New to Pathfinder, Old to RPG's, and I have a few observations...


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

I think you guys are forgetting one important fact, define good role playing?

Be cause so far all you are talking about is your ability to describe how awesomely your character can swing a sword and that a + or - counter for that describtion. I least in my book that have noting to very little to do with good roleplaying. And if that is your counter, well hero points kinda covers that, in a sense.

I know that good roleplaying is all in the eye of the beholder, but still...

I personally, when i GM give +/- to my players depending on what they say during a social or describtive (is that even a word?) encounter

And lastly never ever forget rule 0, you are the GM you can do what ever you want, call it houserules if you like, i call it rule 0 and that one is in the book


vuron wrote:

Well my experience with nWoD is pretty limited but at least in Exalted (which is frankly a brilliant yet horribly flawed game) stuff like the stunt mechanics not only provide situational bonuses but are the implicit mote/willpower regeneration mechanic. As motes/willpower are critical resources within the Exalted charm economy having explicit roleplaying mechanics linked to resource management functions is a nice way to encourage (even enforce) better roleplaying.

Virtues and Virtue Flaws are additional mechanics used to highlight and accentuate the world design put forth in Exalted.

While Exalted and High Level D&D have similar content and themes at work I'm not sure a direct port of Exalted characterization support mechanics would be remotely appropriate to the game. I'm largely using them as examples of the mechanics people indicate are missing from D&D.

I never actually played Exalted, no one I know wants to run it and I don't want to spend the time and money to learn it since I know many people in my groups don't want to play it due to bad experiences. I've played nWoD and it doesn't thrill me. I actually like the old system a bit better because it was less mechanical. You will get very different games out of nWoD and PF, but still they are both in the mid range for mechanics for an rpg, and I like that better then hardcore simulation or narration.

I honestly can't see why people are hung up on "this is a mechanic"/"this is not a mechanic". It's all just suggestions. I just wanted to grab your comment as it provided the two examples of how you might allow RP to effect your game in a concrete manner, from PF. You don't have to follow either one and come up with your own rules. It's no more right or wrong then me running a nWoD game and deciding every one refreshes their Willpower at the start of the game rather then by RPing their virtue or vice.


MendedWall12 wrote:
I’m going to cover a lot here so forgive the size of the post.

I just wanted to let you know, I did read your post. I know it seems as if a lot of folks skipped over it, but I did read it.

Deanoth wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Deanoth wrote:
You can actually Role Play through a Challange, as it states specifically in any of the books I have read out there thus far. Either through combat or Role Playing or just plain getting them to retreat allow you to gain some XP from the encounter.

Thanks for clearing that up. So you actually AREN'T getting ANY benefit for role-playing. You are getting EXP for overcoming the encounter. It doesn't matter HOW you did it. You just happened to do it by role-playing instead of a different way and you aren't getting anything for role-playing specifically.

Quote:
XP gets you bonuses and other things to add to your stats, saving throws, combat modifiers among other things this at it's worst IS the very definition of a mechanic of which you are speaking and yet you deny that it is a mechanic none the less.

I play in 3 games. 2 don't give EXP. We just level up when the DM feels we should.

And no, experience points give you no mechanical benefit. If you collect an arbitrary number and increase in level, THEN you get mechanical benefits - but that is from being a new level.

Still a MECHANICAL benefit. If you choose not to use XP that is your choice and a house rule... good for you. Glad to see your group ignores the mechanics for a rule that is there for all to benefit from but that is your groups choice and I would not argue that. But do not come off saying that there is no rules for Role Playing when it specifically states that there is.

I love how this part went from

[D]If you don't like it don't use it.
[C]A couple of the groups I game with dont'.
[D]Oh my! You are a house-ruler, your comments are void because you are trying to force everyone to adopt your house-rule.
[C]What?


First, I'm sorry if some parts are not using proper grammar. English is my second language, but I found myself inspired to write something.

Second, Cartigan, by quoting you, I am not aiming at you. Your post was just the one that started my thinking on the game. You will find I do agree with you in some parts, and disagree in others.

Cartigan wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up. So you actually AREN'T getting ANY benefit for role-playing. You are getting EXP for overcoming the encounter. It doesn't matter HOW you did it. You just happened to do it by role-playing instead of a different way and you aren't getting anything for role-playing specifically.

Let me rephrase that for you: Thanks for clearing that up. So you actually AREN'T getting ANY benefit for using the mechanics and their advantages. You are getting EXP for overcoming the encounter. It doesn't matter HOW you did it. You just happened to do it by using the mechanics and their benefits instead of a different way like roleplaying and you aren't getting anything for using the mechanics specifically.

See, it works both ways - that is what started me thinking.

Why, why does it work both ways?

Here is my take. Because getting mechanical bonuses and roleplaying are not the end of the game, they are both means to overcome encounters, and to tell a story about heroes (or villains) struggling to get as powerfull as they can in order to save the world / dominate the world / make a kingdom or a legend for themselves / becoming gods, etc.

As one of the means to overcome encounters, we find tips and tricks about roleplaying in many books, as well as many advices about the ethical aspect of it (adult themes, etc.) and the social and psychological aspect of it (look at the GM's Guide pp 70-78) but Cartigan is right: there is no formal rules to structure roleplay. Because it can't be described in a formal way, because the "rules" determining the possible effects of someone playing out something is called common sense - it's semantics, not syntax. We don't need rules to know that if someone is ridiculing your character, he or she should act offended (or zen, or etc.) in response, and react in a certain way. We can't give rules to simulate psychological responses. Heck, psychologists, cognitive scientists and neurologists are still trying to figure them out! We must rely on common sense.

The two means (roleplay/mechanics) to tell the story are thus kept isolated. Roleplay won't affect mechanics (exeption made of alignment/ paladin's code, etc.), and rolls will not dictate roleplay (exeption made of some spell or skills like intimidate) And again, the game is made so you can still roleplay under the effect of a spell, and can still find a mechanical solution to roleplaying problems.

