The Core Assumption


Pathfinder Society

Sczarni

Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play wrote:


The Core Assumption

The leadership of this organized play community assumes that you will use common sense in your interpretation of the rules. This includes being courteous and encouraging a mutual interest in play, not engaging in endles rules discussions. While you are enjoying the game, be considerate of the others at the table and don't let your actions keep them from having a good time too. In short, don't be a jerk.

Does The Core Assumption preclude players from playing abrasive characters in an effort to drive interparty roleplay? At what point does one player's fun impose too much on another player? What if players definition of what is enjoyable about a session differ? Does PFS frown on roleplaying emotional conflict between players? I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what is acceptable at a Society game as I am fairly new at it. I'm struggling to reconcile the concept that all the party members know and trust each other and are always working towards the same goal.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

Leanther wrote:
I'm struggling to reconcile the concept that all the party members know and trust each other and are always working towards the same goal.

It's better now. Back when factions had more relevance sometimes two party members had opposing missions and it wasn't possible for every member to receive their 2 Prestige Points. It will be interesting to see how Season 5 pits factions against one another.

There can still be diametrically opposed religions at the table, or other conflicts, but as long as the players themselves are mature enough to not let it get out of hand it can be fun.

Or not. PFS, like any social gathering, will have its good days and bad.

Grand Lodge 2/5 *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have to say that you've no need to reconcile it, as not only is it not assumed to be the case, it isn't the case.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

You will find thousands of posts spread across countless threads discussing (or arguing) religions, good vs evil, philosophy, cheating, thievery, lying, and just personality differences at the table.

But there's usually just three words that they all come down to:

EXPLORE! REPORT! COOPERATE!

Sczarni

At what point am I crossing the line though? My first Society character I conceived was rude and a bit of a party mooch. I had not purchased healing for myself by 3rd level and I was being accused of not being a team player. I thought this was very appropriate for the character concept I had in mind. I have since been told by members of the group I'm playing with that it is counter productive and unwelcome at the table. And I had the Core Assumption cited to me.

Sovereign Court 4/5

Personally, if you don't provide your own healing, that's fine. It's when you expect others to heal you because you refuse to buy healing in-character is where it becomes a problem. PC's have no obligation to heal anyone, even the healers. So if you die and no one is going to spend a Breath of Life on you, well, you've saved gold from not buying potions and wands, so hope you have enough. Because I doubt people will be jumping at the chance to Raise you for you.

Long and short of it: Don't want to heal yourself? Fine. Just don't expect others to do it.

3/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

If your character concept is "makes other people pay for his stuff," then yeah, you're going to annoy not just the other PCs, but the players as well. Remember that your character is supposed to be an agent of the Pathfinder Society, and one of their core tenets is to cooperate. So if your PC is a drag on the other players' resources, don't be surprised when he stops getting invited on missions, both in and out of character.

I have a rude, selfish, snobby character as well, but when combat starts, he knows that he needs the other party members to have his back, so he's still a team player.


There are some character concepts that work in a private game where the players and GM know each other well and understand the boundaries of roleplay versus real life. Sometime interparty friction, in-game, can drive excellent deep roleplay.

That said, PFS is not really a private game. If you play it at all outside your home group, you as the player need to take into account that you will be sitting at tables with every type of player you can imagine, each with their own habits, preferences, and tolerance for various things.

As such, abrasive or otherwise poor team-skills characters are not necessarily ideal in this setting. Not to say they are completely unworkable, but frankly the amount you'd need to "dial it back" to avoid antagonizing the other potentially complete strangers will result in a character that is at best just superficially greedy, abrasive, or otherwise unpleasant.

-j

Sczarni

My character concept was a Diplomacy user who manipulates the party as readily as the npcs we encounter. I don't personally feel that I have not been contributing to the success of the party. But I recognize that my perception of the situation is subject to my personal bias. That was why I came on here to get an idea of what other player's expectations were and their interpretation of what is acceptable at a Society table.

Paizo Employee 4/5 Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a few characters who are grouchy, rude, and/or prejudiced. When I sit down at a table to play one of those characters, I am sure to be extra friendly as we're doing character introductions. I alert everyone out-of-character that [character] can be grouchy/rude/prejudiced and that I as a player have no trouble dialing it back or directing that character's coarse personality away from another's PC if a player requests. I think it helps that my socially coarse characters also tend to be good team players in combat.

