Roleplaying scenarios and APs: A discussion


Pathfinder Adventure Path General Discussion

201 to 250 of 264 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

honestly, you cant go wrong with either:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
richard develyn wrote:
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

Caravan rules do really suck and so do the relationship rules, but those are sub-systems which can be substituted or left out completely. The AP itself is a winner (although with reservations on book three and the later part of book four).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

JR 4 has a very good RP start, and then the single worst dungeon in any AP I have done so far..

the 5's in lots AP have had some of the best non combat encounters I think / setting to get good character stuff in

For good roleplaying encounters you just need 'pointers'....walls of text/responses is just the GM talking to the players....and I could see where this would take up buckets of page count


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I disagree. Playing part 4. The RP was fun as hell and we all loved the crazy dungeon. Too bad our GM doesn't want to run Pathfinder anymore. Trying to get us to play 5th, which isn't happening.

Doesn't help that I'm moving so sadly, looks like our Jade Regent game is dead.


yeah i dont get why the House of Withered Blossoms gets a bad rap, i understand why some omit it for Ruby Phoenix Tournement, but we had a blast in a holy f%$@ this place is going to kill us all sort of way:) plus

:
The Swine Shogun, Munasakaru and Akinosa rule! not to mention the lattice room over the pit with a Gorgon in it, yes!
so we liked it:)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Because it is a dungeon full of samey-same opponents, who mostly are utterly incapable of harming the party. The final opponent has a crappy Will save and can be taken out by one lucky spell. And it lasts, like, forever.

You know me, I hate dreary long dungeons with little RP value.


Really! i have never heard you say that before! :)


I definitely beg to differ on the "incapable of harming the party" part. It was pretty nuts going in there and we actually had a lot of RP in the dungeon before the game went kaput, both with ourselves, our NPCs, and the enemies.


yeah not every party walks around with 7 layers of buff spells at all times, 3 campaigns in and my wife and kids have still not cast a buff spell once, and twice my daughter was a Bard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
yeah not every party walks around with 7 layers of buff spells at all times, 3 campaigns in and my wife and kids have still not cast a buff spell once, and twice my daughter was a Bard.

Well now, we aren't slackers for optimization either. We've got the buffs and damage to shred people.


i used to try telling them about spells like Cat's Grace, Bear's whatever it is bear's do, and others but their response was always along the lines of: "oh sure, sure, so what spells blow shit up, make people throw up on themselves or make them shit their pants whilst bablling like a Loon and dancing uncontrolably" now i jsut roll with it and interject the occasional "ya know an extra plus to whatever would really help here" to which the usual reply "just keep the judgement at home and the monsters coming!"

so no not the party of buffers for sure:)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, that explains a lot of why you think AP's are hard. :p I hope your party bard at least uses Inspire Courage. ;)


inspire courage? alas no they don't play that kind of Bard;)


it should be noted we roll our ability scores so that makes up somewhat for the lack of spells like Bear's Sweat (or whatever it is)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Oh, I hope your player at least took an archetype which doesn't give away The Price for something which doesn't even benefit her/himself.

Also, rolled ability scores of course help a lot.


I offered an exchange: limited number of buffs based on Charisma modifier +1, in exchange for increasing the time of buffs from 1 minute/level to 10 minutes/level. They liked that idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i figure as soon as they figure out the advantages of buffs (i.e. read the rules themselves) i'll make them use a point buy system:)

and yes Magnuskn, my daughter does pick useful Archetypes (a Sea Singer for Pirates otherwise all Archeaologists all the time) and the whole reason she loves bards is the confusion make everyone throw up spells so i dont want to ruin her fun:) she is only 10 after all:) and my wife loves the vengeful blast everyone to shit stereotype witch (almost always a Gnome too)

but it beats playing with my nephews and their 16-18 abilty score array* optimized murder hobos

*that is being generous too, everytime they come out i make them re-roll their abilty scores because it usually starts out at 18,20,20,17,20,18 (turns out if you don't drop the 4 the dice you get way better scores) it can be a trial with them, which is when environmental conditions come in handy;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Over 15 years ago I once (during a 2nd edition AD&D game) wanted a "mythic" style campaign. So I was going to have them roll straight down the line 4d6 and add everything together.

First roll, my friend Bill got a 24. For Strength. Mind you, that's 2nd edition AD&D so that's near Storm Giant strength. I sadly didn't let him keep it. Stupid me. (I was trying to get his (now ex-) wife to roleplay more so I wanted her to be the main hero. Yeah, didn't work well, all she wanted to do was hack-and-slash.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

gotta love drama, especially when its not yours and they include you any way:\

funny story about Reign of Winter

:
so they come up to the snowman by the stream, my daughter casts Detect magic, so now they got this glowing magical snowman on the Trail, most people would go around it, in fact thats what my daughter and son said they should do, however the optimizing nephews decided "lets walk up and knock its head off" if my kids hadn't hung back they both would've died, they then chased the elementals onto the frozen stream lol
it was pretty funny, and reminded me what was frustrating (and why i dont play with) about playing with their dad (well that and the murder hobo-ing:)


my kids are named Penny and Milo, i just realized* i never used their names on here before

