If Experience Points are a measure of what is and is not encouraged in the game, what is the ratio of XP for killing things to role playing? Is it really 1 to 1?
That assumes the players are just playing to get xp which isn't always true.
|
If Experience Points are a measure of what is and is not encouraged in the game, what is the ratio of XP for killing things to role playing? Is it really 1 to 1?
I would alter that to say that XP is the measure of related rewards for fighting things - your character fights, your character gets better at fighting.
You don't really need XP for roleplaying, because the player is getting better when the player roleplays. There are also the in-game rewards as well.
Of course, the skill system throws some of that out the window!
Most if not everyone on this thread agree that an optimizer CAN also role play well. It just frequently isn't the case or it looks contrived. It takes a lot of extra effort to do both well. Some gifted people however CAN and DO put that effort in. I think I speak for most people on here as well when I say that such gifted people are the minority.
Interestingly, I have had the exact opposite experience in the time I've been playing. Generally, the people who get really into character are the ones who get really into the game. They play enough to develop a "feel" for what in the rules is going to gimp them, and subconsciously shy away from "Timmy cards" when designing their (totally unique and lovingly individualized) character. Houstonderek, Mundane, and Jess Door on these boards are outstanding examples of this -- Jess, in particular, has some of the most brilliantly-conceived characters I've ever seen, all with totally different personalities, voices, likes and dislikes, psychological quirks, backstories, illustrations... the whole works. And her grasp of the rules is incisive and automatic; she'll pick stuff that fits the character, but nothing that will prevent that PC from doing her job.
In my experience it's the people who play now and then, casually, who are generally more reluctant about getting into character, and also don't have enough of a grasp of the rules to have any idea what combinations work and which don't.
Good points.
In my experience, players always want their characters to improve beyond building relationships. Even in the most Narrativist of games, the players seem to want their characters to get better at things. This may not necessarily be killing things, but Skills or other abilities. So I agree gaming is its own reward, it does not seem to be reward enough.
There is a long history and a direct tie of rewarding XP to killing things. Yes, there have been some movement towards awarding XP to other things, but they are not handled quite as clearly and explicitly. If doing something, in this case killing something, makes you better at it (leveling up), then why doesn't skill use (outside of supplementing combat) make your skills improve?
All abilities are tied to leveling up which is determined by XP. And XP by killing things seems to be the lion share with XP awarded for anything else largely an afterthought. This is by RAW of course so all bets are off for houserules. Not only do you get better at killing things by killing things, you get better at talking by killing things. So much for realism again. Sorry verisimilitude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You only get better at optimizing with that specific RPG. In PF's case, much of 3.5's skill probably carries over.
People who've played other games extensively may have developed the same grasp of rules in those, but not in PF.
It's like learning new languages or new musical instruments (or, as a professional example, new state and federal regulatory frameworks): the first new one is hard, but after that, the rest are increasingly easy, to the point of being ovious from the start. I experienced what you're talking about in transitioning from AD&D to James Bond 007. After that, Traveler, Gamma World, Boot Hill, Star Frontiers, Top Secret, Amber Diceless, GURPs, 3.0/3.5/PF were all pretty much transparent. Houstonderek lent me the Shadowrun rules and, leafing through them, I had the impression I had already played -- even though the task resolution, magic, and combat systems are fairly unique in that system.
I would like concur that roleplaying and building effectively are not mutually exclusive. You can (and should) do both. There are enough Pathfinder (and 3.5) rule books out there that you can find ways to build your character to fit with your roleplaying.
...People understand that not everybody wants to look through 5+ splatbooks to make a character, right?
If a player was that bent on finding an alternative solution to their concept, I would just let them make it up to save everyone time.
The Pathfinder SRD makes this process of using multiple Pathfinder sources fairly simple. Finding a comprehensive compliation of 3.5 material is harder, but that is what google is for.
But my point is, if you really care about making a lovingly crafted character for you to roleplay, and one that is built based upon a very specific character concept, you can both roleplay and build a mechanically excellent character.
If you are not specificly married to a character concept, this becomes alot easier. If, instead of making a bare-fisted brawler bard, you just want to be a bard that gets into bar-fights, you still get to roleplay a character, and you have not forced yourself into a specific gameplay mechanics (cause you can use daggers, saps, swords, w/e).
But don't tell me the reason that roleplaying and building effective characters don't work together is because "not everybody" wants to put the effort in. This just demonstrates that that person doesn't care about one aspect of the game, not that you can't do both.
|
|
All abilities are tied to leveling up which is determined by XP. And XP by killing things seems to be the lion share with XP awarded for anything else largely an afterthought. This is by RAW of course so all bets are off for houserules. Not only do you get better at killing things by killing things, you get better at talking by killing things. So much for realism again. Sorry verisimilitude.
And to take this even further into lack of verisimiltude;
Since the game expects all a PC or NPC's skills to improve with level, it causes problems when setting the typical DCs.
If they are set in expectation that most characters have several levels under their belt, then they become difficult for low-level characters to perform what should be mundane tasks. This causes a vicious spiral, where every NPC has to be granted extra levels in fighting/hp/save bonuses, just to craft a horseshoe, or act as a village councillor. This causes players to max their skills, so the GM comes up with circumstance penalties to reduce the success rate, so the players expect they have to max even more to be barely competent.
If they are set to be achievable by low-level characters, then high-level characters can auto-pass ridiculous DCs, which then have to have ever-increasing results, or be explained away why a roll of 30+ gives no better result than the target 15.
