Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Kobold

Jiggy's page

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32. RPG Superstar 2013 Marathon Voter, 2014 Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 16,917 posts (18,301 including aliases). 16 reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist. 12 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,613 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Do you chaps use gank?

More often than I use "chaps".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Usually, the best place to look for an answer about how something works is in the rules about the thing in question. So since you have a question about how the handy haversack works, let's look at the handy haversack:

Handy haversack wrote:
Retrieving any specific item from a haversack is a move action

And there you have it, right where one would expect it to be. Happy gaming!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
I'm not sure that they do stack. Both say they stack with any other bonuses to speed, but both of them are "Fast Movement (Ex)". Doesn't that make them the same bonus?

I don't think we can assume that two different class features are automatically the same just because of the name. The monk, rogue, and ranger all have a class feature called "Evasion", but they're different: the ranger's works in light or medium armor, while the rogue and monk only get to use it in light or no armor. Similarly, how many classes have a class feature called "Ki Pool" that all work differently?

This shows that class features can't be assumed by default to be self-existent things independent of source, so in turn we can't assume that the barbarian's and bloodrager's Fast Movement are the same ability. We would need something saying so, which we don't have.

The closest we have is the thing about parent classes, which says they don't stack unless specified. Both abilities specify that they stack with everything.

So, it looks to me like they stack.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dot.

EDIT: Hrm... I like it, but I was already working on a similar project of my own, so that's a little frustrating. :( But looking over some of the blog posts, it does look like we went in different enough directions on some things that mine's still worth doing, so there's that. Best of luck, Sean! It looks pretty good so far, and I'll probably end up playing it at some point. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Because really, winning the fight means that your "how long it takes me to kill you" score was better/shorter than the opponents'. Whether that's by shortening your own or lengthening theirs, it's still crossing the equilibrium threshold that matters.
Not always - maybe you're trying to defeat an enemy before they can kill one of your friends. In that case, having a high AC won't help you.

And that specific case is about as relevant to the topic as is the specific case of when all you need to do is not-die until the ritual finishes (or whatever). Metrics remain useful even when you can contrive exceptions to the overwhelming majority of situations.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if something could be put together for the defensive value of increasing your opponents' number of rounds/attacks that it takes them to kill you. That is, figure the monster's value on the metric proposed in the OP, and then measure a PC's ability to make the monster's score worse.

Because really, winning the fight means that your "how long it takes me to kill you" score was better/shorter than the opponents'. Whether that's by shortening your own or lengthening theirs, it's still crossing the equilibrium threshold that matters.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Reposting, since my edit got pretty buried.

I wrote:

For instance, in my current story idea, I've got five female named characters (and five named male characters). One of them is a part of a purely platonic mercenary duo with a guy, so she "fails" the test. One is an Ahab-like character determined to take down the main (male) villain, and it later turns out they used to be in a relationship, so she "fails" pretty hard. One is the main character, and it's a romance, so I'm expecting her to "fail"—or at least come very close. The story should ultimately "pass" with the last two, a couple forest women who try and help out the heroes.

That said, the mercenary and the MC are intended to be quite independent and willful—arguably moreso than the forest women, in fact, who are extremely dependent on each other. I resent the implication that any female character who doesn't have the Conversation is somehow less independent or well-rounded than a female character who does.

That's not the test. Whether they're in relationships (platonic or otherwise) is irrelevant.

Do two of the named female characters talk to each other about something other than a guy.
That's all. They can talk about anything they want. It can even be stereotypical female stuff. As long as it's not about a guy. If they chat about battle tactics or about the other female characters or complement each other's lipstick, it doesn't matter. It passes.

He didn't say they were passing or failing based on those relationships, he was using those relationships to predict whether they might pass or fail. The one who is constantly in a working relationship with a man is likely to have most of her (visible to the audience) conversations either with or about that man. The one who's chasing a man is likely to have most of her conversations about that man. And so forth.

Probably. It was a speculative prediction about an as-yet unwritten story.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
Many of my interactions with people who have a problem with "social justice" end up complaining about "censorship" and "reverse racism" and feminism ruining discussions. So, they clearly believe privilege exists, they just think that women, minorities, people with disabilities etc. have too much of it, and white, heterosexual males have too little.

To be completely fair, I have long felt that (as a white guy myself), if I were successfully to defend myself against a mugger, having that mugger be black (or some other minority) would make me worry that I'd go to jail for a hate crime. It's just that over time I've come to decide that those sorts of injustices against majority groups are less of a priority than the injustices against minority groups.

