The Lamplighters - discussion forum


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
5/5 5/55/55/5

What, mechanically, is someone supposed to accomplish with a +4 diplomacy? (assuming a 10cha and 4 ranks)

1/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
What, mechanically, is someone supposed to accomplish with a +4 diplomacy? (assuming a 10cha and 4 ranks)

What, mechanically, is someone supposed to accomplish with a +4 to hit?

5/5

+4 = a 20% better chance to succeed unless results are guaranteed with a 1 or impossible with a 20.

Scarab Sages 4/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
What, mechanically, is someone supposed to accomplish with a +4 diplomacy? (assuming a 10cha and 4 ranks)

A lot more than one can accomplish with a -2. At the very least, it makes it easier for you to assist someone with their check so the group as a whole succeeds.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Funky Badger wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
What, mechanically, is someone supposed to accomplish with a +4 diplomacy? (assuming a 10cha and 4 ranks)

What, mechanically, is someone supposed to accomplish with a +4 to hit?

To hit things. Which is important for some classes/builds, but for others.. not so much. I don't think its a big deal if your evoker can't hit the broad side of a barn

Kyle Baird wrote:
+4 = a 20% better chance to succeed unless results are guaranteed with a 1 or impossible with a 20.

Assuming you're the one that has to/should be making the check. The lower your diplomacy is the lower the chances are that thats you.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree no one should build and keep a character so specialized that he is worth less elsewhere. Although you are a team. With so many things that can happen being spread out thin makes you weak. I feel you should be specialized and then add extra value to you as you level in other areas keeping your specialization powerfull. You should always have someone in the group with with high social abilities, you always should have a healer. My control character can not hurt incorpreal. So I use party buffs like invisibility and invisbility from undead and I heal. You are always going to be put in a spot where you are worthless. The idea of minimalizing your characters flaws is great advice, but to create a group on it with rules I feel is too elitest. Very Third Riech. I look as a PC group as a team. In football you have a quarterback, no coach will spend effort in training the all the positions to pass the ball.

As for rules getting in, I would scale them. Because at higher levels the small bonuses are worthless when the DCs are over 20. Espcially since that 10% chance couple have helped them make an acrobatics check to avoid an AoO, make that knowedge check they were not quite good enough in.

I agree I do not want to play with people that can do one thing and a worthless 90% of the time. But that is just weak character building and/or play. In that case just talk to the person and coach the,. creating a group they can not be in I feel is petty. Espcially when the level 8 fighter that just put ranks into certain skills with his normal cheap xbow, but provides the group no worth in the items/abilities/skills because he invested enough to join the group.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

As I see it, this is more of a reaction to the lack of engagement that low-CHA PCs have in the RP portions of the game (which is ideally half of the PFS experience.) It is not about keeping people out, it is more about recognizing those of us who can be effective both in and out of combat, as exemplified in part through roleplaying. Think more Inigo Montoya and less Rambo.


Finlanderboy wrote:
As for rules getting in, I would scale them. Because at higher levels the small bonuses are worthless when the DCs are over 20. Espcially since that 10% chance couple have helped them make an acrobatics check to avoid an AoO, make that knowedge check they were not quite good enough in.

This is not true. DCs for the most part do not scale; that's the point of a skill system: jumping "this far" is always "this DC". Something worth "this much" is always a DC of "this". Same for Diplomacy and so forth.

There are some things that have high DCs in higher level adventures - but they are more the exception than the rule (examples: high level traps, opposed checks, rare specialized knowledge DCs).

...

There is nothing wrong with an elitist club forming. If another group of characters wishes to establish the "Blades and Blunts" group of high DPR melee monsters, then that is fine too. Why would you begrudge some people whatever they consider fun? The PFS already contains (politically motivated) factions, the majority of which feel an elitist "better than them" towards the others (in a friendly way). It is part of the dynamic social environment that is fostered by the society and its members.


Speaking completely OOC, the idea of the Lamplighters follows along with some very basic "keep EVERYBODY alive" advice.

I like the idea of everybody carrying a melee weapon, ranged weapon, backup weapon (I believe everybody could do quarterstaff, sling and dagger..).

Spoiler:
When I GM games like Goblinblood Dead, I am always astounded that when people get briefed there are likely going to be undead things they universally fail to spend the two seconds needed to look at their character sheet, realize they have no blunt damage options, and say "I buy a quarterstaff while we're in town. Maybe a sling, too!" Grr.

I agree that a jack-of-all trades, master-of-none may not the best approach for individuals in PFS.. but you should be able to contribute something useful besides high damage per round.

Netopolis wrote:
As I see it, this is more of a reaction to the lack of engagement that low-CHA PCs have in the RP portions of the game (which is ideally half of the PFS experience.) It is not about keeping people out, it is more about recognizing those of us who can be effective both in and out of combat, as exemplified in part through roleplaying. Think more Inigo Montoya and less Rambo.

