Quote from: jibbajibba;564282There is a balance. I RP everything . Shit we once had a CoC game where dinner at the gathering point took 2 hours in game time..... But I still like Social skills.

However, a good GM can solve this dichotomy. I am trying to pursuade a Frost Giant that it's in his best interest to accompany us to a dragon's lair. The PC uses an argument that the Dragon poses a real and genuine threat to the Frost Giant's tribe and the giant has a better chance of getting rid of it if he works with this party of brave adventurers than without.  I will then make a decision based on GM fiat as to how reasonable that is as a plan based on the personality of a Frost Giant. Then I will use it as a modifier to a pursuade/fast talk/rhetoric roll based on the Charater's skill.
If the player had mentioned the Frost Giant would get a share of the dragon's horde they would have gotten a better modifier.
If they had explained ooo that they were trying to sort of hint that the party would probably be massively weakened by the conflict and would be a soft target for the Giant to finish off.

So the base position might give the PC a modifier of -8. With no RP they get -8.
If they come up with a decent plan (the one listed above) that might bump it to a -5
If they mention the horde or treasure then maybe a -2
If they can get across the idea that the party migh be easy prey themselves then maybe 0

If the PC has diplomacy +4,459 then they really can get away with the base offering, because they really are that pursuasive. The Player spent as many points/feats/good rolls/class abilities on that skill as the figther did getting 5 dart attacks at +7/+14 per round so its only fair they get to use it to its fullest.

I hear you and this can certainly work. But the more and more this comes up in play the more I prefer to ditch the roll altogether. Again, it is just preference.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;564141This is craptastic. The concept of 'challenging the character' is stupid as fuck-all. An rpg character is a collection of stats scribbled on a piece of paper. Players are the ones playing the game, the ones that think, and act, and can appreciate the concept of a challenge.

Next time your character succeeds in a challenge ask him/her if it felt satisfying. If everything just comes down to a die roll based on some statistics then a trained fucking monkey can play for you. All he has to do is mash the right buttons at the proper time to win.

The challenge of the game is for the player, so taking the player factor largely out of the resolution cycle is moronic.

Cute, but nobody mentioned "challenging the character" or whatnot. The concept of "challenging the character" is fucking stupid anyway because, to them, there was no challenge. There was just a conversation. The character is interacting directly with the game world; the player is interacting with the game world through a character sheet, game mechanics, the GM's descriptions, their mental images... they're quite far removed.

The player is the person playing the game... like you said, they're the ones that devise the plans. But they're not the ones that the game world is interacting with. The game world interacts with the character, and the character is obviously an independent enough entity to survive without the player, else they wouldn't have lived long enough to become a PC.

So the player can put words in the character's mouth, or at least into their brain. What the social skills measure is whether the character is picking their nose, or maintaining eye contact, or shouting, or giving just the right amount of social space. If the character fucks that up, then it doesn't matter what they said.

Now, obviously, if you take away the player element then you don't have a game. But if you take the character element out of it, if you take the mechanical elements out of it, you don't have a game either; you've got the players simply talking to each other and getting what they want just because. Now, there's nothing wrong with that, but if that's what you want then go join an amateur dramatics society, because you aren't playing an RPG.

You've also got a situation where players who aren't as good, socially, are artificially limited in their choice of in-game characters, and where players who are can get an unfair advantage with every single character they ever play. And we're not talking catpissmen, we're talking vaguely average people.

So to sum up: in a social situation, the player should say what they expect the character to say, and then roll the dice to find out how well the character says it.

And no, "my guy is being diplomatic! +20!" doesn't count. That's stupid. At least try.

Quote from: Benoist;564296it's that the stigma is in the gamers' heads themselves, like it's something to be ashamed of, not to put on a résumé, not to talk about casually with 'non-gamers' and such

I was getting my haircut and a teenager in the seat next to mine cracked a joke. He said, "I don't need a Purity Ring, I play D&D!"

That is the reputation we have to deal with and change.

Quote from: Benoist;564296I think that, as you just hinted at with this paragraph, it's not so much that there is an actual stigma attached to tabletop RPG gaming anymore (I mean, I talk about D&D with priests of the Catholic Church - had a priest attend one of my Vampire the Masquerade game sessions of all things!, United Church, etc, folks aren't going all crazy about D&D = Satan anymore, unless of course we're talking about extreme individuals and/or denominations), it's that the stigma is in the gamers' heads themselves, like it's something to be ashamed of, not to put on a résumé, not to talk about casually with 'non-gamers' and such (I always put role playing games in my hobbies on my résumé - never stopped me from getting a job, quite the contrary, actually).

