[X] My Assistant

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Well, it is very possible that the player has a point, if even a little one. If you are using the Fluff to force an emotional reaction from the character (however accurate it may be), it is a problem. I noticed that you compared Glamour to the Mental manipulation spells earlier, and that is a poor comparison. Primarily because all the mental manipulation spells can be resisted, and are continuously resisted until they fail. The Glamour power does not even allow a resistance against it (it grants +3 Dice mechanically), if you use the Fluff to enforce the mechanics. In essence, the Character can NEVER remove its influence from his actions. I can see the issue (Though I may not entirely agree with it). The player felt that this unfairly coerced his character's actions/emotions, and he did not want anything to do with that.

Anyways... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Ol' Scratch]

Is anyone really arguing that, Cain?

I think most people have offered alternative ways for him to have handled his curmudgeony ways without directly breaking the nature of the situation (and again, it doesn't matter if the Face had Glamour or not; the player just latched on that to add to his rage of being called on for his shitty roleplaying). He just, on a whim, decided to destroy a negotiation simply because he could. There was no need for him to randomly lash out, "jealous" or "obsessed" or not, anymore than there was a need for a random passer-by to run over and shoot him in the head because he was a 'curmudgeon.' Having an opinion about someone is completely different from acting like a dick, sabotaging your teammate and yourself, and then disrupting the group OOC over what amounts to a minor rant that no one was really arguing against so much as his reaction to it.

Again, even if the Face didn't have Glamour, he'd still be grossly out of line acting that way. In exactly the same way if everyone just randomly ran over and started hugging and kissing him despite his clearly being a dickwad. Roleplaying means reacting appropriately to a situation, not doing whatever the hell you want and disregarding it because you don't like it.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Is anyone really arguing that, Cain?

I think most people have offered alternative ways for him to have handled his curmudgeony ways without directly breaking the nature of the situation (and again, it doesn't matter if the Face had Glamour or not; the player just latched on that to add to his rage of being called on for his shitty roleplaying). He just, on a whim, decided to destroy a negotiation simply because he could. There was no need for him to randomly lash out, "jealous" or "obsessed" or not, anymore than there was a need for a random passer-by to run over and shoot him in the head because he was a 'curmudgeon.' Having an opinion about someone is completely different from acting like a dick, sabotaging your teammate and yourself, and then disrupting the group OOC over what amounts to a minor rant that no one was really arguing against so much as his reaction to it.

Again, even if the Face didn't have Glamour, he'd still be grossly out of line acting that way. In exactly the same way if everyone just randomly ran over and started hugging and kissing him despite his clearly being a dickwad. Roleplaying means reacting appropriately to a situation, not doing whatever the hell you want and disregarding it because you don't like it.

Agreed... His actions were out of line... They would have been better left to the after negotiation conversation between the characters.

[Cain]

Is anyone really arguing that, Cain?

I think most people have offered alternative ways for him to have handled his curmudgeony ways without directly breaking the nature of the situation (and again, it doesn't matter if the Face had Glamour or not; the player just latched on that to add to his rage of being called on for his shitty roleplaying). He just, on a whim, decided to destroy a negotiation simply because he could. There was no need for him to randomly lash out, "jealous" or "obsessed" or not, anymore than there was a need for a random passer-by to run over and shoot him in the head because he was a 'curmudgeon.' Having an opinion about someone is completely different from acting like a dick, sabotaging your teammate and yourself, and then disrupting the group OOC over what amounts to a minor rant that no one was really arguing against so much as his reaction to it.

Again, even if the Face didn't have Glamour, he'd still be grossly out of line acting that way. In exactly the same way if everyone just randomly ran over and started hugging and kissing him despite his clearly being a dickwad. Roleplaying means reacting appropriately to a situation, not doing whatever the hell you want and disregarding it because you don't like it.

All of which is true, and like I said, are good reasons for booting the player. However, that doesn't mean that in appropriate circumstances, a character should be able to react differently to Glamor. Roleplaying should not be a straightjacket.

Agreed... His actions were out of line... They would have been better left to the after negotiation conversation between the characters.

Oh, I agree. He was out of line.

