|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that not everyone has fun the same way as you. I share a similar disappointment, but I try and remind myself that my job is to make sure the players are having fun. If having "fun" means they steamroll over the encounters and abuse the NPCs, then I shouldn't try and foil that. You may be recognizing a generation gap. Anyway, it's not me vs. them. It's entertainment. I blame the system that has become more mechanical since Edition 3.0, it's shifted the emphasis away from story and role-play.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually okay with players discussing tactics in what seems like an out-of-character fashion in most cases, and here's why:
Although we (the players/GM) have only been sitting together as a group for somewhere between 5 minutes and a few hours (depending on how far into the scenario we are), the characters have usually spent hours or days or even weeks travelling together before the first combat. We usually don't roleplay all that downtime, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Were the PCs all just sitting in stony silence during the trip, trying really hard to avoid thinking about what each other's strengths and weaknesses and tactical preferences might be? Of course not.
We're talking about trained professionals here. Just because the map on the table is currently displaying a half-finished battle doesn't mean that the tactical discussion is either happening in-character at that moment, or metagaming; rather, it's more like we're now figuring out things that our characters already got sorted and planned before the fight ever started.
Obviously, things change if the discussions reach the point of threatening to go over time limits or if the specific details are things the characters would never have thought of, but in my experience those situations are incredibly rare — the so-called "metagaming" is almost always just the players catching up with what the characters already know.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At earlier levels, with newer players, I encourage the discussion of tactics, because I want the players to learn. Roleplaying is lots of fun, but a TPK because no one focus-fired on the BBEG is less so.
Later, I start to enforce more what can and can't be communicated in the heat of battle.
Either way, I always encourage the players to discuss their characters' tactical strengths and needs immediately before or after the mission briefing so everyone can try to act accordingly ("I'm an archer, so please leave me a clear shot at the baddies"/"I'm a rogue, so please try to move into flanking position whenever you can" etc.)
Similarly, at earlier levels, I'll ask leading questions ("are you casting defensively?" "is an 18 a critical threat for the sword you're using?"). At higher levels, I ramp up the accountability.
If it really bothers you, have fun with it. Let the bad guys hear all of their planning and machinations so they can try to counter them:
Mook: "The wizard's trying to drop a fireball! Everyone spread out!"
And/or have your mooks painstakingly discuss all of their tactics as they take their turns to raise the players' awareness of what they're doing:
Mook: "Wait! Five-foot-step over there after you attack so I can flank on my turn!"
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I really think you're right on the generation gap. My older players were the ones who kept in character or had more of my view on the game. It really was the younger ones who made the game feel kina dull.
Consider framing this a bit more objectively, such as "the younger ones who were more focused on aspect X". Equating other people's fun with "making the game feel kinda dull" can sometimes come across rather offensively, like they're playing the game wrong. Think of the reverse: suppose a player who was eager to use the fancy new combat spell he just picked up this level was bored by your in-character banter, and said that your fun was what "made the game feel kinda dull". Would you accept that as a fair statement, or would you feel like you were being criticized just for liking certain parts of the game?
|
Now one reason i have a problem with this is it is a role playing game. I like having people act in character doing what they do, and feeling the consequences of their actions.
Huh. And you think that for some reason, its out of character for a ragtag group of adventuring professionals who are putting their lives in each others hands to actually communicate with each other?
Hell when i was a player character halfling monk I had to deal with the fundamentals of my race/class conflicting and i think i did good doing that for the role play effort.
Where's the newspaper they keep for when i get growly...
This is the stormwind fallacy. Its a gamer specific form of the either or fallacy where you assume that role playing and roll playing are two opposite ends of the spectrum and you do one by ignoring the other.
Its horse puckey.
You are not a good role player because your character was mechanically bad. Making a useless character does not make you a good role player. Good role playing makes you a good role player, whether you do it on a character that can't even take the dwarf's pony sparkles or Og the beauty school drop out who can behead an orc with one hand and hold the skull in his hand for hamlets soliloquy with the other.
Now i know we now live in a digital age where the games like WOW and the like have ruined this aspect of the game(though wow role play servers do exsist thats off topic).
You act like this is a new problem. Its existed LOOOONG before wow. For wow to be the cause it would have to time travel back to the early 80s at least.
How do you get the players at you're tables to recognize this and to remember to have fun at the same time?
