay R
2013-04-03, 06:32 PM
So now the age old question was asked why can't we use diplomacy and intimidate on players, so long as its used as an aid, not a mind controlling spell.

You're trying to make them agree to walk your way instead of their way. That is using it as a mind controlling spell.

Terraoblivion
2013-04-03, 06:43 PM
Not if he's willing to accept them saying no, even on a success. As long as they play out some kind of appropriate reaction.

JackRose
2013-04-03, 06:52 PM
Because at the point that someone else is able to determine what my character does, I'm no longer interested in playing the game.

It's this reason that I'm extremely leery to use mind controlling spells, fear effects, or the similar as a GM.

kyoryu
2013-04-03, 06:59 PM
You're trying to make them agree to walk your way instead of their way. That is using it as a mind controlling spell.

It's a negotiation, and sometimes you lose the negotiation, and you end up agreeing to something you weren't going to agree with initially.

I'll quote a little Burning Wheel here. If you lose something like that, you agree to *do* something. You may still hate it. It's not mind control, it doesn't change your opinion. It just means you've been coerced in some fashion.

scurv
2013-04-03, 07:49 PM
An aspect of social rolls that tends to be forgotten, Is that people can and DO hold grudges for losing arguments. A Win on a diplomacy roll does not mean that you were persuaded with no ill feelings ((BTW this is where actual Roleplay to back the roll play comes in handy))

If jenkis the rogue is always rolling his bluff roll. at some point hurk the barbarian is going to catch on that jenkis talks fertilizer. To illistrate with a common joke


"How can you tell he is lieing", Reply" His lips are moving"
Or to say it another way, Do you trust a politician to tell you the truth or what you want to hear?

Social rolls are not a bad thing, But there are points where credibility needs to back the roll and that is often neglected in the rules and a point of contention in some roleplay

Jarawara
2013-04-03, 07:58 PM
"Don't split the party"....

....is the beginning of bad roleplay.

Why can't the party split? Because the DM will kill them if they do. Because the DM prepared encounters based off the strength of the party, and that encounter will destroy half the party, therefore you must face that encounter with the full party and at good strength.

Therefore, the party deciding to stick together regardless of disagreements is a party that is acknowledging that they are in a game controlled by a DM who is preparing his world with the complete party as his basis. This is something the characters would surely not know; therefore it is bad roleplay for them to stick together for the sake of the game.

Conversely, it is good roleplay for them to go their separate ways, if the disagreement calls for such action.

The DM who kills such a party would be punishing good roleplay.

*~*~*

It's ok, of course, for the players to agree to stick together for the sake of the game (and the sanity of the DM who is unprepared for two groups going in two directions at once), but to imply that it was bad roleplay that led to the split... and to propose rules to "force" good roleplay to put the group back together... is clearly wrong thinking and a bad idea.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-04-03, 09:43 PM
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the title entirely. The intention, as I understood it, was not to convey that splitting the party is bad or improper roleplaying, but just the opposite: while splitting the party is often good roleplay, doing so is generally bad from a metagame perspective, for various reasons. Hence why the thread is called "When roleplaying fails. . ." not "When people fail at roleplaying. . ."

Totally Guy
2013-04-04, 02:43 AM
When I play games that features social conflict mechanics I like to use the following diagram as a kind of rule of thumb.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v44/macdonnell/Argument.gif

In my mind a player character that is targetted has 3 choices to make in such a situation. Do I even listen at all or do I leave (or otherwise negate) the situation? Is there something I want from the other person and will make a case for? (Can I make it such a high stake that they'll chooe to leave?) Do I escalate this to violence in the immediate aftermath?

As such I don't feel guilty about playing hard and doing my worst because the victim has ways to influence the very nature of the game in those choices that are tied directly to their character. The close I look the more I see opportunity.

We also clarify exactly what it is that each party wants so that the line doesn't get redrawn after the fact. We need to all know at the question stage whether a character is expected to give up an ambition or just go along with a single descision right now.

The diagram up there may not be a simulation of physics or whatever but by acknowledging that this sort of structure is valid for play we focus on those specific questions and make it an interesting play experience.

Like Kyoryu I'd use a system designed to handle this kind of play such as Burning Wheel rather than D&D where you can't use social skills on other players. It of course also requires a group acknowledgement the play has freedom for players to pursue their goals in their own ways rather than the GM prep being branches and planned encounters (with the player character goals being incidental to that).

Premier
2013-04-04, 08:34 AM
"Don't split the party"....

....is the beginning of bad roleplay.

Why can't the party split? Because the DM will kill them if they do. Because the DM prepared encounters based off the strength of the party, and that encounter will destroy half the party, therefore you must face that encounter with the full party and at good strength.

What if the DM has NOT "prepared encounters based off the strength of the party"? What if he just rolls on a random encounter table he prepared based on what sort of dangers and other elements are likely to crop up based on the internal logic of the setting?

Say, it's been already established in-game that there a group of bandits numbering 12-20, a rampaging minotaur and its two hobgoblin cohorts and pack of wolves numbering [whatever] infesting the road between A-town and B-ville. Any of these might but isn't guaranteed to meet the travellers.

The PCs might decide to travel separately, but there will still be 12-20 bandits, a rampaging minotaur with two hobgoblins and a pack wolves numbering [whatever], and good roleplaying or not, the PCs are making things harder for themselves. And no, the bandits won't suddenly and mysteriously decide to leave half their numbers at home to make it sporting on their victims. After all, that would be, in your own words, "acknowledging that they are in a game controlled by a DM who is preparing his world with the complete party as his basis", and, as you pointed out, that'd be wrong.


Conversely, it is good roleplay for them to go their separate ways, if the disagreement calls for such action.

It might be good "roleplay", but it's poor roleplaying. Being a good player of RPGs does not end with playing your character to the hilt. You want to do that and nothing more, go join a theatre group. Being a good RPG player also involves a whole slew of other things such as showing up on time, bringing snacks, being a decent and fun fellow to be around, putting your share of effort into making sure every has a good time, showing initiative in the game, or not trying to hog all the spotlight.

And that's exactly what you're proposing. You're proposing that players should say "I don't care if this will slow the game down to half speed because the DM will have to run two separate journeys, and I don't care if it means everyone will have to sit around being bored for half the session while the DM is doing the other group; I'll still insist on it because I'm entitled to play my character to the hilt!. And that's hogging the spotlight, and consequently being a very poor roleplayer.

Jay R
2013-04-04, 09:50 AM
It's a negotiation, and sometimes you lose the negotiation, and you end up agreeing to something you weren't going to agree with initially.

It's a negotiation when you're talking. It's a competition when you're rolling dice.

Shpadoinkle
2013-04-04, 10:50 AM
Because as soon as you allow Diplomacy and Intimidate to be used on other players, it becomes a race to see who can boost those checks as high as they can, and whoever figures out how to do it best effectively becomes the only player in the group. Everybody else is kinda screwed if they don't want to go along with Mr. Munchkin because his character will be able to talk theirs into whatever he wants them to do, regardless of what the players choose to do.

Holice
2013-04-04, 11:05 AM
We're still waiting to hear how the party split you referred to was a problem with someone not roleplaying properly.

The reason was because of an OOC comment that was made were the player said, "On CSI they would definitely go look at where this person lives."

The information provided by the DM was, "The guy grabbed the item and immediately set off to the banker."

So why on earth would anyone, who is not a detective, or have a back story that involved detective work...(And we know the back stories because the DM requires a detailed background so that you can't suddenly say...oh yea btw, I've spent 4 years of my life at a monastery), have any thoughts to go search a house that A) we don't even know exists, B) was not included at all in the "known" information.

So indeed there are times when you "know" that someone is making OOC judgements and not IC judgements, and thus, not role playing their character, but instead transporting their own mind and past into the character.

