| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, most forms of actions in RPGs are abstractions upon the real world, based on PC abilities. You roll to hit (based on strength BaB, WS or whatever), you roll to succeed (at crafting, lock picking, etc.) and you roll to know (knowledge checks and such). You get no bonuses for being a good fighter in RL, you don’t need to be a carpenter in RL to do carpentry in game, and your personal knowledge shouldn’t enter into play (and for many pre-made settings this can be an issue). So why isn’t this always the case for the “social” aspect of skills in-game?
I’m currently playing a priest/investigator type named Johan. He’s got the best charisma (or equivalent for the system) in the group, and has the right skills to play the role of a “face”. I, however, most definitely do not. Not that I can’t talk to people, but I react slowly, am not always the most diplomatic, and could definitely never play a face in real life. And this is a big problem. Why? Because the “social” stuff in the game (with NPCs mind you) is always done more as a freeform discussion. The only (rare) time that a roll is needed is to gage the reaction of an NPC (sense motive or equivalent) or to lie to an NPC (bluff or equivalent). So I bumble along, and I get the impression the other players get quite frustrated at me sometimes, either for not asking something appropriate, or timing it right, or so forth.
In the end, I feel like I have to use my (as in, the players) charisma & skills rather than the characters, which makes me rather frustrated. I would love to role-play a “face” type, but I’m feeling that without having the skills myself, I won’t get the chance. This has happened in each campaign I have tried to play a “face” (3 up to now).
(There are other things that impact my performance: I’m always fairly mind-tired when it’s after work play, but that affects my performance in all aspects of the game, not just the social.)
Let’s compare to a skill I am good at (in this case, knowledge, since this is a pre-made setting). We are using a pre-made setting, which I know moderately well (I gm another game in the same setting too). And I have, with GM approval, used this knowledge in character (mainly for stuff like backstory, some “general knowledge”). I have no compunctions discussing the stuff at the table, but I am very careful not to let it affect my character’s actions.
I’m also worried about this as a GM. My own current standard is “Roleplay it, you roll a proper check, with possible bonuses/negatives depending on how good an idea it was, though it will always mostly rely on your stats”. But it still worries me, because it’s not an easy thing to do, and I don’t want to start balkanizing people out of the face role.
So I’m wondering what other GMs have done in this situation. There’s bound to be a solution, but I have yet to found a solidly built “social interaction/conflict” system, so I’m looking to everyone else. How do you manage those situations where someone would like to play a face but isnt one themselves?
Noticed ther's another similar thread currently active. However, it seems to be in a slightly different direction from mine, and I would still like to know how other people have dealt wiht my situation in the past (as that other thread hasnt addressed solutions much).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There really isn't a direct solution. The game has a certain expectation of roleplay. It is a social game by nature and so ut is the default assumption at many tables that you will do social things. Particularly good GMs will help prompt a less-confident orator through interactions. Most GMs aren't good enough to do that for every encounter every time. Some GMs feel like your performance will count as a bonus/penalty to your role. Some would rather you not even roll and just use your performance. You basically need to accept/understand that this is the GMs preference and they are perfectly entitled to it. The game is social by nature and they want the story and play to be driven by the social interaction of the group. That is what is fun for them. If it is less fun for you, or you are looking for a more tactical game ("I diplomacy him") then you should be aware that the table you are at isn't looking for that and has no reason to accommodate you. You should consider sticking to non-social characters at that table and look for a second group to play with to run your more face-type characters. But as for "solutions" that involve you being able to convince this group that it isn't fair you have to speak-well because Johnny doesn't have to swing a sword at the table and you should just be allowed to roll your dice and add your modifier, well, there isn't one. They WANT that interaction at their table, and they don't have to accommodate you by removing that part of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
I dont mind the whole acting part, but it's the fact that the sheet doesnt seem to matter at all that's a problem. I do act out what I say, first person (I love accents), trying to stick to a character. But everything I say seems to get the most negative reaction I would expect, so I'm getting rather frustrated.
