Roleplaying scenarios and APs: A discussion


Pathfinder Adventure Path General Discussion

151 to 200 of 264 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Hand holding? Not at all. We buy the APs because we don't want to spend the time plotting things out. That said, a good GM will roll with the punches. When my players dressed up as guards and went into the Pale Tower in RoW, I allowed it. When they captured alive the captain of the Tower... I looked at the "fight to the death" bit, thought "okay, she's going to wake up, tied up, and knows the White Witches killed her draconic ancestor. Why would she want to die rather than betray them?"

Thus they were able to negotiate with her to lure Radosek out to interrogate prisoners. And they did so. This was not a scenario mentioned in the AP. It wasn't even hinted at.

Would a novice GM have done that? Or might it be handy to know such alternatives exist?

And even us experienced GMs like to have a few ideas from which we can build on. Seriously, we buy the APs to make things easier for ourselves. And seeing roleplaying alternatives helps put the GM (and thus the players) in the mindset of "roleplaying solutions" rather than "kill everything and loot the dead."


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Skeld wrote:
Ha. Yeah, I did that, because I'm genuinely curious what type of role play scenarios you're talking about. It's interesting that you're asking for role play scenarios like that to be added in as standard fair. I always assumed that's the kind of thing GMs added to campaigns as they saw fit (at least that's been standard for my group since before 3e came out). I didn't realize anyone that's an experienced GM/roleplayer would need that level of hand-holding to make their campaign interesting from a role playing standpoint. On the other hand, APs are created with the intent to appeal to a wide audience , so I shouldn't be surprised.

You know what, I am not even going to respond to this level of snide condescencion. No decent discussion can come of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:
I'm genuinely curious what type of role play scenarios you're talking about. It's interesting that you're asking for role play scenarios like that to be added in as standard fair. I always assumed that's the kind of thing GMs added to campaigns as they saw fit (at least that's been standard for my group since before 3e came out). I didn't realize anyone that's an experienced GM/roleplayer would need that level of hand-holding to make their campaign interesting from a role playing standpoint.

Not everyone is experienced, and not everyone who's experienced is instinctively good at that sort of thing.

And some types of adventure don't lend themselves well to that kind of addition.
If you're in a castle full of undead in the middle of a wasteland, the AP is likely to consist of "Here are some room descriptions. Here are the monsters the players have to fight. (They're probably the wrong level of challenge for your group so you'll have to change them.)" This might take six weeks to play out, and in all that time you never meet anything that doesn't try to kill you.

Kingmaker is an adventure with room for additions, but if the GM plays it as written, it's mostly week after week of 'random encounter, random encounter, random encounter, poorly balanced kingdom-building subsystem'.

Jade Regent has friendly NPCs who travel with you across the world, but playing it by the book, they rarely ever interact with the players. A good GM might think of scenarios where one of them talks to a PC to ask for help with a personal problem, but it isn't easy to think of something good that doesn't slow down the main storyline, assuming I have time to even think about that sort of thing when I have all those battles to prep for. Could a good adventure writer do better than me? I imagine so. Of the bits I added, some went well, but a couple caused play to grind to a halt while neither player nor GM was able to improvise anything satisfactory to continue.

What I'm looking for:

(1) Good dialogue. GMing Jade Regent, before every battle with an intelligent foe, I tried to think of something interesting for them to say, to make them more than a stat block. That seems like the writer's job.

(2) Scenarios with choice. Give the players a task which allows them to express the personalities of their characters with the approach they take. Instead of 'kill the bandits, probably using stealth', something like 'get hold of the king's magic scepter before the villain does'.
The book could then give a list of possible ways to approach the situation: Break in and steal it, perhaps replacing it with a fake. Bribe, extort or dominate a guard to steal it for you. Murder the king and take it. Join the rebel faction and overthrow the king. Do so great a service for the king he's willing to lend you the scepter. Find out the villain's plan to steal the scepter, and thwart it.
The players should come away feeling that what happened was the result of their choice, and that it created an interesting and memorable story.

(3) Enemies you aren't expected to kill, but...

...actually, since I'm complaining about APs, please consider doing some playtesting, Paizo? In my part of the games industry we'd never dream of publishing a game before we had testers play it through a dozen times and worked to eradicate every possible flaw. Things like the caravan subsystem for Jade Regent are indicative of adventures haven't even been played once before publication. I know you'd have to hire more people and rearrange schedules, but I'm pretty sure the quality of the final product would make it worthwhile.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Matthew Downie wrote:
...actually, since I'm complaining about APs, please consider doing some playtesting, Paizo? In my part of the games industry we'd never dream of publishing a game before we had testers play it through a dozen times and worked to eradicate every possible flaw. Things like the caravan subsystem for Jade Regent are indicative of adventures haven't even been played once before publication. I know you'd have to hire more people and rearrange schedules, but I'm pretty sure the quality of the final product would make it worthwhile.