I remember once being the victim of a frienship spell, and the caster trying to compel me to act in some way. My character refused because he would not take a bad advice, even from a friend, and tried to convince his new "friend" he was making a mistake of judgement.) Even if you are intimidated, you can choose how (run, try to befriend the other in order to protect yourself, bravado, etc.) as long as you respect the mechanical effects on the rule side. There is many way to be "shaken" or "friendly" that can translate into the mechanical bonus/malus.

The exeption in the other way would be alignment restriction/ code of chivalry, etc. They are roleplaying devices, and they do have mechanical effects. Then again, there are mechanical ways to deal with those effects (atonment, etc.)

The story can be as barebone as we want it to be, but if we can tell about our adventures afterward, then we are engaged in the process of telling a story. There is a distinction to be made between the act of roleplaying (it can be minimal) and the act of constructing a narrative, we are free to minimize, even ignore the first, but the game will construct the second by itself.

You are right, Cartigan, to say XP is not, in itself, a mechanical benefit even if it leads to them by raising the power level. XP is more like the ponctuation of the story, a way to pace it so new challenges and powers arise before the story stalls. As a mechanical device used to pace a story - it is not aimed at the characters, but at the group. It's a GM tool, not a player's tool!

So, IMO, roleplay and mechanics are parallel devices. They are both means to a same end (telling a story) and they don't interact much in this game. When they do interact, the game tries to preserve both devices as a possible way to deal with the problem. We are thus free to restrain ourselves to one device or the other, but trying to deny they are both there and are both legit ways to play the game and solving encounters is streching it a bit too far, I think.

Anyway, sorry for the long and winding post.


vuron wrote:

As I see it there exists 2 DM fiat methods of supporting 'roleplaying' through mechanical modifiers.

The +/-2 circumstance bonus to a variety of rolls clearly can be used to reward situational roleplaying such as a good plan or good acting, etc.

...

This has got me on a strange train of thought. Good roleplaying should actually get you a circumstance penalty in some situations... your character background (e.g. they don't suffer fools lightly) could mean that you should be rude to someone important.


MendedWall12 wrote:
Follows Taliesin and others out the door mumbling about the chaotic evil wrongness of kicking an already dead horse.

I just wanted to say that I thought your long post was very insightful. That goes for a few other folks as well. Sorry to see a fairly interesting topic turn into a debate over what "mechanics" means, but hey, I did learn a few things.

I will also add that I would much rather use a system that allows me to tell any kind of story I want, and encourage any style of play that I see fit, then one that has "Drama Points" or some such silly thing. The day I have to reward a player because they played their emo elf in a really mopey way is the day my books take a trip into the fire.


Pual wrote:
vuron wrote:

As I see it there exists 2 DM fiat methods of supporting 'roleplaying' through mechanical modifiers.

The +/-2 circumstance bonus to a variety of rolls clearly can be used to reward situational roleplaying such as a good plan or good acting, etc.

...

This has got me on a strange train of thought. Good roleplaying should actually get you a circumstance penalty in some situations... your character background (e.g. they don't suffer fools lightly) could mean that you should be rude to someone important.

It does, if you're playing FATE, a very different system with very different goals. With FATE you have aspects of your character that the GM can compel, to your disadvantage, or you can invoke, to your advantage, which have a mechanical impact on an in game situation. The GM can, and indeed is encouraged, to give characters situations where their players are forced into making a choice that their character should make and take a penalty, or else give up a FATE point, which they can use to give themselves a bonus for good role playing at a different time

Pathfinder, and every incarnation of D&D I've played(2e, 3.x, a tiny bit of 4e) does not have anything similar to this hardwired in. How you role play your character, his background, likes, dislikes, personality, and so on, is completely divorced from the mechanics of the character sheet. This doesn't mean that FATE is for roleplayers and D&D/Pathfinder is for powergamers/munchkins/min-maxers/whatever, it just means the two systems focus on different things and have mechanics that reflect this different focus.


Pual wrote:
vuron wrote:

As I see it there exists 2 DM fiat methods of supporting 'roleplaying' through mechanical modifiers.

The +/-2 circumstance bonus to a variety of rolls clearly can be used to reward situational roleplaying such as a good plan or good acting, etc.

...

This has got me on a strange train of thought. Good roleplaying should actually get you a circumstance penalty in some situations... your character background (e.g. they don't suffer fools lightly) could mean that you should be rude to someone important.

As a player, I usually roll any social skill first and then roleplay based on the result of the roll.

*rolls 1 on diplomacy check, total of 5*
Hello your majesties, thank you for seeing me. And may I say, that dress looks lovely on you my queen. It doesn't make you look nearly as fat as your other gown."


pres man wrote:
Pual wrote:
vuron wrote:

As I see it there exists 2 DM fiat methods of supporting 'roleplaying' through mechanical modifiers.

The +/-2 circumstance bonus to a variety of rolls clearly can be used to reward situational roleplaying such as a good plan or good acting, etc.

...

This has got me on a strange train of thought. Good roleplaying should actually get you a circumstance penalty in some situations... your character background (e.g. they don't suffer fools lightly) could mean that you should be rude to someone important.

As a player, I usually roll any social skill first and then roleplay based on the result of the roll.

*rolls 1 on diplomacy check, total of 5*
Hello your majesties, thank you for seeing me. And may I say, that dress looks lovely on you my queen. It doesn't make you look nearly as fat as your other gown."

+1 to this. This is exactly how to do it.


brassbaboon wrote:

*rolls 1 on diplomacy check, total of 5*

Hello your majesties, thank you for seeing me. And may I say, that dress looks lovely on you my queen. It doesn't make you look nearly as fat as your other gown."
+1 to this. This is exactly how to do it.

