: clockworkjoe March 17, 2010, 10:42:20 PM
I ran an Age of Masks game at Fear the Con 3 last weekend. A player tries to persuade another PC of a certain plan and tries to use the persuasion skill to do so - not a supernatural ability just regular old diplomacy. I said no because I think that players have agency over their own PC - you can't force another PC to do something without an actual supernatural power. This guy thinks otherwise.
DISCUSS
: Setherick March 17, 2010, 10:46:38 PM
: Mckma March 17, 2010, 10:51:04 PM
Anyway, ultimately, I think it just comes down to the nature of roleplaying. Sometimes you'll get to call the shots and do something you think is awesome in a game, and other times you'll have to sit back a bit and help someone else with their plan.
So yeah, I don't know if that made a lot of sense, but ultimately the way I would go with it is only allowing such checks on players if the player is okay with it, and maybe they should be okay with it oftentimes...
On a completely unrelated note, I now apparently know what Ross looks like. Not that different than I had imagined. Don't know what to think about that...
: clockworkjoe March 17, 2010, 11:34:00 PM
(http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/9127/n34309152337170457517.jpg)
: Mckma March 18, 2010, 12:34:43 AM
That is a lousy photo of me. This is better
(http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/9127/n34309152337170457517.jpg)
Ah, I see. You had your person mask on in the first one at the con huh?
: Valegor March 18, 2010, 12:36:17 AM
I would also be pissed if I were a player and someone else rolled to make my decision for me and my character ended up doing something I felt was out of character for them.
: IDaMan008 March 18, 2010, 12:52:31 AM
That said, I could also see an argument for allowing the persuade roll. After all, the character's stats represent skills and attributes that the player might not necessarily share. If someone with lousy communications skills was playing a smooth-talking schmoozer, the dice might better represent the character's persuasive ability than the player could through roleplaying. However. I do think that players who succeed in social rolls like that should be able to back it up with good roleplaying; I'd never let a player get away with simply saying, "I talk him into it" without providing at least a moderately persuasive argument.
: ShotgunSurgeon March 18, 2010, 12:53:02 AM
Seriously though, I'm sure you made the right call for the table. That being said, it might have been cool to let Aron make the roll and RP his argument out. While a success would not mean the other PCs become compliant zombies, the other characters could have recognized the merits of his argument (or not) based on the roll... then decide how and if that impacts their own decisions. That being said, anyone that challenges Ross is an automatic douche. We must prepare for Jihad.
Super seriously though... after seeing the pics, no video casts.
: Tadanori Oyama March 18, 2010, 01:15:40 AM
I really don't have a hard and fast rule about this sort of thing. On the other hand, if I'm a player than I'd fight tooth and nail to maintain control over my character's mind.
: clockworkjoe March 18, 2010, 01:21:45 AM
: Order66 March 18, 2010, 01:36:23 AM
That is a lousy photo of me. This is better
(http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/9127/n34309152337170457517.jpg)
exactly how i pictured you
: Maze March 18, 2010, 01:43:16 AM
Anyway, here's a solution, let him roll it. Then have him roleplay it and the other player can decide whether or not he's persuaded. The same could be applied to bluffing, because sometimes players can use meta-knowledge to take decision their character would never take.
So Ross, next time to you see him, punch him in the mouth and tell him "It's Payton with an A, asshole."
: Order66 March 18, 2010, 03:17:05 AM
Order66 we need a picture of you now.
Anyway, here's a solution, let him roll it. Then have him roleplay it and the other player can decide whether or not he's persuaded. The same could be applied to bluffing, because sometimes players can use meta-knowledge to take decision their character would never take.
So Ross, next time to you see him, punch him in the mouth and tell him "It's Payton with an A, asshole."
no i am done with this thing known as rppr i am not taking 2 hours out of my day to listen to people play D&D
regards
: Sean-o-tron March 18, 2010, 03:23:42 AM
Also, that is some bad-ass makeup work.
: Charlie72 March 18, 2010, 03:38:19 AM
And there was much rejoicing. (Yaay!)Order66 we need a picture of you now.
Anyway, here's a solution, let him roll it. Then have him roleplay it and the other player can decide whether or not he's persuaded. The same could be applied to bluffing, because sometimes players can use meta-knowledge to take decision their character would never take.
So Ross, next time to you see him, punch him in the mouth and tell him "It's Payton with an A, asshole."
no i am done with this thing known as rppr i am not taking 2 hours out of my day to listen to people play D&D
regards
: Sean-o-tron March 18, 2010, 03:43:33 AM
GIVE US A VIDCAST YOU HANDSOME FUCK
: Boyos March 18, 2010, 05:36:56 AM
Ahh ignore it and it will go away is working don't quote it.And there was much rejoicing. (Yaay!)Order66 we need a picture of you now.
Anyway, here's a solution, let him roll it. Then have him roleplay it and the other player can decide whether or not he's persuaded. The same could be applied to bluffing, because sometimes players can use meta-knowledge to take decision their character would never take.
So Ross, next time to you see him, punch him in the mouth and tell him "It's Payton with an A, asshole."
no i am done with this thing known as rppr i am not taking 2 hours out of my day to listen to people play D&D
regards
I can see where the player is comming from, he should have been able to make the roll. As the dm you convay to the other players that he is convincing but you still have free will to do what you want. You get the same result and both sides are happy. But if he demanded afterwards that everyone agree to his idea and they now did what he wanted then that would be wrong.
