Quote from: Lunamancer;906054No one ever?

No one said. "No one ever."

Well, no one except you.

QuoteSo yes, when I hear GMs in particular citing this "problem" I question things.

Why? Seriously why?

Why do you care that someone, somewhere wants to play an RPG in a different manner than you do?

Quote from: Bren;906061No one said. "No one ever."

Well, no one except you.

You know, I just love it how you blast other people for shit only you said. I was responding to your "no one ever" comment. Quoted you quite clearly. If you want to recant your straw man, by all means do so.

Because "no one ever" wasn't just a tragic choice of words on your part to express an otherwise sound idea. It was an essential assumption to the problem you were trying to cite. Whereas dropping "no one ever" from the equation-- if players show a clear willingness to engage in some social situations but not others, it follows pretty damn simply that those "other" social situations simply do not engage the players. Which is what I've claimed all along, a claim that apparently has your panties in a bunch.

So yes, you said  "no one ever" and you meant it.

QuoteWhy? Seriously why?

Why do you care that someone, somewhere wants to play an RPG in a different manner than you do?

Same reply. You are the one who jumps down peoples throats for simply presenting an option different from what you do. I very simply answered the OP that what he was asking about is just not for me. I never said nobody should do it. I never indicated that I cared if someone else did it. I simply said I don't care for it, here's why, and oh, by the way, I have an alternative. And for some reason made apparent by your own posting behavior matters so much to you that you post inane comments just for the sake of not allowing anyone's fun to go unchallenged by your own holy opinion.

So basically nice try quoting your own character flaws and then attempting to attribute them to others.

Quote from: Lunamancer;906063You know, I just love it how you blast other people for shit only you said. I was responding to your "no one ever" comment. Quoted you quite clearly. If you want to recant your straw man, by all means do so.

Werewolf...Silver tongue...It was a pun. :rolleyes:

I know, I know you didn't get it because it was written in text. Which you find "fishy."

I hereby proclaim that I've just won a 6-pack out of this thread, which might well be more than the rest of the participants;).

Quote from: AsenRG;906082I hereby proclaim that I've just won a 6-pack out of this thread, which might well be more than the rest of the participants;).

But uncle Asen, just because mr. soon-to-be-fired didn't choose to respond doesn't make you a winner. He is still working on the strategy proving him right in spite of being wrong. He will answer, oh ya, he will and low-tier insults are to be expected.

Quote from: Lunamancer;906054That said, I've yet to see an actual living, breathing player who didn't occasionally do things like, say, give up treasure earned through adventure in exchange for coin of the realm. Or exchange coin of the realm for equipment or other goods and services. They very willingly give up these things to NPCs who want them. Because? It benefits the PC (or at least they think at the time that it does) to engage in these social situations and to do as these NPCs ask. Now this is just the easiest example to point to. But there are countless interactions, including those of non-commercial nature, that occur and go unnoticed. The simple fact is, it's hard to get very far without cooperating with others. It's taken for granted. Until those relatively rare times when someone doesn't want to budge. Only then do we take notice and see a problem.

So yes, when I hear GMs in particular citing this "problem" I question things.

I know this reply was not in response to one of my posts, but I can assure you - players who don't budge exist. Your commerce scenario is not a useful example, except to help place where social mechanics belong. I also don't want you to have the burden, implied or otherwise, to defend the camp of "no social mechanics", in case you feel that's been thrust upon you (and from your responses, you don't seem utterly opposed to their use).