I get that you guys want to play in this manner and more power to you if you do but where does it say you must roll before you RP?


There's other interpretations of a 1 on a diplomacy check that make it possible to role play first if you want. Rolling before role play is fine, but it isn't the only way to do things. Maybe the 1 represents the fact that the person you were speaking with was distracted during your interaction, you accidentally said something that set them off, you had a stain on your shirt that they were focusing on, your voice cracked during the conversation and they started laughing, or any other explanation you can think of.

In the king example, maybe you smoothly complimented the queen on her gown without knowing that the gown was a gift from a too-friendly courtier and the king is jealous, or the king has rumors that the queen has been seeing someone at the court and is suspicious of you after your compliment. Those are just a couple quick examples, I'm sure there are much better explanations for the roll that others could come up with if they had a bit of time to think about it.

Dark Archive

pres man wrote:

As a player, I usually roll any social skill first and then roleplay based on the result of the roll.

*rolls 1 on diplomacy check, total of 5*
Hello your majesties, thank you for seeing me. And may I say, that dress looks lovely on you my queen. It doesn't make you look nearly as fat as your other gown."

We tend to do it the opposite way. We RP out the situation first and then roll, adding a mod to how the RPing went. If the PC said something really bad their might be a penalty, if they played it well there might be a bonus.


pres man wrote:


As a player, I usually roll any social skill first and then roleplay based on the result of the roll.

*rolls 1 on diplomacy check, total of 5*
Hello your majesties, thank you for seeing me. And may I say, that dress looks lovely on you my queen. It doesn't make you look nearly as fat as your other gown."

awesome, and probably the best connection between RP anc mechanics.


brassbaboon wrote:
pres man wrote:

As a player, I usually roll any social skill first and then roleplay based on the result of the roll.

*rolls 1 on diplomacy check, total of 5*
Hello your majesties, thank you for seeing me. And may I say, that dress looks lovely on you my queen. It doesn't make you look nearly as fat as your other gown."

+1 to this. This is exactly how to do it.

This is how our groups handle it a majority of the time, but not always. If a player of a charismatic character gives an inspired performance we might even not bother with the roll at all and give the player a great result that matches their performance.

Everyone has their own style of play.


@pres man - Thanks, it certainly did seem like a lot of people skipped it. C'est la vie.

@Fergie - Thank you as well, and I agree.

@CunningMongoose - Well put.

pres man wrote:

As a player, I usually roll any social skill first and then roleplay based on the result of the roll.

*rolls 1 on diplomacy check, total of 5*
Hello your majesties, thank you for seeing me. And may I say, that dress looks lovely on you my queen. It doesn't make you look nearly as fat as your other gown."

I'm thinking seriously about implementing this style as one of those notorious and entirely un-mechanical House Rules. shocked gasp I think that is a great way to use the mechanics as a tool to direct the story. It will also be a great way to get my players to realize that the mechanics and role playing can, and should be, as CunningMongoose so eloquently said, parallel devices.


Skaorn wrote:
brassbaboon wrote:
pres man wrote:

As a player, I usually roll any social skill first and then roleplay based on the result of the roll.

*rolls 1 on diplomacy check, total of 5*
Hello your majesties, thank you for seeing me. And may I say, that dress looks lovely on you my queen. It doesn't make you look nearly as fat as your other gown."

+1 to this. This is exactly how to do it.

This is how our groups handle it a majority of the time, but not always. If a player of a charismatic character gives an inspired performance we might even not bother with the roll at all and give the player a great result that matches their performance.

Everyone has their own style of play.

Yes they do. And you are welcome to ignore the social skills your characters actually have and reward the character for the acting skills of the player. I see it all the time.

I assume that you also forego attack rolls if the player makes an impressive fencing move in the living room.


brassbaboon wrote:

Yes they do. And you are welcome to ignore the social skills your characters actually have and reward the character for the acting skills of the player. I see it all the time.

I assume that you also forego attack rolls if the player makes an impressive fencing move in the living room.

Yes, because that's exactly what he said they did, they completely ignore all the social skills the character has...

What he actually said was that he deals with social skills the way you think they should be done the majority of the time. But occasionally, if the player was playing a charismatic character, implying one with max social skills and a high charisma score, and had a really great performance he wouldn't bother rolling.


idilippy wrote:
brassbaboon wrote:

Yes they do. And you are welcome to ignore the social skills your characters actually have and reward the character for the acting skills of the player. I see it all the time.

I assume that you also forego attack rolls if the player makes an impressive fencing move in the living room.

Yes, because that's exactly what he said they did, they completely ignore all the social skills the character has...

What he actually said was that he deals with social skills the way you think they should be done the majority of the time. But occasionally, if the player was playing a charismatic character, implying one with max social skills and a high charisma score, and had a really great performance he wouldn't bother rolling.

The only thing I can really add is, that the time players have actually gotten this benefit, they haven't been the most social people in our group (a few groups I've played with have had actual actors in them). It's a case of the player rising to their character's ability, not the other way around.


idilippy wrote:
brassbaboon wrote:

Yes they do. And you are welcome to ignore the social skills your characters actually have and reward the character for the acting skills of the player. I see it all the time.

I assume that you also forego attack rolls if the player makes an impressive fencing move in the living room.

Yes, because that's exactly what he said they did, they completely ignore all the social skills the character has...

What he actually said was that he deals with social skills the way you think they should be done the majority of the time. But occasionally, if the player was playing a charismatic character, implying one with max social skills and a high charisma score, and had a really great performance he wouldn't bother rolling.

How does one have "a really great performance" IN GAME without rolling? Taking a 10 I guess. The player having a great performance OUT OF GAME doesn't necessarily mean the character IN GAME is having a great performance does it? Maybe I am missing something here.

