I am a horrible monster because I didn't let a player control another PC

[jefgodesky]

I've listened to RPPR for a while, but I've never commented before. I never felt the need to before. But this time, I feel like I have to say something, even if it means signing up on a new forum to do so.

What I listened to today was just shameful. As I said, I've listened to RPPR for some time, I've enjoyed it, but this might be the most shameful thing I've ever heard on a podcast. An episode-long pile-on, on a guy who isn't even there to answer for himself? You could have made something good out of this. You could have Skype'd in Aaron and had a real discussion about it. Or you could have invited anyone who's played Burning Wheel or Dogs in the Vineyard or any other game that handles social conflict well. But you didn't. Instead, you used your podcast as a bully pulpit to shout down someone who criticized you (and rather mildly at that). I can see that you're angry about that criticism--after all, despite the relative mildness of Aaron's criticism, this thread is titled in the most overwrought terms--but being able to control your emotions when you're upset and still treat people with some common courtesy seems, to me, the very soul of maturity. "Adults," indeed.

[clockworkjoe]

hahahahaha

He has his own bully pulpit - his blog and podcast. I haven't 'shouted him down'. He's made 3 posts about it and it's been talked about on several different podcasts as a result.

I'm not angry about it - it honestly blows my mind still that anyone would think that taking control away of a PC from a player and giving it to a different player is a good idea. I've gamed for years and I can't think of a single time it's come up in any of the games I've played or run until Fear the Con.

Also the thread title is a joke - a reference to this http://www.somethingawful.com/d/hogosphere/am-horrible-monster.php

in short



except change video games to read role playing games

[jefgodesky]

I'm not angry about it - it honestly blows my mind still that anyone would think that taking control away of a PC from a player and giving it to a different player is a good idea. I've gamed for years and I can't think of a single time it's come up in any of the games I've played or run until Fear the Con.

It's a very wide-spread approach, with no small number of fairly popular games built on the idea. As you can see from the length of these threads, there's no dearth of supporters for it. If you've never encountered it before, that doesn't speak very well for the breadth of your gaming experience.

except change video games to read role playing games

The game doesn't upset me, but this is a person, and you treated him very badly, and that upsets me.

[clockworkjoe]

I'm not angry about it - it honestly blows my mind still that anyone would think that taking control away of a PC from a player and giving it to a different player is a good idea. I've gamed for years and I can't think of a single time it's come up in any of the games I've played or run until Fear the Con.

It's a very wide-spread approach, with no small number of fairly popular games built on the idea. As you can see from the length of these threads, there's no dearth of supporters for it. If you've never encountered it before, that doesn't speak very well for the breadth of your gaming experience.

except change video games to read role playing games

The game doesn't upset me, but this is a person, and you treated him very badly, and that upsets me.

I haven't insulted him - that's Cody and he speaks for himself.

You have insulted me with your passive-aggressive comments about how I lack maturity and how I'm not a good gamer because I haven't encountered this dilemma before.

And I'd like to hear about how players can use social skills to take control away of their PC from other players is very wide spread. What games specifically allow that in their written rules?

[Kroack]

I've listened to RPPR for a while, but I've never commented before. I never felt the need to before. But this time, I feel like I have to say something, even if it means signing up on a new forum to do so.

What I listened to today was just shameful. As I said, I've listened to RPPR for some time, I've enjoyed it, but this might be the most shameful thing I've ever heard on a podcast. An episode-long pile-on, on a guy who isn't even there to answer for himself? You could have made something good out of this. You could have Skype'd in Aaron and had a real discussion about it. Or you could have invited anyone who's played Burning Wheel or Dogs in the Vineyard or any other game that handles social conflict well. But you didn't. Instead, you used your podcast as a bully pulpit to shout down someone who criticized you (and rather mildly at that). I can see that you're angry about that criticism--after all, despite the relative mildness of Aaron's criticism, this thread is titled in the most overwrought terms--but being able to control your emotions when you're upset and still treat people with some common courtesy seems, to me, the very soul of maturity. "Adults," indeed.