Most if not everyone on this thread agree that an optimizer CAN also role play well. It just frequently isn't the case or it looks contrived. It takes a lot of extra effort to do both well. Some gifted people however CAN and DO put that effort in. I think I speak for most people on here as well when I say that such gifted people are the minority.Interestingly, I have had the exact opposite experience in the time I've been playing. Generally, the people who get really into character are the ones who get really into the game. They play enough to develop a "feel" for what in the rules is going to gimp them, and subconsciously shy away from "Timmy cards" when designing their (totally unique and lovingly individualized) character. Houstonderek, Mundane, and Jess Door on these boards are outstanding examples of this -- Jess, in particular, has some of the most brilliantly-conceived characters I've ever seen, all with totally different personalities, voices, likes and dislikes, psychological quirks, backstories, illustrations... the whole works. And her grasp of the rules is incisive and automatic; she'll pick stuff that fits the character, but nothing that will prevent that PC from doing her job.
In my experience it's the people who play now and then, casually, who are generally more reluctant about getting into character, and also don't have enough of a grasp of the rules to have any idea what combinations work and which don't.
So we are basically on the same page about everything but what? Rarity?
You are saying the more they get into the game the better at both they get... correct. This amounts to effort in my language. If it is rarity you are disagreeing with me about then I envy you. I always get a mix of players with all different styles, types of play, experience with the game, or even how interested they are in playing in general. I am lucky to have more than one or sometimes two persons at the table good at both role play and optimization.
Or the troll ugly and borderline retarded combat optimized guy finds that this fight is really a debate and the more rounded character laughs and beats him mercilessly. Optimisers tend to suck outside of their narrow specialty, "roleplayers" are often more balancedOh. I thought this thread was about who would win in a no-hold-barred cage match. ;)
Playing that out, the optimizers would probably train really hard with a professional trainer in a good gym, perfecting one specific style of aggressive combat.
The roleplayers would spend their time talking to the media about how good they feel, how their story is unique and that their going to win this for their fellow gamers and their sick loved one(s).
The bell rings. The roleplayer bows his head for a moment of prayer or reflection (depending on belief system). The optimizer would come out flying, solid blow after blow overwhelming the roleplayers paltry defenses and out-of-shape body. The roleplayer would muster a reserve of inner strength, rising from his knees, blood dripping. Just as the fight looks like it is going to turn around, the referee declares this is a Texas Chainsaw Tag-Team Match...against 42 genetically-engineered Trolls!
The ref rings his hands in glee as the slaughter begins, and starts prepping his next campaign...I mean, match.
Not that 1v1 competitions matter much in a team concept where every team member fits a role, but the combat optimized guy in your example is the "wrong" way to min-max. He has maximized 1 thing, and minimized everything else. This is a good way to build a waste of a character sheet.
Min-maxing is maximizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses. A truely good min-maxed would be well-rounded in all places he would be expected to perform a role as part of his group. And the people that build to be 1-trick ponies are NOT optimizers. They are munchkins.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that I should also mention Andostre's character Agun, whose personality quirks (some part of his backstory, some organically grown as a result of adventuring experiences) and character effectiveness are actually mutually-reinforcing, rather than antithetical to one another. That doesn't happen by accident, and it doesn't happen by lopsidedly favoring one over the other.
For example, we start off: Agun is a dwarf who enjoys cigars and whiskey a bit more than average. He maxes out ranks in Appraise to simulate his knowledge of the quality and antecedents of these comestibles. Agun is also the party wizard; he selects detect magic as a cantrip and becomes an ace at identifying magic items -- an ability the group was in desperate need of. Agun's interest in apprasing objects, however, often leads him to be callous about his fellow party members, viewing them as objects as well. This would normally be a detriment to character-party effectiveness, but Andostre handled it this way: as a result of some interaction with a magic fountain druing an early adventure, Agun becomes extremely wary of using magic on himself, but sees the advantages of magically-buffed teammates, and has no qualms using magic on them. Andostre, realizing that our houserules rules make casting in combat extremely difficult, weaves together Agun's personality quirks with his disinclination to be a direct combatant, and makes Agun the party buffer. Casting spells on his compatriots and sending them ahead is exactly what Agun would do as a result of his personality and experiences, and exactly what Andostre wants him to do in terms of character effectiveness.
I am lucky to have more than one or sometimes two persons at the table good at both role play and optimization.
...
Overwhelmingly, the people I have at the table who are good role-players are also good at practical optimization. The people who are lousy at optimization are also the exact same people who don't get into the role-playing aspects, either. Maybe I've just been really lucky, but I've seen this as a pretty consistent trend over 30 years of gaming. There have been exceptions -- Houstonderek's original Pathfinder group had a guy who loved the role-playing part and really hammed it up, but had zero grasp of the rules -- but that's been relatively rare (that same group had me and Derek on the good-at-both end, and also a guy who made the least effective characters I've ever seen, and also seemingly never had a hint of a personality or backstory for them).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bully for Andostre. Sincerely. I wish I found more gamers like that.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Mrs. Bell did just that in CoCT, actually. She played an old woman, a Varisian urban druid with Knowledge domain. GM ruled she didn't get the modifiers for old age, but she dumped Str, kept Dex about 12, Con 10, and bought up Int and Cha. Any time we were fighting something she knew about it in advance, told everyone its strengths and weaknesses, and buffed the party appropriately. In combat she did very little because she had already won the fight before it even began.This is sort of an aside, but are Knowledge skills really that much of win button most of the time? Sure, there are monsters with specific weaknesses that can be exploited or specific attacks to watch out for, but really don't most monsters come down to "vulnerable to being hit really hard"?
In what percentage of fights does Knowledge really become an issue?
Depends on the GM and the group. If the game is inherently meta-gamey and players are allowed to use their own expansive knowledge about monsters in game, Knowledge skills won't get much use. Conversely, if the GM doesn't give out any useful information on successful Knowledge checks, it also won't be useful.