Dragonsong wrote:
brassbaboon wrote:
pres man wrote:

*rolls 1 on diplomacy check, total of 5*

Hello your majesties, thank you for seeing me. And may I say, that dress looks lovely on you my queen. It doesn't make you look nearly as fat as your other gown."
+1 to this. This is exactly how to do it.
I get that you guys want to play in this manner and more power to you if you do but where does it say you must roll before you RP?

You are right, nothing is saying you HAVE to do it that way. I think brassbaboon is saying it makes more sense to do it that way if you want to model the game world and the character's actual abilities dictate behavior versus the player dictating behavior.

Of course, if you want to act first and then roll second, you can always argue that what the player said was how the character thought they were talking, while the roll indicates what they actually said and how it was perceived. I think we can all understand times when we have said something it just came out wrong.

Grand Lodge

brassbaboon wrote:
Skaorn wrote:
brassbaboon wrote:
pres man wrote:

As a player, I usually roll any social skill first and then roleplay based on the result of the roll.

*rolls 1 on diplomacy check, total of 5*
Hello your majesties, thank you for seeing me. And may I say, that dress looks lovely on you my queen. It doesn't make you look nearly as fat as your other gown."

+1 to this. This is exactly how to do it.

This is how our groups handle it a majority of the time, but not always. If a player of a charismatic character gives an inspired performance we might even not bother with the roll at all and give the player a great result that matches their performance.

Everyone has their own style of play.

Yes they do. And you are welcome to ignore the social skills your characters actually have and reward the character for the acting skills of the player. I see it all the time.

I assume that you also forego attack rolls if the player makes an impressive fencing move in the living room.

Why make a snide comment to someone that has a play style that does not coincide with your particular style. Just because someone plays differently does not give you the right to pass judgment on them too.


Deanoth wrote:
Why make a snide comment to someone that has a play style that does not coincide with your particular style. Just because someone plays differently does not give you the right to pass judgment on them too.

What's snide? I'm dead serious. There is no difference between giving someone a successful skill check because of acting in real life and giving someone a successful attack result because of acting in real life. The mechanics are identical. The logic is identical. Doing one makes no sense if you don't do the other.

Sure you CAN do it, but you can give successful attacks on smooth living room fencing moves too. Heck, that might even help people stay in shape as part of the game.

As far as "I only do it on special occasions" well, fine, there are plenty of "special occasions" in combat too.

Play as you like, I'm not judging, I'm just pointing out the logical consequences of your house rules, that's all.


pres man wrote:
How does one have "a really great performance" IN GAME without rolling? Taking a 10 I guess. The player having a great performance OUT OF GAME doesn't necessarily mean the character IN GAME is having a great performance does it? Maybe I am missing something here.

Why do you need to make a roll if your character is obviously supposed to be a skilled and you successfully manage to roleplay that? Why can't a player's act count as the roll if the GM see's fit? Really the fact that a player can roleplay to a level that is within character's ability and impress the rest of the group is much harder to pull off effectively then that 5% chance you'll succeed in getting that natural 20.

Rules are there to aid in storytelling. The idea is to have fun and if a player's actions add to the story through roleplaying there character, why does the story have then be stalled by rules? I see social skills as a way to supplement the roleplay. When a player isn't a charismatic person they can still play one if they want and tell their GM: I want to convince this person of this, I get a 23 on Diplomacy. You can say that everything requires a roll in your game, and that's fine. It's not this way in the groups I play with and it's no more right or wrong then yours. Please don't tell me what's the right and wrong way to playing my games.


Skaorn wrote:
pres man wrote:
How does one have "a really great performance" IN GAME without rolling? Taking a 10 I guess. The player having a great performance OUT OF GAME doesn't necessarily mean the character IN GAME is having a great performance does it? Maybe I am missing something here.

Why do you need to make a roll if your character is obviously supposed to be a skilled and you successfully manage to roleplay that? Why can't a player's act count as the roll if the GM see's fit? Really the fact that a player can roleplay to a level that is within character's ability and impress the rest of the group is much harder to pull off effectively then that 5% chance you'll succeed in getting that natural 20.

Rules are there to aid in storytelling. The idea is to have fun and if a player's actions add to the story through roleplaying there character, why does the story have then be stalled by rules? I see social skills as a way to supplement the roleplay. When a player isn't a charismatic person they can still play one if they want and tell their GM: I want to convince this person of this, I get a 23 on Diplomacy. You can say that everything requires a roll in your game, and that's fine. It's not this way in the groups I play with and it's no more right or wrong then yours. Please don't tell me what's the right and wrong way to playing my games.

Fine, then I assume you role play your combat too. Wouldn't it aid the storytelling to have the DM and the player actually sparring with wooden dowels?

Sure it would. Knock yourself out. (but not literally, please)

Why do you think I'm saying it's right or wrong? I'm just pointing out that if you role play interpersonal skills because it's more fun, why don't you role play combat skills for the same reason? I'm sure there are gamers who are actually skilled with weapons, why not let them take advantage of that?

What's so special about that dice roll anyway?

Dark Archive

welcome.

All I can say is make the game your own. Play it the way you want to play it.


brassbaboon wrote:

What's snide? I'm dead serious. There is no difference between giving someone a successful skill check because of acting in real life and giving someone a successful attack result because of acting in real life. The mechanics are identical. The logic is identical. Doing one makes no sense if you don't do the other.

Sure you CAN do it, but you can give successful attacks on smooth living room fencing moves too. Heck, that might even help people stay in shape as part of the game.

As far as "I only do it on special occasions" well, fine, there are plenty of "special occasions" in combat too.

Play as you like, I'm not judging, I'm just pointing out the logical consequences of your house rules, that's all.

Actually, I'd think that it would be more accurate, in order to get a bonus in combat as you suggest, that you pull out a sword and stab your GM. Then you would need to have your other friends decide whether or not you really played your character's 18 Strength. Unlike combat, social skills are heavily linked with the actual act roleplay. Successful roleplay is largely up to the group you play with. Telling every one that your way of roleplaying is the only way to play is ridiculous.