: ShotgunSurgeon March 18, 2010, 06:50:37 AM
My response to that would be: What was the intent (i.e. end goal) of the roll? Based on the article, the intent was to win a player over to his side. I'm not sure how this differs from a less responsible player simply commanding PCs through persuasion checks.
The comparison of a persuasion action to other character actions (shooting a gun, running away, etc.) also seems a bit misguided. The major issue in play is the violation of a player being able to control the choices of his character... It doesn't look like Ross was saying "Your character can't attempt to persuade the other characters" but "You can't use a persuasion test to determine whether other players follow you." Seems fair to me.
As an aside, I like the FunnyBooks podcast. It's not RPPR, but it's pretty good compared to some of the other comic podcasts out there.
: ristarr March 18, 2010, 08:10:26 AM
: robotkarateman March 18, 2010, 11:48:52 AM
However, I would've let him make the roll with a negative because he's already stated his case and been rejected, now he's fighting an uphill battle. If he was successful in the followup, then I, as GM, would state to the party, "Well, he does have a point", and let them debate it from there.
But he wouldn't have "won them over" simply because he made a persuasion roll, which is what it sounds like he wanted to do.
: Tadanori Oyama March 18, 2010, 11:56:32 AM
But he wouldn't have "won them over" simply because he made a persuasion roll, which is what it sounds like he wanted to do.
I like that approach. There's also the matter of scale, which just dawned on me. In this game he was trying to convince the other guys to die as heroes by destorying the machine. Heroic sure but still suicide.
Even most mind control power have the little note at the end that you can't use them to make suicidal commands.
: Setherick March 18, 2010, 11:56:38 AM
First, I disagree with his assumption that a successful persuasion roll would "win them over to his side." That's not persuasion, that's mind control. Persuasion doesn't work that way.
However, I would've let him make the roll with a negative because he's already stated his case and been rejected, now he's fighting an uphill battle. If he was successful in the followup, then I, as GM, would state to the party, "Well, he does have a point", and let them debate it from there.
But he wouldn't have "won them over" simply because he made a persuasion roll, which is what it sounds like he wanted to do.
You contradict yourself here. Either you cannot mind control another player or you should be allowed to use your skills on another player.
I'm a fierce defender of player rights at the table because nothing ruins a game faster than letting players use non-combat skills on other players. It also takes out must of the dynamism of a game because the player with the highest non-com skills will always dominate a game.
(Also, if you're not a good negotiator in person, you can't use your imaginary skills to compensate for your lack of real ones.)
: Tadanori Oyama March 18, 2010, 12:02:08 PM
(Also, if you're not a good negotiator in person, you can't use your imaginary skills to compensate for your lack of real ones.)
I perfer to think of it as "If you don't have a good position to negotiate from than you can't compensate with your skills."
: ArtfulShrapnel March 18, 2010, 12:03:57 PM
What I tend to do is to offer the player who has been "convinced" a reward/penalty depending on whether they go along with it. I tend to run FATE or Storyteller most often, so this reward/penalty comes in the form of FATE points or Willpower. Going along with a solid, logical argument is easier than fighting it, so they gain willpower/FATE. Fighting it is mentally exhausting, and often leaves someone doubting themselves, so it costs willpower/FATE.
I find it's a great middle-road option. The target feels a strong incentive to go along with what they've been told, while not being forced into any action. It lets the persuader feel like they've done something, even if the person disagrees.
Not sure what a good equivalent would be in Wild Talents? Maybe some temporary bonus dice that can be used on any roll in the near future or something? Or some Willpower? Don't they have something similar in WT?
Thoughts on this idea?
: Boyos March 18, 2010, 12:12:02 PM
: Setherick March 18, 2010, 12:12:43 PM
(Also, if you're not a good negotiator in person, you can't use your imaginary skills to compensate for your lack of real ones.)
I perfer to think of it as "If you don't have a good position to negotiate from than you can't compensate with your skills."
I've convinced other players to go along with some crazy shit in the past without a good position to negotiate from. ::)
: ArtfulShrapnel March 18, 2010, 12:16:34 PM
Maybe get like 2 circumstances dice if they do what the presuader suggested they do. I could see that working, if you dont do it you dont get the circumstances dice. If the player fails his presuade check then if somone sides with him they get a Neg 1 circumstances dice.
If they fail their persuade, I just say nothing happens. Shouldn't penalize someone for having the same opinion as someone with a cruddy roll.
Perhaps the number of circumstance die up for grabs is equal to the width of their argument roll?
: Tadanori Oyama March 18, 2010, 12:17:33 PM
(Also, if you're not a good negotiator in person, you can't use your imaginary skills to compensate for your lack of real ones.)
I perfer to think of it as "If you don't have a good position to negotiate from than you can't compensate with your skills."
I've convinced other players to go along with some crazy shit in the past without a good position to negotiate from. ::)
I'm sure you have. I don't think you had to roll for it, you just turned on that old wise teacher charisma. Like Yoda.
: Setherick March 18, 2010, 12:18:59 PM
(Also, if you're not a good negotiator in person, you can't use your imaginary skills to compensate for your lack of real ones.)
I perfer to think of it as "If you don't have a good position to negotiate from than you can't compensate with your skills."