We expect our authors to playtest their adventures (I certainly try to playtest the ones I write). We don't really have time to playtest every adventure we publish, and in fact, the development process is pretty much a playtest replacement, since it's actually a really in-depth procedure that takes apart every adventure written at the seams and looks at all its components and puts it back together.

That said, when you publish over a dozen complex adventures a year, things slip through. The Caravan rules were one of them, compounded by the fact that schedule management and other necessities had me hand off the development of the Jade Regent AP to Rob just before it was to start... I'd planned a LOT out for that AP, but didn't do a great job at transitioning all of my plans to Rob before we were off and running, unfortunately.

But the rest of the AP turned out pretty well, I think!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Skeld wrote:
Ha. Yeah, I did that, because I'm genuinely curious what type of role play scenarios you're talking about. It's interesting that you're asking for role play scenarios like that to be added in as standard fair. I always assumed that's the kind of thing GMs added to campaigns as they saw fit (at least that's been standard for my group since before 3e came out).
You know what, I am not even going to respond to this level of snide condescencion. No decent discussion can come of it.

You do that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mikeawmids wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Skeld wrote:
Ha. Yeah, I did that, because I'm genuinely curious what type of role play scenarios you're talking about. It's interesting that you're asking for role play scenarios like that to be added in as standard fair. I always assumed that's the kind of thing GMs added to campaigns as they saw fit (at least that's been standard for my group since before 3e came out).
You know what, I am not even going to respond to this level of snide condescencion. No decent discussion can come of it.
You do that.

Yeah, I did that.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Quick, somebody start a 'I want less RP in the APs thread'.

Dark Archive

If you look at the maths here:

In order for 4 PCs to go up a level you need somewhere between 13-16 encounters, with at the lower number needing to include an epic encounter, which increases the risk level of the module.

In terms of adventure content, an AP has about 45 pages, which reduces to 35 or so once you take out maps, encounter stats, artwork, etc.

The first three modules in an AP need to raise the PCs 3 levels, which results in 45 encounters in 35 pages.

The later three modules only need 30 encounters, however they typically lose more pages due to lengthy stat blocks.

In my opinion, the best encounters are the ones which have both an RP and a combat element - i.e. you get the chance to either solve them, or provide yourself with a significant advantage with them, with RP / skills / thinking, before the combat begins (if at all).

Writing for this, however, take up a lot of space.

Richard


The best RP for me is when there is the chance of lots of interaction between the characters, afterall it is about them

When there is a real choice, and the decisions the party make are really important

secondary to this is if the NPCs are interesting to engage with. This is really the GM : Player interaction which while good, isn't the most important

In terms of AP this has made Kingmaker by far the best for this.
Real decisions, that matter;
mostly real choice, that matter
not too many mod critical NPCs
lots non fighty solutions


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to have to agree with the other posters...
...I love and RUN RP heavy games if I can. I'm usually sad my players don't like heavy RP. That said, I don't think you can ever, ever expect a published adventure to have the support for heavy RP because it is a chaotic situation, that can't be prepared for in advance.
Let's make an example, the Dwarf Vampire Female Cleric Mini-boss
...What if the party is all Dwarves?
...What if the party is all neutral or evil?
...What if the party is all good divine casters?
...What if the party is all motivated 100% by money?
...What if the party thinks she is hot? (yes sex is a motivator, or I wouldn't still be in Asia!)
The party would react, and she would react, in so many different ways, that thinking any published product would cover this is just too hopeful. It seems, from reading PBP threads, that the AP's over plenty of roleplay opportunities...


richard develyn wrote:

If you look at the maths here:

In order for 4 PCs to go up a level you need somewhere between 13-16 encounters, with at the lower number needing to include an epic encounter, which increases the risk level of the module.

In terms of adventure content, an AP has about 45 pages, which reduces to 35 or so once you take out maps, encounter stats, artwork, etc.

The first three modules in an AP need to raise the PCs 3 levels, which results in 45 encounters in 35 pages.

The later three modules only need 30 encounters, however they typically lose more pages due to lengthy stat blocks.

In my opinion, the best encounters are the ones which have both an RP and a combat element - i.e. you get the chance to either solve them, or provide yourself with a significant advantage with them, with RP / skills / thinking, before the combat begins (if at all).