*by that i mean my Wife, Lisa told me i don't:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ captain yesterday: How often do you and your family get to play? Do you exclusively roleplay with your kin, or do you have any other groups? I wish I could get my children to play Pathfinder, but they are too absorbed with Call of Duty and Doc McStuffins respectively. :(

Also, to keep this post vaguely on topic: Do you find your children veer towards role playing or roll playing?


good questions!
1) we try to play at least 1-3 times a week or so, obviously it doean't always work out that way, but we try.
2) i play pretty much exclusively with my wife and kids, i had a group of co-workers i played wth 8 years ago maybe (to be honest i dont remember exactly) it did not end well:(
i tried to jjoin another local group but they still used the 3.5 books almost entierly and my car broke down for about 2 years before i could fix it, so i couldn't make it reliably.
3. video games and RPGs, we dont play many video games at all, in fact our Xbox360 hasnt even been turned on in weeks! and just last week i gave them the choice of video games or playing outside, Every time they picked outside, it is rare i'll give you that:) in a way PFRPG is their video games

now to the hardest part and the easy part Roleplaying vs Roll-playing, i've found you must have both, just one or the other and boredom sets in pretty quickly, the nice thing is they're my kids i've literally known them their entire lives (in fact they wouldnt even be around at all if it wasn't for me! well that and my wife too:) so i know if they are starting to lose interest, i like to throw out various skill checks for them to roll if they start to itch to roll some dice.
i will say they do tend to favor rolelaying vs roll playing as they are more interested oftentimes with monologuing with the enemies and they talk to everyone, in fact in RoW they left more NPCs alive then dead, even the BBEG of book 1 got to live:)

(okay mini rant, i Love that paizo has all these super cool independent woman NPCs populating the APs but myself personally i do voices but my voice is deep so i cant do women's voices without making them seem kind of transexual or at least incredibly manly* which i will admit is entirely my problem, keep it up Paizo!:)

*and this Magnuskn is the biggest failing i had trying to roleplay Ameiko and Shalelu in Jade Regent, well also didnt help i didnt have RotRL or have any idea that what happened to Amieko was so f+@!ed up, i had trouble keeping track of them in combat, my wife and daughter were both strong and independent as well so they both kind of got lost in the Lilith fair-esque party, all my mistakes and all my fault:) just thought you'd like to know you were right:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

the most important words you can use when playing with kids "are you sure you want to do that?" if you say that 3-4 tines per encounter and they still want to do that then they learn consequences and eventually you wont have to say it as much (or in Penny's case now, at all) l also let them behind the screen sometimes so they can see what you do and how you do it, kids love to emulate their parents, embrace it, the next adventure path we do after RoW will be Penny's:)


the best accessories to get to get the kids into RPGs i found was Adventure Path or NPC Codex Pawns* and the beginner box, the pawns because it will help them visualize their characters and things and the beginner box is awesome for getting a grasp of the rules and character building themselves (plus the blank on one side flipmat that comes with it has been worth the cost of the box itself, 3 years old and still looks new, thats durable!)

*the bestiary pawns are great and all but they dont have NPCs (i.e. more options for character visualization) and the AP pawns are cheaper (you will need at least one bestiary box for bases, the AP pawns dont come with bases, i also store them in cookie jars)

crap! i forgot, during the school year i GM for Penny and a few of her classmates, we started with a Harry Potter-ized Carrion Crown but then they decided they wanted to do kingdom building with Kingmaker, which has been a huge success:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also can't do female voices that well. Which is why when it came to Nadya, I recruited the female player whose character spoke the least. And it worked twofold! First, she did a great Russian accent and enjoyed herself immensely. And second, she started roleplaying and enjoying herself more, and I can't help but think she has gotten more into the game as a result.

That said, I do roleplay female characters in my other game; what I tend to do is speak softly. It helps lessen the fact I don't do female voices that well. ;)


see, my voice is deep enough that if i do them softly it actually makes them sound more manly,

Cliche Hollywood Russian accents have been working very well for me in RoW mostly because women with the cliche hollywood Russian accents in movies and such use deep voices any way:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're just too damn manly Captain, that's always been your curse. :p


mikeawmids wrote:
You're just too damn manly Captain, that's always been your curse. :p

Agh!.....shouldn't.... make joke....... set up.... too easy...........i.....have...........willpower.....*sigh* okay, i think i'm fine, i can do this! *sigh* i'm good!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mikeawmids wrote:
You're just too damn manly Captain, that's always been your curse. :p

THATS WHAT SHE SAID!

i'm sorry, i can't help myself, i might have a problem:)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

K, sorry if I'm repeating others' thoughts, but I'm at work and can only afford 10-15 minute breaks, so I can't read all 229 posts.