It's the only reliable group I've got unfortunately, and I think I'm just gonna have to tell them to figure out their own face stuff. I've got the stats (and that was more an accident than anything else), so I try, but clearly that aint important here.
Anyway, I've got to talk to my GM, he tends to listen so hopefully we can work something out (or I'll just stop talking altogether).
And for the "solutions", I'M not talking about this group, but in general. What kind of framework can we make so that folks that arent socially adept (but are still willing) can participate in "in game" social conflict through their characters without feeling constrained by their own abilities? I think it's a serious concern for a hobby centered around being what you arent usually (in this case, socially adept).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that people don't often get is that Charisma doesn't have to be rigid. I have played high Charisma bards that say the stupidest stuff imaginable, that tell outrageous lies; but guess what? People like him, he has a certain magnetism about him. Despite him being an ass at times and being silly at others, people can't help but be drawn to him. Charisma is more than sweet talking and looks, it is force of personality. Just remember, that you can say anything, people still will listen.
You can be a lovable goof, you can be a serious con man, you can be stunningly gorgeous, or have a great reputation, or have people take everything you say the best way.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont mind the whole acting part, but it's the fact that the sheet doesnt seem to matter at all that's a problem. I do act out what I say, first person (I love accents), trying to stick to a character. But everything I say seems to get the most negative reaction I would expect, so I'm getting rather frustrated.
It's the only reliable group I've got unfortunately, and I think I'm just gonna have to tell them to figure out their own face stuff. I've got the stats (and that was more an accident than anything else), so I try, but clearly that aint important here.
Anyway, I've got to talk to my GM, he tends to listen so hopefully we can work something out (or I'll just stop talking altogether).
And for the "solutions", I'M not talking about this group, but in general. What kind of framework can we make so that folks that arent socially adept (but are still willing) can participate in "in game" social conflict through their characters without feeling constrained by their own abilities? I think it's a serious concern for a hobby centered around being what you arent usually (in this case, socially adept).
Something I've wanted to try in my games is asking for Diplomacy rolls before the request/diplomatic overture is worded, and then having the PC(s) roleplay it out after that. If the PC isn't too great at RPing that part of the game, they won't be penalized, and they can feel their skill ranks actually came in use. If they're a good roleplayer but happen to roll poorly on their check, it won't be too hard for them to word a request that is offensive, overbearing, or otherwise unpalatable.
My players are all pretty avid roleplayers, though, so I haven't tested this system out yet. They would probably feel cheated if I introduced it now!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I like play-by-post for this sort of thing. Not only can I organize my thoughts, but I can do more time-intensive things, like impromptu poetry (or bar songs).
Personally, I like play-by-post for this sort of thing. Not only can I organize my thoughts, but I can do more time-intensive things, like impromptu poetry (or bar songs).
Tried that out a couple of times. Could never quite get into the "flow" of those games. Seems like a great idea, but didnt quite work out for me. Always ended up forgetting I even had the game, generally because I got busy with work.
...
Any way, my two cents, not everyone has to be the best at everything- in the game or in real life. Some are better with the social aspects of the game, others with the tactical, others with the rules, etc, etc.
See, this is the type of attitude I'm trying to get around; RPGs have a strong emphasis on being something I'm not, so why cant I be (in game) something I'm not (in RL)? It seems to be possible for most other aspects of the game. I'll admit there is great variability in skill (and my own exhaustion doesnt help) but there MUST be a way to abstract to social part, same as we can for the combat part. Shouldn't there be? Ugh, this is depressing me a bit...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Different groups deal with this problem in different ways. I've played in a game where one player was "forbidden" to play characters with less than 14 charisma, and at another one where a player admitted to dumping charisma on all his characters because he couldn't back up the RP for a charismatic character. The relationship to out-of-character charisma to in-character charisma is an unavoidable fact; it's up to your and your other players to find an equitable solution.