I myself am pretty open, but I think either things are abit different in your neck of the woods or you have a high charisma. Around here nobody will complain about gaming on religious grounds (though in other parts of the country it may be different) but I have definitely had very negative reactions in the past from acquaintances, friends and co-workers. Not everyone mind you, but I think being a gamer or a geek has a bit of a stigma here. And I am a pretty socially aware person, so it isn't a case of me talking about it at the wrong moment or too excessively. With younger people it does seem to be less of an issue. i am really thinking more about folks in my own age groupnor older.

Quote from: Opaopajr;564274Somewhere in heaven there's a grotto named "Patience" with your statue in it.

Anyone who gets all bent out of shape about the game I'm running is free to play a CCG or video games in the meanwhile. Or they can get off their ass and run it themselves, if they think it's that important. My free time is not there to prep your fantasies over my interests.

When I play its not an issue, as I will play anything.

When I GM, I have decided that its better to have a great player in the game than to tell them to play what I want or leave.

I admit I am bad at excluding people from my games. Keep in mind these are friends, and good players.

Quote from: Benoist;564229I acknowledge that everyone's experience and opportunities are different. It may be unnaturally tough for you to find people who'd like to give RPGs a try. If that is the case, I think it's got more to do with the approach one has introducing the idea of RPGs (or not introducing it at all) to people around you to then propose a  game casually and get a regular group going. Beyond that, I think there's just this assumed idea that "it's hard" so gamers don't even TRY and just go for gamer meetups and ads in LGS instead automatically, and I think they're wrong to do so.

I first came to Canada 10 years ago. Not only did I have an accent and knew next to no one around me, I found myself on an island as far as away from suburban civilization as you can get, with only about 1,500 people around me in a hundred miles radius. I got a group off the ground in a few months. And that's not like it was "hard" or I had to chase people down the island. No. That just came up in a bunch of conversations and in a few weeks time just made its way into the minds of a bunch of friends who then gave it a shot and played the game regularly.

You see, I want to play with these people. I want them in my game. So the choice is force them, accomadate them, or tell them to take a hike.

Quote from: Bill;564335You see, I want to play with these people. I want them in my game. So the choice is force them, accomadate them, or tell them to take a hike.

Okay. So you feel strongly enough about playing with these friends of yours that you'll not run the game you actually want to play more (1/2e) and run what they want to play instead (3e/Pathfinder). That's not a bad thing at all. People are more important, you'll get no objection from me on that front.

Now my question is: are they ready to do the same for you, especially considering you run the game? If they are valuing you as a friend and want you to be happy playing as well, it shouldn't be hard to sell them on the idea of playing 2e now... is it?

Play a bit of Pathfinder, then a bit of 2e. Or one campaign of each, maybe even one of them would run Pathfinder, and you'd run 2e for them. Alternate sessions of the two campaigns. Or have both editions within the same campaign (maybe playing to eras of the setting's history with flashbacks back and forth in time between sessions, one era being 2e, the other being 3e/PF). Did you approach them with ideas like this and if so, what were their reactions?

Quote from: Benoist;564343Okay. So you feel strongly enough about playing with these friends of yours that you'll not run the game you actually want to play more (1/2e) and run what they want to play instead (3e/Pathfinder). That's not a bad thing at all. People are more important, you'll get no objection from me on that front.

Now my question is: are they ready to do the same for you, especially considering you run the game? If they are valuing you as a friend and want you to be happy playing as well, it shouldn't be hard to sell them on the idea of playing 2e now... is it?

Play a bit of Pathfinder, then a bit of 2e. Or one campaign of each, maybe even one of them would run Pathfinder, and you'd run 2e for them. Alternate sessions of the two campaigns. Or have both editions within the same campaign (maybe playing to eras of the setting's history with flashbacks back and forth in time between sessions, one era being 2e, the other being 3e/PF). Did you approach them with ideas like this and if so, what were their reactions?

Only two of us accept the idea of the GM dictating the system and setting.

So we do 'endless debate' and a 'sales pitch' to the group and see what gets people excited.

This time around, Dark Sun with Pathfinder was well recieved.

Some of the players seem blind to the fact that it is the GM that matters not the system or setting. It is very annoying to be complimented that my game is fun, but still have to deal with this crap

I am getting to the point where I will GM what I want to gm next time around.

