RP


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When did being able to Act become damn near a requirement to play an RPG?

This is just the the impression I've been getting from alot of the threads and posts I've seen over the last couple years.

Example are:

"How do I my player role-play more?'

"....will reward role-play and creativity...."

"We sometimes go entire sessions with out rolling dice."

Edit: How much RP is required in your groups? Not everyone is comfortable RPing, is the game going to be unaviable to so people in the near future?

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

At least 1983.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Never, as far as I can tell.

Still, an RPG without playing roles is just a board game.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

How many people actually require folks to use their feet and a ball in football (Futball)?

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Acting =/= Role playing

Nobody is required to dress up as their character, use a different voice or dialectic when speaking in character, or reenact their character's attacks and parries at the table. Bard players are no more expected to sing their pieces thankfully than the barbarian being expected to be froth at the mouth in real life. Many of the dramatic, theatrical bits that are seen frequently in classical acting are either uncommon or absent outright from the vast majority of game tables.

I cannot speak for everyone's experiences, but I imagine that what is appreciated at tables is clearly differentiating in-game and out-of-game speech, maintaining a consistent back story for your character, remembering said back story, and interacting with other PC's and NPC's from an in-game perspective as opposed to an out-of-game one. Proper role playing amounts to different things for different tables, perhaps it is better if we define acting as over-role-playing?

I suspect I might be beginning to ramble, please let me know if this clarified anything for you.


we might all seem to be doing the same thing

But

We aren't doing it for the same reasons


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like to try to mix gaming in with dinner, tragically we always get kicked out of Denny's right before the BBEG:-(

Grand Lodge

Jacob Saltband wrote:

"....will reward role-play and creativity...."

"We sometimes go entire sessions with out rolling dice."

I give out XP for good RP, and many of my sessions do play out entirely without any dice being rolled.

That being said, I don't require my players to physically act anything out. I do however, encourage the players to speak as if they were their characters (e.g. saying to me, "I go through the door", instead of "my character goes through the door"), but nothing more than that is required to gain any extra XP for RP (and speaking in character, again while encouraged, is not necessary to receive any XP for "good" RP within my games).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To reiterate a point: acting=/= roleplaying.
Role playing is creating a character, a personality and basing their actions and reactions on that personality. Acting out with silly voices or speaking IC as much as possible and dressing up or playing with props are not the same as roleplaying.
They can certainly aid in roleplaying, however, especially speaking in character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Acting isn't required for role play as others have noted. It is however a nice skill to use while role playing your character or NPCs. It breathes extra life into encounters.

I also reward role-play and creativity, and go sessions without dice being rolled... but this is good. If people are so into their characters that they can't stop role playing to even have a combat then the session is going amazingly well. Fun is being had. And isn't that the point?

Is RP required? No... but as pointed out without it your just playing a board game.

Is the game unavailable to some people? Yes. Many people simply have little to no imagination and think such things are silly... these people wouldn't enjoy RPGs. But then this has always been true. Things are actually getting better for RPG acceptance thanks to video games so the unavailability was worse in the past as opposed to the future.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
I like to try to mix gaming in with dinner, tragically we always get kicked out of Denny's right before the BBEG:-(

Isn't your Denny's open 24 hours? Just order more food. I suggest a nice dessert to share.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many great stories are told from the third person perspective, I believe that Tolkien wrote this way.

Why does the stories being told by RPGers have to be strictly first person perspective?

Again this is the impression I get.

Also no body said anything about prop or clothing requirement when talking about Acting. Improv Acting doesnt use props or setting/period clothing.

Sovereign Court

Some folks like the first person perspective because it helps immersion. I have not noticed that its a particularly popular style or a movement with gamers today though.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I like to try to mix gaming in with dinner, tragically we always get kicked out of Denny's right before the BBEG:-(

Isn't your Denny's open 24 hours? Just order more food. I suggest a nice dessert to share.

I stopped going to Denny's at all, ever. We used to go between midnight and 5am on Tuesday morning to play. The place was ALWAYS dead, as in we were the only people there. The group of 7 of us would generally order about $200 in food, drinks, and snacks over the 5 hour playtime. And we would generally drop a $50 tip. ($40 a piece to play in a place we could smoke, people would bring us food and drink and we didn't have to clean up before or after was a fantastic deal back when we were single and had disposable income.) The wait staff were grateful to have any customers, as were the managers. Until the place got a new manager and saw us walking in with dice bags and back packs. Stopped us at the door and said, "no games in here." I told him it's never been a problem before, we order food, and tip well. "Doesn't matter," he says, "you're not welcome to play here." I said no problem. We'll spend our money where we are welcome.