I've convinced other players to go along with some crazy shit in the past without a good position to negotiate from. ::)
I'm sure you have. I don't think you had to roll for it, you just turned on that old wise teacher charisma. Like Yoda.
Teacher of rhetoric, football coach, improv actor, trained public speaker...I have some interesting bonuses to my natural persuade.
Most recently, though, I've become absolutely convinced you can persuade anyone (with a Western mindset at least) to do anything by using fear and resentment. Perhaps resentment, even more than fear, is the best form of persuasion.
"See that guy with the cookie? See how much he enjoys that cookie? How does it make you feel that you don't have that cookie? What would you be willing to do to get that cookie? Would you be willing to slay that Terrasque for that cookie? He really, really likes that cookie and you don't have one to enjoy."
: Boyos March 18, 2010, 12:27:42 PM
Maybe get like 2 circumstances dice if they do what the presuader suggested they do. I could see that working, if you dont do it you dont get the circumstances dice. If the player fails his presuade check then if somone sides with him they get a Neg 1 circumstances dice.
If they fail their persuade, I just say nothing happens. Shouldn't penalize someone for having the same opinion as someone with a cruddy roll.
Perhaps the number of circumstance die up for grabs is equal to the width of their argument roll?
Fair enough.
: clockworkjoe March 18, 2010, 01:07:40 PM
Ah, this one is an interesting problem that's come up several times for me.
What I tend to do is to offer the player who has been "convinced" a reward/penalty depending on whether they go along with it. I tend to run FATE or Storyteller most often, so this reward/penalty comes in the form of FATE points or Willpower. Going along with a solid, logical argument is easier than fighting it, so they gain willpower/FATE. Fighting it is mentally exhausting, and often leaves someone doubting themselves, so it costs willpower/FATE.
I find it's a great middle-road option. The target feels a strong incentive to go along with what they've been told, while not being forced into any action. It lets the persuader feel like they've done something, even if the person disagrees.
Not sure what a good equivalent would be in Wild Talents? Maybe some temporary bonus dice that can be used on any roll in the near future or something? Or some Willpower? Don't they have something similar in WT?
Thoughts on this idea?
I've thought of this and might use it sometimes but this was a con game (so exp/rewards won't matter) with strangers, near the end of a session. Plus, as mentioned before it was a life or death decision. I let them roleplay it out but it comes down to:
1. Let a PC dictate someone else's decision with a skill check
2. Let the PC make a social skill check but have it be meaningless (I think just saying 'oh well he is persuasive' is a bit of a cop out)
3. Let the players control their own PC.
: robotkarateman March 18, 2010, 01:32:18 PM
You contradict yourself here.
I fail to see how. Using persuasion successfully does not mean mind control.
: Setherick March 18, 2010, 01:37:43 PM
You contradict yourself here.
I fail to see how. Using persuasion successfully does not mean mind control.
If you're using a skill to get someone to do something that they've already claimed they will not do, it's tantamount to mind control.
: robotkarateman March 18, 2010, 01:47:14 PM
If you're using a skill to get someone to do something that they've already claimed they will not do, it's tantamount to mind control.
You should re-read my first post. I never said a successful roll would "get someone to do something". In fact, I stated the opposite.
: Setherick March 18, 2010, 01:49:04 PM
If you're using a skill to get someone to do something that they've already claimed they will not do, it's tantamount to mind control.
You should re-read my first post. I never said a successful roll would "get someone to do something". In fact, I stated the opposite.
Ah, I must have had misread it. I was at a noisy cafe earlier doing work and replied from there.
: ArtfulShrapnel March 18, 2010, 02:12:22 PM
Ah, this one is an interesting problem that's come up several times for me.
What I tend to do is to offer the player who has been "convinced" a reward/penalty depending on whether they go along with it. I tend to run FATE or Storyteller most often, so this reward/penalty comes in the form of FATE points or Willpower. Going along with a solid, logical argument is easier than fighting it, so they gain willpower/FATE. Fighting it is mentally exhausting, and often leaves someone doubting themselves, so it costs willpower/FATE.
I've thought of this and might use it sometimes but this was a con game (so exp/rewards won't matter) with strangers, near the end of a session. Plus, as mentioned before it was a life or death decision. I let them roleplay it out but it comes down to:
1. Let a PC dictate someone else's decision with a skill check
2. Let the PC make a social skill check but have it be meaningless (I think just saying 'oh well he is persuasive' is a bit of a cop out)
3. Let the players control their own PC.
Indeed, it really does boil down to those 3. What sucks is that they all have a problem from one perspective or another. The person with the high social skill hates option 3, the person being controlled hates option 1, and nobody really likes option 2 because it's a cop out. (as you so well put it)
My reasoning behind the point thing is that it amounts to the "best in my opinion" option (let people control their characters) while using a little bit of psychology to make everyone happy.
The aggressor gets to feel as though they exerted some control, even if it did not produce the desired outcome. The removal of a "point" (or willpower or whatever) still registers in the aggressor's mind as a loss to the defender. That loss means that the aggressor has won by an equal degree, because the defender was punished for disagreeing with them. If the defender took the points and went along, then the aggressor is going to be happy because they got their way.
