>playing tabletop RPG, having a good time
>"I'm a better roleplayer than this other guy, so I should be rewarded with more mechanical bonuses and NPC contacts! I don't want to play at all if it's not a contest!"
Why is this attitude so common? Why can't roleplayers just have fun creating a story and contribute as much as they're capable of?
I feel you. On a related note:
>player roleplays out a long, very convincing argument to an npc about why exactly they should do the thing, very well-acted
>rolls a 2, char not built for diplomancy
>DM: Okay, I'm gunna give you a bonus because that was too well-roleplayed to just be a 2, he agrees with you and does the thing
>A different player has a character built for diplomancy, wants to roleplay the party face and negotiator and stuff, but is not very good at roleplaying
>Stumbles through a vague argument on why the npc should do the thing, stutters through it, meh roleplaying
>rolls an 18
>DM: okay, that was a high roll, but your in-character argument was really weak and not convincing at all, you still fail.
FUCK. This isn't even a problem i have and it makes me mad. You are effectively prohibiting people who aren't that good at roleplaying from ever playing a diplo/persuasion-based character! And if i'm such a good roleplayer, why should i ever invest in those skills? If you want your in game argument to be the deciding factor, go play a roleplay-heavy system that supports that!
It honestly depends on what you qualify as good or bad roleplaying.
If a player roleplays kinda badly but they do it all the time, they shouldn't receive penalties for the roleplay. They are trying to the best of their ability. Hell, even if they rarely ever roleplay and did a bad job, i still wouldn't penalize them. That'd just discourage them from ever trying again, id be delighted they stepped out and tried in the first place.
The only time i'd give a penalty for roleplaying is if it was something like "hurr hurr i tell the king to do it because of how awesome i am, "Hey you should do the thing cuz i'm so awesome" lol got a 17." That's because they clearly aren't trying and made no effort to actually make their argument sound in-game.
On the flip side, i usually don't give bonuses for good roleplaying unless they effectively roleplay some logical in-game reason or appeal to the npc's motives effectively in-game. "But king, you should do the thing, because if you really think about it, doesn't this help you achieve your task you swore an oath to complete in another way?" Obviously better acted and stuff, but yeah.
When someone is an inferior roleplayer, it is literally only because they refuse to improve.
I don't believe roleplay should be rewarded with mechanical bonuses, but I do think lack of roleplay or poor roleplay should always be grounds for removal from a group.
No, I don't care if "it's not fun for you". Go play video games.
"I tell the king that our current provisions are not enough for this journey" rolls a 4.
"I tell the king I'll fuck the queen and kill hin unless he pays us more" rolls a 19.
Who succeeds in persuading the king to pay the party more?
>You are effectively prohibiting people who aren't that good at roleplaying from ever playing a diplo/persuasion-based character
Why shouldn't they be encouraged to get better? If you want to play the face of the party, but all you ever do is mumble "I uh...I try and I guess I um I use diplomacy on the guard...." and then throw a die, YOU SHOULD NOT BE PLAYING THAT CHARACTER. You are wasting everyone's time and grinding the game to a halt, and especially you are preventing the people who ACTUALLY SIT AT THE TABLE TO ROLEPLAY from being able to play the game, because you decided to fill that character role only to never actually roleplay at all.
Why should everyone else have to suffer encounter after encounter where they let you do what your character was built for, and every single time you just mumble awkwardly and fade into the background because you can't speak up, interject, or form a coherent sentence?
It may be "your fun", but it's at the expense of the group, and that means your "fun" is the problem.
>2 with good argument
"your character has the right idea but stumbles over his words when delivering it. Roll again to see if you can salvage the situation"
>18 with poor argument
"your quick talking gets the other guy to think you know what you're doing."
For the first, depends on the king. If he's a jerk, it'll be something like "You greedy underling! The provisions i've provided you with are more than suitable! Now get out of my sight!" or something. If he isn't, it may be something like "I'm sorry, but that's simply all i can spare. you'll just have to make do." All depends on context. If the players show the king that even on starvation rations, they simply do not have enough to go do the thing, and do so in character, then if the king is reasonable, that'll be fine. In such a situation, it's probably a failure on my part as a DM that the provisions are so ridiculously low as to not make sense, unless the king was delibrately being a dick. Again, context.
For the second, something something the king has a shitton of guards and has you removed, maybe imprisoned and executed. Context.