Quote from: Bill;564354Only two of us accept the idea of the GM dictating the system and setting.

So I'm gathering that aside of you two, the others you value enough to want at your game table regardless of the system aren't returning the favor, otherwise they wouldn't be adamant about "the edition they want, or the highway," correct?

Quote from: Bill;564354I am getting to the point where I will GM what I want to gm next time around.

I think you should do exactly that. Life's too short to run games you don't really want to run.

Quote from: Bill;564354I am getting to the point where I will GM what I want to gm next time around.

Just say, "I feel like running this, so I'm going to be running this for a while.  If you don't feel like playing, that's cool, I'll let you know when this campaign is finished."

If they care more about the input they give then what you are actually playing (ie. the stupid social power arrangement bullshit), then you don't need them when they leave.  If they decide that the enjoyment they derive from playing in your campaigns actually has something to do with you, then they'll stay and be better for the realization.

Ben and CRK;

Good advice. Its more stubborness I think than any real desire on their part to be difficult. One guy actually does sit out campaigns that use certain game systems. Another guy says he will sit out some games but changes his mind at the last moment.

Quote from: CRKrueger;564360Just say, "I feel like running this, so I'm going to be running this for a while.  If you don't feel like playing, that's cool, I'll let you know when this campaign is finished."

If they care more about the input they give then what you are actually playing (ie. the stupid social power arrangement bullshit), then you don't need them when they leave.  If they decide that the enjoyment they derive from playing in your campaigns actually has something to do with you, then they'll stay and be better for the realization.

Better yet, suggest one of the players DMs his favourite system. You don't have to be snarky about it, just float the idea that you'd love to be a player for a while, and you've heard the new Pathfinder adventure path is supposed to be awesome.

If they won't take you up on it, then they should be sufficiently humbled to restore your status. If they do take you up on it, then someone else gets to learn the pain of DMing Pathfinder, and you can even enjoy kicking back and being a player for a while. If the new DM falls on his face, again, your status is restored. If he doesn't, then you have a new alternate DM, and all is good.

Quote from: Benoist;564343Play a bit of Pathfinder, then a bit of 2e. Or one campaign of each, maybe even one of them would run Pathfinder, and you'd run 2e for them. Alternate sessions of the two campaigns.

This is the best approach - have several campaigns going at once, some mini-campaigns & one-shots too. Run fortnightly instead of weekly. Players who don't like the 1e game can play the Pathfinder one instead.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;564322I myself am pretty open, but I think either things are abit different in your neck of the woods or you have a high charisma. Around here nobody will complain about gaming on religious grounds (though in other parts of the country it may be different) but I have definitely had very negative reactions in the past from acquaintances, friends and co-workers. Not everyone mind you, but I think being a gamer or a geek has a bit of a stigma here. And I am a pretty socially aware person, so it isn't a case of me talking about it at the wrong moment or too excessively. With younger people it does seem to be less of an issue. i am really thinking more about folks in my own age groupnor older.

You get a lot of negative reactions anywhere, Dungeons and dragons is like the ultimate geek. Even the geeks in Big Bang Theory don't do a lot of table top RPGs. Computer RPG stuff is more acceptable even though that actually involves having no friends and even less social skills.
If you go to a Con they are full of the most unattractive Socially enept people you are likely to see. Just watch the crowd of guys letching over the average looking girl in an superhero costume to see what I mean.
Comics have been saved by an association with mainstream movies and Comic Con is now viewed as mainstream. Computers were kind of saved by the dot com bubble and facebook (et al). But Dungeon and Dragons is still a stigma.

Maybe it wouldn't have a stigma if the players you're describing took a shower daily and stopped creeping over every boob window or bare midriff on in the building.

Anyway, I'm not sure why people are bemoaning the death of 'GM Fiat'. Considering that GM adjudication is necessary for any RPG to work, and the rules can never cover everything the players might possibly come up with, 'fiat' is basically the only core mechanic shared by every RPG.

In my 4E game the other day, one of my players wanted to teleport a long distance in a hurry, so I came up with an impromptu ritual at the cost of his only Encounter teleport spell. (initially I'd stipulated the cost as both, but then used the supposedly dead 'GM fiat' to say it just cost the encounter power when he rolled a 30.

4E, or WHFRP, or any game with 'RPG' in the description can never kill off GM judgement. Otherwise it would become a board game or wargame.