Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7599011" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think your questions are spot on, but I think I also know where Hussar is coming from.&nbsp;&nbsp; And at the risk of offending him (again), I'll guess that the &quot;talky talky&quot; is actually his past experience with high charisma (but socially dysfunctional) players browbeating or bullying the DM into getting their way.&nbsp; That is to say, I suspect that what Hussar is really guarding against is not problem solving in character per se, but a player playing the metagame where he tries to talk the DM into yielding to him.&nbsp;&nbsp; And that is I agree totally dysfunctional and yes I've seen that in play, and Hussar's strategy of using fortune at the beginning seems designed to just kill that cold without the need to have a confrontation with that player about the way that they are playing, precisely because players like that prefer to negotiate at the metagame level and any confrontation like that is simply starting up the drama with them. Again, what I really think Hussar is actually objecting to in play is not problem solving, as I suspect that in play he's not actually that far off what you or I do.&nbsp; I suspect what he is really objecting to is player's being jerks, and there is a particular class of player jerk that attempts to short cut the entire proposition-&gt;fortune-&gt;resolution cycle by first getting the DM to agree to the stakes, then getting the DM to agree that a plan works, and if they can't get that DM to agree to the stakes and to the plan working, then they back up and try again, until they finally browbeat the DM into simply validating that they get what they want.&nbsp;&nbsp; So you end up with a ton of argument over whether or not the DM is ruling correctly, and a ton of demands for do overs because the player would have never done this thing if he realized whatever.&nbsp;&nbsp; That is I think the &quot;talky talky&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7599011, member: 4937"] I think your questions are spot on, but I think I also know where Hussar is coming from. And at the risk of offending him (again), I'll guess that the "talky talky" is actually his past experience with high charisma (but socially dysfunctional) players browbeating or bullying the DM into getting their way. That is to say, I suspect that what Hussar is really guarding against is not problem solving in character per se, but a player playing the metagame where he tries to talk the DM into yielding to him. And that is I agree totally dysfunctional and yes I've seen that in play, and Hussar's strategy of using fortune at the beginning seems designed to just kill that cold without the need to have a confrontation with that player about the way that they are playing, precisely because players like that prefer to negotiate at the metagame level and any confrontation like that is simply starting up the drama with them. Again, what I really think Hussar is actually objecting to in play is not problem solving, as I suspect that in play he's not actually that far off what you or I do. I suspect what he is really objecting to is player's being jerks, and there is a particular class of player jerk that attempts to short cut the entire proposition->fortune->resolution cycle by first getting the DM to agree to the stakes, then getting the DM to agree that a plan works, and if they can't get that DM to agree to the stakes and to the plan working, then they back up and try again, until they finally browbeat the DM into simply validating that they get what they want. So you end up with a ton of argument over whether or not the DM is ruling correctly, and a ton of demands for do overs because the player would have never done this thing if he realized whatever. That is I think the "talky talky". [/QUOTE]

Verification