Quote from: Sacrosanct;740234There are a million kinds of "let's pretend", and most of them would be more appropriate and representative to what goes on in a session of D&D.  So why "tea party"?  Look at what a tea party is, then try to convince me it's not a phrase meant to degrade.

Actually I attended a tea party in a game of CoC. the party were regathering for a new adventure after the last trauma.
Being nerdy roleplayers we roleplayed that tea party for about 4 hours. Great session.

I like tea parties by the way. You have tea, cake, if you are lucky scones and strawberry jam. In fact if there was a thing I really miss about the UK its tea parties round my sister's house....

Even if tea parties are actually awesome, the term is a reference to little girls playing tea party and is meant to be derogatory when referring to adults playing RPGs.

Tea, some home made scones and then add magic?  Awesome.  Sign me up.

Quote from: jibbajibba;740235Actually I attended a tea party in a game of CoC. the party were regathering for a new adventure after the last trauma.
Being nerdy roleplayers we roleplayed that tea party for about 4 hours. Great session.

I like tea parties by the way. You have tea, cake, if you are lucky scones and strawberry jam. In fact if there was a thing I really miss about the UK its tea parties round my sister's house....

In the US tea parties don't refer to actual tea parties but pretend tea parties with stuffed animals as guests.

Quote from: NathanIW;740242Even if tea parties are actually awesome, the term is a reference to little girls playing tea party and is meant to be derogatory when referring to adults playing RPGs.

Tea, some home made scones and then add magic?  Awesome.  Sign me up.

Bingo. I do realize that GD crowd do also use it to refer to the non-mechanically mediated aspects of play but they do also seem to go in and out of that use and a more pejorative one.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740234There are a million kinds of "let's pretend", and most of them would be more appropriate and representative to what goes on in a session of D&D.  So why "tea party"?  Look at what a tea party is, then try to convince me it's not a phrase meant to degrade.

My youngest sister had this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WcOTYZFVT_0#t=460

Yeah, It sounds derogatory to me too. But reading up on its usage it seems a YMMV sort of thing.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;740243In the US tea parties don't refer to actual tea parties but pretend tea parties with stuffed animals as guests.

Or Teddy Bear Picnic as some areas called it and a Tea party was something the adult ladies went to.
Seems the usage flips around depending on locale or individual.

Back on topic.

Like alot of things in D&D and RPGs in general. The fighter is what you make them into. Brawler, tactician, swashbuckler, knight, barbarian, etc. Which is part of the fighters strength and attraction. Its such an open and easy class that you can mold it ti your personal views of a fighting man easily.

I may not play one often. But I certainly appreciate them.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;740243In the US tea parties don't refer to actual tea parties but pretend tea parties with stuffed animals as guests.

I thought in the US they were political groupings of folks that thought universal healthcare provision, immigration and gun control were BAD IDEAS....

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740145Compare that to TSR era D&D, where if a player wanted to bluff the guard, they simply said, "I'm gonna try to bluff my way in" and you role-played the scenario or came up with some other way to resolve it right there.  Or the player didn't even say they were going to bluff, they just did as part of the natural role-playing interaction between them and the DM.  You didn't have the players look at their character sheets to see who had the highest skill modifier in mid conversation.

Yet earlier, was there not a discussion about how a wizard would not be played similarly to a front-line fighter, because of the inherent mechanical differences in the classes? Mages are squishy, don't wear armor, can't really use weapons; you don't expect them to wade into melee, because that's not what they do. That isn't saying they can't, as I'm sure there are exceptions; but as a general rule, players will play mages with a degree of caution.

This is an approach entirely informed by the mechanics of the game. It is a sensible response to the squishiness of wizards.

Likewise, should not the character with the best ability to bluff be the one attempting to bluff people, presuming a scenario in which the whole of the group is together? By removing the mechanical aspects - by making social interaction mechanics consist of "talk it out with the DM" - you risk making the character irrelevant, mechanically.