Either way, the defender feels they have been given a choice, with costs and benefits that they got to weigh. If they stay their course, they get a tangible marker of the difficulty of wrestling with a difficult decision, while still maintaining their own story and control of their character. The loss is there, but it is acceptable from their perspective or they would not have taken it. If they take the payoff and change their minds, they feel they have been rewarded for their good roleplaying, even if they would have fought the compulsion ordinarily.
The GM is happy because nobody is pitching a fit and posting unpleasant ranty journals.
At least this is how it's played out with my groups. The interesting part I've found is that bribing people with willpower, bonus dice, or similar... it still works, even if they won't ever come into play! Even in the final moments of a game, when all the important rolls have been made, people still covet those bonus points. It's that weird human psychology thing acting up again I think.
: Abub March 18, 2010, 02:45:29 PM
: malyss March 18, 2010, 03:15:21 PM
Role-playing, as it was originally intended, is not competitive between players. Role-playing is supposed to be cooperative, for the collective enjoyment of all, players and GM alike.
That said, I have had people I game with give their characters really high bluff/sense skills to prevent their characters from believing, or making other characters believe, what their character is saying. The player may know, but their character shouldn't, and therefore they should not take action on information they don't rightly have. You can't always stop it, but it is easier to remind them that they are acting on information the PC doesn't have.
Some players will always use fire on a troll, regardless of whether their character has ever even heard of one or not. It would be a stretch to call those players "good role-players."
: ArtfulShrapnel March 18, 2010, 03:29:21 PM
End of the day, I agree with Ross' call.
Role-playing, as it was originally intended, is not competitive between players. Role-playing is supposed to be cooperative, for the collective enjoyment of all, players and GM alike.
That said, I have had people I game with give their characters really high bluff/sense skills to prevent their characters from believing, or making other characters believe, what their character is saying. The player may know, but their character shouldn't, and therefore they should not take action on information they don't rightly have. You can't always stop it, but it is easier to remind them that they are acting on information the PC doesn't have.
Some players will always use fire on a troll, regardless of whether their character has ever even heard of one or not. It would be a stretch to call those players "good role-players."
Agreed. If it came down to a call one way or the other, it's not a competition. If someone insists that another player must suffer so they can "win", then I will rule against them.
Oh the metagamers. I still don't know how to handle this one. When the person lights the troll on fire... it's not like it's a BAD idea, or an idea the character couldn't have come up with randomly. But everyone there knows it's because trolls are weak against fire. So what's a DM to do? Tell them "no"? Ask them to change their minds?
I usually settle for giving them a disapproving look and letting it go.
On the super obvious ones, things that are counter-intuitive or very obscure, I'll call their bluff and ask them to make a knowledge/idea/outhink roll to use that tactic, otherwise they need to play it as their character would.
: clockworkjoe March 18, 2010, 04:36:35 PM
: Wooberman March 18, 2010, 07:07:21 PM
I do let PCs lie to one another with bluff type skills and I have prevented players from acting on out of character knowledge because of successful bluff checks. So PCs can use certain social skills against each other - just not the outright diplomacy 'do what I say' type skills.
Thats what "Charm person" and "Dominate Person" is for!
I'm with you Ross, PC's are not like the plebian populus of a game world and are not subject to the same restrictions/vulnerabilities. Personally I let my players use Bluff and sense motive/Insight/Bullshit Detector etc but thats the limit.
: Boyos March 18, 2010, 08:41:43 PM
: Kroack March 18, 2010, 09:41:35 PM
Also he totally contradicts himself by saying he felt like his own free will was crushed when he wanted to do the same thing to another player. :P
: clockworkjoe March 18, 2010, 09:51:44 PM
I posted this there
I have the entire game recorded so I guess I will have to post it so you guys can decide for yourselves.
Personally, I believe that RPGs are best when players can make interesting choices in a story. For me that means that I try to minimize any outside influences. I don’t want players making decisions because of some meta-game reason. I hate the idea that someone might make a major decision because “oh well, I want to do X but I know I should do Y because the GM really wants me to do Y.” I want players to make a decision because they feel that’s the choice their character would make. So to even exert some pressure on a player because of a persuasion skill roll would be outside my bounds as a GM. I try to respect the PCs agency in games.
: Avoozel March 19, 2010, 12:12:26 AM
I would say No and No, to each of these questions.
To the first question: I am in the camp that believes that, short of supernatural intervention, a the character's player is in control of that character's choices. It's bad enough getting players to go along with scenarios that involve them getting captured or losing any sort of physical control over their character's destiny. Say the party captures a baddie and the everyone in the party says that the prisoner should be tortured except for my character. As a player, I would probably flip out if I was in a game, playing pacifist-type who was protecting a prisoner and another player rolled a persuade skill and the GM had my character go along with, or even happily step aside from the situation. This is because it is important to me that my character to be presented in the story as I intend. Which leads me to my next question!
So, if a player makes their social skill roll and gets a high result, but the player is essentially saying "Go, hit thing with rock! Make it smash!" can the GM turn to the players and say "So-and-So makes a good argument to make smash with rocks." The opposite of this is if a player makes an argument that would make Daniel Webster weep somberly, and then completely fluffs his roll, does the GM turn to the players and say "So-and-So sounds like a jerk and you hate his face for what he just said." (After all, a lot of games impose negative reactions on badly failed reaction/influence rolls.) Neither of these scenarios really would sit well with me. There's also the argument that a highly persuasive character on paper, with a dunce player, (just like a highly intelligent character, or a lawyer with high law skills) is supposed to have a character with the ability to make highly persuasive arguments. Well, this is true, the character's skills allow them to have a great effect in the context of the game, on the NPCs. This way a lot of abstraction can be had to keep things flowing. I, personally, do not want to sit down and have a GM role-play out a character persuading 40 people, in real time, with another player. Have you watched a town hall on CNN? I shudder thinking about it. So, yes, the dunce player, with the highly intelligent, persuasive super-lawyer can make amazing arguments and defenses as described by the GM and as they effect the NPCs and story accordingly... NOT the other players' characters (unless a player decides to change their character's mind.)