As I play [character], I keep an eye on how the players are reacting to ensure that [character]'s idiosyncrasies err more on the side of amusing. Sometimes I'll even describe [character]'s facial expression as a way to give others fair warning if they want to keep him quiet, which is a nicer way of playing a rude character than just blurting out lines that start combats. For example:

GM (portraying an NPC worth impressing): I do not even know you, and I have little reason to trust you. What makes you fools so much better than me?
Nobody responds for a few seconds.
John: Yarehg (dwarf) gets that "Oh I'll give you something to be impressed about" look, which isn't too different from his "Please step closer and tell that short joke one more time for me…real slow" expression.
The other players fall over each other to begin talking to the NPC so that Yarehg doesn't have to.

That pre-game heads-up is a polite way to play a rude character.

Liberty's Edge

While you are welcome to play a manipulative user who attempts to drive your fellow player's characters to actions beneficial to yourself, were I to find myself at your table, it would take more than you showing me the results of your Diplomacy check to shift my behaviors. And I would very quickly lose interest in playing with you again, from what I gather of your presentation, here. Perhaps in play it comes off differently, but perhaps not.
Additionally, too many Organized Play scenarios end up running long or getting rushed for me to be too interested in a whole lot of "interparty emotional roleplay". A slight peppering for roleplay flavor can be interesting, but from the way you have presented it here, it sounds (to me) like bickering and conniving is your main outlet of enjoyment at the table. And THAT would send me right off the map if so.

Scarab Sages 4/5

Leanther wrote:
My character concept was a Diplomacy user who manipulates the party as readily as the npcs we encounter. I don't personally feel that I have not been contributing to the success of the party. But I recognize that my perception of the situation is subject to my personal bias. That was why I came on here to get an idea of what other player's expectations were and their interpretation of what is acceptable at a Society table.

As a player, I would not look fondly on someone trying to play (manipulate the play of) my character through diplomacy. As a GM, I doubt that I would allow the manipulation of PCs by other PCs through the diplomacy mechanic (except when mutually agreed by players, would this fall under the PvP clause?).

Party mooches can usually get away with it if they bounce around groups, but after a while with the same players, annoyance is a typical minimal reaction.

In general, unless you play with the same group of people regularly, the PFS setting may not be the best place to push limits of inter-personal player interactions, whether done through an in-character conversations, or real conversations at the table. Character personalities that push inter-action norms/limits should be well vetted to the group by the player (as John pointed out above), or negative reactions should be expected.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brett Cochran wrote:
Leanther wrote:
My character concept was a Diplomacy user who manipulates the party as readily as the npcs we encounter. I don't personally feel that I have not been contributing to the success of the party. But I recognize that my perception of the situation is subject to my personal bias. That was why I came on here to get an idea of what other player's expectations were and their interpretation of what is acceptable at a Society table.
As a player, I would not look fondly on someone trying to play (manipulate the play of) my character through diplomacy. As a GM, I doubt that I would allow the manipulation of PCs by other PCs through the diplomacy mechanic (except when mutually agreed by players, would this fall under the PvP clause?).

Actually, Diplomacy doesn't work on player characters.

Diplomacy wrote:
Check: You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check.

Emphasis mine; the very first sentence explicitly calls out that the skill can only, by RAW, be used to change the attitudes of NPCs. Players are literally under no obligation to pay any attention to the results of a Diplomacy check made against them (although it would certainly help put the RP in RPG), whether that check was made by an NPC or a PC.

This was a conscious design decision made in the 3.x era, made for exactly the reason you stated: players don't like it when their characters get taken over.


Leanther wrote:
At what point am I crossing the line though? . . . I have since been told by members of the group I'm playing with that it is counter productive and unwelcome at the table. And I had the Core Assumption cited to me.

I think "If you have to ask..."

1/5

Leanther wrote:
Does The Core Assumption preclude players from playing abrasive characters in an effort to drive interparty roleplay? At what point does one player's fun impose too much on another player? What if players definition of what is enjoyable about a session differ? Does PFS frown on roleplaying emotional conflict between players? I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what is acceptable at a Society game as I am fairly new at it. I'm struggling to reconcile the concept that all the party members know and trust each other and are always working towards the same goal.

