ChrisCarlson
First Post
Agreed. Unfortunately that forces uncomfortable realizations in some and so thread derailment is a safer path than exploring the thread's premise.
Inspiration is a PC-on-PC Social Skills Question
- Thread starter jayoungr
- Start date
mellored
Legend
I've never seen anyone reject a warlords buffs. They where always willingly accepted and appreciated.
What i see.
Mike: Hey Jim, do you want an extra attack?
Jim: Yes, i would, thank you. <rolls dice>
At worst it would be
Mike: Hey Jim, would like some extra movement?
Jim: No, i'm going to stay here defending this doorway.
Mike: Ok, then i'll support your wishes and give you some extra AC instead.
Jim: Thanks.
You know, cooperation, teamwork, and not being a dick.
You don't need a class feature for one person's wishes to be stepped on by another person. That's the point you are missing.
You don't need a warlord for teamwork, or a lack of teamwork.
It's a social issue. It requires a social solution.
And it doesn't require cooperation, since you don't seem to understand what that is.
That's not a class feature.
Though i did play an evil cleric like that. He wouldn't heal you unless you prayed to the right god.
But that still has nothing to do with the warlord.
mellored
Legend
Same opinion i gave up page.
Attempting to control another PC is shunned*, no matter the source. (diplomacy / charm person / out of character passive-aggressive behavior / bribing with pizza / romantic relationship / etc...).
And I've never seen anyone be unwilling to receive a buff (inspiring leader / heroism / haste / granted attack / healing / paladin aura / etc..). They've always been appreciated. But if someone didn't want it, i would shun forcing a buff on them. Fortunately, the majority are already optional.
*Unless your playing a PC vs PC game, like paranoia. But that needs to be clear ahead of time. And i would still shun any out of character manipulation.
So I agree it doesn't have anything to do with the warlord.
Okay. I accept that you see no issue here.
Anyone else have thoughts on the subject? Because if not, I don't know what else there is to say.
ChrisCarlson
First Post
You can't know that. Unless you can read minds. And you cannot. So you cannot.
mellored
Legend
I see with my eyes, hear with my ears, and can read my own mind.
But yes, if someone is secretly wanting to reject me casting haste on them and didn't tell me, i wouldn't know about it.
But i choose to trust my friends to tell me if that was the case. And i would respect their opinion if they did.
ChrisCarlson
First Post
Well good thing you are only speaking for yourself. But please quit trying to claim no one ever reluctantly accepts a warlord's benefits (in spite of having RP reasons to do otherwise) because maybe they are trying to be nice and let the warlord player have his fun at the expense of some of their own.
Because there's this: I've seen it happen. Heck, it's happened to me. I could have chosen to take the benefit or step on the other player's fun by telling her no. I chose the former to keep things running smoothly and without any potential hard feelings. So now what? Can you just admit you are wrong? Perhaps now you can quit trying to make false claims in the face of being told it does actually happen?
You sure do like to keep strawmanning haste into this conversation about social skills/inspiration. Is there a particular reason you can't stay on topic?
That's nice?
mellored
Legend
I never said it couldn't, or didn't happen.
Actually, thinking back more, i do remember 1 time when someone told a cleric to not cast spells and save them for healing and the cleric caved to the social pressure.
So yes, i have seen the issue, once. It certainly isn't common.
The stawman is that it's somehow only applies to warlords/skills/inspiration. The wizard could want to cast haste on the barbarian, and the barbarian could not like magic. Same situation.
Or even in real life. You friend could want you to come over and eat his cooked meal, and you could want to eat at a restaurant. Same situation.
It's a social issue. You need to talk it out socially, deal with it socially.
ChrisCarlson
First Post
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
I am with mellored on one thing. I don't know anyone in game that actively rejects buffs from whatever source.
While I can definietely see the philosophical pitfalls of such a thing, I really can't imagine such coming up in play much at all. People accept when a buff is offered and don't tend to think about things like player agency at the table unless the thing in questions causes a direct action that they have no control over. In fact I'd venture to say that there are two categories we could place abilities that affect player agency into and one type is much more readily accepted than the other.