[Mckma]

I would like to say I thought the episode handled it very professionally (with the possible exception of Cody at points, who, well, to be honest made a few jabs at the guy).  It was largely a discussion of the issue of controlling players which was, I'll admit, somewhat biased, but it was basically the same bias as his original posts, just on the opposite side.  So I guess what I'm saying is while you may consider it immature, it was no more immature than the original posts.  Plus Aaron did have essentially the same opportunities to post on the forums or comments (as Ross would have on his blog posts).  And in the end, it's an issue that really doesn't matter.  Which is kind of the beauty of RPGs, it's really subjective and people can do what works for them.  I guess what I'm getting at is, if I were in the situation on either side (having the blog post or podcast made about my actions), I wouldn't care or feel personally affronted...

EDIT:  I really hope I didn't sound like I'm a raving fan attacking you for your opinion, I just wanted to share mine...

[Setherick]

And in the end, it's an issue that really doesn't matter.  

Don't say that. It matters to neckbeards everywhere. 

[jefgodesky]

I haven't insulted him - that's Cody and he speaks for himself.

Insulted? No, I suppose not. I didn't say you insulted him. I said you treated him badly. Using your podcast as a bully pulpit, to pile-on someone who has no chance to defend himself or his viewpoint, is treating someone badly. You could have had him on the show. You could have found someone who holds the same view. You didn't.

You have insulted me with your passive-aggressive comments about how I lack maturity and how I'm not a good gamer because I haven't encountered this dilemma before.

I fail to see what's passive-aggressive about it. I take issue with what you did, to the extent that I felt the need to say so. How is that passive-aggressive?

I don't know what kind of maturity you have as a person. I know that the podcast episode you put out was very low, and that what you did there was incredibly immature--something I probably would not have remarked upon, had Cody not made a point of emphasizing your "maturity."

You may be a very good gamer, but evidently not a very broad gamer, since you've never encountered a very common approach to gaming before.

And I'd like to hear about how players can use social skills to take control away of their PC from other players is very wide spread. What games specifically allow that in their written rules?

Taking control of other players is not widespread, but then, that's not what's at issue here, either. That's just a bit of overblown rhetoric you keep falling back on to avoid dealing with the actual issue. The actual issue is to what degree the player is separate from the character, and to what degree the traits of the character you created should influence discussions between players. I can respect differing opinions on that question, and had you decided to put out an episode exploring that question and you held to all the same opinions you have now, but provided an opportunity for Aron or anyone sharing Aron's opinion to defend that viewpoint, I would have enjoyed the show. But you didn't do that. You got your friends together and gave this guy a public dressing-down in a format hand-picked to deny him any opportunity to defend himself. You didn't even address his actual viewpoint; instead, you set up straw-men like "using social skills to take control away of their PC from other players". That is shameful.

I have no interest in trolling or being "passive-aggressive" or anything like that. Frankly, it's taken me only a few posts to see that the tenor of this forum is not one where I'm well-suited at all. But what you did with this podcast was shameful, and it needed to be said.

EDIT: I suppose I never quite answered your (somewhat loaded) question there, so I'll refer you again to the titles I mentioned before. Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits mechanic is very much in this vein, as is the Argument conflict in Mouse Guard, which is derived from that. Dogs in the Vineyard has argument mechanics that work just like its gun-slinging mechanics. I've seen Primetime Adventures' mechanics used for arguments to good effect on many occasions.

[Vega Baby]

In my opinion, persuade checks should never equal the persuader getting the persuaded to do exactly what they want, even if it's an NPC.  It should give them a bit of incentive to side with the persuader somehow, but it shouldn't convert you automatically.

That said, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with giving incentives for the persuaded to side with the persuader mechanically, especially if it fits the particular genre of the game.  For example, in MAOCT, where emotional damage is as dangerous as physical, I've essentially house-ruled a Peer Pressure roll, where you can make an emotional attack against someone, and they'll receive the damage if you don't go along with what they want you to do, or at least don't actively work against them.  I don't think I'm overstepping my bounds with that, as it's not forcing, but encouraging.

