Punishing Bad RP


Advice

151 to 200 of 411 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:

There is no social equivalent to the PF tactical combat system. You can't learn what the social maneuvers and appropriate bonuses are out of the rule book. The most you can do is try to read your GM and persuade him to give out bonuses.

Imagine instead a game with none of PF's detailed tactical combat rules, just a vague "possible circumstance bonus for good tactics". You'd have to try to figure out not only what a good tactic would be, but more importantly what your GM thought a good tactic might be. You'd likely get wildly different results from different GMs and based on how players describe the tactic.

Are you attempting to imply that players don't already have very different experiences with different GMs? Because in my experience that has not ever been the case. Furthermore, you seem to be implying that this is a bad thing? Why is that? I find it to be one of the great strengths of the game - different people will play in different ways, and that means they tell different stories at their tables, which I find much more interesting.

As I see it, having a different experience is inevitable anyway, so that's not a unique disadvantage to giving out mechanical bonuses for social roleplay, and even if you feel like it makes the variation significantly greater, that is really only a good thing anyway.


thejeff wrote:
Can I get attack bonuses for describing real life fighting techniques if they enrich the narrative? Not "well that's equivalent to flanking" or some such, but "You described that takedown really well, so you get a +2 to pull it off".

Combat doesn't need that.

Combat is a rich, detailed part of the game with many opportunities for smart players to do well through clever decisions relating to positioning, spell choice, target prioritisation, etc.

It's the parts of the game that are just single dice rolls that can benefit from creative descriptions and the like. "I touch it with a ten foot pole," when searching for traps. "I remind the guard I'm a 15th level Wizard and I could turn him into a newt," when rolling Intimidate. That kind of thing.

Otherwise the game risks becoming a bit flat:
Player: "I roll a dice and add a number."
GM: "Your number was high enough. You have passed the obstacle."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
thejeff wrote:

There is no social equivalent to the PF tactical combat system. You can't learn what the social maneuvers and appropriate bonuses are out of the rule book. The most you can do is try to read your GM and persuade him to give out bonuses.

Imagine instead a game with none of PF's detailed tactical combat rules, just a vague "possible circumstance bonus for good tactics". You'd have to try to figure out not only what a good tactic would be, but more importantly what your GM thought a good tactic might be. You'd likely get wildly different results from different GMs and based on how players describe the tactic.

Are you attempting to imply that players don't already have very different experiences with different GMs? Because in my experience that has not ever been the case. Furthermore, you seem to be implying that this is a bad thing? Why is that? I find it to be one of the great strengths of the game - different people will play in different ways, and that means they tell different stories at their tables, which I find much more interesting.

As I see it, having a different experience is inevitable anyway, so that's not a unique disadvantage to giving out mechanical bonuses for social roleplay, and even if you feel like it makes the variation significantly greater, that is really only a good thing anyway.

So why did we codify all the combat rules? If variation is inevitable and a good thing anyway, why not encourage it? I think PF players would completely freak out with any such approach.

I dunno. I'm close to giving up here. Maybe I'm not being clear, but it seems like you're twisting everything anyone says into some other argument, when you're not just ignoring or dismissing what they say outright.

Honestly, I'm not actually opposed to what you're describing and usually play much like I think you do (Though I've drastically misunderstood what you've said before, so could be completely wrong about that.) I just find your arguments for it unpersuasive and your dismissal of other's concerns pretty obnoxious.
I do think there is a real issue here, a balance which isn't as easy to find as you seem to think. I have seen games that leaned much too far in the "player's ability dominated social interaction over character ability" and I don't like that - in both directions, no skill characters doing well and high skill characters failing because of players doing it poorly. I've much more rarely seen the "no roleplay, just a roll" complained about in the original post.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:


It's the parts of the game that are just single dice rolls that can benefit from creative descriptions and the like. "I touch it with a ten foot pole," when searching for traps. "I remind the guard I'm a 15th level Wizard and I could turn him into a newt," when rolling Intimidate. That kind of thing.

Otherwise the game risks becoming a bit flat:
Player: "I roll a dice and add a number."
GM: "Your number was high enough. You have passed the obstacle."

Traps are another good example - In both directions. If I search thoroughly enough with 10' poles and pouring water on the floor and all the old school tricks, do I automatically find the trap if I used one of the valid ways of looking for it? How to explain when I didn't? If I don't give a convincing enough explanation of how I notice the magical sensor, is there a penalty?

Can we skip the need for a character with any actual skills in this kind of thing if our player skills are good enough?

Or do I just get a +2 circumstance bonus for using a tool? :)


Depends on the trap.

In general, no penalties, only bonuses.

In my campaign recently, one of the players said, "I lift the rug to see if there's anything underneath."

There was a pit beneath the rug. He found it. No dice roll needed. I don't think that makes Perception skill obsolete.


thejeff wrote:
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
thejeff wrote:

There is no social equivalent to the PF tactical combat system. You can't learn what the social maneuvers and appropriate bonuses are out of the rule book. The most you can do is try to read your GM and persuade him to give out bonuses.

Imagine instead a game with none of PF's detailed tactical combat rules, just a vague "possible circumstance bonus for good tactics". You'd have to try to figure out not only what a good tactic would be, but more importantly what your GM thought a good tactic might be. You'd likely get wildly different results from different GMs and based on how players describe the tactic.

Are you attempting to imply that players don't already have very different experiences with different GMs? Because in my experience that has not ever been the case. Furthermore, you seem to be implying that this is a bad thing? Why is that? I find it to be one of the great strengths of the game - different people will play in different ways, and that means they tell different stories at their tables, which I find much more interesting.

As I see it, having a different experience is inevitable anyway, so that's not a unique disadvantage to giving out mechanical bonuses for social roleplay, and even if you feel like it makes the variation significantly greater, that is really only a good thing anyway.

So why did we codify all the combat rules? If variation is inevitable and a good thing anyway, why not encourage it? I think PF players would completely freak out with any such approach.

I dunno. I'm close to giving up here. Maybe I'm not being clear, but it seems like you're twisting everything anyone says into some other argument, when you're not just ignoring or dismissing what they say outright.

Honestly, I'm not actually opposed to what you're describing and usually play much like I think you do (Though I've drastically misunderstood what you've said before, so could be completely wrong about that.) I just find your arguments...

I think the codified combat rules is a lot because of the dnd base (which started as a tactical war game), I actually find Pathfinder/DND based games often are the different ones with their deep combat rules. In playing some other systems combat is no different than skill checks, just different skill checks.

So I often feel these sort of bonuses and additions are peoples way of adding more depth to the "neglected" side of d20 system which is your RP interactions and exploration since they are woefully under developed.