Jarawara
2013-04-04, 11:09 AM
What if the DM...

Ah, stop right there! What the DM does or not does is irrelevant to my point. It is bad roleplay on the part of the players to take action (or not take action) based on what they think the DM will do.

The claim that you should not split the party is most commonly based on the fact that the party will die if split up. But in real life, people split up all the time, and rarely do they die because of it.

Bob, Rick, Jenna, and I are at the mall. Bob has to buy a new ipad, and goes to the electronics store. Jenna and I want some 'us' time, and so we ditch Rick at the food court. We text back and forth and all agree to meet and Ricks later on for RPG night. Most likely, none of us were killed by wandering monsters on the way to Rick's place.

At the game, our characters are in town Bob's character wants to buy a new iSpell, so the four of us go to the wizard's store. Jenna's character and mine want some 'us' time (for rp xp bonuses!), so Rick and Bob stay in the lobby of the inn while we rp upstairs. Then we agree to... well, stay together at the same inn, for mutual protection.

And gods forbid that we leave line-of-sight in the dungeon, even for a moment!

It's silly! It's bad roleplay. But time and time again the old adage has been proven true, enough that players repeat the mantra "Don't split the party", regardless of how real people would act in similar situations. Years of learning the hard way how dangerous it is to take action alone is ground into the players. It would take years of the DM *not punishing* the players for individual action to undo it. Many players wouldn't take the chance, even then. The players want their characters to stay alive, so they stick to the realities of the *game*, not of the world their characters are in.

Once you use game-related reasoning to explain your character's actions, you've abandoned roleplay.

What the DM actually had planned, and what he actually does, is irrelevant. The bad roleplay has already occurred.


It might be good "roleplay", but it's poor roleplaying. Being a good player of RPGs does not end with playing your character to the hilt. You want to do that and nothing more, go join a theatre group. Being a good RPG player also involves a whole slew of other things such as showing up on time, bringing snacks, being a decent and fun fellow to be around, putting your share of effort into making sure every has a good time, showing initiative in the game, or not trying to hog all the spotlight.

....and I already covered that in the latter part of my post.


"It's ok, of course, for the players to agree to stick together for the sake of the game (and the sanity of the DM who is unprepared for two groups going in two directions at once)."

We obviously agree, we're just talking past each other. I was never proposing any change whatsoever. I don't believe the players should become so self-oriented that they make the game impossible to play.

I was simply responding to the ideas posted above on what is 'good' or 'bad' roleplay, and I stated my point as proof that much of the basics of playing the game is inherently bad roleplay. It's good for *playing* the game, yes. And yes, playing is good! That's what Bob, Rick, Jenna, and I came here for.

But good roleplay? Nope, that ship was wrecked the moment we said "Hello Bob's character, you look like a trustworthy fellow, care to join us on our quest?"

Holice
2013-04-04, 11:21 AM
And can i further state that I am not looking for someone with 40 ranks in Diplomacy to always get there way. There are many ways to try and make the characters feel more real.

The act of using skills to solve disputes would be based on the situation. For instance, if its 5 v 1 on which way to go then group majority wins, and worst case you only lose 1 player who refuses to budge. But if its 3 v 3, thats a much different scenario and can severely hurt a group and thus the game itself without coming to a uniform decision.

You could even go as far as combining all skill ranks amongst both sides and rolling that way. It would give the impression that each side has all its members arguing their validity.

Or the DM could provide additional bonuses at will after listening to the characters reasons for why he/she thinks this is the better way. Thus if the lower ranked character supports his way with 5 accurate and known facts from in game, he could get a plus 50, while the much higher ranked diplomancer is simply being an ass and doesn't want to follow the guy, and has no in game knowledge to support his decision.

To really sum it up, I was not looking for why rolling is dice is bad so much as I was looking for advice on what to DM's and players do when they get a party split that just can not resolve itself with words due to players being stubborn. There has been many responses about why dice rolling is bad and how it takes your character out of your hands, but none of those people have said what should the group do when you won't budge, short of leaving the person, but if you think being "convinced" is no fun, how much fun is it going to be when the DM says, "Ok you sit in the inn while they go adventure."

Ranos
2013-04-04, 11:53 AM
If you want to use social rolls on other PCs, play one of the multiple available games with detailed rules for social fights.
There's a reason it's not allowed in D&D.

TheIronGolem
2013-04-04, 12:22 PM
The reason was because of an OOC comment that was made were the player said, "On CSI they would definitely go look at where this person lives."

The information provided by the DM was, "The guy grabbed the item and immediately set off to the banker."

So why on earth would anyone, who is not a detective, or have a back story that involved detective work...(And we know the back stories because the DM requires a detailed background so that you can't suddenly say...oh yea btw, I've spent 4 years of my life at a monastery), have any thoughts to go search a house that A) we don't even know exists, B) was not included at all in the "known" information.

So indeed there are times when you "know" that someone is making OOC judgements and not IC judgements, and thus, not role playing their character, but instead transporting their own mind and past into the character.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

First, understand that the problem is not that the party split up. The problem is that somebody may have acted on knowledge their characters couldn't have had. I stress "may have" because even with the new information you've provided, it's not a given that this is what happened.

Second, you should realize that it doesn't take a detective to think of "go check the guy's house" as a step to take when trying to find the guy who took your McGuffin. Regardless of whether one has a background in investigative work, it's reasonable to assume that 1)the guy has a home, and 2)either the guy, the McGuffin, or clues to their whereabouts could be found at said home. The DM doesn't need to give you permission to make an inference based on what you know. Even low-mental-stat characters are capable of this kind of logic.

Now, if the characters in question had no way of knowing where the guy actually lived, didn't make any kind of in-character attempt to find out, and yet found the guy's house anyway through use of OOC knowledge, then that is a problem. But neither the decision to look for the guy at home nor the splitting of the party is "improper" roleplaying, unless there is some other information you have yet to include that would change things.

The impression that I'm getting is that you feel that you should have been able to override the other players' decision (that you saw as unjustifiable in-character) with social skill checks in order to convince them to take the "correct" path. Is that correct? Because if so, you don't seem to have considered the implications of having that kind of power over fellow players, nor have you made a convincing case that there is even a correction that needed to be made.

Holice
2013-04-04, 01:22 PM
How can you assume the guy has a home? As far as you know or anyone for that matter, he could be a street urchin or live at the place where we got the quest from. Secondly, if for some reason you think it is possible for those without the crunch to be a detective, why on earth would you ever check the guys home prior to following his known path? It is usually proper to go from A to B before we go to any supposed C.



The impression that I'm getting is that you feel that you should have been able to override the other players' decision (that you saw as unjustifiable in-character) with social skill checks in order to convince them to take the "correct" path. Is that correct? Because if so, you don't seem to have considered the implications of having that kind of power over fellow players, nor have you made a convincing case that there is even a correction that needed to be made.

There is no case for me to be made here. It's a very common saying that you do not split the party. For reasons both in and out of character.

And let's not confuse what the goal of this discussion is here. It is not to get one person to dominate the entire groups actions, its to provide an in game solution when out of game feelings interfere.

And as a side note, the greatest generals and leaders of all time were all known to be both incredibly brilliant and charismatic(Alexander, Tamurlane, and even that German who I need not name). I can't recall the last time a leader conquered vast lands or had millions follow his every whim simply because he could bench press a buick. So why would your character follow the words of a fighter, instead of a scholar when wits are the course of action? Maybe if your stuck in a dungeon and need to fight your way out you follow the fighter, but certainly not when doing detective work. The answer...because you are not playing your character listening to their character, you are being you listening to another player...hence...not properly role playing.

Premier
2013-04-04, 01:23 PM
Ah, stop right there! What the DM does or not does is irrelevant to my point. It is bad roleplay on the part of the players to take action (or not take action) based on what they think the DM will do.