Writing for this, however, take up a lot of space.

Richard

This actually helps explain the existence of the NPC Codex. The character sheets are pre-generated for GMs who own the codex (or have Hero Labs and that add-on).

That said, there's something sad in the thought that higher-level characters shouldn't be allowed to roleplay because of space considerations. Seriously, if we're not allowing roleplay in the last three books of an AP, then limit the damn fiction to the first three books (seeing the fiction isn't going away), and include roleplay options for those extra pages. It's not like the stat-block takes up a whole lot of time to generate.

This also does raise the question of is this a reason why a number of campaigns fail to get to the end? The last book of many APs seems to have very few roleplaying aspects. It gets boring just killing things over and over until you run out of spells or healing.

If anything, this is WHY we need roleplaying for higher level characters! We need something to keep the players' interest, and to continue to challenge them. A tough encounter that goes down in two rounds because of rocket-tag spells-and-fighting isn't challenging. It's tedious when it's one of a dozen encounters.

And allowing people to roleplay solutions to high-level fights can be fun! Imagine if the group managed to convince Karzoug not to come back to the world as a conqueror but instead as an economic powerhouse - that his knowledge and wealth could help him become a vital part of the world with greater power and no resistance if he showed up and was able to alter the courses of nations through trade... and in doing so would become even richer and thus fulfill his need for greed?

Far too many villains seem to be shallow puppets at higher level. Queen Elvanna, the Demon Lords, the Drow... they're evil for the sake of evil and cannot be negotiated with or convinced to go a different path. They ultimately are boring from a roleplaying point of view.

But by creating an environment where fighting is not the only way to prevail, you can have more interesting villains where you can possibly alter their path... and have a far more interesting ending than just a body with a widening pool of blood around it while your blade drips with their fluids.

This is the importance of roleplaying in the APs. Not only does it allow players to remain interested in the game for the long run... but it also helps craft believable and enjoyable antagonists who don't ultimately exist to die by your players' hands.


roleplaying Can be done for higher levels, see Tide of Honor from Jade Regent or any higher up Skull & Shackles modules, lots of roleplaying and diplomacy situations in those:)


No one said anything about not being allowed to roleplay. There's a big difference between that and spelling out explicit roleplay encounters in the AP.


mostly i think the "Lack" of roleplaying in higher level stuff is partially attributed to GM burnout, by the time you get to the higher stuff you've already been at it for at least 6 months and you just want to get it over with.

Dark Archive

I think APs using the NPC codex, and presumably the monster codex coming out, is a really good way of saving space.

I am currently running the last module of Carrion Crown and I have found, actually particularly with the previous module, the amount of space given to NPC stat blocks to be really frustrating, both because as a GM I had to read up about a lot of abilities, which I then generally forgot at the gaming table, but also because 90% of what was written never had a chance of being used.

Richard


they do use the codex and have since it came out, look thru newer ap volumes you'll see it:) using canned NPCs for every NPC will get old fast!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had a quick look at Midnight Isles and saw it once - but I take your point.

Richard


1 person marked this as a favorite.

-Since the End Boss of Carrion Crown is a Life hating Lich, I don't think he'd take kindly to a role-played ending...more like "stop breathing...worms..."
-I actually think RP breaks down as levels go up...I'm a die hard e6-e8 kind of guy, for that reason...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
mostly i think the "Lack" of roleplaying in higher level stuff is partially attributed to GM burnout, by the time you get to the higher stuff you've already been at it for at least 6 months and you just want to get it over with.

Months? Oh you sweet summer child! ^_^

(That might be true if you game every single weekend. And this is a good reason why you might want to alternate games to every other week or longer, though it does reduce how quickly you get through an AP.)

As a brief aside on RP - sometimes you can recruit players to help you out. For instance, one of my players started RPing Nadya and has decided to retire her character and play Nadya full-time and retire her old character (I reworked Nadya to be a Skirmisher so her low wisdom won't be as detrimental). (To be honest, her old character was extremely shy and quiet, which kind of got in the way of her being a big roleplaying opportunity while Nadya has some immense hooks that allow for significant roleplay.)

It may be at higher levels, the players tend to focus their roleplay among each other more than with NPCs. But this isn't to say that roleplaying solutions shouldn't exist for APs. They should and would be better for it. And hey, if you have to sacrifice the fiction for a couple of the issues so to allow for roleplay possibilities in addition to stat blocks? Then sacrifice the fiction. The AP is better for the roleplaying. And people can always buy Paizo's softcover fiction.


well said Tangent:) tho i like the fiction myself

Sovereign Court

Gorbacz wrote:
Quick, somebody start a 'I want less RP in the APs thread'.

