|
5 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2008 - 11:36AM
#321
|
Date Joined:
Nov 11, 2006
|
well think about it. Only so many people can roleplay. Everyone can play a boardgame. Its all about marketability friend.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2008 - 12:00PM
#322
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2006
|
Hey, I resent that. As someone who works with people of varying degrees of mental capability in a pile of different areas, I know people who can roleplay and can't play board games.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2008 - 2:57PM
#323
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
|
Great! Then metagame knowledge won't hurt your game because you and your players won't want to make decsions without an "in-game" reason because you think that's lame. That's how it works.
Well some of the people I play with would use metagame information. They're just not good enough roleplayers to adequately separate the two. And even if you can, I feel it kinda screws you over, because then it takes away your ability to get a legitimate "hunch" about something. But once you know, you can't even try to guess the mystery because you already know the answer. If you're doing pure improv acting, doing that is fine, but in a game environment, where you're making plot choices, it's hard to make a choice, especially one relating to a mystery plot, when you already know the answer.
Yes, that's the nature of physicality. In a social situation, you can just hide inside your head and not let anybody in. That's one of the benefits of physical conflict. Social conflict is different. I thought we knew that.
Well, it happens to be problematic, because most of the things that happen in D&D require you to be able to try to convince people who may be unwilling to hear you out, or are looking for evidence. I mean, say you're running into the kings chamber trying to convince him his kingdom is in danger. Maybe it's the truth, maybe it's a lie... whatever. The king probably doesn't care about getting in a DoW with you, he just wants to hear your proof and rule on it.
I guess I can't see too many instances when there would be a DoW in a D&D style game. About all I can see is a court case like there where the party is vouching for either themselves or someone else against another person in front of some kind of judge or audience.
A bluff only gets you one thing: the target believes you're speaking truthfully. How he handles that is something else entirely. Just because the king belives you doesn't mean that he has to acknowledge that, or do anything to his brother. It doesn't even mean that he actually believes you, just that he believes you aren't lying. A few minutes of talking to his brother later and he knows he's been duped and will be mighty ****** at you.
Ok, yeah bluff can work that way and it'd be okay. I thought you were going based on the D&D bluff, where the guy automatically believes your bluff is true, as opposed to believing that you're telling the truth.
Really I've always felt bluff should just be a skill that prevents people from using sense motive on you. So that if you lie, they can't detect it as easily. But it shouldn't really make them believe anything.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 25, 2008 - 4:41PM
#324
|
Date Joined:
Aug 16, 2007
|
Well some of the people I play with would use metagame information. They're just not good enough roleplayers to adequately separate the two. And even if you can, I feel it kinda screws you over, because then it takes away your ability to get a legitimate "hunch" about something. But once you know, you can't even try to guess the mystery because you already know the answer. If you're doing pure improv acting, doing that is fine, but in a game environment, where you're making plot choices, it's hard to make a choice, especially one relating to a mystery plot, when you already know the answer.
It all depends on what your game is about. If it's about a mystery that happens to have PCs investigating it, then you'd want to couch things in a way that doesn't give away OOC information. If it's about characters that happen to be investigating a mystery, then what the players do and don't know doesn't matter. But really, this is a whole different argument, and doesn't matter, because social rules can work in either mode.
Well, it happens to be problematic, because most of the things that happen in D&D require you to be able to try to convince people who may be unwilling to hear you out, or are looking for evidence. I mean, say you're running into the kings chamber trying to convince him his kingdom is in danger. Maybe it's the truth, maybe it's a lie... whatever. The king probably doesn't care about getting in a DoW with you, he just wants to hear your proof and rule on it.
I guess I can't see too many instances when there would be a DoW in a D&D style game. About all I can see is a court case like there where the party is vouching for either themselves or someone else against another person in front of some kind of judge or audience.
You're looking at that too narrowly. In the example with the king, why doesn't the king want to do anything about this potential danger? He doesn't care if they might be right? That it will be known that he could have saved the kingdom and didn't? But of course, maybe he needs evidence. So now it becomes "Send out troops to the marches vs. Bring me proof of your claims". Fun! And besides, the king is an NPC. He exist SOLEY as a tool for entertaining the players. You don't have to try too hard to figure out (or completely fabricate) a reason for him to be open to a DoW. On top of that, the stakes can be changed. If sending an army to the marches just isn't an option for the king without evidence, maybe he can be convinced to send his fastest scout to confirm the PCs' tale. That kind of thing.
And really, if the way you like to play means that a DoW never comes up and everybody is fine with that, then that's not a problem either, much like combat. Technically, DoW is a semi-optional system anyway, as are the Fight!, Range & Cover, Resources, Circles and a bunch of the others. Use what you need when and if you need it.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 26, 2008 - 6:21AM
#325
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2001
|
It all depends on what your game is about. If it's about a mystery that happens to have PCs investigating it, then you'd want to couch things in a way that doesn't give away OOC information. If it's about characters that happen to be investigating a mystery, then what the players do and don't know doesn't matter. But really, this is a whole different argument, and doesn't matter, because social rules can work in either mode.
True, I would just hate a social system that forced metagame knowledge on players.
You're looking at that too narrowly. In the example with the king, why doesn't the king want to do anything about this potential danger? He doesn't care if they might be right?
Well of course he cares. The question is more if he believes them or not. He may have heard a lot of doomsayers in his time, or there could be other motivations towards what the PCs want him to do.
And really, if the way you like to play means that a DoW never comes up and everybody is fine with that, then that's not a problem either, much like combat. Technically, DoW is a semi-optional system anyway, as are the Fight!, Range & Cover, Resources, Circles and a bunch of the others. Use what you need when and if you need it.
Well, I was more worried about the fact that you're left with a lot of social situations without any rules for handling them.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Feb 26, 2008 - 2:12PM
#326
|
Date Joined:
Aug 16, 2007
|
True, I would just hate a social system that forced metagame knowledge on players.
That's entirely understandable. That said, I encourage players (and DMs) to embrace the metagame. It isn't always appropriate, but many times it can make a game better. Metagame is not a dirty word. Just wanted to do a little public service announcement. 
Well of course he cares. The question is more if he believes them or not. He may have heard a lot of doomsayers in his time, or there could be other motivations towards what the PCs want him to do.
That's fine. Let that play out. As people (often those against social rules) will often point out, social interaction is a complex beastie. Mostly you just ride it where it takes you. But if it happens to line up with the social rules, then you can use them. If it doesn't quite line up, and the participants think that a social conflict would be fun, then they (especially the DM) can massage things a little until everything fits and then go at it.
Well, I was more worried about the fact that you're left with a lot of social situations without any rules for handling them.
Social situations don't need rules. Social conflicts do, and there are plenty of rules for them in Burning Wheel if you need them.
|
|
|