I've GM'ed 16 AP books in all (RotRL 1-6, CotCT 1-5, WotR 1-2, KM 1, SS 1, SS 1) and played 6 more (CC).

I found that roleplaying was *far* more dependent on my group than on anything written in the AP. Rise of the Runelords was hands-down the best roleplaying experience I've ever had; my players routinely ran 8-hour sessions with no combats at all. The paladin of Sarenrae opened virtually every encounter with an offer to surrender or talk rather than fight.

My take on the "fights to the death" morale entry is that that only applies AFTER combat starts; if the PCs manage to talk their way through an encounter, all the better.

In that situation, I found the "background information" provided to me for the enemies allowed me to roleplay them effectively. I think Rise of the Runelords was a spectacular roleplaying AP; my group's time was about 75% roleplay and 25% combat.

And before you say, "Well, that's YOUR group," that's my point exactly.

Curse of the Crimson Throne was another RP-heavy AP for us where we spent FAR more time in PC/NPC interactions than we did in combat.

Wrath of the Righteous is out-and-out surprising me. Everyone talks about what a wonderful roleplaying AP it is, but my same group is having massive trouble roleplaying with ANYONE because of the strong sense of urgency of "get to the next combat". It's the first AP I've run that I felt was really "RP-unfriendly".

Unfortunately, then there are the -OTHER- groups I play with, whose attitude can be summarized as, "Killed that. Shut up, pointless NPC. What do we kill next?"
In spite of massive attempts by both me (SS, SS, KM) and my fellow GMs (SD, CC), the players just aren't interested in roleplaying. The CC GM went out of his way to point out that we had "infinite downtime" and "as much RP as we wanted", and the group just wanted to move on to the next fight. *SIGH*.

So I will politely contradict Magnuskn, with no animosity intended:
- Most of the APs I have played or run through (Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Carrion Crown) have had "sufficient" roleplay information that I had no trouble skewing the balance strongly in favor of roleplay. The reason the content of the books is so combat-heavy is that a single stat block and combat map takes up at least a page, and that page might provide up to an hour of combat. Compare that to one of background, which I can easily spin into 3-4 hours of roleplay, and the reason the content is so combat-skewed becomes obvious.
- I will call out Wrath of the Righteous and Serpent's Skull as two APs where I felt I could not get in enough roleplay to satisfy myself.
- It is far more the onus of the players to WANT roleplay. I desperately try to tell a story with the "big group" and the "kids' group", but they're just not interested.

AP STRENGTHS:
- "Enough" background that I can roleplay most of them.

AP WEAKNESSES:
- Not enough background to explain what to do if an enemy surrenders. I can't count how many people surrendered in Rise of the Runelords, only to have me have to figure out their likely behavior based on their backgrounds and alignment. I'd love to see one or two more sentences per entry. "If this NPC survives this encounter, their attitude is that they will next xxx..."

NOT AP RELATED:
- My "roleplaying issues" are virtually always my players, NOT the AP. I consider WotR an exception in that I have a wonderful group of roleplayers, and the AP is so intense and focused that RP dies. I'm hoping Books 3 and 4 will remedy that a bit.

Anyway, my $0.09. (At least 4 1/2 times too big for a "normal" opinion).


I'll make ot easier on you Nobodyshome, just ignore everything i say (if i dont change my Avatar today that is;) its almost entirely either poorly worded tangents, jokes or both:)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I beg your pardon. I've an English degree. I work hard not to poorly word my posts! ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
I'll make ot easier on you Nobodyshome, just ignore everything i say (if i dont change my Avatar today that is;) its almost entirely either poorly worded tangents, jokes or both:)

You know, peacock feathers? Little goatee? I'm thinking Xandu...

(Or are you reading Useplanb's journal?)


Tangent101 wrote:
I beg your pardon. I've an English degree. I work hard not to poorly word my posts! ;)

Oh! i'm sorry i wasn't aware you had copyrighted the word Tangent thats cool, i'll stop;)

no degree here tho, i was home schooled literally my whole life and never went to college:) as a Teenager i discovered the three best words in the english language: No Experience Necessary:)


NobodysHome wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I'll make ot easier on you Nobodyshome, just ignore everything i say (if i dont change my Avatar today that is;) its almost entirely either poorly worded tangents, jokes or both:)

You know, peacock feathers? Little goatee? I'm thinking Xandu...

(Or are you reading Useplanb's journal?)

no:) i don't read his journals:) one of my criteria for picking an Avatar is it has to hardly used at all, surprisngly Xanderghul is little used (9 others use it, other then the hair and the creepy f#*% you or kill you Eyes its close enough to me, i also tend not to wear peacock feathers i guess, tho if Xanderghul can pull it off......


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That's an interesting observation about Wrath and RP potential Nobody. I found that my group attempted more RP in that AP than in others due to redemption and all of the complicated NPCs. They even through me for a loop sometimes.

Why so you think it was different for your group? The shiny distraction of mythic powers to blow stuff up?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seannoss wrote:

That's an interesting observation about Wrath and RP potential Nobody. I found that my group attempted more RP in that AP than in others due to redemption and all of the complicated NPCs. They even through me for a loop sometimes.