There's a fundamental problem with PFS and even non-PFS GMs allowing the type of character you're playing. That problem is manifest in the fact that:

1. The other characters in the adventure don't have a real option to kick you from the party, or just flat out kill you;

2. The other players don't have a feasible option of leaving the game;

3. GMs will often lower/modify the difficulty if players do leave, so bad actors don't feel a true self-endangerment if their teammates bail.

In real life, if you join a sports team and you piss off or annoy your teammates, you're done. Or, other players will simply leave the team and those remaining will be significantly worse off. So the anti-social behavior becomes self-defeating and would be simply selected against. Your character would end up dead or have a reputation and be unable to find any group with which to team. In the Veitnam war, there were many incidents of U.S. troops getting shot in the back by someone who they had pushed too far. The same thing would happen in PFS if it were not restricted OOC.

In a game setting, the players can't do anything besides complain to the GM. Even though a player can leave the table that isn't a viable option. It's also a lose-lose situation for Paize/PFS. So playing an abusive and grouchy character is arguably unethical in PFS because the other players can't really react normally.

Because of the handcuffs that are placed on players, I have essentially zero tolerance for character jerks as both player and a GM. If you want to play the abrasive solo type, then why are you joining a group whose ethos is to "cooperate?" Your character concept takes advantage of the fact the other players are essentially compelled to tolerate you. So at this point, it's not about who your character in the game, but your character out of the game.

4/5

Here's the relevant text from the Guide to Organized Play:

Quote:

Do Not Bully Other Players

We’re all friends here, and we’re all playing a game together with the single purpose of having a wonderful time. Do not push other players around just because your character can. Extreme forms of dysfunctional play will not be tolerated. A little fun banter between PCs can be great roleplaying, but when you find yourself doing everything in your power to make another character look like an idiot or to undo everything that character is trying to accomplish, you’ve probably lost sight of the purpose of Pathfinder Society Organized Play and may be asked to leave the table. Playing your character is not an excuse for childish behavior. GMs should work with their event coordinators to resolve any out- of-game conflicts. If you are both the GM and the coordinator, use your own discretion. Extreme or repetitive cases should be resolved by asking the offender to leave the table.

Here's something else to keep in mind: when you're playing a PFS game, your character is part of the Pathfinder Society. That means when you're creating a character, it needs to be someone who would be motivated to join the Society and abide by its rules:

Quote:

Pathfinder duties

The Society recognizes no formal bylaws, but a general code of behavior is expected of all members, and reports of activity contrary to this code are grounds for dismissal from the organization. Most of the time this ostracism involves a venture-captain failing to respond to queries from field agents, but in especially egregious cases powerful Pathfinders have been tasked with eliminating rogue members of the organization who have, as a result of their actions, brought shame to the order.

Loosely summarized, the three “understood” member duties are as follows:
Explore:...
Report:...
Cooperate: The Society places no moral obligations upon its members, so agents span all races, creeds, and motivations. At any given time, a Pathfinder lodge might house a fiend- summoning Chelaxian, an Andoren freedom fighter, an antiquities-obsessed necromancer, and a friendly half ling raconteur. Anything can (and often does) happen in the field, but the lodge is inviolate, and agents are forbidden from battling within its confines. Even beyond the lodge, Pathfinder agents are expected to respect one another’s claims and stay out of each other’s affairs except to offer a helping hand. According to long-held tradition, Pathfinders must attempt to parley before a potential conflict, regardless of potential enmity based on national affiliation, personal allegiances, or other factors.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Leanther wrote:


Does The Core Assumption preclude players from playing abrasive characters in an effort to drive interparty roleplay?

No. But it does preclude players from playing abrasive characters in an effort to drive interparty conflict.

Leanther wrote:
At what point does one player's fun impose too much on another player?

At the point when you fun comes at the direct expense of theirs.

Leanther wrote:
What if players definition of what is enjoyable about a session differ?

PFS is a game in which evil characters are not allowed, and where characters come together and set aside their differences to cooperate for the good of the mission.

If your definition of fun does not fit into this, then you probably will not be happy playing in PFS. If your definition of fun is compatible with this, it will probably fit the other players just fine.

