Quote from: taustin;665792If you were a ventriloquist, you'd be the creepy kind that talks to your puppet even when no one else is around. You know you would.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.

Do you mean that the person going off by themselves deserves more than thier fair share of attention?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;665789What would be an unsatisfying in-character result? The group wants to do X and the surly dwarf wants to do Y so they do thier respective stuff. If there are 6 people in the party then 50 minutes of each game hour is spent with the group and 10 minutes with the loner. If the loner gets tired of playing for 10 minutes each hour he can rejoin the group.

An out of character discussion can be held after the game.

Yeah going all passive aggressive is the answer. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;665799I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.

Do you mean that the person going off by themselves deserves more than thier fair share of attention?

You seem to believe that a player should never be out of character. That's creepy in the say way that some ventriloquists pretend (or actually believe) their puppet is real.

People like you are the reason most people think RPGers are weird.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;665789An out of character discussion can be held after the game.

Sure, you're welcome to play that way.  For myself, if someone doesn't like what's going on, I want to know right away.  I find the experience is fairly resilient to out-of-character interruptions - they happen constantly anyways. (e.g. physical space considerations, snacking, bathroom breaks, working out modifiers, mechanical resolution).  So if someone's identified their #1 obstacle to having more fun, why not share it right away so we can see if the group is willing to meet their need?

Quote from: Sommerjon;665806Yeah going all passive aggressive is the answer. :rolleyes:

Would it be passive aggressive if 3 characters went a different way and the GM split his attention in half, spending 30 minutes with each group?

It is proportionately the same thing.

Quote from: taustin;665810You seem to believe that a player should never be out of character. That's creepy in the say way that some ventriloquists pretend (or actually believe) their puppet is real.

People like you are the reason most people think RPGers are weird.

There is a difference between being in character all the time and playing in character.

Never being out of character would be like a method actor on a movie set, never breaking character even during breaks. That is a little weird.

Playing in character means that the game is approached from a roleplaying perspective. Out of character comments happen, and the GM will be asked questions by the player directly with regard to clarifying some info about the fictional environment.  So if the player asks the GM " Did you say the entire floor was made of red and black marble", that doesn't mean the character is speaking those words.

Roleplaying is a first person perspective activity. One can step out of roleplaying mode to narrate something (GMs need to do this frequently) but that doesn't change the fact that the roleplaying stops when the narration begins.

I personally enjoyed seeing a list of what the players need to do.  So much vitriol is aimed at GMs not meeting player expectations.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;665821Roleplaying is a first person perspective activity. One can step out of roleplaying mode to narrate something (GMs need to do this frequently) but that doesn't change the fact that the roleplaying stops when the narration begins.

For you. Other people have different preferences. Until you can provide me with a receipt proving you own the english language, you don't get to mandate what words mean.

Quote from: taustin;665836For you. Other people have different preferences. Until you can provide me with a receipt proving you own the english language, you don't get to mandate what words mean.

role-play/ˈroʊlˌpleɪ/ Show Spelled [rohl-pley] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction.


I don't own the English language but I DO use it. You are free to use it as incorrectly as you desire.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;665842role-play/ˈroʊlˌpleɪ/ Show Spelled [rohl-pley] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction.


I don't own the English language but I DO use it. You are free to use it as incorrectly as you desire.

I'm so happy you know how to use Google. You're still full of shit, and you know it. Plus, now matter how furiously you stomp your feet, hands over your ears, screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU," you still don't get to tell other people how to play. Must really suck to be you.

I suspect that definition is more the clinical psychology definition than the gaming definition. The mere fact that there's a 1 at the beginning says it's not the only definition from your source, but of course you cherry picked the one that makes you look the least stupid. And didn't mention what that source was, naturally.

Dude, you really aren't very good at this.

Is there perhaps a disconnect here between two common uses of roleplaying?

1) Participating in an RPG is 'roleplaying'.  Maybe we're on a pizza break and I get a call from a friend who asks "what are you doing" so I answer "roleplaying"

2) Playing in character is roleplaying while you participate in RPGs (often the alternative to roll playing)

I for one have known a great number of roleplayers who only roll-play.

Werds iz fun!

I'll give a recent example, Exploderwizard, why this does not work in practice:

My character from a D&D 4e game was designed around very specific 4e-isms. While I was absent one session, it was decided that the game system had to be converted to 3e/PF. It was an exercise in showing how the two are really incompatible; the character ended up really unorthodox in stats/build.