That means that the kinds of people talked about in the above quotation could easily be people who have legitimate concerns but just suffer from a lack of perspective. Educating them should be about granting that perspective.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
meatrace wrote:
None of the iconics' sexualities has come into play in any published adventure, as far as I know, nor should it. It's a game about killing monsters and taking their s&~@.

That's what the game is about for some.

Not so much for others.

Not by way of disagreeing, but I'd say that the amount of ink dedicated to those topics in Pathfinder is considerably more than other RPGs which are widely available. It follows that that is the content that most people are interested in.

Derail:
Just to offer a different viewpoint here, ever since I joined the hobby I had always figured that the amount of rules text devoted to any given topic was proportional to how much that topic needed rules. Nobody needs a multi-layer rules system to determine what the next sentence of a conversation can legally be, or to resolve whether being bisexual is too much of an advantage over single-sex orientations without spending some character resources on it, and so forth. But determining who's stronger, who saw the ambush coming, or whether it's fair that you're good at shooting fire and stabbing; that all needs rules, because even very mature people need something to go by other than simply declaring "I block his sword!" and expecting it to work.

Thus, it's my belief that the difference in word count has more to do with what things need more/fewer rules than with what the game is built to focus on during actual gameplay. Not saying there's anything wrong with some folks wanting to just kill monsters and get loot, but I don't think you can infer that intent just from "amount of rules".

Silver Crusade **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
got any funny stories?

Slave Pits of Absalom:

Most of the party is trying to not escalate things in the bar/crackhouse grit den and just get our guy out. The sorceress' player asks the GM: What's the name of the place next door?

GM: Um... Bad Moon Rising.
Sorceress: I cast ghost sound to make a voice come from just outside the door, shouting "Free grit at the Bad Moon Rising next door! Free grit!"
GM: *rolls a bunch of Sense Motive* Two of the patrons leave.

This repeats a couple more times until all the basic brawlers have left.

Later, on the ship:
I spend multiple rounds looking for the Lady while the party is fighting two sailors and a gnoll. My wife's archer (who doesn't have Rapid Shot yet) takes a shot, crits the gnoll. Next round, she takes another shot, gets another crit, killing him.

"You know, because he had two eyes."

So we keep looking for the Lady (and I've done almost nothing else). I open a door, and find another gnoll, with an axe raised in a ready position.

"Oh, hi! Have you seen Lady Salhar around somewhere? I'm trying to find—"

The gnoll's readied attack crits me (handaxe is x3), taking me from full HP to 1 HP. I then mime pulling an axe out of my chest, and continue:

"Yeah but seriously, have you seen her?"

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Always good to have a plot hook in your back pocket.

Any kind of hook in your back pocket is a bad idea.

Cheliax

4 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Morgen wrote:
Yes, there needs to provide some justification for the stance

Okay, here you go:

There are many magic items which straight-up let you cast a spell. For example, the cloak of arachnida says, "Once per day, the wearer of this cloak can cast web." Several other items use the same language: the user/wearer/item can cast [spellname]. Scabbard of keen edges, strand of prayer beads, ring of friend shield, ring of telekinesis, etc.

Meanwhile, the ring of invisibility instead says, "the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell." The hat of disguise similarly says, "...allows its wearer to alter her appearance as with a disguise self spell." There are plenty of other items which use wording like this as well.

So I ask you, what is the functional difference between those items that refer to actually casting the spell and those which reference a spell to describe the effects of using the item? I believe that in attempting to answer that question, you will see why the issue is not as clear as you think.

I don't see any real difference here. if it says AS the spell, it means it operates AS the spell. The items have spell effects and caster levels built in. Ipso Quacko Dotto.

If you don't see any real difference, then you need to brush up on sentence structure. (Though really, who doesn't?) The phrase "as with a disguise self spell" is defining "alter her appearance". That means that the parameters of the spell are only relevant insofar as they pertain to the manner in which the appearance is altered, not to a broader event such as the activation of the item or how long it lasts.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Morgen wrote:
Yes, there needs to provide some justification for the stance

Okay, here you go:

There are many magic items which straight-up let you cast a spell. For example, the cloak of arachnida says, "Once per day, the wearer of this cloak can cast web." Several other items use the same language: the user/wearer/item can cast [spellname]. Scabbard of keen edges, strand of prayer beads, ring of friend shield, ring of telekinesis, etc.