Leanther wrote:
Does PFS frown on roleplaying emotional conflict between players?

Yes, beyond a certain point. For one thing, outside home games there is often a time limit. Introducing more than a certain amount of emotional angst into the scenario means you run over time, and possibly fail the mission.

Also, it is very easy for emotional conflict to either spill over into PVP (such as using your skills to force other players to spend resources on you without reimbursing them in some way.) Or else place them in the situation where they are forced to chose between violating the no PVP rule or forgo playing their character the way they feel their character would react.

Leanther wrote:
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what is acceptable at a Society game as I am fairly new at it. I'm struggling to reconcile the concept that all the party members know and trust each other and are always working towards the same goal.

Actually, our characters don't know each other. They don't necessarily trust each other. All we know is that the other PCs have not gotten kicked out of the pathfinders, so they must have a history of setting aside differences during a mission, and all pulling together to get the job done.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This seems to happen waaay too often. One of the core tenets (and IMO the most important) of PFS is "cooperate." Why do sooo many players seem to want to create/play characters who's primary function seems to be driving inter-party conflict, whether it be in- or, sometimes, out-of-character? I just don't get it. IMHO, we all CHOSE to play this campaign. We all CHOSE to gather together, often times with people we've never met before. Why CHOOSE to play in such a way that you intentionally sabotage another player/s fun? Some characters are just not suitable for organized play. Please keep that in mind.

Explore! Report! Cooperate!

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

I totally misinterpreted the OP. I assumed he was worried about other players, and PFS-created conflicts, like factions, religions, and opposing alignments.

John Compton's post pretty much sums up how you should introduce your character so players recognize that your PC is the jerk, and not you.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
...your PC is the jerk, and not you.

I won't go as far to say that you should not play "jerk" characters, but I will say, "that's just what my character would do/say" is NOT an excuse for the player to act the "jerk." Whether the character would/should be a jerk does not exempt the player from being responsible and not negatively impacting the fun of the other players.

Remember, YOU created the character, YOU control the character. Therefore, if the character is a jerk and hurting the table, YOU are the jerk. Please be mindful of this.

4/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Leanther wrote:
At what point am I crossing the line though? My first Society character I conceived was rude and a bit of a party mooch. I had not purchased healing for myself by 3rd level and I was being accused of not being a team player. I thought this was very appropriate for the character concept I had in mind. I have since been told by members of the group I'm playing with that it is counter productive and unwelcome at the table. And I had the Core Assumption cited to me.

You're jumping into a new social situation, it sounds like you don't know the players or the metagame of what you're getting into with PFS. With that in mind, I personally would start out with something fairly simple and conventional. Once you get a feel for your area's PFS culture, then you'll be able to answer these questions yourself. On top of all that, you can rebuild your character as much as you want until you play him at 2nd level.

So, I would suggest building a different character and playing a few games with him to get to know the culture of your local area better, then build the abrasive PC if you think it will go over OK.

Personally, I hate abrasive PCs. I will wheedle lower level PCs or new players about providing their own healing, at higher levels (depending on the character I'm playing) will simply not use my own resources to heal PCs who try to mooch. Outspoken low charisma PCs really get on my nerves since they get in the way of other people trying to play the game. (Recently I ran into a player who was playing a low charisma PC true to his stats. My face character couldn't get a word in edgewise and the other player got us in a situation that almost killed two of our PCs, lost us half our loot and caused us to fail the secondary goal. The missed loot and prestige was just salt in the wound of the frustration over the fact that he was preventing my character from doing what I built him to do.)

1/5

Akerlof wrote:

Outspoken low charisma PCs really get on my nerves since they get in the way of other people trying to play the game. (Recently I ran into a player who was playing a low charisma PC true to his stats. My face character couldn't get a word in edgewise and the other player got us in a situation that almost killed two of our PCs, lost us half our loot and caused us to fail the secondary goal. The missed loot and prestige was just salt in the wound of the frustration over the fact that he was preventing my character from doing what I built him to do.)

This is what I mean about players taking advantage of the system. If I were in a party with someone who did that, in RL, we'd boot the guy and then report back to the Society not to let this guy team with others.