You do that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of passive aggressiveness in this topic.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HarbinNick wrote:

I'm going to have to agree with the other posters...

...I love and RUN RP heavy games if I can. I'm usually sad my players don't like heavy RP. That said, I don't think you can ever, ever expect a published adventure to have the support for heavy RP because it is a chaotic situation, that can't be prepared for in advance.
Let's make an example, the Dwarf Vampire Female Cleric Mini-boss
...What if the party is all Dwarves?
...What if the party is all neutral or evil?
...What if the party is all good divine casters?
...What if the party is all motivated 100% by money?
...What if the party thinks she is hot? (yes sex is a motivator, or I wouldn't still be in Asia!)
The party would react, and she would react, in so many different ways, that thinking any published product would cover this is just too hopeful. It seems, from reading PBP threads, that the AP's over plenty of roleplay opportunities...

That school of thought originates from the fallacy that scenarios can't be written in a way which accomodates all those (and more) set-ups. In fact, most RP scenarios just give you a situation and minor modifiers like race and so on simply are expected to be adjudicated by the GM.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
captain yesterday wrote:
mostly i think the "Lack" of roleplaying in higher level stuff is partially attributed to GM burnout, by the time you get to the higher stuff you've already been at it for at least 6 months and you just want to get it over with.

Constant combat encounters for the last three modules do much more to "want to get it over with" than RP sessions. Rather the contrary, those RP sessions are what motivate a GM and a party to enjoy the entire AP.

Seriously, that assertion of yours makes no sense. :-/


2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
mostly i think the "Lack" of roleplaying in higher level stuff is partially attributed to GM burnout, by the time you get to the higher stuff you've already been at it for at least 6 months and you just want to get it over with.

Constant combat encounters for the last three modules do much more to "want to get it over with" than RP sessions. Rather the contrary, those RP sessions are what motivate a GM and a party to enjoy the entire AP.

Seriously, that assertion of yours makes no sense. :-/

For you. Not all GMs feel the same way. Some of us like the climax of heavy combat in the modules and don't get burned out because of that. These are your opinions and don't cover the opinions of all GMs. Certainly not me.

More RP encounters is fine by me. Especially if they are tie ins to combat, even as an alternative to combat.


Yeah, i said a lot of wrong stuff there, i'll give you that:)
i think what i was trying to convey is that there is already opportunities for exposition and interaction in the higher level modules, any way i lost where i was going with it all and actually it would seem the more i post on this thread the less sense i make and the more i piss people off (also not what i want) so i'm out, have fun! :)

The Exchange

5 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
mostly i think the "Lack" of roleplaying in higher level stuff is partially attributed to GM burnout, by the time you get to the higher stuff you've already been at it for at least 6 months and you just want to get it over with.

Constant combat encounters for the last three modules do much more to "want to get it over with" than RP sessions. Rather the contrary, those RP sessions are what motivate a GM and a party to enjoy the entire AP.

Seriously, that assertion of yours makes no sense. :-/

To you maybe.

You've made quite a few sweeping statements in this thread Magnuskn, painting many of us with your own perspectives rather than accepting there are other view points.

My group love combat encounters. They love the tactics of high end gaming and this game system in particular.

Having DMd many campaigns to conclusion, what kills the game is having to remember everything that's going on. Mental fatigue for DMs is a very real thing. Roleplay scenarios don't make this any easier, because you're still dealing with high level situations where so much complexity and abilities are in play that its crazy.

The more you detail responses and possible outcomes in a roleplay situation, the more you're forcing a DM to have to learn. Far better to sketch an outline of a situation and provide motivators for NPCs so the DM can just run with it and be spontaneous. That's far less debilitating on the mind at high levels.

I agree that stat blocks can be summarised by using bestiaries, move codex etc, but those aren't necessarily owned by people running APs, nor is it something people may have time to be looking up.

Remember that many people run APs because they don't have time. Having it all presented and ready to go right in front of you is just great.

Cheers


I've had roleplay kill a campaign and make me not DM for a good six/seven months. Turns out no one was having fun with the heated rping that was going on, despite telling me otherwise. I'm still hesitant to run again.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

an AP that has more roleplaying elements in it is something I've always wanted, and I always punch up the roleplay elements in APs I develop. I'm certainly intrigued in pushing it further... but as someone upthread mentioned... the game's core design is a combat simulator, and the further we drift from that, the further we drift into new areas that, like Mythic, will change the game and how it's played. Perhaps in ways you or I can't predict.

So... it's a tricky thing to do.