PCs doing things advantageous to themselves and co-operating is hardly dynamic or surprising. It's when they enter into situations where the outcome is either unfavorable, or presents the risk of loss or harm, that many players will balk. Good, sensible people who outside of game will compromise, co-operate, collaborate and even buy you dinner every week will indeed stand like a child in the mud refusing to acknowledge that their playing piece (player character) has any emotional reaction at all. They will even fabricate personality elements to try and justify this lack of reaction, elements which vanish into an increasing haze of rhetoric and interpretation the next time the character is put in a situation the player favors at all. The only genius who can understand this player's emotional reaction scheme is, apparently, the player, and said player can not understand how disruptive, combative and pointless this stance is. To the player (all points should have an and/or suffix):

1) They value their character concept, and want to be the ultimate author of how this character reacts to the ongoing plot, including giving character near Mary Stew/Sue levels of immunity to adverse emotional situations
2) They don't want specific things to happen to their character, and have determined that the taboo against social rules is an excellent area of the game to get away with bad behavior, since GMs can't enforce emotional reactions
3) They have actual, real life problems understanding what makes people tick, and their character is only as good as the player piloting the fictional ego of that character (this is not as uncommon as it sounds in RPG circles - a lot of odd ducks and cast-offs gravitate to role-playing)
4) They do not agree with the interpretation of the GM, or even group, on the emotional reaction, either from life experience, misstated terms of the situation, or general tastes. This is sometimes because the player hasn't sufficiently invested themselves into the environs of the character; other times it is because the knowledge of the player is honestly telling them the request for emotional reaction is patently false or incorrect in this scenario, and alternatives for the character they are playing exist

Of the 4 above, 1-3 are the better cases where Social Mechanics are aids. The 4th point, however, is where social mechanics can turn into a hammer that crushes good dialogue, development of the character, and make social interactions feel as artificial as the nonsense depicted below. This is why, in light of #4, why I prefer to use them sparingly and sometimes not at all, but for the previous points, appreciate having them as tools to fall back on when #4 doesn't seem very applicable.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]227[/ATTACH]

Quote from: JesterRaiin;906083But uncle Asen, just because mr. soon-to-be-fired didn't choose to respond doesn't make you a winner. He is still working on the strategy proving him right in spite of being wrong. He will answer, oh ya, he will and low-tier insults are to be expected.

Lunamancer still replied more than three times, whether he addressed you or not;).

I prefer social mechanics with enough complexity to allow me to represent that facets of the character's personality, belief structure and others factors. Sticking with the Duchess example, if she was supposed to be chaste and dedicated to her husband to an extent that it would make seduction attempts almost impossible without some sort of supernatural effect I'd like to have some way to represent that on her sheet. And if a PC does manage to get around it. I'd give them the result they were aiming for (which could get a a little narrative for some tastes since there maybe some OOC discussion and negotiation involved) but there can be repercussions and side effect (an angry cuckholded Duke, the duchess' as an enemy or smitten follower, etc).

Quote from: AsenRG;906131Lunamancer still replied more than three times, whether he addressed you or not;).

Maybe this will tide you over.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]228[/ATTACH]

Quote from: AsenRG;906131Lunamancer still replied more than three times, whether he addressed you or not;).

Forced award won't do you any good. Be a sport, uncle!

[video=youtube;KN0lD6QLA9w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN0lD6QLA9w[/youtube]

Quote from: JesterRaiin;906135Forced award won't do you any good. Be a sport, uncle!

Oh, I'm going to weave the prize anyway - it's winning that matters in a bet;).

Quote from: AsenRG;906144Oh, I'm going to weave the prize anyway - it's winning that matters in a bet;).

Grrrrrrrrr... Damn winners... Ok, sixpack of good beers is yours, then.

Quote from: AsenRG;906144payable when we meet

Quote from: JesterRaiin;906146Grrrrrrrrr... Damn winners... Ok, sixpack of good beers is yours, then.

You can keep them. Actually, drink them tonight, if you wish, and tell your wife you won them on a forum bet;)!

Quote

Deal it is:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;906148You can keep them. Actually, drink them tonight, if you wish, and tell your wife you won them on a forum bet;)!

No, no, impossibru. I'd rather strangle everyone else to death than break a promise.

QuoteDeal it is:D!

Just you wait, uncle. Just you wait.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;906097I know this reply was not in response to one of my posts, but I can assure you - players who don't budge exist. [. . .] PCs doing things advantageous to themselves and co-operating is hardly dynamic or surprising. It's when they enter into situations where the outcome is either unfavorable, or presents the risk of loss or harm, that many players will balk.