We walked across the parking lot to ihop. We played there for another year before they went non-smoking. Eventually, about 3 of the wait staff from Denny's quit and got hired on at that ihop. Apparently, the server who was on the night the manager turned us away told him off because he cost her the only decent tab for the whole shift.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Many great stories are told from the third person perspective, I believe that Tolkien wrote this way.

Why does the stories being told by RPGers have to be strictly first person perspective?

Again this is the impression I get.

Also no body said anything about prop or clothing requirement when talking about Acting. Improv Acting doesnt use props or setting/period clothing.

I find describing character actions in third person ridiculous.


Hama wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Many great stories are told from the third person perspective, I believe that Tolkien wrote this way.

Why does the stories being told by RPGers have to be strictly first person perspective?

Again this is the impression I get.

I find describing character actions in third person ridiculous.

Oddly, in face to face play, I agree. In PbP, I use third person.

I'm not sure what makes the difference.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

PbP is like a novel or a collection of stories. From different PoVs. It would be confusing if everyone used first person.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

I find describing character actions in third person ridiculous.

Terquem is almost tempted to agree with you, almost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:

When did being able to Act become damn near a requirement to play an RPG?

This is just the the impression I've been getting from alot of the threads and posts I've seen over the last couple years.

Different people play the game in different ways. I imagine that some like to play it as a board game with character sheets, some like to play it as a fully immersive story with hardly any dice involved, and the rest of us fall in different places in-between.

Let other people play in whatever way want. So long as you are having fun at your table, you're playing the game correctly. :)


We haven't done 'sitting down LARPING' in a long time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Different groups do like/require different things.

I know a group made up of players that always wished and dreamed of being actors. That groups games are like a very poorly done stage improve session.
Player JimmyJoeBob stands up and strikes a heroic pose and flourishes imaginary blade. He declaims with great projection (they can probably clearly hear him out in the street. Fear not my Lord. Forsooth, myself and mine boon compatriots shall henceforth, seek by diverse methods to ascertain ...
Sitting through one evening was very close to torture for me. But they have a blast, so it's all good. I just wish they would put a bit more specific description on their postings, so people like me wouldn't show up.

Some groups are pretty darn close to a warhammer table top battle simulation.
Rex diplomacies at the noble while Jorgen intimidates. Rolls dice.
I don't really like that either.

Most groups are somewhere much closer to the midpoint on that spectrum.

A) Here is an example of what some of my groups would usually consider about the minimum RP participation.
Rex and Jorgen will try a Good-Cop/Bad-Cop routine. Rex will point out the benefits of helping us, like getting away with his life and a bribe. Jorgen will threaten with all the penalties of not helping us, like getting beat up and taking the fall for the crime. Roll dice.
GM has previously decided that the con is mostly worried about going to jail, so gives a +2 circumstance modifier.

B) What some of my groups would prefer is closer to:
Rex sits down and puts an arm over his shoulder, Look I get that you don’t want a reputation as someone that breaks his word. I really do. But look at it this way. There won’t be any of them left to spread the word. We won’t because we don’t want anyone to know our methods. Once we have the info we need, I really don’t care where you go or what you do. It won’t make any difference to my goals.
Jorgen sits across the table giggling and taking the point off of several spikes so they will be dull and have to tear their way into … anything, Besides we will get the info we need one way or the other. Roll dice.
GM decides watching the Nagaji barbarian giggle will weird out anyone plus no one will know he squealed, so gives a +3 circumstance modifier.
Note: That was almost certainly spoken in a normal tone of voice with no accents or mannerisms.

We cut a huge amount of slack on this for new players or people that are just fairly introverted. Note, I am usually closer to A) than B). I have more fun when I’m playing like B) but often have trouble doing that. I’m still working on it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

All I ask of my players is engagement, but I ask it of all the things they do in the game. Combat is easy: you're engaged when you're rolling dice to see just how well your optimized PCs are beating the h*$& out of the monster(s). But what about the other parts of the game.

I don't need actors or engineers, the same way as I don't require detailed knowledge of medieval weapons, armor and fighting techniques. I do however ask that my players get into these other parts as fiercely as they do combat. Whatever that looks like for them, so be it.