Why so you think it was different for your group? The shiny distraction of mythic powers to blow stuff up?

Good question. I think it's the sense of evil and urgency. In other APs, you can afford to be merciful because the antagonists are just mooks following a greater evil. In WotR the bad guys are actively working towards the end of the world.

So cultists get executed with little to no remorse. Demons are killed on sight. NPCs are treated with, "We'd love to talk to you but we're busy saving the world right now."

For my players, it just feels too much like, "If we slack off, even for a moment, the world may end," so they're not about to spend time hanging around the NPCs.

I know for a fact that this ends starting in Book 3 and the PCs will have more time, but Books 1-2 are a horror story of, "If you don't hurry up, the world may end," so I can hardly blame them for staying focused.

EDIT: OK, Book 2 is technically, "If you don't go fast enough the demon hordes will return, kill your armies, chew you up, and spit you out," but it's still a sense that even taking an afternoon to rest may be enough to allow the demons to regroup and strike back. I'm looking forward to seeing how they manage Book 3 when they learn that they actually have time all of a sudden.


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

So I will politely contradict Magnuskn, with no animosity intended:

- Most of the APs I have played or run through (Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Carrion Crown) have had "sufficient" roleplay information that I had no trouble skewing the balance strongly in favor of roleplay. The reason the content of the books is so combat-heavy is that a single stat block and combat map takes up at least a page, and that page might provide up to an hour of combat. Compare that to one of background, which I can easily spin into 3-4 hours of roleplay, and the reason the content is so combat-skewed becomes obvious.
- I will call out Wrath of the Righteous and Serpent's Skull as two APs where I felt I could not get in enough roleplay to satisfy myself.
- It is far more the onus of the players to WANT roleplay. I desperately try to tell a story with the "big group" and the "kids' group", but they're just not interested.

See, you've picked out three of the most RP-heavy AP's out there. I've GM'ed CotCT and CC and I am a player in RotRL (in book five right now). I'd contest several of your assertions.

1.) There are entire books in RotRL, CC and CotCT where you can't effectively negotiate with about 90% of the books opponents. Book five so far is turning out to be so in RotRL, book six in CC and book five in CotCT.

2.) Errr, how you describe the RP to combat page ratio, it should become rather obvious that RP heavy pages should provide more content. ^^ Lots of combats last quite a bit longer than one hour, however.

3.) I get that background info can help provide character motivations if your party is interested in keeping them alive. However, in more than some cases it is unnecessary, because either the party will not want to let them live or the person in question isn't interested in redemption or being captured.

4.) I also disagree with the notion that Paizo secretly intends that the "fights to the death" morale statblock entry only applies once a few rounds of diplomacy had been had. If that were they case, they would state so.

3.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

See, you've picked out three of the most RP-heavy AP's out there. I've GM'ed CotCT and CC and I am a player in RotRL (in book five right now). I'd contest several of your assertions.

1.) There are entire books in RotRL, CC and CotCT where you can't effectively negotiate with about 90% of the books opponents. Book five so far is turning out to be so in RotRL, book six in CC and book five in CotCT.

2.) Errr, how you describe the RP to combat page ratio, it should become rather obvious that RP heavy pages should provide more content. ^^ Lots of combats last quite a bit longer than one hour, however.

3.) I get that background info can help provide character motivations if your party is interested in keeping them alive. However, in more than some cases it is unnecessary, because either the party will not want to let them live or the person in question isn't interested in redemption or being captured.

4.) I also disagree with the notion that Paizo secretly intends that the "fights to the death" morale statblock entry only applies once a few rounds of diplomacy had been had. If that were they case, they would state so.

While I'll say your points are perfectly valid, those are areas where the GM really has a huge amount of say.

(1) I think that "90% of opponents" is more your GM's style, rather than the AP as-written. For example, you cited book 5 of RotRL. In that book, two wings explicitly state that the denizens are more interested in talking initially than fighting. Two wings are essentially "environmental hazards". And three wings are indeed "attack intruders on sight". I consider that a fair mix of attitudes. You can exit the Runeforge after visiting two wings, one of which is "attack on sight", and one of which is written as, "Can be 100% negotiated with no fight required". Exploring additional wings is entirely optional, and ends up in more of the "attack on sight" varieties.

(2) and (4): This is definitely a "style" issue, and I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Given an NPC background, I'm very comfortable deciding on their behavior, so I *always* assume that "fights to the death" does not apply until combat has started. Accuse me of perverting Paizo's intentions, but it does lead to more RP. My issue is that many times the players will choose not to kill someone, and the background isn't robust enough for me to decide their reaction. (You and several other posters have pointed that out.) But I honestly don't need a lot. I like to "drink heavily and wing it", so a couple of sentences of, "If captured, this NPC does xxx" would go a long way for me.