I'm a fan of this concept and I agree that this is part of what Lamplighters is designed to address.

HOW to do that is still an open question.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

Suggestion: how about a quick RP "test", given by any member to any nonmember or group of nonmembers(with each succeeding individually)? It would be somewhat similar to the Masonic morality play, but with some DCs and some puzzles. It would be a good introduction to the Lamplighter's goals, would serve to check qualifications and would give a moment at which a character becomes an official member. I am envisioning this as a very, very short scenario (10 mins) with no rewards or potential for death (thus, no chronicle). Characters could reattempt entry every level.

5/5

Robert Duncan wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

That's the nice thing about a bite attack.

Dark Archive 4/5

I really like the philosophy behind this. Pathfinders should be first and foremost Pathfinders, and have been picked based on the skills that allowed them to function as such. Granted, a few of my characters would fail in various ways: I happen to really like dump stats for a few of my characters, and try to play them in ways that allow their dump stat to become a big part of them.

I'm throwing my vote in for the idea proposed that Lamplighters must fulfill a certain number of the conditions. 6/8 is what was suggested, and I could definitely get behind that.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I'll happily have all my characters join up. Even Vati the int 5 Paladin. And especially Alexander Damocles, the Holy Risen Librarian of Abadar.

On a further note...anyone feel an urge to create a badge or button of some sort to identify Lamplighter players at a game table? How cool would that be?

Sovereign Court 4/5

To be brutally honest I find this an excellent idea, in-game of course. Since it wouldn't really have ANY mechanical meaning, it's only fluff. And it would - as I've been lecturing as Razmand Nevantes on the Grand Lodge faction talk thread - eventually create turmoil within Pathfinder ranks, and developing a new and oddly familiar line of events... rogue pathfinders, maybe, who are disdained by elitistic lamplighters. This is at least how I see it.

So for the lamplighter idea I give a green light. But I must underline my opinion that it must NOT cause real mechanical benefit. That would be wrong.

This might just be some ingenious plot the venture-captains have been weaving for Season 5.

Scarab Sages 2/5

Garble Facechomper wrote:
Garble want to be lampbiter too!

I too would be honoured to carry such a badge

Silver Crusade 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good one Scott! You know I support you 100% on this initiative. And just to put a bit of background into the discussion for everybody else not part of our Lodge here in Winnipeg, it had been an ongoing discussion for a while now in our Facebook forum. Some players, myself included, are a bit sick of min-maxers and one trick ponies. Here's a message I wrote a couple weeks ago on this topic:

"Seriously, it all comes back to the almighty rule #0. [...] unless players start putting more efforts into their background and character concepts, and less efforts into optimizing characters, we are doomed to see all of that happening over and over again. I am personally sick of level 4 fighters and barbarians doing 25-30 points of damage (str of 20, 2-hands, power atack, charging, furious focus, etc.) while I am trying to play a well-balanced fighter or rogue and can't even come close to that damage output even while doing a coup de grace on a flanked sleeping ennemy just because I chose to have normal stats, a few strong points and a versatility of feats and items. (/end rant) [...] I may sound pretentious or some might be offended but I think some players just don't care about the negative potential a min-maxer can have around the table, especially the minimal amount of fun the other players can have while the min-maxer is always under the spotlight and/or putting others in danger because of its actions or behaviour. Some combinations of classes/races/feats seem to be more prone to that kind of behaviour but at the end it is the player's attitude that makes all the difference. And some players just have a bad attitude."

The Lamplighters seem to offer a philosophy more than a faction or any tangible game effects. It offers an opportunity to think of other players, of your faction, and the general well-being of the Society (in and out of game) while creating a new character.

On the topic of dump stats, I hate seeing dump stats just to fuel a really high stat. But I think they could be acceptable in certain occasions, especially if the Pathfinder is making a reasonnable effort to compensate. However, one has to think, when crating of new character that, that said character is fresh out of training. How was training for a character with a str of 7? Would a barbarian without tact or common sense be able to pass some of the tests set by your "teachers" or recruiters during training? The Lamplighters offer an opportunity to think about it before jumping into the fray.

I also agree that having something as "meeting 6 of the 8 requirements" would open the group a little bit more, especially for some of the classes that aren't skillful like fighters or clerics. Altough, I wish PFS would have strict requirements representing the necessary skills to "pass" training... Thus said, it would be nice to see some of these characters choosing a trait that will offer them a new class skill instead of just choosing "reactionary"...

5/5 5/55/55/5

Aleketo Winterborn wrote:
"Seriously, it all comes back to the almighty rule #0. [...] unless players start putting more efforts into their background and character concepts, and less efforts into optimizing characters, we are doomed to see all of that happening over and over again.

This is the stormwind fallacy.

