editchburn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> I really would prefer to just enforce consequences
> for the social gaffes, but I don't think I can do so without this
> particular player thinking that I am picking on her, partly because
> she doesn't seem to understand anything but the story-based point of
> view.
Hmm, but from what you're saying, she does understand other viewpoints
when it's physical threats; it's only a problem when the threats are
social? That suggests the problem might be a slightly different one.
A guess: maybe she regards combat as a sort of game and therefore
doesn't take offense, in the same way she wouldn't if her queen was
taken in chess, but regards social interaction as, well, a form of
social interaction, and therefore gets insulted when people get nasty?
In that case, maybe the right approach is to explain that in your
campaign, IC social interactions are not like OOC social interactions,
they're just part of the game exactly the way combat is?
Of course, the player mightn't _want_ to go that route. Most humans have
a lot of firmware for social interactions, and are used to relying on it
and don't want to do otherwise; and said firmware isn't good at handling
the use case of pretending to hold political beliefs that are strongly
incompatible with one's real beliefs.
And, of course, I might just be barking up the wrong tree.
But it might be an approach worth trying?
|