So I come back, and after being handed a 7 page tax form of a character sheet (instead of the 4 page one I had previously :rolleyes:), I find out "there will be combat!" I soon learn my new character does not function as intended.

However my non-combat stuff stays relatively useful, and as that was the original focus I work on that. I develop a setting cause célèbre and plan to work through that. There's an adventurer's bulletin board of quests and it looks like the party will have a chance to split up.

I'm absent again, and in that session the entire party is hoisted two week's travel away into the high mountains, my PC included. I return with no appropriate cold weather, high mountain gear, no real reason to be there as I was busy with something else in town, and completely gimped from system conversion and general prestige class overwhelming system mastery -- oh and I didn't have gear to bump me up into competent fighting form. Fine, whatever. Really, how long could it take to just hang with the party doing something my character never would have done.

Our group was there for 6 whole sessions... (it was biweekly, too. so three whole months!)

I sat out whole combats because I literally had no point being there. This is 3e/PF with powergaming so there's no "shuffle minor items around and other useful small effects" things to do. Torches, tanglefoot bags, oil flasks, all of it useless garbage as everything was being played up-level, with a level gain per session (including me, though I had no idea why). I literally sat upon a stair and watched other PCs fight mobs FOR HOURS.

I had no reason to be there, I had no combat effect whatsoever, so I had to invent other things for my PC to do. I became comedic space as a general docent and active tourist. I would have been better off playing some disposable hireling instead, as I stated openly more than once. My character should not have been there, though the GM made a Herculean effort to accomodate my PC after the fact.

Lesson: It's OK to let parties split. Party splitting and "my character wouldn't do that"  only becomes a problem when the accepted conceit is the party always stays together, not even swapping out to other PCs or temp NPCs. Not every character cares or needs equal XP growth. Not every character needs to be witness to the same 'plot points.' No really, we can separate amicably and return on our own terms.

Quote from: Opaopajr;665917I'll give a recent example, Exploderwizard, why this does not work in practice:

My character from a D&D 4e game was designed around very specific 4e-isms. While I was absent one session, it was decided that the game system had to be converted to 3e/PF. It was an exercise in showing how the two are really incompatible; the character ended up really unorthodox in stats/build.

In practice, you were in a very shitty game. Who switches systems mid-game without consulting all the players?

The thing to do if everyone wasn't satisfied with the 4E game was start over with 3E/ PF characters not pound square (har har) pegs into round holes.

System switching, though ugly, wasn't nearly as bad as dragging a character who really shouldn't have been there in any shape or form. Mechanical weakness aside, my character setting decisions fought against my being there. Only the tangential relation of PC racial 'lost ruin' made any connection. So I made it a pilgrimage of sorts and rolled repeated on Knowledge skills to at least feign relevance.

IMO, you only really hear "my character wouldn't do that" when you have glued-to-the-hip party dynamics. It's the PCs fighting a table conceit. Drop the table conceit and work around it and everything is fine.

And for the record, I'm OK with splitting time unequally. I regularly divide the "hour" equally, so 4 players off to dungeon crawling, and 2 off to city crawling will be divided into 40 min. and 20 min. respectively. But I also leave the option for NPC or hireling play so the out players don't have to just watch. However you'll be surprised how many players are good with just watching. So it really isn't a passive-aggressive issue, as long as you are upfront and give options.

Quote from: Opaopajr;665940System switching, though ugly, wasn't nearly as bad as dragging a character who really shouldn't have been there in any shape or form. Mechanical weakness aside, my character setting decisions fought against my being there. Only the tangential relation of PC racial 'lost ruin' made any connection. So I made it a pilgrimage of sorts and rolled repeated on Knowledge skills to at least feign relevance.

IMO, you only really hear "my character wouldn't do that" when you have glued-to-the-hip party dynamics. It's the PCs fighting a table conceit. Drop the table conceit and work around it and everything is fine.

And for the record, I'm OK with splitting time unequally. I regularly divide the "hour" equally, so 4 players off to dungeon crawling, and 2 off to city crawling will be divided into 40 min. and 20 min. respectively. But I also leave the option for NPC or hireling play so the out players don't have to just watch. However you'll be surprised how many players are good with just watching. So it really isn't a passive-aggressive issue, as long as you are upfront and give options.

Yup. This is why I really like more open parties for campaign play. Players can drop in and out of the campaign as thier schedule permits and play either thier primary character, or an associate as the situation calls for.