[TygerTyger]

Actually I have to disagree with something that's come up in the last couple of posts. I don't consider the text of Glamour to be "fluff". The text very clearly states how a Dryad is viewed by others. The line is straight-forward:

Sapient beings will always respond with awe, deference, and kindness to the character as long as she does not act hostile. The character gains a +3 dice pool modifier to all Social Skill Tests except Intimidation.

Emphasis mine.

That's a pretty straight-forward phrase in my book. Yes, the "mechanics" are encapsulated in the "+3 dice pool..." part, but the rest of the paragraph is also part of how the power works. As Tundra noted in our discussion of the game, if the only factor for Glamour was the +3 dice pool, then the Distinctive Style negative that goes along with it would only effect those people that the Dryad actively engaged in a social challenge. And that is clearly not how the power works, based on a reasonable reading of the power.

Now, it could be that we're just using the term "fluff" in a different manner. If someone uses as I do "contextual information that is of no game-importance and is easily mutable without changing the actual system", then the portion quoted above is not fluff. If its used in the "this is a description, no more" camp, then it could be fluff, but that "fluff" should still serve as a guide for how something works, and how it is perceived.

If things that have no mechanical effect are fluff and can be ignored, players would be free to say that their elves don't have pointy ears, their trolls don't have horns, that orcs do not experience racism... that anything which doesn't have a mechanic attached to it can be ignored.

If "fluff" though guides us in how to interpret powers, skills and abilities, its a useful tool, and can not be ignored.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Actually I have to disagree with something that's come up in the last couple of posts. I don't consider the text of Glamour to be "fluff". The text very clearly states how a Dryad is viewed by others. The line is straight-forward:

Emphasis mine.

That's a pretty straight-forward phrase in my book. Yes, the "mechanics" are encapsulated in the "+3 dice pool..." part, but the rest of the paragraph is also part of how the power works. As Tundra noted in our discussion of the game, if the only factor for Glamour was the +3 dice pool, then the Distinctive Style negative that goes along with it would only effect those people that the Dryad actively engaged in a social challenge. And that is clearly not how the power works, based on a reasonable reading of the power.

Now, it could be that we're just using the term "fluff" in a different manner. If someone uses as I do "contextual information that is of no game-importance and is easily mutable without changing the actual system", then the portion quoted above is not fluff. If its used in the "this is a description, no more" camp, then it could be fluff, but that "fluff" should still serve as a guide for how something works, and how it is perceived.

If things that have no mechanical effect are fluff and can be ignored, players would be free to say that their elves don't have pointy ears, their trolls don't have horns, that orcs do not experience racism... that anything which doesn't have a mechanic attached to it can be ignored.

If "fluff" though guides us in how to interpret powers, skills and abilities, its a useful tool, and can not be ignored.

Guideline, Yes... Straightjacket, No...

[deek]

Quite an interesting thread.

I first want to agree with a few things that Glyph mentioned earlier on, that being the social game is highly dependent on the GM and how he manages the game. I had a player with ultra high social skills and I let him play it up to the hilt. I fed into it, as everyone was enjoying it. But, had that been a different player, who was using it to steer the game away from where everyone else was wanting it and constantly guiding the other players away from what they wanted to do, well, there would be a problem for the GM and the game as a whole.

I do think that the player walking away, was actually a good move. He showed enough maturity to not stay in the group and make a bigger mess. There are a ton of players that would have stayed and continued to make problems and ruin everyone else's fun.

As for the question about how others handle social skills, I run one of those tables that everyone has agreed to not use their social powers on other players. So, a different set of rules for the "heroes" of the story, but it works out fine. Granted, I don't think I've ever run a game for anyone but my friends, so I know there are different scenarios when you start playing with random players or friends of friends.

[TygerTyger]

Guideline, Yes... Straightjacket, No...

Hell's yeah! That I agree with 100%. In our situation, no one told the player that he MUST LIKE THE ELF OR DIE!!!!... it was more like, "Why are you yelling at him and calling him names? You did know he's a dryad, has 20 dice in social skills, and on top, there's this Glamour power that says your first reaction to him is likely a very positive one... want to reconsider that stance?" To which he replied, in essence "No. You can't tell me how my character feels, and I hate everyone, so screw you all, its my way or I leave."

We said goodbye.