The claim that you should not split the party is most commonly based on the fact that the party will die if split up. But in real life, people split up all the time, and rarely do they die because of it.

Bob, Rick, Jenna, and I are at the mall. Bob has to buy a new ipad, and goes to the electronics store. Jenna and I want some 'us' time, and so we ditch Rick at the food court. We text back and forth and all agree to meet and Ricks later on for RPG night. Most likely, none of us were killed by wandering monsters on the way to Rick's place.

At the game, our characters are in town Bob's character wants to buy a new iSpell, so the four of us go to the wizard's store. Jenna's character and mine want some 'us' time (for rp xp bonuses!), so Rick and Bob stay in the lobby of the inn while we rp upstairs. Then we agree to... well, stay together at the same inn, for mutual protection.

One, that's intellectually dishonest. I have given a specific example of why it is dangerous to split up the party in the wilderness, and then you barge in saying "But it isn't! Look how safe it is to split up the party in town". Come on...

Please, explain how - according to the internal logic of the setting and NOT according to metagaming considerations - it is supposedly equally safe to stay in one group and to split up in the wilderness. Not in town. In the wilderness. (Or, for that matter, in a dungeon.) That's what I was talking about. Please either address that if you disagree, or refrain from arguing against an in-town shopping example strawman that I never claimed.

Two, unless you specifically make your quasi-medieval fantasy RPG towns exactly like modern-day metropolitan shopping malls, even your shopping example is false. Getting robbed at knife-point, getting raped, getting killed to eliminate a potential witness, getting killed just because you were visibly the wrong ethnicity to walk around after dark or knocked out and pressed into lifetime slave service on a ship were all things that were very real and very significant dangers in real life cities since, well, pretty much since forever. In fact, with the exception of press ganging, they're still very real dangers in various parts of many cities, some of them in the First World. And, of course, they're all dangers that were/are lessened by travelling in a strong group.




It's silly! It's bad roleplay. But time and time again the old adage has been proven true, enough that players repeat the mantra "Don't split the party", regardless of how real people would act in similar situations. Years of learning the hard way how dangerous it is to take action alone is ground into the players.

The point you seem to miss is that dangerous action is exactly what the whole game is all about. D&D (and most other RPGs) are explicitly about the players' characters doing dangerous things in a dangerous world. And it's a team game exactly because of the common sense notion that facing that danger in a cooperating team is more likely to be successful than going it alone.

Your complaint that "players are tought by the Eeeevil DMs that going out alone gets their character killed" is like complaining about how Eeeevil Chessmasters teach players that moving their pieces without support will make them lose those pieces. Well, duh. That's what the game is about.


The players want their characters to stay alive, so they stick to the realities of the *game*, not of the world their characters are in.

Actually, the last time I checked, what the players I know wanted was to have fun. Specifically, to have fun by facing hard challenges, testing their wits against them, and seeing if they can pull through.

Of course, I gather there's also another breed of player, the one whose idea of fun is to go through nominal "challenges" but do so without ever being actually challenged or facing the danger of failure, because the single greatest kick the game delivers to them is when they get to rewrite their character sheet to reflect their new level. Well, if you're specifically and consciously catering to those sorts of players, that's your choice, and more power to you; but I for one want to have nothing with that conception of "gameplay" and "fun".

Jarawara
2013-04-04, 01:57 PM
Stuff

........ Wow.

Ok, you don't get what I'm saying. That's ok. We actually agree on most everything, so I have no problem letting you win. People get together to play a game, and they should stick together in order to play that game.

Technically, the party in my game, in town, wilderness, or dungeon, split up all the time. They do so because they each have specific tasks to accomplish, or have things they wish to do, or just because it seemed the right thing to do at the time. However, I totally get that most groups don't want to do that and I in no way think that I and my group are superior to them.

But you wanted a specific example. How's this: A party of four 1st level characters go out into the wilderness. It's scary, it's dark, they're newbies, and most everything that even remotely has stats can beat them in a fight. They stick together for mutual protection. Later on, they've become Knights, Lords (or UnderLords), Mages, High Priests. They're high level, have taken on the toughest of the tough, have underlings that accompany them whereever they go. And yet they still stick together for mutual protection, even though the very wilderness that once frightened them should now be frightened *of* them. Why? Because as characters go up in levels, so do the challenges!

Unless there is a in-story description of why the danger in the wilderness has gone up, they should now feel safe and secure in the wilderness. But they don't, because that's how the game is designed. Call it "The Eeeevil DM" if you will, but the characters instinctively know that it's dangerous to be alone, even though they should be able to crush any threat that called this place home for the previous months and years of the campaign.

Heck, I would say that there's no reason to believe it's dangerous to travel in the wilderness alone, even at 1st level, until something in the setting *tells me* it's dangerous to travel alone in the wilderness.

But it's not Wilderness Lore, nor is it Tales at the Inn, nor is it an NPC. It's the cover of the Monster Manual that tells me it's dangerous.

To fear the forest is out-of-character information, unless and until the DM (or setting) tells you to fear the forest.


But... if you don't see that, well, rest assured I agree with most everything you say, and let's leave this debate at that.

*~*~*


Of course, I gather there's also another breed of player, the one whose idea of fun is to go through nominal "challenges" but do so without ever being actually challenged or facing the danger of failure, because the single greatest kick the game delivers to them is when they get to rewrite their character sheet to reflect their new level. Well, if you're specifically and consciously catering to those sorts of players, that's your choice, and more power to you; but I for one want to have nothing with that conception of "gameplay" and "fun".

Wait... you accuse me of strawman, and then you post this?

Jarawara
2013-04-04, 02:19 PM
Oh, and Premier, just as an example of what I was trying to say in the first place...



I can't recall the last time a leader conquered vast lands or had millions follow his every whim simply because he could bench press a buick. So why would your character follow the words of a fighter, instead of a scholar when wits are the course of action? Maybe if your stuck in a dungeon and need to fight your way out you follow the fighter, but certainly not when doing detective work. The answer...because you are not playing your character listening to their character, you are being you listening to another player...hence...not properly role playing.

Correct. But we're not doing 'proper roleplay', we are playing a *game*. You follow the fighter (or the player) because he's doing something and you agree with him. Not because it's the proper roleplaying action, but because you're trying to win a game through collaborative action.

Proper roleplay went out the window the first time you linked up with him as a party. Heck, just acting as a 'party' implies an understanding of the 'game'. This aspect of the game, and it's effect on roleplay has been with you from the beginning. Don't mess it up now by trying to retroactively push good roleplay now. Let the players play the game.


That, Premier, is what I meant by "Don't Split the Party is the beginning of bad roleplay". The game is based right from the beginning on bad roleplay, but if it's what's needed to win, and more importantly to *enjoy* the game, then by all means, do some poor roleplay!!!


(My apologies to Holice for using him in this example. I'm losing sight of the original thread and don't have time to go back through it all. Your example simply what was most recent.)

kyoryu
2013-04-04, 02:28 PM
Wait... you accuse me of strawman, and then you post this?

To be honest, I've encountered players like that.

It's also a common complaint against more narrative games, but that's mostly from mis-aligned expectations and understanding than anything.

Same thing with the 'dangerous wilderness', though that's more of a problem in D&D than in most systems (D&D is an outlier in terms of how much power is gained over time, and that's only been exacerbated in recent editions). Is the expectation that 'player meet level-appropriate challenges'? Or is the expectation that the world have internal logic? Or is the expectation that you're telling an interesting story and that what happens is things that will keep the story moving and interesting?

Both sides are valid, depending on what needs you're trying to fill.

TheIronGolem
2013-04-04, 03:04 PM
How can you assume the guy has a home?
Maybe he doesn't. But most people do, so it's reasonable to assume that he does, even if that assumption later turns out to be wrong.