You don't. They're adventuring professionals. If the player can think of the action looking at the abstraction of the battlemat then they're characters, seeing the real thing, should be able to come up with the plan. The barbarian should know to keep out of the archers shooting gallery, So if Carl tries to shoo bob out of the way its because The barbarian SHOULD be seeing someone standing there with a drawn bow.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sorry if i made an offensive wording as was not my intention. And in answer to you're question, No, I wouldn't feel offended by such.Would you accept that as a fair statement, or would you feel like you were being criticized just for liking certain parts of the game?
I figured you probably didn't mean it badly, so I just wanted to give you a heads-up about your wording. :) Better to say something like "I don't enjoy focusing on aspect X of the game" than "Focusing on aspect X of the game has a negative impact on the game". One voices your own preferences, while the other condemns the preferences of others. And given that the gaming community at large has a bit of a running history with that topic, folks whose preferences are the most common targets of such attitudes can sometimes be a bit sensitive or quick to put their defenses up if it sounds like they're about to take another beating. And of course that's not conducive to getting your question(s) answered. ;)
|
One thing that my friend Jeff Mahood started doing to curb tabletalk was to encourage it at certain times. At the top of each round, he allows people to talk about their plans with each other, and then we go through each person's turn with relative silence.
It speeds up the game, and while there's still this filthy awful metagaming, there's a cap on how much there is and how quickly the party can react to things.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I don’t like about the OOC talk is that it takes up a lot of time, time that could be better used roleplaying, doing more interesting things, or even finishing earlier.
Some OOC chatting before (or even during) battle is OK, because we presume off screen that the PCs have spoken about tactics, and it’s stuff that that we really don’t want to have “on screen” unless it’s needed. So I’m OK with that. Basically what Jiggy said.
However, ideally I’d rather have 6 seconds of in-character talking during each PCs turn, and this is the baseline “norm” to me.
When there’s so much metagaming (and calculating bonuses you should have pre-calculated before it was your turn) that each player’s combat turn takes 2 minutes, it’s a problem.
Between metagaming and slow combat turns, games that should take only 2-3 hours now take 4-5 hours, and 4-5 hour games now take 6+ hours. My home group has this problem. We have limited time and we don’t like to go OT. I've been urging them to be faster, but I probably need to sit down and be a better teacher.
Also, if there’s an extreme amount of metagaming, it can get to the point where it’s very unenjoyable for me. It’s not JUST about the players having fun; it’s also about me having fun as well. I’m not an automated machine, and if it's not fun for me, I don't have to GM. fyi, my tolerance for metagaming is very high, so it's very very bad if it bothers me.
|
|
But Jason, if it's rising to the point of being an irritant and making it un-fun, perhaps a quick "guys, can we cut this down to something closer to what the characters can see and do in 6 seconds" would go a long way toward steering the game in a better direction?
I've said that a long time ago and at least once each session as well. This results in no in-character comments (which is desired imo), and then bursts of OOC talk when they need to. Or whatever. Something that 100% breaks immersion from the game. For me, not fun.
I've let it go because several players are new to the game. But it's been awhile now, so it should end now.
Bonus calculation is good to do as much ahead as possible, but not everyone has picked up the tricks of rapid damage die counting, or rapid bonus figuring, and those bonuses can change as you try to account for changing circumstances.
That's why I need to teach more.
And those are 2 minute turns at tier 1-5, not subtier 8-9. (Ever see a TWF rogue player roll each D20 and D6, one at a time? And then lose count?) Comparatively, I can take a 5 second turn at level 10. Same martial PC.
But that has nothing to do with OOC talk, although it also sucks away valuable time and makes otherwise good games drag on and run overtime.
|
|
In regards to OOC conversation and metagaming, I actually see a lot of OOC conversation triggered by the players trying hard NOT to metagame. I get questions like "Would my character have any way of seeing/knowing this {thing that I as a player can clearly see}?" or "I know what that monster is, but would my character be likely to know that?" and the always-classic "Are you going to say anything about that perception check you just made? If not, that changes what my character is going to do."
Trying to confirm whether an action is possible is a real-life time suck, but perfectly reasonable in "character time". The character should know instantly whether he could fit in the space that's right next to him even though the player can't tell whether that's a stray pen mark or an actual thing.
You have the same problem with knowledge skill checks. Identifying the monster takes seconds in character time, but getting information from the GM and figuring out how to communicate that information in character takes several minutes in real time. Sure, it's faster to say "It has DR 8/bludgeoning!" but "Last time I fought these, I was only able to hurt them with my war hammer. The long sword and short sword were useless!" is actually in character.
So do you punish the guy who's trying to stay in character, even if it takes him longer to do his turn?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OOC discussion is perfectly fine. In some cases it is even encouraged, especially in difficult encounters.