Meanwhile, the ring of invisibility instead says, "the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell." The hat of disguise similarly says, "...allows its wearer to alter her appearance as with a disguise self spell." There are plenty of other items which use wording like this as well.

So I ask you, what is the functional difference between those items that refer to actually casting the spell and those which reference a spell to describe the effects of using the item? I believe that in attempting to answer that question, you will see why the issue is not as clear as you think.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
WiseWolfOfYoitsu wrote:
Jiggy, you did catch that we're talking about a 1 level dip?

>.>

<.<

Possibly not...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Greg Hurst wrote:
Well hopefully this doesn't come up anytime soon, but using the "dead condition" example I'd probably rule the cleric would effectively die of the same mechanic as the other team member. (negative HP, 0 CON, etc..)

If you're going to have the HP damage be part of what the cleric takes on, make sure it's also part of what the target is relieved of. Otherwise, it makes using a class ability into a bad thing, which is usually a red flag that something's gone wrong on the interpreting.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

*reads thread title*

Do you mean "wewewease"?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Am I the only one whose reaction to such an item is to figure how to make a delayed-effect version and then "spike" the drinks at wild parties?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Eltacolibre wrote:
Negative levels remove spellcasting slots tho, the highest levels.

You sure about that? ;)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if future BBEG demons or other high-CHA outsiders will start taking this feat...

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
I just walked into a room of PFS and asked 'Hey, do you need another GM?'

I walked into a room of PFS and was told "Hey, we need another GM." ;)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Sweet! Then maybe I'll take the bloodrager I played in Pits into it. Thanks John!

Of course the decent person I was talking about is my bloodrager. Why's everyone looking at me like that?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Will Slave Ships be any less "murderhobo or lose" than Slave Pits was?

That was a rather violent adventure, and #6–05 has numerous non-violent elements to it. So…yes?

Not so much the violence, but rather...

Slave Pits spoilers:

1) Part of your chronicle gold is contingent upon robbing a business just because you're there.
2) The only person who can point you to the ship you need is inexplicably locked inside his shop during normal business hours, making it "break-and-enter or the scenario's over", and then if you do something other than run from the guards like proper criminals, your character is imprisoned (reported dead).

So what I'm saying is, can I play a PC who is actually a decent person, and still be able to complete the scenario/get full gold/keep my character?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
As long as the GM rules the same way for harpies' songs as he does for hold person, I'd be cool with either interpretation.
Not the same thing. "You come to me" is mental control. Shutting down someone's connection between their brain and their nervous system is not.

That's not what hold person does. If it did, you'd collapse. Instead, it's a mind-affecting effect that compels you to hold still.

So just like Captivating Song is a mental influence that continually compels you to walk, hold person is a mental influence that continually compels you to freeze. They most definitely fall on the same side of the PfE divide, whichever side that might be.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
I've seen the same movie, with my girlfriend, and we both though it was a provocative film about someone in a tight spot and some of the things your mind does to cope with it.

I saw it with my wife and I thought it was Cast Away in space but a lot less interesting. I could try to examine agenda-pushing, but I'm too distracted by how they temporarily changed how space works just long enough to kill the chatty dude. :/

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
...and remind them that the opposition will be reflected in what scores they choose.

Derail:
I'm seriously considering no longer putting in the work to create full statblocks for enemies in my homebrew, instead just assigning AC, attack bonus, etc at numbers that will highlight the various party members' strengths and weaknesses regardless of whether a "real" statblock could produce those numbers.
Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Smartphone my ass.

Fun hobby: reading statements like this as though the word before "my ass" were a verb.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
And how many INT>CON>DEX...PUNT Wizards have you played with in all that time? Just askin'.

The same number as I'd have seen if people's rolled stats included a highest number, a second-highest number, and so on.

My assertion is not that point-buyers never make soulless, cookie-cutter characters. My assertion is that the creation of those characters is not the result of point-buy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Zilfrel Findadur — I resent your erroneous and unsupported assertion that being able to summon forth extra reserves of courage and ferocity in order to preserve the life and health of oneself and one's friends could in some way be correlated with stupidity or lack of caring.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've never played a rolled-stat game. Every game I've played (whether PFS or home game) has been point-buy. (Interestingly, that means that every awesome, unique, deep, and engaging PC that I've ever played (or played alongside of) has been made with point-buy. Just sayin'.)

In the homebrew I'm currently running, PCs got the Heroic NPC stat array.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

Deflection Bonus.

Dodge Bonus.
Intuition Bonus.
Dexterity Bonus.