We tried over and over to explain that it wasn't a matter of Tundra's character "controlling" him, but that his magical charm (dude also has Kinesics 3 and Tailored Pheromones 3) was such that it was hard not to like him, and that it was rather unlikely that the old blowhard would have taken such an immediate, unwarranted and frankly extremely counter-productive, stance. Particularly on their very first meeting, and after the dryad had bought a round for the bar, and been charming to all and sundry.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Hell's yeah! That I agree with 100%. In our situation, no one told the player that he MUST LIKE THE ELF OR DIE!!!!... it was more like, "Why are you yelling at him and calling him names? You did know he's a dryad, has 20 dice in social skills, and on top, there's this Glamour power that says your first reaction to him is likely a very positive one... want to reconsider that stance?" To which he replied, in essence "No. You can't tell me how my character feels, and I hate everyone, so screw you all, its my way or I leave."

We said goodbye.

We tried over and over to explain that it wasn't a matter of Tundra's character "controlling" him, but that his magical charm (dude also has Kinesics 3 and Tailored Pheromones 3) was such that it was hard not to like him, and that it was rather unlikely that the old blowhard would have taken such an immediate, unwarranted and frankly extremely counter-productive, stance. Particularly on their very first meeting, and after the dryad had bought a round for the bar, and been charming to all and sundry.

I think that I have a better way of putting forth my point. If the text you describe as Mechanics is truly mechanics (and not descriptive fluff), there would be absolutely no need for the +3 dice pool bonus to your Social Skills, because there would be no need for a roll whatsoever. It is just that simple, either the text is mechanic, and no roll is ever to be required, because you cannot resist the Dryad's force of personality, or it is a descriptive fluff, which the +3 bonus reinforces through the bonus to the Social Skill roll (an average +1 net hit due to the bonus)... Itr cannot be both...

Predisposition would rarely be overturned by charm. For Example: If I have a hatred for Elves (or Dryads), Being charming will not change that in the least. I may not voice my opinion, but I will still believe what I believe. And the Dandelion Eater may end up with a bullet in the back of the head at the first opportune moment that would allow me plausable deniability, regardless of how he thinks I should act towards him.

[TygerTyger]

I think that I have a better way of putting forth my point. If the text you describe as Mechanics is truly mechanics (and not descriptive fluff), there would be absolutely no need for the +3 dice pool bonus to your Social Skills, because there would be no need for a roll whatsoever. It is just that simple, either the text is mechanic, and no roll is ever to be required, because you cannot resist the Dryad's force of personality, or it is a descriptive fluff, which the +3 bonus reinforces through the bonus to the Social Skill roll (an average +1 net hit due to the bonus)... Itr cannot be both...

Why can't it be both? The power makes you feel awe, deference and kindness - it doesn't mean you won't still negotiate hard against them, or try to do your job and not let strangers into the high-security facility. They may be the nicest guy in the world, your new best friend, but you still have to put food on your table, and if you just automatically give in to his demand for 1 million nuyen, you will be fired. He may remind you of the lead singer of In Nomine, your favorite elven rock band of all time, but you still can't automatically let him in to the facility - your boss might literally kill you!

Predisposition would rarely be overturned by charm. For Example: If I have a hatred for Elves (or Dryads), Being charming will not change that in the least. I may not voice my opinion, but I will still believe what I believe. And the Dandelion Eater may end up with a bullet in the back of the head at the first opportune moment that would allow me plausable deniability, regardless of how he thinks I should act towards him.

And yet it is charm and perseverance that has won over millions of people the world over. Racism is on the run (in the real world) because of the work and dedication of charming and charismatic people - people like Nelson Mandela, Malcom X, Martin Luther King Jr., and their ilk. People using their personal charisma to get people to listen to reason. And none of those people had magic working for them either.

Its not about how the elf thinks you should think about him... its about an instinctive reaction you are having to him... something about him makes you want to like him. Now that could easily manifest as "Fraggin' dandelion eater must be using magic, just like all his frakkin' kind." *double tap to the face* "Nobody messes with my mind"... but it still would have been a reaction. Pheromones and magic just work like that.