So says me.
And, who thinks the next episode of BearSwarm is going to cover social skills affecting players? Hands?
: clockworkjoe March 19, 2010, 12:37:15 AM
RPPR is totally going to do this as our next episode
: Setherick March 19, 2010, 12:38:45 AM
NO WAY I CALLED IT FIRST
RPPR is totally going to do this as our next episode
And I'm going to call in and bitch. :o
: Boyos March 19, 2010, 12:54:06 AM
: Avoozel March 19, 2010, 01:01:49 AM
: Boyos March 19, 2010, 01:26:03 AM
Rolling 1d20: (1): Total = 1
= : dice 1d20 : Incase you didnt know. no spaces between the :
: Flawless P March 19, 2010, 05:22:08 AM
Nice Nat 1
: Valegor March 19, 2010, 08:47:42 AM
NO WAY I CALLED IT FIRST
RPPR is totally going to do this as our next episode
I was thinking about suggesting it for Fear the Boot. It would be hilarious if three podcasts all dropped with the same topic.
: ArtfulShrapnel March 19, 2010, 08:52:27 AM
NO WAY I CALLED IT FIRST
RPPR is totally going to do this as our next episode
And I'm going to call in and bitch. :o
Wait, people can call in to RPPR? I want in!
You could do a pretty lengthy episode about the social contract, and when it's appropriate for the GM to take a degree of control away from the player, with the Social Skills thing as a recent example.
I can totally relate to the aforementioned "player being captured" scenario. I've had someone get VERY upset about the fact that they got knocked unconscious and taken prisoner. And I really didn't even do anything to them. They got put in a cell and their sword was put in a nearby box for safekeeping. Y'know, prisoner stuff. They had lots of fun during the escape and the ensuing fun times, especially when the uncaptured party members got involved from the outside. Yet they were still all pissy that I'd "stolen their character" while they were unconcious...
: Boyos March 19, 2010, 12:45:04 PM
;D
Nice Nat 1
Im just glad that it dont count! haha!
: Kroack March 19, 2010, 06:11:09 PM
NO WAY I CALLED IT FIRST
RPPR is totally going to do this as our next episode
And I'm going to call in and bitch. :o
Wait, people can call in to RPPR? I want in!
You could do a pretty lengthy episode about the social contract, and when it's appropriate for the GM to take a degree of control away from the player, with the Social Skills thing as a recent example.
I can totally relate to the aforementioned "player being captured" scenario. I've had someone get VERY upset about the fact that they got knocked unconscious and taken prisoner. And I really didn't even do anything to them. They got put in a cell and their sword was put in a nearby box for safekeeping. Y'know, prisoner stuff. They had lots of fun during the escape and the ensuing fun times, especially when the uncaptured party members got involved from the outside. Yet they were still all pissy that I'd "stolen their character" while they were unconcious...
Ross should totally do live shows
Have people call in
It would be bitching
: ArtfulShrapnel March 19, 2010, 11:30:47 PM
Ross should totally do live shows
Have people call in
It would be bitching
It would be bitching
bitching
Indeed it would....
: rayner23 March 20, 2010, 12:46:59 PM
NO WAY I CALLED IT FIRST
RPPR is totally going to do this as our next episode
Can I be the special guest for that episode?!
: Boyos March 20, 2010, 10:59:03 PM
: IDaMan008 March 21, 2010, 02:19:00 AM
Fuck yeah! have cody on there!
Agreed. Cody's opinions are insightful and colorfully phrased. Put him in the show!
: Setherick March 21, 2010, 09:45:12 AM
Fuck yeah! have cody on there!
Agreed. Cody's opinionsare insightful andcolorfully phrased. Put him in the show!
Fixed this.
: AmishNinja March 22, 2010, 01:47:37 PM
Also gonna second the idea that Cody guest-star on the next episode.
: rayner23 March 22, 2010, 03:43:59 PM
Thanks fans!
Also, Patrick, I had planned on reigning in the swear words for this one. I know, it's a bit of a stretch, but I think I can handle it.
: Setherick March 22, 2010, 04:49:16 PM
Also, Patrick, I had planned on reigning in the swear words for this one. I know, it's a bit of a stretch, but I think I can handle it.
Where the hell did this come from?
EDIT: Oh, never mind, I completely forgot about the "colorfully phrased" crack I made on the previous page.
: rayner23 March 22, 2010, 05:23:13 PM
Also, Patrick, I had planned on reigning in the swear words for this one. I know, it's a bit of a stretch, but I think I can handle it.
Where the hell did this come from?
EDIT: Oh, never mind, I completely forgot about the "colorfully phrased" crack I made on the previous page.
It's cool, I forgot to click "quote"
: Kroack March 22, 2010, 07:03:59 PM
: malyss March 23, 2010, 08:53:04 AM
The stream of obscenities best be a flowing!
