Talking to NPCs

Okay team we are going to take turns when it comes to talking to NPCs. We will go in the following rotation.

Belvin
Geist
Iishi
Laith
Tarune

Yes, alphabetical thought it was the easiest way. Just because it is your turn does not mean you have to take it. You can pass and it moves on to the next character/player. We can have exceptions if we agree as a group that it is necessary. For example it is Geist's turn to talk and we come across a group of thieving halflings......oh wait I mean honest halfling merchants. I would say that we all skip a turn and let Will talk. Will would then as a gentleman give up his next turn.

I am not talking about anything that happens in town, talking to merchants, gathering information, etc. This is just new NPCs who may or may not be important to the story. So this would include NPCs we meet on the road as a group. Not someone you talk to in town on your own.

Let the flames begin!

Ok, I missed last session, so maybe I missed some problem that needs addressing. If not, Roy, what the fuck are you talking about? That is totally lame and unrealistic. We're not in fucking kindergarten. I, James, resent the entire notion, and Laith will not follow such a stupid order if Geist does give it. We always assess the situation and push the most likely candidate to the fore. It's what we would do in real life because it is the only method that makes sense. No offense, Roy, I love it when you hump me in the ass, but that is a horrible idea. I think fudging the "reality" of the game by making up arbitrary turn-taking rules would reduce everyone's enjoyment of the game. It would certainly have that effect on me.

Laith: "Tarune, see how Geist put us at the bottom of the list? We should mutiny!"

Thanks, Roy, for bringing it up. It's my only pet peeve for our games. I apologize if any of this seems like its directed at anyone in particular - its not. The things I'm going to speak about have been perpetrated by pretty much everyone at one point or another (some more so, but we're all guilty). And I'm not saying I'm exempt here either.

So, to begin, I have a problem with the way its been working. Or not working.

There's been a lot of grand standing, interrupting and on numerous occasions a few different group members thought they were the only ones who could possibly do the verbal "tet a tet" at any given time. We also have several personal stories that players are trying to get out there and get answers on and that makes it a double stomp on the rest of us since we all look at you like your asking about seemingly non-related issues.

I have personally been talked over and interrupted at pinnacle meetings with NPCs several times. And at each occasion, I've done the polite thing and let the grandstander speak.

But I'm finding that there's never a reciprocation by those whom I give ground to. The speakers never swing it back or ask if their speech covered my concerns before they finalize "the deal" - and they never seem to do a mental inventory about how much table time they're monopolizing.

So either we start respecting each other when we do speak (which means that sometimes your best-idea-ever has to wait a minute because someone else is already talking) or we need to find a way to share that face time at the main story moments.

So do I like alphabetical? No, not really. But I like it better than starting to talk and having someone put their hands up and saying, "hey, let me speak, I know what to say... I've got this one, Tarune" when I'm already saying what I think is the smart and appropriate approach.

To be blunt, I think the largest problem at our table is that the talkers, by and large, suffer the others talking as little as possible and say what they think actually needs to be said. And I think that the talkers can be ferreted out by examining who drinks the most at any given session. Its never bad when we start and its always much worse by night's end.

I think that the same respect that is afforded each other in a discussion about a movie or what's to be ordered for dinner needs to be given to each other when we speak in the game. I'm talking about basic manners. And often it isn't. Often, the "listening to each other" part is left out completely in lieu each person's notion that what is being said doesn't matter because once I open my yapper, it'll clear the confusion and everyone will see the light. "my light"

only we don't.

So, yeah, alphabetical - it's better than what we currently do. But I wish we could each understand that we're all there to fulfill our creative needs and juices and let each other talk when we have something to throw in.

_ _ _

Oh yeah, my name is actually "A`Tarune" - the A is silent. That makes me first.

Another thought on the subject - though it makes great sense in a movie or book for the protagonist to enter the keep and speak for the rag-tag group he/she leads, that is not how we Friday Night Warriors think - especially since we're often at odds with each other's opinions.