(3) Yeah, that's the whole, "Player attitude" thing I'm talking about, plus my issue with WotR so far. In RotR, my players made it through all of Jorgenfist with a grand total of... 3 fights, I think. I'd convinced them that every giant they killed fed the runewells, so they were utterly determined to keep every giant alive. This led to awesome roleplay, tense negotiations, and very little combat.
Did I massively change the AP? I don't think so. NPCs listed as utterly dedicated to the cause fought. But the no-name NPCs who'd just been recruited were more than willing not to fight, leading to some awesome post-AP negotiations between Sandpoint and the giant tribes that had survived.
Was it a lot of work for me? No. It was really fun.

So yes, if your players aren't interested in keeping people alive, it's very very hard to get any RP in. But I put that onus on the players, rather than Paizo. Yes, there are clearly irredeemable NPCs who just fight, period. But in RotRL they were fortunately few and far between.

And I absolutely can't claim to have been cherry-picking APs. I asked, "What's the best?" and everyone said, "Either Curse of the Crimson Throne or Rise of the Runelords", and I ran those two and loved every moment.
Now I'm running Wrath of the Righteous and really missing any "significant" roleplaying. That supports your position that most APs aren't as RP-friendly, but I'll defend RotR and CotCT as "ideal balances" to anyone willing to listen to my ramblings.

So as a final note, I personally am definitely a "daydreaming, creative" type. I know that. My players send me 2-3 sentences of background and I turn that into a 3-4 page short story of their entire lives. So I personally find the RP content in the APs I've run (RotRL, CotCL) enough for me.
But I am perfectly willing to concede I do love to run on, so others might want more. Just as I don't like having too little information to build a story, I don't like being constrained by too much of one. A delicate balance Paizo has to work.
And as I've said, RotRL and CotCT were perfect *for me* as a GM. WotR is showing gaping holes at this point.
(Just finished reading Book 3, and after both the Player's Guide and Book 1 said, "Oh, just wait 'til Book 3 when we reveal all the PCs' stories," I have to say, "Seriously? That's all you've got? Now I have to spend half a dozen hours building my own stories so the play lives up to the hype..."


NobodysHome wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I'll make ot easier on you Nobodyshome, just ignore everything i say (if i dont change my Avatar today that is;) its almost entirely either poorly worded tangents, jokes or both:)

You know, peacock feathers? Little goatee? I'm thinking Xandu...

(Or are you reading Useplanb's journal?)

i do realize that i said i didnt want to have an Avatar that looked like a pompous a#~#*!$ with a goatee, however all the Avatars with goatees look like pompous a~&!#@@s (is it the goatee? No! can't be that!) so if i'm going to look like a pompous a!+%$$~ i might as well look like the number one pompous a+%*@$+ in Pathfinder:)


Now, because I am *SO* talkative I argue with myself (or maybe I just talked a bit with Jake/Shiro's player, who has more GM'ing experience than pretty much everyone on this forum, possibly combined):

NobodysHome: Basically, he's asking for the APs to include a lot more RP information, at least as much as the combat. My personal opinion is that if you give me a 3-4 sentence background on an NPC, I can roleplay that NPC for HOURS. So I don't really need it. Whereas I can't come up with combat maps or stat blocks off the top of my head, so I don't mind the extra space taken by those. I'm wondering whether I'm "different" or he's asking for too much.

Experienced GM: I'd say you're different. What he's asking for is that the AP provide the information that a GM with years of experience can kinda do on the fly. It's hard to put that content into a written module, but I've seen it done and it's really good. It allows a beginner to run a solid RP game. Whereas they normally only run a combat game.
The other thing it does is allows NPCs to be very consistent from game to game. So if you play in the Pathfinder Society, the NPCs are similar where ever you go.

So a man I respect greatly is siding with Magnuskn. I'm just "different." :-P

EDIT: Not that I don't respect you, Magnuskn; it's just that I've never met you. And it's not morning yet...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I'll make ot easier on you Nobodyshome, just ignore everything i say (if i dont change my Avatar today that is;) its almost entirely either poorly worded tangents, jokes or both:)

You know, peacock feathers? Little goatee? I'm thinking Xandu...

(Or are you reading Useplanb's journal?)
i do realize that i said i didnt want to have an Avatar that looked like a pompous a#&+$#+ with a goatee, however all the Avatars with goatees look like pompous a+~~*&~s (is it the goatee? No! can't be that!) so if i'm going to look like a pompous a++$*!* i might as well look like the number one pompous a$~~#+& in Pathfinder:)

You're mistaking "Xandu" (preening cleric of Desna in Useplanb's RotRL game, who some have compared to Liberace) for "Xanderghul" (Runelord of Pride).

There may be some difference there. I'm not quite sure...


.... Different sides of the same coin maybe?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hay, I'm like right here!

NobodysHome, you're a bad man. We had a great game last night but no write ups yet. I guess I should get started.


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

While I'll say your points are perfectly valid, those are areas where the GM really has a huge amount of say.