Isn't it more like a waterfall?
: FuzzyDan March 23, 2010, 09:14:57 AM
The stream of obscenities best be a flowing!
Isn't it more like a waterfall?
If so, we'd better not chase it.
: rayner23 March 23, 2010, 09:43:26 AM
The stream of obscenities best be a flowing!
Isn't it more like a waterfall?
If so, we'd better not chase it.
Dan brings up a great public service announcement, but I would like to go further and say that you need to stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to.
: RobJustice March 23, 2010, 11:44:27 AM
Anyway, I made a TON of comment discussing this issue with someone else on the IoM article. Figured I'd spout off a bit here too. I wouldn't have gotten into podcasting if I didn't love giving my opinion on things. haha.
While I disagree with totally shutting down a player's ability to attempt any sort of mechanical ability I also disagree with anyone who says Ross made the wrong call. Or that he's a horrible monster. Well, he might be a horrible monster... I don't know him THAT well.
I honestly don't think this issue has a right side and a wrong side. Now, I do disagree and I would have done things differently. This does not, in any way, mean Ross made the wrong call. He made the call that he was most comfortable with under that situation. To me, that's the right call no matter how you look at it.
This also makes me sad face panda bear that I skipped out on recording with RPPR last week. I was just so desperate for a break from recording I didn't even think that we had a fantastic topic given to us to discuss. Oh well, live and learn. haha.
: ShotgunSurgeon March 23, 2010, 07:36:17 PM
http://ideologyofmadness.spookyouthouse.com//archives/11764 (http://ideologyofmadness.spookyouthouse.com//archives/11764)
Not much new ground there.
: doctorscraps March 28, 2010, 11:13:33 AM
http://ideologyofmadness.spookyouthouse.com//archives/11649
I ran an Age of Masks game at Fear the Con 3 last weekend. A player tries to persuade another PC of a certain plan and tries to use the persuasion skill to do so - not a supernatural ability just regular old diplomacy. I said no because I think that players have agency over their own PC - you can't force another PC to do something without an actual supernatural power. This guy thinks otherwise.
DISCUSS
I don't agree with the practice. What one should do is role-play it out and sell the character on the plan than trying to go with a I-Win dice roll.
: Boyos March 28, 2010, 12:18:20 PM
http://ideologyofmadness.spookyouthouse.com//archives/11649
I ran an Age of Masks game at Fear the Con 3 last weekend. A player tries to persuade another PC of a certain plan and tries to use the persuasion skill to do so - not a supernatural ability just regular old diplomacy. I said no because I think that players have agency over their own PC - you can't force another PC to do something without an actual supernatural power. This guy thinks otherwise.
DISCUSS
I don't agree with the practice. What one should do is role-play it out and sell the character on the plan than trying to go with a I-Win dice roll.
Thats what the guy did at first, and when that failed he tryed the dice.
: clockworkjoe April 07, 2010, 07:54:14 PM
: rayner23 April 07, 2010, 09:08:26 PM
First off, kudos to digging out those flower beds. Totally badass.
"Now for some intelligent conversation on the subject, go check out this week’s Podge Cast where Luke, Adam/David, and Eric discuss the issue at length. It’s the best discussion on the topic yet, and I’m not saying that because they mostly agree with me."
Let's face it, that's EXACTLY why you're saying it's the best discussion on the topic yet.
Listen up, scrote, and let's look at some bare bones facts that the incomparable RPPR folks forgot to mention: 1) You're a douche (maybe they touched on that.)
2) As your header so astutely puts it, this topic won't die. I think the main reason for this is because you want to continue to debate something that is such a moot point. It was one ruling at the end of a CONVENTION game. Ross shut you down because you tried to rob a player of free will, but he also shut you down so he could just end the fucking game and move on with his life.
3)I think you said it best yourself: "I can also accepts that the game we were playing that day, Wild Talents, did not have a social combat system." Wild Talents doesn't have a social combat system, therefore, you can't impose your persuasion on another PC. Had you been playing a game that featured a social combat system, then Ross would be in the wrong. You can't impose rules from one game to another. Are you the kind of guy who tries to play Monopoly with Twister rules? You: "Left foot blue means I get to take Boardwalk and Park Place!" GM: "That makes no sense and you can't do that." You: "WAAAAH WAAAAAH!!! I'M GONNA BLOG ABOUT IT NOW!!!! AND THEN I WILL DO IT AGAIN!!!!"
You know who else makes up their own rules to win in a game? Children. You: "Pew pew pew! I shot you with my laser!" Some other asshole kid: "No you didn't! I have an anti-laser shield!" You: "Well, I have a gun that shoots through laser shields!" SOAK: "Well, I dropped a laser-jamming grenade earlier, but you didn't see it." You: "My gun was made by Tony Stark and it is immune to anti-laser grenades."
I certainly hope you're not reading this as you planting flowers because I'm sure it's gonna be hell on those petunias.
: rayner23 April 07, 2010, 09:24:13 PM
: jefgodesky April 07, 2010, 10:04:53 PM
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 April 07, 2010, 10:13:17 PM
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
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v518/EarthbounderNess/QuitGettingMad.gif)
except change video games to read role playing games
: jefgodesky April 07, 2010, 10:18:44 PM
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 April 07, 2010, 10:37:09 PM
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 April 07, 2010, 10:40:32 PM
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.