Fwiw, i thought the first instalment of Serpent's Skull was brilliantly pitched in terms of the role playing/combat mix. There was enough there with the NPCs for the group to interact with those that caught their eye and ignore those who didn't.

One of the risks with "role playing encounters", in my experience, is when they're a mandatory part of the plot, they can feel quite stilted when the PCs just don't care for the people/scene involved. A detailed set of backgrounds and relationships means that, whoever the PCs decide to latch onto, I will be well placed to flesh out the interaction and progress the plot. That becomes more difficult (or feels more contrived) when the module has a key NPC the players "should" talk to but my group just don't care about them, or miss the cues.


Try having a real-life divorce break the party.

When players allow real-life arguments to disrupt the game, even when the roleplaying is used as a subversive method of continuing the argument, then the game will suffer. This doesn't matter if you're talking party disruption or outright party conflict. And you can ALSO have non-roleplay disrupt a game - the cleric's player decides not to heal the barbarian because he's in an argument with her player.

That is a fault of interpersonal conflict, not roleplaying. And it manifests multiple ways.


Steve Geddes wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

an AP that has more roleplaying elements in it is something I've always wanted, and I always punch up the roleplay elements in APs I develop. I'm certainly intrigued in pushing it further... but as someone upthread mentioned... the game's core design is a combat simulator, and the further we drift from that, the further we drift into new areas that, like Mythic, will change the game and how it's played. Perhaps in ways you or I can't predict.

So... it's a tricky thing to do.

Fwiw, i thought the first instalment of Serpent's Skull was brilliantly pitched in terms of the role playing/combat mix. There was enough there with the NPCs for the group to interact with those that caught their eye and ignore those who didn't.

One of the risks with "role playing encounters", in my experience, is when they're a mandatory part of the plot, they can feel quite stilted when the PCs just don't care for the people/scene involved. A detailed set of backgrounds and relationships means that, whoever the PCs decide to latch onto, I will be well placed to flesh out the interaction and progress the plot. That becomes more difficult (or feels more contrived) when the module has a key NPC the players "should" talk to but my group just don't care about them, or miss the cues.

Of course, the same happens if there's a key NPC the players "should" fight but the group just don't care about them, or miss the cues.

If the role playing encounters are a mandatory part of the plot, then they should be tied into the plot enough that the party will care about them. If the party doesn't care about the plot, then you have larger problems.


thejeff wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

an AP that has more roleplaying elements in it is something I've always wanted, and I always punch up the roleplay elements in APs I develop. I'm certainly intrigued in pushing it further... but as someone upthread mentioned... the game's core design is a combat simulator, and the further we drift from that, the further we drift into new areas that, like Mythic, will change the game and how it's played. Perhaps in ways you or I can't predict.

So... it's a tricky thing to do.

Fwiw, i thought the first instalment of Serpent's Skull was brilliantly pitched in terms of the role playing/combat mix. There was enough there with the NPCs for the group to interact with those that caught their eye and ignore those who didn't.

One of the risks with "role playing encounters", in my experience, is when they're a mandatory part of the plot, they can feel quite stilted when the PCs just don't care for the people/scene involved. A detailed set of backgrounds and relationships means that, whoever the PCs decide to latch onto, I will be well placed to flesh out the interaction and progress the plot. That becomes more difficult (or feels more contrived) when the module has a key NPC the players "should" talk to but my group just don't care about them, or miss the cues.

Of course, the same happens if there's a key NPC the players "should" fight but the group just don't care about them, or miss the cues.

If the role playing encounters are a mandatory part of the plot, then they should be tied into the plot enough that the party will care about them. If the party doesn't care about the plot, then you have larger problems.

I'm only speaking from my experience.

In my experience, mandatory combat encounters the players fail to see the importance of are not as stilted as mandatory roleplaying encounters the players dont care about.

In depth background material and NPC write-ups helps me avoid that problem.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

an AP that has more roleplaying elements in it is something I've always wanted, and I always punch up the roleplay elements in APs I develop. I'm certainly intrigued in pushing it further... but as someone upthread mentioned... the game's core design is a combat simulator, and the further we drift from that, the further we drift into new areas that, like Mythic, will change the game and how it's played. Perhaps in ways you or I can't predict.

So... it's a tricky thing to do.

Fwiw, i thought the first instalment of Serpent's Skull was brilliantly pitched in terms of the role playing/combat mix. There was enough there with the NPCs for the group to interact with those that caught their eye and ignore those who didn't.