Skaorn wrote:
pres man wrote:
How does one have "a really great performance" IN GAME without rolling? Taking a 10 I guess. The player having a great performance OUT OF GAME doesn't necessarily mean the character IN GAME is having a great performance does it? Maybe I am missing something here.

Why do you need to make a roll if your character is obviously supposed to be a skilled and you successfully manage to roleplay that? Why can't a player's act count as the roll if the GM see's fit? Really the fact that a player can roleplay to a level that is within character's ability and impress the rest of the group is much harder to pull off effectively then that 5% chance you'll succeed in getting that natural 20.

Rules are there to aid in storytelling. The idea is to have fun and if a player's actions add to the story through roleplaying there character, why does the story have then be stalled by rules? I see social skills as a way to supplement the roleplay. When a player isn't a charismatic person they can still play one if they want and tell their GM: I want to convince this person of this, I get a 23 on Diplomacy. You can say that everything requires a roll in your game, and that's fine. It's not this way in the groups I play with and it's no more right or wrong then yours. Please don't tell me what's the right and wrong way to playing my games.

Why not just have the character take a 10? You don't need to roll, and if the character is indeed quite skilled, that should be able to handle most situations.


Skaorn wrote:
Actually, I'd think that it would be more accurate, in order to get a bonus in combat as you suggest, that you pull out a sword and stab your GM. Then you would need to have your other friends decide whether or not you really played your character's 18 Strength. Unlike combat, social skills are heavily linked with the actual act roleplay. Successful roleplay is largely up to the group you play with. Telling every one that your way of roleplaying is the only way to play is ridiculous.

Why do you people keep claiming that I'm telling people how to play? That's total nonsense. I'm just saying that if you are going to give a player who is a skilled actor the opportunity to skip the risk of rolling a dice roll by "role playing" the scene, then it is only fair to let the player who is a track and field athlete do an actual running jump in the living room to determine if his character makes it across the chasm.

Why do actors get this special benefit? I'm pretty dang good at picking locks. I'll just tell my DM next time a lock needs to be picked that I happen to have a padlock in my pocket, and I'll just role play it.

I'm not telling ANYONE how to play. I'm just pointing out the logic of your choices. If that leads you to believe that your playing style is lacking, that's not my problem.


Skaorn wrote:
Actually, I'd think that it would be more accurate, in order to get a bonus in combat as you suggest, that you pull out a sword and stab your GM. Then you would need to have your other friends decide whether or not you really played your character's 18 Strength. Unlike combat, social skills are heavily linked with the actual act roleplay. Successful roleplay is largely up to the group you play with. Telling every one that your way of roleplaying is the only way to play is ridiculous.

No, this is silly. That's the same as saying the only way for the actor player to role play the audience with the King is to gain an audience with a REAL LIFE KING. Obviously that's not going to happen. So you just have to do the best you can.

For example, if your character needs to make a ride check, you probably don't have a barroom mechanical bull handy, but hey, if you DO woohoo! Great luck there for some real role playing fun! I mean, it's not a REAL bull, but it's good enough to have the DM make a ruling on the skill level of the player.

Grand Lodge

brassbaboon wrote:
Deanoth wrote:
Why make a snide comment to someone that has a play style that does not coincide with your particular style. Just because someone plays differently does not give you the right to pass judgment on them too.

What's snide? I'm dead serious. There is no difference between giving someone a successful skill check because of acting in real life and giving someone a successful attack result because of acting in real life. The mechanics are identical. The logic is identical. Doing one makes no sense if you don't do the other.

Sure you CAN do it, but you can give successful attacks on smooth living room fencing moves too. Heck, that might even help people stay in shape as part of the game.

As far as "I only do it on special occasions" well, fine, there are plenty of "special occasions" in combat too.

Play as you like, I'm not judging, I'm just pointing out the logical consequences of your house rules, that's all.

You are making a snide comment though. You are pointing out an obvious thing sure, but you do not need to do so. Just because it is not your playstyle of choice, if others have fun doing it and just because he stated he does it once in a while does not mean you have to say... why not do it for combat too, thus making him feel small because of his playstyle of choice.

It would be like, being your name is BrassBaboon, why not shave your ass and paint it red like a Baboon's then? It is only logical that yopu would do so because you have a name like that. Just because your Paizo forums moniker is BrassBaboon does not mean you want to "be" one and therefor that comment would be uncalled for and yet you basically did the same thing with your comments about his playstyle of choice.

They play the way they want, they do not need you to point out the logic or even if it is illogical at all. That is not for you to say and it is a form of judgment.


There's also the fact that I have friends who aren't very socially graceful, but love playing social PCs. One friend will often pause when he speaks, stop to think, sometimes mix up his words, etc, etc; but he likes to play the party's bard or rogue, and likes Diplomacy and the idea of playing a silver-tongued devil.

I'm not punishing him for that.

Likewise, I'm not going to give special treatment to my other friend, who's outgoing, socially gifted, and so forth, because he speaks well as a 7 charisma barbarian amazon woman.

Nah, I ask them what they want to convey, and then I have them roll their checks. The barbarian has a -2 for Charisma, and the Bard has a +3. If later on the Barbarian puts ranks into Diplomacy, then he'll roll with a +X, and the Bard may either be rolling +3 or even more if he invested that into his character.

EDIT: And then we get back to the story at hand.


Deanoth wrote:
brassbaboon wrote:
Deanoth wrote:
Why make a snide comment to someone that has a play style that does not coincide with your particular style. Just because someone plays differently does not give you the right to pass judgment on them too.

What's snide? I'm dead serious. There is no difference between giving someone a successful skill check because of acting in real life and giving someone a successful attack result because of acting in real life. The mechanics are identical. The logic is identical. Doing one makes no sense if you don't do the other.