(http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/1505/trollbankgr14377630.jpg)
: Mckma April 07, 2010, 11:02:31 PM
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 April 07, 2010, 11:07:19 PM
And in the end, it's an issue that really doesn't matter.
Don't say that. It matters to neckbeards everywhere. :'(
: jefgodesky April 07, 2010, 11:39:00 PM
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 April 07, 2010, 11:43:33 PM
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 April 07, 2010, 11:59:56 PM
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 April 08, 2010, 12:09:43 AM
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 April 08, 2010, 01:19:42 AM
: Setherick April 08, 2010, 01:23:43 AM
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 April 08, 2010, 01:25:01 AM
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 April 08, 2010, 01:42:21 AM
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...
: Sean-o-tron April 08, 2010, 01:45:16 AM
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.
arguing semantics on the internet lol
: Wooberman April 08, 2010, 02:36:50 AM
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.
arguing semantics on the internet lol
You might as well be screwing for virginity :-X
: ArtfulShrapnel April 08, 2010, 09:36:15 AM
And to get things back on topic: How do you handle things when a character is being "convinced" towards something that their character fluff clearly dictates they are opposed to? i.e:
Captain McOrphan was orphaned and spends his life protecting orphans. It is the single most pressing goal in his character's life. Questionable Ethics Man wants to convince him to kill some orphans to save the city from tigers.
Let's say for this example that they are not playing in a system where there is a trait that McOrphan could take to indicate his love of orphans. As an alternate, what if there is such a trait available (such as "Passion: Save the Orphans") but the character does not have it? Should it make a difference whether he has roleplayed the character to this trait consistently?
: rayner23 April 08, 2010, 09:46:59 AM
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.
Ross already said this, but I will reiterate:
He has his own blog where he blasts Ross and says that this one ruling had "ruined" the game. We were merely discussing the issue and aside from my comments (which I take full responsibility for and I said them because he wasn't there and because I am angered easily, I love easy laughs and I am , in fact, a coward) I don't think we were "piling" anything on. Do I regret saying we are adults? Not at all because it's fucking funny to think that someone who debates about a topic that is SO FUCKING STUPID is still an adult. I mean, let's face it, this has gone on far too long and considering that we're still debating it, I don't think any of us are really adults.
I won't apologize for my comments, but that's because this is the fucking internet and if Rich johnston won't apologize for printing bold faced lies about the comic book industry on his website, then I won't apologize for a stupid comment directed at someone who wrote a stupid blog. I will say, however, that I am very proud of you for defending the defeneseless here on the beast we call the internet. That is a very admirable and beautiful thing you have done. Right now, I think he should be listening to Elton John's "Someone Saved my Life Tonight" and thinking of you.
: rayner23 April 08, 2010, 09:49:15 AM
(though when Jesus said that, I'm pretty sure he never took into consideration the appeal of blasting others on the internet.)
: Setherick April 08, 2010, 09:54:14 AM
I take everything back. Guys, Jesus was right. We really should just turn the other cheek.
(though when Jesus said that, I'm pretty sure he never took into consideration the appeal of blasting others on the internet.)
I refuse to apologize or take anything back when someone gets on the forum and (1) starts spouting off about a topic he should have emailed Ross about because he must have known the ramifications (and it's not like Ross' email is private or anything) and (2) insults the entire forums without having been an active part of it.
You call those people trolls.
: ArtfulShrapnel April 08, 2010, 10:51:52 AM
I take everything back. Guys, Jesus was right. We really should just turn the other cheek.
(though when Jesus said that, I'm pretty sure he never took into consideration the appeal of blasting others on the internet.)
If you strike a good man, he shall turn unto you the other cheek. On the internet, the other cheek is Goatse. Think upon this before your strike your fellows. So sayeth Raptor Jesus.
: rayner23 April 08, 2010, 11:05:09 AM
I take everything back. Guys, Jesus was right. We really should just turn the other cheek.
(though when Jesus said that, I'm pretty sure he never took into consideration the appeal of blasting others on the internet.)
If you strike a good man, he shall turn unto you the other cheek. On the internet, the other cheek is Goatse. Think upon this before your strike your fellows. So sayeth Raptor Jesus.
I love the RPPR forums for things like this.
: Setherick April 08, 2010, 11:10:13 AM
: ethan_dawe April 08, 2010, 11:48:23 AM
Thanks for showing up and making hypocritical accusation against Ross (considering this was already talked about on the other guys blog and various podcasts) and sweeping statements about how narrow his experience must have been to not see this issue. I've been playing RPGs for 30 years and haven't seen it come up either. Thanks then for insulting the entire forum as having a "tenor" that doesn't suit you. Clearly I wouldn't find the "tenor" of a forum you felt comfortable on likeable either.
For the record Ross, I think you made the right call.
: rayner23 April 08, 2010, 12:33:47 PM
I love being part of a forum with this tenor.
Thanks for showing up and making hypocritical accusation against Ross (considering this was already talked about on the other guys blog and various podcasts) and sweeping statements about how narrow his experience must have been to not see this issue. I've been playing RPGs for 30 years and haven't seen it come up either. Thanks then for insulting the entire forum as having a "tenor" that doesn't suit you. Clearly I wouldn't find the "tenor" of a forum you felt comfortable on likeable either.