Here's my suggestion, we start addressing main characters as a committee and nobody speak longer than a couple minutes without passing the conch - so we all get a chance to put in on the big issues. Those with more to say, keep in until we've all passed the conch.

Maybe we need a literal conch?

And preparation for big meetings will go a long way also. So when slayer-joe says, "hey, how much for the little girl," we all discussed and expected it.

And if that doesn't work, remember, it's "A`Tarune."

Ok, I missed last session, so maybe I missed some problem that needs addressing. If not, Roy, what the fuck are you talking about? That is totally lame and unrealistic. We're not in fucking kindergarten. I, James, resent the entire notion, and Laith will not follow such a stupid order if Geist does give it. We always assess the situation and push the most likely candidate to the fore. It's what we would do in real life because it is the only method that makes sense. No offense, Roy, I love it when you hump me in the ass, but that is a horrible idea. I think fudging the "reality" of the game by making up arbitrary turn-taking rules would reduce everyone's enjoyment of the game. It would certainly have that effect on me.

I hate to do this, but it pretty much makes the case for me (contrary to my belief that people and their faults should not be pointed out and paraded before their peers, I'm going to do just that) and I apologize up front for any offense. The idea here is to show you why we might want some "kindergarten" rules for behaving ...

James:
This is exactly what I'm talking about happening in the game - If I didn't know better, I'd say the following:
(A) you're drunk
(B) it's Friday night about 11pm
and (C) we're playing D&D
Because that's how I feel we get treated more often than you might think.

Roy has a valid idea but your immediate response is to
(A) insult and belittle him
(B) attempt to take any steam available to his sails and convert them to the ME ship immediately
(C) completely disregard his idea
(D) act like you're speaking for the rest of us.
and (E) act like you're delivering proven facts - when its just your opinion.

As loose as this forum and our game nights are, they still should be a place that we - as friends who share time in a collaborative game - can come and discuss and debate these things. And not a place where you -or anyone- just hammer your side until everyone is too tired to argue so you prevail.

What's lacking is the idea that even if its the dumbest idea you *actually* ever heard (which I promise you, it isn't), you need to show him respect when he speaks. (and throwing in a "hump me in the ass" doesn't excuse the social woopass you just leveled on Roy and his idea.) Time will prove whether his idea has wheels, but the oppositional steam roller thing is exactly what I'm tired of the most.

This isn't about differing opinions not being welcome - they're always welcome. But I'd like to see everyone show some respect for each other's POV - whether you share it or not. These knee jerk oppositional-disorder tirades are more than a little off-putting


Again, sorry for calling you out particularly, James, but it's certainly where I was coming from in my posts. And the more I considered it, the more I felt it was time to say it.

I want us all to collaborate on the adventure. that includes good and bad ideas - so that we all can enjoy it as a whole.

As for the suggestions on how to share table time a little better:

I'm not a fan of alphabetical or anything, I think making it that rigid would just create more problems, also, some characters would have more clout with various NPCs than others. Suppose my turn came up to speak with the puritans (that makes me giggle a little inside). Anyway, I'd much perfer a literal conch or something and see how that works. It's really not a bad idea, and not that much different from timing the discussions like we used to. That gives everyone a chance to speak, everyone a chance to pass, and the ultimate decision can be expressed through the most practical person for the situation.

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond...checked the site this morning and not again until right now.

Anyway, I will be the first to admit that on occasion (usually when excessive drinking is involved), that I have been one of those grandstander's. Just to put it out there, from my perspective, both James and I have been the main offenders. I think that having some defined rules in NPC interactions would definitely help eliminate the issue. There is no excuse for cutting people off and bulldozing over others opinions, regardless of what your character's personality is...because if that is what it is, maybe the character should never have been created. I am not talking about tension and bickering among the PC's...it has been an essential element for the story and the enjoyment of several of the players (when it is in balance). But the bulldozing I am speaking of is really the PLAYER doing it to other PLAYERS, which is wrong.