To put it in perspective, this character has more bonuses without ever going to a skill or stat, than most RL people could achieve in a lifetime. +3 from pheromones, +3 from Kinesics, +3 from being a Dryad. That's 9 dice, without even factoring in his personal contribution (skill and attribute) to that. Anyone that isn't at least interested in what he has to say, well frankly, and in my opinion, isn't being true to the system.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Why can't it be both? The power makes you feel awe, deference and kindness - it doesn't mean you won't still negotiate hard against them, or try to do your job and not let strangers into the high-security facility. They may be the nicest guy in the world, your new best friend, but you still have to put food on your table, and if you just automatically give in to his demand for 1 million nuyen, you will be fired. He may remind you of the lead singer of In Nomine, your favorite elven rock band of all time, but you still can't automatically let him in to the facility - your boss might literally kill you!

Because it isn't both...

And yet it is charm and perseverance that has won over millions of people the world over. Racism is on the run (in the real world) because of the work and dedication of charming and charismatic people - people like Nelson Mandela, Malcom X, Martin Luther King Jr., and their ilk. People using their personal charisma to get people to listen to reason. And none of those people had magic working for them either.

Apparently you have not been paying much attention lately. Attempted genocides are not an indication that racism is on the decline. These are happening throughout the world, even today. Even in America, Racism is alive and well, it is just not tolerated...

Its not about how the elf thinks you should think about him... its about an instinctive reaction you are having to him... something about him makes you want to like him. Now that could easily manifest as "Fraggin' dandelion eater must be using magic, just like all his frakkin' kind." *double tap to the face* "Nobody messes with my mind"... but it still would have been a reaction. Pheromones and magic just work like that.

To put it in perspective, this character has more bonuses without ever going to a skill or stat, than most RL people could achieve in a lifetime. +3 from pheromones, +3 from Kinesics, +3 from being a Dryad. That's 9 dice, without even factoring in his personal contribution (skill and attribute) to that. Anyone that isn't at least interested in what he has to say, well frankly, and in my opinion, isn't being true to the system.

I get your perspective, now try to understand mine. The bonuses are ENOUGH, without having to force (because that is eactly what the Fluff you indicated does) an emotional response upon a character. If you want a particular response, roll the dice and let the consequences fall where they may. AS you say, the character has enough Dice to Force the issue without having to rely upon some bit of fluff text that forces that very same response. A response, I might add, that NEVER goes away if you enforce that bit of text. This is the issue your player had with the ruling you handed down.

[deek]

But that's the thing, just having a 9 dice bonus or a 20 dice pool doesn't mean you "auto-win". And it sounds like that is what is being touted here with the Dryad (and the amazing social dice). Unless you are buying successes, you still have to roll, right. So, what if your 20 dice pool gets only 3 successes on that roll? And the 7 dice pool counter-negotiator gets 4?

Tymeaus has a case that the "awe, deference and kindness" is reflected as a +3 mod to social skills. Which, is as valid a way to read it as any other, I suppose. The point is, just because you have 20 dice doesn't mean you don't still have to roll them. I've seen players toss down 15 dice and only get 1 success. I've seen players through 6 dice and get 6 successes. It happens and shouldn't be an auto-win button.

Heck, I'm now starting to think that maybe the walkaway player could have gotten a bone thrown to him and at least been allowed to roll against the Dryad to keep his curmudgeonly attitude. Its possible that failing his roll, he would have given in, instead of having the GM say, no dice, this is the way it is. No one really like to be railroaded, even when following the rules and its my position that the GM is to try to keep everyone playing and having fun. I know that I rarely tell someone no at the table, even to some crazy ideas. I let them have fun and give them what I feel is fair and appropriate penalties and if they want to try, they can try...

[TygerTyger]

But that's the thing, just having a 9 dice bonus or a 20 dice pool doesn't mean you "auto-win". And it sounds like that is what is being touted here with the Dryad (and the amazing social dice). Unless you are buying successes, you still have to roll, right. So, what if your 20 dice pool gets only 3 successes on that roll? And the 7 dice pool counter-negotiator gets 4?

Tymeaus has a case that the "awe, deference and kindness" is reflected as a +3 mod to social skills. Which, is as valid a way to read it as any other, I suppose. The point is, just because you have 20 dice doesn't mean you don't still have to roll them. I've seen players toss down 15 dice and only get 1 success. I've seen players through 6 dice and get 6 successes. It happens and shouldn't be an auto-win button.