For the record Ross, I think you made the right call.
Ethan, you have impressed me so much, that I shall give you a new nickname. From now on, you are "Cool Ethan."
: malyss April 08, 2010, 01:01:27 PM
First penny) Ross is not a moderator on his podcast - he is a subject matter expert. He never claims to be a moderator, nor does he claim that the podcast is devoid of his personal opinions. I don't think it is even remotely wrong of him to profess his views. Part of the reason that I listen is because I WANT TO HEAR HIS OPINION.
Second penny) This is one of the mildest internet forums I have ever seen. The 'tenor' here is opinionated, without generally being personal. Granted, people respond personally when apparently attacked personally, but every time I have disagreed with someone (and that is reasonably often) my opinion is discussed, and their point of view is explained. I have never been 'piled-on' for having a dissenting view. I'm certainly not always agreed with, but such is life.
I'm sorry you don't feel that this forum is for you, but you have a chance to participate here, and if you follow your arguments through, you will find they are likely respectfully received and discussed. Unless you start flaming. Then it's on.
: clockworkjoe April 08, 2010, 01:38:49 PM
especially if it's order66
: malyss April 08, 2010, 02:19:25 PM
: rayner23 April 08, 2010, 02:49:46 PM
: ristarr April 08, 2010, 08:18:39 PM
MOTHERFUCKING SYNIBARR!!!!
: Boyos April 08, 2010, 08:31:27 PM
I'm not opposed to piling on in principle though
especially if it's order66
Im still doing the if you ignore the problem it will go away. But he has toned it down a bit since he was banned.
: Setherick April 08, 2010, 09:02:21 PM
I'm not opposed to piling on in principle though
especially if it's order66
Im still doing the if you ignore the problem it will go away. But he has toned it down a bit since he was banned.
He's learning. He's progressed from troll to kobold.
: Kroack April 08, 2010, 09:53:00 PM
Zero Tolerance Policy
RPPR Forums
: RobJustice April 13, 2010, 01:39:32 PM
And, who thinks the next episode of BearSwarm is going to cover social skills affecting players? Hands?
Actually, we already covered that back in October: http://www.bearswarm.com/episode-77-social-and-intelligence-mechanics
: Sean-o-tron April 16, 2010, 08:40:00 PM
And, who thinks the next episode of BearSwarm is going to cover social skills affecting players? Hands?
Actually, we already covered that back in October: http://www.bearswarm.com/episode-77-social-and-intelligence-mechanics
Truly, the Bear Swarm are the Oracles of Delphi of our times.
: Connallmac May 31, 2010, 07:20:53 PM
: Setherick May 31, 2010, 09:01:15 PM
: Boyos June 01, 2010, 12:48:18 AM
I know I am late getting to this topic, in addition to mostly lurking here, but a long car trip on Saturday let me finally catch up on my RPPR episodes. Having played and run rpgs for seventeen years now I think Ross made exactly the right call. I've read Aron's blog posts and I think had another player tried the same sort of thing on him he would have been terribly upset over Ross having let said player run roughshod over his character. The only way to handle this sort of situation, barring a game with actual mechanics for it like Burning Wheel, is to role play it out and handle it like adults. Robbing another player of free will is never cool, and I don't allow it at my table.
Have you heard the Actual Play yet? Cause when it comes up in the game, nothing is realy said other then, flower boy going, Can I roll Presuade? Ross going no, I dont like that happeing in my game sorry. Flower boy, Ok.
: Mckma June 01, 2010, 01:23:38 AM
Yeah, it's totally brushed over and nothing really happens, which is really surprising that he was so upset about it...I know I am late getting to this topic, in addition to mostly lurking here, but a long car trip on Saturday let me finally catch up on my RPPR episodes. Having played and run rpgs for seventeen years now I think Ross made exactly the right call. I've read Aron's blog posts and I think had another player tried the same sort of thing on him he would have been terribly upset over Ross having let said player run roughshod over his character. The only way to handle this sort of situation, barring a game with actual mechanics for it like Burning Wheel, is to role play it out and handle it like adults. Robbing another player of free will is never cool, and I don't allow it at my table.
Have you heard the Actual Play yet? Cause when it comes up in the game, nothing is realy said other then, flower boy going, Can I roll Presuade? Ross going no, I dont like that happeing in my game sorry. Flower boy, Ok.
: Connallmac July 05, 2010, 11:59:40 AM
I know I am late getting to this topic, in addition to mostly lurking here, but a long car trip on Saturday let me finally catch up on my RPPR episodes. Having played and run rpgs for seventeen years now I think Ross made exactly the right call. I've read Aron's blog posts and I think had another player tried the same sort of thing on him he would have been terribly upset over Ross having let said player run roughshod over his character. The only way to handle this sort of situation, barring a game with actual mechanics for it like Burning Wheel, is to role play it out and handle it like adults. Robbing another player of free will is never cool, and I don't allow it at my table.
Have you heard the Actual Play yet? Cause when it comes up in the game, nothing is realy said other then, flower boy going, Can I roll Presuade? Ross going no, I dont like that happeing in my game sorry. Flower boy, Ok.
I can't say as I have, I've never really gotten in to the Actual Play episodes. That makes Aron seem even more lame, nothing like a tempest in a teapot! It's situations like these when I try to take a deep breath and remember that every man is the hero of his own story. Some folks make it very difficult.