As far as you know or anyone for that matter, he could be a street urchin or live at the place where we got the quest from.
He could, yes. But unless they had reason to believe that, it's silly to say that they should assume such.


Secondly, if for some reason you think it is possible for those without the crunch to be a detective
What "crunch" could you need? There is no Deductive Reasoning skill.


why on earth would you ever check the guys home prior to following his known path?
Because you believe intercepting him at his next known destination isn't feasible for some reason? Because his home might give additional clues about his motivation or his next move or some weakness of his that you could exploit? Because you might be able to set up an ambush for him when he returns? Since you haven't told us what those other players' specific reasons were (if you even asked them), I can only guess, but there are certainly reasons why one would do so.


It is usually proper to go from A to B before we go to any supposed C.

Except that point B isn't set in stone. The DM might have said "he went thattaway", but that doesn't mean you're obligated to go thattaway. It sounds like the other players came up with an alternative plan to catch the guy, and it's not automatically "bad roleplaying" to do that, even if the plan fails.


There is no case for me to be made here.
If there is no case to make, it's because you don't have one. Your fellow players deserve the benefit of the doubt, so if you claim that they're roleplaying "incorrectly", then the onus is upon you to prove it, and so far you have not done that.

It's a very common saying that you do not split the party. For reasons both in and out of character.
Common does not equal correct. And there are both in-character and out-of-character reasons for the party to split up and cover more ground at times.


And let's not confuse what the goal of this discussion is here. It is not to get one person to dominate the entire groups actions, its to provide an in game solution when out of game feelings interfere.
While you haven't really shown that this is a case of out-of-game feelings interfering with in-game events, if it is then the solution is to discuss things out-of-character.


And as a side note, the greatest generals and leaders of all time were all known to be both incredibly brilliant and charismatic(Alexander, Tamurlane, and even that German who I need not name). I can't recall the last time a leader conquered vast lands or had millions follow his every whim simply because he could bench press a buick. So why would your character follow the words of a fighter, instead of a scholar when wits are the course of action?Maybe if your stuck in a dungeon and need to fight your way out you follow the fighter, but certainly not when doing detective work. The answer...because you are not playing your character listening to their character, you are being you listening to another player...hence...not properly role playing.

That's an answer. One of many possible answers. It's not the answer. Maybe I trust the fighter more than the scholar for some reason. Maybe we're old friends and I just met that other guy. Maybe I find the scholar off-putting or suspicious for some reason. Maybe I simply think the fighter's idea is better, regardless of who came up with what idea. And maybe the fighter's wrong and the scholar's right, but since we have no way of knowing that for sure at the time, my siding with the fighter isn't cause to accuse me of not roleplaying right. A character can be doing the objectively wrong thing for reasons that make perfect sense in-character.

As for those real-life figures you mentioned, I guarantee you that all of them (especially your unnamed German) - at multiple points in their careers - only "won" arguments by pulling rank on their subordinates (whether or not they were right), and that those subordinates would have gone off and done their own thing had it been an option for them. In fact, that sometimes happened anyway (as can be seen by observing your German's "desert fox"). So clearly brains and charisma don't win out every time even when you're officially in charge, so don't be surprised that it will sometimes turn out that way among equals (like, say, members of an adventuring party).

I'm not saying that the players' decision to split up can't be a result of bad roleplaying. It can, and maybe it was. But it wasn't bad roleplaying simply because it resulted in a party split, nor because the guy with the biggest mental stats didn't succeed in convincing everyone else to go along, which thus far has been the basis of your claim.

Morbis Meh
2013-04-04, 03:43 PM
A GM I played with actually had an elegant way of dealing with this, each session a party leader would be designated (it rotated from session to session) and this person would have the power to break deadlocks. This way the game kept moving and no one person always got their way, I am in the camp that social rolls should never be used for intra party conflicts. Bluff can be used but it isn't an instant mind control button, the person being duped just lets it slide this one time while they keep their eye on the bluffer.

Holice
2013-04-04, 03:44 PM
Maybe he doesn't. But most people do, so it's reasonable to assume that he does, even if that assumption later turns out to be wrong.

So you are saying it could be a hunch, or at best a reasonable guess, while the other player knows for fact that the location he is searching for does in fact exist. No hunch, no guess, fact.



He could, yes. But unless they had reason to believe that, it's silly to say that they should assume such.

But again its still a guess vs concrete information of where he went.



What "crunch" could you need? There is no Deductive Reasoning skill.


The crunch I was referring to was facts, ie something solid and known without debate.



Because you believe intercepting him at his next known destination isn't feasible for some reason? Because his home might give additional clues about his motivation or his next move or some weakness of his that you could exploit? Because you might be able to set up an ambush for him when he returns? Since you haven't told us what those other players' specific reasons were (if you even asked them), I can only guess, but there are certainly reasons why one would do so.

He has been missing for some hours, but the details of the guy don't change the order in which you are investigating said disappearance.



Except that point B isn't set in stone. The DM might have said "he went thattaway", but that doesn't mean you're obligated to go thattaway. It sounds like the other players came up with an alternative plan to catch the guy, and it's not automatically "bad roleplaying" to do that, even if the plan fails.

It was set in stone. We were told explicity in game where the guy was headed. He had done it several times in the past and has never faltered. But again, the specifics of the event do not matter. But again you are drawing this out into something it is not. It's not bad roleplaying for your character to think of alternatives, its bad role playing to assume your character knows something he doesn't, or should not be able to infer.



If there is no case to make, it's because you don't have one. Your fellow players deserve the benefit of the doubt, so if you claim that they're roleplaying "incorrectly", then the onus is upon you to prove it, and so far you have not done that.

I did prove it by telling you that it was a dumb fighter, with no indications of ever being a supersleuth suddenly saying that we should go to the house because it would be done on CSI. There is no more proof needed than that.



Common does not equal correct. And there are both in-character and out-of-character reasons for the party to split up and cover more ground at times.

As a side note, the DM urged us not to separate during this conversation, but since we did not have rolls determine path, we did it anyways.



While you haven't really shown that this is a case of out-of-game feelings interfering with in-game events, if it is then the solution is to discuss things out-of-character.

Again it goes back to the CSI comment. And to further elaborate, the two who went one way are closer friends than the two who wanted to go the other way. So that's how OOC can get in the way, despite the one character following all known clues and explaining it in character, while the house guy simply said, No, I'm going to the house, not even knowing if it existed.



That's an answer. One of many possible answers. It's not the answer. Maybe I trust the fighter more than the scholar for some reason. Maybe we're old friends and I just met that other guy. Maybe I find the scholar off-putting or suspicious for some reason. Maybe I simply think the fighter's idea is better, regardless of who came up with what idea. And maybe the fighter's wrong and the scholar's right, but since we have no way of knowing that for sure at the time, my siding with the fighter isn't cause to accuse me of not roleplaying right. A character can be doing the objectively wrong thing for reasons that make perfect sense in-character.

There could be many reasons like above, but we all just arrived at the town the night before from separate paths. I do appreciate you thinking of the many possibilities of why my points can be wrong, but making arbitrary comments on random possibilities just distorts the focus. If anything like that was true, I could then understand in game while that person would follow his "friend", but you still come back to the problem of what do you do when groups can't decide and splitting is not an option.



I'm not saying that the players' decision to split up can't be a result of bad roleplaying. It can, and maybe it was. But it wasn't bad roleplaying simply because it resulted in a party split, nor because the guy with the biggest mental stats didn't succeed in convincing everyone else to go along, which thus far has been the basis of your claim.

