Posts made by Arkandel

@Lisse24 said:

I used to do that as well, until I was burnt (lost a character) because another player misread my pose. What I thought was clearly trying to hold back emotion while begging for another chance, they read as stony-faced lack of remorse.

To be fair, people misread each other in real life all the time, right? On top of that, they could have asked for an empathy roll if the system allowed it, or asked for a clarification over pages, etc.

But I see where you're coming from - I don't consider some metadata offered in the pose to be anathema as long as it doesn't come with the expectation that characters should be aware of it. After all in literature some exposition is often offered this way and I see no reason to deprive scenes of the same convenient too to offer a few tidbits of background if they'd be awkward to squeeze into it otherwise, even if they're only for flavor and don't actually serve a purpose.

the phrase "be proactive" is my pet peeve. It seems like I've recently seen a spade of people criticizing players who are reactive. Players are told to "make their own fun" and then criticized when a game seems to be overwhelmed with bar rp.

There's a line. Yes, it's often pretty annoying to have to pull your partner(s) kicking and screaming into the scene because they give little to react to and don't take the hooks they're being offered to facilitate a meaningful conversation. On the other hand some players just desire the spotlight so much they disrupt rather than enrich scenes they're invited into - there's such a thing as 'too' proactive.

For example - and I posted this on the bitching thread - a couple of days ago I was in a quiet but nice scene at a bookstore. We thought to bring others into the fold so I advertised it as bookstore roleplay, possibly about magic or something close to it and one of the players who came in posed a riot outside, people chasing his character, fighting in the streets... I mean that's not joining a scene, that's trying to take it over without caring what was happening beforehand or if other players liked how it was going.

@Ganymede said:

I also agree that shoe-horning individual reactions is sort of stupid.

It looks stupid, too. If I let myself respond to everyone in a big scene my character looks like he's having a seizure, jerking his head around addressing five people in a row.

Plus who does that iRL? If you're at a party you're not talking to everyone at once, conversations break down into smaller circles.

@flahgenstow said:

I find it strange when couples play on a game and then have IC relationships (and sex) with other players.

My characters do stuff my wife would generally frown upon iRL all the time. They murder people for starters. They steal stuff.

But as to the specific rules of engagement for sexual matters (or TS), that's up to each relationship to figure out. There's no right or wrong let alone a general rule that fits them all.

@Thenomain said:

Holy shit, those are a lot of guidelines. Can we summarize down to:

• Play in context of the game, theme, character, and scene, in that order.
• Play for those around you.

While it is a lot of guidelines, I think the OP's intention was to demonstrate 'how' and 'why' rather than just 'what'.

If you don't know how to 'play for those around you' then the general principle isn't sufficient. How do you put that into practice, what does it mean? What do you actually do?

@Lithium It depends on the rules. For example on KD I couldn't +vote for my spouse's character because we shared IPs, but that was a code limitation. Asherat did let me know I could ask her to +vote on my behalf, so there was a workaround, but one could have chosen to take that as discrimination even though it was unintentional.

... Only in Russia. 16-year old wins night with porn star, his mom won't let him go.

The only problem here is in generalizing anything based on people's associations.

It's not even that different a conversation than the one(s) we had before about cliques - it's still discussing an in-crowd, just on a smaller scale. It's a meaningless practice because there are always going to be both small groups of tightly knit people who are close or spend tons of time together chatting/playing - that's just human behavior.

@Sunny What happens behind the DM screen stays behind the DM screen.

@Pyrephox I think a good way to look at rolls as a Storyteller is to consider them hooks tying the players to your story.

Everyone wants to be useful in a plot; to come in and have an impact. Some players are proactive enough to do so no matter their stats but not everyone is, so giving them an entry point into the story ("roll wits+composure please") so you can hand-feed them some information perhaps unique to them achieves at least that much - they are now relevant.