One of the risks with "role playing encounters", in my experience, is when they're a mandatory part of the plot, they can feel quite stilted when the PCs just don't care for the people/scene involved. A detailed set of backgrounds and relationships means that, whoever the PCs decide to latch onto, I will be well placed to flesh out the interaction and progress the plot. That becomes more difficult (or feels more contrived) when the module has a key NPC the players "should" talk to but my group just don't care about them, or miss the cues.

Thanks!

The first Serpent's Skull adventure is something I'm really quite proud of. It's got about the right mix of roleplay and combat and sandbox and dungeon, for my tastes. I could see it (or something like it) having a bit more roleplay and a bit less sandbox, I suspect.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

(not in answer to anyone in particular)

Role playing encounters shouldn't have prescribed outcomes.

The whole point about role playing is that you should be allowed to do whatever you want. There shouldn't be a "right" thing to do.

Role playing encounters fail when the players feel forced to role-play something which goes completely against their nature.

This isn't the fault of "role play" as such, it's the fault of the module.

Non-RP, i.e. combat, encounters are much easier to design, of course. The players generally only have one thing they can do: fight. And there is only one desirable outcome: win.

Richard


James Jacobs wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

an AP that has more roleplaying elements in it is something I've always wanted, and I always punch up the roleplay elements in APs I develop. I'm certainly intrigued in pushing it further... but as someone upthread mentioned... the game's core design is a combat simulator, and the further we drift from that, the further we drift into new areas that, like Mythic, will change the game and how it's played. Perhaps in ways you or I can't predict.

So... it's a tricky thing to do.

Fwiw, i thought the first instalment of Serpent's Skull was brilliantly pitched in terms of the role playing/combat mix. There was enough there with the NPCs for the group to interact with those that caught their eye and ignore those who didn't.

One of the risks with "role playing encounters", in my experience, is when they're a mandatory part of the plot, they can feel quite stilted when the PCs just don't care for the people/scene involved. A detailed set of backgrounds and relationships means that, whoever the PCs decide to latch onto, I will be well placed to flesh out the interaction and progress the plot. That becomes more difficult (or feels more contrived) when the module has a key NPC the players "should" talk to but my group just don't care about them, or miss the cues.

Thanks!

The first Serpent's Skull adventure is something I'm really quite proud of. It's got about the right mix of roleplay and combat and sandbox and dungeon, for my tastes. I could see it (or something like it) having a bit more roleplay and a bit less sandbox, I suspect.

It was awesome - doubly so because I had literally zero interest in a "deepest africa/indiana jones" adventure, so went into it quite skeptically. Soul's for Smuggler's Shiv totally turned that around - it remains one of my players' favorite adventures I've eve run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That might be one limiter in this, is that you'd need to advance the plot somehow with RP. Now, this can definitely be worked around by having multiple ways of advancing the plot. And of course, instead of having RP advance the plot, you could have it be there to add extra story and options for advancing the plot via adventuring, stealth, and combat. All are good options for roleplay.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I like RP encounters, part of the reason Kingmaker has taken so long is because of how much RP I added. I am enjoying running Jade Regent because of the sheer volume of RP opportunities.

At its heart RP is another kind of conflict resolution. The players don't realize it but when they RP they are saying: What do I want? Why can't I have it? Why do we care?
The same thing can be done with NPCs, motivation, conflict and what's in it for the players can all be added into many NPC stat-blocks. Also remove "fights to the death" from all but the most fanatical opponents. Zaiobe has become the unexpected star NPC of Jade Regent because the players treated her with respect, so she never saw a reason to betray the party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Also remove "fights to the death" from all but the most fanatical opponents.

And mindless, things like undead/constructs/mindless vermin/etc. commanded to patrol/defend an area against all comers, it makes sense for them to never back off. Intelligent creatures of all kinds, even if their INT is only 2, still have the "flight" part of their instincts intact, one would think.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dont remember too many encounters where it specifically states fights to the death, in all honesty. However that could just be my memory failing.

I know Wrath of the Righteous has a number of those, but in that case it truly is fanatics you're facing.

Many of the games I've run have had critters flee. Unless the combat tactics states otherwise, that's completely within the purview of the DM. I guess they could add a line in for some encounters where fleeing happens, but i seem to recall as many encounters with "will surrender or flee if brought to x hp" as I do for "will fight to the death".