How much effort goes into optimization vs how much goes into personality and background is a false dichotomy: there is NO vs, at all. Someone can have a two handed fighter with a 7 strength and the personality of wet cardboard or a stirring tale of love and loss of Ingvar:Beauty school drop out even if Ingvar has a 20 strength.

Quote:
I am personally sick of level 4 fighters and barbarians doing 25-30 points of damage (str of 20, 2-hands, power atack, charging, furious focus, etc.) while I am trying to play a well-balanced fighter or rogue and can't even come close to that damage output even while doing a coup de grace on a flanked sleeping ennemy just because I chose to have normal stats, a few strong points and a versatility of feats and items. (/end rant) [...]

If you don't like how your characters are performing then change something about your character and leave other players characters to the other players. I don't think its fair to imply that other players are being jerks by making their fighter good at fighting.

If your well balanced characters were working I don't think you'd be this upset. What you seem to think should happen is that their combat effectiveness should come at a cost of being ineffective elsewhere so it would balance out... but that doesn't happen for a few reasons.

1)The game is so combat focused that combat effectiveness takes precedence. Dont get me wrong, i love the skill challenges, I love the RP when it happens, but most of your success and failure depends on your ability to put someone in the ground before they do the same to you. If pfs is getting Cuisinarts of death its because the scenarios are looking for Cuisinarts of death.

2) trying to spread yourself out to be well balanced meets with diminishing returns because you're part of a team. If you have +2 to every skill but your party members have +10 to a few skills other party members are going to be given/excel in the task that they specialize in.

3) Many skills can easily be trumped with magic. This is problematic for skill based classes like the rogue.

4) For many classes you need to move heaven and earth to turn them into reasonable skill monkeys without depleting your combat effectiveness.

5) Some combat styles are just better than others. Yes, two weapon fighting LOOKS cool... but you're just spending feats to SOMETIMES be as effective as the guy who picked up a greatsword a la cart... as long as you don't need to move, overcome damage reduction or buy magic weapons.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Quote:
How much effort goes into optimization vs how much goes into personality and background is a false dichotomy: there is NO vs, at all. Someone can have a two handed fighter with a 7 strength and the personality of wet cardboard or a stirring tale of love and loss of Ingvar:Beauty school drop out even if Ingvar has a 20 strength.

I think you misunderstood me BigNorseWolf. What I am saying is all about the attitude, about how you use your power and not being a jerk with it. If you are able to have a great concept while being optimized, it doesn't bother me (much).

Quote:
If you don't like how your characters are performing then change something about your character and leave other players characters to the other players. I don't think its fair to imply that other players are being jerks by making their fighter good at fighting.

Again,it's all about the attitude. For example, I had to tell a fellow pathfinder not so long ago to stop killing everything because I wanted to be able to do something in combat. I have a decent ninja and I was able to put my fair share in combat but the example I gave about the fighter happened then. The player felt compelled to kill everything in sight just because he could (dropping them in one blow actually). The fight was very unbalanced and not very fun for some players (including me). I told him really clearly to stop bashing everything in sight and leave some of the fun to the other players (which he didn't). When you play PFS, you have to take other players into consideration.

Quote:
The game is so combat focused that combat effectiveness takes precedence. Dont get me wrong, i love the skill challenges, I love the RP when it happens, but most of your success and failure depends on your ability to put someone in the ground before they do the same to you. If pfs is getting Cuisinarts of death its because the scenarios are looking for Cuisinarts...

I agree with you that the game is combat focused but it shouldn't be combat-only. IMHO, every challenge is an encounter. And the whole point of being a Lamplighter is to be able to pull your own weight, no matter what the encounter is. During an encounter in which social skills are required, if you min-maxed in combat, chances are you can't pull your own weight, leaving everything to your teammates for the rest of the encounter. Just as a purely social character doesn't have a place in PFS because you let the other players handle bigger encounters (because you raise the CR), you have to take that into consideration when you play a more combat-oriented character. Even a fighter with a cha of -2 could still put a rank in intimidate and bring it to +2, more than enough to intimidate most people or help another character achieve a tough challenge. This is what is being asked about being a lamplighter.

An analogy would be playing hockey. PFS is like a street hockey league full of friends trying to have a good time once or twice a week. If one player is clearly better than the others AND he is hogging the puck, then the other players become frustrated. And I hate being frustrated because of a puck hog.

I am a teacher by day and a father of 2 by night. When I meet my friends at the friendly neighbourhood RPG store, I want to have a good time because I don't get out often. And when your lodge has more than 80 members with half of that number being quite active, you encounter different people. Sometime I have a great time and sometimes I don't and it is usually because of the puck hog (or min-maxer if you will). I might be old fashioned but I like my encounters to be more than just "fireball + quickened fireball"... The Lamplighters, to me, offer a way to make sure noone hogs the puck, that everybody is considerate to each other around the table and not overly specialized. You can still be a good player, and if you're a great one, just make sure to pass the puck once in a while. And if your only skill is being good at slapshots, then the game will be very repetitive (Jimbo passes the puck to Big Hog, Big Hog slapshots and scores... again...)