It is useful for offense if the monsters have remarkable defenses or weaknesses. More generally it is useful for defense in the mid-to-high-levels, so you can tailor defensive buffs to enemies' specific attack forms: stuff like resist energy, death ward, protection vs. alignment, freedom of movement, etc.
Conversely, if the GM doesn't give out any useful information on successful Knowledge checks, it also won't be useful.
I think this brings up another tangential point. Most of the GMs I have ever played with decided before the roll what the outcome would be. This applies to just more than Knowledge checks but also things like Bluff, Diplomacy ect. There is a cut off in their mind that no matter how well someone rolls, this NPC just isn't going to roll over.
I believe this just funnels people down the path of combat optimization because the rules for combat take a lot out of the hands of the GM and put them on the dice.
Overwhelmingly, the people I have at the table who are good role-players are also good at practical optimization. The people who are lousy at optimization are also the exact same people who don't get into the role-playing aspects, either. Maybe I've just been really lucky, but I've seen this as a pretty consistent trend over 30 years of gaming...I am lucky to have more than one or sometimes two persons at the table good at both role play and optimization.
...
Congrats, by my experience, you have been very lucky. I would say less than 1/4 of the people I have met in gaming have been what I would call very good at both. Better than half at least have some skill at both but most have been clearly weak on one or the other.
I include myself in that category. Oddly enough I have switched over the years. I used to be clearly better at role-play than optimizing. I recently realized that has switched at some point in time. I am now noticeably weaker in role-play than optimizing.
I would guess it is real life intruding. {sigh} There was a time when I could game at least once often twice a week. So it was very easy to be 'in character.' Now I feel lucky to game once every 2 or 3 weeks. Often when we start a session I literally have to look at my sheet to remember what character I'm playing. We have to remind each other what happened last session, what we were in the middle of, and what our plans were. It is even worse when I miss a session due to work or whatever. Now somebody else has to tell me what my character did or was planning to do.
Damn, but I wish I could game more often. Sometimes, real life seems to blow chunks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It works both ways... there are players who are convinced that with a high enough score, Bluff and Diplomacy should be as effective as the Domination spell in getting someone to do something they want, no matter how much it may go against the target's base urges.
Shouldn't it? Don't we have real life examples of people talked into things they were against?
Also, does that not just make magic (in a meta sense) that much more powerful?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Conversely, if the GM doesn't give out any useful information on successful Knowledge checks, it also won't be useful.I think this brings up another tangential point. Most of the GMs I have ever played with decided before the roll what the outcome would be. This applies to just more than Knowledge checks but also things like Bluff, Diplomacy ect. There is a cut off in their mind that no matter how well someone rolls, this NPC just isn't going to roll over.
I believe this just funnels people down the path of combat optimization because the rules for combat take a lot out of the hands of the GM and put them on the dice.
Too true. Some GMs get bent out of shape if PCs "circumvent" encounters with clever use of skills. In my experience, the use of spells to circumvent encounters doesn't provoke such a reaction. If I Stealth by a group of badguys, problem, but if I invisibly wind walk or dimension door past them, no biggie.
The other side of that is that Diplomacy as written can produce some unbelievable successes. I like the GiantITP Diplomacy house rules because they fix a lot of the issues that can come up with arbitrary GM auto-fail or auto-win DC adjusting by standardizing DC adjustments based on the perceived cost-benefit to the target of Diplomacy.
Personally, if the PCs overcome an encounter by use of Diplomacy, magic, or force of arms, they overcame it, period. Maybe they don't get to loot the bodies, but maybe also nobody dies. Fighting is dangerous business. XP awarded, next encounter.
Now I can see a Knowledge check autofailing (to an extent) if the creature in question is unique, and there's no way the PC could possibly know anything about it other than basic creature type and type-associated abilities, immunities, etc.: "you've never heard of such a creature in all your lore, but it appears to be some kind of construct. You know that constructs are not living creatures, don't breathe, eat or sleep, are immune to positive or negative energy, and probably created by magic. It could be a new kind of golem, in which case it may be immune to most magic, although there may be some spells that work differently against it. It's likely this creature is unique." Otherwise, Knowledge checks have a built-in standard for identifying monsters:
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
I play that the basic identification gives you name of creature, type, and any subtypes, as well as all characteristics common to that type.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Overwhelmingly, the people I have at the table who are good role-players are also good at practical optimization. The people who are lousy at optimization are also the exact same people who don't get into the role-playing aspects, either. Maybe I've just been really lucky, but I've seen this as a pretty consistent trend over 30 years of gaming. There have been exceptions -- Houstonderek's original Pathfinder group had a guy who loved the role-playing part and really hammed it up, but had zero grasp of the rules -- but that's been relatively rare (that same group had me and Derek on the good-at-both end, and also a guy who made the least effective characters I've ever seen, and also seemingly never had a hint of a personality or backstory for them).I am lucky to have more than one or sometimes two persons at the table good at both role play and optimization.
...
That has been my experience. Every once and awhile I have someone who has a character concept and after a couple of levels it just isn't working. We look at it and see if it can be tweaked, sometimes talk to the table. I usually give everyone an "oh s+**" to rebuild their character within reason per campaign. I would rather have people shoot for a concept and fail, than not try to be creative at all.
It works both ways... there are players who are convinced that with a high enough score, Bluff and Diplomacy should be as effective as the Domination spell in getting someone to do something they want, no matter how much it may go against the target's base urges.Shouldn't it? Don't we have real life examples of people talked into things they were against?
That depends how much they were against it in the first place. I'm against gambling money, but somebody could probably convince me to buy a lottery ticket. I'm also against murder, and there's no way under the sun that somebody can talk me into killing a person in cold blood.
