Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 8223109" data-attributes="member: 6799649">Fiist, let me start by saying that I think role-players are great at finding ways to ignore the rules. Though I do think their dark powers should be used for good. When new material is being designed, role-players should be set loose on the stuff so they can find all the breaks...so the designers can remove them. Theorycrafting is fine. It's a fun thought experiment and I don't have issues with white-room theorycrafting at all. My problem is when role-playing builds are actually brought into a game. And that's what the thread is about. How to handle role-players at the table.To be crystal clear and define my terms, I'm not talking about low-hanging fruit like synergizing race/lineage with your cool concept, or a rogue taking expertise in deception or persuasion. What I'm talking about are the game breaking combos that...well, break the game by letting the PCs talk their way out of getting into the fights I've so carefully set up for them.In my experience, role-players relish the thrill of the hunt away-from-the-table and want to show off their finds at the table. The trouble is being a DM at a table with role-players. There seems to be one of four possible approaches to dealing with an role-playing character and an role-playing player. First, you outright ban talking in character. Second, you ramp up the social challenges to such a degree that the role-player cannot talk his or the party's way out of the upcoming fight. Third, just never feature role-playing. Fourth, do nothing and let the role-playing characters constantly talk their way out of any and all combat challenges.None of these solutions are particularly great. Banning role-playing cuts out a chunk of fun for an apparently significant segment of the gaming population. Ramping up role-playing challenges become unachievable for the non-optimized-for-role-playing characters and basically forces them to roll up role-playing PCs or become irrelevant. This is an especially bad solution given that a not insignificant segment of the gaming population does not care to role-play, so essentially forcing them to is bad. Never having talking scenes kinda defeats a major part of the fun of D&D...having tense social interactions. And letting the role-playing characters always trivially sidestep any combat challenges also defeats a major part of the fun of D&D...having tense combats.And yes, I've tried the standard "why don't you try talking to your players" routine. Doesn't help. The role-players just keep doing it. They literally refuse to stop. This makes the non-role-players have no fun because they either stop playing the way that's fun for them or stop playing entirely. So I basically have to choose. Which group of players will I run the game for. I don't have time for both. I don't want to exclude either group from my table, but they simply do not mesh.TL;DR: role-players ruin the fun for everyone but themselves at my table. Help.Okay, you might detect a slight hint of sarcasm there, but my point is this: your post suggests that some of your players are having fun wrong.I've DMed games where the players demanded I stop the boring talky stuff and get to the good bits, the fighting! I've been a player where one guy is monopolising the DM's time and attention by having his PC have a meaningless conversation with a random NPC that is in no way connected to the plot, while the other five players sit and twiddle their thumbs for three quarters of an hour!So which group are playing the game wrong? Having fun wrong?Have you heard of the Stormwind Fallacy? Basically, the fallacy is that someone who is interested in and good at optimising PCs cannot also be interested in or good at the role-playing/talking in character part of the game, and vice versa.I. Like. Both.I'm good at both. I enjoy both. I want my games to feature both.Because I want both, I have had opposite reactions. I really have had one group criticise me for making PCs who are actually good at what they are supposed to be good at. After all, it's a role-playing game, not a roll-playing game, right?And I really have had a group criticise me for having my PC talk to the NPC and find a way to achieve our mutual goal without casualties on either side. After all, it's supposed to be a game, not an amateur dramatics society, right?Neither side is wrong. Casting one side as the villains and the other as the angels isn't the answer.</blockquote>

Verification