Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7744078" data-attributes="member: 29398">Oddly, though I somewhat disagree with just about all your points below I still find my self arriving at the same conclusion. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Ditto here, but I didn't get the sense from the examples given that this was even an issue.Or it's just two or more players playing stubborn characters in character, as they should.&nbsp; Just because the characters disagree to the point of digging in their heels doesn't automatically mean there's dysfunction at the table, though it certainly happens.&nbsp; Even then, however, I still say let 'em argue it out. (if all else fails, I've in the past seen the rest of a party carry on their own way and leave two arguing characters behind... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )Well, players sometimes do too, in a way: the loudmouth always overtalking the shyer quieter player, for example.That said, one assumes the DM would - if such mechanics were used to reslove a PC-vs.-PC argument - enforce upon them the requisite penalties/bonuses given by what those PCs have going for them or not.This might perhaps be another reason I don't like social mechanics; I don't agree with the nerfing on the magical side that you refer to, and the power level there colours my view of social mechanics and what they could potentially do. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />If it's players at loggerheads and the argument spills out of character then the smackdown hammer comes out.&nbsp; If it's just characters at loggerheads they can go on all night for all I care. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Lanefan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7744078, member: 29398"] Oddly, though I somewhat disagree with just about all your points below I still find my self arriving at the same conclusion. :) Ditto here, but I didn't get the sense from the examples given that this was even an issue. Or it's just two or more players playing stubborn characters in character, as they should. Just because the characters disagree to the point of digging in their heels doesn't automatically mean there's dysfunction at the table, though it certainly happens. Even then, however, I still say let 'em argue it out. (if all else fails, I've in the past seen the rest of a party carry on their own way and leave two arguing characters behind... :) ) Well, players sometimes do too, in a way: the loudmouth always overtalking the shyer quieter player, for example. That said, one assumes the DM would - if such mechanics were used to reslove a PC-vs.-PC argument - enforce upon them the requisite penalties/bonuses given by what those PCs have going for them or not. This might perhaps be another reason I don't like social mechanics; I don't agree with the nerfing on the magical side that you refer to, and the power level there colours my view of social mechanics and what they could potentially do. :) If it's players at loggerheads and the argument spills out of character then the smackdown hammer comes out. If it's just characters at loggerheads they can go on all night for all I care. :) Lanefan [/QUOTE]

Verification