It was bad roleplaying because of OOC comments, look back some posts to see where I stated that. It was also bad for the game because the DM did not want the party split. It happened to work out fine, but had someone died, there would have been anger amongst the party and could have potentially ended the game. So again I ask, what is your solution, when two parties can not agree, and splitting up is not an option? Just a simple one line answer, no ifs or buts or further rhetoric, just a plain defined answer as to what you would do in this exact scenario. So don't say that if you were the DM you would let them split or if you were the player you would just give in.

Scow2
2013-04-04, 03:57 PM
........ Wow.

Ok, you don't get what I'm saying. That's ok. We actually agree on most everything, so I have no problem letting you win. People get together to play a game, and they should stick together in order to play that game.

Technically, the party in my game, in town, wilderness, or dungeon, split up all the time. They do so because they each have specific tasks to accomplish, or have things they wish to do, or just because it seemed the right thing to do at the time. However, I totally get that most groups don't want to do that and I in no way think that I and my group are superior to them.

But you wanted a specific example. How's this: A party of four 1st level characters go out into the wilderness. It's scary, it's dark, they're newbies, and most everything that even remotely has stats can beat them in a fight. They stick together for mutual protection. Later on, they've become Knights, Lords (or UnderLords), Mages, High Priests. They're high level, have taken on the toughest of the tough, have underlings that accompany them whereever they go. And yet they still stick together for mutual protection, even though the very wilderness that once frightened them should now be frightened *of* them. Why? Because as characters go up in levels, so do the challenges!

Unless there is a in-story description of why the danger in the wilderness has gone up, they should now feel safe and secure in the wilderness. But they don't, because that's how the game is designed. Call it "The Eeeevil DM" if you will, but the characters instinctively know that it's dangerous to be alone, even though they should be able to crush any threat that called this place home for the previous months and years of the campaign.Not 'instinctive'. Conditioned by the early- and mid-levels. The idea of NOT going out together by high levels becomes unthinkable.

An adventurer like this has lived a life of relying on remaining as a group to surmount impossible challenges. They've probably had bad experiences from splitting up or not keeping tabs on each other (Telepathic bond and long-range sending spells are great for this). Sure most people are just fine wandering around alone. But they're not the ones who've spent months or years of making powerful enemies, seeking out trouble, and finding greater threats than before beyond each new door. It's similar to PTSD, but empowering rather than debilitating.


Heck, I would say that there's no reason to believe it's dangerous to travel in the wilderness alone, even at 1st level, until something in the setting *tells me* it's dangerous to travel alone in the wilderness.

But it's not Wilderness Lore, nor is it Tales at the Inn, nor is it an NPC. It's the cover of the Monster Manual that tells me it's dangerous.

To fear the forest is out-of-character information, unless and until the DM (or setting) tells you to fear the forest.There is no place in the world where the Wilderness is not considered dangerous. I live on a farm just on the outskirts of a city, and although there aren't any living dangers, it's STILL not a good idea to go out to the woods surrounding the fields without at least a cell phone. In a pre-suburban world, the wilderness can be assumed to be FAR more dangerous unless told otherwise. It's not the Monster Manual telling them that - it's the lack of civilization around them.

Furthermore, the party will stick together even at level 1 because, while the immediate surroundings might not be a problem, they're usually heading to a known danger-zone - either a house occupied by goblins, into an unexplored cave, or ancient, unscouted ruins.



Adventuring is a known, and dangerous profession in a D&D setting. You don't last long in that profession without being incredibly savvy.

scurv
2013-04-04, 04:17 PM
Might be a low blow tactics, But one rule of thumb i have is when people do something to annoy you they have given you a gift. Can one half of the party be captured to be ransomed to the other half?

SimonMoon6
2013-04-04, 04:33 PM
I'll just mention that I've always thought it odd how Diplomacy and other skills don't work on PCs but can work miracles on NPCs. To that extent, I imagine a Big Bad Guy having a Diplomancer on his payroll. To find out who's a PC and who's not, the BBG has the Diplomancer go around trying to use Diplomacy on everyone he meets. Anyone that the Diplomacy simply bounces off of must be a PC! Then, the BBG knows who to capture/attack/etc.

:smallbiggrin:

Jay R
2013-04-04, 05:28 PM
I'll just mention that I've always thought it odd how Diplomacy and other skills don't work on PCs but can work miracles on NPCs.

All that means is that there is a person with the right to decide what a PC does out of personal interest, but the person running the NPC neither has a vested interest in this one character nor the right to make arbitrary decisions.

In more pompous language, PCs have free will, in the form of an independent mind. The actions of NPCs are determined by the same entity that decided how the continent was shaped.

dps
2013-04-04, 10:59 PM
It was bad roleplaying because of OOC comments, look back some posts to see where I stated that. It was also bad for the game because the DM did not want the party split. It happened to work out fine, but had someone died, there would have been anger amongst the party and could have potentially ended the game. So again I ask, what is your solution, when two parties can not agree, and splitting up is not an option? Just a simple one line answer, no ifs or buts or further rhetoric, just a plain defined answer as to what you would do in this exact scenario. So don't say that if you were the DM you would let them split or if you were the player you would just give in.

None of this addresses the fundamental problem, though. Even if in this particular instance, the difference of opinion was OOC instead of in-character, if there were rules for using diplomacy checks or the like on PCs, those rules would apply to any case where the party didn't agree on a course of action--even when everyone was acting completely in character.

icefractal
2013-04-05, 05:26 AM
I really don't see how "search the house" is some kind of metagaming. I mean, is the player who thought of it a detective IRL? If not, then obviously it's something a non-detective could think of. Is the player a genius IRL? If not, then obviously it's something a non-genius could think of. And if the player actually is a genius detective IRL, then why are you second-guessing their plans? :smalltongue:

The main issue is that you appear to believe that high Charisma gives you the "overrule the other actual players and decide what everybody does" ability. It doesn't. If it did, everyone would just get high Charisma, and you'd be back at square one. There's a reason why you're not generally allowed to have such abilities, and that's because it isn't fun for the other players.

And let me reinforce that - the other players are actual people, the characters are fictional constructs. What's enjoyable for the actual people involved is infinitely more important than what the fictional constructs "want". That's why "playing your character" is never an excuse when it involves being a **** IRL.

Holice
2013-04-05, 09:32 AM
I really don't see how "search the house" is some kind of metagaming. I mean, is the player who thought of it a detective IRL? If not, then obviously it's something a non-detective could think of. Is the player a genius IRL? If not, then obviously it's something a non-genius could think of. And if the player actually is a genius detective IRL, then why are you second-guessing their plans? :smalltongue:

You need to read the entire post before you reply. It was meta gaming to reference CSI. It was out of character for him to have an input on the best coarse of action during a detective stage of the adventure, especially after another player fully detailed all the in game knowledge of what happened, and he/she just happened to have high charisma.



The main issue is that you appear to believe that high Charisma gives you the "overrule the other actual players and decide what everybody does" ability. It doesn't. If it did, everyone would just get high Charisma, and you'd be back at square one. There's a reason why you're not generally allowed to have such abilities, and that's because it isn't fun for the other players.


Good luck playing an effective fighter sacrificing strength for charisma so you could have a better chance at directing the parties path. And how much fun is it when the party wipes because you were being stubborn and allowed the group to split? I am not saying that the charismatic needs to always win, because again, if you had read all the posts, you would see that its not a pure diplo vs diplo check, as the Dm can add either extraneous or non extraneous bonus points to each character depending on how well they explained their position on the topic at hand. So if it helps, forget about the fact that one character had higher charisma. Let's pretend its a group of 6 fighters with identical stats and skills, but they still have an issue of not being able to decide which way to go, and they won't budge. Provide a solution to this problem. Stop providing theoretical what ifs, and give a one sentence DM answer to the problem, when splitting the group is not an option.



And let me reinforce that - the other players are actual people, the characters are fictional constructs. What's enjoyable for the actual people involved is infinitely more important than what the fictional constructs "want". That's why "playing your character" is never an excuse when it involves being a **** IRL.