This means if I hand you a room in a dungeon with no obvious monsters, I expect the players to rp their characters looking around. Yes, you roll a Perception, but tell me what you're doing to perceive. If I give you obvious items in said room, like a tapestry or a lever, I have an expecation that your characters will manipulate that item or interact with it in some meaningful way. I'm not saying I expect stupidity; Mage Hand, 10' poles, charmed monsters etc work to handle these things fine but if you're just making a skill check I'm going to ask you to describe it.

Same thing with social encounters. If you walk up on an troll low on resources and want to try and sweet-talk your way over the bridge just making a skill check won't cut it with me. I don't expect you to be a master thespian or even speak in 1st person but I expect you to have some kind of response to the question "HOW do you sweet-talk the troll?"

Like someone mentioned upthread; if we're just making rolls then we're playing a board game. If I'm expected to provide some kind of exposition with setting as the GM I feel its reasonable for my players to provide similar exposition with their interaction in the setting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Man, how many times have I addressed this same concern every time someone whines about face players not RPing? Honestly, I can't even remember.

I don't care if someone doesn't roleplay in first person, or even spell out their words, as long as they make an effort to say generally what is being done. "I roll diplomacy" won't cut it, but "I tell them in some flowery eloquent language how they should follow us, I have a +30 diplomacy" should be enough, though.

I actually almost got into a big argument with my GM yesterday because he pulled that "no skill check, say what you're saying" garbage on me. I personally don't have 26 charisma, max ranks in diplomacy and skill focus, but my character sure as hell did, so why should I have to spell out the arguments? I thought this was an imagination game. We can't imagine my character throws out a Braveheart speech, but somehow we can imagine the other players can waggle their fingers and shoot electricity from them?

I call B.S...and I called it last night. I flat out told him to bring an IQ test for the wizard player next week if he's gonna throw that crap at me. I want to see the rogue juggling daggers, and I most assuredly want to see the late guy playing a monk punch through at least two cinder blocks by the time I'm next expected to spell out every word of my diplomacy check.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pretty much what Mark Hoover and thegreenteagamer just said: I expect the player to give me at least an inkling of what they are doing and how they are going about it. I want more than "I intimidate them" or "I diplomacy the king."

I don't expect acting; I was a Drama major and don't act at people. Don't act at me, just play your character and interact with the world. I want more than grunts and dice throwing, otherwise I could roll this all out myself and write a nice little story (as GMs are often told they should go do.)

Be part of the story, and active part, and everything is golden.

Scarab Sages

If you're not comfortable roleplaying, then view the game as an opportunity to fix that; creative play is what the game is about, and the world we live in needs a great deal more of it, not less. It's something to aspire to, not hold in contempt (as I've literally seen done).

RPGs are the antithesis of "casual gaming" - you need to be strong to play football, you need to be nimble to play basketball, you need endurance, physical courage, and survival skills to go spelunking, you need to be an adroit strategist to play chess, you need to be creative to play RPGs. There isn't one worthy pursuit in all the world that's meant for everyone. If you want to do something but have trouble with the necessary abilities, you don't feel ashamed or demand it be made easier for your convenience, you practice and aspire to improve.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:


I call B.S...and I called it last night. I flat out told him to bring an IQ test for the wizard player next week if he's gonna throw that crap at me. I want to see the rogue juggling daggers, and I most assuredly want to see the late guy playing a monk punch through at least two cinder blocks by the time I'm next expected to spell out every word of my diplomacy check.

I read this the wrong way and was all like, "Wow, kinda disrespectful."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

If you're not comfortable roleplaying, then view the game as an opportunity to fix that; creative play is what the game is about, and the world we live in needs a great deal more of it, not less. It's something to aspire to, not hold in contempt (as I've literally seen done).

RPGs are the antithesis of "casual gaming" - you need to be strong to play football, you need to be nimble to play basketball, you need endurance, physical courage, and survival skills to go spelunking, you need to be an adroit strategist to play chess, you need to be creative to play RPGs. There isn't one worthy pursuit in all the world that's meant for everyone. If you want to do something but have trouble with the necessary abilities, you don't feel ashamed or demand it be made easier for your convenience, you practice and aspire to improve.

Nonsense. It's a game. Play it and have fun. However you want to play.

You need to be strong or nimble to play football or basketball competitively. You don't to have fun in a friendly game. And I've taken plenty of people without much endurance, courage or survival skills caving. Hell, the only one of those I really have (had, I'm out of shape these days) is endurance. It does help if you're not too claustrophobic, but I've talked some of those through caves.