(1) I think that "90% of opponents" is more your GM's style, rather than the AP as-written. For example, you cited book 5 of RotRL. In that book, two wings explicitly state that the denizens are more interested in talking initially than fighting. Two wings are essentially "environmental hazards". And three wings are indeed "attack intruders on sight". I consider that a fair mix of attitudes. You can exit the Runeforge after visiting two wings, one of which is "attack on sight", and one of which is written as, "Can be 100% negotiated with no fight required". Exploring additional wings is entirely optional, and ends up in more of the "attack on sight" varieties.

I could have lived with less spoilers on that one. :-/ I'll have to see how it continues, but my GM on RotRL is pretty good with the RP.

Doesn't negate my points on CC and CotCT, however. Undead and their fanatic cultists are poor negotiators.

NobodysHome wrote:
(2) and (4): This is definitely a "style" issue, and I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Given an NPC background, I'm very comfortable deciding on their behavior, so I *always* assume that "fights to the death" does not apply until combat has started. Accuse me of perverting Paizo's intentions, but it does lead to more RP. My issue is that many times the players will choose not to kill someone, and the background isn't robust enough for me to decide their reaction. (You and several other posters have pointed that out.) But I honestly don't need a lot. I like to "drink heavily and wing it", so a couple of sentences of, "If captured, this NPC does xxx" would go a long way for me.

Yeah, well, the original point of this thread was about "AP's as written", so my wishes go to how Paizo could improve their AP's "as written" as well. Individual GM's could probably spin an entire side module out of the two lines of background if they wish to.

And, as you said, I already pointed out that a bit more information on how opponents react about their unexpected survival and getting mercy from the party would be helpful.

NobodysHome wrote:

(3) Yeah, that's the whole, "Player attitude" thing I'm talking about, plus my issue with WotR so far. In RotR, my players made it through all of Jorgenfist with a grand total of... 3 fights, I think. I'd convinced them that every giant they killed fed the runewells, so they were utterly determined to keep every giant alive. This led to awesome roleplay, tense negotiations, and very little combat.

Did I massively change the AP? I don't think so. NPCs listed as utterly dedicated to the cause fought. But the no-name NPCs who'd just been recruited were more than willing not to fight, leading to some awesome post-AP negotiations between Sandpoint and the giant tribes that had survived.
Was it a lot of work for me? No. It was really fun.

Same happened in my RotRL campaign. The party teleported to Mokmurian, so we got the info about the giants dying funneling power to Karzoug. We didn't kill many giants after that and rather negotiated with most of them.

NobodysHome wrote:
So yes, if your players aren't interested in keeping people alive, it's very very hard to get any RP in. But I put that onus on the players, rather than Paizo. Yes, there are clearly irredeemable NPCs who just fight, period. But in RotRL they were fortunately few and far between.

And they are pretty damn abundant in other AP's, like Carrion Crown, Wrath of the Righteous and so on.

NobodysHome wrote:

And I absolutely can't claim to have been cherry-picking APs. I asked, "What's the best?" and everyone said, "Either Curse of the Crimson Throne or Rise of the Runelords", and I ran those two and loved every moment.

Now I'm running Wrath of the Righteous and really missing any "significant" roleplaying. That supports your position that most APs aren't as RP-friendly, but I'll defend RotR and CotCT as "ideal balances" to anyone willing to listen to my ramblings.

Sure, they are some of the best out there. I'd recommend Jade Regent to you, too, btw.

NobodysHome wrote:
So as a final note, I personally am definitely a "daydreaming, creative" type. I know that. My players send me 2-3 sentences of background and I turn that into a 3-4 page short story of their entire lives. So I personally find the RP content in the APs I've run (RotRL, CotCL) enough for me.

Although I can definitely see your position, I would find that a bit off-putting as a player, since I strongly believe in deciding for myself on what my character has done with his life. Although I also write at least a page or more of backstory for every character I run, so there is a difference between me and other players who only supply the bare bones.

NobodysHome wrote:

But I am perfectly willing to concede I do love to run on, so others might want more. Just as I don't like having too little information to build a story, I don't like being constrained by too much of one. A delicate balance Paizo has to work.

And as I've said, RotRL and CotCT were perfect *for me* as a GM. WotR is showing gaping holes at this point.
(Just finished reading Book 3, and after both the Player's Guide and Book 1 said, "Oh, just wait 'til Book 3 when we reveal all the PCs' stories," I have to say, "Seriously? That's all you've got? Now I have to spend half a dozen hours building my own stories so the play lives up to the hype..."

Yeah, NPC backstories and the lack of further character development after the module they are introduced in has been one of my main complaints about AP's.

NobodysHome wrote:

Now, because I am *SO* talkative I argue with myself (or maybe I just talked a bit with Jake/Shiro's player, who has more GM'ing experience than pretty much everyone on this forum, possibly combined):

NobodysHome: Basically, he's asking for the APs to include a lot more RP information, at least as much as the combat. My personal opinion is that if you give me a 3-4 sentence background on an NPC, I can roleplay that NPC for HOURS. So I don't really need it. Whereas I can't come up with combat maps or stat blocks off the top of my head, so I don't mind the extra space taken by those. I'm wondering whether I'm "different" or he's asking for too much.