That is actually a bad way to look at d&d. This is a role playing game, not a play yourself game. You are supposed to forget about your wants, you needs, your ideals and play as the character would. Be someone else, not an extension of yourself. It saddens me when it seems that some people have not had the opportunity to play with a DM and players that truly makes you feel like you are part of a different world, and you become engrossed in that fantasy. Being able to get/achieve what your fictional construct wants is supposed to be the part that makes you happy, not the other way around.

Darius Kane
2013-04-05, 09:34 AM
Splitting the party was never a problem in my games. I often start the campaign with every PC in a different place and sometimes it takes them quite some time to finally meet up.

Morbis Meh
2013-04-05, 10:06 AM
You need to read the entire post before you reply. It was meta gaming to reference CSI. It was out of character for him to have an input on the best coarse of action during a detective stage of the adventure, especially after another player fully detailed all the in game knowledge of what happened, and he/she just happened to have high charisma.

So you're saying that just because the character has limited mental stats that he should have no input on a party decision? I think that is rather BS, everyone should and will have a say in what to do the party itself will make an overall choice. Don't try to limit other people's playing just because of your beliefs. Just because he made an offhand comment OoC doesn't mean his character wouldn't think that going to said person's place a residence isn't a good place. It is as people have said a logical thought and despite your opinion of this case being cut and dry going to point B, there is no gaurantee that the perp will keep following the same pattern.

Good luck playing an effective fighter sacrificing strength for charisma so you could have a better chance at directing the parties path. And how much fun is it when the party wipes because you were being stubborn and allowed the group to split? I am not saying that the charismatic needs to always win, because again, if you had read all the posts, you would see that its not a pure diplo vs diplo check, as the Dm can add either extraneous or non extraneous bonus points to each character depending on how well they explained their position on the topic at hand. So if it helps, forget about the fact that one character had higher charisma. Let's pretend its a group of 6 fighters with identical stats and skills, but they still have an issue of not being able to decide which way to go, and they won't budge. Provide a solution to this problem. Stop providing theoretical what ifs, and give a one sentence DM answer to the problem, when splitting the group is not an option.

Why bother with the charisma rolls at all when you are leaving the DM to ultimately decide what happens? As for placing blame on this individual for 'allowing the party to split' you are just as at fault as they are. I already provided a solution, make one person the temporrary party leader for the day and have it rotate. That person breaks deadlocks and it may be an OoC decision but it works and will keep the game rolling.

That is actually a bad way to look at d&d. This is a role playing game, not a play yourself game. You are supposed to forget about your wants, you needs, your ideals and play as the character would. Be someone else, not an extension of yourself. It saddens me when it seems that some people have not had the opportunity to play with a DM and players that truly makes you feel like you are part of a different world, and you become engrossed in that fantasy. Being able to get/achieve what your fictional construct wants is supposed to be the part that makes you happy, not the other way around.
There is no bad way to look at DnD since it is all subjective, just because an opinion differs from yours doesn't make it BADWRONGFUNTM. You may feel that way about DnD and it isn't bad or wrong, if you feel that this is how you get the most enjoyment out of the game GREAT keep doing it but you need to realize that your definition of fun DOES NOT work for everyone in your group. One of the hardest challenges in finding a solid group is having all players on the same page for what they're looking for in a game or enough respect for each other's wants/needs to let them play as the wish and not to judge or mock them for it.

Responses in bold

Deophaun
2013-04-05, 10:18 AM
You need to read the entire post before you reply. It was meta gaming to reference CSI.
And everyone here is telling you no, it isn't. Unless you are playing CSI: The RPG, referencing CSI is not metagaming because CSI isn't in any way connected to the game.

Deepbluediver
2013-04-05, 11:03 AM
I don't think that roleplaying has failed in this situation. Quite he contrary, I think that roleplaying was continued to the point where both players where fully behind their characters. The issue is more that there are in-game conflicts, and for this I think that relying on a toss of the dice is not necessarily a bad thing.


In most of the games I've played in, we actually ignored the "Bluff/diplomacy/etc cant be used on PCs" rule. However, it tended to be applied very sparingly.

Rolling dice for roleplay is only bad when one character uses it repeatedly to force players to do something wrong, or to trick in ways that are merely malicious. (i.e. something like the rogue claiming that the sweet innocent baby is possessed by a demon and the paladin needs to kill it). Or if it is used to entirely replace Roleplay (i.e. "I make a diplomacy check to get the guard to let me in" without actually attempting to RP first)

It's really just one more part of the unwritten rules/gentlemen's agreement we all play under for the game anyway.


For example, in one campaign I was playing a lawful-good monk. The rest of the party was mostly varying shades of chaotic. At one point we ran with the leader of the local theives/rogues/assassins/bad-people guild/mafia. Who tried to recruit our group, while at the same time trying to avoid a fight with my character.

So she explained how they where a group of armed "militia" who sometimes offered "bodyguarding or other security services" and "assisted in the coordination of local politics" and wouldn't it be lovely if we joined her "coalition", etc etc etc.

Now, the monk I was playing had a low charisma score, and I was purposefully playing him as a bit niave, but not stupid. So I drew a line in the sand (figuratively) and kept not being satisfied with her evasive answers and pressing for more details. Eventually, it got to the point where the NPC we where confronting had her hands on her weapons and we where about half a round from coming to blows, when the DM decided to make a Bluff check.

I didn't have any ranks in Sense Motive (see "niave" above) and the other character had quite a few in lying Bluff. And he rolled better than my anyhow. And so we finished RPing it out, something like...
"Oh, I wasn't speaking to YOU, good Sir monk, I was really only refering to your Chaotic-what-do-you-mean-by-"evil" rogue friend over there, who has more of the skill set we're looking for anyway".
"Well, alright, I guess that's OK then but I'll be keeping my eye on you"
*muttering quitely* "Yeah good luck with that."

We could have done it entirely with RP. We could have done it entirely with Dice (Diplomacy vs. Gather Information, Bluff vs. Sense Motive). We ended up doing a little but of both and everyone walked away reasonably satisfied.



So basically, being stubborn as a character trait isn't an issue, if its in keeping with your character. Being stubborn as a PLAYER and insisting that you always get your way is poor gamesmanship, and if needed to break up a blocade, I support submitting to an impartial judge (the dice).

Jay R
2013-04-05, 11:22 AM
The primary reason to not split the party has nothing to do with encounter strength or CR. That rule of thumb existed in the 1970s, long before CR was introduced.

The reason not to split the party is that it means that half of us don't get to play the game. There's only one DM, so if the party splits, whenever the other half is playing, I'm not.

Flickerdart
2013-04-05, 12:54 PM
That is actually a bad way to look at d&d.
I'm getting really tired of you telling everyone that their way of playing D&D is wrong, and yours is the one true way.

dps
2013-04-05, 01:09 PM
The primary reason to not split the party has nothing to do with encounter strength or CR. That rule of thumb existed in the 1970s, long before CR was introduced.

The reason not to split the party is that it means that half of us don't get to play the game. There's only one DM, so if the party splits, whenever the other half is playing, I'm not.

True. Which in-and-of itself is metagaming, but it also shows that metagaming isn't always a bad thing.

As far as the in-game dangers of splitting the party are concerned, the GM just has to dial down the CR of the encounters. A party of six splits into 2 parties of 3, then instead of running into 12 of monster X, 3 of them run into 6 of monster X, while the other 3 run into 10 of monster Y (Y being a weaker monster than X).

Darius Kane
2013-04-05, 02:18 PM
That is actually a bad way to look at d&d.
No.