We are operating under different ideas of what encouraging someone to get better is. My solution is not to nod politely while they mumble "i roll diplomacy." I'll encourage them out of game, ask them what exactly they are saying, and if they are willing to improve, we will get there. If they have no intrest in improving, and just constantly plodd along, then yeah, they are holding back everyone else. But mechanical bonuses/disadvantages are not the way to go in my opinion.
Also an important thing to consider
This is also good. Reroll will depend on who they're trying to convince and their temperment, but yeah.
Related problem: acting is not roleplaying.
I once roleplayed with a professional actor. He was good at improvising dialogue, could do plenty of voices, and was highly entertaining.
But his character was all over the place. One week he's bold and defiant to the last, next week he's happy to flee because the DM describes a golem as "terrifying". His character also talked up deep friendship with an NPC who we liked, but abandoned the guy because "the plot" was going elsewhere.
Should he have gotten bonuses for being "a good roleplayer"? Well, a lot of the time he did, despite the fact that the role he played was - whatever the DM seemed to want. And I kinda feel like that's all that "roleplaying" bonuses boil down to at most tables.
Well, players are generally idiots, so it often falls to the DM to say "I'm sorry, you're not roleplaying the character you built", when the player swings wildly between charismatic frontman, to brooding loner, to bloodthirsty killer, to whatever else.
It doesn't matter if you manage to come up with a cool quip or a witty line or a really dramatic scene, if that's completely out of character for the PC you're playing, it's a waste.
But you're right, most DMs don't know the difference.
It's part of the "grand illusion" DMing tradition. Everything is fiat, but everything must appear to be a matter of game mechanics and player agency. Experts of this style even deceive themselves.
I get sad when I see this stuff. And it's all so easy to fix.
Roll BEFORE you role-play.
Did you fail? Great, now you get to act out what failing looks like for your character, and it's a chance for you to let the rest of the group see how you fucked up. You can to flavour it in all sorts of ways, maybe just bad timing, maybe bad luck, maybe you were overthinking it and made the perfect argument but to the wrong audience. Maybe you kept going after you already had them and lost them again. Maybe you sound like a smug asshole when you know you're right. Endless opportunity for characterization and differentiating between characters, and YOU get tons of authorship when it comes to your character. Did you succeed? Awesome, you get to describe what it looks like when you succeed. Are you the lucky bastard of the group, or are you always prepared? Great at bluffing? Intimidating as fuck? Awesome! And you don't even have to act out the speech in character if you're an awkward neckbeard, just try to narrate what happens in a way that's entertaining for the rest of the group and helps them picture it.
This works for everything from combat to diplomacy or intimidation. Roll first, act out the results.
If you describe your action before you know what actually happens, you get retarded situations where an amazing speech completely whiffs or where you "stab a guy in the fucking face" and absolutely nothing happens. It also encourages character creation fuckery where people know that being smooth irl gives them free bonuses in character, which is kind of bullshit. I mean, really, if you can't talk at all, don't play the party face, definitely, but "role-playing bonuses" are complete cancer. Everyone should be role-playing, that's why you're there, don't bribe people.
> I should be able to put no effort into roleplaying and still pull off a character who requires good roleplaying.
Don't play a diplomancer. Simple as that. And the fact that you refer to a skilled persuader as such, means you see the entire game as a contest anyway.
> inb4 wah wah I shouldn't be punished for picking being good at persuasion evne though I suck at acting
RPGs are not a hugbox. Suck it up. You are the only one to blame if you don't have fun.
What should happen is that the first player should not only fail the roll, but be docked XP for poor roleplaying. That's because (whatever their intentions) they've given up on trying to play their role and instead tried to fast-talk the DM.
The second player may not get it right, but at least they're trying to play their character. They might even be eligible for a role-playing BONUS if the player is really stretching themselves.
>Why shouldn't they be encouraged to get better? If you want to play the face of the party, but all you ever do is mumble "I uh...I try and I guess I um I use diplomacy on the guard...." and then throw a die, YOU SHOULD NOT BE PLAYING THAT CHARACTER.
> It may be "your fun", but it's at the expense of the group, and that means your "fun" is the problem.
Also this. There IS badwrongfun, and this anon >>44694780 has an illegitimate opinion that is contributing to damaging the rest of the group, and he should do the mature thing and excuse himself from said group at their earliest convenience.
Some people still aren't accomplished diplomats even if they did as you say.
Someone can't just learn how to crack a joke to break the ice well with the new NPC they met and strike up a nice conversation. They might still need some time to think about what they'd like to say in a conversation.