Experienced GM: I'd say you're different. What he's asking for is that the AP provide the information that a GM with years of experience can kinda do on the fly. It's hard to put that content into a written module, but I've seen it done and it's really good. It allows a beginner to run a solid RP game. Whereas they normally only run a combat game.
The other thing it does is allows NPCs to be very consistent from game to game. So if you play in the Pathfinder Society, the NPCs are similar where ever you go.

So a man I respect greatly is siding with Magnuskn. I'm just "different." :-P

EDIT: Not that I don't respect you, Magnuskn; it's just that I've never met you. And it's not morning yet...

See, I am GM with now 10+ years of experience under my belt, so I think your characterization of me is more than a bit insulting, even if done unintentionally.

The thing is, since I have run quite a few AP's to conclusion at this point, I am seeing definite signs of "AP fatigue" on the part of my players and also on my part. And that has me questioning why that happens. It isn't on part of the combat (although even that part can use improvements, especially in the later modules when designer expectations of combat difficulty part with actual PC power.), but solidly on part of the roleplaying opportunities.

I've summarized it before, I'll do it again. I'm not claiming that those are all my arguments, because it's early in the morning and I am still quite bleary around the eyes. ^^

1.) NPC's don't really matter beyond their module. Due to the way of how the AP's are written (six writers, coordinated by an/some editor/s), the modules are poorly connected to each other. Paizo says that they are unable to improve the process of coordination between the writers, something I am still deeply skeptical about. As such, NPC's whom are introduced in one module get almost no character advancement in later modules and are declared mostly irrelevant to the plot. Since Paizo seems to work on the assumption that in most groups there are people who play axe-crazy psychos who murder their allies, they seem to regard further NPC development as a waste of resources.

That puts the onus of maintaining strong connections from the PC's to the actual people in an AP (the NPC's) squarely on the shoulders of the GM, which, IMO, should be something which is shared between Paizo and GM's. It also leads to players not caring to make deeper connections to NPC's, because from experience they know that those NPC's are irrelevant to the plot.

I know that AP's are not novels, television shows, comics, etc. However, they are still stories. In which kind of story are characters introduced just for one sixth of the story and then stand around in the background and do nothing or are forgotten entirely? Not the good ones, I can tell you that.

2.) Paizo focuses on the wrong kind of roleplaying info. Three things in typical AP module bug me to no end. a.) Repetitive flavor text. Do I really need to know that a bed is standing against the east wall and an armoire against the north wall 20-30 times in a module? b.) Needless NPC information for people who are supposed to die. / No information what they do if they survive. It's one or the other, but either get the former one out for the true fanatics or include the latter for the people who might be redeemed if they survive; c.) Written out info dumps. At times, there are entire pages (or more) dedicated to giving written out infodump dialogues from NPC's. Those assume that the NPC's are getting the exact question the writers are assuming they get, otherwise the dialogue becomes quite more clunky to get across. They could be vastly improved by summarizing the information and just giving a general tone the NPC uses.

3.) I am not asking for more long dialogues and "you need to say exactly" that scenarios. I am asking for roleplaying scenarios which give a GM goals to hit, make proposals/give definite guidelines about how to get there and generally set up situations which the GM then can fill in with as much detail as he wants. I know I've been recurring to the scenario set up in Jade Regent module four a ton, but I still think that this is an ideal example on how to create a great situation where GM's can fill in the gaps with what he wants the moment to convey, but gets all the tools he needs to set up some good roleplaying sessions from Paizo.


1-3. Beautifully summarised

Especially 2a

I think for me, and it may seem odd, but the way APs work ,the GM talks too much!

The Exchange

Quote:
3.) I am not asking for more long dialogues and "you need to say exactly" that scenarios. I am asking for roleplaying scenarios which give a GM goals to hit, make proposals/give definite guidelines about how to get there and generally set up situations which the GM then can fill in with as much detail as he wants. I know I've been recurring to the scenario set up in Jade Regent module four a ton, but I still think that this is an ideal example on how to create a great situation where GM's can fill in the gaps with what he wants the moment to convey, but gets all the tools he needs to set up some good roleplaying sessions from Paizo.

From all that you said, this is the one point I find myself at odds with (the other two make perfect sense, and with this one it's more of a differing of styles that's my issue, not the logic behind it).

To me, roleplaying should not be an encounter meant to overcome (sometimes roleplaying smartly would be very helpful to the players or even solve some encounters, but that's different). I think the more natural place for roleplay to be is everywhere except encounters - liven up the world with interesting NPCs and RP situations, have the players interacting as their characters, and become emotionally attached to places, people and stories in the game.