It's a game. Sure, you might get better at some things through playing, but that's not the point of it. We play it because it's fun. When it turns into work, I'll walk away.
There's not a damn thing wrong with casual gaming. I've had a ton of fun at beer and pretzel games. I've also had fun at games with rp intense enough I still have regrets over my character's actions years later.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

No, not nonsense. By that point you're talking about two entirely different games - one which I'd want to play (but can scarcely find anymore), and the other which I wouldn't (but almost appears to be the new standard). We may be inadvertently talking about two different things here, but my experiences indicate to me that casual gaming has led to a vicious cycle that has affected all of gaming. "However you want to play" has become a deceptive trap that's led to "play only this way because people's edges have been dulled to the point where we can no longer muster the internal spark to play any other way."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
By that point you're talking about two entirely different games, though - one which I'd want to play, and the other which I wouldn't. We may be inadvertently talking about two different things here, but my experiences indicate to me that casual gaming has led to a vicious cycle that has affected all of gaming. "However you want to play" has become a trap that led to "play only this way because people's edges have been dulled to the point where we can no longer muster the internal spark to play any other way."

There are already hundreds of different styles of play. Not to mention many different games. Some of them I like to play. Some I don't.

I don't think there's any vicious cycle going on. There have always been casual and serious gamers. There always will be. Look for a group that fits your style. Nobody's edge is being dulled, whatever that means.

I'd also point out there's plenty of serious gamers who barely bother with rp, but take the whole thing very seriously as a tactical game. Yet another path.

Scarab Sages

What you say is somewhat reassuring - but only somewhat. Am I just unlucky, then? Unduly scarred by World of Wacraft, maybe? I'm feeling edged out of what should be my home turf (and judging from the Favorite I've earned on that last post, I'm not alone).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

If you're not comfortable roleplaying, then view the game as an opportunity to fix that ...

... RPGs are the antithesis of "casual gaming" - ... you need to be creative to play RPGs. ...

... a deceptive trap that's led to "play only this way because ..."

... It's something to aspire to ... you practice and aspire to improve ...

... I'm feeling edged out of what should be my home turf ...

Do you realize that what you are saying comes surprisingly close to - Play only this way, that's the game I like.

There is a place in the game for people that want to expand their ability/freedom/creativity to role play. Occasionally I really get into that myself (more so when I was younger and had less responsibilities).

But not usually. I have an extremely stressful job. I am constantly challenged and pushed 'outside my comfort zone' on a daily basis. Usually, I do not look for that in my RPG time. I want to relax, putz around with something I'm pretty good at, hang out with my friends, and just have fun. I don't want a challenge to my emotional interactive equilibrium.

What many people call a beer and pretzel game (although I don't drink beer).

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
... and judging from the Favorite I've earned on that last post, I'm not alone).

You are certainly not alone. I'm quite sure there are a significant number of people that like to game the way you do. There is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes however, it is difficult to match up those people at the same location and time.

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
... There isn't one worthy pursuit in all the world that's meant for everyone. ...

Agreed, but there is also no need to exclude people from something they have fun with because they don't play the game the way you like it.

Sovereign Court

To insert my opinion, I would say that it is more an issue of group dynamics and GM preference than anything. I cannot speak to the makeup of your community in terms of these preferences and dynamics, but I would say that you should either speak with your group and make known what you want out of the experience, or you should find another group that will better reflect what you want out of the experience.

That may seem like a glib response, but group dynamics go a long way towards the enjoyment of a game. No one needs their hobby hobbled by bad mojo.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:


I call B.S...and I called it last night. I flat out told him to bring an IQ test for the wizard player next week if he's gonna throw that crap at me. I want to see the rogue juggling daggers, and I most assuredly want to see the late guy playing a monk punch through at least two cinder blocks by the time I'm next expected to spell out every word of my diplomacy check.
I read this the wrong way and was all like, "Wow, kinda disrespectful."

Haha, yeah...I had originally specified the person's advanced age and weight, but deleted it feeling it unnecessary for the point, but didn't get the late as part of the late-decade range.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Hama wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Many great stories are told from the third person perspective, I believe that Tolkien wrote this way.

Why does the stories being told by RPGers have to be strictly first person perspective?

Again this is the impression I get.

I find describing character actions in third person ridiculous.

Oddly, in face to face play, I agree. In PbP, I use third person.

I'm not sure what makes the difference.

I'm fine with either first or third for face to face, but loathe first person perspective in PbP - especially when the whole party is third person perspective, but one player posts like a Dashiell Hammett novel. It completely breaks not only the immersion but the flow of the story.


