|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overall, I agree with the OP. PFS can be fun because it lets you play with a lot of different people in an "official" setting, but then again you could just play with those same people on your own terms and probably have more fun. The lack of continuity from one scenario to another is quite limiting, however, it's not necessarily PFS's fault.
While it's certainly possible to inject personality and tone into a PFS scenario, it still amazes me that people insist on trying to play the paired down, convention version of Pathfinder as if it were a real game. After having played through several scenarios, I just don't understand the appeal of playing in a "shared" game world if it requires giving up so many essential parts of the game itself.
I mean, if you find people willing to play PFS, they'd probably be willing to play a normal game with you too. Anyway, I've digressed. It remains my opinion that PFS is best taken as roll-playing, with bits and pieces of character interaction strewn in.
"Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams."
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know I am beginning to think that coming onto a PFS forum and stating that people who play PFS aren't playing a 'real' game might just be a tad insulting to the people on that forum.
There are two possibilities that arise out of such posts.
1) They post. We reply. We talk about what we love about PFS and why we love it. They become intrigued, and try PFS.
2) They post. We reply. They either disagree and go off somewhere else, or stay and argue and we're reminded that PFS is not for everyone, and that this is in fact a good thing.
Win win!
Hmm
|
Overall, I agree with the OP. PFS can be fun because it lets you play with a lot of different people in an "official" setting, but then again you could just play with those same people on your own terms and probably have more fun. The lack of continuity from one scenario to another is quite limiting, however, it's not necessarily PFS's fault.
While it's certainly possible to inject personality and tone into a PFS scenario, it still amazes me that people insist on trying to play the paired down, convention version of Pathfinder as if it were a real game. After having played through several scenarios, I just don't understand the appeal of playing in a "shared" game world if it requires giving up so many essential parts of the game itself.
I mean, if you find people willing to play PFS, they'd probably be willing to play a normal game with you too. Anyway, I've digressed. It remains my opinion that PFS is best taken as roll-playing, with bits and pieces of character interaction strewn in.
"You know, I could play Pathfinder Society, but... I think I prefer a real game. How do you feel about Go Fish, Bob?"
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the general framework PFS (and PF in general) has for social encounters is quite workable. For quite a few intertwined reasons.
- Good RP is an ambiguous term. It can be good to stay in character a lot, or it can be good to be a persuasive actor that says all the right things to get the NPCs to go along. Doing a good job on the second could be rewarded with a bonus.
- Currently the bonus for a player being skilled at acting and speaking tends to be modest (+2 to +5 in most scenarios) without being insignificant.
If you don't have that talent as a player but you real commitment to your PC's social skills, you're still relevant.
If you have the talent but you didn't put in any points, it's still not easy. You're not getting a mechanical free ride just because you're an effective OOC speaker.
- Smart RP doesn't avoid social checks entirely. Although creative approaches might open some doors the scenario writer never thought about. Fortunately the rules give us a framework for GMs who have to improvise and devise DCs for unanticipated actions. And the scenario background and motivations of the NPCs help inform the GM into whether a player's proposed action could work.
I think we need to zoom in some more on "good RP". There's more than one way to go about it.
- I don't usually allow people to Aid Another on social check if they didn't participate in the talks at all. But participation doesn't have to be verbal (cacophony); it can be a fighter looming ominously behind the bard, silently implying the alternative to the bard's sweet proposal.
- People can act out the stuff their PCs are saying, and that can be enjoyable. It's often the most natural and fluid way of talking with an NPC who actually has some backstory and "triggers", because you can sort of feel out the NPC and figure out from reactions which arguments to push.
A player could earn a bonus here by zeroing in on the stuff the NPC cares about, offering solutions to the NPC's concerns or objections. A player could also earn a bonus by striking the right tone; getting on with a drunk mercenary in a tavern is quite different than an audience with a haughty princess.
- The other approach I like is when the player describes his approach and outlines how he's trying to do this, what he's hoping to achieve. It involves less actual dialogue, but often you get to hear a lot more about why the player does something and why he thinks it could work. The player can do subtle stuff that the GM might not really pick up on in actual dialogue.
"I'm going to talk to the drunk guy, and swap war stories. I'm also going to make sure his drink doesn't run dry. Meanwhile Joe is going to distract the guy's friends so that they can't remind him not to run his tongue."
Or, "When we're meeting the princess and bowing to the court, I want to make sure I'm making proper respectful bows to most of the councilors, but I'm gonna be just a bit haughtier towards Wormtongue; not enough to get into an actual fight but enough that all the politicos notice it."
Or "When negotiating with the traders we're going to do some name-dropping and wear all the right clothing to try to impress on them that we're well-connected and experienced."