And truth be told, if I could, I would choose to only play with other Lamplighters to maximize my chances of having fun...

Liberty's Edge 2/5

I was initially very skeptical of this "movement" for two reasons- first, it smacks of elitism (that there is a right or wrong way to play this game), and secondly, I am of the belief that there is an endemic problem with organized play- that the desire for Zero Table Variance leaves a GM with very little ability to reward creative roleplay. When events are scripted and the script must progress, there's a limit to what can be accomplished by "thinking outside the box" no matter how many times that text is included in the scenarios.

Recent events have caused me to re-evaluate my position- something like this may indeed be needed. That being said, I still don't think that arbitrary guidelines like "No Dump Stats" or "Being Prepared" is necessarily going to do anything.

The good players are already prepared, pay attention when the GM is talking, remain socially adaptable both in game and out, or contribute well to a group function (id est, play well with others and support their fellow players and PCs). This remains a collaborative game- specialization will happen in games like this, just as specialization happens in society generally. It shouldn't necessarily be discouraged.

Similarly, the problem players will not be shamed or cajoled into giving their characters a back story or a driving goal or a personality unless it gives them some actual benefit in game. They won't pay attention when the GM is talking unless the GMs are willing to penalize them for their ineptitude. They won't care if by leaving the party during a fight, the other characters die- so long as their character doesn't. And when your job as a GM in organized play is to be an ambassador for a system, you don't want to be a jackwagon and drive people away. Castigation and handicap only works if folks don't have the option to opt out. No one wants to be the GM who drove away the new guy, even if the new guy was a total munchkin.

Unless some way can be found to incentivize the role-playing at the table, though, that part will fall by the wayside in favor of optimization. And there's no way to do that uniformly. Maybe allow the GM to hand out 1 additional prestige to the person at the table they believe roleplayed their character most effectively? But that, unlike the other calls the GM makes, will be inherently subjective and contribute to table variance. And we're back to square one.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

This isn't about shaming, cajoling or anything else. It's about an in-character commitment to certain principles that we believe all Pathfinders should aspire to. It's not going to be for everybody, though, and I would be deeply disturbed if it became such an elitist organization. I don't feel that it needs to. I just think that some players will choose to take on the mantle, while others will choose not to.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Alekto Winterborn wrote:
Again,it's all about the attitude. For example, I had to tell a fellow pathfinder not so long ago to stop killing everything because I wanted to be able to do something in combat. I have a decent ninja and I was able to put my fair share in combat but the example I gave about the fighter happened then. The player felt compelled to kill everything in sight just because he could (dropping them in one blow actually).

And why is he killing everything? What is your "Decent" ninja doing that this person, who gets to go the same number of times in a round that you do, has everything dead before you can kill one thing?

How would you feel if someone with a cleric 1 rogue 1 sorcerer 1 called YOU a jerk because your Ninja is too good and his character can't kill anything with his fog cloud acid splash sneak attack combo because you've killed everything before he can get it going?

The "right" amount of optimization is completely arbitrary. It doesn't take any effort for some people to look at the rules or just use experience to see which options work and which ones don't. People are just making a character to do the job they think they should be doing.

Quote:
The fight was very unbalanced and not very fun for some players (including me). I told him really clearly to stop bashing everything in sight and leave some of the fun to the other players (which he didn't). When you play PFS, you have to take other players into consideration.

Why should he listen to you? What makes your judgement about whats fair and who's a jerk better than his? What makes your fun more important than his? Moreover, why should he let YOU decide how effective HIS character gets to be?

Quote:
I agree with you that the game is combat focused but it shouldn't be combat-only. IMHO, every challenge is an encounter. And the whole point of being a Lamplighter is to be able to pull your own weight, no matter what the encounter is.During an encounter in which social skills are required, if you min-maxed in combat, chances are you can't pull your own weight, leaving everything to your teammates for the rest of the encounter.

Is Sir Clanks a lot the paladin with the dex of a one eyed woolly mammoth not pulling his weight when the rogue picks a lock? Is Oblivious the wizard not pulling his weight when the eagle eyed ranger is tracking people through the woods?

How is that any different than letting the party face do the talking?

Quote:
Just as a purely social character doesn't have a place in PFS because you let the other players handle bigger encounters (because you raise the CR), you have to take that into consideration when you play a more combat-oriented character. Even a fighter with a cha of -2 could still put a rank in intimidate and bring it to +2, more than enough to intimidate most people or help another character achieve a tough challenge. This is what is being asked about being a lamplighter.