Sure you CAN do it, but you can give successful attacks on smooth living room fencing moves too. Heck, that might even help people stay in shape as part of the game.

As far as "I only do it on special occasions" well, fine, there are plenty of "special occasions" in combat too.

Play as you like, I'm not judging, I'm just pointing out the logical consequences of your house rules, that's all.

You are making a snide comment though. You are pointing out an obvious thing sure, but you do not need to do so. Just because it is not your playstyle of choice, if others have fun doing it and just because he stated he does it once in a while does not mean you have to say... why not do it for combat too, thus making him feel small because of his playstyle of choice.

It would be like, being your name is BrassBaboon, why not shave your ass and paint it red like a Baboon's then? It is only logical that yopu would do so because you have a name like that. Just because your Paizo forums moniker is BrassBaboon does not mean you want to "be" one and therefor that comment would be uncalled for and yet you basically did the same thing with your comments about his playstyle of choice.

They play the way they want, they do not need you to point out the logic or even if it is illogical at all. That is not for you to say and it is a form of judgment.

This thread has twisted you. Get out while you still can.

Grand Lodge

Glutton wrote:


This thread has twisted you. Get out while you still can.

I will try :)


Deanoth wrote:


You are making a snide comment though. You are pointing out an obvious thing sure, but you do not need to do so.

I'd argue the opposite. A lot of people around here need it pointed out that forests are indeed composed of trees.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
monskers wrote:

welcome.

All I can say is make the game your own. Play it the way you want to play it.

/thread (i hope)


brassbaboon wrote:

Why do you people keep claiming that I'm telling people how to play? That's total nonsense. I'm just saying that if you are going to give a player who is a skilled actor the opportunity to skip the risk of rolling a dice roll by "role playing" the scene, then it is only fair to let the player who is a track and field athlete do an actual running jump in the living room to determine if his character makes it across the chasm.

Why do actors get this special benefit? I'm pretty dang good at picking locks. I'll just tell my DM next time a lock needs to be picked that I happen to have a padlock in my pocket, and I'll just role play it.

I'm not telling ANYONE how to play. I'm just pointing out the logic of your choices. If that leads you to believe that your playing style is lacking, that's not my problem.

I would say that it was your initial post:

brassbaboon wrote:
+1 to this. This is exactly how to do it.

Along with your condesending attitude with follow up posts and your belief that you believe you can impose your "logic" on a glorified game of pretend. It comes across to me that you are essentially claiming that your way is the only way to play and that others seem to feel the same.

One thing that you seem to refuse to acknowledge is that I've already said that, on the rare occassions that this happened, it was from a player that is not socially adept. I am not one of the most socially adept players in my groups and I've never gotten a standing ovation from the other players, needless to say the most I've ever gotten is a +2 or a Hero point for good roleplay. All the "actors" of our group are in the same boat I am, as they are judged harsher then some one of my meager abilities. We measure not by natural talent but by the amount a player rises to the occassion of playing their character.

How do you measure social interaction? Physical activities can be measured with things like distance travelled, time, etc. Physical activity is, by it's nature, mechanical. Why do they have to be judge on the same scale when physical action and social interaction are different things entirely. You're implying that roleplay has to be equally about physical acting as it is with the social interaction. If this was true, wouldn't must RPGs need a social combat system as detailed as the actual combat system? Shouldn't some one just be able to roll the Social Attack Bonus against the targets Willpower Class and do damage to their Resolve Points? I've got no problems if people want to play that way, myself, but the only game that has a system like that is Burning Wheel and its hacks. Most games give you a basic set of rules for social and mental actions and detailed rules for combat because the mental and social aspects of the game are strongly linked with the story and why would you tell your customers how they should tell their story?

@Pres man: Why would we need to say that the player took a ten and then allow them to pass when we intended them pass anyways? Technically your method should be just as inflamatory as mine as you are suggesting taking a ten on a check that involve risk.

When to roll is largely the GM's decision anyways. A GM can choose to turn a party climbing up a notted rope into a series of DC 5 climb checks or turn finding feed for the party's horses into a series of Knowledge: Local and Diplomacy check. Each would be perfectly valid. The GM might also skip it and let the party get to the adventure by saying "you climb the rope" or "you find the stables, feed for 1 week costs X coin". Neither is right or wrong, just a matter of preferance.


People who come from an older era in D&D often tend to see the skill check mechanics as supplementing their actions in roleplay. As such they often like to describe most actions through roleplay and then if necessary roll a skill check to describe their actions.

I actually tend to prefer this to a certain degree because I can just assume that the player took 10 or if it's a fairly routine task just give the PC an auto-success.

It also helps simulate roles like the Fighter as leader of men that have been significantly discouraged by the 3.x ruleset. If most skill uses and social interaction don't require skill checks then character classes with 2+Int skill points don't suck as bad.

Other people like a model where the skill check happens first and is the determinant of success or failure. Depending on the result of the check the person actually roleplays success or failure or margin of success, etc.

This has advantages because it tightly connect PC success or failure to character mechanics and also allows individuals to play against their RL strengths and weaknesses, particularly in social settings. Not everyone wants to play their character as an avatar of self. However it does have disadvantages because the abilities of the player are discounted to a degree and the mechanical systems underlying the game rarely cover every possible scenario.

In short play it how you like, advantages and disadvantages exist in both methods, don't let system get in the way of telling a good story, etc.


Holt wrote:

Ok, I've been lurking in the message boards for about 2 weeks now, and I'm starting to wonder a lot about certain things that seem to be common among members of this board. I've been both playing and running rpg's of various stripe of several years (Basic D&D, AD&D 2e, various WoD and Deadlands Classic) and my groups have always been more about the story and the exploration then the combat.