Also, does that not just make magic (in a meta sense) that much more powerful?
A brief check of the spells that do allow you to compel somebody against their will permit multiple saves at bonuses to avoid doing so. If high level magic isn't very good at making you act against your nature, talking so somebody isn't going to be better at it.
|
|
I feel that I should also mention Andostre's character Agun, whose personality quirks (some part of his backstory, some organically grown as a result of adventuring experiences) and character effectiveness are actually mutually-reinforcing, rather than antithetical to one another. That doesn't happen by accident, and it doesn't happen by lopsidedly favoring one over the other.
For example, we start off: Agun is a dwarf who enjoys cigars and whiskey a bit more than average. He maxes out ranks in Appraise to simulate his knowledge of the quality and antecedents of these comestibles. Agun is also the party wizard; he selects detect magic as a cantrip and becomes an ace at identifying magic items -- an ability the group was in desperate need of. Agun's interest in apprasing objects, however, often leads him to be callous about his fellow party members, viewing them as objects as well. This would normally be a detriment to character-party effectiveness, but Andostre handled it this way: as a result of some interaction with a magic fountain druing an early adventure, Agun becomes extremely wary of using magic on himself, but sees the advantages of magically-buffed teammates, and has no qualms using magic on them. Andostre, realizing that our houserules rules make casting in combat extremely difficult, weaves together Agun's personality quirks with his disinclination to be a direct combatant, and makes Agun the party buffer. Casting spells on his compatriots and sending them ahead is exactly what Agun would do as a result of his personality and experiences, and exactly what Andostre wants him to do in terms of character effectiveness.
Who says character creation mechanics have to be dissociated? :)
|
Mrs. Bell did just that in CoCT, actually. She played an old woman, a Varisian urban druid with Knowledge domain. GM ruled she didn't get the modifiers for old age, but she dumped Str, kept Dex about 12, Con 10, and bought up Int and Cha. Any time we were fighting something she knew about it in advance, told everyone its strengths and weaknesses, and buffed the party appropriately. In combat she did very little because she had already won the fight before it even began.This is sort of an aside, but are Knowledge skills really that much of win button most of the time? Sure, there are monsters with specific weaknesses that can be exploited or specific attacks to watch out for, but really don't most monsters come down to "vulnerable to being hit really hard"?
In what percentage of fights does Knowledge really become an issue?
In most of the games i play YES, skills are just as important as combat ability. Sometimes not being an idiot is more important than hulk smash
|
|
I feel that I should also mention Andostre's character Agun, whose personality quirks (some part of his backstory, some organically grown as a result of adventuring experiences) and character effectiveness are actually mutually-reinforcing, rather than antithetical to one another. That doesn't happen by accident, and it doesn't happen by lopsidedly favoring one over the other.
For example, we start off: Agun is a dwarf who enjoys cigars and whiskey a bit more than average. He maxes out ranks in Appraise to simulate his knowledge of the quality and antecedents of these comestibles. Agun is also the party wizard; he selects detect magic as a cantrip and becomes an ace at identifying magic items -- an ability the group was in desperate need of. Agun's interest in apprasing objects, however, often leads him to be callous about his fellow party members, viewing them as objects as well. This would normally be a detriment to character-party effectiveness, but Andostre handled it this way: as a result of some interaction with a magic fountain druing an early adventure, Agun becomes extremely wary of using magic on himself, but sees the advantages of magically-buffed teammates, and has no qualms using magic on them. Andostre, realizing that our houserules rules make casting in combat extremely difficult, weaves together Agun's personality quirks with his disinclination to be a direct combatant, and makes Agun the party buffer. Casting spells on his compatriots and sending them ahead is exactly what Agun would do as a result of his personality and experiences, and exactly what Andostre wants him to do in terms of character effectiveness.
That sounds a lot like the way my group makes characters, we create a character to explain what they do as much as we do what the character would do in a given situation and often have interesting stories for odd skills and feats. We as a group tend to focus more on minimizing weaknesses than maximising strengths and rely on teamwork and outside the box thinking to get stuff done.
|
|
If Experience Points are a measure of what is and is not encouraged in the game, what is the ratio of XP for killing things to role playing? Is it really 1 to 1?
I don't think you'll ever see it reach 1:1, for several reasons;
the people who most want it, don't need it, and the people who most need it, don't want it.For most people, getting together with friends and playing is an end in itself, whether that be to chat as imaginary characters, or to sling dice and collect loot.
If the players enjoy RP, then they will already be attempting to do so at every opportunity, regardless of whether there is a mechanical reward.
If the players aren't comfortable with acting in-character, or see it as childish distraction from the 'main event', then they aren't going to RP, despite any reward.
For either of such groups, they probably see no reason to implement a mechanical solution to a problem they don't see.
In fact, doing so could actually cheapen their gaming experience.
For the pro-RP group, it's like suggesting to your partner that you pay them for sex.
Sure, it results in a short-term increase in the desired activity, but at a cost.
What had previously been understood to be spontaneous, now becomes suspect, as each person accuses the others of whoring the arrangement.
"You never had anything to add to that negotiation, you just had to keep on butting in, to qualify for some free xp, didn't you?"
"You weren't actually in the mood, were you? You were thinking of something, someone else the whole time, weren't you?"
If the group is more into tactical wargaming, and don't tend to enter character, speaking as player to player ("Jim, can you move your guy to that square?), then they are not going to be incentivised by bonus xp, unless it is for huge amounts, and as soon as it is, it simply creates a mechanical disparity, which the non-receiving players will cry foul over, disputing every award, nitpicking every example, bigging up the importance of their own contribution, while trashing that of everyone else.