I think a lot of this disagreement just comes down to your table and playstyle anyways. Some groups like to play very mechanically focused where most things are governed by raw and you stick to the checks and the rules with little to no DM tweaking. Some groups use the rules as a guideline and act outside of it all the time... and there is a whole spectrum in between, and all of it is ok providing your table fits your playstyle.

One thing I have found playing other systems then coming back is I don't always make my RP rewards purely based on my discretion as a GM. I usually try to read the parties reaction to a player's RP action as well. If a player does something that elicit a strong positive reaction from the players I will often hand out an rp reward (Hero point/circumstance bonus/Inspiration whatever we are using for that campaign).

Another soft reward rather than a mechnical bonus that can work if you're comfortable with improvising while Gming is allowing the player more narrative control if they put the effort forward to contribute to the RP. So asking them "what happens?", IE if they work something clever in or knowledge about an NPC and succeed their diplomacy check, I will let them decide the NPC's In fiction reaction within reason. If they just role and succeed I'll determine the NPC's reaction as normal.

I do think an important key to this though is rewarding player "effort" rather than pure skill.

TL:DR: Do what your table likes and if you do reward for good RP reward the effort rather than the execution so as not to discourage people.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
No one here that I'm aware of has said it is the only way to do it. HWalsh, just above did say they might give a larger bonus for how it was acted out than for the actual substantive thing being suggested.

You, in fact, have said it, repeatedly. Indeed, even though you don't seem to understand this, your objection to giving out bonuses for good acting stems only and entirely from the assumption you are making that giving out bonuses to players for things you are bad it somehow denies you the opportunity to get exactly equal bonuses for things you are good at. Your argument is, bluntly, immature. It proceeds thusly:

Player A gave a much better speech than I ever could. Player A got a reward for it. I would not have gotten that same reward, thus it is unfair for Player A to get that reward.

It is exactly logically equivalent to:

It is Player A's birthday today, and not mine. Player A got presents. I did not get presents. Thus, it is unfair that Player A got presents.

If you object to this characterization, please demonstrate how it is inapt. Note - this is not "name-calling", or an ad-hom attack. I am not saying that YOU are immature. I'm not saying that YOU are childish. I am saying that the construction of your argument is flawed in the same way that the child's argument is flawed.

thejeff wrote:

Can I get attack bonuses for describing real life fighting techniques if they enrich the narrative? Not "well that's equivalent to flanking" or some such, but "You described that takedown really well, so you get a +2 to pull it off".

This is a false dichotomy. Yes, you can get bonuses to attack and damage for adding to the narrative description of the game - those advantages are baked into the combat system. Your perception that this is different is simply incorrect, sorry. At heart, the act of taking the power attack feat and activating it in combat is every bit as much roleplaying as saying "I give an impassioned, fiery speech to the gathered mob about the injustices of their corrupt town government, and the sinister cult lurking below the courthouse".

Thus, when you say "I activate power attack and take a full attack", that is a roleplaying action that carries with it the narrative freight of the descriptive power of the full attack action and the power attack feat. The reason you get bonuses for those things is not simply "because the rules say so", because the reason for the rules to say so is because by making those mechanics, the rules designers wanted to provide a mechanical encouragement for players to add some narrative flair to their combats beyond simply "I roll "attack". I hit. I kill that enemy.".

Thus, the bonus you get for flanking, or for using Power Attack, or Weapon Finesse, or whatever, is ALREADY the bonus you get from describing your character's fighting technique, because taking (and using) Weapon Finesse and Fencing Grace is already telling me a lot about what your character is doing. Narrating it out is nice and all, but (if you prefer a pure mechanics analogy) giving an RP bonus above and beyond what you're already getting for using the feat would be giving essentially the same type of bonus from the same source, and as we know, those don't stack.

The fact that similar granularity doesn't exist for social situations doesn't mean that social situations are supposed to be completely free of roleplay, nor that you can't reward good roleplay. It simply means that the rules designers correctly felt that combat was both easier to codify than the fluid complexities of interpersonal interactions, and also that it was less necessary to codify social rules since they were inherently going to be more subjective and require GM discretion anyway. That does not mean that it is inappropriate to have ad-hoc bonuses to reward adding flavor to the social encounters, it just means that the intent seems to have always been that it would be up to GMs to decide what those bonuses were, since the GMs would be the ones deciding what the personalities, desires and biases of the various NPCs of the world would be.

Finally, let's address the hidden elephant in the room - that what I"m saying means that players who are better with the narrative social skills will make better social characters because they are more likely to get these types of roleplaying bonuses. I agree that this is so. The easy and obvious counter is this, though: A tactically minded player will be better at playing a combat character than someone else. That is not unfair, because skill in an area of the game should be rewarded, and skill in combat is a thing that can be learned and developed over time, plus just because someone else is BETTER in combat doesn't mean you can't still contribute. All of those same arguments apply just as much to the social player/social character interaction.

thejeff wrote:

But basically you've reached "It's not an unfair bonus due to inherent acting ability", instead "it's a fair bonus do to acting ability".

Which is so far from what I thought your original position was, I can't even see it anymore. And it's much more disputable. It is in fact, the central contention.

I haven't "reached" anything - you misunderstanding my position doesn't mean my position has changed at all. I understand what the contention is in the thread - indeed, the central contention is actually "Is the reason the bonus is being given 'good acting' or good roleplaying?", not, as you seem to think, "Is is unfair to reward good acting". I can happily concede that if the reason the bonus was being given was because of "smoozing the GM", that would be poor practice, because even though you THINK that's what's happening, it actually isn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

People absolutely are suggesting giving bonuses to rolls like Diplomacy based on how wells the words come out of the players mouth. So, please stop suggesting that people aren't suggesting this.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME WITH THIS?!?!

Yes, I agree that players who give a compelling speech can (and should) get a bonus (provided that the speech matches up well with the situation and the character they are playing).

What I am saying is that giving out that bonus is not (as it keeps being misinterpreted) "giving out an unfair bonus due to inherent acting ability", no matter how much it might feel that way to some people - it is a bonus for "Good Roleplaying", because giving a great performance in character is unquestionably ONE form of good roleplaying, but it is manifestly not the ONLY one. Getting a flank bonus in combat for good positioning is a roleplaying bonus. Realizing the idol is magic and might be cursed because you thought to cast "detect magic" is a roleplaying bonus. Getting a +2 bonus for giving a great in character performance is a roleplaying bonus. Getting a bonus for describing the performance without actually giving it is the same +2 roleplaying bonus.

This means that the charge that giving out a bonus for a compelling speech is unfair is invalid because it assumes exclusivity where there is none. Nobody (even in the posts linked, which I had, in fact, already read and understood fully) is saying that the ONLY way to get a roleplaying bonus is to give a compelling speech. They are saying that it is A way to do it, and you and other people are mistakenly assuming that means it is THE way to do it.