Maybe you'd find it easier to describe your arguments and discussions narratively, rather than as a back-and-forth conversation. Or you could let another player roleplay some encounters, then support them with affirmation and a diplomacy check. It's important that you find some solution, though; the current situation isn't fair to you or to the rest of the group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, this is the type of attitude I'm trying to get around; RPGs have a strong emphasis on being something I'm not, so why cant I be (in game) something I'm not (in RL)? It seems to be possible for most other aspects of the game. I'll admit there is great variability in skill (and my own exhaustion doesnt help) but there MUST be a way to abstract to social part, same as we can for the combat part. Shouldn't there be? Ugh, this is depressing me a bit......
Any way, my two cents, not everyone has to be the best at everything- in the game or in real life. Some are better with the social aspects of the game, others with the tactical, others with the rules, etc, etc.
There IS a way to abstract the social part, but what people are telling you is that many groups DONT WANT TO abstract the social part.
An imperfect analogy:
People play baseball as a weekend pass-time.
Some people aren't good at throwing and hitting balls but still want to play baseball.
Those people learn about tee ball.
It isn't a reasonable solution to show up to a baseball game with a tee so you can hit the ball and be the pitcher. That isn't the game they are playing, and if you want to play tee ball you need to find a group who plays tee ball.
"The baseball group is the only reliable group in my area," isn't a valid response because they don't play the game you want to play. It doesn't matter if they are reliable or available, you can't expect them to play tee ball with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Way to be dismissive and insulting.
Not at all, it is a different game with different expectations. The same thing is happening at the game table. The group wants to play a game where social interaction is an important part of the experience. The OP wants that group to put the social aspect "on a tee" for him so he can play a face character. It isn't reasonable or fair to ask them to do that.
I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with playing the way the OP wants to, but what I am suggesting is that you can't "fix" or "solve" the issue any more than you can "fix" or "solve" baseball by letting people bring a tee.
No judgement, just realizing that what different groups want or expect from the game may vary and it isn't up to any particular group to accommodate you or your play style.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Well, I dont want to get into an argument (since they never go well on the internet). And I agree, it being the only reliable group isnt a great excuse, but it is the reason I'm still with them and trying to work things out.
But, to continue your analogy a little, I see trpg s as if what was being advertised to play was "ball". Nothing more specific. Could be baseball, teeball, basketball for all I know. The wild variety of what a game can be is staggering, and nearly impossible to sum up.
At least with sports you can immediately tell what's being played; It took me nearly a year and a half of play (which was highly combat & exploration based) before that social aspect became apparent.
Anyway, clearly setting expectations is hard, and making them explicit can be even harder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most GMs want the players to contribute to making the game fun by providing entertainment value to the group as a whole. If you're an great improviser, then you can make social scenes fun. Any attempt to abstract these social scenes is unlikely to create the same entertainment.
I'm not particularly brilliant at that aspect of the game. I try to make up for it in other ways - by preparing as well as I can, knowing what all my spells do, and so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Well, I dont want to get into an argument (since they never go well on the internet). And I agree, it being the only reliable group isnt a great excuse, but it is the reason I'm still with them and trying to work things out.
But, to continue your analogy a little, I see trpg s as if what was being advertised to play was "ball". Nothing more specific. Could be baseball, teeball, basketball for all I know. The wild variety of what a game can be is staggering, and nearly impossible to sum up.
At least with sports you can immediately tell what's being played; It took me nearly a year and a half of play (which was highly combat & exploration based) before that social aspect became apparent.
Anyway, clearly setting expectations is hard, and making them explicit can be even harder.
I absolutely agree that it is very difficult to know what type of game you will be coming to ahead of time. But now that you know the group, you know the kind of game they want to play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A perfect solution to this is to roll first, and role play the roll. Giving a roaring speech and then getting a terrible roll doesn't make sense to me.
