AnthonyThompson's page

I don't really think that the core of this problem is roleplay or social heavy scenarios vs. combat heavy scenaros. In my opinion, it has nothing to with how much of either is in a scenario but with how much more work it is for the GM to stick to one or the other.

I agree that at times it really feels like the rules for Pathfinder really encourage you to kill everything. For example it's a standard action to smack the down on his luck thief with your sword and kill him, but lets look at some no murdery ways to stop him

1.Deal non lethal damage(still basically combat tho) but that imposes a -4 penalty.

2. Diplomancy check, takes one minute...so basically 10 rounds, making it forever useless

3.Subdue him, well u better take the action to get out manacles or rope, grapple than pin him...that takes quite a few rounds

It is mechanically simpler for the GM to just make you kill him, and has a higher chance of success than any none psychotic action would. I played a few co,bat heavy scenarios and was begging for a heavy roleplay one, after playing Severing Ties I wish I never had. Its more work for a GM to fly by his pants and allow creative thinking, saying no just make a roll is easier. Heavy roleplay scenarios dont require you to role play at all, they just require you to have optimized skills, which is still rollplay. For example, in PFS say two players wish to use Diplomancy to convince an NPC of something. Player 1 gives a wonderful, flavorful speech and presents amazing arguments as to why NPC should, and rolls a 12, failure. Player 2 says "I roll di good, agree me with yes?" gets a 20, success. RP isn't supported in PFS. And yes I'm aware that maybe some GM's can be creative and make their tables amazing, but that is a maybe where as being really good at rolling(skills or combat) is going to be better at 100% of tables as its the rules.

So I played a PFS session a week or so ago and feel inclined to share a bit of the story. I will be avoiding all spoilers if possible

We were playing Perils of the Pirate Pact, and a certain encounter was played using the wrong stats/wrong rules just overall not RAW at all, it took forever and we didn't finish in the time slot, we didn't get Prestige and I burnt through a ton of charges on my CLW wand. Here is the thing though, all of this is unimportant...IT DIDN'T MATTER TO ME.

What sticks out in this session, what I will remember, is that I had a ton of stinking fun playing this session, I was laughing at my own and other players jokes almost constantly, Everyone had moments where they felt like the most important guy, everyone had moments when they knew they weren't...I will most likely talk to the GM about the RAW issues to make sure it isn't an issue in future sessions, but i will for certain be informing them that it was some of the most fun I've ever had with PF and is the best time I've had out of 5 PFS sessions.

In the end, I had fun...what else matters?

As a player i tend to dislike a scenario the most when I feel railroaded, if i feel that my actions dont matter and a certain result must play out no matter what, I will be unsatisfied. As far as challenging or tough scenarios go, i prefer tough scenarios. But tough and frustrating are very different things. An encounter requiring smart tactics, intense teamwork and a well thought out approach are fun and amazing, an encounter that requires you have a specific item(a certain oil or scroll or "this counters this item") isnt fun, its just testing to make sure you bought stuff.

The story plot holes bug me sometimes, especially ones where the party is forced to make choices that just don't make sense, or when NPCs do things that are just down right not how people act. I get that I'm a pathfinder and serving a greater organization but I still find myself going "why in the world do i care about doing X or saving Y or stopping Z' especially if the society can get what it wants without all that trouble.