The vast difference is that everyone gets a turn in combat, everyone needs to participate in combat on their turn. Having two people dealing 20 points of damage a round is twice as effective as having 1 person dealing 20 points of damage a round: the effects are additive.

Social challenges (which are completely separate mechanically from having fun role playing-though there is some correlation) are not. You don't add the parties diplomacy rolls together. Boogerpickers lack of social graces matter to Debonaire's chances of wooing the countess as much as Sir Clanksalot's dex matters to his ability to pick a lock.

Quote:
Sometime I have a great time and sometimes I don't and it is usually because of the puck hog (or min-maxer if you will).

Everyone gets the puck. Everyone gets their turn in combat to do something. If you're not happy with how much you get done I think you need to look at your own character.

Quote:
I might be old fashioned but I like my encounters to be more than just "fireball + quickened fireball"... The Lamplighters, to me, offer a way to make sure noone hogs the puck, that everybody is considerate to each other around the table and not overly specialized. You can still be a good player, and if you're a great one, just make sure to pass the puck once in a while. And if your only skill is being good at slapshots, then the game will be very repetitive (Jimbo passes the puck to Big Hog, Big Hog slapshots and scores... again...)

I see at least as much potential for it to go the other way. When theres traps, its rogue time. When theres a bright glowy swirly vortex of doom, its wizard time. When we need to socialize its bard time.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rule 1: don't be a jerk.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

BNW, the point isn't that every player is required to have social skills to be successful; we just think that a well-rounded Pathfinder has some, even if they are not necessary. We also feel that a well-rounded Pathfinder participates in roleplaying in addition to smacking things.

The Exchange 5/5

I am not really sure if I have anything to contribute to this discussion. I kind of feel like I'm standing on the play ground watching a group of kids discuss who they are going to let into their play group... but here's some food for thought

I know a player that has several PCs that people would call Min/Maxed.

He has one PC that has combat skills. As he says "this guy kills things. Fast. He can't do anything else. Just kill things." RPing? Yeah, the PC has no social skills. THe player RP's that to the max. The character will spend most of a game "sharpening weapons" - some new players who have never played with this guy think the player is shy. He's just in character. No social skills, and very little perception. When it comes to doing his faction missions, he often fails. Why? No skills, and he doesn't take help from the other players - because his PC wouldn't.

When he runs his Armored Combat Cleric - he is fast and talkative. In everyones face, in every monsters face and very out going (high CHA). After all - he has social skills and this is reflected in his play.

When he runs his Blaster Caster, he's Mr. Know-it-all, master of all knowledge. And SO - he gets on your nerves. Kind of like Sherlock Holms.

And whatever PC he runs, most people enjoy playing with him. When he sits at a table, he never wants for a group.

And his PC's are Min/Maxed to the hilt. "Playing up? sure - XXX is in the party. We got this."

But you know what? I don't think he has a PC that can join this group - they are not GENERIC enough. Each are perhaps to specialized.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

The min-maxing requirement will lessened or removed in the final version of the guidelines. Again, the point of this is NOT to exclude anybody, it's to cultivate a culture of roleplay-intensive players.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

so... we are trying to change player habits (the way people play), by putting requirements on PCs?

I do not understand.

IMHO, A player who is fun to play with will be fun with a PC that doesn't meet the requirements. A player who is NOT fun to play with will still be a problem no matter what PC you give them.

Silver Crusade 4/5

I'll second Nosig's post. Low charisma =/= low RP.

For example, I recently made a new Lore Warden Fighter for PFS. The main things Lore Wardens get that normal fighters don't are bonuses to combat maneuvers and intelligence based skills. My character is optimized to be a tripper and a knowledge skill monkey, playing up the archetype. Straight up damage is his backup plan in combat when he faces something untrippable, but he's not a massively optimized damage dealer. He is a massively optimized tripper (I'm shooting for +16 to trip at level 3).

When designing this PC, my original stat array idea had no dump stats - I kept wis and cha at 10, and boosted the physical stats and int to go with the character concept. I was a little unhappy settling for 17 str after racial for a front line melee fighter, and I didn't really have an idea for the personality of the character yet.

In looking over skills, I realized that even though he'll get enough ranks to be pretty good at the knowledge skills, I won't have quite enough ranks per level to be a true skill monkey. So trying to be good at social skills would be stretching the PC too thin. That gave me the idea of just forgetting social skills, dumping cha down to 8 to get the extra points to have an 18 str, and giving the PC an arrogant know-it-all personality. Once I settled on that personality and decided to skip the social skills, I ended up dumping the cha down to 7 to boost wis to 12, just for kicks. It was one of those "why not?" things, which will help will saves and fit the "smart fighter" personality.

I haven't played this PC yet, but I can tell you that even though he won't be helpful in social situations, he won't be boring either. He has the knowledge skills to be useful in non-combat situations, despite being a fighter. And I've got a personality idea that should make him fun to play, if sometimes annoying.