So we're talking about players who choose to do some things and not others. It's not immediately clear why this a problem in and of itself. But I will grant that maybe there are times we'd like players to choose some of those other things more often. Now there are a couple different ways to go about this. Sure, you could introduce a set of mechanics that forces them to do the other things. That's one way. Or, because now we're clear that we're talking about players who WILL voluntarily engage in situations where they see some benefit to doing so, you could simply make those "other" things more appealing to players.

These wooden players of which you speak, do they voluntarily participate in dungeon adventures? If so, they clearly ARE willing to face risk of loss and any number of bad things that could happen to their characters. Why? My guess is because they see some purpose to it, and the purpose is appealing. Hearkening back to even your more detailed description of the strumpet situation, I still am not seeing a compelling reason to going off with her. It really doesn't surprise me some players will balk at that.

QuoteGood, sensible people who outside of game will compromise, co-operate, collaborate and even buy you dinner every week will indeed stand like a child in the mud refusing to acknowledge that their playing piece (player character) has any emotional reaction at all. They will even fabricate personality elements to try and justify this lack of reaction, elements which vanish into an increasing haze of rhetoric and interpretation the next time the character is put in a situation the player favors at all. The only genius who can understand this player's emotional reaction scheme is, apparently, the player, and said player can not understand how disruptive, combative and pointless this stance is.

Such is the player's prerogative. Minus the malign language, and you're almost describing how an RPG works. I think the more combative and pointless stance is fighting the fact that players are going to do those things they perceive to be most beneficial--fun counting among the possible benefits. Fortunately, you don't need to pick that fight. The very set-up of the RPG also places GMs in a position where they have direct influence over the player's perception of and in the game

QuoteOf the 4 above, 1-3 are the better cases where Social Mechanics are aids. The 4th point, however, is where social mechanics can turn into a hammer that crushes good dialogue, development of the character, and make social interactions feel as artificial as the nonsense depicted below. This is why, in light of #4, why I prefer to use them sparingly and sometimes not at all, but for the previous points, appreciate having them as tools to fall back on when #4 doesn't seem very applicable.

On point #4, we agree.

On point #1, I begin by asking myself, is there utility to engaging in emotional situations in real life? Sometimes. Surely there are cases where one's future relationships, along with the benefits they derive from nurturing those relationships, are incumbent on a person's willingness to play a role in emotional situations. On the other hand, there are emotional situations which are poisonous, such as Jerry Springer-like psychodramas. #1 ties back to whether the player sees a benefit and whether there's a compelling purpose.

On point #3, I find that compelling reason to require things be role-played out rather than mechanical--they need the practice.

As for #2, I distinguish between the terms "action" and "reaction" in that actions are chosen and reactions are not. When a billiard ball suddenly starts to move after another ball collides with it, the ball isn't making a choice. It's just a physical reaction. When the doctor whacks your knee with a small rubber mallet causing your leg to extend is an example of a reaction by a human. Actions, however, are chosen freely. If the player doesn't get the purpose of his character behaving a certain way--if I don't understand why my character is going off with the strumpet (not why my character "might" do it, but why my character "is" doing it) using mechanics to force it are going to do more to disengage that player than they will do to engage him.

So for me, point #1 tells me I need to do a better job. #2-4 tells me I want to avoid mechanics that make players decisions for them. As for why I would want social mechanics? It goes back to what I said above, about the game form putting a GM in the position to feed the player's perceptions. Perception checks are already common in RPGs. The ability some characters have to see in darkness means the GM feeds their players perceptions of a dark room differently from someone else's. The use of skills to pick up on or conceal social cues allows a system to differentiate and support characters who are especially adept socially, to give them substantial advantages in influencing others without treading all over any player's free will to choose. Because I want character skill to matter, even when I'm playing with highly skilled players. And I want even unskilled players to have full freedom to choose who their characters are and what their characters do.