This style of RP can appeal to players who may not be confident about outrageous acting, but who do like paying attention to the story and trying to figure out what makes the NPCs tick; a more analytical style if you will. If players come up with good arguments why the NPCs should cooperate, or do clever things to impress, that should also give a bonus.
As a final note about "good RP"... let's not confuse brown-nosing politeness with persuasiveness. Some NPCs may actually be more likely to trust the plainspoken barbarian that just showed exactly what he's about, than the effete mesmerist that can't seem to get to the point or offer honest criticism.
|
Part of the mechanic is making a Discovery roll (Knowledge/Sense Motive check) to learn the best skills to use to influence an NPC. It's set up to be analogous to the Knowledge check you make upon encountering a monster to remember tidbits about it.
I've yet to read Ultimate Intrigue (yes, I know, bad of me), but I must say kudos to whoever wrote that aspect of the book, for successfully reading my mind, and incorporating my houserules into the official game.
Both in making those Knowledge skills more useful (because when I 'want to know more about an NPC', especially a human NPC, I am explicitly NOT asking for their inherent racial Damage Reduction, Spell Resistance and energy immunities, but some actual facts or rumours about their allegiances and modus operandi).
And in allowing other skills to be used for influence.(!)
Having a catch-all Diplomacy skill has always irritated the hell out of me, and the sooner we can get away from having One Skill To Rule Them All in social situations, the better.
|
|
Honestly? Because while home games are nice, they quickly become routine. Variety is the truest way to have richer more fulfilling experiences. I've met people and shared stories that would never have been possible if I had just put together a home game. And that is far and away worth the price of not using crafting feats, or the occasional bad session. Because even a bad session is a NEW one.
Oh, was the omission of customised item crafting supposed to be a negative aspect we have to make amends to the player base for?
I'd always considered it one of the selling points of the campaign.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If my character is conceptually supposed to be surly and taciturn, and I choose to portray her as surly and taciturn, then that precludes doing a big socially-adept speech that hits all the right notes and is generally pleasing to the listener. If I do the smooth-talking well-executed speech, then in my terms at least that would be bad roleplaying, because I'd be abandoning playing the character concept (i.e. the role) in order to win the game.
This often comes up in discussions of 'bonus experience points for good roleplay', and my response is the same as Lucy's.
The 'strong, stoic, silent type' should be a playable archetype, and not be under pressure to conform to other people's expectations.
Count how many words are spoken in a Sergio Leone film, yet The Man With No Name is one of the most iconic, memorable, recognisable and popular characters in movie history.
Giving bonuses to extrovert players was the kind of advice often given out in magazine articles and GM advice chapters, and I'm sure it sounded good in theory. Give out more reward to people more invested in the game. Who could argue with that?
In practice, it actually meant 'bonus xp for spotlight hogs, frustrated thespians, people who like to do their trademark 'funny' (i.e. nails-on-a-blackboard) voice, That Guy Who Always Tries To Initiate Sex With Every NPC When He Plays A Female PC, and other timewasters'.
The kind of person who insists on derailing the session. A five-second comment that 'We buy more rations' has to become an hour-long performance.
None of which is good for the game, or likely to recruit non-gamers overhearing a session.
It certainly doesn't need encouraging with skill bonuses.
IMO, punishing players for correctly roleplaying a quiet, shy, or misanthropic PC is a terrible idea, and leads to a vicious downward spiral, since those kind of PCs will often have been built with low Charisma and/or social skill ranks to begin with, so their end skill modifier will already take this into account.
Slapping extra penalties on the players, for accurately playing what is on the sheet is a double-dip demotivator, which encourages those players to avoid social situations further than they already do, and force them to sit out large chunks of the game.
That's not healthy in any game, especially one in which players may have paid to attend.
Far better to keep every player/PC involved, and if that means allowing a Knowledge/Craft/Profession check (with Cha subbed for the usual stat?), prevents half the table evacuating the room, that's a good thing.
The typical 'dour, taciturn dwarf' resolving a mission objective by sharing stories of scary mining disasters with the local workers is far more satisfying than, once again, having the game hijacked (Oh, God, not again) by the attention whore in the flouncy blouse and ballet tights, skipping into their tunnels and screeching falsetto poetry at them.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And in allowing other skills to be used for influence.(!)
Having a catch-all Diplomacy skill has always irritated the hell out of me, and the sooner we can get away from having One Skill To Rule Them All in social situations, the better.
Something like that has been around for a while; I've seen it show up in older social scenarios. I think Ultimate Intrigue nails the principle.
On the one hand, everyone you want to influence has his/her own areas of interests, and if you're well-versed in those, you got something to bond over. So K(Arcana) is good if you want to have a nice academic discussion with the court mage and impress him, and K(Nobility) helps with the seneschal. This part of the influence rules lets PCs who aren't that socially focused participate, but they should aim at talking to NPCs with shared interests. Because it's their expert knowledge, not their social skills that they're leveraging.