Oddly, this is my PC who is most likely to want to join the Lamplighters, based on his personality. I might have others, too, but this one's the most perfect fit out of my PCs. But his 7 cha and -2 diplomacy don't meet the original requirements.

1/5

nosig wrote:


And his PC's are Min/Maxed to the hilt. "Playing up? sure - XXX is in the party. We got this."

But you know what? I don't think he has a PC that can join this group - they are not GENERIC enough. Each are perhaps to specialized.

Specialisation is for insects.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Fromper wrote:
I'll second Nosig's post. Low charisma =/= low RP.

Every longshanks run from Garble!

The Exchange 5/5

Funky Badger wrote:
nosig wrote:


And his PC's are Min/Maxed to the hilt. "Playing up? sure - XXX is in the party. We got this."

But you know what? I don't think he has a PC that can join this group - they are not GENERIC enough. Each are perhaps to specialized.

Specialisation is for insects.

we'll mention when you need a doctor... sorry, no specialist for you!

I have always felt that the oldest RP game that PF is in the style of, was a game of specialists. The basic concept of CLASSES is one of specialists. If you don't want to be a specialist - you are in the wrong game (there are several others that DON'T have classes...).

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

Sure, but just because you're a specialist doesn't give you reason to sit there with a dumb look on your face until somebody says "Roll Initiative." I agree that high CHA isn't necessasry for RP, but there are SO many people who refuse to talk because of it.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Long ago, on a different thread (About mission briefings) I posted the following example of the start of a game - the way I would like to see mission briefings go. The Judge looks over what he has in the was of PCs at his table and makes a note or two and does the following...

"Your team has been assigned Sigmond here (pointing at the wizard PC) as we are expecting you to need someone adapt at the arcane arts, and knowledge skills. Grod and Tarrick the Bazerk (pointing at the two Max Damage PCs at the table) should supply any... forceful backup you need, and Lord Patterson (pointing at the Face PC) should be able to get you thru any Diplomatic entanglements you encounter. Jane the Knife was assigned - well Jane why don't you tell them what your special skills you bring to the group are?" (Perhaps each of the players would supply why they think they were assigned this mission in character. "I kill thinks..." "I'm here to keep you guys alive"... etc.)

This is by it's nature, a game of specialists. Is it possible to mess up by being over specialized? Sure - but it's more likely to be a problem of Players rather than PCs.

Think back to your last game with some ... difficult player. Mentally have each player pass thier PCs to the guy to their right. Now play thru some of the encounters. The DP is still ... difficult, he's just doing it with a different PC.

1/5

nosig wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:
nosig wrote:


And his PC's are Min/Maxed to the hilt. "Playing up? sure - XXX is in the party. We got this."

But you know what? I don't think he has a PC that can join this group - they are not GENERIC enough. Each are perhaps to specialized.

Specialisation is for insects.

we'll mention when you need a doctor... sorry, no specialist for you!

Glorified plumbers.

Neat example though, it takes 5 years vocational training to become a doctor. During the same time as that you could (at the same time):
-gain a black-belt in a martial art
-travel the world
-become an international sports star
-raise a family
etc.

That's not specialisation.

The Exchange 5/5

Netopalis wrote:
Sure, but just because you're a specialist doesn't give you reason to sit there with a dumb look on your face until somebody says "Roll Initiative." I agree that high CHA isn't necessasry for RP, but there are SO many people who refuse to talk because of it.

Just because the PC has a CHA of 10 does not mean the PLAYER is going to do anything more than if his PC has a CHA of 7.

Grand Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
Netopalis wrote:
Sure, but just because you're a specialist doesn't give you reason to sit there with a dumb look on your face until somebody says "Roll Initiative." I agree that high CHA isn't necessasry for RP, but there are SO many people who refuse to talk because of it.
Just because the PC has a CHA of 10 does not mean the PLAYER is going to do anything more than if his PC has a CHA of 7.

Garble talks! :-)

And then pretty lady tell Garble to be quiet. :-(

And then GARBLE BITE PRETTY LADY! >:-)

And then stupid longshanks with sword poke Garble. :-(

And then...

"GARBLE! SHUT UP!" "Porter! Put the blanket back over his cage. We've had enough of his singing for one adventure."

The Exchange 5/5

A post about PLAYER CHA
.
My wife is a bit shy. She enjoys playing, and for the right group she can really come out of her shell. When she does, everyone at the table enjoys her PC and her gaming.

Because she often runs a PC that has some CHA (a cleric or sorcerer for example), sometimes she plays a Diplomat - and maybe even puts a few ranks in it.

She has practiced a little speach that goes "My character is much more diplomatic than I am. I would like her to convense (insert NPC here) to (insert what we need to know here)." She has this speech printed on the back of her table tent where she can read it when she needs to, when she finds herself overcome with shyness.