I know you love accents and the like but if you feel like you are doing poorly, then you can describe your bluff or diplomacy as though you were watching this stylish scoundrel talk his way around guards, kings and dragons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I’m wondering what other GMs have done in this situation. There’s bound to be a solution, but I have yet to found a solidly built “social interaction/conflict” system, so I’m looking to everyone else. How do you manage those situations where someone would like to play a face but isnt one themselves?
I find I'm not naturally very good at this (as DM). What I try to do is to take the player's stumbling, or not terribly convincing words as the gist of the argument and respond as if they've been well spoken. So, from the outside, a high CHA character played by a player without the skills to be a RLface will appear to be dealing with a bunch of naive, friendly people - easily persuaded and not overly critical in their analysis. Occasionally, if I find the suggested line of attack unlikely to succeed and the player rolls well, I might suggest an amended approach.
It's hard to do all the time though. When a player comes up with some feeble attempt at bluff, my natural inclination is to make it a harder DC - even though a good bluffer should be able to come up with a good story. In physical skills, this is an error you don't fall into (judging the results of a fifteen foot leap based on eyeing Jim and deciding he'd never make it).
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have aspergers. It is basically social blindness, people with it can't read body language, vocal tone, social cues. No matter how hard I try to learn it, I can't. One person does one thing I think it means one thing, someone else does what looks like the exact same thing and it means something else.
The few times I tried to place a social aware PC, my GM would make me role play it out instead of rolling. So in addition to the points wasted that I never used, I never was able to play them the way I intended due to something I have that I can't do anything about.
So for a group to force someone to play like that when you can't is pretty insulting to the player.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion usually it IS better if a more socially adept PLAYER has a PC who has the "face" skills. Face skills aren't THAT hard to come by, a number of traits allow for Diplomacy, Bluff, or Sense Motive. Diplomacy sees the most use in my game. The OP could find a solution where his Priest focuses more on Perception and Sense Motive and still is a great investigator, where one of the more "talky" PCs takes care of the Diplomacy (maybe trading out some skill points and/or a trait to become more Diplomacy focused). Doesn't mean that the priest can't do Diplomacy (he could "aid another" with the more verbally adept player's diplomacy efforts with a skill roll).
Any way, my two cents, not everyone has to be the best at everything- in the game or in real life. Some are better with the social aspects of the game, others with the tactical, others with the rules, etc, etc.
So do you expect your fittest people to play fighters?
Do you expect your smartest people to play Wizards?
Why is it considered bad form if the rogue with no knowledge skills meta-games and "knows" what the monster's weakness is even if he has no skill ranks but it is ok if the Fighter who dumped CHA and has no social skills suddenly can lie like nobodies business or has a game winning smile and personality... there is no difference at all as far as the game is concerned..
In my opinion usually it IS better if a more socially adept PLAYER has a PC who has the "face" skills. Face skills aren't THAT hard to come by, a number of traits allow for Diplomacy, Bluff, or Sense Motive. Diplomacy sees the most use in my game. The OP could find a solution where his Priest focuses more on Perception and Sense Motive and still is a great investigator, where one of the more "talky" PCs takes care of the Diplomacy (maybe trading out some skill points and/or a trait to become more Diplomacy focused). Doesn't mean that the priest can't do Diplomacy (he could "aid another" with the more verbally adept player's diplomacy efforts with a skill roll).
Any way, my two cents, not everyone has to be the best at everything- in the game or in real life. Some are better with the social aspects of the game, others with the tactical, others with the rules, etc, etc.
So do you expect your fittest people to play fighters?
Do you expect your smartest people to play Wizards?
Why is it considered bad form if the rogue with no knowledge skills meta-games and "knows" what the monster's weakness is even if he has no skill ranks but it is ok if the Fighter who dumped CHA and has no social skills suddenly can lie like nobodies business or has a game winning smile and personality... there is no difference at all as far as the game is concerned..
No difference in the mechanics, but a decidedly large difference in the experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have aspergers. It is basically social blindness, people with it can't read body language, vocal tone, social cues. No matter how hard I try to learn it, I can't. One person does one thing I think it means one thing, someone else does what looks like the exact same thing and it means something else.