Friendships will be soured, as players become convinced that the GM is ignoring them in favour of another player, that real-life friendships are being abused to get power in the game, that what used to be Guys Night In is being 'queered up', that 'mincing about talking in lispy voices' is being made more important than making realistically competent characters, taking the mission seriously, paying attention to the objectives, and making correct decisions.
I've been in both kinds of group, and seen both break up over it, among accusations of unfairness, favouritism, 'derailing the game from its true roots', 'wasting good gaming time', 'hogging the spotlight', 'not taking the scenario seriously', et al, unless the bonus xp are kept as low, token amounts, awarded occasionally (but not expected or demanded as a right), when the majority of the table agree they're deserved.
|
I'm just wondering when "roleplaying" changed from actual roleplaying into "using your skills effectively"?
To me, the skill mechanics are just as divorced from actual roleplaying as are the combat mechanics.
Also, does that mean that D&D wasn't really a roleplaying game until the introduction of skills?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just wondering when "roleplaying" changed from actual roleplaying into "using your skills effectively"?
To me, the skill mechanics are just as divorced from actual roleplaying as are the combat mechanics.
Also, does that mean that D&D wasn't really a roleplaying game until the introduction of skills?
Maybe I'm missing the context, but if what you're asking about is -- why do people say they're buying up skills for "roleplaying" --
It's about making your character sheet reflect mechanically your character concept as closely as possible, rather than picking the optimized choice only because it improves your chances at combat and for nothing to do with your character's story. It isn't roleplaying in and of itself, no, and I don't think anyone is saying it is. But it's about making mechanical choices related to how you want to play your character, indirectly.
For example, I decide to put a Skill Rank into Knowledge (Local) because my character is supposed to be a woman who sticks her nose into everyone's business. If someone says, "That's useless, no one will EVER make you roll Knowledge (Local), you need to put that rank into Acrobatics or Use Magic Device because you can use those skills in combat, etc." (also, that person has never read a lot of modules or APs because at least the ones I've read, Knowledge Local comes up a lot, but anyway.) That's where the roleplayer vs optimizer argument can come in. I want the mechnical skill rank in that skill I want to crunch to back up my fluff, not make the crunch and then poorly fit some fluff around it. I don't want to say my character is a gossip but then have no ranks in Sense Motive or Knowledge Local or Bluff or Diplomacy because then when I have to make a roll related to my character concept, my chances of success are poorer than I would want them to be given my character's concept. And I don't want to put a rank in Acrobatics if my character's background is that she's largely sedentary and not one for jumping about, just because someone might think Acrobatics is more optimal.
Not everyone plays like that, and not even everyone understands why people play like that, but that's why.
And of course you can build your character with such ideas in mind besides skills, but I think skills particularly become a bone of contention, especially if someone opts for a higher Int or takes the favored class skill bonus when a combat-optimizer thinks that's a waste of time.
Besides, while RP and mechanics aren't necessarily mutually inclusive, they're not mutually exclusive either.
|
|
I agree with you DeathQuaker, but I think the point Kthulhu was making was that relying on skills to do work that was once solely accomplished by roleplaying takes something away from the game.
I like the concept of skills, that it shows a persons development and training. I don't like the fact that they are tied into levels. I do like how Pathfinder simplified the point system.
Personally, I'd prefer a skill system that was "pay for training" - the wealthier you are, the more you can afford to focus on training skills. 2 skill points per level, not modified by Int. The cost would be something like 2*(100gp - Int bonus) * current skill rank. Time to train would be 1 week per 100gp. Characters would have to option of apprenticeship for certain skills, in which case the time is multiplied by 10 but the cost is divided by 10.
I'd also limit the use of "roleplaying" skills to very specific circumstances, or at least let roleplaying auto-succeed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to play a character that has a higher Charisma and better skill at diplomacy than I the same way some people want to play a character that is better in combat. I certainly think Skills have a place.
Something I have tried to do in my games is to not necessarily equate a failure/success of any given roll as an indicator of proficiency. For example, say Mr. Bard and his +20 Bluff Skill rolls a 1 and fails to convince the guard he left his invitation back at the inn. It is not that Mr. Bard did not give a convincing oratory, it is that the guards were alerted before hand that Mr. Bard and his companions might try to sneak in. Or perhaps, just at that very moment, the captain of the guard strolled by and recognized Mr. Bard and his companions as those pesky kids from earlier. External circumstances were responsible for the failure, not any lack of skill.
This also gives me some freedom to interpret a mismatch between what the player says and the character's ability.
Mr. Cha Dumpstat Guy makes an eloquent speech on why it is in the best interest of the King to listen to him, but for some reason, the King just doesn't trust this guy.
Awkward Player Cha 18 Guy tries to chat up the barmaid, but the best he can come up with is 'Hey baby!'. She giggles and bats her eyes. "You're awful. I get off at 6."
What the player says still impacts the game. I think it is important. But that impact does not have to be what we would expect. Because of that, we can still allow Skill to temper that impact. Crazy s$*% happens all the time in real life. There is no reason crazy s$~& can not happen in game.
I agree with you DeathQuaker, but I think the point Kthulhu was making was that relying on skills to do work that was once solely accomplished by roleplaying takes something away from the game.
I'm on board with CourtFool and robin, I think more or less.
Now, skills should not be a replacement for roleplaying. They can assist roleplaying, and help determine certain effects more easily than a GM trying to wing it. I consider it a happy medium between having
1) no skill system but putting the burden both on the GM to come up with how certain actions may affect the game and on the players to RP situations they personally may not manage well
2) Absolutely no roleplay, substituting all die rolls for interaction.
Some prefer the extreme of 1 or 2 but I like a middle ground.