Why is one specifically different from the others?

Because it starts with an "I" instead of a "D"? That's what you meant, right? ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or we could just trade. Win-win!

*holds out frito pie*

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

...Am I the only one who would take the pizza over the frito pie?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not if you're watching The Neverending Story.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Galnörag wrote:
thistledown wrote:
Yeah, the Technologist entry doesn't really answer the question very well. But thanks for the rest of it.

The clarification of the technologist feat requires the technologist feat to understand.

But I agree, mechanically I can't make heads or tails of the answer in the case the technologist feat is not present. Are the skill checks still possible, but the GMs job is to interpret a more vague/non-technological answer that relates the same general information. Or meta-game on a skill check that the character bloopled enough bleeps to activate the "mysterious artefact." And in either of those cases the DC is the same or different? Or run a stop watch until enough frustration time has elapsed and hand wave on wards?

Or none of the above? I don't understand why people are having trouble with this. The blog says nothing about the Technologist feat (or the rules surrounding it) being changed. So you still don't get to make those checks. The blog just points out that it's okay for Pathfinders to infer that if you can't find an opening mechanism for the door, then maybe the thing at chest height right next to it is involved. Or that something shaped like a "normal" weapon might itself be a weapon. Or a spot with an imprint shaped like a hand might do something if you put your hand in it.

Not by making skill checks, just by thinking. There is gameplay space available between "metagaming" and "making skill checks".

Silver Crusade **

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was in Trial by Machine. Even in a 7-man party, I felt like my two-hand-raging-Power-Attack and my rage-boosted 2nd-level hit points were very nearly the only reason we survived. And that's with a GM who seemed very UNinterested in PC deaths. With a sterner GM or more moderate damage output, I think we'd have all died. Possibly twice.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Acedio wrote:
Or however you might want to describe a "button."

Or maybe just call it a button, because those already exist in standard Golarion items?

Immovable Rod, Rod of Lordly Might, Rod of Balance, the CRB rules for hidden doors... the list goes on.

It's okay to say "button".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
I'm looking for an effort to put together the major points of an attempt at diplomacy, the tactics used, and all fitting with the PC's perspective and what they could and would understand of the situation.

I've never seen anyone try to get away with less. Ever. Rather, what you describe here is the group of people who are feeling (accurately or not) pointed at when certain posters talk about people who don't care about roleplaying.

For instance, Corrik describes a situation where some players are trying to have an in-character dialogue but the player of the "face" isn't, and labels the face-player as the source of the problem. Well, a player who prefers to do it in the way that you described as being acceptable would fit the villified role in Corrik's example, so they (and others on their behalf) feel attacked.

So they explain that their own flaws shouldn't affect their characters. Then certain other posters respond with things along the lines of "Pfft, well sure, if you don't care about roleplaying," effectively painting people who do the very thing you described as perfectly acceptable as instead being only interested in smashing stuff and rolling dice.

And it just goes round and round. And then some kind of rogue eidolon shows up and gets all "clear" and "communicative". ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Corrik wrote:
let's hear your answer already.
Unless I'm thinking of the wrong question, I already answered it.

You have not, in fact you've ignored the majority of the length of my posts to try to focus in on the areas you think you actually have a leg to stand on.

The players who simply roll the dice exist. The entire point of this thread is that someone who isn't good in social situations should be able to play the party face since all they have to do is make a diplomacy check.

Now then, Players A and B are having a scene and Player C just made a diplomacy check. In detail and describe what is fair to who, go.

Okay, maybe I just wasn't clear before, so I'll try again more thoroughly.

So you're in this scene. So that means the game is underway, which means you started playing at some point, which means that character creation is done, which means at some point everyone (all the players and the GM) decided that the assortment of characters everyone was playing was A-okay, which means that (whether explicitly or implicitly) everyone agreed to let Player C lead the way in social situations.

That means that the situation you describe is the result of one of the following (but if there's a third option I missed, by all means, point it out):
1) Nobody realized there would be a clash between Player C's handling of social situations and Player A/B's preferences.
2) They *did* realize there would be a clash, but failed to have a discussion about it way back during character creation and so Player C went forward thinking everything was fine.

If the situation is #1, then the group discusses the issue and finds the resolution that's best for them. If the situation is #2, then the whole group is pretty immature and A/B have no right to hold C accountable for their own failure to point out a problem that they saw coming.

Basically, either way it's time for an OOC discussion about expectations and roles; but I'm having a hard time imagining a situation where there's fault on the part of Player C.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
let's hear your answer already.