I started running Pathfinder when two of my players wanted to get back into high fantasy as a break from all the grittier stuff we had been playing, and I after sampling some other more point based systems couldn't go back into AD&D without major tweaks, and we all passed on 4e as too combat focused for us (our opinion, not trying to start a flame war here.)

So another gamer friend loaned me his copy of the bound beta to look over, and I talked the owner of my local game store into ordering me a copy of Core (indecently he ordered all the hard-covers and signed the store up for PFS). And after recruiting a few more players (total party roster: 6 players 1 gm) And we started playing. We are loving it.

I start hanging around the Paizo forums and check out the playtest stuff (Magus base class is awesome by the way, two of my old elf fighter/wizards from 2e may enjoy NPC rebirths now). But then I get involved in reading a lot of the actual forum posts, and start seeing things like MAD and DPR thrown around. Multiple Ability Dependency and Damage Per Round, I had to explain to my girlfriend, her response: "This a WoW forum too?"

On MAD to a guys who's last D&D experience was 2e, I have to go "this is new? unless you were a fighter, cleric, or magic user you need 2 or 3 above average scores" so lets just stick with I don't get it, as only spellcasters in Pathfinder NEED to have high casting scores and the rest of the classes can go very well with lower starting scores and build them up as they advance, and hell with the 15 point starting array you can make a hell of a paladin, with scores that would have made it...

Welcome to the boards and, well, sorry you are on here. I remember when I first came here and I quickly learned the general way of thinking on the forum:

"Your way of having fun is wrong and if you don't agree then you are a moron."

If you like to play a martial class, you are wrong because casters rule and you are just bring your team down.

If you like Roleplaying over optimizing, you are wrong because this isn't your chance to be a thespian, but your chance to slay orcs.

If you like optimizing, you are wrong because you are a dirty minmaxer and not good enough for the roleplaying elites.

If you want Ninjas, you are wrong because anything asian-themed is bad and you are just a dirty weaboo.

If you want Psionics, well, you are wrong. Go play a Jedi in Star Wars.

And don't get me started whenever there is a playtest.

It's in every single thread on this forum. Anonymous people online can't accept that people game differently and so have to argue to prove that they are the correct ones and the other people are wrong. That's the nature of any forum to be honest, though I know the HERO forums are nowhere near as bad as the Pathfinder or DnD ones. And it's always the extreme views that are the loudest. All I can say is, get used to it because as long as there are people on a forum, there is really nothing you can do. But don't let it bring you down because there are some really good stuff on this forum amidst the bad.


Odraude wrote:
It's in every single thread on this forum.

Almost every thread. Not quite.

If you make the leap to discussing the published setting content instead of rules, or discussing rules in the context of the setting, things become a lot more civil and constructive.


Skaorn wrote:
How do you measure social interaction? Physical activities can be measured with things like distance travelled, time, etc. Physical activity is, by it's nature, mechanical. Why do they have to be judge on the same scale when physical action and social interaction are different things entirely. You're implying that roleplay has to be equally about physical acting as it is with the social interaction. If this was true, wouldn't must RPGs need a social combat system as detailed as the actual combat system? Shouldn't some one just be able to roll the Social Attack Bonus against the targets Willpower Class and do damage to their Resolve Points? I've got no problems if people want to play that way, myself, but the only game that has a system like that is Burning Wheel and its hacks. Most games give you a basic set of rules for social and mental actions and detailed rules for combat because the mental and social aspects of the game are strongly linked with the story and why would you tell your customers how they should tell their story?

Well in the 3.x system, while certainly not as robust as the combat system, there are rules for social interactions. A couple are:

See diplomacy description on target values to shoot for based on the other character's initial attitude.
See intimidate description for how to calculate DCs on intimidating other characters.

So let's not pretend there are no rules in place for these, there are. And I would suggest if one's goal was to be as "fair" as they could, they should apply these rules as needed.

Skaorn wrote:
@Pres man: Why would we need to say that the player took a ten and then allow them to pass when we intended them pass anyways?

Well if there wasn't any danger of failure, then I agree with you. I mean if it didn't matter what the player said in character, they would going to succeed, okay then.

Skaorn wrote:
Technically your method should be just as inflamatory as mine as you are suggesting taking a ten on a check that involve risk.

Well technically, you are saying there was no risk (intended to pass remember). Still I think you are confusing the rule for taking a 20 with the rule for taking a 10.

PRD wrote:

Taking 10 and Taking 20

A skill check represents an attempt to accomplish some goal, usually while under some sort of time pressure or distraction. Sometimes, though, a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions, increasing the odds of success.

Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.

Taking 20: When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, if you a d20 roll enough times, eventually you will get a 20. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.

Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).

Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills that carry such penalties). Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).

Notice you can take a 10 when there is a chance of failure, just not when your life is immediately in danger. So if you are a hostage with someone's dagger to your throat, sure no taking 10. But if you enter the king's hall for an audience you probably aren't in immediate danger in that situation (or at least not when you started).

Skaorn wrote:
When to roll is largely the GM's decision anyways. A GM can choose to turn a party climbing up a notted rope into a series of DC 5 climb checks or turn finding feed for the party's horses into a series of Knowledge: Local and Diplomacy check. Each would be perfectly valid. The GM might also skip it and let the party get to the adventure by saying "you climb the rope" or "you find the stables, feed for 1 week costs X coin". Neither is right or wrong, just a matter of preferance.

I agree, but let's not pretend they are equally "by the book". By the way, if you can take a 10 most people are going to make those trivial situations, even a Str 6 wizard can make a climb check of DC 5 if they take a 10. That is why it is usually hand-waved because it assumed people are just taking 10s most of the time.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Odraude wrote:
It's in every single thread on this forum.

Almost every thread. Not quite.

If you make the leap to discussing the published setting content instead of rules, or discussing rules in the context of the setting, things become a lot more civil and constructive.

touche Lincoln...