You are supposed to forget about your wants, you needs, your ideals and play as the character would. Be someone else, not an extension of yourself.
This is a game, not theater club.
I wonder. Is it even possible to knowingly and intentionally make yourself schizophrenic? :smallconfused:


Being able to get/achieve what your fictional construct wants is supposed to be the part that makes you happy, not the other way around.
I create my fictional construct. He's me. He wants what I want.

kardar233
2013-04-05, 02:34 PM
I wonder. Is it even possible to knowingly and intentionally make yourself schizophrenic? :smallconfused:

I don't think schizophrenia is the correct term, but yes, it's possible to create an entirely new personality to play with. I've done it for two separate characters. You still have the issue of in-character versus out-of-character knowledge (manageable by keeping very close track of which is which), and it's sometimes difficult to balance metagame concerns with what your character wants, but it's definitely possible. Lots of fun too.


This is a game, not theater club.

Some of us (me!) like a lot of theatre club in our game.

On-topic, I'd say that the use of dice in inter-character relations should always be a fallback scenario, used if a) two characters/groups disagree strongly enough that they can't compromise and b) it would be a serious issue to split the party.

Holice
2013-04-05, 02:34 PM
So basically, being stubborn as a character trait isn't an issue, if its in keeping with your character. Being stubborn as a PLAYER and insisting that you always get your way is poor gamesmanship, and if needed to break up a blocade, I support submitting to an impartial judge (the dice).

This is the line of thinking I am looking for. All the people who feel the need to stir up alternative reasons for anyway of thinking doesn't help.

Reassurance that others agree that dice can help alleviate potential future issues and break up stale mates is what I was looking for, so thank you for the answer.



So you're saying that just because the character has limited mental stats that he should have no input on a party decision? I think that is rather BS, everyone should and will have a say in what to do the party itself will make an overall choice. Don't try to limit other people's playing just because of your beliefs. Just because he made an offhand comment OoC doesn't mean his character wouldn't think that going to said person's place a residence isn't a good place. It is as people have said a logical thought and despite your opinion of this case being cut and dry going to point B, there is no gaurantee that the perp will keep following the same pattern.

Morbis, you've played with me previously so I'd hope you know that I am not a headstrong glory hound who wants everything his way. On the contrary I am actually very easy to play with and prefer to go the route of least resistance as that usually equals more fun. No I am not saying that he should have no input, I am saying that someone with facts should have their input placed in higher regard than someone without facts. That's all. Sure there are outlying possibilities such as friendships between characters and what not, but this was an all things assumed equal question. And there was no "perp", there was only our delivery man who failed to make the delivery as he had done for all the times prior, leaving from point A heading to point B.


Why bother with the charisma rolls at all when you are leaving the DM to ultimately decide what happens? As for placing blame on this individual for 'allowing the party to split' you are just as at fault as they are. I already provided a solution, make one person the temporrary party leader for the day and have it rotate. That person breaks deadlocks and it may be an OoC decision but it works and will keep the game rolling.

Because it gives "chance". It allows the possibility of random events by not just telling the party what to do, but rather letting them roll it out. DnD is a game of chance as much as it is skill, and that's exciting to me. And yes, you did give a solution and it was a good one. I was only continuing this thread to find other solutions and possibilities, not to have people try and find other problems.


There is no bad way to look at DnD since it is all subjective, just because an opinion differs from yours doesn't make it BADWRONGFUNTM. You may feel that way about DnD and it isn't bad or wrong, if you feel that this is how you get the most enjoyment out of the game GREAT keep doing it but you need to realize that your definition of fun DOES NOT work for everyone in your group. One of the hardest challenges in finding a solid group is having all players on the same page for what they're looking for in a game or enough respect for each other's wants/needs to let them play as the wish and not to judge or mock them for it.

Let's not be cynical here. There is always a bad way to play a game. In an FPS, if you just run around looking at the buildings you are playing it badly. In an RTS, if you choose to not build any buildings or upgrades but rather take your miner and just wander the map with him, you are playing it badly. While the scope of D&D allows for variances of extremes in play types from purely exploration to non-stop dungeon grind, for every game mode, which is set by your DM, there is a good way and bad way to play. If you are in a dungeon crawler, and you are being attack by goblins and instead of helping your party fight or heal your party, you decide you want to use the next 10 minutes to figure out the composition of the walls, you are playing the game badly. That is not an opinion, that is fact. If you don't believe me, try it in a game during a non-trivial boss fight and see how well your party likes you after that.

So yes, while my comment does boil down to opinion, it was not directed as an attack but rather as an expression of how I felt bad that the depth of the game was not illustrated well in some of the responses.


I'm getting really tired of you telling everyone that their way of playing D&D is wrong, and yours is the one true way.

If only there was a way for you to not have to be affected by what I say...oh wait...there is...stop coming back to this thread and do something else, instead of misinterpreting the overall meaning of my comments. But then again, you'd probably say that buying a corvette is just as much as buying it and driving it cause who needs to get the full functionality out of things right?

Holice
2013-04-05, 02:37 PM
On-topic, I'd say that the use of dice in inter-character relations should always be a fallback scenario, used if a) two characters/groups disagree strongly enough that they can't compromise and b) it would be a serious issue to split the party.

And thank you Kardar. Two great answers in a matter of a few posts.

If only you guys could have answered days ago. :P

Again, this was not a question of who was right or wrong, it was a question of the party is deadlocked, what can be done.

Morbis Meh
2013-04-05, 03:28 PM
Morbis, you've played with me previously so I'd hope you know that I am not a headstrong glory hound who wants everything his way. On the contrary I am actually very easy to play with and prefer to go the route of least resistance as that usually equals more fun. No I am not saying that he should have no input, I am saying that someone with facts should have their input placed in higher regard than someone without facts. That's all. Sure there are outlying possibilities such as friendships between characters and what not, but this was an all things assumed equal question. And there was no "perp", there was only our delivery man who failed to make the delivery as he had done for all the times prior, leaving from point A heading to point B.


I never stated that I did sir, in fact I am rather surprised at your overly judgemental and rather condescending opinion. As for your point regarding that the character with relevant information on the subject at hand, I agree their suggestion may carry more weight depending on its logic but you implied that the player in question was acting OoC for putting any input at all. Your reasoning is that the numbers on his character sheet were too low by your standards thus his character's opinion in the matter at hand was irrelevant because he would never have any idea that would be logical or clever.

Because it gives "chance". It allows the possibility of random events by not just telling the party what to do, but rather letting them roll it out. DnD is a game of chance as much as it is skill, and that's exciting to me. And yes, you did give a solution and it was a good one. I was only continuing this thread to find other solutions and possibilities, not to have people try and find other problems.

A chance that can be 'altered' by the DM since a character can easily set up a character to insta win this situation with little effort thus taking the skill out of it. Like you said earlier, in general it is a bad idea for a fighter to sacrifice strength for charisma but then you instantly sideline said character when they're out of combat. Is that fair? Not at all this person has taken time out of their day as well and should be able to participate in all activities equally.

Let's not be cynical here. There is always a bad way to play a game. In an FPS, if you just run around looking at the buildings you are playing it badly. In an RTS, if you choose to not build any buildings or upgrades but rather take your miner and just wander the map with him, you are playing it badly. While the scope of D&D allows for variances of extremes in play types from purely exploration to non-stop dungeon grind, for every game mode, which is set by your DM, there is a good way and bad way to play. If you are in a dungeon crawler, and you are being attack by goblins and instead of helping your party fight or heal your party, you decide you want to use the next 10 minutes to figure out the composition of the walls, you are playing the game badly. That is not an opinion, that is fact. If you don't believe me, try it in a game during a non-trivial boss fight and see how well your party likes you after that.