At higher levels though, you tend to be at the pointy end of a campaign where the bad guys really don't have places to go any more. If prison isnt an optin for those things, then fight to death is basically it.

cheers

PS. For those who have access to it, Age of Worms has two mudules at the tail end of the campaign set in a town run by a lawful evil dictatorship. The amount of roleplay in that was superb, including a fancy ball the players had to attend and a whole bunch of character interractions and plots occuring in the background they had to work out. All of that under the scrutiny of Erinyes working for the government and real Gestapo/secret police feel to how the town was being run. There were also non combat scenarios set around rescuing tonsof folks from certain calamatous events that didnt involve combats but did involve diplomacy and inmtimidate etc. In terms of RP encounters at high level, it was pure magic.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wrath wrote:

To you maybe.

You've made quite a few sweeping statements in this thread Magnuskn, painting many of us with your own perspectives rather than accepting there are other view points.

That's your interpretation of me. Incorrect.

Wrath wrote:

My group love combat encounters. They love the tactics of high end gaming and this game system in particular.

Having DMd many campaigns to conclusion, what kills the game is having to remember everything that's going on. Mental fatigue for DMs is a very real thing. Roleplay scenarios don't make this any easier, because you're still dealing with high level situations where so much complexity and abilities are in play that its crazy.

The more you detail responses and possible outcomes in a roleplay situation, the more you're forcing a DM to have to learn. Far better to sketch an outline of a situation and provide motivators for NPCs so the DM can just run with it and be spontaneous. That's far less debilitating on the mind at high levels.

Apparently our brain structures are way different.

Wrath wrote:

I agree that stat blocks can be summarised by using bestiaries, move codex etc, but those aren't necessarily owned by people running APs, nor is it something people may have time to be looking up.

Remember that many people run APs because they don't have time. Having it all presented and ready to go right in front of you is just great.

Cheers

The very same goes for putting together roleplaying encounters, only that free statblocks are not as readily available as they are to you.

Wrath wrote:
I dont remember too many encounters where it specifically states fights to the death, in all honesty. However that could just be my memory failing.

It is. About every Paizo AP I've GM'ed (four to conclusion so far) has had the majority of them, especially in the later modules, being "to the death" for NPC's.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Magnuskn, I agree. It's obvious we both have completely different mind sets for the game.

I believe there is a place for a book range on roleplay encounters, just like bestiaries and NPC codexes. Suggested mechanics and tricks for making them as complex as combat using skills and social interactions. 4th edition tried it with skill challenges but their implementation was a little off. Paizo could seriously do great work here.

Many APs have this kind of stuff as addendum mechanics (chases, kingdom building, affection gain rules from jade regent etc). However, if stuff like those were presented as whole books, detailing mechanics for complex roleplay interaction at various levels, that would probably suit groups like yours.

I don't need that stuff in my games. I like free form decision making for my NPCs based on background info. Paizo already does this for me.

Your group obviously prefers/wants/needs more detailed stuff.

James has said he'd like to squeeze more stuff in like you're asking for. Maybe there's room for a book like I've suggested above too. That may give writers a tool to use to help them get more of what your after into APs but still give groups like mine what I want as well.

Cheers


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I like the idea of more RP, i don't know if I want things more complicated than the current Diplomacy rules. Again, I don't mind people getting bonuses on their Diplomacy rolles for good roleplay. But I don't want to feel penalized with mine because I'm not that charismatic, despite having a good Diplomacy skill. Diplomacy is the only thing in the game where you are judged on your real-life ability to do it and real-life ineptitude can affect your rolls negatively. I'd really hate to see that implemented.

I'm with Wrath. Freeform simplicity that rewards those that roleplay well, but doesn't penalize those of us that aren't as good.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion most role play happens between the PCs. It doesn't require any great skill, acting or what have you, it's just naturally what happens when people get into character (or, at least, suspend disbelief and pretend to be in the fantasy world).

The difference between a non-RP and an RP encounter is frequently as simple as whether the monster jumps you (non-RP) or whether you see it in the distance and plan for it (RP).

I think RP gets a bit of a bad name when presented as some sort of formulaic "socialise-at-party" or "question-the-suspects" or "work-out-the-traitor" conundrum with a right or wrong answer. RP is very subjective and the module writer needs to be quite careful about deciding what is good or bad RP. This is one of those things that really belongs in the realm of the GM to decide with a view on his own players. As a writer your best bet is to present RP in support of encounters and story-telling but always allow for the fact that players and GMs might disagree with your views and go in a totally different direction.

Additionally, skills like diplomacy and intimidate are there for people who don't want to RP. I find them a bit frustrating, myself, but I accept that they're there. In fact I've just written the following paragraph in the module I'm currently writing:

"From a game point of view, reading the intimidation rule too literally will replace a great part of the interaction which takes place in an investigative scenario with a few simple dice rolls. This can be good if your players are getting frustrated with the adventure but I personally would suggest you try role playing before rolling the dice."

