On Behavioral Realism

[chaochou]

I'm not really interested in playing the game where you to get me to admit I have preferences. Of course I do.

But you haven't had a 'discussion'. Your posts just repeatedly reiterate a desire for a set of aesthetic preferences to better suit your conception of how 'realistic people' behave.

If you can't accept the basic premise that you want to change the players' charactersisations for your own benefit, then you've no hope of finding a solution either through 1) a re-discussion of social contract, nor through 2) incentivatisation of altered behaviour through mechanics.

You don't want to acknowledge (1) and have been endlessly resistant to (2).

 

[darkbard]

But you haven't had a 'discussion'. Your posts just repeatedly reiterate a desire for a set of aesthetic preferences to better suit your conception of how 'realistic people' behave.

If you can't accept the basic premise that you want to change the players' charactersisations for your own benefit, then you've no hope of finding a solution either through 1) a re-discussion of social contract, nor through 2) incentivatisation of altered behaviour through mechanics.

You don't want to acknowledge (1) and have been endlessly resistant to (2).

As a "subscribed" observer to but nonparticipant in this thread, @Reynard, I think chaochou's critique here is important. His (1) and (preferably) his (2) above offer you legitimate avenues out of your quandary, but you don't seem open to taking his (and similar) advice as constructive rather than combative.

 

[pemerton]

While that looks like an interesting system to articulate relationships, it is well beyond the scope of my initial request. My goal wasn't to codify role playing or to createa social conflict resolution system, but rather just inject a little bit of behavioral realism between dungeon delves.

If you can't accept the basic premise that you want to change the players' charactersisations for your own benefit, then you've no hope of finding a solution either through 1) a re-discussion of social contract, nor through 2) incentivatisation of altered behaviour through mechanics.

As a "subscribed" observer to but nonparticipant in this thread, @Reynard, I think chaochou's critique here is important. His (1) and (preferably) his (2) above offer you legitimate avenues out of your quandary, but you don't seem open to taking his (and similar) advice as constructive rather than combative.

I think these posts point in a certain direction: if you're not going to pursue option (2) - ie of actually looking at how the mechanical systems and the fiction you build around them shape play - then you're going to have to look at (1).

What does that actually look like, as a social interaction? And what reason do the players have for going along with it? Depending on the dynamics of and relationships within the group, this could actually be pretty tricky I think. No one likes being told that their play sucks!

 

[Maxperson]

What does that actually look like, as a social interaction? And what reason do the players have for going along with it? Depending on the dynamics of and relationships within the group, this could actually be pretty tricky I think. No one likes being told that their play sucks!

There is a world of difference between, "I'd like a bit more realism in play." and "your play sucks!" Don't read more into what @Reynard is saying than is there.

 

[Fenris-77]

Hmm, yeah, I don't think it's about anyone's play 'sucking' either. I think we have a case of the GM not being entirely happy with the overall table, which is more a matter of realizing the table conventions than it is about success or failure of role playing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think what was meant is that people could take it as a comment that their play sucked. That’s the risk you run when you approach them to ask them to change how they portray their characters. The potential for upsetting them is there, and that’s why @pemerton described it as “tricky”.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The problem could be solved if @Reynard would just say, "There are certain behaviors, such as the aforementioned inn/bathing one, that enhance the game experience for me. Does anybody have any suggestions for how I could encourage my players to engage in those behaviors?"

That's perfectly legitimate, but he insists on trying to wrap it in a "realism" argument, perhaps not recognizing that this just pisses off people who take it as a dig that their own game, their own roleplaying, is inferior. It's a totally unnecessary provocation to the basic ask.

 

[Aldarc]

So yet another tabletop problem that could be solved if adults talked to other adults like adults?

 

[Maxperson]

That's perfectly legitimate, but he insists on trying to wrap it in a "realism" argument, perhaps not recognizing that this just pisses off people who take it as a dig that their own game, their own roleplaying, is inferior. It's a totally unnecessary provocation to the basic ask.

People who get offended by his statements fail to understand that realism is a spectrum and not all or nothing. His statement about realism does not in fact make any dig at anyone or imply that their game and RP are inferior. It does imply that their game is different and that they want different things than he does, though.

 

[Maxperson]

So yet another tabletop problem that could be solved if adults talked to other adults like adults?

Yeah. I've skipped around, so I haven't seen @Reynard say that he won't talk to his players like some here are saying. Talking to the players seems like the best first step to me.