By way of example, in most games I've ever played, we've never played it like:
Player: Okay, I talk to the guard.
GM: Fine, roll diplomacy.
That would be boring.
But we may not roleplay out an hour long conversation either (although that's more likely than the above example).
Usually it ends up more like:
Player: I approach the guard; I'm going to try to butter him up, so maybe he'll give us the information on who's locked in the tower. I say, "Greetings, fine sir! I've noticed you standing here everyday and I can't help but admire your dedication to duty."GM: The guard stands in his usual stony silence, but he's starting to look at you. You've caught his attention.
Player: "Listen, we've been hired by Rowan Black to investigate a certain matter, and I'm hoping I can use your help." And uh, I'm honestly not sure what else to say, but I want to get across the point that he's doing his duty by giving us the information we're looking for.
GM: Okay, then let's just roll Diplomacy. You need to get from Indifferent to Friendly, and you're going about this a good way so I'm going to give you a +2 circumstance bonus due to your roleplaying.
The mechanics come in a) when the player's at a loss but the PC is very capable of achieving the desired goal and/or b) the player is trying to accomplish something that has an associated rule to it.
If you leave out mechanics to accomplish some things, you have to hope that both the GM and players can fill in the gaps. I HAVE, very definitely in my own experience, seen stuff happen like, a player says something really hamhanded while roleplaying, when it is something that his PC would not have done, but the player doesn't have knowledge the PC should. But the GM enforces the RP without taking into account PC vs player ability. Sometimes that can be fair, and of course, the GM has the right to do that, but sometimes it's just frustrating because you feel like you can't get across the player as you intended.
There is also a matter of going to die rolls to save time. Maybe the conversation with the guard would realistically take 40 minutes. But you're coming to an end of a session, and have 15. You can start the conversation, to establish the feel for it, and then roll dice to resolve it more quickly.
Again, it's about a balance between two ideas rather than clinging to one extreme or the other.
I like the concept of skills, that it shows a persons development and training. I don't like the fact that they are tied into levels. I do like how Pathfinder simplified the point system.
Personally, I'd prefer a skill system that was "pay for training" - the wealthier you are, the more you can afford to focus on training skills. 2 skill points per level, not modified by Int. The cost would be something like 2*(100gp - Int bonus) * current skill rank. Time to train would be 1 week per 100gp. Characters would have to option of apprenticeship for certain skills, in which case the time is multiplied by 10 but the cost is divided by 10.
Skills increasing by level is no more sensible than suddenly knowing a new spell at a new level or suddenly being able to hit better, or being able to resist enchantment spells, or what have you. If you're going to use a leveling system, IMO you need to accept that everything is going to advance at once. But to let some things advance at once while others you have to pay to improve? I find that very imbalancing and particularly unfair to skill-based characters like rogues, rangers, and bards.
Now, if you generally don't like leveling--then this may not be a good game system for you, or you can try alternate leveling rules. I believe Sean Reynolds wrote up an alternate system for gradual leveling, you might want to check it out.
I'd also limit the use of "roleplaying" skills to very specific circumstances, or at least let roleplaying auto-succeed.
Letting roleplaying auto-succeed is a dangerous thing to do if it's bad roleplaying. :)
I don't condone letting skill use replace roleplaying and I've seldom heard of people do so. The closest I've come in my own gaming group is I had a player complain that I asked him to describe how he was going about searching for traps (I just wanted a brief explanation) -- "But that's what rolling Perception is for!" he argued (and he was an oldskool gamer who played long before a Perception existed). I clarified I needed to know where he was looking because it was a big room and if there were trap triggers, some of them might be a bit unusual in how they are triggered. Interestingly, I have some people say that the "right" way to play is to ignore the skill entirely spend a half hour describing your character pour sand into cracks and feel the walls for pressure plates, and I have had others tell me that my asking for a brief, minimal description is putting too much burden on the player and too time consuming and unfair. Which comes down to no right way to play, and again, I'll stick to a happy medium where I can.
|
|
By no means am I advocating extremism, I'm all about balance and what works for your group. For me personally, roleplaying has always been a game of imagination and literature.
Jal , I do not aggree with you because of some experience I had with a player and because I make heavy use of the skills as a DM
This player was a really good tactical player and moreover he was really charismatic. So he tended to be the spokeperson for the group even with a 8 charisma and no social skills whatsoever... To my mind, this means he was not playing the character he created and so was a bad role player.Skills allow you to put flavor in your character and play a character you can not be IRL .
If you are a puny one IRL , you can still play a 20 STR Barbarian. If you are not a great speaker, you can not play one if skills do not exist. When you are trying to influence people , several options exist.
* The player make a great speech , I give him a bonus to his diplomacy roll
* The player explain what points he stress in his speech. Normally I would not give him any bonus or malus to his roll unless he uses points which would be specially effective toward the mentality of the NPC (sense motive could have helped beforehand
* The player just ask to roll . A little malus would be applied by me .
This is where we sort of differ - I'd applaud that player for exercising his brain. If that sounds a little bit elitist towards intelligence, I make no apologies for that. And that 8 Charisma might just mean the character really smelly.
However, I do agree that skills give credence to certain actions and allows for a semblance of control. My reaction to your scenario would be:
* The player makes a great speech, thye automatically succeed on their diplomacy roll.
* The player explains what points they stress in their speech. They are allowed to make a diplomacy roll.
* The player just asks to roll. I tell them to come up with an explanation.
It's a given that (most) gamers don't act out combat in order to simulate resolve in-game actions. However, there are specialized hobbies that would allow them to do so. Roleplaying should be something better than just rolling dice.