The few times I tried to place a social aware PC, my GM would make me role play it out instead of rolling. So in addition to the points wasted that I never used, I never was able to play them the way I intended due to something I have that I can't do anything about.
So for a group to force someone to play like that when you can't is pretty insulting to the player.
It isn't insulting, it is just different. The group has an expectation of what they want from a game. Maybe they can accommodate or maybe they won't/can't. It isn't an insult to you that they choose to play a game you can't play.
I think the willamoak made a great point earlier that it is difficult to determine what type of game a group has up front and even more difficult to determine what a group will accommodate for because the advertisement simply says "pathfinder." But at the end of the day, a person is playing in their house and the other players have an expectation for what they find to be fun. They WANT the social stuff played out and they WANT that to determine the results. It isn't insulting. It is just they game they want to play.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have a system that a seems to work. When someone makes a good roll, but can't think of something to go with that roll, the rest of us chip in to give the person ideas and the GM reacts based on the roll not necessarily the idea, because it's not fair to expect someone to be excellent at what their character is excellent at. It's not a LARP. We aren't actors. We do the best we can and have fun with it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No difference in the mechanics, but a decidedly large difference in the experience.In my opinion usually it IS better if a more socially adept PLAYER has a PC who has the "face" skills. Face skills aren't THAT hard to come by, a number of traits allow for Diplomacy, Bluff, or Sense Motive. Diplomacy sees the most use in my game. The OP could find a solution where his Priest focuses more on Perception and Sense Motive and still is a great investigator, where one of the more "talky" PCs takes care of the Diplomacy (maybe trading out some skill points and/or a trait to become more Diplomacy focused). Doesn't mean that the priest can't do Diplomacy (he could "aid another" with the more verbally adept player's diplomacy efforts with a skill roll).
Any way, my two cents, not everyone has to be the best at everything- in the game or in real life. Some are better with the social aspects of the game, others with the tactical, others with the rules, etc, etc.
So do you expect your fittest people to play fighters?
Do you expect your smartest people to play Wizards?
Why is it considered bad form if the rogue with no knowledge skills meta-games and "knows" what the monster's weakness is even if he has no skill ranks but it is ok if the Fighter who dumped CHA and has no social skills suddenly can lie like nobodies business or has a game winning smile and personality... there is no difference at all as far as the game is concerned..
But as per the game, there IS NO DIFFERENCE. It is woefully unfair to give a guy a "circumstance bonus" oh speaking well when his character has no ranks in social skills AND has poor cha. At that point THAT GUY IS NOT ROLEPLAYING. Again, it is no different than Meta-gaming on creature knowledge or getting a "circumstance bonus" on your attack role because you know how to describe a proper swing due to real world knowledge in swordplay.
This would also be like penalizing a person for having to refer to a beastiary for creature attributes on a knowledge role since you should know it with that Int/Knowledge skill.
This is just unfair targeting on social skills by inept GMs.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've tried to adapt. I feel normal people (people without AS) are all part of a secret club with all kinds secret looks, handshakes, ect that I will never be able to be a part of.
Hard to adapt when everything you try to do to adapt does not work.
I thought part of the fun of RPGs is to be able to play people that you would'nt have the ablity to play in real life.
Unless you have a form of HFA that prohibits you and the other players do nothing to help you change that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've tried to adapt. I feel normal people (people without AS) are all part of a secret club with all kinds secret looks, handshakes, ect that I will never be able to be a part of.
Hard to adapt when everything you try to do to adapt does not work.
I thought part of the fun of RPGs is to be able to play people that you would'nt have the ablity to play in real life.
Unless you have a form of HFA that prohibits you and the other players do nothing to help you change that.