On the other hand, some people do train in the art of talking to anyone, without necessarily having in-depth knowledge of the conversation topic. They use social graces rather than expert knowledge to sway people. Salespeople, you might say. They use Diplomacy, or Bluff or Intimidate - the social skills that can be used on anyone.
And in my experience, most player groups once they begin to understand this system, tend to allocate their non-social PCs to NPCs that they can influence and then the social PCs pick up the slack with NPCs for which no topic-specific skill was available. The end result is that everyone gets to contribute to the social challenge - the non-social PCs aren't excluded, but the social PCs also get to demonstrate their value.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If my character is conceptually supposed to be surly and taciturn, and I choose to portray her as surly and taciturn, then that precludes doing a big socially-adept speech that hits all the right notes and is generally pleasing to the listener. If I do the smooth-talking well-executed speech, then in my terms at least that would be bad roleplaying, because I'd be abandoning playing the character concept (i.e. the role) in order to win the game.This often comes up in discussions of 'bonus experience points for good roleplay', and my response is the same as Lucy's.
The 'strong, stoic, silent type' should be a playable archetype, and not be under pressure to conform to other people's expectations.
Count how many words are spoken in a Sergio Leone film, yet The Man With No Name is one of the most iconic, memorable, recognisable and popular characters in movie history.
I agree that it's a legitimate archetype that should be playable. However, you have to consider how the play medium influences how it can be done.
Tabletop RPGs aren't movies, where you can show a strong and silent type with long lazy shots. It's a lot closer to radio where you have to get the idea across by talking.
So how do you talk about being strong and silent? It can't be just the player being quiet while the other players do stuff - while you aren't talking, the other players can't really "see" your character. To the other players, there's no clearly observable difference between a player being silent because his character is, or a player being silent because he's checking out.
So while your PC might not be talking, you as a player should be describing what he's doing. You need to use description to convey what you're not saying out loud. "Joe Gunslinger doesn't say anything in return. He's just looking at the dragon with one eyebrow raised and a kind of 'feeling lucky, punk' kind of look."
The point I'm trying to get at is that "quiet" play is quite difficult to pull off in a way that really works. That may be a reason a more extraverted approach is often encouraged (be it good or not).
Another one is that while it's fine to have some strong and silent types, you don't necessarily want to swing all the way there - most of those movies, many of the other characters do talk. Often to fill up the void left by a main character that's freaking them out with the silent treatment.
When you're gaming, it's one thing to have one PC being strong and quiet, but if everyone's doing it, then it can become very hard to get a dialogue with NPCs going and get some plot exposition done. I think that's another reason extraverted play has been encouraged - more talk with NPCs does give more openings to talk about the game world and develop stories.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The key to being the strong silent character? Paradoxically, you'll have to narrate everything you do and be the most talkative player in the game. Treat it like a radio show, and make sure that everyone can hear what you do and see it in their mind's eye.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I've told folks at tables I've played at is that if they hear monosyllables/terse comments from me, that's generally a character speaking in one case, and if I give a treatise on something, that's me as a player making a recommendation of some sort along the lines of what the character would promote without having to play Twenty Questions to get it done.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 'strong, stoic, silent type' should be a playable archetype
You are not unplayable because of a lack of a +2 bonus.
The Man With No Name is one of the most iconic, memorable, recognisable and popular characters in movie history.
Which takes a great actor and a great visual cinematographer to pull off. Try to do it as a radio play, which tabletop games pretty much are and it doesn't work. You need to adapt your performance to the medium.
In practice, it actually meant 'bonus xp for spotlight hogs, frustrated thespians,voice,
There are a wide variety of ways that a player can pull this off. Its not just relegated to one skill set: acting, comedy, writing, there are lots of ways to increase peoples enjoyment of your time in the spot lightt
That Guy Who Always Tries To Initiate Sex With Every NPC When He Plays A Female PC,
50 dkp minus!
people who like to do their trademark 'funny' (i.e. nails-on-a-blackboard)
I have sent people to the back of the room for that. It hurts a lot. these ears aren't just for show.
It certainly doesn't need encouraging with skill bonuses.
IMO, punishing players for correctly roleplaying a quiet, shy, or misanthropic PC is a terrible idea
A lack of reward is not a punishment. Just like someone isn't getting a -2 on their attack rules because they flunked flank.
|
|
Say the judge likes it when players play a certain way (say using Take 10 on a social roll), and rewards it with a +2 when players do that.
Taking 10 is strictly a mechanical decision.
The circumstance bonus for role playing is specifically part of the game. It's in the rules. A plus 2 for taking 10 definitely is not.
If everyone at the table gets a beer/brownie - except you, do you feel like you being punished?
It should be 1 or 2 party faces at most.
If everyone at the table gets a beer/brownie - except you, do you feel like you being punished?It should be 1 or 2 party faces at most.Even in a highly "roleplaying" focused scenario? Leaving little for the non-faces to do?
Not everyone in a party may have the maxed out diplomacy skill, but contributing to the roleplaying encounter can make you elligible for attempting that DC 10 assist roll.
There is really no mechanical or rules based excuse not to participate in a roleplaying encounter. Even fighter players with no investment in social skills have a shot at earning that +2 which may make the difference between success and failure. So you have an 8 charisma... you can still roll that 12.. especially if the DM gives you a circumstance bonus for doing something appropriate and noteworthy.
|
|
I've just come back from A Bid for Alabastrine, spoilers are tagged below but here's a warning ahead of time anyway.
I enjoy Pathfinder Society. I honestly do, it gives me a chance to play a variety of characters and builds and meet/hang out with people I wouldn't otherwise. But a lot of times, it can feel very much like a combat simulator with the occasional puzzle. The fact that every scenario seems to revolve heavily around combat encounters and most leave little room for resolving a situation through roleplaying can get very annoying at times. However, every so often we'll get scenarios like Library of the Lion, which can be completed without a single combat if played right, or Faithless and Forgotten Parts 2 and 3 which do involve some opportunities to roleplay and respond creatively to a situation. And then came A Bid for Alabastrine, which demonstrated my main issue here in a way that I've never been able to pin down in words before.
** spoiler omitted **...
You are describing something intrinsic to the D20 system. You can never, ever, ever get around the problem that bad luck screws you over. That is just a part of any game with a chance mechanic, and the only way to avoid it is by not having such mechanics.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Come on BNW. You wouldn't be telling me "It's in the rules." Unless there was something that could be read as a rule saying "...circumstance bonus for role playing..." Or something like that. I just need to see what it says exactly...Where is the rule for +2 circumstance bonus for role playing? Just so I can read it... I'm not sure I ever have...
I'm pretty sure there's a rule somewhere in either the Guide to Organized Play or the Core Rulebook recommending giving bonuses if the players do something clever to improve their odds at a task. It's a really generic rule; it can be fit to many more things than just social rolls.
But I can't find it that quickly. I don't remember if it has a handy label.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
You are describing something intrinsic to the D20 system. You can never, ever, ever get around the problem that bad luck screws you over. That is just a part of any game with a chance mechanic, and the only way to avoid it is by not having such mechanics.
There are ways, such as:
* Hero points* Re-Rolls via class feature, ability, or (for PFS) folio or t-shirt. Home games might give one for bringing food.
* Certain buff spells and class abilities that allow you to add an amount not after the roll but before knowing results
If you branch out from D20, there are more ways including using multiple dice to create something closer to a standard deviation curve (GURPS, Fate, Hero System, others).
Still, if your dice hate you it is probably better to try and have skills high enough that you can succeed by taking 10 on them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said. BNW wouldn't tell me "It's in the rules" if he didn't think it was. So... Anybody know what rule he's talking about?
The "reward creative solutions" bit pretty much covers it.
If you ask "why +2 specifically?", check out page 403 of the CRB:
However, John's examples indicate that it's reasonable to give more than +2 at times.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
If everyone at the table gets a beer/brownie - except you, do you feel like you being punished?It should be 1 or 2 party faces at most.Even in a highly "roleplaying" focused scenario? Leaving little for the non-faces to do?
Not everyone in a party may have the maxed out diplomacy skill, but contributing to the roleplaying encounter can make you elligible for attempting that DC 10 assist roll.
There is really no mechanical or rules based excuse not to participate in a roleplaying encounter. Even fighter players with no investment in social skills have a shot at earning that +2 which may make the difference between success and failure. So you have an 8 charisma... you can still roll that 12.. especially if the DM gives you a circumstance bonus for doing something appropriate and noteworthy.
This is very judge dependant. I often play for judges that give penalties for failing diplomacy rolls - even on assists. So that fighter attempting to "aid" CAN actually drop the roll. Depending on the judge.
So always check with the judge - but by all means do check. I like to see everyone engaged in the encounter.
I am going to go out on a limb and guess that there is a reason why Paizo never adopted such a rule even though it might make logical sense and other systems have such a rule. Namely that having such a rule would indeed discourage player participation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
" This could actually be taken as a restriction on using this bonus to only those instances where it is called out
Only if you're dead set against that sort of thing because you hate the role playing bonus to the point that you're willing to deliberately twist what was said into its exact opposite of what was meant.
Look, we all know that a lot of gamers have social issues. But should not let a minority of people dictate how everyone else plays the game nor can you. Its not even possible. EVERYTHING is someone's thing, trigger, or issue.
Reasonable accommodation is one thing. But trying to tell everyone else that they can't encourage role playing in a role playing game is in no way, shape or form, reasonable.