The reason arguments like "So, why can't I get a bonus on strength checks for deadlifting IRL?" fail is because they assume that what is being rewarded is real life player skill, when actually what is being rewarded is the way in which the player used that real-life skill to enrich the narrative of the game - and again, it is NOT the only way to do it....

Do you give a +2 bonus for something? Or do you give it regardless of what the player does?

Is that something subjective, or objective?


I feel like we all accept that you set a lower DC for a plausible lie on a bluff check than for an implausible one right? Rulebook says to play it that way.

But guess what? "Plausible" is not an objective standard, nor is "implausible." So the GM's job in social situations always involves some sort of good faith subjective reasoning. So trying to say "objectivity" is some kind of gold standard for DC adjustments or circumstantial modifiers is just never going to be useful.

I mean, if a NPC will react better when people are polite, I'll accept either an in character speech that is in its presentation polite and an out of character aside of "I'm going to be really polite here" followed by some in-character speech. But you have to signal to me somehow that your tactic is politeness and "just doing it" is every bit as good as saying so.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Could someone please define "Good Roleplaying"? Because several posters here seem to have VERY different opinions on what the term means.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

here's a fun "teaching moment"...

Player: "my PC will use Diplomacy to get the NPC to be friendly"
Judge: "Expand on that or I will penalize you a -2 on your check"
Player: "ah..." glances around at under age players at the table "...you know...wink-wink"
Judge: "OH! yeah! moving on"
(half an hour later)

Underage player: "my PC will use Diplomacy to get the NPC to be friendly"
Judge: "ah...."

I've had things very close to this at PFS tables... but then I often have sub-teen players at my table, along with adults.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Do you give a +2 bonus for something? Or do you give it regardless of what the player does?

This is a nonsense question. Giving the bonus "regardless of what the player does" is still logically "giving the bonus for something". Lest you think this is mere pedantry - this is literally another example of the logical flaw I am trying to explain to you. A can be B without B being A. A player can earn a roleplaying bonus by giving a performance. That does not mean that the roleplaying bonus is a "performance bonus".

I am certain the questions you are trying to ask is this:

"Do you give the bonus for specific actions, such as delivering the speech in character?"

To which the answer is clearly yes.

"Are there things that would not, in your estimation, deserve this kind of bonus?"

To which the answer is clearly yes.

The fact that you stopped asking questions there proves you don't understand the importance of the next question:

"Is everything that is not explicitly in the first category automatically in the second category?"

To which the answer is clearly no.

Or the next question:

"Is a circumstance bonus in social situations the only way in which roleplaying is rewarded at the table?"

To which the answer is again clearly no.

Pretty much all of your objections and arguments are neatly undercut by those second two questions and the answers. I'm mercifully not going to explain why again, that's all above. It's just telling that you are still not even acknowledging that by only focusing on those first two questions you are missing the core of what is actually in contention here.

Let me respond with some questions of my own:

"Is giving a roleplaying bonus to a player who delivers a great speech that is appropriate to the setting and characters and adds to the story the same as giving an 'acting' bonus to a player because he was good at talking in a funny voice? If so, why? How does the underlying intent of the bonus and the context of the situation not clearly distinguish one from the other?"

"Is giving a player the extra damage from power attack fundamentally any different than giving a player a bonus on a skill check because he described using the setting or situation in a clever way? If so, why? What is the root motivation for giving power attack bonuses, and how is that distinct from the root motivation for rewarding clever use of the narrative?"

"Is giving someone a bonus in a social setting for good use of social roleplaying skills unfair to people who are not as good at those skills? If so, why? Is it similarly unfair to give a smart tactical player combat bonuses for their clever use of their combat rollplaying skills? If not, why not?"

Irontruth wrote:
Is that something subjective, or objective?

Yes.


nosig wrote:

Could someone please define "Good Roleplaying"? Because several posters here seem to have VERY different opinions on what the term means.

Any sort of in-character expression that enhances the experience of playing the game for the rest of the people at the table. Not necessarily "fitting the expectations other people have of your character" since surprises and clever subversions of expectations are every bit as valuable.

The Exchange

So, how do we punish "bad RP"? I guess we can start imposing numeric penalties on skill checks... (IMHO - NOT a good idea).

Should this be applied to ALL skills? or only some?

Placing additional restrictions one skill over another is... going to be odd. I mean unless called for by special circumstances (the NPC hates Humans).

It would be like a judge placing additional restrictions on a skill, just because you are using THAT skill, or like saying you get a -2 to yy skill because you failed to do XX (action the judge feels you should do). Like saying, "If you don't play the way I think you should, you suffer a -2 penality".

Because at it's core, the social skill checks are just SKILLS. Just like all the others. They mechanically work the same.

Is it possible to Role Play them up? SURE! that's what this game is about (for many people like me)! I mean, it is why I PLAY this game! SO I can ROLE PLAY!

But it is possible to Role Play almost all the parts of this game - yes even combat. This is why I can (and regularly do) turn a 3 hour game into a 5+ hour Role Playing game - even if there are zero social skill encounters in the game.

For example: Can we Role Play the VC briefing? We do it all the time right? how many social skill rolls there in the VC briefing? Oh - yeah, I forgot the Gather Information roll... wait, should we give a -2 to that check then? I mean, unless the player states how they are doing it?

(gaming the system) "I do the Gather Information roll by going back to bed and sleeping an extra 3 hours... my skill check is a 25 with a Take 10 and I think I avoided the -2 for not describing my method."
(judge laughs at the joke and turns and looks to Shy Player)
(shy Player): "I have a 26 with a take 10"
(judge responds) "Sorry Shy Guy, that nets you the -2 because you didn't give me anything to work with, no description of how your PC goes about doing the Skill... Gaming-the-System has a goofy method, but failed to hit anything listed as a penalty, so he had the high roll.

Yeah - this works I guess. Not my idea of Role Playing though...

edit: sorry, PossibleCabbage - my post was not directed at you. It was not in response to your post...
I thank you for your definition. I do not have the SAME definition of "good role playing", which seems to be part of the cause of most of the disagreements in this thread. We do not seem to be using the same definitions of the terms people are using... and I will endeavor to stop assuming I know what people mean when they use the term Role Playing (either "Good" or "Bad" Role Playing).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
thejeff wrote:
No one here that I'm aware of has said it is the only way to do it. HWalsh, just above did say they might give a larger bonus for how it was acted out than for the actual substantive thing being suggested.