As a player, I would ask the GM to treat such actions as tantamount to PvP/intentionally disruptive behavior.

Dark Archive 2/5

N N 959 wrote:
Akerlof wrote:

Outspoken low charisma PCs really get on my nerves since they get in the way of other people trying to play the game. (Recently I ran into a player who was playing a low charisma PC true to his stats. My face character couldn't get a word in edgewise and the other player got us in a situation that almost killed two of our PCs, lost us half our loot and caused us to fail the secondary goal. The missed loot and prestige was just salt in the wound of the frustration over the fact that he was preventing my character from doing what I built him to do.)

This is what I mean about players taking advantage of the system. If I were in a party with someone who did that, in RL, we'd boot the guy and then report back to the Society not to let this guy team with others.

As a player, I would ask the GM to treat such actions as tantamount to PvP/intentionally disruptive behavior.

It would be a lot easier to just ask the player to stop doing it. Low CHA doesn't necessarily have to mean their social skills are poor anyway. Plenty of ways to completely circumvent that deficiency. Now if that player was literally being disruptive on purpose, and not simply role-playing, I could see the need to eject them from the table. Mind you, that's assuming they have already failed to cease their behavior after a couple requests/warnings.

Another thing (not necessarily related to the quote above) I'd like to touch on is abrasive PCs. There is absolutely, positively nothing wrong with playing one of those. Maybe their character, repeat, their CHARACTER just happens to be a bit of a jerk. So long as it's not draining the party's resources or causing mission failure, that's not something anyone has any authority to act against. Some characters are just not very face-friendly, so to speak. ... And their players apparently enjoy that. There are lots of ways to play a less-than-nice PC in PFS without stepping on any toes.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for all the responses, I hadn't expected this to get as much attention as it did. I have spoken with a few members of the group I was playing with and I have decided to back out of Pathfinder Society for the time being. I don't think it is a suitable medium for the kind of enjoyment I get from playing tabletop RPGs. And that was my point overall, I think I have a very different agenda at the table than the other players. I'm much more interested in the dynamic between the characters and the potential conflicts there. The group I was running with are very focused on the task at hand. To me, having a group of characters that meshes perfectly hurts my immersion. I would liken it to watching an episode of House where nobody ever tries to reign House in. Or the Avengers movie, which would not have been nearly as impressive if the Avengers all got along at the very beginning. Anyway, with time constraints and the general attitude of the players, it seems very clear that they're not interested in that. And me trying to impose my brand of fun on them is detracting from their enjoyment.

1/5

The Beard wrote:
Another thing (not necessarily related to the quote above) I'd like to touch on is abrasive PCs. There is absolutely, positively nothing wrong with playing one of those. Maybe their character, repeat, their CHARACTER just happens to be a bit of a jerk.

Have you ever played any pick-up basketball and been a jerk to your teammates. You won't be playing the next game if you're allowed to even finish that game. You also won't get picked up by any other team that sees your behavior. So in real life, being a jerk gets you excluded from participation.

In PF, the players can't kick you from the table. They have no recourse against a jerk character. Which means anyone who plays such a character is taking advantage of that fact. And while I certainly believe there would be jerk adventurers, they would be forced to solo. So playing a jerk character under the PFS-OP rules is asinine. You essentially are deciding to be a jerk as a person because you know your character has impunity.

If I see characters being jerks to other characters, I will allow the other characters the option of booting that character from the game. If it were early enough in the adventure, I would allow the player to use a different character. Fortunately I haven't had anyone try and play jerk characters, but I've teamed with a few. And one in particular I've simply refused to play with.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Leanther wrote:
Thanks for all the responses, I hadn't expected this to get as much attention as it did. I have spoken with a few members of the group I was playing with and I have decided to back out of Pathfinder Society for the time being. I don't think it is a suitable medium for the kind of enjoyment I get from playing tabletop RPGs. And that was my point overall, I think I have a very different agenda at the table than the other players. I'm much more interested in the dynamic between the characters and the potential conflicts there. The group I was running with are very focused on the task at hand. To me, having a group of characters that meshes perfectly hurts my immersion. I would liken it to watching an episode of House where nobody ever tries to reign House in. Or the Avengers movie, which would not have been nearly as impressive if the Avengers all got along at the very beginning. Anyway, with time constraints and the general attitude of the players, it seems very clear that they're not interested in that. And me trying to impose my brand of fun on them is detracting from their enjoyment.