I understand the feel. I'm not on the spectrum, but I still have one hell of a hard time reading people & forming relationships. People be hard. I'm better than I used to be (lot's of practice & having good people around) but I am in no way qualified to be a face. Jaelithe makes some good points; though it's unfortunate that those who may want to help you dont know how any more than yourself (I'm convinced there is some "learning" I missed about being social at a certain point that everyone else knows subconsciously, and thus cant transmit).
In any case, good luck finding a group you can play with man. I've played with half a dozen groups since I started (a couple of years ago) and nothing ever feels quite right, so hold on!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OP, this is a super common problem so don't feel like you're alone. While I agree with you that the 'problem' is on the DM's end and not yours the fact remains that your DM's stance is the more common one. For whatever reason people expect the person playing to bard to be charismatic and smooth but the person playing the fighter isn't expected to be a weightlifter or MMA trained.
If you're stuck with these guys I suggest picking up another character or role and just avoiding 'face' mechanics. Folks stuck in this way of thinking aren't changing anytime soon.
OP, this is a super common problem so don't feel like you're alone. While I agree with you that the 'problem' is on the DM's end and not yours the fact remains that your DM's stance is the more common one. For whatever reason people expect the person playing to bard to be charismatic and smooth but the person playing the fighter isn't expected to be a weightlifter or MMA trained.
If you're stuck with these guys I suggest picking up another character or role and just avoiding 'face' mechanics. Folks stuck in this way of thinking aren't changing anytime soon.
It's not too bad; my character is built as an "intellectual" anyway, so I have other roles. I'll just be chiming in less. Which frustrates me, because I invested numerous experience points on it, but the system is warhammer fantasy roleplay so I would have had to spend them anyway.
HOWEVER, I still think that there should be a better system.
I'm starting to think there's a "too close for comfort" issue here. Basically, social interaction is primary for survival in the modern world, and charisma is the (or at least one of the) primary importance stats for a modern populace. We are all too familiar to be able to accept proper abstractions for social interactions. That isnt the case for most other things; most of us havent fought in our lives, and I'm sure many would say most rulesets barely do it justice. As an engineer, I can tell you that every system I have used until now (only a dozen lets say, but still) takes an exceedingly shoddy view of how technology is created & functions. I understand the need for expediency but still...
In summary, we (or at least many players) are simply to good at social stuff for any abstraction to be satisfying.
There's probably a continuum between total free-form and total dice mechanics. Think about where on that continuum your group is at, think about where you're at, and think about where you'd like both to be. how might you adjust on both sides to meet at a happy middle?
For example, somewhere on the continuum between freeform and rolling there's probably figuring out what you want to say more than rolling a skill, and then rolling it to see how you say it (phrasing, eloquence etc.) So that if you slip or stammer, the important thing is coming up with a good idea to convince, persuade, or intimidate whomever you're talking to. Sense Motive and doing your homework (researching your target in other ways like looking through archives, searching through homes, etc.) might help inform you about what your target might react to or want to hear.
No difference in the mechanics, but a decidedly large difference in the experience.In my opinion usually it IS better if a more socially adept PLAYER has a PC who has the "face" skills. Face skills aren't THAT hard to come by, a number of traits allow for Diplomacy, Bluff, or Sense Motive. Diplomacy sees the most use in my game. The OP could find a solution where his Priest focuses more on Perception and Sense Motive and still is a great investigator, where one of the more "talky" PCs takes care of the Diplomacy (maybe trading out some skill points and/or a trait to become more Diplomacy focused). Doesn't mean that the priest can't do Diplomacy (he could "aid another" with the more verbally adept player's diplomacy efforts with a skill roll).
Any way, my two cents, not everyone has to be the best at everything- in the game or in real life. Some are better with the social aspects of the game, others with the tactical, others with the rules, etc, etc.
So do you expect your fittest people to play fighters?
Do you expect your smartest people to play Wizards?
Why is it considered bad form if the rogue with no knowledge skills meta-games and "knows" what the monster's weakness is even if he has no skill ranks but it is ok if the Fighter who dumped CHA and has no social skills suddenly can lie like nobodies business or has a game winning smile and personality... there is no difference at all as far as the game is concerned..