You, in fact, have said it, repeatedly. Indeed, even though you don't seem to understand this, your objection to giving out bonuses for good acting stems only and entirely from the assumption you are making that giving out bonuses to players for things you are bad it somehow denies you the opportunity to get exactly equal bonuses for things you are good at. Your argument is, bluntly, immature. It proceeds thusly:

Player A gave a much better speech than I ever could. Player A got a reward for it. I would not have gotten that same reward, thus it is unfair for Player A to get that reward.

It is exactly logically equivalent to:

It is Player A's birthday today, and not mine. Player A got presents. I did not get presents. Thus, it is unfair that Player A got presents.

If you object to this characterization, please demonstrate how it is inapt. Note - this is not "name-calling", or an ad-hom attack. I am not saying that YOU are immature. I'm not saying that YOU are childish. I am saying that the construction of your argument is flawed in the same way that the child's argument is flawed.

thejeff wrote:

Can I get attack bonuses for describing real life fighting techniques if they enrich the narrative? Not "well that's equivalent to flanking" or some such, but "You described that takedown really well, so you get a +2 to pull it off".

This is a false dichotomy. Yes, you can get bonuses to attack and damage for adding to the narrative description of the game - those advantages are baked into the combat system. Your perception that this is different is simply incorrect, sorry. At heart, the act of taking the power attack feat and activating it in combat is every bit as much roleplaying as saying "I give an impassioned, fiery speech to the gathered...

No. That you consistently misunderstand me and, I suspect, several other people on this thread, doesn't mean my motivations are immature. Sorry.

Like I said, I've pretty much given up on your end of this discussion.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do the Role Playing separate from the mechanics of the skill checks. This is because I like to make my Role Playing MATCH what my skill check gives as a result... I hate getting one result in my description, only to have my skill check fail to match...

situation: Party of adventurers are gathered outside the suspects door. The intention is to scare him away from doing something in town tomorrow, to get him to leave town in fact. The rogue has checked the door for traps, found an alarm and removed it, unlocked door, and stepped to the back of the party.

Me: "Katisha (the PC) is using Intimidate (skill) to convenes the Mook to leave town (desired outcome)... I take 10 and get a 35."

Cleric player: "and I aid by...ah... opening the door! Yeah, I got a 12 so I aided!"

Me: "Ok, so Kat has a 37 final, unless there is any other modifiers?"

this nets a penalty? or not? Now that I've done the MECHANICAL part of the game, I move on to the Role Playing part..

actually what played out:

My discription: "The Bard, in misty Mistmail steps to the door and, as the cleric swings open the door, steps into the room. Bringing the fog of the evening in with her, she swirls her cape with the continual flame spell on the lining around to her back so the "flames" curl up around her, and she pulls her whip that then bursts into flame (Hellfire). Looking at the target sitting on the bed, she points the whip and says "So, do we talk? or do we move on to other options?" Target sees a Cheliaxian woman, clothed in fire & smoke, with a flaming whip that is scorching a line in the carpet. Intimadate check? - ah, sorry, I forgot to ask, can I take 10?"

and at this point it didn't really matter to me if I made the check or not... I've had my fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:

Oh - yeah, I forgot the Gather Information roll... wait, should we give a -2 to that check then? I mean, unless the player states how they are doing it?

(gaming the system) "I do the Gather Information roll by going back to bed and sleeping an extra 3 hours... my skill check is a 25 with a Take 10 and I think I avoided the -2 for not describing my method."
(judge laughs at the joke and turns and looks to Shy Player)
(shy Player): "I have a 26 with a take 10"
(judge responds) "Sorry Shy Guy, that nets you the -2 because you didn't give me anything to work with, no description of how your PC goes about doing the Skill... Gaming-the-System has a goofy method, but failed to hit anything listed as a penalty, so he had the high roll.

I was going to bring this up earlier, since it was actually the example used in the link in the OP.

How do you roleplay out Gather Information? It's not a single action, but takes 1d4 hours. Hopefully we're not always going to play that out in real time, separately for each PC trying to gather info. I've usually abstracted it - getting little more than a "I'm going to hit the bars down by the docks, see if anyone knows anything" or "I'll check with my contacts in the court."


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:

So why did we codify all the combat rules? If variation is inevitable and a good thing anyway, why not encourage it? I think PF players would completely freak out with any such approach.

If you were to check my recent posting history, you would probably laugh at exactly how apt this is. You are correct, I do think that variation is inevitable, and I think it's a good think - it certainly doesn't seem to be a bad thing, and nobody can give me a reason WHY it's bad, nor really why consistency is good (beyond a description of consistency itself, a la "consistency is good because it means we have the same experience at different tables. Variation is bad because it means that doesn't happen") without realizing that they are still not actually answering the question of why consistency is good - they are just tautologically saying consistency is consistent.

So, yes, I absolutely raise this question, and yes, pathfinder players absolutely freaked out. That doesn't mean that their reaction is correct, though, or that I am wrong - my argument does not require their belief in it for my argument to be correct, nor is it my job to persuade people of it - merely to present it.

thejeff wrote:
I just find your arguments for it unpersuasive and your dismissal of other's concerns pretty obnoxious.

To the charge that I am "dismissive" - I'm not dismissing people's concerns, I am saying that because those concerns are likely based on a misunderstanding or misperception of the situation, that the concerns are likely unwarranted. What is interesting to me is that I think this accusation demonstrates a fundamental difference in how we view the world - you are looking at the end result (that I am saying people's concerns are unfounded), and reacting only to that end result, treating it as if it was just a brusque dismissal of perfectly valid feelings. In the same way, I think you and others are looking at the end state of "Player X got a bonus, and Player Y did not", and judging that it is unfair. In both cases, the reason we are talking past each other may be because I am looking beyond the end state to the path we used to get there, because that context is necessary for making well-reasoned judgments about what is/isn't unfair or dismissive.

If you find that unpersuasive, I'm sorry, but that again doesn't make me wrong. That you find it obnoxious that I am saying you are incorrect is also not surprising, and also not a reason why I am wrong - after all, broadly speaking, there are two worlds - one in which I am correct, and you are wrong but don't understand why, and it feels bad to be wrong, or one in which I am crazy and completely wrong, which is why you can't understand what I'm saying, and so you find it frustrating as well. It's an interesting exercise to ask yourself how you would possibly tell the difference between those two states, I think.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
nosig wrote:

Oh - yeah, I forgot the Gather Information roll... wait, should we give a -2 to that check then? I mean, unless the player states how they are doing it?

(gaming the system) "I do the Gather Information roll by going back to bed and sleeping an extra 3 hours... my skill check is a 25 with a Take 10 and I think I avoided the -2 for not describing my method."
(judge laughs at the joke and turns and looks to Shy Player)
(shy Player): "I have a 26 with a take 10"
(judge responds) "Sorry Shy Guy, that nets you the -2 because you didn't give me anything to work with, no description of how your PC goes about doing the Skill... Gaming-the-System has a goofy method, but failed to hit anything listed as a penalty, so he had the high roll.