Often, I try to use first person in RP... But I inevitably slip back into third, as it is hard to incorporate the lavish attack, defense, persona, and spell descriptions into first person. I still roleplay fine, though. At least in my somewhat biased opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't get to be a player often but as a GM I'm fond of catchphrases, expletives and verbal cues for my NPCs. I have a group of kobolds who worship a dead black dragon called Mordalith; often they exclaim "MORDALITH'S BALLS!" when upset.

If I do get the chance to play I'm going to try and work that in. Maybe have a fighter that calls his weapons girls' names or a brawler that names his moves. Instead of "I attack" I'll shout out "Take a face fulla' GLADYS!" when rolling to hit with my greataxe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:


I call B.S...and I called it last night. I flat out told him to bring an IQ test for the wizard player next week if he's gonna throw that crap at me. I want to see the rogue juggling daggers, and I most assuredly want to see the late guy playing a monk punch through at least two cinder blocks by the time I'm next expected to spell out every word of my diplomacy check.
I read this the wrong way and was all like, "Wow, kinda disrespectful."
Haha, yeah...I had originally specified the person's advanced age and weight, but deleted it feeling it unnecessary for the point, but didn't get the late as part of the late-decade range.

RIP [age] [weight] guy.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:


I call B.S...and I called it last night. I flat out told him to bring an IQ test for the wizard player next week if he's gonna throw that crap at me. I want to see the rogue juggling daggers, and I most assuredly want to see the late guy playing a monk punch through at least two cinder blocks by the time I'm next expected to spell out every word of my diplomacy check.
I read this the wrong way and was all like, "Wow, kinda disrespectful."
Haha, yeah...I had originally specified the person's advanced age and weight, but deleted it feeling it unnecessary for the point, but didn't get the late as part of the late-decade range.
RIP [age] [weight] guy.

When the DM made him punch those cinderblocks, the diabeetus punched him right in the arteries.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:

...

If I do get the chance to play I'm going to try and work that in. Maybe have a fighter that calls his weapons girls' names or a brawler that names his moves. Instead of "I attack" I'll shout out "Take a face fulla' GLADYS!" when rolling to hit with my greataxe.

Everyone at work is staring at me because I started giggling when I read this.

I am SOOOO stealing this idea.


I do actually enjoy RPing, even though I don't think it should be a requirement for certain actions.

Apparently, after talking with my GM, supposedly he was going to give a bonus or penalty to the roll, depending on what was said.

...the roll I never actually made, that is.

But, as fun as a character build is (and that is a great mini game within the game), to me it's equally fun to polish some story and personality onto that character and act him out. Many times that ends up even more fun than the combat for me (and I do like some combat, yes sir I do).

In essence, Pathfinder is kind of four games to me - character building and optimization, collaborative storytelling through RP, collaborative tactical strategy through combat, and the crap I hate - mazes, puzzles, skill checks, traps, and the like. *yawns just thinking about that*

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElterAgo wrote:
Mark Hoover wrote:

...

If I do get the chance to play I'm going to try and work that in. Maybe have a fighter that calls his weapons girls' names or a brawler that names his moves. Instead of "I attack" I'll shout out "Take a face fulla' GLADYS!" when rolling to hit with my greataxe.

Everyone at work is staring at me because I started giggling when I read this.

I am SOOOO stealing this idea.

In the Iron Gods campaign I ran, one of the players had a chainsaw named Bessie. And yes, it was found mounted above a boss's mantle, with a stylized nameplate.

Shadow Lodge

To test things in my area I posted a 'looking for game/group' in a locate gamers forum. In the post I said I was not a heavy RPer and loved the story and combat more then Heavy RP. There have been 114 views of the post and not a single email to 'check me out' to see if I'd be compatible with their group/game. Even if only a third of the views were actually looking for people that still over 30 people.

So looks like heavy RP is there way the players in my area like it.

Oh well, we can always hope to find a compatible group sometime.

Dont get me wrong, I like some RP I just dont think it needs to be the most focused on thing of the game.

Scarab Sages

Jacob Saltband wrote:

To test things in my area I posted a 'looking for game/group' in a locate gamers forum. In the post I said I was not a heavy RPer and loved the story and combat more then Heavy RP. There have been 114 views of the post and not a single email to 'check me out' to see if I'd be compatible with their group/game. Even if only a third of the views were actually looking for people that still over 30 people.

So looks like heavy RP is there way the players in my area like it.

Oh well, we can always hope to find a compatible group sometime.