For me, I draw the line when OOC discussions becomes, 1) Other players telling a player how he/she should play his/her character and 2) When OOC discussions starts talking way too long, delaying the game, especially during combat.
For 1) I would remind the player, that it is his/her character to play, and ask the player, what his character would do now, in the given situation.
For 2) I would remind players that, in combat turns, only a short amount of time has pass in actual "game time". Therefore their characters may not have the time yet to analyse the situation in depth, yet.
No matter the situation, if too much time is spend in OOC or IC discussion, just remind players that they are on a time limit in PFS games and it is in the best interest of everyone, to move things along.
Well guess that makes sense. Cause i was like woah... I was the biggest damage dealer in my group, besides the mage. Sad when the archer is out-damaging the melee fighter.
Halfling Zen Archer works well mechanically. I assumed, as BNW probably did, that "fundamentals of my race/class conflicting" implied mechanical conflicts like you'd see trying to build a melee halfling monk. Small size and strength penalties are pretty crippling for an already relatively weak melee class.
Combine that and it sounded like you were building ineffective characters is good for role-play.
Its not surprising to someone familiar with the classes and powers available in the PFRPG. Zen Archers are one of the most twink archetypes you can get.
Just let people play the way they want.
Again, we all have our playstyles. I would not want to play at a table if I am not only expected, but forced to play a certain way. For me, I enjoy the talk of strategy. Ultimately, it's still a game, you're playing to have fun. And I've seen several instances where both Role-players and "roll-players" get along fine and have fun.
On that note, I would have to say PFS is kind of limited in role-playing. It's hard to run a scenario and also do good role-playing. A home game is much better for that. Not to say PFS shouldn't have roleplaying, but it's kind of hard to fit in 4 hours.
(Then again, it really seems like our region doesn't fall under a lot of the common problems I see on the forums. Everyone gets along fine outside of personality conflicts, NOT game style conflicts. We also don't force people to play up or down, although that could be because we all have varying leveled characters, and we generally discuss what tier we are doing, who's playing what, etc.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just let people play the way they want.
Again, we all have our playstyles. I would not want to play at a table if I am not only expected, but forced to play a certain way. For me, I enjoy the talk of strategy. Ultimately, it's still a game, you're playing to have fun. And I've seen several instances where both Role-players and "roll-players" get along fine and have fun.
I agree..
Remember that most of your characters are Pathfinders that (1) have gone through some sort of basic "academy" or "boot camp" type experience or otherwise earned a slot in the organization (2) would have some basic familiarity with combat tactics and stacking [tank, polearm/reach, ranged, mage, rear guard] and (3) would probably plan on how they would do things before they do it [think SWAT teams upon entering a room and quickly making a plan to make dynamic entry, despite never seeing it before].
If I have a core group (fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue) at my table and we're walking up to a dungeon, I already have a basic "battle plan":
Fighter, rush up and hack at the BBEG.
Cleric, bless, channel against any undead, or tank BBEG.
Wizard, either buff us, get an area effect, or do direct damage.
Rogue, get ready to sneak attack or use ranged on obvious caster.
You can't tell me that these guys, running around all other the place for hours of game time (even if it's seconds of real time) wouldn't come up with SOME strategy..
At my tables, I'm all for strategy sessions unless it disrupts the flow of the game or people start arguing..
|
I'm an old time role player at heart and I must say that I have been somewhat turned off from PFS play due to the emphasis placed on tactics. For example, at times I have been criticized for not setting up an opponent to be flanked by another player, like it's an expectation that every character is going to act like a GI Joe operative.
I don't mind people wanting to improve their chances to succeed, but let it go. Rarely is one maneuver so critical that it requires this kind of discussion. Play the game. Have fun. Don't worry about every little detail at the cost of breaking character.
If everyone acts and fights as a highly trained, well oiled machine, then the characters cease to be individuals, with all the quirks and foibles that entails. That's where the real enjoyment is for me, the characters and their unique interactions with each other and the environment. A little unexpected randomness or contrary thinking injects surprise and excitement into an encounter. Approaching every encounter like a military operation is a buzz kill for me and the game quickly loses its allure at that point. I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade. Just putting in my two cents.
|
|
My former home-group knows the "dance of the desert flower." It is in reference to the flanking maneuver with respect to my desert-dervish type PC who was heavily reliant on flanking to be effective in combat. After that, it kinda became an accepted term :-)
I think it is reasonable to expect the characters to have discussed general tactics during their downtime. Things like preferences for flanking, spacing, formations, triggers for healing, etc., but like the OP, I dislike very specific meta-talk. Things like, "you move to [this] square, I'll move to [this] square, and then the [wizard] can drop a color spray on the diagonal, hitting all the baddies and missing us." That is waaay too battle specific and if the players do such, the GM should absolutely take advantage of said info. I've been know to rush, even provoking AoO, the back-row caster when he says, "everyone scatter after your next attack, I'll going to drop [blaster spell]." The baddies will think, "Really?" and focus fire to disrupt.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm an old time role player at heart and I must say that I have been somewhat turned off from PFS play due to the emphasis placed on tactics. For example, at times I have been criticized for not setting up an opponent to be flanked by another player, like it's an expectation that every character is going to act like a GI Joe operative.
