|
We are having this discussion on our groups forum about Role playing within PF and I'd like outside feedback on it. Hern ole boy (not really old) you will know who this is as I just referenced a character you play.
Do you feel Pathfinder and most every other RPG out there to be a ROLE playing game meaning not just do you take on the role of a fighter, paladin, wizard, cleric, rouge, etc but how much ROLE Playing occurs in the game?
Instead of role playing out the actions you do like trying to talk the leader of the of the kingdom for need information you roll dice to gain it. There are no mechanics in the game that add bonuses for a person that does a great job. Instead you shove the bard to the front as he usually has the best diplomacy and let him just roll his dice and maybe everyone else assists. This actually is not role playing but Roll playing. There are no mechanics in the game to "Reward" someone for great role playing. The guy across the table who just sits and waits for the fight gets the same experience points for the person that really plays his character well.
I do not see this as a flaw just in PF, it was there in 3.0/3.5 just as much and even more so in 4.0. Back in 1st ed you had no rolls for diplomacy or sense motive and I think it pushed players to role play more than they do today.
The player that tried to role play a fight is actually penalized more than the guy that just gets up in the BBEG face and starts to duke it out. Hero Points seems people horde them after getting them with each level saving at least 2 in case they die and they use HP to stabilize. There is no mechanics once again for handing them out beyond DM call and using them randomly to help the player. Good Role Playing should give HP to fudge a dice roll but then again we get back to ROLL playing not role playing.
Personally I like to reward characters extra XP for shared journals, great character backgrounds, great Role playing, great random use of skills, ect, but once again there are no rules for this and most DM's fall to ROLL playing once again.
So what do you all feel? How can it be fixed in the system to reward players to ROLE play and not ROLL Play?
I'd like to hear Paizo's 2 pieces of eight worth on this too.
Thanks in advance.
I've seen GMs who encourage great roleplay through xp bonuses. It's nice get your kill xp and all that, but if you can get just as much by doing something smart, entertaining the other players or just roleplaying our your character to the best of your ability, I think that's pretty much problem solved.
It just comes down to the player making an effort and the GM rewarding them for that effort, accordingly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with your concept of roleplaying rewards is that roleplaying quality is entirely subjective. What you consider great roleplaying I may consider insipid and melodramatic, and vice-versa. As a result, basing mechanical rewards around roleplaying is bound to create conflict in many gaming groups.
Roleplaying is its own reward. Players who have fun roleplaying will do so regardless of what game system the group is using. They'll turn a plain jane fighter into a memorable character that everyone recalls fondly, months after he accidentally tripped and fell into that dragon's maw.
And players who don't enjoy roleplaying-as-improv acting can still enjoying roleplaying-as-tabletop-gaming-with-friends, and not feel penalized because they aren't into that. Many groups contain players with varied interests in this regard, and trying to force the guy who just wants to toss dice with friends is pointless. If you're not one of those guys who enjoys coming up with a funny voice for your gnome pickpocket, you likely never will be, and you shouldn't be beat over the head for it.
For these reasons, the most successful systems tend not to codify roleplaying much, if at all. Instead, they spend the bulk of their time defining combat, and leave the roleplaying in the hands of the players, where it belongs.
So to answer your question, every system is equally great for roleplaying, because it's not the job of the system to define roleplaying, but rather each player at the table.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*pours gasoline over himself* match, anyone?
In all seriousness, this is D&D. It's always been the RPG about killing things, looting their stuff and leveling up. Games that decided that this schematic is too simplistic and doesn't facilitate acting or pouring hours over backstories and out-of-combat stuff have diverged since and developed mechanics that support role-playing from the get go. You might want to check those out if D&D's paradigm irks you.
I play those games when for that, and I play D&D/PF for some good old hack'n'slash fun with a dash of storytelling and acting that spices up the fun yet doesn't detract me from the base principles of the game.
Yes.
Yes.
I concur with our concise and contentious friend here.
Now if you will excuse me I wish to assist Gorbacz with his conflagration.
In the games I run I tend to gravitate towards rewarding players who make the game more immerssive with the xp bonuses you mentioned or a GM Fiat like award (ex. when the group's paladin was on an exceptional run of role playing I granted his character his first 'miracle' which he later used to bring back to life a fallen npc and reaffirm his character's faith) My groups also vote on an MVP after each session for a similar purpose except their reward is usually to reroll all critical failures for the next session.
The game already has a way to reward roleplaying. Its called roleplaying experience, in game rewards (titles, friends, contacts) and circumstancial bonuses. I have never met a gm who doesnt give a player a bonus on a bluff role for a good lie, or penalty for a bad one. Thats right there in the bluff rules.
That aside. You literally cannot add in 'mechanics' to reward roleplaying without alienating a huge portion of the community. The reason, as was stated is roleplaying is stupid amounts of subjective. One group might insist every word be in character, with funny voices, clever hats and props. Another might think being descriptive but from a 3rd person perspective is roleplaying. Another group might consider whether the action is 'in character' more important then how you go about describing it. And others might thing roleplaying is every rogue is a kender, every fighter is a dumb thug and every wizard is gandalf.
None of these is wrongbad fun and they are left out of the rules specifically to allow all of them. You also have to consider 'talent' in these sort of things. If you 'reward' roleplaying, you are in essense penalyzing it's lack. If you quantify what 'good roleplaying' is you have now made it a rule.
A session with a table full of proffessional actors, will be different then a table full of mechanical engineers (i know i am stereo typing here but just go with it). You as a human being are limited by what you personally can do. Your character should not be limited by what you can do roleplay wise any more then my barbarian should be limited by how hard i personally can swing an axe. Or better yet, my wizard being limited by how effectively i can cast fireball as a real life person... I personally may be fantastically diplomatic, quick witted, or i might be introverted, bad with words and uncomfortable talking to people. That shouldn't mean I cant play a fast talking bard. And the game should also not penalyze me for who I am as a person.
That is why its left up to GM discretion for these sorts of things. They are the best judge of (presumably) their friend's effort and engagement in roleplay and how best to reward them.
Now, that said, there are some options that I am looking to explore. I recently came across a group that used the fate aspect system in a d20 (star wars saga edition) game. And I find that really intriguing. But to do it again, you cant quantify what an aspect SHOULD be. You have to leave it to the judgement of the dm. Thats why we have those folks behind the dm screen. I am going to use it in my saga game that I am starting up, and it likely will fall into my next pathfinder game that I start.
It strongly depends on the players in the group, the GM, the campaign, party composition, etc. Then again, I think I could write that line at the beginning of every single post, as an answer to everything.
Where I've seen this kind of disparity most is in usually in an evenly-mixed group of vocal, extroverted roleplayers and those who are quiet, who are more focused on tabletop strategy, min/maxing and intricate combat.
I've seen the GM play to both sets of strengths, and reward both as close to equally as possible, while also putting together a campaign that allowed both to shine. I'm guess this is pretty hard to do.
Sir Gorby and Lord Pendragon have stated my position quiet well. +1 to both of you.
In mixed groups I've always tried to encourage the role playing as a means to keep the extroverts occupied and the introverts entertained.
I personally don't really care enough about either to make my players play either way. As long as their entertained I've done my job, whether that is through Roll-play or Role-play in entirely irrelevant to my desires.