I will repeat: THERE IS NO WRONG WAY TO PLAY DND; however, there are wrong match ups in play styles between players. Your example of an FPS is a weak one because a video game is hard wired to work in one way but for the most part TTRPG's are only limited by the creativity of the person running it. Your IC example is also an opinion, how a person enjoys their extracuricular activity is their perogative and is defined only by themself. It is true that in the type of game YOU are playing that it is inappropriate since it does not mesh with the party's playstyle but in another game for all we know the boss could have been an undefeatable ruse and you needed to study the dungeon itself for the solution. In that case the player studying the walls had the proper idea.
So yes, while my comment does boil down to opinion, it was not directed as an attack but rather as an expression of how I felt bad that the depth of the game was not illustrated well in some of the responses.

If only there was a way for you to not have to be affected by what I say...oh wait...there is...stop coming back to this thread and do something else, instead of misinterpreting the overall meaning of my comments. But then again, you'd probably say that buying a corvette is just as much as buying it and driving it cause who needs to get the full functionality out of things right?
Please stop being rude, from what I have seen you're better than that Holice.

If you prefer these situations to be at the whims of fate why don't you leave it at that: Fate. Don't bring in a skill from the game that can be abused; solve it with a coin toss, a game of paper rock scissors, or rolling a d20 with no modifiers. That way there is no favortism, no abusing and more importantly no stubborn stalemating. Everyone will be able to participate despite the poor design functions of the game and hopefully have a good time doing it.

icefractal
2013-04-05, 05:03 PM
Well, I would agree that a Fighter doesn't get much benefit from Charisma, what with not having most of the skills that benefit from it. If you want to be a charismatic warrior, another class may be better suited. However, "tell the other actual players what to do" is not a function of Charisma - for any class. I can see how it would look like it made you the party leader, but to be the leader of actual people, you need to actually convince them.

I'm not against being in character, and I think that disregarding the character is definitely a mistake. But ultimately, you, the actual player, are the one making the decisions. And other actual players are the ones who would suffer if you choose a course of action that sidelines them. So "it's what my character would do" can be a reason, but it's never an excuse. As mentioned, that's the real reason behind not splitting the party - in most cases, it results in any given player getting less time.

That said, I'm not against all uses of social skills on players. Bluff is fine. It can be abused, but that's a problem with the player rather than the skill. Intimidate is fine when used for its short-term combat purpose. Sense Motive is certainly legitimate. The issue is trying to control how the other characters act, which is undesirable because:
A) Most players don't even want a RL "group leader".
B) If they did, they wouldn't want to determine it by who happened to get the highest Diplomacy or Charisma bonus.

Holice
2013-04-05, 07:36 PM
I never stated that I did sir, in fact I am rather surprised at your overly judgemental and rather condescending opinion. As for your point regarding that the character with relevant information on the subject at hand, I agree their suggestion may carry more weight depending on its logic but you implied that the player in question was acting OoC for putting any input at all. Your reasoning is that the numbers on his character sheet were too low by your standards thus his character's opinion in the matter at hand was irrelevant because he would never have any idea that would be logical or clever.

You may not have stated it but you certainly implied it. Just like you are saying that I implied that a person was OoC for putting any input at all. I did not say that. You are picking and choosing what parts of DnD are acceptable and what are not. Let's say the characters in game needed to have an arm wrestling competition to see who got to grab some item. Can I say, sorry but you can't beat me ever, despite you having a higher strength score simply because I don't want you to be able to tell me I can't lift that item? While that is a stretch on an example, it could still potentially happen. But from what I've gathered, all those opposed to dice rolls are implying that pc's are godly beings unable to be affected by stats or skills of other players. That really puts a damper on character immersion.

Direct from the Player's handbook:

Charisma measures a character's force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.

But all the naysayers are completely disregarding the value of this stat completely, where as I want to let the skill do what its meant to do, nothing more, nothing less.



I will repeat: THERE IS NO WRONG WAY TO PLAY DND; however, there are wrong match ups in play styles between players. Your example of an FPS is a weak one because a video game is hard wired to work in one way but for the most part TTRPG's are only limited by the creativity of the person running it.

And I will repeat, there is a wrong way, on a case by case basis. And the FPS is not a weak example because just as the game is coded to a standard, the DM has "coded" his adventures to a certain ideal. Why do you think most don't allow homebrew without heavy review? Why do forgotten realm DM's not usually allow warforged? Because it goes against the nature of their campaign/adventure, and thus, if you rolled a Warforged and brought him to the game, the DM would tell you to have fun sitting there and watching the others play. Even wizard of the coast official meetings had rules about creation and variation from the rules was playing the game incorrectly. And to put your words back at you then, I should be able to without question roll my diplomacy and influence other players, because there is no wrong way to play Dnd and that's how I want to play it. But clearly this is becoming an argument of right vs wrong, and that is not what I am after, so I will not comment further on that.



If you prefer these situations to be at the whims of fate why don't you leave it at that: Fate. Don't bring in a skill from the game that can be abused; solve it with a coin toss, a game of paper rock scissors, or rolling a d20 with no modifiers. That way there is no favortism, no abusing and more importantly no stubborn stalemating. Everyone will be able to participate despite the poor design functions of the game and hopefully have a good time doing it.

I do not want the whims of fate deciding anything, I want chance. Everything else in DND is about chance, why put up roadblocks down any avenue?

From this point on, I am done replying to this thread. I received quality answers from people who understood the point of this thread and they agreed that in certain cases rolls can work out just fine. Others have expressed feelings that losing control is not fun, but if the whole group agrees to this action then they can't complain.

Thanks to everyone who was constructive rather than destructive, and happy adventuring.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-04-08, 02:13 PM
Woops, didn't see how old this was. Neeeeevermind. :smallredface:

Darius Kane
2013-04-08, 03:06 PM
It's... just two days old. :smallconfused:

Deepbluediver
2013-04-08, 03:32 PM
And thank you Kardar. Two great answers in a matter of a few posts.

If only you guys could have answered days ago. :P

OH NOES!!! I have failed some one on the internet!

The shame will besmirch my families honor for seven generations!
In order to redeem myself, I will quit my job, give up my social life, and spend 18 hours a day scanning this and other forums for people who's lives are devoid of meaning without my advice! :smallbiggrin:


It's... just two days old. :smallconfused:

We move fast around here, sonny, better keep up or you'll just get run down by the mob. :smallwink:

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2013-04-08, 03:53 PM
It's... just two days old. :smallconfused:

Well, yeah, but that's still a fair amount of time, on a busy forum. I was mostly speaking to the fact that the OP's topic had been resolved, so my comment was pretty much moot, though.

Darius Kane
2013-04-08, 04:02 PM
It's not old.

NikitaDarkstar
2013-04-08, 04:32 PM
It's not old.
2 days here is basically 2 months normal internet time, which is about 2 years IRL time. So yes, it's old. :p

AgentofHellfire
2013-04-08, 06:35 PM
It might be good "roleplay", but it's poor roleplaying. Being a good player of RPGs does not end with playing your character to the hilt. You want to do that and nothing more, go join a theatre group. Being a good RPG player also involves a whole slew of other things such as showing up on time, bringing snacks, being a decent and fun fellow to be around, putting your share of effort into making sure every has a good time, showing initiative in the game, or not trying to hog all the spotlight.

And that's exactly what you're proposing. You're proposing that players should say "I don't care if this will slow the game down to half speed because the DM will have to run two separate journeys, and I don't care if it means everyone will have to sit around being bored for half the session while the DM is doing the other group; I'll still insist on it because I'm entitled to play my character to the hilt!. And that's hogging the spotlight, and consequently being a very poor roleplayer.


See...I half agree, half don't.

On the one hand, quite simply, ruining everyone else's fun is bad. Generally speaking.

On the other hand, there's a difference between hogging the spotlight in a particular situation and ruining the whole game for everyone. In the case of the first, the character in question might very well have hogged the spotlight--but the other players won't care, because they'll get their turn.