I've seen judges "hold her to the task" and say "What EXACTLY does your PC say?" and watch helplessly while a fun game turned into a painful experience for her. Anyone else trying to help her (me, or any other player) was hushed by the judge ("you're character isn't there!" or "let her play her own character!") while he stared at her struggle to say anything. Needless to say, we never played for that judge again.

This is a lady who can get up in church and sing solo. But, sometimes she is shy, and needs to just roll the dice. Sometimes she just needs to "sit there with a dumb look on her face until somebody says "Roll Initiative."" She's developed a few tools (the note on her table tent) to help her play better in a group. Maybe the guy not talking is having fun too?

5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Options at my table:

1) Give me the basics of what you're asking for and we can just roll dice. No extra bonuses.
2) Try to act it up in character and then roll some dice. This is often with some circumstance bonuses and rarely with penalties.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Kyle Baird wrote:

Options at my table:

1) Give me the basics of what you're asking for and we can just roll dice. No extra bonuses.
2) Try to act it up in character and then roll some dice. This is often with some circumstance bonuses and rarely with penalties.

(NOT a criticism here, just a question to start people thinking...)

If I brake out a set of lock picks and RP disarming a trap can I get circumstance bonuses on my rolls?

If I give a spririted, exciting discription of what my attack was like, can I get a +1 bonus to hit? How about if I run thru some martial arts katas?

This has always bothered me. I do the RP part of the game up big - esp. the social skills. (I have a PC very who is good at the Art of Seduction). I do this because it's FUN. sometimes the judge give me "circumstance bonuses" - and to tell the truth, sometimes it bothers me. I didn't talk in the funny voice and flirt with an NPC to get a BONUS - I did it because it was FUN.

This is also why I like to Take 10 on many skills - I can make my RP match my roll - if I know what my roll is first.

Judge: "Make a Perception check."
me: "Huh?... I take 10, got an 8"

edited: that's another example. If I as the judge have to ask you twice to make a Perception check, should I impose a -1 because you failed to percieve that I wanted a check the first time? If the Player rolls a Perception check BEFORE I ask for it, do I give him a +1 because he was perceptive enough to know I wanted one before I asked?

The Exchange

*checks newly cleaned up character sheet*

Sweet Strumpets! I qualify!

Now I just need to figure out where in the order of precedence "Lamplighter" comes, so my herald can add it in...

Scarab Sages 5/5

Arden wrote:

*checks newly cleaned up character sheet*

Sweet Strumpets! I qualify!

Now I just need to figure out where in the order of precedence "Lamplighter" comes, so my herald can add it in...

First, so that he can see to read the rest?

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Katisha wrote:
If I...?

Quite possibly, but you won't know. I don't announce when I'm giving anyone a circumstance bonus for their role play. I may mention it after the fact to encourage more of it depending on the situation. But know this, if you're at my table, you're having fun, you're adding to the fun of everyone else at the table, you better believe that you're going to have bonuses for the things you're doing.

I want players to be more descriptive. I want players to come up with crazy things. I want players to BE their character. To think like their character. To think like a PATHFINDER. But am I going to give them a pass or make something trivial because they're acting up their character? Of course not (see the 3,744 posts about me as a "nice" and "easy" GM).

4/5 *

Some interesting conversations - love it! Just want to bring back a couple of key bits of info for the tl;dr folks:

1. No mechanical benefit for this, because that makes it s Thing(tm), instead of just a thing. This is an in-character group of people espousing a certain belief - there's no reason for everyone to be able to (or want to) join. It's a bit like a code of conduct, but non-paladin related. It is slightly elitist by its nature, but for the goal of demonstrating what we believe to be a worthy model of character development. Often, new players get "helped" by the min-maxers in their build, and never hear about other ways to make your character that don't involve extreme specialization. This will serve as a visible example of that other style.

2. Not all characters will qualify for this organization, or the organization abandons its values. Someone suggested a similar group with different goals, and that's what I would suggest.

3. My out-of-character goal was to encourage people to consider versatility, resourcefulness, and adaptability to be as important as mechanical combat. A secondary goal is to give players a more useful character to role-play in non-combat situations. A +2 diplomacy means you can talk all you want, roll to Aid Another, and not cause problems. A score of -2 encourages you to keep your mouth shut.

If people see a Lamplighter badge, and then see that that character was effective in lots of situations that they couldn't handle, maybe they'll consider different choices for their next character. Maybe not. It's totally up to them, without the Lamplighters forcing anything on them. We serve to be an example of a particular philosophy of PFS play, without judgement that other styles are badwrongfun.

Anyway, keep up the discussion - I am running the last part of Eyes of the Ten tonight, but after that I'll go through the responses and make a second draft of the Creed.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Scott Young wrote:
Often, new players get "helped" by the min-maxers in their build, and never hear about other ways to make your character that don't involve extreme specialization. This will serve as a visible example of that other style.