I was going to bring this up earlier, since it was actually the example used in the link in the OP.

How do you roleplay out Gather Information? It's not a single action, but takes 1d4 hours. Hopefully we're not always going to play that out in real time, separately for each PC trying to gather info. I've usually abstracted it - getting little more than a "I'm going to hit the bars down by the docks, see if anyone knows anything" or "I'll check with my contacts in the court."

Katisha: "Guys - I need to do a little shopping! Therapy and all that. The last assignment ran SO LONG! More than a three days tromping around the countryside - out in the woods with the same three guys for that long is just such a drag! It really wears a girl down. And I am NOT going to discuss what that trip thru the sewer did to my best pair of knee boots! Anyway, I'll be (roll a D4) an hour at the cobblers, another at the lingerie boutique... and at least another hour at Madam Contessa's Salon - I totally have to get my nails done. SO... meet me back at the Lodge in 3! See you then!" OOC voice: "Taking 10, I have a 38 for gather info, and you would be AMAZED at what kind of rumors you can pick up at the hair-dressers/nail parlor. Add in a few questions at the cobblers - she'll take the opportunity to flirt with the old cobbler and ask if he has time to offer advice for the trip to the lingerie shop - where she'll check in with her contact for the Para-countess to check for Faction Missions and turn in her last Faction Report... OH! what "info" do I get for the 38?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
How do you roleplay out Gather Information? It's not a single action, but takes 1d4 hours. Hopefully we're not always going to play that out in real time, separately for each PC trying to gather info. I've usually abstracted it - getting little more than a "I'm going to hit the bars down by the docks, see if anyone knows anything" or "I'll check with my contacts in the court."

So, it sounds like you know exactly how to roleplay it out, then? Who ever would advocate playing it out in real time? Why wouldn't something like "I'll check with my contacts in the court." be worth a bonus on the roll if said contacts are an established part of the game and would plausibly be a good source of information?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find the problem I have with the "we roll dice then RP the result approach" is that a lot of time RPing leads to more RPing leads to more RPing leads to some conflict that will need to be adjudicated by dice.

So something like:

"[the king beckons for you to approach]"
"Greetings, your majesty, we party of humble adventurers, whose explots at [list of exploits] you might have heard of, bring news of a great threat facing your kingdom.. [outline the thread, ask for aid]"
"[the King is skeptical, offers rebuttals]
"[the party answers rebuttals, provides additional arguments]"
"[King demands proof]"
"[Party offers evidence, which is not conclusive]"
"[King observes that the evidence is suggestive, but not conclusive, offers, alternative explanation]"

and so on...

Eventually, someone's got to roll something to see if the monarch believes the party or not. I could just handwave "he believes you" if the party makes a sufficiently compelling case (which is exactly what some here want not to happen), but if it's just a scene where people are having a conversation with each other in character that goes back and forth, it's a pity to have to keep stopping to roll stuff in order to see where it should go next.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Do you give a +2 bonus for something? Or do you give it regardless of what the player does?

This is a nonsense question. Giving the bonus "regardless of what the player does" is still logically "giving the bonus for something". Lest you think this is mere pedantry - this is literally another example of the logical flaw I am trying to explain to you. A can be B without B being A. A player can earn a roleplaying bonus by giving a performance. That does not mean that the roleplaying bonus is a "performance bonus".

I am certain the questions you are trying to ask is this:

"Do you give the bonus for specific actions, such as delivering the speech in character?"

To which the answer is clearly yes.

"Are there things that would not, in your estimation, deserve this kind of bonus?"

To which the answer is clearly yes.

The fact that you stopped asking questions there proves you don't understand the importance of the next question:

"Is everything that is not explicitly in the first category automatically in the second category?"

To which the answer is clearly no.

Or the next question:

"Is a circumstance bonus in social situations the only way in which roleplaying is rewarded at the table?"

To which the answer is again clearly no.

Pretty much all of your objections and arguments are neatly undercut by those second two questions and the answers. I'm mercifully not going to explain why again, that's all above. It's just telling that you are still not even acknowledging that by only focusing on those first two questions you are missing the core of what is actually in contention here.

Let me respond with some questions of my own:

"Is giving a roleplaying bonus to a player who delivers a great speech that is appropriate to the setting and characters and adds to the story the same as giving an 'acting' bonus to a player because he was good at talking in a funny voice? If so, why? How does the underlying intent of the bonus and the context of the...

Actually, I think we are talking past one another, that's why I kept my post short.

If you are fine with us talking past each other, feel free to not answer my questions and instead answer questions of your own choosing, and then ask a dozen more questions.

You don't understand my point. I'll accept that I've failed to convey it to you. At this point I don't think we'll ever find a meeting point from which to hold a useful discussion though.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I find the problem I have with the "we roll dice then RP the result approach" is that a lot of time RPing leads to more RPing leads to more RPing leads to some conflict that will need to be adjudicated by dice.

So something like:

"[the king beckons for you to approach]"
"Greetings, your majesty, we party of humble adventurers, whose explots at [list of exploits] you might have heard of, bring news of a great threat facing your kingdom.. [outline the thread, ask for aid]"
"[the King is skeptical, offers rebuttals]
"[the party answers rebuttals, provides additional arguments]"
"[King demands proof]"
"[Party offers evidence, which is not conclusive]"
"[King observes that the evidence is suggestive, but not conclusive, offers, alternative explanation]"

and so on...

Eventually, someone's got to roll something to see if the monarch believes the party or not. I could just handwave "he believes you" if the party makes a sufficiently compelling case (which is exactly what some here want not to happen), but if it's just a scene where people are having a conversation with each other in character that goes back and forth, it's a pity to have to keep stopping to roll stuff in order to see where it should go next.

and here (IMHO) we see one of the problems inherent in the system we have, where a Role Playing game is using a Roll system to determine success or failure of a challenge.

using your example above there are (at least) two possible outcomes.

the challenge is described thus...""Greetings, your majesty, we party of humble adventurers, whose exploits at [list of exploits] you might have heard of, bring news of a great threat facing your kingdom.. [outline the thread, ask for aid]"" in other words...
(the party), [outlines the threat], [asks for aid].

What skill or skills do they intend to use?
Diplomacy seems to be it, though I might (as the judge) except Bluff or even Intimidate (that's a big threat headed this way) assisting. So have the best Diplomacy roll, assisted by other party members using Diplomacy or Intimidate (or other skills if the players can convenes me that they apply - "Kn. Nobility to remind the King of his great ancestor Kog the Orc Smasher! and how he defended the kingdom from a similar threat.") the players generate the results... it either works or it doesn't... I did say "two possible outcomes". In this one the party rolled... poorly. And the adventure takes a different path...