Richard


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wrath wrote:

@Magnuskn, I agree. It's obvious we both have completely different mind sets for the game.

I believe there is a place for a book range on roleplay encounters, just like bestiaries and NPC codexes. Suggested mechanics and tricks for making them as complex as combat using skills and social interactions. 4th edition tried it with skill challenges but their implementation was a little off. Paizo could seriously do great work here.

Many APs have this kind of stuff as addendum mechanics (chases, kingdom building, affection gain rules from jade regent etc). However, if stuff like those were presented as whole books, detailing mechanics for complex roleplay interaction at various levels, that would probably suit groups like yours.

I don't need that stuff in my games. I like free form decision making for my NPCs based on background info. Paizo already does this for me.

Your group obviously prefers/wants/needs more detailed stuff.

James has said he'd like to squeeze more stuff in like you're asking for. Maybe there's room for a book like I've suggested above too. That may give writers a tool to use to help them get more of what your after into APs but still give groups like mine what I want as well.

Cheers

In any case, not every AP needs to be the same. They are written for different audiences already in some regards, so I think there would be space for an RP-heavy AP. James already said that he wants to move at least a bit in that direction, I am just encouraging him to do so a bit more. :)


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:


At its heart RP is another kind of conflict resolution. The players don't realize it but when they RP they are saying: What do I want? Why can't I have it? Why do we care?

This. Plus

Will this effect what happens next?
Does my choice matter?
What is your (to another pc) opinion


1 person marked this as a favorite.
richard develyn wrote:

In my opinion most role play happens between the PCs. It doesn't require any great skill, acting or what have you, it's just naturally what happens when people get into character (or, at least, suspend disbelief and pretend to be in the fantasy world).

The difference between a non-RP and an RP encounter is frequently as simple as whether the monster jumps you (non-RP) or whether you see it in the distance and plan for it (RP).

I think RP gets a bit of a bad name when presented as some sort of formulaic "socialise-at-party" or "question-the-suspects" or "work-out-the-traitor" conundrum with a right or wrong answer. RP is very subjective and the module writer needs to be quite careful about deciding what is good or bad RP. This is one of those things that really belongs in the realm of the GM to decide with a view on his own players. As a writer your best bet is to present RP in support of encounters and story-telling but always allow for the fact that players and GMs might disagree with your views and go in a totally different direction.

Additionally, skills like diplomacy and intimidate are there for people who don't want to RP. I find them a bit frustrating, myself, but I accept that they're there. In fact I've just written the following paragraph in the module I'm currently writing:

Richard

Yes, lots of this. I live in the UK as well.....we should play!!

;-)

You really cannot be over prescriptive in creating for many RP encounters. The party can decide literally anything and you cannot 'write' to this. It also makes it hard to publish as me having a bullet point list of stuff for home play; and a more substantial list for publishing, is often quite a gap

All tricky in an AP, because they are a 'path' afterall

Dark Archive

I think that the biggest problem APs have with RP is page count - c.f. my first post on this thread.

RP takes quite a lot of writing. In my own Journey to Catreay (excuse the plug, though it has just had a very nice review over here) an adventure with lots of RP in it, I wrote about 35 pages of text in support of 13 encounters.

Richard


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
richard develyn wrote:

I think that the biggest problem APs have with RP is page count - c.f. my first post on this thread.

RP takes quite a lot of writing. In my own Journey to Catreay (excuse the plug, though it has just had a very nice review over here) an adventure with lots of RP in it, I wrote about 35 pages of text in support of 13 encounters.

Richard

Not necessarily. I referenced the Jade Regent module four stuff a lot in this thread. While it had two pages setting up the location, it only needed two more pages to give enough of a roleplaying scenario for four days in-game and two entire sessions of gameplay. Given how the average module takes something like eight to twelve sessions to resolve, that is not a bad space/gameplay ratio.

Dark Archive

magnuskn wrote:
Not necessarily. I referenced the Jade Regent module four stuff a lot in this thread. While it had two pages setting up the location, it only needed two more pages to give enough of a roleplaying scenario for four days in-game and two entire sessions of gameplay. Given how the average module takes something like eight to twelve sessions to resolve, that is not a bad space/gameplay ratio.

Maybe I should give Jade Regent a try. It's had mixed reviews, though mainly because of the caravan rules. Skull & Shackles is the other AP that's generally mentioned with regards to RP so I had thought I would do that one next. Or maybe I should persuade someone else to do Jade Regent - we run three APs at the same time in my group.

Richard

151 to 200 of 264 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / General Discussion / Roleplaying scenarios and APs: A discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.