And before I hear the stock rebuttal - yes, if a player had studied fending and described the vom Tag guard, I would let them do something cool. Then I would write up a feat and tell the player to take that so they can do it any time they want.
However, I do agree that skills give credence to certain actions and allows for a semblance of control. My reaction to your scenario would be:
* The player makes a great speech, they automatically succeed on their diplomacy roll.
* The player explains what points they stress in their speech. They are allowed to make a diplomacy roll.
* The player just asks to roll. I tell them to come up with an explanation.
This is basically what we do. This happened with a speech my Witch gave for game. I wrote it up before hand, read it during game, then was allowed a massive bonus to my Diplomacy check just to see how well I succeeded.
Citizens,
It has come to my attention that a question desperately needs to be asked:
Who will be next?
When the Wild Mages are gone, who among you will become the Wizards’ next prey? For you see, a predator does not quit once its prey is caught. Always hungry, it simply finds another being to prey upon. Now look to the Tower, and the Wizards who perch atop it. Like raptors sizing their prey.
Who among you will be next? When the Wild Mages are gone, you will find yourself without a shield, and you will be at the mercy of those very Wizards who perch in their towers. You will be at the mercy of those who would strike down anyone who crosses them.
This is called a Free City, but I certainly don’t feel free. I know there are those among you who agree with me, and I do not dare pretend that you are in any way ignorant to their ways. I simply ask that you ask yourselves one question:
Who will be next?
As long as Tyrants sit in Towers, this cannot be a Free City.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For skills, I generally use the role-playing stuff as a requirement to make the dice roll work.
Player: "I use Diplomacy! I got a 26!"
Me: "What exactly are you telling him in so persuasive a manner?"
Player: "I use Climb! A got a 26!"
Me: "How exactly are you getting down? That cliff face is pretty steep. And where along the edge are you?"
Player: "On the extreme southern end, away from the encampment. And I'm using my rope."
Me: "Tying it to what? There aren't any handy trees at that end."
Player: "I'll have to pound in some pitons, then."
Me: "And how long is the rope?"
Player: "50 feet."
Me: "Okay, you pound the pitons into the loose rock -- you're worried about them coming loose, but a 26 is a good check, and you find some more solid rock to seat them in. You can probably rapel down the rope with no problem... but unfortunately it doesn't quite reach the bottom."
When people say their role play being constrained by their need to min max/Optimize they really have not grasped that Optimization actually just is understanding how the game mechanics can be used to bring your concept/character to life.
Or you can just say they are BS-ing.
Usually people who does not Optimize are people who doesn't really know the game mechanics.
This quote from Kazejin is spot on.
Optimization does not equal maximized DPR. Optimization is the act of building to meet a goal, and using the correct tools to accomplish this. The statement should generally hold true if you aren't trying to pidgeonhole players into thinking in only one form.
Optimization is not about dumping char if you are a fighter or dumping wis if you are a Paladin. It is the act of building to meet a goal and using the correct tools to accomplish this.
I really don't see the point in why someone starts with 14 char if the character doesn't mechanically have no need for the charisma , if the player isn't playing the character as if it has 14 charisma, and there is no other point in 14 charisma but:
- hey, I don't want to be an Optimizer so I'm giving my fighter 14 char and I don't want my fighter du be uggly.
If I wanted to play a swashbuckler fighter with some Errol Flynn flavor I would be upset if the others in my gaming group would give me the advice to dump char (Errol Flynn was a charismatic), but having 14 char and never "use it" in game is just stupid. If you play your fighter as if he/she has 8 char you should build it that way.
Seriously, "I don't Optimize, I'm a role player" is often just another way of saying: I can't bother learning the mechanics. (and sometimes, I can't even bother learning the rules.)
Player 1 (magus) - I want to take power attack
Player 2 - Why?
P1 - I want to deal more damage
P2 - Are you sure you do more damage with power attack.
P1 - Hey, some of use actually just have fun and don't Optimize. Dealing more damage isn't everything.
P2 - So why are you taking power attack?
Seriously, "I don't Optimize, I'm a role player" is often just another way of saying: I can't bother learning the mechanics.
I disagree. Every system is going to make some base assumptions that are going to favor certain concepts over others. You can have a perfect understanding of the system and realize that certain concepts are not going to be optimal. Sure, if you do not care that much about your concept, you can drift into other areas that make it more effective at the cost of the original idea. If, however, you want to stick closely to your original idea, you may be screwed and that does not mean you are just lazy as you want to imply.
|
|
Seriously, "I don't Optimize, I'm a role player" is often just another way of saying: I can't bother learning the mechanics.I disagree. Every system is going to make some base assumptions that are going to favor certain concepts over others. You can have a perfect understanding of the system and realize that certain concepts are not going to be optimal. Sure, if you do not care that much about your concept, you can drift into other areas that make it more effective at the cost of the original idea. If, however, you want to stick closely to your original idea, you may be screwed and that does not mean you are just lazy as you want to imply.
Or to take CourtFool's argument in a different direction, perhaps you just don't want to spend hours on character creation (maybe...gasp...you're in session and need a character in minutes), or maybe you'd rather spend that time thinking about your characters voice, mannerisms, background, motivation, etc.
Maybe you don't care if your character lives or dies, and just want to enjoy the ride.
Seriously, "I don't Optimize, I'm a role player" is often just another way of saying: I can't bother learning the mechanics.I disagree. Every system is going to make some base assumptions that are going to favor certain concepts over others. You can have a perfect understanding of the system and realize that certain concepts are not going to be optimal.
Re-read my post again.
Edit:Certain concepts are not going to be optimal? Optimal for what? Maximized DPR?
My point is that Optimization is about helping me create any concept using the tools at hand. Be it a fighter as the party face or a smart Paladin or a hafling Barbarian or whatever.