Also, if you are Evil Lincoln, how does the "Evil Twin has facial hair" trope work when good Lincoln has a beard? ;)


Odraude wrote:
Also, if you are Evil Lincoln, how does the "Evil Twin has facial hair" trope work when good Lincoln has a beard? ;)

The good one gets his head blown off.


pres man wrote:


Well in the 3.x system, while certainly not as robust as the combat system, there are rules for social interactions. A couple are:
See diplomacy description on target values to shoot for based on the other character's initial attitude.
See intimidate description for how to calculate DCs on intimidating other characters.

And IMHO this is the issue - you don't actually need to roleplay, you can beat any challenge by rolling high on a d20.


There are a number of roleplaying systems that directly focus on roleplaying. D&D/PF isn't one of them. A clear goal of D&D/PF is to provide both combat simulation and skill mechanics. If you want the game to focus on roleplaying mechanics, you'll need to incorporate another system into the game (really messy). . . or just play a different game.

Grand Lodge

Cartigan wrote:
Deanoth wrote:


You are making a snide comment though. You are pointing out an obvious thing sure, but you do not need to do so.
I'd argue the opposite. A lot of people around here need it pointed out that forests are indeed composed of trees.

Like yourself


pres man wrote:

So let's not pretend there are no rules in place for these, there are. And I would suggest if one's goal was to be as "fair" as they could, they should apply these rules as needed.

Skaorn wrote:
@Pres man: Why would we need to say that the player took a ten and then allow them to pass when we intended them pass anyways?
Well if there wasn't any danger of failure, then I agree with you. I mean if it didn't matter what the player said in character, they would going to...

I wasn't saying that there are no rules for social skills. I was saying that, to follow babboons logic, you really should go back and make a system as robust as the combat system. This way you could have clear mechanical guideline on how a character should react to being intimidated or what they can or can't do when Charmed and could make a clear comparision because you would be able to do X and roll Y to get Z. Otherwise you are comparing to very different things. On one hand you have combat which has clear ground rules and measurements for what you can and can't do and what the results are when you get X. On the other you have social interaction that is largerly subjective and the results are ultimately up to the GM. They are not the same thing so they shouldn't have to be judged in the same manner.

Now my quote above was just poor wording on my part, I got bored and decided to check out Facebook while writing. What I meant was why would a GM say "You take ten on your diplomacy" after the Bard gives a great speech that convinced the GM that the towns folk wouldn't want to burning an accused heretic after hearing it (since I will probably have to repeat this otherwise: the player is not nearly as charismatic as the character, but rose to the occassion in a manner that was well within the character's ability). My point was that you can just continue the roleplay without stopping and declaring that a ten was taken. Sorry for being unclear, I'm easily distracted, but as you can see there was risk involved.

Now what constitutes immediate danger or distraction for taking ten is up to the GM to decide. A GM could easily say that the risk of falling damage is immediate danger and distracting even at a DC 5, most of us probably wouldn't, but this is something that is in the GM's hands. Falling Damage on the other hand is strickly mechanical and has clear rules for dealing with it.

In the example of going into a kings hall I can tell you that, in the groups I play in, we generally don't bother with diplomacy rolls until a PC tries to do something like persuading the king to aid their cause or try to make up for a slip that the player made that the character probably wouldn't. At these times only those who had skill mastery in Diplomacy would get to take ten as there is risk involved. Again, that's just how we play and is no more right or wrong then any one elses.


What cracks me up is how defensive people are when their opinions are challenged in a logical and rational manner. Here's a short recap of things:

"Hey everyone! Here's what I do in my games about situation X!"

"OK, so if you do A in that situation you must also do A in the identical situation to be fair to your players, right?"

"OMG! How dare you judge me?! Don't try to impose your rules on me!!!"

"You're the one who broadcast your approach, not me."

"You're a dirty badevilgamer troll!!!!"

I suppose the only proper and approved response to "Here's how I do it." Is "OMG! You are so awesome! Thank you so much for your brilliant wisdom! I must be doing it wrong!"

It's just funny.


brassbaboon wrote:
What cracks me up is how defensive people are when their opinions are challenged in a logical and rational manner.

Welcome to the Internet. Enjoy your stay. :)


Pual wrote:
And IMHO this is the issue - you don't actually need to roleplay, you can beat any challenge by rolling high on a d20.

For me, I can see that issue, but I don't view roleplaying as a means of getting around the system. Instead I see roleplaying as how I describe the system as working.

System: roll d20 for attack, add modifiers, compare to AC. If greater than or equal, roll damage at modifiers, etc.
Roleplaying: I swing my father's sword at the creature. My aim is true and the blade bites into its flesh wounding it.

Likewise with social encounters (see above for an example for that). The system is what is the mechanics that keep things running, but it is roleplaying that brings it to life. That makes it more than just a board game. For me anyway.


brassbaboon wrote:
What cracks me up is how defensive people are when their opinions are challenged in a logical and rational manner.

Well, it might have been a case of poor wording, like I did in a previous post, but you didn't come across that way. If it was a case of bad wording then we have no arguement.


Skaorn wrote:
Now what constitutes immediate danger or distraction for taking ten is up to the GM to decide. A GM could easily say that the risk of falling damage is immediate danger and distracting even at a DC 5, most of us probably wouldn't, but this is something that is in the GM's hands. Falling Damage on the other hand is strickly mechanical and has clear rules for dealing with it.

I would say that would be an incredible nerfing of the take 10 option and the climb skill. You'll notice that climb unlike say use magic device does not have any special note saying you can't take a 10 on its use. The interpretation you describe here would mean that you could take a 10 except that in practice for climbing greater than 10 feet you can't. In effect it would be creating a new special rule for the climb skill. Now an individual group could house rule such but I would think that would not only be not RAW but also not RAI.

201 to 250 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / New to Pathfinder, Old to RPG's, and I have a few observations... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.