Rolls are also an opportunity to highlight character aspects which are not often useful to them. A combat PC is never going to be out of fashion but how often does a locksmith, med student or car mechanic get to do their thing? Perhaps less often, so give them that nice fat exceptional success to go with the rest of the scene. I've specifically add elements to the story before to let the spotlight be shared.

Especially in systems like GMC where failure is actually rewarded it's even neater.

@saosmash said:

"You can't do that" is a terrible thing to have to say as a GM.

There's however a flipside to it - the player who believes they can do anything if only they make some form of roll. Anything at all.

Encounter a completely new supernatural phenomenon with zero information about it? Let me roll wits+occult-5+willpower (when they know on average they'll get at least one success this way).

When it comes to IC actions there's nothing my players can't try. But there is very much such a thing as a task they can't - at the time - succeed at.

If I don't want to adhere to a roll's result I won't ask for it.

@VulgarKitten said:

@Arkandel I didn't say there was a problem for anyone else, just that it weirds me out personally. It really does.

Fair enough, I can't really comment on a feeling, it's what it is.

And can more often lead to lines blurring. As for your first point re: people who have paired up more than once vs RL couples; it's completely different on so many levels. One is an online relationship, the other is a relationship that (more often than not) includes far more intimacy and feelings

When most people pair up without knowing each other iRL it's because several stars have aligned; their personalities match, their active times also do, they have compatible tastes and they are more or less certain the other person isn't a psychopath. Hopefully that's the case for most RL relationships as well.

The only question here as far as the original question in this thread is concerned is whether this association creates problems somehow.

That's what my observation was about - I don't see it. Sure, a bad set of people can blur the IC/OOC line and do favors for each other but if anything that makes online couples more prone to it; if Bob wants to score points with Jane online he'll have to do something in-game for her but if I do, I just need to take the garbage out on time.

@VulgarKitten said:

Disclaimer: playing with OOC couples who are also IC couples weirds me out.

That said, this seems especially prominent when there are couples RP'ing together, creating multiple alts who also RP together. I've seen the line blurred more often than a cop at Timmy's. Don't think there's really anything you can do about it except avoid if shit gets real.

I've played several IC couples with my OOC spouse and see nothing weird about that - there are many (many!) players who're not together iRL but have paired up more than once on characters so why is that 'better'?

When I have time to MU* it means I'm no longer watching TV, having supper, etc... which strangely enough is exactly when when my wife isn't busy doing those things either. So if we're both available and want to play at the same time is it weirder that we do so or that we avoid each other?

I just don't see why any of this would be actionable in any way. What's the problem?

... and entirely legally since it's the copyright holder who wants you to. This is just weird.

http://goodereader.com/blog/digital-publishing/wizards-of-the-coast-paying-fans-to-scan-old-dnd-books

I want to make a game and I have a concept in mind, but I don't want to do it over telnet. So most likely either I need to find the time and energy to code it or it'll stay in my head. Neither of those things is unacceptable.

@mietze My thing is to run more or less stereotypical versions of concepts - the core of them being someone no one would blink at when they heard he belongs to that faction - and then trying to find the twist in that core. One thing that doesn't quite add up, usually an infusion of realism, emotional baggage he can't quite rid himself of, a hangup he can't get over, a weakness or personality flow.

It usually takes me a few sessions to find the crack in the armor and when I do, I pound on it until it breaks so I can see what's beneath.

@Misadventure doesn't look at combat systems. It's more like a process of dissection, vivisection, evisceration, rejection and humiliation. Don't do it!

@Thenomain said:

I don't think anyone is talking about Witcher 3's mechanics, except that they're better than Witcher 1's.

Yeah, pretty much. In fact I played it on 'easy' I think because I honestly didn't care either way about the mechanics - I wanted to go through the story and the fights were just in the way.

@Ganymede said:

It's a pretty good game which requires a brain or two.

I... I only have the one, and it's not in very good condition at that.

@Thenomain Maybe they're lost.

...I'll let myself out.