My vote would be the following:
1. Since nobody seems to like alphabetical order concept (except me because I am first ), how about at the beginning of the next session we "roll initiative" and we order it that way.

2. I do not like the concept of 1 player doing all the talking during an NPC interaction, but 1 player should be the leader of the conversation. He/she drives the main story dialog and such and can pull in others to that. Then, when they are finished, it can go around the table.

3. When a major NPC conversation is going to talk place that is a large hinge point, we should agree as a group what path our dialog is going to go prior to the actual NPC getting involved.

4. I think the idea of "passing", or deferring, your turn is important, i.e. if Belven does not want to speak that turn, he "holds his action" until the next turn.

5. To address Brandy's concern, I think that there are times that it does not make sense for others to take the lead in the conversation, i.e. the Belven talking to the thieves guild is a good example. If Brandy tried this, they would probably laugh in her face. So in cases like this, we should, as a group, agree to the approach. In this example, Belven would take the turn, even though he may have already just gone. Maybe he would then give up is next turn, maybe not...that is something that Jason can decide.

I know that this makes things a little artificial, but it is worth trying out. The worst case is that it doesn't work, but it will still make us all more cognizant of giving others an opportunity to speak out. The best case is that we can turn it into an organic process that helps everyone's enjoyment.

Those are my two cents.

Ok, I missed last session, so maybe I missed some problem that needs addressing. If not, Roy, what...

Clearly this is the case. I wish someone had mentioned it in private, so I wasn't blindsided here on the site. Thanks. Without having heard the discussion of this problem like everyone else I thought Roy's first post was half joking and not very funny. My comments weren't that far off the mark. Not one single player agrees with alphabetical order. Roy, I would apologize in person, but my mouth will probably be full of your nutsack.

It seemed to me to be a fine setup before because the arc of the story brings us into situations that require each of our strengths and each of our sets of in-game relationships and backgrounds to be most important at different times. For instance, this whole next session could be spent entirely with the barbarians. Who would do the most talking there?

I am all for more speaking time for anyone who wants it. Any method the group chooses will be fine with me. Todd, if the way I have been playing has been taking anything away from your enjoyment of the game, I apologize. That is the last thing I want. I just wish you had brought it up to me in private instead of this public flogging.

i dont really have time today to write this, but i'm writing it anyway. procrastination (work-related) at its best, i guess.

i dont think roy's feelings were hurt by your response, james, and i'll let him be the one to comment re: that, but my guess is that he doesn't feel as though any apology is in order.

i dont think anyone saw todd's posts as being a public flogging of you--yes, your response to roy's post got used as an example of the behavior that todd is talking about, but i really, really dont think he was shooting AT you by using it. realize the "boiling point" got reached on the last session, when you weren't even there. clearly, it's not a "james did it, let's burn him alive" sort of issue.

analogy: we all live as roommates in one big house. i have been getting woken up by my roommates (you guys) being loud in the mornings. in the past, roy was the one getting awakened, and he bitched about it when it happened. everyone agreed with roy's feelings on the point and tried, for a little while, at least, to keep it down. after a relatively brief period of respite from the noisiness, the loud mornings picked back up. then it was ME who was getting woken up. i then went to the one roommate last night (last session) and expressed my frustration with their particularly loud behavior that particular morning. still, i was not confident that dealing directly with that one person would correct the overall problem. so the next night, i happen to be just settling down to sleep when the other roommates, gathered in a common room, start discussing quietly how to solve the noise problem. at that point, one of the roommates loudly disagrees with one suggestion as to how to correct the problem, loudly enough to wake me up. i come out of my room and say "okay, listen--i am not doing this to single you out, but since you just were the one who woke me up by being loud, i'm going to use you as an example, and for that, i'm sorry" and then i continue by explaining why it is uncool to be loud and specifically what about it is uncool.