Dont get me wrong, I like some RP I just dont think it needs to be the most focused on thing of the game.

Are you sure you're not having a semantic problem here? Now that you're explaining in more depth I see what you mean, but at first glance, I interpret "not a heavy roleplayer" as "I want combat and NOT story and character". You might have better luck if you lead with the positives: "I'm into story and combat". In my experience, the "heavy roleplay" you're getting at (I envision a bunch of theater majors pseudo-LARPing at the table, which if it's someone's interest good on them) is a very small minority, and you might just be driving away all the story-focused people.


Duiker wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

To test things in my area I posted a 'looking for game/group' in a locate gamers forum. In the post I said I was not a heavy RPer and loved the story and combat more then Heavy RP. There have been 114 views of the post and not a single email to 'check me out' to see if I'd be compatible with their group/game. Even if only a third of the views were actually looking for people that still over 30 people.

So looks like heavy RP is there way the players in my area like it.

Oh well, we can always hope to find a compatible group sometime.

Dont get me wrong, I like some RP I just dont think it needs to be the most focused on thing of the game.

Are you sure you're not having a semantic problem here? Now that you're explaining in more depth I see what you mean, but at first glance, I interpret "not a heavy roleplayer" as "I want combat and NOT story and character". You might have better luck if you lead with the positives: "I'm into story and combat". In my experience, the "heavy roleplay" you're getting at (I envision a bunch of theater majors pseudo-LARPing at the table, which if it's someone's interest good on them) is a very small minority, and you might just be driving away all the story-focused people.

For me personally, I've found the best way to find gamers I get along with is to go to PFS events, watch the folks around me, and talk to a few that interest me. Also remember that not everyone games at home quite the same way they do in the open form time constrained PFS. It is not sure fire, but it gives me a much better idea of whether or not we could work out together.

Hmm... That guy is choosing that path because it fits his characters personality rather than the best choice for the situation. I like that.
Hmm... She is effective but still works with the rest of the team rather than trying to hog all the spotlight time. Excellent.
Hmm... This guy's got his ears taped into a point and is trying to spout poetry in falsetto. Not my thing.

If I tend to like the way a person is gaming, I will try to sit at their table again next time. If it still looks promising, I will ask if they are looking for a home game (or have space in their current home game).

Shadow Lodge

@ElterAgo, thats how I met my last group and it was a good group before it fell apart. Lasted for 3-ish yrs before RL got in the way for most of the group, sigh. Only problem now is that I work Friday-Tuesday and the PFS games are Sat-Sun-Mon only.

Thanks for trying to help.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I like to people give the gist of their speech. Good diplomacy rolls mean that the character is savvy enough to present what the player wants in the best possible way for his audience.

Sort of like "You ask him to open the gate like you said, and your character can tell this gatekeeper appreciates politeness so you exchange pleasantries first and make your request in a humble manner."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
In essence, Pathfinder is kind of four games to me - character building and optimization, collaborative storytelling through RP, collaborative tactical strategy through combat, and the crap I hate - mazes, puzzles, skill checks, traps, and the like. *yawns just thinking about that*

Huh. No skill checks, no puzzles, no traps. Boss is kind of the anti-Rogue.


I do like sneak attack, though. :-D


Jacob Saltband wrote:

@ElterAgo, thats how I met my last group and it was a good group before it fell apart. Lasted for 3-ish yrs before RL got in the way for most of the group, sigh. Only problem now is that I work Friday-Tuesday and the PFS games are Sat-Sun-Mon only.

Thanks for trying to help.

You might contact the local PFS organizer and see if there is anyone willing to have another game on a night you can make it. Especially likely if you volunteer to GM quite a bit.


Jacob Saltband wrote:

To test things in my area I posted a 'looking for game/group' in a locate gamers forum. In the post I said I was not a heavy RPer and loved the story and combat more then Heavy RP. There have been 114 views of the post and not a single email to 'check me out' to see if I'd be compatible with their group/game. Even if only a third of the views were actually looking for people that still over 30 people.

So looks like heavy RP is there way the players in my area like it.

Oh well, we can always hope to find a compatible group sometime.

Dont get me wrong, I like some RP I just dont think it needs to be the most focused on thing of the game.

I agree with a previous post, it could have something to do with the description of what kind of role-playing games you are interested in.

It comes across as someone who is inexperienced (obviously you are not) and is interested in only combat. Maybe a bit more information and make it a bit more self-promoting.

Jacob, good luck

1 to 50 of 227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / RP All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.