The problem, as magnuskn said, is that there are so many combat encounters that RP can be buried beneath them. My solution is simply to remove some unimportant fights from the adventure, thus spacing out the combat and allowing a lot of RP in between. A classic example is in adventure 4 of Shattered Star (which generally speaking I really like) - there are two adjacent rooms. Both are empty except for a single CR 11 creatures - the exact same creature type in both rooms. The tactics for the creature in the second room read "see tactics of the creatures in the previous room."
When I read that, I wondered what was the point in having two consecutive fights, both of them exactly the same, in otherwise empty rooms. I decided that if I ever run that adventure, I'll just ignore the second creature.

While the case I gave is an extreme one, there are many similar. Many combat encounters that are not very interesting, not threatening to the PCs, and don't really help to flesh out the story or the location. So, for anyone who doesn't use XP (like me), just ignoring those fights could really help make the combat/RP ratio feel more balanced. Not by adding any extra work, but by trimming down the fat from an adventure.

Dark Archive

The plethora of encounters is necessary to provide sufficient XP for characters to go up the requisite number of levels.

As far as I can see, there are three alternatives to this:

1) introducing story XP awards, however that means giving out what seems like a huge amount of XP just for making a successful diplomacy roll (for example),

2) raising the level of danger - i.e. fewer but more dangerous encounters,

3) reduce the number of levels that you go up in an AP.

I don't think any of these solutions is popular.

Richard

P.S. Actually there is a 4th solution - abandon the maths altogether and just have levelling up points.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:
To me, roleplaying should not be an encounter meant to overcome (sometimes roleplaying smartly would be very helpful to the players or even solve some encounters, but that's different). I think the more natural place for roleplay to be is everywhere except encounters - liven up the world with interesting NPCs and RP situations, have the players interacting as their characters, and become emotionally attached to places, people and stories in the game.

There are several kind of roleplaying challenges in a campaign. What you describe seems to me to be the underlying groundwork of a campaign... make your players care about their location, their NPC companions and about the story.

What I mean are social situations which are specifically set up as encounters, as something to be overcome, navigated, successfully mastered... something which stretches the RP talents of the players a bit and/or uses the skills their characters have accumulated.

richard develyn wrote:

The plethora of encounters is necessary to provide sufficient XP for characters to go up the requisite number of levels.

As far as I can see, there are three alternatives to this:

1) introducing story XP awards, however that means giving out what seems like a huge amount of XP just for making a successful diplomacy roll (for example),

2) raising the level of danger - i.e. fewer but more dangerous encounters,

3) reduce the number of levels that you go up in an AP.

I don't think any of these solutions is popular.

Richard

P.S. Actually there is a 4th solution - abandon the maths altogether and just have levelling up points.

I wouldn't say that any of those solutions but the third one is unpopular. Actually, options one, two and four are things I'd want in AP's.


magnuskn wrote:
I could have lived with less spoilers on that one. :-/

Profuse apologies. You find fairly early on what you need to know, so I made assumptions. My bad entirely.

magnuskn wrote:
1.) NPC's don't really matter beyond their module.

Absolutely, positively 100% agree with this one. Yes, it's a sore point with me as well trying to figure out ways to fit in NPCs with whom the players have developed relationships into later modules. In RotRL it was easy because of Sandpoint. In CotCT it was easy because of Korvosa. In other APs it was basically, "I hope your party has Teleport, because that's the only way you'll ever see XXX again..."

magnuskn wrote:

2.) Paizo focuses on the wrong kind of roleplaying info. Three things in typical AP module bug me to no end.

a.) Repetitive flavor text.
b.) Needless NPC information for people who are supposed to die. / No information what they do if they survive.
c.) Written out info dumps.

As-summarized, I have to agree all three points are 100% valid. I'll agree that (c) bugs me no end as well. "Here are two pages of answers to questions the PCs might ask."

I have yet to have a single PC in any campaign ask more than one matching question. Much better to have the general information available to the NPC.

magnuskn wrote:
3.) I am not asking for more long dialogues and "you need to say exactly" that scenarios. I am asking for roleplaying scenarios which give a GM goals to hit, make proposals/give definite guidelines about how to get there and generally set up situations which the GM then can fill in with as much detail as he wants.

I'll have to check out that section of Jade Regent. Sounds like we're in agreement here as well.

Finally, I apologize you found our IM tone "insulting"; I felt it would be better to copy-and-paste the IMs directly rather than try to filter them. I constantly check in with other GMs as to things I am doing, and I felt that having one whom I defer to in most cases say, "No; they really could put in more," was worth sharing.
EDIT 2: And if the insult was from the "ancient guru" characterization, he's our local "that guy", so we take a great deal of pride in/love needling him about just how old he is. So it was tongue-in-cheek, but that virtually never comes across in text. Go figure.

Anyway, looks like your summary of what could be improved is awesome. Nicely stated!

EDIT: And for the record, we abandoned XP long ago because they really do seem to handcuff roleplaying. We brought in a couple of old-school D&Ders and they were amazing. "No; we have to kill the prisoners! We don't get XP unless they're dead!"
Just... wow!

201 to 250 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.