Kudos on being able to recognize and respect differences of playstyle; you're leagues ahead of a great many gamers. :)

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Akerlof wrote:

Recently I ran into a player who was playing a low charisma PC true to his stats. My face character couldn't get a word in edgewise and the other player got us in a situation that almost killed two of our PCs, lost us half our loot and caused us to fail the secondary goal. The missed loot and prestige was just salt in the wound of the frustration over the fact that he was preventing my character from doing what I built him to do.

I've seen that happen at tables, Akerlof, and I'dlike to suggest that the GM is at least half at fault there.

There are a lot of low-Charisma PCs in the Society, as if it were a dump-stat or something. And so, those players will role-play social situations commensurate with their attribute, being harsh and rude, or stating bald awkward truths matter-of-factly, or just being mild and weak in negotiation. This is a right and proper thing.

And there are some GMs who will let that water pass under the bridge, share a laugh at the guy bungling his social interactions, and then turn to the Diplomancer in the party. There are GMs who will use Mr.Unpleasant as a negative modifier (usually -2, but I've seen -5 in severe cases) to the high-Charisma character's Diplomacy rolls.

In this case, it sounds like the GM let the guy role-playing the low-Charisma PC take over the negotiation. And then the player is stuck. His role-playing schtick is now the party's Diplomacy attempt, and it'sgoing to go ka-blooie, and there's nothing he can do about it.

--

I wasn't at your table, Akerlof, and I can't say just how aggressive the player was at trying to steal the show. But I have seen things like that, frequently, and it boils down to a player kidding around and a GM deciding to take it more seriously than the player expects.

1/5

Leanther wrote:
I would liken it to watching an episode of House where nobody ever tries to reign House in. Or the Avengers movie, which would not have been nearly as impressive if the Avengers all got along at the very beginning.

One of the disconnects I think a lot of people have is looking at fiction and trying to make that a reality. House is fiction and as such, the authors can ignore anything that doesn't tell the story they want to tell. In real life, you can't get away with being a complete a-hole unless you own the company or have compromising pictures of your boss. So when movies or stories do this, they are using artistic license.

The Avengers is also a bad example for PFS. IIRC, the Avengers roster changes specifically because some people don't work well in teams. Spiderman tried to be an Avenger and ultimately didn't like it. But you mention something that is very important. You said, "got along at the beginning." If you play at a game store or on online, PFS doesn't usually lend itself to persistent teaming. So you are almost always going to be in the "at the beginning" mode. As you astutely noted, the time constraints and nature of the game don't really allow for the type of emotional exchange you're looking for.

Quote:
Anyway, with time constraints and the general attitude of the players, it seems very clear that they're not interested in that. And me trying to impose my brand of fun on them is detracting from their enjoyment.

If you really want to play that style, then just find a group of players who are on the same page. I'm sure there are some. But be aware that if you do play with random players, that style would be counter-productive.

1/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

I've seen that happen at tables, Akerlof, and I'dlike to suggest that the GM is at least half at fault there.

There are a lot of low-Charisma PCs in the Society, as if it were a dump-stat or something. And so, those players will role-play social situations commensurate with their attribute, being harsh and rude, or stating bald awkward truths matter-of-factly, or just being mild and weak in negotiation. This is a right and proper thing.

And there are some GMs who will let that water pass under the bridge, share a laugh at the guy bungling his social interactions, and then turn to the Diplomancer in the party. There are GMs who will use Mr.Unpleasant as a negative modifier (usually -2, but I've seen -5 in severe cases) to the high-Charisma character's Diplomacy rolls.

In this case, it sounds like the GM let the guy role-playing the low-Charisma PC take over the negotiation. And then the player is stuck. His role-playing schtick is now the party's Diplomacy attempt, and it'sgoing to go ka-blooie, and there's nothing he can do about it.

*** But I have seen things like that, frequently, and it boils down to a player kidding around and a GM deciding to take it more seriously than the player expects.

I agree with you Chris. I'd have no problem with this schtick if the GMs were willing to ignore it as the official attempt at negotiations. But when the GM allows the player with the CHR dump character to initiate diplomacy attempts, but PFS prevents the other characters from doing anything about it. The blame has to come down on the GM.