>if you want to play the party strong guy, but all you ever do is mumble "I uh... try to kick in the door I guess..." and then throw a die, YOU SHOULD NOT BE PLAYING THAT CHARACTER. You are wasting everyone's time and grinding the game to a halt, and especially you are preventing the people who ACTUALLY SIT AT THE TABLE TO ROLEPLAY from being able to play the game, because you decided to fill that character role only to never actually roleplay at all.
Why should everyone else have to suffer encounter after encounter where they let you do what your character was built for, and every single time you just stumble awkwardly and fade into the background when you fail to bench press the wheight required because you aren't /fit/ to play the game?
It may be "your fun", but it's at the expense of the group, and that means your "fun" is the problem.
BOnuses to rolls for good role-playing is always bullshit, you're there to role-play so fucking role-play, don't do it because the DM bribes you by handing out bonuses like he's desperate.
BUT. Your job at the table is to make the sessions fun for everyone. You're there to play the part of your character, you're not there to win a game or explore mechanics purely for your own pleasure. You need to be a positive factor in helping everyone stay immersed in the role-play.
If you can't talk for shit, don't play the suave party face. Simple as that. You're not ENTITLED to make the rest of the group yawn through another session of you stuttering your way through an inspiring speech, cruel as it may sound.
>put no effort into roleplaying
That's not what I said. If they are putting no effort in and unwilling to improve, then yeah, get rid of them. they should just play a mute fighte of some sort. Which is something i thought i made clear here>>44695582 but okay.
If they are trying to improve, and working towards becoming a better roleplayer, don't penalize them statistically while they are still getting there.
Hey man, I didn't choose to be the party face. The GM was a dick and said "eeeh but the party absolutely needs a party face, it just wouldn't do to go without" and everyone just wanted to play their own shitty pre-made character.
Yes, I am considering leaving.
I don't know if you realize this, but kicking down doors is not the same thing as talking to NPCs. The latter actually requires you to have a conversation, choose your words and tone, and play out a scene with the other players and the DM.
Unless you think that conversing with an NPC should consist of:
>"I roll Intelligence to see if I know the right questions to ask"
>Ok, you rolled a 15, you know what to ask.
>"Ok I ask that, rolling Diplomacy."
>Congrats, you succeeded at talking to this NPC. OK, next scene!
But we know you're being intentionally retarded so you can make more excuses so you don't have to roleplay.
This is complete bullshit and you know it.
A limp-wristed, pencil-necked anemic girl has watched enough action movies to describe a muscular barbarians actions in a way that's entertaining for the rest of the group, but someone who is dumb as a brick or awkward as fuck and tries to play a genius or diplomancer can really ruin the session for the other players.
Playing smart or smooth-talking characters well is simply harder than playing strong silent types well, and no amount of retarded arguments like "I should be allowed to play a smooth character even if I can't finish a sentence without stuttering or going "uuuhmm, uhmmm" for 3 minutes if Dan is allowed to play a character with agi 20 even though the's in a wheelchair!" is going to change that.
You can fake being strong without it detracting from the session, you can't fake being eloquent or intelligent.
Must be aussies posting, because it feels like summer
>Make a retarded argument
>Get called an idiot
>"No guys it was just a joke you just don't get it!"
It wasn't a joke, because that would imply it had the potential to be funny. It was just a bad argument, stop trying to distance yourself from your own retardation.
That's absolutely true, and it's up to the group to decide what level they're aiming for. Some are totally fine with you describing in loose terms what ends up happening and you might make it fun even if you don't act it out in character. Personally I wouldn't let that person play the diplomat or smooth talker, that person would probably not be in my group to begin with.
Ah yes, the eternal conundrum of the barbarian being played by a smarter player than the one playing the 18+ int wizard who solves any and all puzzles the GM might throw at the party.
How much I've missed thee.
Not one fucking bit, that's for sure. Any GM who puts puzzles into their games that makes the game grind to a halt should immediately commit sudoku.
>BUT. Your job at the table is to make the sessions fun for everyone. You're there to play the part of your character, you're not there to win a game or explore mechanics purely for your own pleasure. You need to be a positive factor in helping everyone stay immersed in the role-play.
No. Don't do this.
The guy who is always pushing people back into character is NOT fun. Don't be that guy. Don't scowl when people make out of character jokes - laugh, especially if they're doing that while the DM is sorting out their notes.
Role-playing is a relaxed hobby based around having a good time with friends. Ultra-serious acting fraternities are almost always less fun than the "let's beat the dungeon!" crowd.
Fucking yeah! Ban puzzles!