Heck, I'm now starting to think that maybe the walkaway player could have gotten a bone thrown to him and at least been allowed to roll against the Dryad to keep his curmudgeonly attitude. Its possible that failing his roll, he would have given in, instead of having the GM say, no dice, this is the way it is. No one really like to be railroaded, even when following the rules and its my position that the GM is to try to keep everyone playing and having fun. I know that I rarely tell someone no at the table, even to some crazy ideas. I let them have fun and give them what I feel is fair and appropriate penalties and if they want to try, they can try...

Except no one is being railroaded. No one was told - you must behave in this manner or you aren't playing your character properly. All that was said was, "Are you sure that's how you'd behave, given the following rules and circumstances?"

If I, as the GM, had said "Dude, if you don't become this Dryad's best friend right now, and do everything he says, I'll kick you out of the game!" then I would agree 100%. But all that was asked of the player was to allow his character's feelings (not actions or even reactions to those feelings) to be influenced precisely as the rules indicate they are supposed to be.

And even if we had done the roll, it would have been the dryad buying 5 hits, against the old fart's 2 dice. Cha of 2, no perception (if it was Ettiquette). If it was Leadership (unlikely as they were strangers at that moment) it would have been 20 dice vs. 5.

In short, even if we had used the pure mechanics of dice rolls and eliminated everything but them, it still should not have happened the way it did.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Except no one is being railroaded. No one was told - you must behave in this manner or you aren't playing your character properly. All that was said was, "Are you sure that's how you'd behave, given the following rules and circumstances?"

If I, as the GM, had said "Dude, if you don't become this Dryad's best friend right now, and do everything he says, I'll kick you out of the game!" then I would agree 100%. But all that was asked of the player was to allow his character's feelings (not actions or even reactions to those feelings) to be influenced precisely as the rules indicate they are supposed to be.

And even if we had done the roll, it would have been the dryad buying 5 hits, against the old fart's 2 dice. Cha of 2, no perception (if it was Ettiquette). If it was Leadership (unlikely as they were strangers at that moment) it would have been 20 dice vs. 5.

In short, even if we had used the pure mechanics of dice rolls and eliminated everything but them, it still should not have happened the way it did.

Point being, It could have...

Your question above (highlighted) begs anbother question. If he had said "Yes, This is what I want to do." What would your response have been? It appears from what you have told us (and the Dryad player has told us) that you would have enofrced the text you keep quoting, instead of letting the character continue with his actions. This is likely the crux of his dissatisfaction with the ruling you handed down.

[TygerTyger]

That's a darned good question. And the answer is, likely go to a skill roll. And that would be enforced.

Its no different than if the dryad had tried to shoot the other character. We'd have had a skill roll on that note, and that roll would be enforced.

In my opinion, social skills should be used intra party as well as extra party. It makes sense that if you have a mechanic to influence others, that you would use that mechanic when you need to intra party as well. And that has to be respected, just as much as the Pistols dice pool has to be.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

That's a darned good question. And the answer is, likely go to a skill roll. And that would be enforced.

Its no different than if the dryad had tried to shoot the other character. We'd have had a skill roll on that note, and that roll would be enforced.

In my opinion, social skills should be used intra party as well as extra party. It makes sense that if you have a mechanic to influence others, that you would use that mechanic when you need to intra party as well. And that has to be respected, just as much as the Pistols dice pool has to be.

At that point, though, the roll would have been too late, as the action had already taken place. I could see a roll to moderate any further actions. Basically, calming the cuurmudgeon down while the negotiations concluded, but that would have been it. Players in social situations do not roll Social skill for everything that they say (or feel), aftger all.

If you are using Social Skills as a hammer intraparty, then the game quickly becomes no fun. Social Contract and all that...I actually perfer that the Social Skills vs. Party Members be used sparingly, if at all. I prefer the adlib actions of the roleplay, rather than forcing a role upon someone because I rolled better than they did socially. Tends to make the game more dynamic. And lets character personality shine.

Now, if it gets to the level that they are a jerk, then that is something else entirely.