So if the GMs hands are tied, then the burden shifts back to the player who is intentionally screwing over the rest of the party. At that point, it is no longer "right and proper." Nobody is forced to play their character any certain way. It is always a decision on the player's part.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Well, not only is there a lot of low-CHA PCs, a *lot* of classes have intimidate over diplomacy. And intimidate is about 5 X less useful, even with ranks.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Leanther wrote:
Thanks for all the responses, I hadn't expected this to get as much attention as it did. I have spoken with a few members of the group I was playing with and I have decided to back out of Pathfinder Society for the time being. I don't think it is a suitable medium for the kind of enjoyment I get from playing tabletop RPGs. And that was my point overall, I think I have a very different agenda at the table than the other players. I'm much more interested in the dynamic between the characters and the potential conflicts there. The group I was running with are very focused on the task at hand. To me, having a group of characters that meshes perfectly hurts my immersion. I would liken it to watching an episode of House where nobody ever tries to reign House in. Or the Avengers movie, which would not have been nearly as impressive if the Avengers all got along at the very beginning. Anyway, with time constraints and the general attitude of the players, it seems very clear that they're not interested in that. And me trying to impose my brand of fun on them is detracting from their enjoyment.

The time limit and lack of PvP are both kind of killing your brand of fun in PFS.

Silver Crusade 3/5

See, here's the thing about playing a jerk character with a bunch of people who don't know you. You might be the nicest guy in the world, but they only get to see your behavior through your character. Maybe you volunteer every weekend at a local homeless shelter. Maybe you donate 20% of your income toward ending world hunger. Maybe you served in the Peace Corps. Maybe you take care of your aging grandmother. Maybe you coach little league baseball, despite working 60 hours a week. Maybe you are just an all-around decent fella who opens doors for strangers and sincerely wishes them a good day. So you know you are not a jerk; you are just playing one in character. The other players at the table won't know any of that though. They only know you chose to play a character whose goal was to screw them over. That is how they will remember you.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
Akerlof wrote:

Recently I ran into a player who was playing a low charisma PC true to his stats. My face character couldn't get a word in edgewise and the other player got us in a situation that almost killed two of our PCs, lost us half our loot and caused us to fail the secondary goal. The missed loot and prestige was just salt in the wound of the frustration over the fact that he was preventing my character from doing what I built him to do.

I've seen that happen at tables, Akerlof, and I'dlike to suggest that the GM is at least half at fault there.

There are a lot of low-Charisma PCs in the Society, as if it were a dump-stat or something. And so, those players will role-play social situations commensurate with their attribute, being harsh and rude, or stating bald awkward truths matter-of-factly, or just being mild and weak in negotiation. This is a right and proper thing.

And there are some GMs who will let that water pass under the bridge, share a laugh at the guy bungling his social interactions, and then turn to the Diplomancer in the party. There are GMs who will use Mr.Unpleasant as a negative modifier (usually -2, but I've seen -5 in severe cases) to the high-Charisma character's Diplomacy rolls.

In this case, it sounds like the GM let the guy role-playing the low-Charisma PC take over the negotiation. And then the player is stuck. His role-playing schtick is now the party's Diplomacy attempt, and it'sgoing to go ka-blooie, and there's nothing he can do about it.

--

I wasn't at your table, Akerlof, and I can't say just how aggressive the player was at trying to steal the show. But I have seen things like that, frequently, and it boils down to a player kidding around and a GM deciding to take it more seriously than the player expects.

This is why my two of my low-CHA PCs usually keep their mouths shut.

3/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
Akerlof wrote:

Recently I ran into a player who was playing a low charisma PC true to his stats. My face character couldn't get a word in edgewise and the other player got us in a situation that almost killed two of our PCs, lost us half our loot and caused us to fail the secondary goal. The missed loot and prestige was just salt in the wound of the frustration over the fact that he was preventing my character from doing what I built him to do.

I've seen that happen at tables, Akerlof, and I'dlike to suggest that the GM is at least half at fault there.