in the analogy, just as in todd's posts, i dont think you were being singled out as the only or even the "worst" offender. rather, you just happened to react to roy's post in a manner that was precisely what todd was referring to in terms of the negative group dynamic, so it was a case of a perfect example being provided, albeit inadvertently. the take-away message that i drew from my conversations with people and the posts is the same as what it has been since the campaign started, really--we all need to remain very aware of the fact that not every player is going to be able to push, scratch, and fight for a spot on the stage, or, more to the point, WANT TO fight like that just to get some stage time. there's a point at which their hesitancy is their problem, not the group's but i think that none of our players suffer from that extreme hesitancy. rather, it's a culture of behavior that exists in our game that angers and hurts the players who have less of a desire to be pushy than those who dont mind being pushy for stage time.

and that's just it--it's a CULTURE, not any particular person. last session it was so-and-so who did some inadvertent snubbing, next session it may be someone else, the same person, or it might not happen at all. i can remember when roy, james, and will were the only players, and roy blew up because he was sick of sitting there listening to james and will argue in character for half an hour at a stretch, multiple times a night. i remember when dan and tim got seriously bent over being snubbed by the rest of the group during the whole Freeman interaction. it's just more of the same that's been going on lately, but this time with todd feeling as though he's been on the receiving end of the unlubed dick of grandstanding.

roy's post was an attempt to change that culture through an orderly, albeit artificial process. it was my idea, initially--he was merely the vehicle for that idea given geist's role in the group as "leader." and i agree with the criticisms of the idea--there are better ways to accomplish the goal of allowing everyone an opportunity to not only speak, but to be heard and have their ideas considered respectfully rather than run over roughshod or dismissed with a barrage of patronizing or aggressive insults. perhaps no specific "policy and procedure" need be enacted--perhaps everyone will be able, going forward, to remain respectful of each other as players and not allow "character interaction" to serve as a convenient vehicle (excuse) for letting basic decency and politeness at the gaming table vanish. can one character speak with vitriol and bitterness to another? absolutely!! but more often than not, the situation is as follows:

player A "we need to get into the chamber"
player B "we could try climbing the wall"
player C "OMG WHAT A STUPID FUCKING IDEA! NO, DUDE, WE CAN'T CLIMB THE WALL, THAT'S ABSURD, (possibly insert a reason, real or not)"
player B (to himself) "wow, really? i should fucking quit this game if this is how i'm going to be treated."

and i think that 99% of the issue is caused by overconsumption of intoxicating substances. we're not 18, 19, or 20 here--we are WELL past the point where we dont know how much we can imbibe before getting ripped, and how much we can handle before becoming flat-out douchebags to others. i realize we all enjoy the idea of letting loose on fridays, but it's gotten to a point (again) where consumption of intoxicants has caused a major detriment to occur--drunk/lit people have a very bad filter for what is "running roughshod" over other players, and it shows at game time. i had hoped to record some sessions and then create a DVD that captured the key issues that keep getting ignored or brushed off when they are brought up after the fact, but i can't afford a camcorder and everyone is hiding theirs from me because they're afraid of my cinematic awesomeness. (j/k)

so, james--is this about you? yes and no. yes in the sense that you are certainly guilty of the above stuff, and no in the sense that so are other players, and it was not written with the notion that it would be a "what does james do wrong" essay. rather, it's a statement about the culture of our group as a whole, and you just ended up as the "example" by virtue of the particular response you had for roy. i guess the take-away message here should be that your response to roy was an example of what frustrates some of us in the game, and that if you dont see that, you might want to revisit your message and the comments that followed in order to try to see it--i personally feel that if you can't see it, you're missing something. but the other take-away message, the more important one by far, is that this is a group-wide issue, not a james-specific issue, and roy was attempting to address that group-wide issue. no one was setting you up for a flogging, but when you mouth-humped roy for his suggestion, it provided a "perfect example" of what frustrates some of us, and was used as such in the hopes that everyone involved would say "oh, fuck, that's true--we DO come off as harsh douches to each other in the game when we'd NEVER be like that over choosing dinner, which movie to watch, or anything else; how can i make sure i'm not adding to the problem". okay, it's telling me i'm running out of words. i hope i was clear and fair in this post.