I don't mind people wanting to improve their chances to succeed, but let it go. Rarely is one maneuver so critical that it requires this kind of discussion. Play the game. Have fun. Don't worry about every little detail at the cost of breaking character.
If everyone acts and fights as a highly trained, well oiled machine, then the characters cease to be individuals, with all the quirks and foibles that entails.
What if you were starting a campaign for which your GM told you that the PCs were going to be field operatives in an organization whose agents faced dangerous dungeons and fearsome foes on a regular basis, and who were only granted membership to said organization with the approval of three master trainers?
Because that's the PFS campaign.
Those who paid enough attention to campaign lore to match the setting by creating characters who act like the trained field agents they are, are not "breaking character" or "ceasing to be individuals". The PCs who "break character" or "cease to be individuals" are the ones who embody tired "wandering adventurer" tropes that make no sense in the context of this campaign.
That's where the real enjoyment is for me, the characters and their unique interactions with each other and the environment.
There are plenty of concepts that can have rich characterization AND involve a degree of tactical acumen.
I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade.
Nice to know that you don't consider it "raining on anyone's parade" to describe their playstyle as "breaking character", "ceasing to be individuals", or with hyperbole such as qualifying flanking as a tactic that only a GI Joe would bother to use. I was almost worried that turning some of your exact words back on you might be considered offensive; glad to know you won't feel rained-on by those descriptions.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing to keep in mind (IMO) is that if my tablemate isn't roleplaying as much as I'd like, how does it harm me? At worst I forget they're there, and I can go on with my own roleplaying. Sure, if the entire table is silent outside of combat then I might have a little less fun, but all it takes is a couple of engaged roleplayers to make the "fluffy" stuff really fun.
But if someone disengages from combat/tactics? That has the potential to get my PC killed (if it's egregious enough), or at least cost me more resources to survive. That's an issue.
So personally, I think people should (politely!) encourage each other toward proficient tactical capability (and themselves try to accept such guidance gracefully) but let people enjoy their own roleplaying preferences as they see fit.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't agree with that, far too easy to turn into playing someone else's character for them. All for offering advice if its asked for, otherwise let everyone play their own characters by themselves.One thing to keep in mind (IMO) is that if my tablemate isn't roleplaying as much as I'd like, how does it harm me? At worst I forget they're there, and I can go on with my own roleplaying. Sure, if the entire table is silent outside of combat then I might have a little less fun, but all it takes is a couple of engaged roleplayers to make the "fluffy" stuff really fun.
But if someone disengages from combat/tactics? That has the potential to get my PC killed (if it's egregious enough), or at least cost me more resources to survive. That's an issue.
So personally, I think people should (politely!) encourage each other toward proficient tactical capability (and themselves try to accept such guidance gracefully) but let people enjoy their own roleplaying preferences as they see fit.
That's where the "politely" comes in. I've played alongside a first-level rogue who, we eventually noticed, was making melee attacks by rolling a d20 and subracting 1. After some questions, we determined that he was high-DEX/low-STR (as one might expect for a rogue), but was unaware that Weapon Finesse existed. Upon hearing what it is, he got this big grin and said "I like the sound of THAT!"
I'm also thinking of things like "You know, if you just 5ft step there first, you'll be flanking and get +2 to your attack." Or even just a "Careful, that'll provoke." A far cry from playing their character for them; just making them aware of some possibilities.
|
A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterisation, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games. Roles you play as characters add energy, insight, differential ideas, AND FUN to the game. With the additions of voice overs, maps, figs, face cards, Crit decks and anything else your evil minded Game-master can think of, the game takes on a life of it's own (as long as GM and Players alike remembers that it's all fantasy base fake ROLE-Playing and has "NOTHING" to do with the happenings of the REAL WORLD) The dice add chance to both the PC and GM but it is the imagination of both that makes the magic of this 40+ year game fun for all.