Judge - "well, it doesn't look like your arguments are going to work... The king visibly rolls his eyes when you mention his ancestor, and doesn't seem very interested in what you are saying... In fact, you notice that he seems to be totally distracted. Your impassioned pleas for aid are falling on deaf ears..."

Wizard player - "The courtesy of your hall is somewhat lessened of late, Koragan King."

Judge: Your Sense Motive tells you the King is not acting in character... "The king reply's in a gravely voice, 'Why should I welcome you, Stormcrow?' and glances with a small smile at the adviser beside him...who says 'Late is the hour in which this conjurer and his companions choose to appear. Pathfinders - ha! Graverobbers I name them. Ill news is in ill guests."

Wizard Player - "Be silent I say to the adviser! Keep your forked tongue behind you teeth. I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a witless worm!"

the rest of the player chime in - "we move to block the path of the guards who might interfere with our wizard, allowing him to walk to the king."

Wizard Player "King Koragan, Son of Kog! Too long have you sat in the shadows."

Barbarian player: I move to the adviser and place a hand on his shoulder. Holding him in place I tell him "I would stay still if I were you." Roll Intimidate 34...

Wizard Player "Harken to me! I release you from the spell." I cast Dispel Magic on the king targeting any enchantment spells on him...
C$%^P! rolled a 2. So I'm guessing my Dispel fizzels...

The King laughs: ""You have no power here Pathfinder! Be off with you!"

Wizard Player: as the king continues laughing I pull my wand of Prot. Evil and tap him with a charge...

Judge rolling a Will save...: Crud. A nat '1'.

Hay! this was fun! and I thought this thread was a real downer. Thanks guys!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What happens to me a lot of times is that I have players who just enjoy pretending to be imaginary people talking to other imaginary people and can do it at great length without breaking character, referring to game mechanics, shutting anybody out of the fun, or having it become a drag.

So if players just want to act out an entire scene without breaking character, should I bother to interrupt them by having them roll dice? Should I just roll dice in secret having noted their various modifiers? Do I just go with the flow and not bothering to let the players fail if they are making their case well? Like if someone just guesses (correctly) the person they are talking to is lying (based on, for example, contradiction of established fact), can I just skip with the sense motive roll? I guess you can abstract all this by just saying every roll is a "take 10" compared to a DC I set.

I mean, it seems like there are ways to do this that are more fun than stopping every minute to roll a die.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:

Actually, I think we are talking past one another, that's why I kept my post short.

If you are fine with us talking past each other, feel free to not answer my questions and instead answer questions of your own choosing, and then ask a dozen more questions.

You don't understand my point. I'll accept that I've failed to convey it to you. At this point I don't think we'll ever find a meeting point from which to hold a useful discussion though.

I clearly and specifically DID answer your questions? In what way did I not?

Your point is this: Some people feel bad when other people get a bonus for roleplaying a social scene, because they feel like it is unfair to reward player skills in one setting, but not in others, especially since not everyone has those skills.

If that is not your point, please explain in what way I have misunderstood it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:


and here (IMHO) we see one of the problems inherent in the system we have, where a Role Playing game is using a Roll system to determine success or failure of a challenge.

Interesting that the Evil Dice are only a problem when it comes to social encounters, but not combat encounters.


MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Actually, I think we are talking past one another, that's why I kept my post short.

If you are fine with us talking past each other, feel free to not answer my questions and instead answer questions of your own choosing, and then ask a dozen more questions.

You don't understand my point. I'll accept that I've failed to convey it to you. At this point I don't think we'll ever find a meeting point from which to hold a useful discussion though.

I clearly and specifically DID answer your questions? In what way did I not?

Your point is this: Some people feel bad when other people get a bonus for roleplaying a social scene, because they feel like it is unfair to reward player skills in one setting, but not in others, especially since not everyone has those skills.

If that is not your point, please explain in what way I have misunderstood it.

Feel free to reread what you quoted as my response.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Actually, I think we are talking past one another, that's why I kept my post short.

If you are fine with us talking past each other, feel free to not answer my questions and instead answer questions of your own choosing, and then ask a dozen more questions.

You don't understand my point. I'll accept that I've failed to convey it to you. At this point I don't think we'll ever find a meeting point from which to hold a useful discussion though.

I clearly and specifically DID answer your questions? In what way did I not?

Your point is this: Some people feel bad when other people get a bonus for roleplaying a social scene, because they feel like it is unfair to reward player skills in one setting, but not in others, especially since not everyone has those skills.

If that is not your point, please explain in what way I have misunderstood it.

Will Save: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (13) + 3 = 16

Oh good. Made it.

At least I'm not the only one you're talking past. :)


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
nosig wrote:


and here (IMHO) we see one of the problems inherent in the system we have, where a Role Playing game is using a Roll system to determine success or failure of a challenge.
Interesting that the Evil Dice are only a problem when it comes to social encounters, but not combat encounters.

You haven't looked at any dice fudging threads lately, have you? Complaining about the evil dice has been a thing in combat for a LONG time.

But then, it's also rare that combat is decided on a single roll - unlike many social skill tasks. So maybe more people should complain about irritating die rolls for social encounters more often...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
nosig wrote:


and here (IMHO) we see one of the problems inherent in the system we have, where a Role Playing game is using a Roll system to determine success or failure of a challenge.
Interesting that the Evil Dice are only a problem when it comes to social encounters, but not combat encounters.

I feel like this is largely because, just in terms of "writing fiction" (either narrated storytelling or the written word) which is interesting to people social encounters are vastly easier to write than action sequences. One can make a conversation interesting via just a back-and-forth between two characters, but when it comes to fighting there are more things going on at such a rapid pace we cannot really describe it well without omitting a whole lot of detail.

So rather than all go to writing workshops where we learn how to write action scenes we can instead pass "making these scenes interesting" to a series of game mechanics that abstract them and create drama for free via the uncertainty of dice. It's essentially the advantage of procedural generation versus bespoke content.

Which is to say we need the dice to make combat interesting, we do not need dice to make "two people converse" interesting.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Ya know, I had a little more to contribute here but with the giant walls of text firing back and forth at this speed I think I'll bow out after this last post.

Some people have anxiety about being center-stage whether that be giving a presentation in front of an entire class or simply roleplaying out everything their character does in a TTRPG.