[tundrawalker1]

I believe social skills should be and will be used intra-party. If a character had a skill that would inspire party members, the members would be happy with that skill. Off the top of my head, in the Star Wars game a noble could inspire other party members based on a skill roll. Party members are happy to accept that bonus to attacks, saves, defence, or skills in that situation and are all for that skill being used to provide a benefit. But when the skill roll is used to influence party members on how to act, then it becomes a negative approach. Double standard.

Reading the Glamor power again, the text of the power is in no way fluff. It is description of how the power works and is not to be ignored in favour of the one sentence that states you get a +3 to social tests. I don't believe it is intended to be that way as I have outlined in a previous post regarding albinism.

Bottom line in our situation, the player was completely unwilling to view the situation in any way other than he was wrongfully viewing it. In about 5 posts on our own boards, he defended his action, gave examples of powers that acted the same way, text wise anyway, that glamor works and when he was shown that his examples disproved his case rather than adding to it, he totally ignored that aspect of the debate and then stated he was leaving the group. He was 100% unwilling to follow the direction of the entire group, including the GM by using the lame excuse that no one can tell him how his character feels. His argument that his background allows him to act in a way to ignore mechanics is akin to saying that if you had a background that indicated your character had always dodged every bullet fired at him then when you shoot at him he could ignore the mechanic by leaning on the fluff of his background. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

As I mentioned, the text of the Glamor power is in no way ambiguous and it a guideline how to react. It is not carte-blanche to mind control other PCs or NPCs but it does influence those other's behaviors. To blanketly ignore text of the glamor power with the reasoning being your background says he is a particular way it railroading the entire group.

Then there is the matter of maturity in dealing with the situation. This group of players, 7 of us in total, have been gaming together for years. There have been many disputes and disagreements about rules and such but never has anyone quit because of it. Furthermore, there are two actively running games. There is Tyger's Shadowrun game and another members 3.5ed D&D game based on the Palladium Fantacy Game setting. Because of a disagreement about a rule in the Shadowrun game, which was the first session of this game by the way, this player has left the group entirely so he will quit playing the other game and also quit doing other things we do. We all get together from time to time in the summer to go fishing. Granted it is less frequently than the frequency Tyger and I go fishing which is "as often as possible." If you stop associating with a group of friends due to a disagreement in the first session of a new game, well that speaks of maturity of that player.

[TygerTyger]

At that point, though, the roll would have been too late, as the action had already taken place. I could see a roll to moderate any further actions. Basically, calming the cuurmudgeon down while the negotiations concluded, but that would have been it. Players in social situations do not roll Social skill for everything that they say (or feel), aftger all.

If you are using Social Skills as a hammer intraparty, then the game quickly becomes no fun. Social Contract and all that...I actually perfer that the Social Skills vs. Party Members be used sparingly, if at all. I prefer the adlib actions of the roleplay, rather than forcing a role upon someone because I rolled better than they did socially. Tends to make the game more dynamic. And lets character personality shine.

Now, if it gets to the level that they are a jerk, then that is something else entirely.

All good points. But there's an unspoken agreement at our table not to be, if you'll forgive the language, a douchebag. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I, as GM, would not let any single player even remotely attempt to repeatedly use social skills as a hammer. But implicit in the "don't be a douchebag" rule is the "play nice with others" rule, which means that you should play your character realistically, given the situation and relevant rules.

Players should go along with the plans of the high social character more often - he's just that convincing. They should listen to the hacker about computers for the same reason. When the rigger talks about why you can't get a vehicle to do something... you listen.

If a player ignores the mechanics of the game, it ruins the verisimilitude for everyone. If everyone acknowledges those mechanics, and RPs accordingly, while still being true to their vision of the character, then everyone wins.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

All good points. But there's an unspoken agreement at our table not to be, if you'll forgive the language, a douchebag. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I, as GM, would not let any single player even remotely attempt to repeatedly use social skills as a hammer. But implicit in the "don't be a douchebag" rule is the "play nice with others" rule, which means that you should play your character realistically, given the situation and relevant rules.

Players should go along with the plans of the high social character more often - he's just that convincing. They should listen to the hacker about computers for the same reason. When the rigger talks about why you can't get a vehicle to do something... you listen.