I've only skimmed this thread, and it seems cool, but the above couple of sentences kind of struck me.

So, we want to show new players an example of how great our method of gaming can be, by standing apart from them and making them wish they were more like us.

Meanwhile, the min-maxers show new players how great their method of gaming can be, by taking time out to actively help the new players make their characters.

Hmm.....

The Exchange

Have we a drawing or example of what a lamplighter badge looks like?

4/5 *

Ron Lundeen wrote:
These Lamplighter meta-faction requirements dovetail quite well with some of the "Hurt Me Plenty" PFS meta-rules from about a year ago over here. Off to build a character meeting both sets!

Hey Ron, these were a big inspiration to this idea - I just decided I needed something "in-game" to make it more interesting to me. I always build characters like that, so I'm really just looking for other people who do as well - I seem to be outnumbers by two-dump-stat maximum damage characters with no backstory beyond what magic items they bought on which chronicle. It's hard to be the only character in a group that knows what country he's from.

4/5 *

Katisha - there are entire books of feats, abilities, etc. for combat types. There are very few such feats for roleplaying - it has always been left to GM's discretion. If you just read the books, you could think that the game is a miniatures combat game, with little need for anything that doesn't do damage. This initiative is to encourage Pathfinders to be non-combat effective as well... since that's the fluff of the whole campaign. If this was "just" a Pathfinder RPG game, this wouldn't be an issue, but we are all supposed to be members of the Pathfinder Society, and Pathfinders should be able to do lots of stuff!

(Seriously... how we can go through 3 years of training at the Grand Lodge, and some people still come out unable to read or do more than one thing, is beyond me. Maybe every PC should just get a Pathfinder "template" due to training: 4 extra skill points, to be spent on certain skills like Knowledge or Diplomacy or Disguise or whatever.)

Jiggy - the idea is for new folks to want to make Lamplighter characters because they see how cool they are to play. It's an interesting corollary here in Winnipeg that most of the folks who espouse the Lamplighter style of play, are also Venture-Captains, Venture-Lieutenants, regular GMs, store coordinators... so often the new players are "helped" by other folks for that reason. Plus, if they come to the forums, they certainly see that the game is all about finding the best combo or loophole to be exploited. So, I'm trying to make the other point of view more visible.

Again, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. That's why there is no mechanical benefit to joining - so the only people who join are the people who agree and want to join.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

Suggestion: Maybe the requirements could be story based?

1) Know where your character is from.
2) Know why your character is a member of the faction that he is in.
3) Know why your character is a Pathfinder.
4) Know what diety your character follows, if any, and why.
5) Know what your character's alignment is and how that affects their decisions.
6) Work all traits into your character's story and personality.
7) Represent all of the above accurately in your portrayal of your character.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Scott Young wrote:
(Seriously... how we can go through 3 years of training at the Grand Lodge, and some people still come out unable to read

I didn't think it was mechanically possible in Pathfinder rules to be illiterate.

Quote:
Jiggy - the idea is for new folks to want to make Lamplighter characters because they see how cool they are to play. It's an interesting corollary here in Winnipeg that most of the folks who espouse the Lamplighter style of play, are also Venture-Captains, Venture-Lieutenants, regular GMs, store coordinators... so often the new players are "helped" by other folks for that reason.

If the Lamplighters are too busy coordinating/GMing to help new players make non-min-maxed PCs, then when are the newbies going to see the Lamplighter PCs?

If you're playing instead of GMing (thus making your Lamplighter PC visible in the first place), then doesn't that also mean you have time to help the newbies make their PCs? (Or at least give them some advice about versatility and whatnot?)

I love your goal. The PC of mine I'm currently happiest with has no stat below 10 (even after racial penalties), has a full backstory, and has multiple competencies. I always try to nudge newbies more toward this style of character building.

I just worry about the methods. If the Lamplighters are trying to look as appealing as possible, great. But if all the tangible, practical help is coming from the min-maxers, that's who the newbies will listen to. Especially when the people who aren't helping them try to show how cool it is to reject the tenets of those who do help them.

I'm trying to refrain from drawing an analogy involving some of the churches from the Bible Belt where I grew up, so hopefully you see my point.

Grand Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
I didn't think it was mechanically possible in Pathfinder rules to be illiterate.

It not. Stupid Zey make Garble look at stolen Pathfinder words. Says Garble have to or Garble get thrown into red blanket hanging from wall, never to come back. Garble not understand.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I fear that most of my PCs will fail to qualify, due to not having enough combat skills. (I do have a 9th level Face character who has only ever done damage twice - both times to herself. Many of my PCs are not very combat focused. I've found many players enjoy the combat, so I just let them have it, I'll wait for the parts I like.).

Sorry - guess my PCs just are not cut out to "light lamps".

51 to 100 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / The Lamplighters - discussion forum All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.