Today's comic is about balancing out-of-character and in-character knowledge. Twilight's player is just beginning to learn the finer points of this essential roleplaying practice.
Gah, I hate trying to game with people like Twilight. You have to do everything via DM notes and making the other players leave the room and crap because one player doesn't get the difference between in-character and out-of-character knowledge.
At least Twilight's got the excuse that she's new to this whole 'roleplaying' thing. I've gamed with plenty of people experienced enough to know better who were just as bad about this sort of meta-knowledge tomfoolery. One that leaps to mind was when the party thief found a secret compartment which contained a few diamonds and palmed them before calling the rest of the group over. IMMEDIATELY one of the fighters begins asking if he saw the thief take the diamonds, if the thief is acting suspicious, if his moneypouch is hanging a little lower than it was a minute ago, if he caught a glint of something out of the corner of his eye (said fighter was in another room at the time, mind you), and just generally being an unbelievable dick. When I (the DM) finally got him to realize that I wasn't going to let him act on his OOC knowledge like that, he backed off... until that night during his watch. Then, he announced that he needed some magical healing (which was true), and was going to go through the thief's bags to see if he had any healing potions. And while he was digging around in the thief's stuff, he might as well check the money pouch, just to make sure the thief hadn't been skimming any gems without telling the rest of the party...
Needless to say, fighter didn't get invited to too many more sessions after that.
And THAT is why I require lit/chatroom roleplay experience to be had by new players. That way, they're more likely to understand these things. Apparently, even non-geeks roleplay with their friends online. (not that I would know. Most of my friends are geeks along with me)
To be honest, I do understand why this pisses people off with experienced role-players, but we're not always in the mindset to remember. Twilight's player is just starting, and I'm impressed with her capabilities so far.
And to be honest, this is probably going to be a simple and laid-back game for the most part, to give her time for her and Fluttershy to learn.
Its obvious that Twilight's player is newer to the game. All new players have issues with keeping personal knowledge and character knowledge separate. Heck even some vets do too... it just takes practice.
Well ok the fighter was probably being a dick here, but I've always wondered how you discipline players like the rogue who abuse in-character vs. OOC knowledge. How does one solve the problem of a thief like that?
Punish them with the same trick. Make your character suspicious of them on the grounds that 'they are a professional thief, of course I'm going to be leery of them.' And if they do get away with it a few times, let them. Then, when they get caught, be justified in not trusting them from then on. After all, just because YOU know they are telling the truth doesn't mean your character does, and your character has plenty of reasons to suspect them. Make your character demand an apology, their cut, etc. Have them insist the rouge turn out their pockets after scouting a place and finding it 'empty'. Even though you as a player know its true, your character has been burned this way before.
Not that simple. For example, what if he lied in the first place? What if your character doesn't know he's a Rogue? What if he thinks he's a Monk or something?
Remember also that game terms aren't always used in-character. After all, not every thief is a Rogue, and a rogue is a title in-character, not a class.
Heck yea. And even then, I remember a campaign I once ran with a Neutral Evil Rogue, A Chaotic Neutral duskblade (Later Chaotic Good), a Neutral Good Monk (long story), and a True Neutral Druid.
The rogue became good friends with the rest of the party, and was such an accepted member of the group that even the players were sad when her character had to leave (Became an assassin for the Empire of the setting). They never found out she was Neutral Evil, and in the end? it didn't matter. They were friends and that's all they cared about.
I can only speak to my own experience, but I usually don't bother with punishing. The player is playing a slightly dickish character, and that's just fine. I have no problem with a sticky-fingered rogue any more than I do with a grouchy wizard or a bloodthirsty fighter. As DM I can make sure any actual money issues balance out in the long run, and once I'm aware that the rogue is going to be doing stuff like that I can write it into the story.
For example, a big obvious gem that he's clearly going to want to take turns out to be much more than a simple gem, and is necessary for some later task, and he's going to have to do some fast talking to explain why he just happens to have a huge emerald in his pocket right when the party needs a huge emerald to open the gate.
You want to punish him for acting in character? Why? The party may miss out on some diamonds, but a good DM makes it so that the rest of the party gets a little more later to balance things out. A good DM does NOT punish a player for having a greedy character unless it involves traps, social situations, or possible jail-time. That's more the purvey of character development, anyway.
I think that you may underestimate the unbridled opportunism of rouges. However, that is besides the point, because I think the question is "How do you punish someone who is using their class as a shield for being a jerk?"
The answer - at least, in my humble opinion - is to do the same thing you would if they started using their alignment as a shield: Boot them from the party. Life is too short to play with jerks.
It's always a dilemma what you do in cases where a PC suspects that another PC is lying.
Personally I favor making the suspect roll bluff whether or not s/he is telling the truth. If the suspecter wins the suspect must truthfully say if what was said was true or not, while if the suspect wins s/he can chose whether to say something was a lie or not.