There are a lot of low-Charisma PCs in the Society, as if it were a dump-stat or something. And so, those players will role-play social situations commensurate with their attribute, being harsh and rude, or stating bald awkward truths matter-of-factly, or just being mild and weak in negotiation. This is a right and proper thing.

And there are some GMs who will let that water pass under the bridge, share a laugh at the guy bungling his social interactions, and then turn to the Diplomancer in the party. There are GMs who will use Mr.Unpleasant as a negative modifier (usually -2, but I've seen -5 in severe cases) to the high-Charisma character's Diplomacy rolls.

In this case, it sounds like the GM let the guy role-playing the low-Charisma PC take over the negotiation. And then the player is stuck. His role-playing schtick is now the party's Diplomacy attempt, and it'sgoing to go ka-blooie, and there's nothing he can do about it.

--

I wasn't at your table, Akerlof, and I can't say just how aggressive the player was at trying to steal the show. But I have seen things like that, frequently, and it boils down to a player kidding around and a GM deciding to take it more seriously than the player expects.

This is why my two of my low-CHA PCs usually keep their mouths shut.

My Dwarf monk might have only 5 Charisma, but he has enough Wisdom to know to shut up and let the bard do the talking.

Dark Archive 4/5 5/5 ****

This has been an interesting thread for me.

I really like what John Compton had to say about how he RPs his low CHA character(s). I have a wizard whose personality I liken to Dr. Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory... even though he is remarkably intelligent, he just doesn't see how poor his social skills are.

I have usually warned tables about him (with just reason), and there has been at least one time where he "took over" at a negotiation (because the Paladin was stalling).

I think in the future, I'll start dropping some signs... such as his tail twitching (he's a tiefling), and perhaps some toe-tapping and/or sighing. Give the other players all the chance in the world to get moving before his impatience takes over.

That being said, I don't think that I've been a jerk while playing Angelo Gaius (self-proclaimed Master of all Things Arcane). Angelo has definitely been a jerk (such as the time he told Kyra that she obviously didn't know much about religion), but I've tried to keep it fun. I also try and play him that when he does do such things, it is obvious that he's trying to be diplomatic (after all, he has a rank in diplomacy!... just that he isn't good at it.

Silver Crusade 2/5

My dwarven fighter is more than willing to negotiate. WITH HIS AXE! Don't put him in charge of any delicate situation because he will NOT keep his mouth shut.

5/5 ** RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

Several of my characters have obvious personality flaws. One's an smarmy womanizer, one has a hokey "Austrian" accent, and another is just creepy (picture an alchemist played by Peter Lorre).

The key elements to successfully playing such characters is to describe them to the other players at the table before you're distracted by the scenario's plot. Be alert to negative reactions from the others at the table. If they're smiling at your character's bizarre antics, keep going. If they seem less enthused, turn it down a notch.

(In my experience, younger players and powergamers are the folks least tolerant of characters' idiosyncracies. The youngsters often take everything very seriously and the powergamers don't want to have to "carry" someone not built for maximum effectiveness.)

5/5 5/55/55/5

If you make Yngvar's charisma penalty count as a penalty when he plays it, and count it against the diplomancers attempt, then the optimized thing to do is to shut up... and not role play.

And that's bad.

Its even worse in a system with limited role play opportunities like PFS scenarios. The last thing we need is another reason not to role play.

Just role play it out and then let the diplomancer do his thing. Making friends with the noble while the nose picking dwarf, the 9 foot tall orc with big pointy teeth, and the druid that was raised by wolves(but kicked out for a lack of social graces) are looking on can be as awesome as picking the lock while hanging upside down over an acid tank filled with acid breathing sharks.

Silver Crusade 2/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

If you make Yngvar's charisma penalty count as a penalty when he plays it, and count it against the diplomancers attempt, then the optimized thing to do is to shut up... and not role play.

And that's bad.

Its even worse in a system with limited role play opportunities like PFS scenarios. The last thing we need is another reason not to role play.

Just role play it out and then let the diplomancer do his thing. Making friends with the noble while the nose picking dwarf, the 9 foot tall orc with big pointy teeth, and the druid that was raised by wolves(but kicked out for a lack of social graces) are looking on can be as awesome as picking the lock while hanging upside down over an acid tank filled with acid breathing sharks.

Some GMs never miss a chance to grief the players.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / The Core Assumption All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society