I'm not familiar with Wild Talents, but Ross's call wasn't the wrong one.  I agree that you shouldn't be able to persuade anyone, especially PCs, to lay down their lives with a single roll.  To be honest, this whole thing is best determined from group to group, and game to game, as the right solution in one just wouldn't be the right one in another.

[Setherick]

I have no interest in trolling or being "passive-aggressive" or anything like that. Frankly, it's taken me only a few posts to see that the tenor of this forum is not one where I'm well-suited at all. But what you did with this podcast was shameful, and it needed to be said.

So, then, why did you register to post in the first place?

Also, I like your elitist usage of the word "tenor" in your post as if you belong to some posh forum out there in the wide internet where games are discussed as they are meant to be discussed and played like they are meant to be played. We do more serious game design and have more serious discussions about gaming in this forum than I've seen anywhere else. But, and here's the part you probably can't wrap your head around at all, we do not take ourselves seriously when we do so. Let me repeat that slowly, so that you can understand the "tenor" of my post, we...do...not...take...ourselves...seriously.

We play games because they are fun. We design games because they are a hobby. We make fun of games and gamers because we understand games and gamers because we are gamers ourselves. And, when someone brings up an idea that we disagree with, we debate it openly.

But go back to your posh forum and discuss how many dice rolls it takes to persuade another player while you close read the rules of some game that you'd never have been able to create on your own. And, don't ask for who the troll trolls, it trolls for you.

[clockworkjoe]

I said you treated him badly. Using your podcast as a bully pulpit, to pile-on someone who has no chance to defend himself or his viewpoint, is treating someone badly. You could have had him on the show. You could have found someone who holds the same view. You didn't.

He didn't ask me to be on his show and I couldn't find anyone I know in real life that holds his view. Again, he has his own blog to broadcast his view point. He has plenty of chances to defend himself so you are just getting mad because I criticized him basically.

You're trying to confuse the issue by bringing up this whole "what degree the player is separate from the character"

I am only talking about using social skills to control or coerce other player characters.

You got your friends together and gave this guy a public dressing-down in a format hand-picked to deny him any opportunity to defend himself. You didn't even address his actual viewpoint; instead, you set up straw-men like "using social skills to take control away of their PC from other players". That is shameful.

why do i have to give him a chance to 'defend himself'? Shameful? Really? Really? Again, this is what it boils down to:

Either you have control over your PC or you don't. If another player can make your character do something you don't want to do or can get the GM to coerce you into changing your mind, you don't control your PC.


BTW I only have Mouse Guard but when I look at the actual rules, it doesn't say anything about making player characters do something other than what their controlling player wants them to do.

Every social combat/conflict system I've read either focuses on persuading NPCs and/or gaining prestige/honor/social status.

Hey! Let's read from Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits:

The Duel of Wits is an extended conflict mechanic used to resolve
debate and argument in the game (and at the table). Characters
use verbal attacks and maneuvers to overpower and destroy their
opponents’ arguments and make themselves appear, to all witnesses,
correct.

The purpose in such a duel is not to reveal the truth, but to put forth
your argument in the best light while dismantling your opponent’s
position—and to convince the audience that you have struck on the
truth, while your opponent is mired in half-formed thought and
naive delusions.

And even in Duel of Wits, both players have to agree to the terms  so in Aron's case, it wouldn't have worked. None of the players wanted to debate him. They wouldn't have agreed to a duel of wits because they weren't interested in it. So that's another flaw in Aron's case

No one wanted to debate him. No one wanted to be persuaded.

[Mckma]

I think in this debate, the main point (in my point) has been strayed from.  The issue was/is Ross denying a social roll to influence another character in a convention game.  I have to say, while the idea of influencing other players characters is debatable and another issue in and of itself, this all arose over the aforementioned issue.  I would find it very hard to argue that Ross made a mistake in his position.  So far as I understand it, convention gaming seeks a common denominator so that all can enjoy equally.  In my opinion, allowing an end result of a player not controlling their character that is not in the rules jeopardizes this.  House rules in established groups is an entirely different story...