But as per the game, there IS NO DIFFERENCE. It is woefully unfair to give a guy a "circumstance bonus" oh speaking well when his character has no ranks in social skills AND has poor cha. At that point THAT GUY IS NOT ROLEPLAYING. Again, it is no different than Meta-gaming on creature knowledge or getting a "circumstance bonus" on your attack role because you know how to describe a proper swing due to real world knowledge in swordplay.
This would also be like penalizing...
For some groups the experience is the game. They aren't worried about the numbers on the page so much as impromptu exchange that is compelling and entertaining.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Way to be dismissive and insulting.Not at all, it is a different game with different expectations. The same thing is happening at the game table. The group wants to play a game where social interaction is an important part of the experience. The OP wants that group to put the social aspect "on a tee" for him so he can play a face character. It isn't reasonable or fair to ask them to do that.
I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with playing the way the OP wants to, but what I am suggesting is that you can't "fix" or "solve" the issue any more than you can "fix" or "solve" baseball by letting people bring a tee.
No judgement, just realizing that what different groups want or expect from the game may vary and it isn't up to any particular group to accommodate you or your play style.
And you don't see how comparing one play style to baseball and the other to tee-ball is insulting?
You could have said National vs American League rules, or football vs rugby. Instead you choose to compare one playfully to a game played by small children and the disabled.
No, that's not insulting at all.
I don't find anything wrong with tee-ball either. But I chose that example because it replaces a game skill with a tool. Some people play pathfinder with a heavy emphasis on social interaction because that is the game they choose to play while at the same time are happy to use the games provided tools for abstracting other skills and combat encounters. Some people prefer to use all of the tools the crb provides including those for social abstraction. One isn't better than the other, baseball isn't better than tee-ball, they are just different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if all the members of the group are aware of my limitations and they still force me to play like that it's my problem for having a condition I can't do anything about?
To an extent that is correct. You described your condition as "social blindness," so allow me to borrow your metaphor. A blind person joins a meetup group that does art outings once a month. The first month they go to a poetry reading, the next they go to an orchestra concert. The third month they go to a play. For the fourth month they plan to go to a gallery.
The seeing impaired individual says, "hey, I can't really get anything out of that plus last time we did a play and I didn't get as much from that as the other stuff. I think we should not do the gallery thing."
It is completely appropriate for the group to reply, "This is an art society. We intend to do all manner of outings including some which are purely visual. We understand that you may not choose to participate in those activities but we have no intention of providing alternative choices or outings. If this is deal breaker for you then we understand that you must fill your desires as you see fit and there are no hard feelings. Please understand that we will continue to fulfill our free time desires in a way that we most enjoy as well."
The same is true of the gaming group. If they have fun doing the social stuff then that's how they have fun. You can't expect them to stop doing the things they enjoy.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as someone with autism, I don't really find it that insulting. It's a reasonable comparison to make.
Teeball: Baseball for people who have trouble with or do not want to bother with the whole pitching business.
Reduced-Roleplaying D&D: D&D for people who have trouble with or do not want to bother with the whole roleplaying business.
I think you're taking it harder than it needs to be taken.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another person on the Autism Spectrum here. I personally find roleplaying my diplomacy a bit easier than most would, but I type out my diplomacy rather than say i since I'm on online campaigns. Perhaps you might find it easier to write your diplomacy on a whiteboard or something similar. Honestly it's probably what I would go with in a real campaign despite my horrible handwriting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Were we not talking about substituting Diplomacy checks for the roleplaying?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Were we not talking about substituting Diplomacy checks for the roleplaying?
The situation has become... mixed up. My own problem is that many GMs remove rolls altogether in social situations and make us play with our own charisma (which aint high for many of us).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^^^ this
I have seen this problem more than a few times.
Which is wrong, because very few Role players I know have a Cha over 12...