Timeline for How to use social skills versus player characters
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 2019 at 18:29 | history | edited | V2Blast |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 26, 2019 at 16:35 | history | edited | Erik Burigo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://rpg.stackexchange.com/ with https://rpg.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jul 3, 2011 at 17:06 | vote | accept | Erik Burigo | ||
| Jul 1, 2011 at 12:37 | comment | added | mxyzplk | If you're doing any in depth roleplay you have to expect some bleed. By insisting on mechanics over player choice you're going to train them to immerse less. Which is fine if that's what you want, but be advised. | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 6:59 | comment | added | Erik Burigo | That was my impression. I actually know that there were issues, and I think this polluted that specific roleplay experience, but I'm not sure. Anyway, B's player motivation for barricading his character in silence seemed more player's stubbornness than identification. | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 3:06 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @mxyzplk In a comment to the question, Erik clarifies that there were personal issues between the players who inspired the Q. | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 2:08 | comment | added | mxyzplk | I don't see anything in the OP making this a "player" problem - it says Character B has a grudge against Character A. If they say they have a grudge, it's a character grudge, unless there's something you're not sharing. | |
| Jul 1, 2011 at 1:49 | answer | added | Brian Ballsun-Stanton | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jun 30, 2011 at 23:25 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackRPG/status/86576131175751680 | ||
| Jun 30, 2011 at 19:27 | answer | added | Alticamelus | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 30, 2011 at 16:59 | answer | added | SevenSidedDie | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jun 30, 2011 at 16:42 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | I am tempted to tag this [playes-being-children] since that seems integral to the problem. But only tempted. | |
| Jun 30, 2011 at 16:41 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Mechanics will never solve social problems that lie between the players. And if the social problem between the players didn't exist, the purpose, need for, and efficacy of mechanics becomes very different. | |
| Jun 30, 2011 at 16:37 | answer | added | Rain | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 30, 2011 at 14:16 | answer | added | Neil | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 30, 2011 at 13:16 | history | edited | Erik Burigo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 95 characters in body
|
| Jun 30, 2011 at 13:00 | comment | added | dpatchery | In that case, the GM should use intimidate and tell the players to sack up and get over it. | |
| Jun 30, 2011 at 12:49 | comment | added | Erik Burigo | That's my exact thought too. However, the example above is a real case that happened, and roleplay seemed tainted by personal issues between players. I'd like to introduce some sort of narrator's fiat in order to be Solomonic when childish behavior is involved (otherwise the problem shifts to an entirely different plane). | |
| Jun 30, 2011 at 12:41 | comment | added | dpatchery | Just my $.02, but as in my answer to your other question, I would discourage using skill checks for social interactions between players. If die rolls affect how you interact with another player, you're taking away from the roleplaying aspect of the game and setting a precedent for future mechanization of conversation, which IMHO, is a bad thing. | |
| Jun 30, 2011 at 12:39 | answer | added | GMNoob | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 30, 2011 at 12:28 | history | edited | Erik Burigo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| Jun 30, 2011 at 12:20 | history | asked | Erik Burigo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |