|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As always, this is a Work In Progress...
At PaizoCon, I had the opportunity to talk with Painlord at decent length about different ideas with playing in Pathfinder Society, and it sort of helped me focus a few things and hone a few others.
Something that's constantly thrown around is the Stormwind Fallacy, or other discussions about mechanics versus fluff, and many other things.
But this distracts from the goal of this post and hopefully open discussion thread.
Ground Rules:
1. No comparison of roll-play, role-play, mechanics aside from above.
2. No discussion of mechanical ways role-play was encouraged
3. Keep it nice, keep it civil, let's all try to grow from this in a positive fashion!
Background
Pathfinder is a role-playing game. When we sit at a table, we're collaboratively engaging in the telling of a story, whether the table is virtual (PbP, VTT) or in-person at someone's home, the LGS, or a convention.
How do we as players bring that storytelling into our play, how do we build the narrative so we're 'in' the story without hitting the third rail of disrupting play? Also, how can we make this happen during an event slot without slowing the pace of play to a snail's crawl?
As GMs, how many times have people looked at the scenario and taken the 'creative methods' route, and went to a solid role-play situation with minimal to no die-rolling?
I'd like to drop a couple of examples here...
I went on a *good* IC tear for about five minutes *hard-selling* an NPC (The fact that he was from my faction didn't hurt, either). So intense was it that the other players all raised their hands and said 'I WANT WHAT HE'S SELLING TAKE OUR MONEY!' and started pulling out paper money to throw at me!
Had to wave them off because I couldn't tell if they were serious or not and was honestly kind of stunned because I hadn't felt like I'd done all that great of a job.
The GM was similarly impressed and he was almost disappointed when the sales pitch ended.
Up until that point, we had one or two folks who were dominating the rp, because they had the right tools for the job. With that interaction, the whole table changed. Even the other character at the table was willing to take a crack at things, because hey, it was 'safe' to do so.
We had a perfect storm when the party got jumped at the market. We were able to non-lethally subdue our attackers AFTER they had assaulted us, and then we proceeded to have an rp discussion with the folks still present with the significantly compelling evidence that they were still alive, and that we actually understood their point of view, that it had a certain level of validity, and if we could secure an audience with their leader.
We then had a full-party discussion with the leader explaining that we were the diplomatic sorts, and that if we weren't successful, that more brutal means would come along after us, and that nobody would 'win' in that situation.
Every point the leader brought up, someone in our party had a quick ready answer for, and it was one of the best spots of rp I'd seen in years. This was a 'team effort', unlike above with Merchant's Wake which was more 'solo'.
So with the above in mind, and with the premise of a thread, how do we bring role-play back into our time at PFS tables, with the consideration of a limited amount of time for a given 'slot'.
Once again, remember, no mechanics here, this is just a discussion on role-playing and how to promote it, and encourage it in our fellow players.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My first thought is to try to role play more yourself. Try to get in character and stay in character. More importantly, I think that you need to be mindful of how you react when others really get in character. Try not to discourage role playing with your body language.
Another idea is to try and schedule more multi part scenarios. The idea being that this would hopefully have people spend more time together and let their guard down enough to really role play. Hopefully this will also translate into more role playing when each person is with another group.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't ensure RP as the GM, but you can certainly help a lot in making it happen. It's so much easier to get going if it's coming from both sides, so if the GM also talks back enthusiastically, that really helps.
Stuff you can do as a GM to make that easier is to take a moment while prepping a scenario to read up just a little bit more about the Golarion lore related to the places and people features. And make sure you understand what the NPCs want; that way you can really engage with the player if he's making an unexpected pitch, because you can figure out what the NPC might like/dislike about the offer.
You can take some initiative as a GM; instead of saying "the merchant asks what you're here for", you can sit up straight, look at the player and say "So, what business do you have with me?" Addressing people IC can help get them to respond in kind.
However, be careful how far you take this. The big complication we run into with RP-heavy scenarios is finishing on time. Getting to play the whole scenario, and not rushing the ending, are important. It's a shame if the ending contains some heartwarming part where the NPCs express what the PCs' successes mean to them, but nobody's paying attention anymore and the GM just rattles through it to get to the boons.
Also, try to be open to people who're not great IC talkers but who still engage with the story. If someone says "I'm going to try to convince the merchant to help us", he may not be comfortable playing it out. But you can still ask him "are you offering him any specific reasons to help convince him?". That shifts it a bit from the playing being eloquent, to the player paying attention to the story and having gotten an idea of what to offer the NPC based on what the players found out about him during the adventure so far. This kind of engagement is also very nice and should be embraced as well.
|
|
Expand the time slots. People role playing slows down game play. Yes it is fun, but it usually means that the plot is not being advanced. Most people I have encountered get upset if they do not get the full reward because someone was "goofing around".
In the two examples noted in the original post, we were done almost an hour and a half early and almost two hours early with the role-play considerations.
In both instances plot was being advanced.
But this is an important thing to consider... what would 'goofing around' role-play be like versus 'on point' role-play? Is there a distinction between the two?
|
|
Create an atmosphere in which people are encouraged to roleplay from the get go. Have the players introduce their characters as unmechanically as possible, and refer to them by character name thereafter.
As a ref, after giving the NPC briefing, or finishing a scene, give the payers a minute or two to chat before they move on to the next scene. The worst scenario I have played started with: "NPC says go to X and do Y. you go to X, put your figures on the table and roll initiative".
Discourage tablets and phones. Looking at a screen, even if it's looking at PF rules means you are not interacting with the other players.
It doesn't have t be a big effort, just encourage a bit of roleplay in the cracks between the actual encounters without making everyone feel they have to combine ful-on acting with trying to do maths in the stressful bits of the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've struggled a few times when we got to a roleplaying encounter and were a little lost on what the objective of the encounter was, or just was unable to imagine a solution to the problem, or I've made my one pitch and the GM was looking at me like I missed the target and he was waiting for more and I was out of ideas.
So, instigate diplomacy checks early to keep roleplaying encounters short for uncomfortable and shy players. Drop heavy handed hints when someone hits a creative wall while trying to roleplay.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First step is to define what you mean by "role-play"?
How are you going to define it in such a way that isn't going to come across as "how do we get people to play more like how I want them to play?".?
Assuming you mean some variation of first person IC, how do you mitigate the danger of marginalising the shy/otherwise uncomfortable playing it out?
Second step is what do you mean by "encourage"?
I say that because by encouraging a person towards one style of RP you are in danger of implying that the way they are doing it is somehow wrong or inferior. Nothing raises hackles like being told you are doing it wrong. Also, another potential pitfall is those shy/awkward people where too heavy handed an approach can chase them away from the game. Both situations need to be handled tactfully.
Also where does encouragement end and exclusion start? If you are busy encouraging those who attempt to role-play in a way you find acceptable, what happens to those who disagree with you or otherwise fail to comply? Do they get ignored? how will they react if they see others being treated differently in some way, even if it's just a bigger share of your attention?
Speaking personally, I very rarely do first person, I don't do accents (when I tried it was awful and inconsistent) Mostly it is third person "I try and explain why they shouldn't run naked into the goblin lair" kind of thing, and no amount of encouragement will alter that, I'm just not built that way.
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't ensure RP as the GM, but you can certainly help a lot in making it happen. It's so much easier to get going if it's coming from both sides, so if the GM also talks back enthusiastically, that really helps.
[snip]
The big complication we run into with RP-heavy scenarios is finishing on time. Getting to play the whole scenario, and not rushing the ending, are important. It's a shame if the ending contains some heartwarming part where the NPCs express what the PCs' successes mean to them, but nobody's paying attention anymore and the GM just rattles through it to get to the boons.
Lau said a ton of great stuff in his post, but here's one that struck me: the balance between RP and time constraints. Interestingly, this is a problem that I don't face, and I'm a very strong RP GM. All my tables finish not only on time, but often early. RP does not have to be aimless. Not does it have to drag on and on. If you know what the NPCs want, and if you have a sense of the story and where you should be, you can make the RP move the story forward by leaps and bounds and propel your players deep into the game.
Something that all GMs might find useful is to develop a sense of pacing. Keep the table engaged and interested in the storyline, develop a sense of urgency, and your players move a little faster and more decisively. Lau talked about taking initiative in social encounters as a GM. Cut the down time, and keep your story strongly in mind. What's important? What do we want to emphasize, and what is okay to just mention in passing and go on? How do we play more efficiently through combats and other encounters so that we can have time for all elements of the story: RP, clues, combat, discovery and denouement?
In PbP, Painlord talked about the "push" and the "hook". That's not just for players, or even for PbP. It's also great stuff for GMs in live games, and it can be used to propel your pace and keep everyone engaged and excited!
I say that because by encouraging a person towards one style of RP you are in danger of implying that the way they are doing it is somehow wrong or inferior.
All GMs have different and distinctive GM styles. I can handle combat, but I am not the sort of GM who can create terrifying combats utilizing every terrain advantage. The people who look for hardmode melee style challenges aren't looking for GMs like me.
Some GMs do sound effects. Some create ambience. Some are simply very good at keeping the plot moving. You can want to encourage roleplay without demanding the exact same type of roleplay from each GM. I want to celebrate all our strengths, as GMs and as players.
Hmm
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
First step is to define what you mean by "role-play"?
How are you going to define it in such a way that isn't going to come across as "how do we get people to play more like how I want them to play?".?
Could you explain this a bit more for me? It's not something I've experienced myself (that I noticed/can remember), but you're not the first to raise the subject. So it seems like this a concern that more people have.
|
|
Expand the time slots. People role playing slows down game play. Yes it is fun, but it usually means that the plot is not being advanced. Most people I have encountered get upset if they do not get the full reward because someone was "goofing around".In the two examples noted in the original post, we were done almost an hour and a half early and almost two hours early with the role-play considerations.
In both instances plot was being advanced.
But this is an important thing to consider... what would 'goofing around' role-play be like versus 'on point' role-play? Is there a distinction between the two?
Having just encountered this at Origins this weekend with a few slots, its mostly conventions that I see this issue come up. One of which was , where the whole table kept slipping into RP and the GM had to keep pulling us out of it so that we would complete before the time slot was over. The other was and that was with being given a double slot to perform it in we were the last people to get up both times from those sessions.
I've both run and played and with having people brand new to RP games at the table, and I was still able to encourage some RP at the beginning with them with how that scenario starts out.
One of the things I've commonly seen work, is if people RP out what they are doing, GMs will give a point or two situational bonus for the RP. Don't just say I'm going to use diplomacy to get the guard to let me past, but the player goes into an explanation with said guard of 'I'm late, I'm needed somewhere for the guy who runs this place, if I don't get in I'm going to be fired and then my family is going to go hungry, and it wasn't my fault there was a dragon in the courtyard.' -- a bit over the top but hopefully gets the point across.
Another thing I ran across that helps a lot, is introductions. The one table I had that I think the only RP was the cleric jumping on a bed when we found a guest room, there was zero introductions, no descriptions of characters or anything.
People role play a lot more when they know things about the PCs they are running with. I would love to see something where there's a sheet zero or something for actually having a background for your PCs instead of, "hi my name is ____, I'm a <insert class>, <insert race>." and that's it. If I can find good pictures for my PC's I usually have one on the sheet. Trying to describe a bit of any personality quirks you would pick up in about 5 minutes watching. Your introducing yourself, does your character have an accent that doesn't quite line up with what they look like. Are you Taldane with a accent that sounds like it should be found in Irrisen? Things that would stick out to well traveled Pathfinders.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Introduction at the table in "little ol' lady voice")
Does the name ring a bell kiddie?
You can guess the class...yep, witch.
After I found out how much that group of meddling kids got paid for "investigating" my House of Recovery, I decided there was lots more money, ah, I mean, a better future in becoming an adventurer myself. SO... I joined up. Best thing I've done sense taking in orphans, and a lot less work I tell you!
Mostly standard Witch stuff - OH! I'm good with "face" skills too.
Well, ya know, death isn't always permanent. But I'm still working for the Silver Crusade - trying to pay them back for the expense of a Raise Dead.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a Player
Be interested in other people's characters. Ask questions. Sometimes, they'll ask about yours in return. You can make a connection based on any number of details.
Know your own character. You have a backstory. How does that backstory apply to interacting with others? Do you have any biases with regard to spellcasters? animals? other races?
Be descriptive. Add a little detail to your own play and encourage others who do the same. Be careful though. It's easy to slow things down with too much description. It should be more like a fast action scene and less like a lingering set-up.
My half-elf rogue, bastard child of Taldan nobility is very self-conscious of his mixed race status. He has a hat of disguise to fit in with humans and elves. He learned minor magic from his elven mother, and is quite skilled with Use Magic Device (auto-success with wands), but he is jealous of full casters, especially elves.
My Dandy ranger is from Cheliax, and while he fights for freedom from the tyranny of House Thrune, he grew up with halfling slaves and still thinks of them as such. He's still early in his career, though, and will have time to grow. A half-orc bloodrager accidentally killed an NPC with an unlucky crit. As a result, he sees half-orcs (especially ragers) as brutes to be held on a tight leash. He admires well-spoken characters, especially bards.
My half-orc skald discovered Averaka in an adventure and made it his home. He connects best with other half-orcs. But also with other followers of Gorum. Despite Inspiring Rage in himself and others, he tries to disprove stereotypes about half-orcs and prove they can be charismatic and knowledgeable.
As a GM
Be interested in your players' characters. Have NPCs comment on details of the characters. I would avoid questions though. Leave those to players to play with. It is enough to bring it up and show the player you appreciate their character without getting on tangents.
To support the first suggestion, write down an interesting detail of each character during introductions to refer back to.
Ask questions of your players. How does your character do that? Did they learn that somewhere? Why do they react that way?
Know the NPCs. When prepping, give thought to how they might react to various kinds of adventurers. Tactics can give you an idea about how they think. What do they say when they cast that spell? Does the group of brigands pick off the weak or eliminate the strong?
Simply adding roleplaying consideration to your prep process can do a lot. Be sure to write it down! And have it easily accessible when you run. The more examples you give players to copy, the easier it is to get them involved and having fun.
Whew
That's my brainstorm. I have a couple newer GMs at my location that I want to coach a bit. So I've been thinking about how to ease them into being awesome. Suggestions welcome!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reap what you sow?
Invite RP - Introductions can set the tone for the adventure as suggested above. Folks might be bashful with introductions at first but if the mission briefing, for example, is role-played well it might encourage the same behavior in players. Also, players comfortable with role-playing can lead, even request, introductions to encourage RP from others... i.e. 'hey, I've broken the ice for us and it's completely safe, acceptable, and, dare I say, enjoyable to have fun being your character'
Maintain RP - Party talk in character can help keep the mood. This might be essential in more 'dungeon crawl' environments where there are not many opportunities to socially interact with NPCs. However, this can lead to the 'goofing off' time burner so use as appropriate. Try to help each-other (players and GM) avoid stalling in conversation. Speaking summarily in character can help convey intent of someone that might be struggling to find the right words or ideas, important not to talk over someone while doing so. However, hitting 'the wall' in conversation can force things to go out of character and could adversely affect RP momentum.
Reward RP - This overlaps a little with maintain RP but positive experience with RP can encourage future RP. I believe Hmm indicated in another thread that she rewards RP with more RP. Such positive feedback loops can be quite helpful. Help RP be meaningful. Perhaps the party's words helped them avoid an encounter. Perhaps combat was unavoidable and the party has a reason to fight the guards beyond entering square A2, maybe the guards remarked that a players lineage included a hamster and someone smelling of elderberries. Maybe the party is given additional insight from an NPC they befriended/frightened, even if it is mostly flavor text. Perhaps the main thing to avoid is having anyone feel like they failed at or because of RP. So time management and group dynamic are important.
Just my ramblings...
p.s. spend time with people that enjoy RP and then share the love :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As others have mentioned, I'd say character intros are one of the keys. As a GM, I always ask my players to introduce themselves and their characters, and leave it to them to tell us as much or as little as they want.
As a player, I frequently have to ask "Can we do character introductions before we start?", which bugs me, since the GM should be leading that. But more often than I'd like, they don't unless I ask.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know I have trouble getting into the session if I'm unable to introduce my character. I need that brief moment to knock the rust off and get into the groove of their personality. The GM has a large responsibility in setting the tone of the game as well. If you engage in the narrative, the players tend to respond. If you just engage in the minutia of running the game, the players will do the same.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As others have mentioned, I'd say character intros are one of the keys. As a GM, I always ask my players to introduce themselves and their characters, and leave it to them to tell us as much or as little as they want.
As a player, I frequently have to ask "Can we do character introductions before we start?", which bugs me, since the GM should be leading that. But more often than I'd like, they don't unless I ask.
In Giamo's french/italian accent, "I am Giamo Casanunda, Cleric of the god of Love - Cayden. My card (hand out business cards). Tell me, are you currently in a long term relationship? No? Would you like to be?"
I normally get stammers and blushes. Giamo goes on to say "I am a Matchmaker by profession you see, it is my 'day job' (finger quotes) - so if you might be interested in such a relationship, perhaps we might discuss some of my other clients?" By this time the judge will have noticed my In Character speach.... So at this point I switch to my OOC voice and say ... "Role Play often suffers due to time constraints, and we only have a limited time for this tonight so..." Back in character voice "Sigh... It appears that we have got to save the world again now, perhaps after that we'll find your one true love, yes?"
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Nothing bums me out more than people just rolling dice without description. I could replicate that with a solitare game of Yahtzee. So one thing I do is encourage my players tell me what they are doing, rather than just rolling the check.
Example
Player: I convince them to give us the item
Me: So what do you say that's so convincing?
Player: Well I have a +15 on this check, so I get 32--is that enough?
Me: Maybe, what does your character say?
Player: Oh... what item were we trying to get again?
Me:
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could you explain this a bit more for me? It's not something I've experienced myself (that I noticed/can remember), but you're not the first to raise the subject. So it seems like this a concern that more people have.First step is to define what you mean by "role-play"?
How are you going to define it in such a way that isn't going to come across as "how do we get people to play more like how I want them to play?".?
Nothing bums me out more than people just rolling dice without description. I could replicate that with a solitare game of Yahtzee.
This, to me, is treading close to the line of "you're doing it wrong". It raises questions like "how much do I have to say to not bum you out? what happens if I don't say enough?"
All GMs have different and distinctive GM styles. I can handle combat, but I am not the sort of GM who can create terrifying combats utilizing every terrain advantage. The people who look for hardmode melee style challenges aren't looking for GMs like me.
Some GMs do sound effects. Some create ambience. Some are simply very good at keeping the plot moving. You can want to encourage roleplay without demanding the exact same type of roleplay from each GM. I want to celebrate all our strengths, as GMs and as players.
This is exactly the point. Encourage people without limiting them to your style. Sometimes that can be lost, but I think it needs to be emphasised.
Also accept that there will be people who just want to turn up and roll dice, for a whole host of legitimate reasons.
|
|
One of the things I've commonly seen work, is if people RP out what they are doing, GMs will give a point or two situational bonus for the RP.
Things like this strike me as counter productive.
The people happy to RP it out will just do it moreso for the rewards, probably at the expense of those you really want to encourage.Worse, those that are uncomfortable RPing it out/shy etc will likely resent that they are not getting cool benefits for failing to meet some arbitrary standard.
I can see it working if you have a table full of people you want to encourage, but a mixed group not so much.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Encourage people without limiting them to your style
This, to me, is treading close to the line of "you're doing it wrong"
Right, You want to encourage people without..
No. Wait. This is a total contradiction.
If you are trying to encourage people to do X, you are doing so because you believe that x IS better than what they're doing. You are making a value judgement that some activity in this case role playing, has value in.. gasp. a . role. playing. Game.
And it does. This is a given in the role playing community. Most people playing a role playing game want some degree of role playing.
People hate to hear this, but if you don't want to role play in a role playing game then YOU have to adapt. You have to change your behavior rather than getting upset at everyone else for having the temerity to try to get people to to role play in a role playing game. It's part of the DMs job. Arrangements can be made, but the requirements to DM are a pfs number and the scenario, not a bald head and school for gifted mutants*sorcerers. With PFS's bag of mixed nuts you need to tell dm what the problem is and yes, be prepared for the eyeroll that you're going to get, because you are in fact doing something weird that is going to suck the fun out of the adventure for a lot of people.
If you do not care where your character is on the map and can't be bothered with tactics you don't run a step up and strike reach based whirling dervish character. If you want to just diplomance people by rolling a d20 (or taking ten) and announcing a number then you don't play the socialite. There are plenty of characters who's best contribution to a social encounter is to blend in with the other wall flowers.
*This post edited by sony
|
|
Stepping back briefly...
We're sliding into a discussion that I mentioned didn't need to get hit on yet again in the original post.
The topic is 'How do we Make RP [u]Grow[/u] at PFS Tables'.
A few of the things mentioned above are 'invisible' (unless a GM tells the table).
As noted by a few folks above as well as myself, RP can significantly speed up some tables, even if the folks doing it aren't strong at it. The perception that it takes 'extra time' has not been my experience, if anything, good rp takes 'less time' because there's less 'crunch-discussion' and more 'game/play discussion (hopefully either in character or narrating a character's activity)'
For those tables where it 'slows down' the interaction at the table, what has been the experience with the slow-down?
|
|
"Okay.. we're talking past the monster.
Welp, I don't see anything that specifically says you can't and someone needs to be up early tommorow
*few minutes of dialog back and forth, mime the creatures going through a few languages until they hit one the bard speaks*
so.. ok 30 diplomacy.
Next monster is THAT way and its invisible and likes to zap things.
|
|
For those tables where it 'slows down' the interaction at the table, what has been the experience with the slow-down?
Honestly, this goes into two categories.
First, there is not enough time to finish things. GM being extremely prepared on not only just the scenario but also the characters before hand would be the only thing that could fix things. This is not an every scenario thing, but there are some out there that are notorious for taking too long. Another that I didn't mention before is six seconds to midnight I've seen multiple times hit time crunch and nothing anyone could really help with. Others could mention even more that hit the time frame issue. When people use game stores, conventions, ect, is the only time this really comes into play. Because you need to pack up, get sheets assigned, and all that normal stuff before the store kicks you out.
Second, is usually when you have the group has played with each other but gets one or two persons that are not normally part of that group. In such roleplay can take a tangent inspired by the scenario. This is the realm where you get inside jokes, the history of the PCs coming out, and unless it can be directed back - I could see as being the 'slow-down' especially if someone isn't from that group.
|
|
For those tables where it 'slows down' the interaction at the table, what has been the experience with the slow-down?Honestly, this goes into two categories.
First, there is not enough time to finish things.
GM being extremely prepared on not only just the scenario but also the characters before hand would be the only thing that could fix things. This is not an every scenario thing, but there are some out there that are notorious for taking too long.
Another that I didn't mention before is six seconds to midnight I've seen multiple times hit time crunch and nothing anyone could really help with.
Others could mention even more that hit the time frame issue. When people use game stores, conventions, ect, is the only time this really comes into play. Because you need to pack up, get sheets assigned, and all that normal stuff before the store kicks you out.
Second, is usually when you have the group has played with each other but gets one or two persons that are not normally part of that group. In such roleplay can take a tangent inspired by the scenario. This is the realm where you get inside jokes, the history of the PCs coming out, and unless it can be directed back - I could see as being the 'slow-down' especially if someone isn't from that group.
Again, every table is different, but a solid GM that has a good grasp of time management should be able to mitigate some of the issues you've noted.
As far as 'in-jokes'? Even at 'rp-heavy' tables, I've seen people who have gotten blank reactions for said 'in-jokes' go 'When we take our next break/wrap-up we can talk about it' when we've been on a timetable.
|
|
As noted by a few folks above as well as myself, RP can significantly speed up some tables, even if the folks doing it aren't strong at it. The perception that it takes 'extra time' has not been my experience, if anything, good rp takes 'less time' because there's less 'crunch-discussion' and more 'game/play discussion (hopefully either in character or narrating a character's activity)'
For those tables where it 'slows down' the interaction at the table, what has been the experience with the slow-down?
I truly don't understand this comment.
How does "I ask the guy for information. I got a 25 on my diplomacy roll." take more time than actually role playing out 2-3 minutes of conversation with the NPC?
|
|
I truly don't understand this comment.
How does "I ask the guy for information. I got a 25 on my diplomacy roll." take more time than actually role playing out 2-3 minutes of conversation with the NPC?
When the player has a lot of 'bells and whistles' (modifiers) that they insist on mentioning for mechanical benefit rather than that simple statement.
|
|
I truly don't understand this comment.
How does "I ask the guy for information. I got a 25 on my diplomacy roll." take more time than actually role playing out 2-3 minutes of conversation with the NPC?
When the player has a lot of 'bells and whistles' (modifiers) that they insist on mentioning for mechanical benefit rather than that simple statement.
On social stuff? I rarely see mechanical discussions come up on that sort of thing. Most people know what their skill bonuses are, and there's not tons of buffs going around for people to keep track of and add up, the way there is in combat.
Besides, why would that be any more or less common if you role play out the conversation vs just rolling the die? Even if you talk it out, you're still going to make a diplomacy/bluff/intimidate check at the end of the talking.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no way to make people play a game they don't want to play. When you have folks who won't roleplay for whatever reason, then as a GM you should respect that. It's still fine to ask them what they're saying to the guard for their Diplomacy check, but it doesn't have to be first-person prose.
Having said that - I find that if the GM starts the session with mechanics, roleplay doesn't blossom. I try to RP the briefing rather than reading it (usually after looking briefly at character sheets to see what I'm dealing with) - that way I can refer to characters by name or class or whatever. I make sure to use character names instead of player names with a group I'm familiar with - if you want players to roleplay their angelborn paladin, don't remind them that they're really Bob from accounting every time you ask them for initiative!
In my PbP games, I have started using the following in my game announcements: "This is a roleplay-heavy scenario, and I am a roleplay-heavy GM." This probably gives a selection effect on who signs up, but I've found that if the expectation is set early, it's easier to encourage. (Sidebar: I wish Warhorn would allow people who sign up as GMs to post a short message to the scenario blurb like this!)
Finally - there is a trend in a few recent scenarios, where even walk-on NPCs have names (7-18, I'm looking at you!). I love this - every person the PCs meet should have a name, and they should get used, by the NPCs and their colleagues. The more the supporting cast of NPCs roleplays (through the GM's actions), the safer it feels for players to do it as well.
There's an old adage among children's entertainers: "If everyone does it, no one looks stupid." It's up to the GM to set that tone, encourage what they can, and allow for the players who don't want to participate.
Going back to the discussion of RP points, this was something I was considering for a homebrew I was planning, or possibly just giving positive modifiers to rolls for good roleplaying, something I feel zero guilt about since I am openly advertising my homebrew as RP heavy.
That being said, going back to the original examples of The Merchant's Wake and The Two-Fold Demise; what would have happened if after all that excellent RPing, the PCs rolled terrible on their social rolls? Would you have allowed the RP to take the place of rolling completely? Would you have nerfed the encounter or given positive modifiers for the fact that the PCs actually composed a convincing argument? And as PFS GMs, can we do things like that when the scenario calls for a social roll?
If this is a question that you feel has been addressed elsewhere, please feel free to redirect me.
|
|
That being said, going back to the original examples of The Merchant's Wake and The Two-Fold Demise; what would have happened if after all that excellent RPing, the PCs rolled terrible on their social rolls? Would you have allowed the RP to take the place of rolling completely? Would you have nerfed the encounter or given positive modifiers for the fact that the PCs actually composed a convincing argument? And as PFS GMs, can we do things like that when the scenario calls for a social roll?If this is a question that you feel has been addressed elsewhere, please feel free to redirect me.
In the first case, the roll was a bit mediocre (but not a failure) and the GM notified me that there were modifiers on the roll
In the second case, we ended up creating a *lot* of favorable situational modifiers through our actions that helped cement the discussion very soundly.
As a GM, if my players came up with a good, compelling rp discussion/argument/etc where it wasn't normally expected I'd consider that 'creative methods' and use the scenario as a guideline with some lee-way because 'creative methods' can invalidate opponent tactics.
After all, there's a significant difference between death vagranting it up then running into the leader after all their people have been slaughtered and subduing a group of their people and having a nice prolonged chat with them about reconsidering their life choices...
|
|
For those tables where it 'slows down' the interaction at the table, what has been the experience with the slow-down?
I think the main time bogs I've encountered are sandbox scenarios. There doesn't even have to be RP involved for the group to start falling behind just with trying to decide what to do next. Those might be good instances where RP with the locals could facilitate the GM giving the players a nudge on where to go next to keep things moving along. Otherwise, table talk can eat up time if left unchecked. I recently played with a gentlemen that has a Cayden Cailean worshiping dwarf that speaks in an inebriated Scottish accent; it was a joy to listen to and it had the table cracking up but wasn't necessarily 'expediting' the mission.
Obstacles I've encountered to RP is providing numerous 'creative solutions' in character but in some scenarios (perhaps some GMs) we'd hit the wall of 'that skill does not apply, roll/do this instead.' My experience GMing is limited to a home campaign of Hell's Rebels currently in progress. Given the amount of restrictions that exist in PFS, I'm wondering if GMs feel more constrained by what's written in the scenario. For those of you that GM for PFS, to what extent do you feel at liberty to 'adjust' results in response to creative solutions and RP? If your players encounter an npc that the scenario explicitly says requires a DC 35 profession basket weaving check for 'success', would you allow alternatives?
In terms of additional rewards for RP, in my Hell's Rebel home game I've given my players a free re-roll per book but also the chance for the best RPer to win one additional re-roll. I've played some games where GMs use starbursts for MOBs with the 'eat what you kill' approach. Perhaps, out of game benefits like candy or dice or whatever can be used to encourage RP as well. That does enter the dangerous territory of turning RP into a competition or someone not RPing to the GMs standards etc... but just a thought.
|
|
Obstacles I've encountered to RP is providing numerous 'creative solutions' in character but in some scenarios (perhaps some GMs) we'd hit the wall of 'that skill does not apply, roll/do this instead.' My experience GMing is limited to a home campaign of Hell's Rebels currently in progress. Given the amount of restrictions that exist in PFS, I'm wondering if GMs feel more constrained by what's written in the scenario. For those of you that GM for PFS, to what extent do you feel at liberty to 'adjust' results in response to creative solutions and RP? If your players encounter an npc that the scenario explicitly says requires a DC 35 profession basket weaving check for 'success', would you allow alternatives?
This comes up actually quite a bit in our groups. We've finally stopped getting frustrated by it and accepting the GM breaking the 4th wall and telling us the scenario does not allow for these things to happen. Some of these have been at least to the party and the GMs *highly* logical choices for course of action.
Most of our GMs are more comfortable running Modules and AP's that allow Campaign mode of we run the game normally and then hand out the sheets later due to this. There is a very firm standing of you run things as written and nothing else, but that *as written* is very narrow and makes the game feel highly railroaded, of you have to go to scene 1, then scene 2, ect. with no variation due to how the PCs encounter things.
|
|
but in some scenarios (perhaps some GMs) we'd hit the wall of 'that skill does not apply, roll/do this instead.' My experience GMing is limited to a home campaign of Hell's Rebels currently in progress. Given the amount of restrictions that exist in PFS, I'm wondering if GMs feel more constrained by what's written in the scenario.
Nope.
Well, I'm sure some do. But to me when there's a skill check the scenarios have gotten a LOT better about including a range of skills (rather than you must do this via sleight of hand) as well as the caveat of "anything you can convince me should be an appropriate skill check in this situation"
|
|
I'm with BNW on this one. I allow substitute skills for various things, if the PC's can explain why it should work. In the older scenarios, especially in faction missions, there were situations where it had to be one specific skill, with less flexibility. But the newer scenarios are much better about giving options, and that opens it up to "and whatever other options the PC's can make a good excuse for".
|
|
And this is a concise summary to this point.
One person may go "(insert name here)/my character attempts 'x, y, z', mentioning a, b, c, and other things" because they're used to a 3rd person present narrative style.
Another might use "I" and use a 1st person omniscient narrative style.
Yet another might go 'full-in' with their interactions, and use 1st person narrative.
These would all seem like valid methods, but it can lead to a disconnect if three people are using a third-person narrative style, two are using first-person omniscient, and one is using first-person narrative.
This can also be exceptionally grating if one person's narrative style insists/suggests that things have already been accomplished when they have not (on MUs and elsewhere this is considered 'power-posing' and is at the very least 'bad form'). It falls into the category of 'Don't tell me how my character is going to act or react, let me play my character.'
The above are my 'from the hip' thoughts, there's probably a lot more cohesive insight out there?
|
|
Wei Ji -- MUs?
MU -- Shorthand for, but not limited to...
MUD -- Multi-User Dungeon
MUSH -- Multi-User Shared Hallucination
MUX -- Multi-User eXperience
There are several others out there as well... text-based roleplay environments where one is blurring the lines between interactive fan-fiction and roleplaying.
MUDs would be closer to the mechanical aspect of PFS generally speaking, MUSH and MUX closer to roleplay...
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
Okay. I like the Multi-User Shared Hallucination one. That sounds like regular gaming to me though.
So back to this thread... I think that some of this comes down to awareness of the local culture of the group that you're playing with. I don't know if we can or should strictly define roleplay here. It comes in so many varieties, and I don't want to exclude others creativity. All I know is that I crave more of it.
Hmm
|
|
I don't think that 'first person omnicient' is a thing.
There are
"First Person"
"Second Person" (mostly instruction manuals & the old pick-a-path books)
"Third Person Limited"
and
"Third Person Omnicient"
I don't remember any "First Person Omnicient".
It's a thing, depending on whether you're looking into their head or hearing them tell it.