"the act of building to meet a goal and using the correct tools to accomplish this". The Goal is my concept.
Read the thread "TRYING TO MAKE SPARTACUS - OPINIONS ON THIS BUILD?"
A Barbarian with a positive charisma score just because it fits the concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or to take CourtFool's argument in a different direction, perhaps you just don't want to spend hours on character creation (maybe...gasp...you're in session and need a character in minutes), or maybe you'd rather spend that time thinking about your characters voice, mannerisms, background, motivation, etc.
Maybe you don't care if your character lives or dies, and just want to enjoy the ride.
I'll bookmark this post.
Very good example of the attitude 'I don't care about the game/rules, but care more about my cool character, even if my char or even the whole party dies.|
|
Or to take CourtFool's argument in a different direction, perhaps you just don't want to spend hours on character creation (maybe...gasp...you're in session and need a character in minutes), or maybe you'd rather spend that time thinking about your characters voice, mannerisms, background, motivation, etc.
Maybe you don't care if your character lives or dies, and just want to enjoy the ride.
I'll bookmark this post.
Very good example of the attitude 'I don't care about the game/rules, but care more about my cool character, even if my char or even the whole party dies.
Yes, yes it is. If you meant that as an insult, please be aware that I take it as a compliment.
It all comes down to what you and your group find important.
Optimization actually just is understanding how the game mechanics can be used to bring your concept/character to life.
Or you can just say they are BS-ing.This quote from Kazejin is spot on.
Optimization does not equal maximized DPR. Optimization is the act of building to meet a goal, and using the correct tools to accomplish this. The statement should generally hold true if you aren't trying to pidgeonhole players into thinking in only one form.Optimization is not about dumping char if you are a fighter or dumping wis if you are a Paladin. It is the act of building to meet a goal and using the correct tools to accomplish this.
Seriously, "I don't Optimize, I'm a role player" is often just another way of saying: I can't bother learning the mechanics. (and sometimes, I can't even bother learning the rules.)
Player 1 (magus) - I want to take power attack
Player 2 - Why?
P1 - I want to deal more damage
P2 - Are you sure you do more damage with power attack.
P1 - Hey, some of use actually just have fun and don't Optimize. Dealing more damage isn't everything.
P2 - So why are you taking power attack?
+1
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, "I don't Optimize, I'm a role player" is often just another way of saying: I can't bother learning the mechanics.I disagree. Every system is going to make some base assumptions that are going to favor certain concepts over others. You can have a perfect understanding of the system and realize that certain concepts are not going to be optimal. Sure, if you do not care that much about your concept, you can drift into other areas that make it more effective at the cost of the original idea. If, however, you want to stick closely to your original idea, you may be screwed and that does not mean you are just lazy as you want to imply.
Or to take CourtFool's argument in a different direction, perhaps you just don't want to spend hours on character creation (maybe...gasp...you're in session and need a character in minutes), or maybe you'd rather spend that time thinking about your characters voice, mannerisms, background, motivation, etc.
Maybe you don't care if your character lives or dies, and just want to enjoy the ride.
This is completely out of context. Generally speaking we can assume normal situations apply. In normal situations you have time to build what you want to build. Making up some time limit does not make a statement any less truthful.
I have had to rush build before, and I could not do everything I wanted, but that is not the situation Zark was referring to.
Even if you do a rush build you are trying to get to the most important things taken care of to make sure you have fun*. What those things are varies by person, but you are still optimizing.
*That is the optimization he was talking about. What do I have to do in order to have fun, meet the concept, and stay alive? I am assuming "not dying" is a part of the game plan even for a rush build.
For my 15 minute 13th level cleric. I pick out armor, 2 weapons, spells, and jotted down a few feats. I skipped skills, and did attack bonuses on the fly.
It was good enough to keep us alive, but when I got home I did a rebuild.
Yes, yes it is. If you meant that as an insult, please be aware that I take it as a compliment.
It was meant to be a finding.
It all comes down to what you and your group find important.
If you [f]and[/b] the rest of the group [f]and[/b] the GM is fine with a TPK due to nonchalant gaming, fine.
A lot of us isn't. A role player that doesn't care if his/her character lives or dies isn't much of a role player. But that is fine if all he/she just want is to kill some time, if the Player [f]and[/b] the rest of the group [f]and[/b] the GM is fine with nonchalant gaming.
Me, I think your attitude suck and I would never game with you, but if your gaming group - including the GM - is fine with 'I don't care about the game I just want to enjoy the ride', the all is fine. You really isn't playing Pathfinder if you can't bother with rules and even with your character., if it lives or dies. You might as well play Monopoly, Earth dawn, D&D 2:nd edition, Poker or Risk.
For the rest of your reply see wraithstrike's post.
|
You might as well play Monopoly, Earth dawn, D&D 2:nd edition, Poker or Risk.
As a 2nd edition DM (who played 2nd edition "back in the day" AND runs a current 2nd edition game), I can assure you that there is nothing nonchalant about the system any more than Pathfinder can be (and it certainly does not belong lumped together with Monopoly, Poker, or Risk)....
|
|
I don't care about the game I just want to enjoy the ride', the all is fine. You really isn't playing Pathfinder if you can't bother with rules and even with your character., if it lives or dies. You might as well play Monopoly, Earth dawn, D&D 2:nd edition, Poker or Risk.
It's always nice to see someone who's overtly hostile to people who prefer systems that aren't bogged down in their own mechanics.
:P
Me, I think your attitude suck and I would never game with you
I'm sure he feels an overwhelming sense of relief.
Apparently the Narrative crowd isn't the only one capable of telling people they are having BadWrongFun.