Also, traps. Who wants to just take damage for no reason, just because the DM wants to arbitrarily hurt you while you're walking through a dungeon? And encounters too, because no one wants to die to some mook, since it ruins a story. We're the main characters, right? Also roleplaying, because I don't want to be banned from playing the genius character even though I can't even speak a sentence coherently.
I think all games should just be everyone doing what they want and succeeding at it with no need for things like "failure" that just bring everything to a halt.
>Role-playing is a relaxed hobby based around having a good time with friends.
You're right, only people who treat the hobby exactly as seriously as you do are doing it right. Everyone who wants to put a little more time, energy, or effort into the hobby so that it's fun for them is wrong and should learn to do things like you, which is clearly the better way.
>We have no standards so clearly people who do are like, the WORST, man!
What's the fucking point of playing role-playing games if the role-playing takes the backseat to just talking crap or hanging out? Why not just play Descent or Talisman instead?
I know you're being a smartass, but I also know for a fact that people unironically believe that it's what an RPG should be.
>What's the fucking point of playing role-playing games if the role-playing takes the backseat to just talking crap or hanging out?
>laugh, especially if they're doing that while the DM is sorting out their notes.
>I can't into reading
>The guy who wants people to role-play during the role-playing is SO annoying. Fuck, don't be that guy.
I wish every person like you shared one big stupid face so I could kick you all in the teeth at the same time.
>Making up details first and rolling after only to find out that the roll didn't let you do the details you thought you did
>Not rolling first and making up details after so you can narrate based on what you rolled
>You are effectively prohibiting people who aren't that good at roleplaying
How the hell are you not good at Roleplaying. It's not difficult. You just have to go along with the flow of the game, no one's asking you to become an award winning thespian.
If you pay attention to the details of the story and get involved and play a long you're a good roleplayer.
You should't be allowed to be the guy who just sits there waiting for the turn so he can just role the dice and say I attack X
I've seen /tg/ pose every single one of those ideas. As a group, /tg/ is actively against puzzles and traps because they feel they're too arbitrary and require the player to "know what the DM is thinking" or just "grind games to a half". I've seen people argue that players should absolutely have plot armor, because the concept of them potentially dying to a mook in a combat ruins the game for them, so there shouldn't be the possibility of death outside of specific "scene" fights. And right here, we're having people advocate that roleplaying should not be mandatory, so that everyone can play every character type, as they feel they are "entitled" to.
So that's RPGs as /tg/ sees them.
Because /tg/ is mostly players, and players are fucking idiots.
You certainly sound like the life of the party.
Actually, I do have standards. But my standards are about making people feel comfortable and ensuring that they're having a good time. If you think ramming your "standards" down everyone's throat is fun for everyone else, you have lived a very peculiar life.
I'm sorry that your acting career is going nowhere. Have you considered waiting tables?
Roleplaying before you know what happens is fucking dumb. Act out the consequences of the roll, don't act out what you're HOPING to do, and then go "aww bummer" when it fails.
Well to be fair traps and puzzles are tools and badly implemented ones like a puzzle that requires some overly narrow line of thinking or traps that seem to serve no purpose other than "HAHA GOTCHA" are fucking awful.
Look, man, you're allowed to role-play any way you want, and foster any kind of atmosphere and attitude at the table that your group enjoys. Just do it man.
But you have to be incredibly fucking dense to make the argument that other people who actually prioritize role-playing in their role-playing (what a crazy idea!) can only be tryhards, failed actors or horrible people.
Just because your group has absolutely 0 aspirations doesn't mean that nobody else is allowed to.
Most of the people i get to play with are people who hav never played a table top rpg and aren't sure how to proceed. Sometimes it takes people a while to figure out how to go along with the flow of the game.
Usually, for me, if a player who hasnt done a lot of roleplaying previously wants to be a persuasion-type character, then that means they are interested in roleplaying more
It's like no one actually reads diplomacy rules.
Let us say the king is "indifferent" because that's a good neutral point.
This means persuasion is 15+cha modifier. He's nobility, lets say he has a +2. This means at a base we have a 17.
The first request is probably 'simple aid' for a king, this it is a DC 22 to convince him.
The second? I would say it falls under:
>Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.
Generally caving to some random fucker threatening you is against a king's values. Of course, you could have a king who just caves to anyone who threatens him. None of my business.
Then EVEN IF you allow it as not against the king's values. Caving to threats falls under "Give aid that could result in punishment", as it makes him a weak king.