In-character secrets tend to work better when they're actually kept secret from the players too. Important ones, I mean.
A couple times I've been in games where one of the party was actually evil but none of the other players knew it, until they showed their true colors during the final battle. But meanwhile everything was going wrong for the party because they had a traitor. It was awesome. n.n
My groups have tended to handle things the other way - big secrets like one member of the party secretly working against the party's main goal tends to be done out in the open. The key factor here is that the *players* aren't so emotionally invested in their character's goals that they get upset if those goals fail. With everything out in the open, there's no sense of conflict between the players, just their characters, and I think it makes for a healthier game.
Who else can read the comic in the voices of the show's cast?
Also, I play 4e D&D a lot. It is my most favorite system mostly because it is much easier to DM. So when I was reading the Cast sections character sheets and crunching the numbers I noticed that they only got +2 to a single stat. I assume, like Humans, the three types of ponies have a good amount of extras to make up for the lack of a second +2 to another ability score (which makes sense given what kind of abilities the Mane Six posses in the show).
The next 100 comics are about 230 days in the future, relative Earth time. Unless you have some alien or future spacecraft, you're going to have to chronologically travel forwards with everyone else.
The closest I've ever come to party conflict is with this friggen Bard in our party, who was trying to charm the Monk, Paladin, and (me) the Fighter to stop us from preventing a ritual. He hypnotized me before I could actually attack him though, and I was just about ready to.
At least Twilight's got the excuse that she's new to this whole 'roleplaying' thing. I've gamed with plenty of people experienced enough to know better who were just as bad about this sort of meta-knowledge tomfoolery. One that leaps to mind was when the party thief found a secret compartment which contained a few diamonds and palmed them before calling the rest of the group over. IMMEDIATELY one of the fighters begins asking if he saw the thief take the diamonds, if the thief is acting suspicious, if his moneypouch is hanging a little lower than it was a minute ago, if he caught a glint of something out of the corner of his eye (said fighter was in another room at the time, mind you), and just generally being an unbelievable dick. When I (the DM) finally got him to realize that I wasn't going to let him act on his OOC knowledge like that, he backed off... until that night during his watch. Then, he announced that he needed some magical healing (which was true), and was going to go through the thief's bags to see if he had any healing potions. And while he was digging around in the thief's stuff, he might as well check the money pouch, just to make sure the thief hadn't been skimming any gems without telling the rest of the party...
Needless to say, fighter didn't get invited to too many more sessions after that.
And to be honest, this is probably going to be a simple and laid-back game for the most part, to give her time for her and Fluttershy to learn.
Remember also that game terms aren't always used in-character. After all, not every thief is a Rogue, and a rogue is a title in-character, not a class.
The rogue became good friends with the rest of the party, and was such an accepted member of the group that even the players were sad when her character had to leave (Became an assassin for the Empire of the setting). They never found out she was Neutral Evil, and in the end? it didn't matter. They were friends and that's all they cared about.
For example, a big obvious gem that he's clearly going to want to take turns out to be much more than a simple gem, and is necessary for some later task, and he's going to have to do some fast talking to explain why he just happens to have a huge emerald in his pocket right when the party needs a huge emerald to open the gate.
You want to punish him for acting in character? Why? The party may miss out on some diamonds, but a good DM makes it so that the rest of the party gets a little more later to balance things out. A good DM does NOT punish a player for having a greedy character unless it involves traps, social situations, or possible jail-time. That's more the purvey of character development, anyway.
The answer - at least, in my humble opinion - is to do the same thing you would if they started using their alignment as a shield: Boot them from the party. Life is too short to play with jerks.
Personally I favor making the suspect roll bluff whether or not s/he is telling the truth. If the suspecter wins the suspect must truthfully say if what was said was true or not, while if the suspect wins s/he can chose whether to say something was a lie or not.
A couple times I've been in games where one of the party was actually evil but none of the other players knew it, until they showed their true colors during the final battle. But meanwhile everything was going wrong for the party because they had a traitor. It was awesome. n.n
Well, the septuple-post has been taken care of now.
Also, I play 4e D&D a lot. It is my most favorite system mostly because it is much easier to DM. So when I was reading the Cast sections character sheets and crunching the numbers I noticed that they only got +2 to a single stat. I assume, like Humans, the three types of ponies have a good amount of extras to make up for the lack of a second +2 to another ability score (which makes sense given what kind of abilities the Mane Six posses in the show).
Str 16 (9) +2 = 18
Con 16 (9)
Dex 11 (1)
Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 08
9+9+1=19/22 points to spend. I suggest putting them into Wisdom, for the earthy knowledge Applejack possesses.
*next page*
Huh? HEY! Where are the rest 100 pages I could keep reading in one go?! :P