Unless I'm thinking of the wrong question, I already answered it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:
In respect to this thread then that means explain how, or at least why, you're using a skill. Don't just wait til someone comes up to you and go "I use diplomacy. 25; what info do I get?" That's my opinion though and others' most certainly will vary.

In my experience, the oft-discussed category of lower-CHA-than-my-PC players are doing exactly as you ask: they say "I ask him about [topic]; should I roll Diplomacy?"

The "I Diplomacy him" player seems (near as I can tell) to only exist in the minds of internet dudes who want there to be only one type of player other than the method-actors so that the method-actors can feel superior.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

JCAB, there's a difference between "certain players attempting to play certain characters could reduce other people's fun so let's address that" and "the only two possibilities are that you're fully able to act exactly like the character you're playing or else you just want to diplomacy people and punch faces and count loot".

The former seems to be what you're describing, while the latter is the very small world in which certain posters apparently live. The former is something that's just part of being a reasonable person (and is connected to every aspect of the game, not just the roleplaying), while the latter is very far from reasonable.

I was replying to the latter.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
(snipped for wall of text)

...Are you under the impression that "roleplaying" means "talking to NPCs", and vice-versa?

Because that would sure explain a lot.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
This is a game about escapism (and fun). Why would you punish people for their real life faults? It seems like you are missing the point.
Bad roleplaying breaks the immersion and takes away from the fun of the other players, to the extent that they care. I gather that not everybody cares. Some folks just want to "diplomacy people", punch faces and count loot. Every table is different.

There are people who want to play a character that they themselves are not capable of representing completely, who nevertheless care a great deal about roleplaying, immersion, and the fun of the other players; and are interested in far, far more than just "diplomacy-ing people", punching faces and counting loot.

I don't understand why it is hard for you to accept that this category of people exists.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I can't stop laughing at the fact that you have an avatar for that alias.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
If you, the player, decide to "talk pretty", then you are not playing a dumb, uncharismatic brute, are you? If you decide to play an oaf and then conveniently get eloquent fishing for a bonus in social situations...eh, no. That's just schizophrenic, terrible roleplaying.
Earlier in this very thread, the secret fire wrote:
Play however you want, but I have been known to greet statements like "I use diplomacy" with -20 penalties to the roll and hand out similarly large bonuses for great roleplaying, even from otherwise socially inept characters.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Why not? What's wrong with a player saying "I want to convince him to do X" instead of acting out the exact dialogue? What does that hurt?
It can cause a lot of internal consistency problems when the rest of the group talks to a NPC for half an hour of roleplaying and the "party face" sits there quietly after rolling his check.

So a group settles on which person is going to be the face, but then keeps butting in on that person's face activities, to the point of causing internal consistency issues, and it's somehow the face-player's fault?

Maybe the standards for adult behavior vary by region, but when I'm at a table and someone else is the face, I follow their lead rather than trying to take over or ignore what they're doing. If they talk it out, I back them up (or not, depending on what I'm playing). If they say "I use Diplomacy," then I say "I assist" (with maybe an additional "Oh, and you're gonna mention X when you talk to them, right?").

Trying to do what was already agreed to be someone else's role (and for that matter, agreeing to it in the first place if you're not planning to respect it) and then blaming the resulting issues on them is just being a grade-A jerk.

Quote:
Lemmy said otherwise, I even specifically mentioned that in my post.

I may have misunderstood him (or you), then.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:

so wait, just because I have muscles and like drinking whiskey and being loud and avoiding punctuation

then I am not allowed to play a bookish elf with a slight build and shy tendencies?

sorry Lamontius since you are basically just a big dumb drunken animal most of the time, you can only play barbarians with low wisdom and poor impulse control

So, most of the dwarves I've seen?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:

To me, if the roleplaying side of the game is completely abstracted to dice rolls and modifiers, it ceases to be a roleplaying game. Play however you want, but I have been known to greet statements like "I use diplomacy" with -20 penalties to the roll and hand out similarly large bonuses for great roleplaying, even from otherwise socially inept characters.

I honestly don't understand why people would want to subsume the roleplaying half of the game into the mechanics, but I gather that some people do. To each his own, I suppose.

Wait, so your players are only allowed to act the way they really are in real life, and you're accusing other people of getting rid of the roleplaying aspect of the game? You literally just labeled the imagining of being a different person as not roleplaying.

What specifically do you think the word "roleplaying" means?

1 to 50 of 2,613 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.