This pushes the DC to 32 at a minimum.
Traps usually ARE awful.
TLDR: The only good ways to handle traps are if they are very, very consistently used in the context of a dungeon, or if they are turned into "encounters" in their own right. Like the classic descending ceiling trapped room or the rolling boulder.
OP here. I wasn't talking about Diplomacy rolls at all.
The player in question seriously wanted to be given permanent upgrades to combat stats as a reward for "putting in the effort" in PC-to-PC dialogue or else it's not fun for him.
>When someone is an inferior roleplayer, it is literally only because they refuse to improve.
Okay, how do I improve? Because I really want to, and just "practice" as part of weekly game sessions isn't doing shit.
I'm not a naturally talkative person, nor do I have an intuitive grasp of how different personality traits affect the exact words people say, so as a result I take too long to think of my character's dialogue.
Oh hey, it's virt. Can you please stop posting?
>Most of the people i get to play with are people who hav never played a table top rpg and aren't sure how to proceed. Sometimes it takes people a while to figure out how to go along with the flow of the game.
And that's fine, but once you got a few games under your belt you should be able to get a rhythm going.
I mean ideally you should be playing with people you like. And if you LIKE these people chances are high they're not gonna give you too much shit so long as you make an attempt.
The only real way to fuck up is to not try.
No, you didn't. What you saw was me expressing a difference of opinion. And the people who differed then came back with ultra-defensive replies and even threats of violence.
But if you'd like to believe that I'm the pushy one - sure, why not? I don't want you to feel like you're in the wrong here.
>you have to be incredibly fucking dense to make the argument that other people who actually prioritize role-playing in their role-playing (what a crazy idea!) can only be tryhards, failed actors or horrible people.
That's why I don't make the argument. I just pose an alternative point of view and let the acting first (because it's not roleplaying that they prioritize) crowd show their true colours.
Then describe losely, like anon said.
Say you want to get some rumors from the innkeeper, and roll high
>"I greet the innkeeper, strike a conversation with him while ordering some drinks for the party. Somewhere in the convetsation, I mention that we are looking for some work or other info me and my lads are interested in."
There, you made your action in a reasonable way without having to actually hold the conversation
I still want to know why the "roleplaying 4 life" crowd didn't denounce the first player in >>44694780 for breaking with their character. Why is it "good roleplaying" to portray a a character described as not all that charming as a smooth talker?
> You play an angry barbarian
> Keep the character two dimensional
> You have one emotion and one emotion only
> Keep it that way or else
I've had these conversations. Your offended tone is exactly right for a self-entitled player, but the GM's lines go something like:
>The way you play your character doesn't seem to correspond to what you wrote on your character sheet, or the way you played them last time
Which attracts hurt, anger, and a suggestion that the GM is trying to dictate everything in the game. The GM then tries
>Look, I'm not saying that you're not fun to play with, I'm just trying to understand your character. If I can do that, then hopefully I can make the game more fun for both of us.
At this point, "Everyone else says I'm a good roleplayer!" usually comes into play. The GM can either continue and get stonewalled, or accept that this whole "good roleplayer" thing is just an excuse to avoid roleplaying.
The reason for playing by the rules is pretty simple: it shifts the blame.
No, seriously. If Karl's beloved umpteenth level Paladin died last week, it'd better not be me, personally, his friend since high school, that did the killing. Far better for our friendship that his Paladin died due to the way that Table 9-3 on page 157 interacts with Table 8-5 in the previous chapter.
Once the DM assumes full responsibility for the success and failure of the characters, that success and failure comes down to how much the DM likes you. Not a good thing for a game.
Two dimensional would mean having a character who is X and does X(value) while having Y trait (an honor code aside from his X(value) motivation and alignment, people he cares about, objectives, etc) and even Y(value/s) traits, like why does he care for the people mentioned in the Y trait or what made him take that extra code of honor in his backstory, thus making a somewhat complete but still plain X and Y dimensions character.
What you're saying is a single line of a character, X axis and nothing else, "Me be barbarian and me hit things, me destroy and me be strong for becoming stronger!", one dimensional.
Roleplaying must be at worst two dimensional and always aim for a third dimensional reality to further ones, leading into rounded (infinite dimensions) characters while not being all over the place through this.
That's also why I prefer a heavily DM-guided and DM-controlled story to one where this player agency I hear of is almost everything. If the DM cares but allows while not letting everyone do bullshit and LOLRANDUMB and "muh fun!" stuff it will not be railroading, but proper roleplaying, the pinnacle of TTRPing as I see it.