[Setherick]

I think in this debate, the main point (in my point) has been strayed from.  The issue was/is Ross denying a social roll to influence another character in a convention game.  I have to say, while the idea of influencing other players characters is debatable and another issue in and of itself, this all arose over the aforementioned issue.  I would find it very hard to argue that Ross made a mistake in his position.  So far as I understand it, convention gaming seeks a common denominator so that all can enjoy equally.  In my opinion, allowing an end result of a player not controlling their character that is not in the rules jeopardizes this.  House rules in established groups is an entirely different story...

That's an excellent point. We all went after PvP interaction and completely forgot the context.

[acronomicon]

Taking control of other players is not widespread, but then, that's not what's at issue here, either. That's just a bit of overblown rhetoric you keep falling back on to avoid dealing with the actual issue. The actual issue is to what degree the player is separate from the character, and to what degree the traits of the character you created should influence discussions between players.

At the risk of feeding the trolls...  Aron stated on his blog that he wanted to use persuasion on one of the other players to win him over to his side.  You can phrase it how ever you'd like, but it sounds like the hope was that using the skill would force the other player to his side.  The other example he gives, potentially allowing an elephant gun shooting depleted uranium to be used on other players, seems to indicate an all or nothing mentality at the time the blog post was written, and likely at the time the events took place.  There may be a more nuanced spin nowadays, but that seems to have come after a fashion.  Most RPGs aren't explicity player versus player, most combat oriented skills with negative consequences aren't balanced around what would happen to other players.  Attempts to use such skills in a game that isn't specifically geared to those sorts of challenges will almost always end badly.  Either a player gets mad because they can't use the skill they wanted, another player get mad because they feel their options for their character were narrowed by another player, or the whole thing devolves into players rolling dice for hours on end as they try to move forward.

Could Ross have handled it differently during the game?  Sure.  He could have given such a negative modifier to the roll it was guaranteed to fail.  Does Ross owe it to Aron (or anyone he disagrees with in the future) a shot at speaking out during a show around the issue?  Absolutely not.  Heck, Ross ha gone further than most would on teh Intrawebz by doing the decent thing and linking to the other side of the argument.

[Mckma]

I think in this debate, the main point (in my point) has been strayed from.  The issue was/is Ross denying a social roll to influence another character in a convention game.  I have to say, while the idea of influencing other players characters is debatable and another issue in and of itself, this all arose over the aforementioned issue.  I would find it very hard to argue that Ross made a mistake in his position.  So far as I understand it, convention gaming seeks a common denominator so that all can enjoy equally.  In my opinion, allowing an end result of a player not controlling their character that is not in the rules jeopardizes this.  House rules in established groups is an entirely different story...

That's an excellent point. We all went after PvP interaction and completely forgot the context.

Well, in everyone's defense, player interaction is a much more issue to discuss (which is what I felt was happening albeit a bit one-sided).  I just thought that it might be important to bring up as things are starting to get a bit heated (not that that's a bad thing)...

EDIT:  On a related note to the original issue at hand, I reread the original blog post and some (mind you not all) the comments there and I had another thought to add.  In the end, it seems to me it ultimately wouldn't matter.  What Aron seemed to want (I hope I don't misread what he said), was essentially Ross to tell the other players, "he makes a good argument."  I don't know about you all, but if I were playing with largely complete strangers, I wouldn't care if I had already made my decision.  While he brings up the point about the bennie in Savage Worlds, in the actual game central to the issue, there wouldn't be much incentive, not to mention the fact that it was at the end of the game.  So long story short, I think we need to move beyond the original conflict as, a) it's over and done with, b) it really doesn't matter, and c) unless Ross had actually allowed the roll, and then forced the other players to go along with the plan, the ultimate result would likely be the same.  This is how I had kind of felt the atmosphere was going into the podcast and that it was more RPPR's crew expressing their opinion on the issue (rather than who was right or wrong in the incident).

That said, I think the thread should go back to discussing the idea of using social skills on other players, the pros (which there decidedly are), and the cons (which are also existent), and possible house rules/ways of working them into the game such that everyone is happy.

EDIT 2:  Hmm...  I look back at what I wrote and realize I sound irritated, which I'm not, interesting...