Agreed... Social Contract and all that...(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)
But the sticking point for your Missing Player is the Relevant Rules part. He does not agree that the Fluff is a Rule, but a guideline that could be ignored. That was the point of contention... Ultimately, it was a point he was willing to quit over.

[TygerTyger]

Agreed... Social Contract and all that...(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)
But the sticking point for your Missing Player is the Relevant Rules part. He does not agree that the Fluff is a Rule, but a guideline that could be ignored. That was the point of contention... Ultimately, it was a point he was willing to quit over.

Yup.

I should note as well to that it was not just my decision that the "fluff" was part of the rules... everyone in the group, but for the challenger, agreed that it should work as we've discussed.

C'est la vie.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Yup.

I should note as well to that it was not just my decision that the "fluff" was part of the rules... everyone in the group, but for the challenger, agreed that it should work as we've discussed.

C'est la vie.

Yeah... Not much more to be said at that point. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Ol' Scratch]

But the sticking point for your Missing Player is the Relevant Rules part. He does not agree that the Fluff is a Rule, but a guideline that could be ignored. That was the point of contention... Ultimately, it was a point he was willing to quit over.

It sounded to me like that was just a random point to cling on to instead. He was upset about being called out for his roleplaying, plain and simple. The whole Glamour thing was simply a red-herring on his part. Hell, you see the RAW babies do it all the time around here. They'll ignore anything and everything but that one little point and focus all attention on that one little point until it becomes something incredibly stupid and everyone forgets what the main point was to begin with.

[TygerTyger]

It sounded to me like that was just a random point to cling on to instead. He was upset about being called out for his roleplaying, plain and simple. The whole Glamour thing was simply a red-herring on his part. Hell, you see the RAW babies do it all the time around here. They'll ignore anything and everything but that one little point and focus all attention on that one little point until it becomes something incredibly stupid and everyone forgets what the main point was to begin with.

As much as I hate to agree, I have to. His character's actions in the entire scene made zero sense, and when called on it, that was his defense.

Like I said, c'est la vie.

[graymagiker]

It would seem that the original question has been answered, and that the discussion is now on a specific instance in TygerTyger's game. I'd like to give my take in this open forum:

The issue is that an unnamed player wanted to rudely interrupt tundrawalker1's character's negotiations with Mr J. Tundrawalker1 is playing a dryad with the glamor power, the text of which reads:

Sapient beings will always respond with awe, deference, and kindness to the character as long as she does not act hostile. The character gains a +3 dice pool modifier to all Social Skill Tests except Intimidation.

TygerTyger made a call as the GM that the other player's character would not react that way, since he "Always responds with awe, deference, and kindness" to the dryad.

I agree that the sentence about how other sapient beings react to the dryad is part of the rule, and not 'fluff' or flavor text. I think that after TygerTyger made the call based on the text of the rule was the wrong time to argue about the rule.

However, I think that it is a bad rule. Tymeaus Jalynsfein has already explained my thinking:

If the text you describe as Mechanics is truly mechanics (and not descriptive fluff), there would be absolutely no need for the +3 dice pool bonus to your Social Skills, because there would be no need for a roll whatsoever.

Like I said before I think the place for a quick decision to keep action rolling is right when it happened, in which case I think TygerTyger did an exemplary job and his player was being a jerk by holding up the action and arguing the point then and there. But I do think that in order for the game to be fun, and in the spirit of fairness, adjustment needs to be made to the glamor power. Perhaps something like:

On first meeting the character, all sapient beings tend to react with awe, difference, and kindness to the character unless the character is acting in an overtly hostile manner. If the character is not acting in an overtly hostile manner, then sapient beings must make a willpower check [DC 3] in order to take any action that would be considered disrespectful or unkind to the character

I think that if the player had better articulated their argument, and opted to have the discussion during down time for the game, a more favorable conclusion for all could have been reached.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

It sounded to me like that was just a random point to cling on to instead. He was upset about being called out for his roleplaying, plain and simple. The whole Glamour thing was simply a red-herring on his part. Hell, you see the RAW babies do it all the time around here. They'll ignore anything and everything but that one little point and focus all attention on that one little point until it becomes something incredibly stupid and everyone forgets what the main point was to begin with.

Yeah, sounds like it is probably true... was not there, but I can see that...(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)