The game needs to always be fun for all involved, yes some will have their bad times and best times in game play so "work it out or leave!" Rolling dice is fun BUT playing Make Believe is MUCH MUCH BETTER even for adults. Now a days players don't want flaws or problems in the characters and want the best of everything when it comes to their game, I say grow up and learn to ROLE-Play!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Rolling dice is fun BUT playing Make Believe is MUCH MUCH BETTER even for adults.
Oh goodie, now we're into explicitly-stated "my fun is better than yours" statements.
Now a days players don't want flaws or problems in the characters and want the best of everything when it comes to their game, I say grow up and learn to ROLE-Play!
And right on into "people who have fun differently than me need to grow up".
Funny, I rarely see comments like these from the optimizers/tactics-focused players towards the more roleplay-oriented players. It's usually the other way around, especially when it's this blatant.
The game needs to always be fun for all involved, yes some will have their bad times and best times in game play so "work it out or leave!" Rolling dice is fun BUT playing Make Believe is MUCH MUCH BETTER even for adults. Now a days players don't want flaws or problems in the characters and want the best of everything when it comes to their game, I say grow up and learn to ROLE-Play!
D&D, Pathfinder, and the like IS make believe for adults and I don't have a problem with that at all. The rules exist to prevent that one kid was immune to everything and his power was to have all the powers.
What role playing isn't is letting the dice and your stat sheet determine 100% everything that you can or can't do. There is a lot of wiggle room. For example I don't need knowledge religion to remember the last time my PC faced a devil that they were immune to fire. I don't need to make a survival check to know that I need food and water on a regular bases. I don't need diplomacy or intimidate or bluff to have a conversation with an NPC. I don't need high mental stats to come up with a clever plan. Your attributes do not account for the experiences you have gained. Your character sheet has an exp section, but that number does not express that one time I fought a dragon and its breath weapon was dangerous, but infrequent.
The rules add integrity to our games, but rule 0 exist for a reason.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is something called story telling games which have far less rules and rolls, where you talk a lot or even only.
I have one player coming from there and two others close to it.
One luckily understands Pathfinder very good and is also a very good player. The other is new to Pathfinder coming from GURPS, but liked his first PFS session and i think after a hot debate about railroading, making crunch and fluff meet and playing numbers he understood Pathfinder too.
The last one can be a bit of a problem sometimes, because his understanding of the rules and the difference between storytelling games and Pathfinder is not so clear to him. He likes Pathfinder, but often wants more freedom and roleplaying, not being limited by numbers or dice.
He build himself a heal oriented Life oracle with nearly no combat ability. In his first scenario there were plenty of problems with his faction mission, because he was getting very creative but he clearly hurt the mission success by it. So i tried to give him hints and guide him from telling a 20 minute story to describe his actions shortly and make a skill check to represent it. He succeeded, but felt railroaded.
If you ask me, that is clearly the point where roleplaying is getting in the way, because single characters get too much attention and simple (and often unheroic) tasks take away way too much game time (which is limited in PFS). I don´t want a pure numbers game, but i do think there is a very clear way to make the rolls meet the role. It needs some system knowledge and invested time to read the rules and abilities though. That is why i begun to ask my players, old and new, not only what they want to play, but also how they want to play it.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Poor tactics lead to PC deaths.
I prefer PCs don't die at my table (wounded? yes -- dead? no).
Because of this, I encourage people to plan things out and work as a team to defeat an encounter. I may occasionally chime in with things like: "and how does your barbarian know that spell? Your character is paralyzed, how are you communicating that?" but for a majority of the time, you can work on your tactics during combat. If discussion goes long and play starts to lull, I try to hurry them along. "A round is 6 seconds, pick it up folks."
I imagine that the discussion about getting flanking would equate to the fighter barking out positioning orders in the midst of combat, while the wuzard tells them to get to the back, so his fireball won't hit them. I'd imagine similar communication occurs in real world combat situations - I know it does in sports. And players that play as a team often win those games.
I'm having fun! Unrelated, but I'm super excited to play through EOTS this weekend!
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
I think sometimes metagaming and even as a GM explaining stuff to people or pointing something out is a great way for everybody involved to learn more about the game which will enhance gameplay greatly.
@Jiggy: I´m one to say something to some roleplayers, especially when i think they are getting too weird or take too much time. After all, i find this very often to be a way bending attention towards one player at the cost of others.
It´s just similar as wanting players to play out or come up with reasonable statements for a lot or maybe all skill roles, especially diplomacy and the like. Some are just not good at that.
For some, it might be better if they go take theater or acting classes or play comedia dell arte.