It could be argued, I suppose, that a good RP'er will roleplay the character appropriately in these scenarios. And given my own experience in this sort of thing, that's a pretty solid argument: people who are good at the RP aspect will tend to not roleplay a character with a low Charisma as being James Bond himself, or whatever. But there's no requirement that that's how it's done, there's no way to enforce that sort of thing. A DM can do things like try to take the character's Charisma into account, to prevent the silver-tongues in the group from dominating IC discussions all the time - but isn't that the same as requiring a Bluff skill, essentially, just a lot faster and looser?

I can see the point that games with heavier mechanics, like 3e and 4e, tend to result in players looking to their sheets to see if they have the ability to do something, as opposed to more rules-light games like earlier editions of D&D where people just try things. I'd be curious to see, though, if that same sort of thing happens in games like GURPS and RoleMaster - is this a problem endemic to games with crunch-heavy rulesets? Although I would argue this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it indicates - to me - that players acknowledge that their characters are different from themselves, and that the character has a different set of skills, and thus want to ensure that what they are going to attempt is within the character's ability. Just because Bob has a dayjob as a locksmith doesn't mean he should be able to bring to bear all his knowledge of locks to the game regardless of what his character is capable of, and I am willing to trade a bit of look-up time on his part to determine what his character knows of locks than to let him use his OOC knowledge all the time.

I'm not gonna lie, a game actually about having magical tea parties (possibly with dolls and/or teddy bears) sounds like a blast to me. I don't have a clue how it'd work but it sounds wild. But then I tend to think more games should involve friendly fairies and mermaids and talking animals and stuff like that, so it's possible that I just have girly tastes.

Quote from: jibbajibba;740235Actually I attended a tea party in a game of CoC. the party were regathering for a new adventure after the last trauma.
Being nerdy roleplayers we roleplayed that tea party for about 4 hours. Great session.

I like tea parties by the way. You have tea, cake, if you are lucky scones and strawberry jam. In fact if there was a thing I really miss about the UK its tea parties round my sister's house....

This man gets it.

Remember kids, trolls can't regenerate damage caused by starvation.

Quote from: LibraryLass;740288I'm not gonna lie, a game actually about having magical tea parties (possibly with dolls and/or teddy bears) sounds like a blast to me. I don't have a clue how it'd work but it sounds wild. But then I tend to think more games should involve friendly fairies and mermaids and talking animals and stuff like that, so it's possible that I just have girly tastes.

Fuzzy Heroes and its expansions is close. Stuffed animals that battle it ot with other toys at night. Using actual plushes and toys as the minis. More a minis wargame than a RPG. But still bemusing.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;740270Yet earlier, was there not a discussion about how a wizard would not be played similarly to a front-line fighter, because of the inherent mechanical differences in the classes?
.

So the more mechanical differences there are between characters (skills, powers, feats, etc), the more restrictive it is on the players as they all look at their character sheets to see which one has the highest rating in whatever they want to do, and only that player gets to engage?  

I agree.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740328So the more mechanical differences there are between characters (skills, powers, feats, etc), the more restrictive it is on the players as they all look at their character sheets to see which one has the highest rating in whatever they want to do, and only that player gets to engage?

Yes.

If a group of individuals is confronted with a problem, whoever is best at resolving that class of problems will be put forward as the individual to solve it, if the problem requires only one individual for its resolution.

If Bob goes to talk to Joe and Alex about his car problems, and Joe is an auto tech and has years of experience, while Alex knows nothing about cars, is Bob going to give equal attention to their opinions? No, not if he is a rational person. Alex's contribution to the conversation is almost assuredly going to be negligible, and there isn't any reason for him to attempt to answer the question posed. Pay attention to the conversation, perhaps; but not try to act as a source of knowledge.

Quote from: Benoist;740201Untrue. You visibly haven't played a 1st ed MU ever. Or any other class, for that matter.

Last time I checked, a MU was allowed to memorize whatever spells they want within the scope of the rules.
No need to "make an effort to come to an understanding" with him, stroke his ego, compromise, or any other platitude.
They have an impact on the world without having to resort to "making an effort to come to an understanding".

Quote from: Sommerjon;740483Last time I checked, a MU was allowed to memorize whatever spells they want within the scope of the rules.
No need to "make an effort to come to an understanding" with him, stroke his ego, compromise, or any other platitude.
They have an impact on the world without having to resort to "making an effort to come to an understanding".

Ouch...quit while you're well behind, man.