I feel you. On a related note:
>player builds their combat build really well, uses the battlefield to his advantage, always makes the correct tactical decision
>rolls fairly poorly, character isn't even combat focused
>Still succeeds because of such a high tactical advantage from his good decision making
>A different player has a character built for combat, wants to play the party's beatstick and warrior and stuff, but is not very good at the game
>Builds his character horribly, puts himself into a shitty position and and is flanked on three sides
>DM: okay, that was a high roll, but your flanked and wounded, you still fail the role
FUCK. This isn't even a problem i have and it makes me mad. You are effectively prohibiting people who aren't that good at combat from ever playing a combat/fighting-based character! And if i'm such a good tactician, why should i ever invest in those skills? If you want your in game tactics to be the deciding factor, go play a combat-heavy system that supports that!
This isn't the same and you know it. You get penalties and bonuses for stuff like flanking, being flanked, being wounded (depends on the game) and how you built your character. And I previously said in this post >>44695127 that i would give bonuses and penalties for things like logical in-game reasoning and appealing to npc's motives effectively, or being an idiot and putting no effort into the argument.
In your example, one player fails in combat despite being built for it and rolling well because he fails to account for concrete, in-game disadvantages, such as being flanked, being wounded, or, in your own words, building their character horribly and not being very good at the game.
In my example, a player fails in negotiations despite being built for diplomacy and rolling well because the DM wasn't impressed with his acting skills.
If he had rolled well and been built for it, but spoke out of turn, ignored various social customs and conventions, and offended the king, then yeah, he fails. But failing him because he's not a very slick roleplayer? Don't do that.
>rewarding people equally simply for showing up
>not encouraging your friends to higher and higher flights of roleplay
The opposite of rails is an interactive experience that yields different outcomes depending on what a player put into it.
When people collaborate, it will be noticeable if someone's contributions aren't keeping pace with the rest of the group. Pretending that they're contributing just as much is probably even more insulting to them than rubbing it in, and is actually the opposite of being inclusive.
Your concern seems more like a non-roleplaying social problem that anything else.
>Characters are all set in stone and would never react differently to a situation, ever
That is the other extreme to your complaint. In the end, what matters is whether you pulled it off or not. The GM seemed to like it, you didn't. No way for us to tell who in this scenario was retard.
More importantly, in that case he was probably getting the advantage for enhancing the drama of the situation, which can often lead to fun and of which roleplaying is only a part.
I could embellish, but the tale is illustrative rather than testimony about a particular person. You don't need to believe that I'm recounting a true story to understand the point. What matters here is plausibility. Do you think that the account of an actor at a role-playing game just following what they thought was direction is totally implausible? If not, then you are now better equipped to understand the distinction between acting and roleplaying.
I... what does your post have to do with anything. I didn't ask a question, you did, and now you're trying to set me straight about something. You're practically jumping at shadow meanings here.
If you truly didn't understand my post, highlight what the missing piece is for you and maybe I can make things a bit clearer.
> I didn't ask a question, you did
It was a rhetorical question, inviting the reader to agree that the actor did not deserve a reward for good role-playing (as stipulated in the story), and therefore that the rewards they received were unjust. I then go on to propose that the exaggerated and clear case only reveals what's going on with the whole business of "roleplaying awards".
Aside from the role that the question plays in the argument (preceding the conclusion), you could also have judged how important it was by how other anons replied. See >>44695684, who doesn't aim to answer a question but instead to address a positive point. Similarly, >>44695773 puts forward that that the scenario is not just plausible, but a trap that they've fallen into.
So when you respond (hastily, I presume) by addressing the scenario and saying that it coulda been otherwise and there's "no way for us to tell who in this scenario was retard", you get a response that while more details are available (so that there would be a way to tell), it just doesn't matter. The scenario is only there for the purpose of illustrating the point that acting is not roleplaying.
Stop playing with fat stupid manchildren whose only investment in life is their numbers. Play with people who have steady jobs, relationships, responsibilites and goals in life beyond "I must justify my penis by being better than you"
I have for decades now and it's nothing but harmony, because everyone's time is precious and they don't waste it on being a bugshit fuckhead, they roleplay, some of them casual for the fun, some more seriously for the narrative made together, and now I'm on my third and grand finale campaign. Life is good. Ditch your group.
Man, I got a problem with that. If I stick to my guns when roleplaying, I've had a bad track record of fucking up campaigns, so recently I've just been trying to fold my character to help push the DM's story.