I've seen GMs for PFS make someone act out every single word of their diplomacy check and seen them struggle to find exact words and be obviously uncomfortable as everyone watches them and waits. If people just want to give you the general gist of what they're trying to convey, that should be fine. And this is why I dislike the practice of giving bonuses to social skill checks for "RPing it well". It discourages socially awkward/anxious people from playing a social character because they'll never be as good at it as Mr. Extrovert.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I just read through this thread twice. Once in whole and once only re-reading Nosig's posts. To me, these two are the most cogent comments in the thread, which are both Nosig comments:

"Could someone please define "Good Roleplaying"? Because several posters here seem to have VERY different opinions on what the term means."

"Sometimes we role play, sometimes we roll play. It's all part of the game."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
nosig wrote:


and here (IMHO) we see one of the problems inherent in the system we have, where a Role Playing game is using a Roll system to determine success or failure of a challenge.
Interesting that the Evil Dice are only a problem when it comes to social encounters, but not combat encounters.

I feel like this is largely because, just in terms of "writing fiction" (either narrated storytelling or the written word) which is interesting to people social encounters are vastly easier to write than action sequences. One can make a conversation interesting via just a back-and-forth between two characters, but when it comes to fighting there are more things going on at such a rapid pace we cannot really describe it well without omitting a whole lot of detail.

So rather than all go to writing workshops where we learn how to write action scenes we can instead pass "making these scenes interesting" to a series of game mechanics that abstract them and create drama for free via the uncertainty of dice. It's essentially the advantage of procedural generation versus bespoke content.

Which is to say we need the dice to make combat interesting, we do not need dice to make "two people converse" interesting.

I would argue it has a completely different source.

D&D originated as an attempt to make wargaming more granular. The dice rolls for combat was a core assumption, because the social possibilities were added onto a combat game.

If D&D originated out of Charades instead, the core assumption would be guessing clues based on limited information, or maybe using hand gestures as a form of in game communication.

Even now, many gamers play board games and war games that involve various simulations of combat, but that have no story attached to them. Rolling the dice for these combats is entirely natural to us, and accepted method of behavior and interaction when it comes to this topic.

When I've played with people with no D&D background, and who have never played a combat simulation board game or wargame, they often resort to non-combat methods of resolving situations, but they have no problem with the concept that they have to roll to do something, even something like speaking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Ya know, I had a little more to contribute here but with the giant walls of text firing back and forth at this speed I think I'll bow out after this last post.

I'm with you on that. The 'wall o' texts' coup de grace'd my interest. I give props to

Pink Dragon for making it through the thread not once, but twice [2 times more than I managed to do. :P].


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

I don't hate the idea, but it certainly seems a bit unfair.

If I bring my weight set and powerlift during the game do I get a bonus on all str checks? A bonus on sleight of hand if I do a cardtrick? That's the main argument I generally see against this; why do social skills get rewarded for being good at them IRL but not other types of skills?

Personally...I'd give out bonuses if I saw you doing any of that on my table :).

The Exchange

Irontruth wrote:
nosig wrote:


and here (IMHO) we see one of the problems inherent in the system we have, where a Role Playing game is using a Roll system to determine success or failure of a challenge.
Interesting that the Evil Dice are only a problem when it comes to social encounters, but not combat encounters.

Oh no! The Dice aren't the problem! It's that we have the sequence of play backwards. Roll dice (if we must) to determine success or failure of a challange - then Role Play that success or failure. Be the actors in the script - Play the Part, you know Play the Role as it unfolds...

But then, this is just my OPINION and the way I try to play... I'm really NOT trying to force anyone to "play it the Right Way", because that might not be fun for them.

But if you get a chance, try it sometime. See if it works for you... Role Play some. (Though I appear to have a different definition of what Role Play is than many people here...)

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Ya know, I had a little more to contribute here but with the giant walls of text firing back and forth at this speed I think I'll bow out after this last post.

Some people have anxiety about being center-stage whether that be giving a presentation in front of an entire class or simply roleplaying out everything their character does in a TTRPG.

I've seen GMs for PFS make someone act out every single word of their diplomacy check and seen them struggle to find exact words and be obviously uncomfortable as everyone watches them and waits. If people just want to give you the general gist of what they're trying to convey, that should be fine. And this is why I dislike the practice of giving bonuses to social skill checks for "RPing it well". It discourages socially awkward/anxious people from playing a social character because they'll never be as good at it as Mr. Extrovert.

D#$%n, you said that good. Thank you sir.

And as one of those Extroverts, I am perfectly happy NOT getting a mechanical bonus (+2 or +20) for Playing my Role well. Want to reward me? Role Play back, don't fudge my dice to make my girl "better" at something she really isn't good at... or don't Role Play if it bothers you. My best reward is the look on the players faces around me when I Role Play Well.

The Exchange

Pink Dragon wrote:

So I just read through this thread twice. Once in whole and once only re-reading Nosig's posts. To me, these two are the most cogent comments in the thread, which are both Nosig comments:

"Could someone please define "Good Roleplaying"? Because several posters here seem to have VERY different opinions on what the term means."

"Sometimes we role play, sometimes we roll play. It's all part of the game."

Thank you sir. Now I'm blushing....

did you notice that I was channeling Inigo Montoya in the first quote? "...That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means"...


Jurassic Pratt wrote:
I've seen GMs for PFS make someone act out every single word of their diplomacy check and seen them struggle to find exact words and be obviously uncomfortable as everyone watches them and waits. If people just want to give you the general gist of what they're trying to convey, that should be fine. And this is why I dislike the practice of giving bonuses to social skill checks for "RPing it well". It discourages socially awkward/anxious people from playing a social character because they'll never be as good at it as Mr. Extrovert.

What I would offer is that I agree forcing the shy player to act out a speech their silver-tongued character is absolutely a way to make that player feel unwelcome in the gaming space, and anything that alienates anybody at the table is generally to be avoided.

However, is it conceivable that sometime the socially awkward player would benefit from the GM offering them as an occasional incentive (i.e. whenever they feel like offering it) something like: "hey, I'll give you a +2 bonus on the roll if you act out at least the first half of your spiel, but you don't have to if you don't want. I just want to give you a chance to find your character's voice and I don't care how well it goes, you'll get the bonus anyway just for trying" ?

Like honest-to-goodness actual improv is a great thing for socially anxious people (particularly for kids) since it creates an environment where people feel comfortable opening up and putting themselves out there because the people around them are going to catch them if they (metaphorically but probably also literally) fall. I don't see why I can't try to cultivate precisely that in a roleplaying game. I mean, shy people are sometimes great at improv because the most important skills are listening and thinking about what is being said/what's going on- you don't have to be the person who says the most to be the MVP of a scene.