Static Number buffs to attack or AC or Damage or movement (etc)
1. Such buffs do not rob players of any ability to use their actions or have their character to do what they want their character to do.
2. Such buffs do rob the player the agency of explaining why his character is attacking better or doing more damage etc and forces a certain narrative that the player could dislike into the situation. Most players accept that magic is a valid non-agency depriving reason for a buff.
Buff that increasing the players ability to do more things such as granting an action or attack or movement before combat begins
1. Such buffs do not rob the players of any ability to use their actions or have their character do what they want their character to do.
2. Such buffs suffer the same problem as buffs above but they have one additional benefit, the player has more things to be the agent over because of these style of buffs.
Buffs that force a player to do a certain thing
1. I can't think of any buff that does such a thing. I don't think such buffs exist. Charm would be an example of a spell like this but I wouldn't consider charm a buff ever.
So yes, while philosophically a player is giving up a slight bit of agency for any mundane buff insofar as he must accept whatever fluff is causing the buff as valid and applying to his character, such a thing is generally overlooked for 1 of a number of reasons.
1. player doesn't really care whether his character found the fighter an inspiring leader before such fluff was called into the light. Once such fluff is called into the light, if the player doesn't have any prior convictions relating to whether his character could be inspired by the fighter then he most likely won't even notice that agency being taken away and won't care about it being taken away.
2. player likes the buff and will play toward the in game fluff because he likes the buff.
3. player finds the identified fluff problematic but easily finds some other fluff that can explain why the ability still works on his character.
Typically the only reason a player would dislike this is:
The fluff being given for the mundane buff is something that directly opposes something important the player has already envisioned for his character and there is no acceptable alternative fluff that can explain it.
The important thing to remember is that their are two kinds of player agency that can be taken away and that one is more problematic than the other and that the other is more nuanced in when and where it causes a problem.
While I can definietely see the philosophical pitfalls of such a thing, I really can't imagine such coming up in play much at all. People accept when a buff is offered and don't tend to think about things like player agency at the table unless the thing in questions causes a direct action that they have no control over. In fact I'd venture to say that there are two categories we could place abilities that affect player agency into and one type is much more readily accepted than the other.
Static Number buffs to attack or AC or Damage or movement (etc)
1. Such buffs do not rob players of any ability to use their actions or have their character to do what they want their character to do.
2. Such buffs do rob the player the agency of explaining why his character is attacking better or doing more damage etc and forces a certain narrative that the player could dislike into the situation. Most players accept that magic is a valid non-agency depriving reason for a buff.
Buff that increasing the players ability to do more things such as granting an action or attack or movement before combat begins
1. Such buffs do not rob the players of any ability to use their actions or have their character do what they want their character to do.
2. Such buffs suffer the same problem as buffs above but they have one additional benefit, the player has more things to be the agent over because of these style of buffs.
Buffs that force a player to do a certain thing
1. I can't think of any buff that does such a thing. I don't think such buffs exist. Charm would be an example of a spell like this but I wouldn't consider charm a buff ever.
So yes, while philosophically a player is giving up a slight bit of agency for any mundane buff insofar as he must accept whatever fluff is causing the buff as valid and applying to his character, such a thing is generally overlooked for 1 of a number of reasons.
1. player doesn't really care whether his character found the fighter an inspiring leader before such fluff was called into the light. Once such fluff is called into the light, if the player doesn't have any prior convictions relating to whether his character could be inspired by the fighter then he most likely won't even notice that agency being taken away and won't care about it being taken away.
2. player likes the buff and will play toward the in game fluff because he likes the buff.
3. player finds the identified fluff problematic but easily finds some other fluff that can explain why the ability still works on his character.
Typically the only reason a player would dislike this is:
The fluff being given for the mundane buff is something that directly opposes something important the player has already envisioned for his character and there is no acceptable alternative fluff that can explain it.
The important thing to remember is that their are two kinds of player agency that can be taken away and that one is more problematic than the other and that the other is more nuanced in when and where it causes a problem.