I feel like I'm happier as the GM to help a shy or socially anxious player to build confidence, rather than just enabling them to hide. I mean, I am a severe introvert with absolutely zero fear of public speaking or anything where I have a defined role and an audience who's there in part to pay attention to me (but something like "small-talk at parties" is exhausting), so I love social spotlight characters in games, but it's not like I don't empathize with people who hate it. After all, there's no reason one needs to be shy and introverted (treating those two things as the same is unfair to all the shy extroverts out there anyway) and we can work on the first thing while acknowledging the second is valid and normal.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Possible Cabbage, being shy can also be perfectly valid, normal, and healthy. It is not something that needs to be 'fixed,' 'worked on,' or 'grown out of.' It is also a part of who some people are, and is to be respected.


Apologies, I was using "shy" as shorthand for "unwilling or unable to speak at any length when playing a game that is almost exclusively played by talking". I would say it's not a great stretch to say that this particular characteristic gets in the way of maximizing one's enjoyment of the game.


nosig wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
nosig wrote:


and here (IMHO) we see one of the problems inherent in the system we have, where a Role Playing game is using a Roll system to determine success or failure of a challenge.
Interesting that the Evil Dice are only a problem when it comes to social encounters, but not combat encounters.

Oh no! The Dice aren't the problem! It's that we have the sequence of play backwards. Roll dice (if we must) to determine success or failure of a challange - then Role Play that success or failure. Be the actors in the script - Play the Part, you know Play the Role as it unfolds...

But then, this is just my OPINION and the way I try to play... I'm really NOT trying to force anyone to "play it the Right Way", because that might not be fun for them.

But if you get a chance, try it sometime. See if it works for you... Role Play some. (Though I appear to have a different definition of what Role Play is than many people here...)

That's how I play it too. I use the mechanics to help push the story.

When I GM, I don't want to know the outcome of a particular gambit by the players. I want to play to find out the result, I want to be surprised too.

When I'm a player, I like knowing that I have a fair shake, and my success/failure isn't being determined prior to the roll.

I also play some games that don't have a GM, and other games that are dice-less. Some are even both, so I play with a lot of different mechanics.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have found that I have much more success "pulling players into Role Playing", getting them to "act out at least half their spiel" but role playing WITH them, than by give them a +2 bonus on the skill check.

Heck, I can remember one game where a young lady (9 year old) who until then never talked during our games, went first during an Ambush by mooks in an Ally. Her Sorcerer won Inititive and when asked by the judge what she wanted to do, she said "I'll scare them away".
The exchange went something like this...

Judge: "that would be an Intimidate skill check. So what do you say to them...?"
Sorcerer: a bit of 'deer in the headlights' time, everyone is watching her... "I wave my knife at them and say Go Away or I'll stick you!"
Judge: "Roll Intimidate..."
Sorcerer: "19 plus my 5 gives me a ...ah..."
Me - next in inititive and running a Bard with a great Intimidate, do a bad thing and jump in with...: "and I'll aid her play (auto aid) by pointing at the Rangers Snake animal companion and saying (change to PC voice) 'see what happened to the last guy who didn't do what she told him? If I were you, I'd fade away home now... '"
Some of the other players Ready if a fight starts...
And the mooks faded away into the night on their Inititives....

That young lady didn't remember the +2 I gave her - but she stole the line "you should fade away home now..." and used it in later games. I'm pretty sure she practiced that at home... In a 9 year old little girl voice. It was creepy when she repeated it again later...

And I think her Sorcerer put ranks in Intimidate next time she leveled... and looked into the spell cause fear.

But you know what - I don't think she realized I gave her a +2 bonus...

The Exchange

Irontruth wrote:
nosig wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
nosig wrote:


and here (IMHO) we see one of the problems inherent in the system we have, where a Role Playing game is using a Roll system to determine success or failure of a challenge.
Interesting that the Evil Dice are only a problem when it comes to social encounters, but not combat encounters.

Oh no! The Dice aren't the problem! It's that we have the sequence of play backwards. Roll dice (if we must) to determine success or failure of a challange - then Role Play that success or failure. Be the actors in the script - Play the Part, you know Play the Role as it unfolds...

But then, this is just my OPINION and the way I try to play... I'm really NOT trying to force anyone to "play it the Right Way", because that might not be fun for them.

But if you get a chance, try it sometime. See if it works for you... Role Play some. (Though I appear to have a different definition of what Role Play is than many people here...)

That's how I play it too. I use the mechanics to help push the story.

When I GM, I don't want to know the outcome of a particular gambit by the players. I want to play to find out the result, I want to be surprised too.

When I'm a player, I like knowing that I have a fair shake, and my success/failure isn't being determined prior to the roll.

I also play some games that don't have a GM, and other games that are dice-less. Some are even both, so I play with a lot of different mechanics.

Yeah.

In PFS, I like to make my Role Play match the Roll - I'll Take 10 if I can to remove the random element from the response and so I don't have to "brake the spell of the moment" doing the rolling and the math... And if I crash the check? My PC will spit on the carpet and call the cat a bas&*^d... If I total max the check? I'll wax eloquent and smooze the mark to the max. Or try to ...

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When the roleplay at your table shifts to something that is completely NOT relevant to the scenario yet is useful for resolving situations the party encounters in said scenario, that's some amazing roleplay.

A couple of weeks ago at a convention I had the privilege to sit down to a table with two other characters that had taken Profession(Brewer) and our between-scene conversations revolved around different types of beer, what our tastes were, how we'd do it... and how to never, ever put *redacted* in the brew because *redacted*.

My character had tasted something they probably should not have, and it had a very clear and visible reaction to the rest of the team. But the roleplay around it was amazing and more importantly *FUN*.

Could we have done the standard "I roll some dice, get some results" scenario? Sure. But it would not have been nearly as memorable of an experience, including a ruggedly handsome tetori getting bored at the grappling options in one fight.


This one has got kind of ridiculous. can someone find me the rule I've seen in it in 3.5 and I'm assuming it got moved over with pathfinder that says to give a circumstance bonus when the situation would be call for it. Their is a lot of things that can call for a circumstance bonus. Players can describe and think of ways to gain a circumstance bonus so it is in the rules. If you hear a tactic or strategy that wouldn't warrant a circumstance bonus that is your call as a DM but it is in the rules.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Vid, the issue is that two things are being conflated:

Item 1: Individuals who seek out and employ circumstance bonuses

Item 2: Individuals who 'speak well' and 'impress' the GM that get 'circumstance bonuses' based soley on 'roleplay'.

The two may intersect at points, but they are different items, and the first one is pretty much encouraged by the book, the second one is potentially divisive and exclusionary for some people.


I'm not sure what you mean by Item 2. all the '' is throwing me off. Are we saying that people are using their own natural charisma to sway the dm into giving them a bonus?

151 to 200 of 411 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Punishing Bad RP All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.